Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 December 2018.

The minutes of the meeting of 11 December 2018 were agreed as an accurate record.

Apologies for absence were provided by Councillor Rachel Leighton and Wesley Harcourt. Apologies for absence were also provided from Andrew Slaughter MP.

In the absence of Councillor Rachel Leighton, Vice Chair Councillor Uberoi chaired the meeting.

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.

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

At the start of the meeting, the Vice-Chair explained that due to the high level of public interest in the application, he had used his discretion and rather than the 10-minute maximum (5 minutes for, 5 minutes against), he had decided to allow members of the public to address the committee for a total of 18  minutes. Based on the number of representations received, the Chair allocated 9 minutes to those in favour of the application and 9 minutes to those opposed to it.

Two planning  applications and one listed building consent application for The Olympia Exhibition Centre were listed on the agenda. For ease of presentation, the Vice-Chair confirmed that one combined officer presentation would be provided to Committee and following debate, three separate and distinct votes would be taken on applications: 2018/03100/FUL, 2018/03101/LBC and 2018/03102/OUT.

The Legal officer confirmed that the resolutions would (in addition to being conditional on no contrary direction being received from the Mayor of London) be conditional on no decision to call in the application being received from the Secretary of State. This is because the Secretary had received a request to call in the applicatons which it needed  time to consider.

The Committee heard representations against the application from three residents.

Councillor Adam Connell attended and spoke on behalf of the Sinclair Road Residents Association. A number of concerns were raised which included:

·         The Proposed development was not in accordance with policy E1a and E1b and was not within an opportunity area or atown centre.

·         The proposed development was a speculative gamble and skills could be updated elsewhere.

·         The s106 benefits of the scheme were negligible.

·         The proposal would result in a change of use and it was not located within a designated regeneration site.

·         No additional transport infrastructure had been provided and the original proposal had envisaged the re-opening of the District Line.

·         Olympia Central – was too high, bulky/sprawling.

·         The proposed development would encroach on the listed building.

·         The proposed development building was not served by public space at ground level.

·         The scale, material and form of the proposed building were not appropriate for the site.

·         The consultation phase with residents had been flawed.

·         Residents had not been provided with proper information about what the proposal entailed.

·         The artists impressions of the proposal were creative and did not provide a clear impression of the height, bulk and size of the proposal.

·         The Sinclair Road Residents were not aware of the proposed office block with the context of the proposal.

·         The Design Review Panel had expressed concerns about the proposal.

·         The proposal would overload the transport network and result in more traffic and congestion on local streets.

·         The proposal only incorporated 1,500 additional cycle spaces which was insufficient given the scale of the development.

·         The proposal would result in increased noise and light pollution, as well as, have an adverse impact on air quality.

·          The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.