Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 July 2019.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 2^nd July 2019 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

There were no apologies for absence.

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. 

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 5, 32 A Vereker Road as he had some contact with the applicant and some of the objectors. He considered that this did not give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests and, in the circumstances, it would be reasonable to participate in the discussion and vote thereon.

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 several representations from residents in objection to the application.A number of points were raised and included: the current application varied only slightly from the previous application but included a seven-fold increase in the amount of glass to be installed, that the development would result in the loss of amenity and light.  The amount of excavated soil was considerable and had already caused significant disruption.  That the property had previously been the residence of a well-known portraiture artist, Henry Jamyn Brooks and the historic links of the property made it unique. 

The Committee heard representations from the applicant in support of the application.  A number of points were raised and included: That the property had not been used as an artist’s studio since the 1940s and had been used as a residence.  Previous objections to the application had been addressed and the new proposals were his view in line with the planning inspectors’ recommendations.

The Committee heard a representation in objection to the application from Councillor Larry Culhane, Ward Councillor for North End.

Cllr Karmel,  seconded by Cllr Thorley, proposed that the Committee should decline to determine the application under Section 73 of the TCPA as the application was similar to previously determined applications. Officers refused this request stating that it was ultra vires. Cllr Karmel then proposed,  seconded by  Cllr Thorley,  that the Committee should defer the application to seek further legal advice.

For:

4

Against:

4

An equal number of votes required Councillor Leighton as Chair to therefore cast a deciding vote against, and the motion was duly rejected. 

Councillor Alex Karmel moved a second motion, seconded by Councillor Matt Thorley, to overturn the officer recommendations on the grounds that the application was not materially different with “very little changes…” therefore the same grounds to refuse the previous application were valid to this current application. The Committee voted on the motion as follows:

For:

2

Against:

6

Not Voting:

0

The motion was duly rejected.

The Committee voted on application 2019/01730/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendations of approval. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

Officer recommendation 1:

For:

0

Against:

7

Not Voting:

1

Officer recommendation 2:

For:

0

Against:

7

Not Voting:

1

The Chair provided the following reasons to support the Committees decision to refuse the officer recommendations: that the proposed application was not in keeping with the character of the Barons Court Conservation Area and would harm the appearance of the area, that the application was also considered to be unneighbourly and result in an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity including light pollution, overlooking and loss of privacy; and finally that it would represent an over-development providing a substandard level of accommodation.

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

The Committee heard a representation from the applicant in support of the application. A number of points were raised and included: that the applicant had undertaken local consultation and engagement with a view to seeking support for a mixed use develop which could potentially offer significant local benefits.  The intention was to submit reserve matters applications for the future development.  Two objections had been received. Councillor Harcourt pointed out that although one of these was from the Wood Lane Tenants Association, they represented a number of residents.  One of the points made related to the height of one of the buildings which would consist of 32 storeys. The applicant explained that this would be reviewed at the detailed stage. 

The Committee voted on application 2018/00267/OUT and whether to agree the officer recommendations of approval. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

Officer recommendation 1:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

Officer recommendation 2:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

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

The Committee agreed that they did not need to receive a presentation on this application and noted the contents of the officer’s report together with the Addendum.

The Committee voted on application 2019/00889/FR3 and whether to agree the officer recommendations of approval. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

Officer recommendation 1:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

Officer recommendation 2:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0