Agenda item

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 officer reports for the previous and current application were the same and contained a number of errors. With regards to landscaping and trees, the current proposal was vague in relation to the existing trees between the rear of the residential properties on Pennard Road. The new proposal was only 4.5 metres away from residents’ boundary fences at the nearest point and the proposal would result in the loss of sunlight and daylight, as well as overshadowing.

In relation to the comments which were read out from the Hammersmith Society, who were unable to attend the meeting, the proposed development would have a dominating impact, and the height and bulk of the new building would exceed the existing building. Further points included: that the proposal would retain the appearance of an office block, the area was densely populated with no parking, so the construction of a further hotel was a bad idea. Furthermore, the proposal would  cause harm to the biodiversity and character of the area associated with the loss of some trees.

The Committee heard a representation from the Applicants’ representative. A number of points were raised which included: the proposal would promote the vitality and viability of Shepherd's Bush Town Centre. The proposal would deliver numerous local events and conditions would ensure any noise and disturbance would be minimised to nearby occupiers. Further points included, that the proposal would create local employment opportunities and the design would incorporate  a confident civic frontage.

The Committee heard a representation in objection to the application from Councillor Mercy Umeh, Ward Councillor for Shepherd’s Bush Green.

During the course of discussions, the Committee explored a number of issues including, the importance of due diligence and the use of an independent sunlight and daylight expert. The Committee considered the sunlight and daylight implications of the proposal at length and questioned the independent expert who attended the meeting.

Further topics included the design merits and setting of the proposal within the Shepherd’s Bush Conservation Area, and the footprint and proximity of the proposal to properties on Pennard Road. Additional topics included, the level of the s106 contributions, employment and training opportunities, as well as the landscaping and arboreal implications of the proposal.

The Committee voted on application 2017/01898/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:

5

Against:

3

Not Voting:

0                          

Officer Recommendation 2:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

            RESOLVED THAT:

Planning Application 2017/01898/FUL be approved, subject to:

1.    To resolve that the Strategic Director, The Economy be authorised to determine the application and grant permission up on the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the condition(s) listed below.

2.    To authorise the Strategic Director, The Economy, after consultation with the Director of Law and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee to make any minor changes to the proposed conditions or heads of terms of the legal agreement, any such changes shall be within their discretion.