Agenda and minutes

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 Standards Committee.

Councillor Wesley Harcourt declared interests in Items 7 and 8 – Old Oak Common Station as he was a member of the ODPC Planning Committee. He remained in the meeting but did not participate or vote on either item.

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 April 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 April 2022 were agreed.

In the course of discussions, Councillor Wesley Harcourt proposed a new condition, that should the Committee decide to approve the application, that a General Management Plan be included. This was seconded by Councillor Alex Karmel.

The Chair proposed a new condition in relation to the existing fence. That this be replaced by a brick wall of the same height of 1.8 m (as the existing fence). This was seconded by Councillor Rebecca Harvey.

Discussions also focused on parking permits associated with the development.

In relation to parking permits for the development, Councillor Alex Karmel proposed the following “that any resident taking up at the property from the date of the completion of the application, shall not be entitled to do it”. This was seconded by Councillor Adrian Pascu-Tulbure.

The legal advice provided at the meeting confirmed that the Authority could not prohibit existing residents with parking permits. The wording proposed by Councillor Karmel could be dealt with by way of Section 106 agreement rather than condition.

The Committee voted on the proposal to add a General Management Plan (including waste) as follows:

For:              8

Against:        0

Not Voting:    0

The Committee voted on the proposal to replace the existing fence with a brick wall (of 1.8m) follows:

For:              6

Against:        2

Not Voting:    0

The Committee voted on the recommendations for application 2021/03218/FUL as follows:

Officer Recommendation 1:

For:              6

Against:        2

Not Voting:    0

Officer Recommendation 2:

For:              8

Against:        0

Not Voting:    0

RESOLVED THAT:

Planning Application 2021/03218/FUL be approved subject to:

1.    That subject to the amendment of the S106 (in relation to parking permits), that the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to grant planning permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions listed below;

2.    That the Chief Planning Officer, after consultation with the Assistant Director, Legal Services and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee be authorised to make any minor changes to the proposed Heads of Terms of the legal agreement or proposed conditions, which may include the variation, addition or deletion of conditions, any such changes shall be within their discretion.

The Committee heard from the Agent speaking in support of the application.

The Committee voted on the recommendations for application 2022/00702/FUL as follows:

Officer Recommendation 1:

For:              6

Against:        2

Not Voting:    0

Officer Recommendation 2:

For:              8

Against:        0

Not Voting:    0

RESOLVED THAT:

Planning Application 2022/00702/FUL be approved subject to:

1.    That the that the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to grant permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions listed below;

2.    That the Chief Planning Officer, after consultation with the Assistant Director, Legal Services and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee be authorised to make any minor changes to the proposed Heads of Terms of the legal agreement or proposed conditions, which may include the variation, addition or deletion of conditions, any such changes shall be within their discretion.

The Committee voted on the recommendations for application 2021/03751/FUL as follows:

Officer Recommendation 1:

For:              8

Against:        0

Not Voting:    0

Officer Recommendation 2:

For:              8

Against:        0

Not Voting:    0

RESOLVED THAT:

Planning Application 2021/03751/FUL be approved subject to:

1.    That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions listed below.

2.    That the Chief Planning Officer after consultation with the Assistant Director, Legal Services and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee be authorised to make any minor changes to the proposed conditions, which may include the variation, addition or deletion of conditions, any changes shall be within their discretion.

The Committee voted on the recommendation for application 2022/01251/OPDOBSas follows:

Officer Recommendation:

For:              7

Against:        0

Not Voting:    0

RESOLVED THAT:

1.     That the Council raises no objections to the OPDC in relation to this application (2022/01251/OPDOBS).

The Committee voted on the recommendations for application 2022/01249/OPDOBSas follows:

Officer Recommendation 1:

For:              7

Against:        0

Not Voting:    0

Officer Recommendation 2:

For:              7

Against:        0

Not Voting:    0

RESOLVED THAT:

That the report recommendations for 2022/01249/OPDOBS be approved subject to:

1.    That the Council raises an objection to the proposed development for the following reason(s):

1) Highway Impacts: Additional information is required to fully demonstrate that the road layout and associated features can operate safely and to further demonstrate compliance with the London Plan. Please refer to the attached committee report to read the full assessment of the proposal and the Council's requested revisions should permission be granted.

2.    That the Council raises an objection to the proposed development for the following reason(s):

2) Insofar as it relates to the connectivity of Old Oak Common Station with the wider area, the design of the urban realm is unacceptable. LBHF strongly recommends that wider links and connectivity to Scrubs Lane, the Grand Union Canal and Wormwood Scrubs are delivered at an early stage of the development programme. Further details of LBHF's concerns in this regard are provided in the attached committee report.