Agenda item

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

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as he had friends which lived on Ravenscourt Road. He had not discussed the application with them. He remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Lucy Ivimy declared a non- pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew a number of the objectors and had met with local residents. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Jacqueline Borland declared a non- pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew a number of the objectors but had not discussed the application. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Viya Nsumbu declared a non- pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew a number of the objectors but had not discussed the application. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

The Committee heard a representation in objection to the application from a local resident. Some of the points raised included: the officer report did not reflect the position of the objectors fairly and the conditions within the report were not specific enough to be enforceable. Residents disagreed that the location was suitable for a sporting facility. Factors such as increased footfall, privacy / overlooking and traffic impacts had not been properly considered. Residents felt the proposed entrance on the cul de sac on Ravenscourt Place would be detrimental as it would cause, noise, nuisance and disturbance. The proposal was located in a conservation area and data provided by the Applicant in support of the proposal, was flawed, as the Vauxhall Bridge location was dissimilar to the proposed residential location.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application by the Applicant. Some of the points raised included: Climbing was a benefit to people’s lives. No alcohol or anti-social behaviour would be generated by the application and members would only enter the site in small groups. As the proposal was situated  in close proximity to Ravenscourt Park Tube Station, the majority of members would use the public transport and so there would be minimal traffic impact. Climbing was not a noisy activity and loud music would not be played on the site. Every customer would provide full details on registration which would be held on a database. This would dissuade anti-social behaviour. The proposal incorporated comprehensive CCTV coverage of all access and egress points.

Councillor Harry Phibbs spoke as ward Councillor for Ravenscourt Park. Some of the points raised included: the Committee had a responsibility to consider whether or not an application would enhance or preserve the conservation area. The suitability of the proposed location was questionable and was very different to the Applicants’ business at Vauxhall Bridge. The proposed hours of operation were unreasonable and not compatible with a residential area. The possible impacts associated with the proposed café and likelihood of the site becoming a social venture. The proposed access to the site was detrimental to the local area and using Ravenscourt Road would mitigate the impact on local residents. He hoped the application was not accepted as presented and asked that the Applicant was encouraged to resubmit the application with revised proposals.

The Committee considered the proposed hours of operation, club membership / registration and the impact on local residents. In the course of discussions, Councillor Lucy Ivimy proposed that should the application be approved, condition 7, related to the hours of operation be varied to  9 am to 9 pm. This was seconded by Councillor Alex Karmel.

The Committee discussed access and egress to the site and on balance felt that if this were changed from Ravenscourt Place to Ravenscourt Road, many of the objections which had been raised would be met. Councillor Lucy Ivimy proposed that the application be deferred. This was seconded by Councillor Colin Aherne. Officers were asked to have further discussions with the Applicant about the proposed entrance to the site, the hours of operation and to review community usage and the membership scheme.

The Committee voted on application 2017/03835/FUL and whether to defer the item to a future Committee meeting. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

10

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

          RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/03835/FUL be deferred to a future Committee meeting.