Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 December 2017.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2017 were agreed as an accurate record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Michael Cartwright and Councillor Lucy Ivimy.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter.  The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee. 

There were no declarations of interest.

In view of members of the public present for particular applications the Chair proposed that the agenda be re-ordered, with which the Committee agreed, and the minutes reflect the order of the meeting.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which made minor changes to the report.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from the Architect. Some of the points raised included: it was the third resubmission of the design, the alterations to the basement did not pose a flood risk and the roof alternations were in line with permitted development. Other points included: the light wells were modest, the design would enhance the street scape and the applicant had worked closely with the Council preparing its planning application.

The Committee voted on application 2017/04222/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

          RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/04222/FUL be approved subject to the changes set out in the Addendum

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

The Committee heard a representation in support from a representative of the Applicant. Some of the points raised included: it was a mixed affordable tenure scheme which had been developed in close conjunction with the Council. The design was car free and the views of disabled people had been taken into account and were integral to the design.

The Committee heard from the Chair, Action on Disability. Some of the points raised included: the application was a wonderful opportunity to deliver a bespoke building for disabled people. Action on Disability had been consulted and involved in the design phase and approval would enable this vision come to fruition. The target users would be very grateful if the application was approved.

Councillor Ben Coleman spoke as ward Councillor for Fulham Broadway. Some of the points raised included the application was an attractive space for disabled users and provided accommodation which responded to people’s needs. The mixture of accommodation types was strong and the he hoped the Committee would approve the scheme.

The Committee noted the proposed design included two lifts and flexible parking arrangements, which would permit the use of blue badges adjacent to the building.

In the course of discussions, Councillor Cassidy proposed that condition 35, relating to sound insulation be amended to read:” enhanced sound insulation for all floor, ceiling and wall structures”. This was seconded by Councillor Karmel and agreed by the Committee.

The Committee voted on application 2017/03700/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval, the changes set out in the addendum and the amendment to condition 35. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/03700/FUL be approved for the reasons set out in the report and addendum.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

Introducing the report, Officers confirmed that two late representations had been received but no new material points had been raised.

The Committee heard a representation in support from the Applicant. Some of the points raised included: the current site was at the end of its commercial life. The demolition and replacement with a ten storey development incorporating 110 private and 37 affordable homes was a good use of the space. The design met the 35% affordable homes target, the developer had worked closely with the Council and it would enhance the character of the area.

Councillors raised a number of points including the density of the development, lack of amenity space and electric vehicle charging points. In response, Officers confirmed the density complied with policy and there were a number local parks such as Imperial Park and South Park which could be used for children’s play space. Officers confirmed that the charging points were trickle charge only.

In the course of discussions, Councillor Cassidy proposed that condition 26, relating to sound insulation be amended to read:” enhanced sound insulation for all floor, ceiling and wall structures”. This was seconded and agreed by the Committee.

The Committee voted on application 2017/03561/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval, the changes set out in the addendum and the amendment to condition 26. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

5

Against:

3

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/03561/FUL be approved for the reasons set out in the report and addendum.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

The Committee discussed the form of the design and the proposed building materials. Officers confirmed that the chamfer design sought to reduce the bulk of the proposal and the materials which could be used, subject to approval, were controlled by condition.

The Committee voted on application 2017/01901/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval, the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

5

Against:

3

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017//01901/FUL be approved for the reasons set out in the report and addendum.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

The Committee voted on application 2017/01901/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval. Councillor Karmel cited the reason for the recommendation of approval to be overturned and refused was that the use of the site had not been maximised properly. The officer recommendation was  put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

4

Against:

4

Not Voting:

0

As the Chair held the casting vote and voted against the officer recommendation for approval,  the application was overturned and refused.

The Chair proposed the following reasons in summary  for refusal: failure to enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, the poor quality of the design and an unneighbourly form of development in relation to the closest development. The proposal was seconded.

The Committee voted on  the proposal for refusal of the application for the reasons set out above and  the result was as follows:

For:

5

Against:

3

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017//01901/FUL be refused for the reasons set out above.