Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 September 2017 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The application before Members was a re-submission of a previously refused application for an erection of a front extension and front veranda.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Damian White on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and the impact on the neighbours in respect to a loss of privacy and light.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector without a response by the applicant.

The objector commented that the application was one of a number that had been applied for by the applicant. The objector also commented that the applications would eventually convert the property into a six-bedroom dwelling. The objector concluded by commenting that the re-submission would not alleviate previous concerns of the proposed extension being of an overbearing and obtrusive nature.

With its agreement Councillor Damian White addressed the Committee.

Councillor White commented that the applicant was looking to extend the property from three bedrooms to six bedrooms by a mixture of permitted development and several small applications. Councillor White concluded by commenting that combined the applications would be an overdevelopment and intensification of the site and would be out of character with the existing streetscene.

During the debate members discussed the overall effect of the various applications and their combined effect.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions.

Councillors Martin and Williamson abstained from voting.

The Committee considered the report, noting that the application complied with the London Plan and therefore did not need to be referred back to the Mayor for London and RESOLVED that planning permission be agreed subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

This report before Members proposed an outline planning application for the demolition of all buildings and redevelopment of the site for residential use providing up to 14 units (a mixture of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom residential units) with ancillary car parking, landscaping and access.

During the debate Members discussed the parking provision on site and in surrounding roads and the suitability of the proposed building in the existing streetscene.

Following a motion to defer consideration of the report, which was lost on the Chairman’s casting vote.

The Committee noted that the development proposed was liable for the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3.

As this was an Outline application, CIL would be assessed and applied when a reserved matters application was submitted.

It was RESOLVED that the Assistant Director of Development be authorised to enter into any subsequent legal agreement or other appropriate mechanism to secure the requirement of Condition 30 below, including that:

§   All contribution sums shall include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

§   The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Legal Agreement prior to the completion of the agreement irrespective of whether the agreement was completed.

§   Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include the following amendment to Condition 30:

Before the development hereby permitted was commenced, the landowner should enter into a suitable legal agreement (such as a S106 agreement) or other appropriate mechanism that ensured, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, the performance of the following obligations.

Reason: The development would otherwise be unacceptable if the obligations sought were not able to be secured.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 4.

Councillors Donald, Martin, Whitney and Williamson voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.