Transcript

Williams. Okay. Hello, everyone. Good evening. Welcome to tonight's Planning and Development Control Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Omid Miri. I am chair of the committee. Just going to run through some housekeeping points before we begin. This meeting is being live streamed to the Council's YouTube channel. So by participating, you are consenting to being recorded. If the fire alarm sounds either continuously or intermittently, I will adjourn the meeting. Please leave the meeting in an orderly fashion by the staff fire exit which is behind me to my right. And officers will direct you to the assembly point in Riverside Gardens. And there are toilets on my left hand side. I think that brings us to the end of the housekeeping just to remind officers if they can introduce themselves before they speak, that would be great. Before we move on to item one, I'd like to introduce two new members to the committee. Councillor Nicole Trehy and Councillor Ross Melton. Welcome. Very pleased to have you. I'd also like to give my thanks to the former members, Councillor Rebecca Harvey and Councillor Wesley Harcourt for their years of service on the committee, I think in Councillor Harcourt's case, decades of service on the committee, and also for their expertise, and for their contributions. And I think Councillor Carmel would also like to say some words about Councillor Harcourt. I will genuinely miss him. Members have been on this committee for a while know that we played tag, so to speak, but between ourselves, we were the last I suppose of the old guard, so to speak, which either leaves me as the most experienced member of the committee or the most over the hill member of the committee. I'll leave you to do it. His insights and his institutional knowledge, I think benefited this committee to a huge extent, and he will be sorely missed. Thank you very much. And just to reassure everyone, he is alive and well and safe. He's just no longer a member of the committee. But I'm sure he'll be he'll be very pleased to hear those words. And Councillor Harvey as well, who also had many, many years of service. Yeah. Okay. Brilliant. We now move on to item one, which is apologies for absence. And we do have apologies from Councillor Seuss loose and Councillor Chabot Verde. Item to declaration of interest. Do members have any declarations of interest? No. Okay, great. And now we move on to item three, which is minutes of the meeting held on 16th of April 2024. Are the minutes agreed? Great effect that can be noted. And that brings us to the first application, which is item four. And can the presenting officer Neil Egerton, please introduce the report whenever you're ready. Thank you, Chair. I'm Neil Egerton, team leader for the North area. The presentation covers both this item and the subsequent one, there's two applications for Roberts house 99 to 103 Hammersmith road, one for planning commission one for list of building consent. The application effect essentially is for the change of use of the first, second and third floor levels from officers into six residential units. And some small alterations the list of building consent also covers the list the change of use as well as internal alterations to include in installation of secondary glazing to windows, and replacement of some secondary glazing as well, and creation of partitioning walls in connection with the formation of the new habitable rooms. The application site is a four storey plus basement properties in this terrace here shown on the map, the application site is in red, and the rest of the terraces shown there in blue. The properties are listed grade two, grade two list of buildings. The listing was approved in 1983. The site was originally built in 1824, and comprised of shops with residential accommodation above over the years been a number of changes. And there's still retail at ground level and many of the units but and offices on the upper floors. In the case of the application prop property, the ground floor is retail use was currently vacant, there is a gym at basement level, and then say vacant offices on the upper floors. Got an aerial view here from looking from the north, showing the site highlighted there and view from the rear showing the access to the side from the rear. And you can see plants contained in the roof space for the existing offices. These two views got the rear of the site on the left here, cursor and then the front elevation here. And you see the retail shop front store is retained there although say that that is currently vacant. This part of the rear area where there's been store existing been stored the cycle storage, and that'll be increased as part of the application. This is the the upper floor at the moment is set laid out and fitted out as how it could be used for offices to help with the marketing of the units over the last few years. The lower floors are there waiting to be waiting to be filled out. This is the front elevation of the existing or proposed sorry, front elevation. There's no external changes. And so really the only main change will be internally with the secondary glazing of the partitions which will not be visible far from the windows rear elevation there. And then the side elevations. This is the elevation adjacent to the road and then that's the other end of the block there. You can see the cycle and bin storage in the rear there. At the moment you say the ground floor retail unit is vacant. There's a reception area you come in here and the lift and stairs into the upper floors cycle storage as well. And then you have six flats set out. Here the partitions for the rooms do not affect the windows. The listing although covers the whole building is primarily concerned with the external facade of the building. So the application being designed to the no real no changes to the external. So the unit sizes are all in excess of the minimum requirements of the on the plan. And the room sizes are all compliant as well and greater than normally expected. This just shows some of the context looking from the rear of the sites, the rear windows. And again, to the front and side this cross the road from 66 Hammersmith Road vacant office building at the moment. Officers have reviewed the marketing and information on balances judged to be acceptable the change of views. The conversion back into residential dwelling is considered to be consistent with the original purpose. The alterations of mine would not harm the listed building or conservation area. The existing residential amenity the windows are existing. And so there'll be no real change on the impact for naming properties. The proposal will be car permit free and cycle parking will be provided. There was an objection concern raised by the gym in the basement about whether their operation would have some impact on the residents use or vice versa. I mean, there was a whole there was a flaw in between the gym and the residential units. And apart from that we have condition for enhancement soundproofing anyway. So there should not be any impact on the gyms operation or vice versa. All units say meet the minimum nationally prescribed standards. There's some non compliance with regard to northern facing windows fronting Hammersmith Road terms of life but those are bedrooms only and would not justify refusal on this basis. I think, given the listed states the building it's hard to configure it otherwise without having harm to the crap to the external facade. There's no new gas gas connections and fire safety information provided. It'll also bring the building back into use. Section 106 will cover permit free development, and then the contribution of 120,000 towards environment improvements and vicinity of the site. Search officers recommends planning commission and list of buildings can be granted for the proposal subject to the conditions in the reports. And obviously then any changes to the head to terms or condition minor changes to terms legal agreement will be at the discretion of the director of planning and property in consultation with legal service and the chair of planning. Thank you. Neil, did you want to talk through the addendum as well? Yes, thank you very much. There is an additional condition being added with regards to provision of installation commissioning certificates of electric induction cooking stoves in the kitchens. And then there's a paragraph 5.13. Unfortunately, the earlier iteration of that paragraph was left in the report and wasn't amended. So the revised paragraph is here. And then in paragraph 5.14, there was a reference to a provision of a Baroof, which is a typing error should be brochure. Okay, thank you very much. I think we'll take these consecutively. So first, we will, we'll discuss and vote on this item and then the list of building consent if that's okay with you. Okay, so in that case, I would like to invite Matt Humphreys, who's the agent if you'd like to speak. Yeah, if you'd like to, if you'd like to come. Okay. Sure. Sure. Thank you very much. Thank you. So just to confirm, Matt Humphreys has waived his right to speak. Thank you very much. In that case, we move on to committee members questions to officers for clarification. And Neil, I do have a question just to start things off. So the gym in the basement, is there access from the residential units directly into the basement, by which I mean, can a resident from one of the upper floors access the gym without coming out onto the street? As far as you know, I'm afraid I don't know the answer that the plans to indicate the ground floor plan that there is obviously the residents will come in from the frontier number one with the reception and the lift. And then there's also an entrance from the rear, there's a stair down, which is here in the middle. But I have to say though, I can't say that they with the camera not access that patient. Sure, thank you. I appreciate you might not know the details. Just looking at this floor plan. How do people enter the gym now? Is it from the stairs in the middle of that picture? I don't know. The gym isn't part of the application. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Would you like to just put the mic on? I believe from the plans and having a look on Google Earth, they have their own front entrance on Hammersmith Road, the next building down. Okay. Okay. That's useful to know. Yeah. I think it's just commercially run as a separate unit. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. No, my thinking is just that if residents could access it internally, that would actually probably be a benefit to the gym and and to the residents. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Yeah, Councillor Walsh. Thank you. Just regarding the questions regarding the gym as well. I believe the last committee we had, we had a discussion around protections of the development in regards to any future complaints that may occur. I'm conscious that some gyms are open potentially 24 hours. Some of them will also play music inside their space as well. In terms of this development also being residential, is there has there been any noise measurement done to see would this be affected? And also any sort of protections for the current commercial tenant or commercial owner from future noise complaints? The existing gym is in the basement. And then there is a separate retail use a ground floor level between the gym and the proposed residential units on the upper floors. So there's already soundproofing between the gym and the vacant commercial unit ground floor level. There's also a condition 10 here which requires the details of enhanced sound insulation for the wall separating commercial parts of the premises from dwellings. So there'll be additional improvements to the existing soundproofing. So I don't think there will be any concerns or any impact on on either there should be adequate protection, both in terms of any future residents, but also that the gym can continue operating as needs be. Yes, I mean, the condition requires that the sound insulation is enhanced by at least 15 decibels above the normal building regulations requirements. So it is there to really ensure that good quality sound insulation is provided, which will further enhance the Perfect, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Councillor Connell. Yes. Just start with paragraph 2.3, the neutral comment, where it says, garlic muse is not the name of the servicing road to the rear of the application site. Charlotte Muse is a private road unrelated to the site. Does the site have rights to access that muse? And if not, what does that mean for the application with regard to as I read it, their their plans to to utilise the muse? Yeah, if you look at the map there, the sexy Charlotte Terrace is the the area behind the site that would be serviced from rather than Charlotte Muse. Perfect. And the second one is the ventilation system that is to be used, given that Hammersmith Road is one of the most polluted roads in in the borough. Are officers satisfied because it looks quite small for these buildings, are officers satisfied that it will be sufficient to protect the health of future residents? Yes, that has been considered by our air quality team and air quality officer. They were satisfied and comfortable. The proposal, I mean, the condition, condition six, obviously requires the submission of a ventilation strategy report to be provided prior to the commencement of above ground works. And then a post installation report on the condition seven, to demonstrate that it has been effective, meaning certainly my experience, my air quality colleagues treat this matter very seriously and will want will robustly check any proposed system to make sure it was it is correct for the job. OK, thank you very much. Do we have any other questions for officers? No, no further questions. OK, great. In that case, we'll move on to voting. Firstly, we'll vote on where the recommendation one in the report is agreed, and that's on page 10. And I'll just read it out for the benefit of everyone here. Recommendation one that the director of planning and property be authorised to grant planning permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions listed below. I'll call all the members names and you can say you're voting for, against or not voting. So firstly, Councillor Melton, will you be voting for, against or not voting? Four. Thank you. Councillor Trei? Four. Councillor Walsh? Four. Councillor Carmel? Four. Councillor Pasquotiboure? Four. I'll also be voting four. So that recommendation has been approved. Now we vote on recommendation two, which is also on page 10. I won't read that out. It is on on page 10, just underneath the first recommendation. Councillor Melton, will you be voting for, against or not voting? Four. Councillor Trei? Four. Councillor Walsh? Four. Councillor Carmel? Four. Councillor Pasquotiboure has been approved. And now I think we move on to item five, which is the listed building consent. Neil, if there was an additional presentation you wanted to give or anything you wanted to add on that one? No, there wasn't. No. Okay. And are there any questions on the listed building consent? No. Okay, then we'll vote on that. We'll vote on recommendation one, which is on page 40. Councillor Melton? Four. Councillor Trei? Four. Councillor Walsh? Four. Councillor Carmel? Four. Councillor Pasquotiboure? Four. And I'll also be voting four. So that has also been approved. Thank you very much. Now we move on to item six. Oh, excuse me, I seem to have missed out recommendation two. Thank you for pointing that out, which is also on page 40. Councillor Melton? Four. Councillor Trei? Four. Councillor Walsh? Four. Councillor Carmel? Four. Councillor Pasquotiboure? Four. And I'll also be voting four. So that has now been approved. Thank you very much. Now we move on to item six. And sorry. Item six, can I please ask the Presenting Officer Aneesa Abboud to introduce the report when you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. The next item on the agenda is known as advertisement hoarding adjacent to 3 Blacks Road. The proposal seeks permission to display a freestanding internally illuminated digital LED screen measuring five metres in height, three metres in width and 0.26 metres in depth facing Hammersmith Bridge Road positioned at a height of three metres above ground level. The application site relates to part of the pavement on Blacks Road. Sorry, I'll just start sharing again. Okay. Thank you. The application relates to part of the pavement on Blacks Road, which effectively forms a service road to the rear of commercial buildings on King Street. And these buildings present their rear elevations onto the street. In terms of the heritage assets, the site is located in the Hammersmith Broadway Conservation Area. The site is located opposite the Grade 2 star listed St. Paul's Church. That's this pink building to the south and various Grade 2 listed tombs within the churchyard. To the east lies Grade 2 listed Bradmore House. That's this building right here. And further to the north lies the Grade 2 listed public house known as the Hop Holes. The site is also located within the designated Hammersmith town centre boundary and the character is mixed, including offices, retail, residential and community uses. The context of the site is dominated by highway infrastructure and large commercial buildings with the Irish Cultural Centre directly to the east. That's this building right here. The image on screen shows the proposed site layout, including the existing street furniture and the tree canopy. This is the view from Hammersmith Bridge Road. There is a large tree in close proximity to the site as such a condition is attached to ensure no harm to the street tree. And that's listed as condition seven within the report. There is a directional information sign located to the near side of the carriageway approximately 17 metres to the west. That's this sign right here. The angle of the proposed advert has been amended to be more perpendicular towards Hammersmith Hammersmith Bridge Road so that it does not sit directly behind the directional information sign and could be processed in the same view by the driver on the approach to the site. Both TfL and Council highways officers are satisfied that the proposed advert display would not conflict with traffic signage on this approach. The site was previously occupied by a 48 sheet landscape digital advert approved in 2008. The screen was removed by the previous tenant and the site has been vacant since October 2021. The proposed advertisement display would be a portrait style internally illuminated digital LED screen supported on a single pole. Conditions are attached to control the illumination levels and the time intervals between each image. The portrait display would have a significantly thinner frame than the previous digital advert screen and would appear as a slim structure in the street scene. The quality of the external metal cladding to the frame and support structure would be secured through condition. Overall officers consider the design, size, sighting and method of illumination of the proposed advert to be acceptable in visual amenity terms and would not have a detrimental effect on residential amenity or on highway safety. It is considered that the LED advertisement panel would not harm the character or appearance of the Hammersmith Broadway conservation area or the settings of the adjacent designated and non-designated heritage assets. It is considered that the highway safety report provides a robust assessment of the proposal and for these reasons officers recommend the application for approval subject to the conditions listed in the report including the changes noted in the addendum. The addendum notes that the condition four has been replaced with a more precise condition which refers to the 300 candela per square metres between dusk and dawn but effectively it's the same condition as before but slightly more precise. Thank you. Okay thank you very much and we have no speakers so we can move on to questions for officers and who would like to start the questioning. Councillor Carmel. Thank you just a couple of points of clarification. As far as I can tell am I right in thinking that the position of this proposed billboard is on the public highway? I have an image on screen which will show you that it's actually on the pavement on Black's Road so it's quite difficult to see from the images but on this image hopefully you can see that where there's this lighter coloured pavement that's where the previous screen was and that's exactly where the new screen would be going. Yeah I understand that but what I'm struggling to comprehend is if it's part of our pavement how could the previous advertisement be removed by the previous tenant? Was there somebody sleeping rough on the street there who was the tenant of the pavement? So the site was leased out to a third party who had rights to erect the sign there as part of the planning application but it is a council owned site. So not that it's a planning matter but just to satisfy my own curiosity the council will be getting rental for this. Okay thanks. I presume so. Okay thank you. Any other questions? Yeah Councillor Trahey. Yes sorry I'm fairly new to this so please excuse me if this isn't relevant but you say there's likely to be a rental. Have we asked the tenant that will be putting up the billboard if the council could actually have time on the billboard to use? Is that not allowed as a question? No go ahead complete your question. Councillor Carmell if you could just let all members complete their questions in full. Yeah go ahead that was your question. That was my question. Okay great. Did I finish the question? Did you understand the question? Go ahead. Could you finish the question with the last part? Whether as the tenant will be paying the council a lease rental we understand that the whether they could within the negotiation agree for the council to run adverts on that billboard for example climate messages to local residents. So just to clarify I think the question is will the council be able to use the billboard to advertise council messages to residents? So effectively this is part of the commercial portfolio of the council as the planning department we don't have a say on the commercial side this is a separate matter but what's before us is is the advertisement screen whether we grant permission to that screen or not what goes on there as part of the commercial portfolio etc that's out of our hands. Yeah I think legal would like to comment. Yeah Matt go ahead. Yes the the content of what goes on the screen is not a planning matter and so that'd be a property dealing between the council and the lessee. Thank you. Yeah thanks through the chair I'm Matt Butler assistant director of development management. Yeah that's the point I was going to say whatever you may approve that you wouldn't fetter what we've presented before members the recommendation and the conditions it wouldn't fetter in any way what actually goes on there and what the council may or may not decide to put on there with any tenant. Thank you very much yes council Pascoe-Taburro. Thank you very much having used the roundabout quite a lot of times both on four wheels and on two it's quite a confusing roundabout you've got to be pretty experienced to sort of navigate your way around it so I'm just looking for assurance that putting this up won't have a material detrimental effect on road safety by just having something that confuses particularly inexperienced road users at quite a tricky junction. Yep so the applicant have submitted a detailed road safety audit and a highway safety report which outlines the assessment that's been carried out to ensure that there'd be no harm to pedestrian and road safety users and the key thing is that the sign itself has been repositioned so that it doesn't directly sit behind the existing directional sign so that's this sign right here and because there's a 20 mile per hour speed limit drivers are going at a reduced speed so that they have time to take in both the directional sign and then eventually when they come to the proposed signage that there isn't a conflict there and in terms of the actual traffic signals that's some distance away when you go further to forth further to the to the east. Thank you okay do we have any other questions no further questions okay great now we move on to voting on recommendation one which is on page 45. Councillor Melton. Four. Councillor Trei. Four. Councillor Walsh. Four. Councillor Carmel. Four. Councillor Pascatabure. Four. And I'll also be voting four and now we move on to recommendation two which is also on page 45. Councillor Melton. Four. Councillor Trei. Four. Councillor Walsh. Four. Councillor Carmel. Four. Councillor Pascatabure. Four. And I'll also be voting four so that application has been approved thank you very much. Now that brings us to item seven and can I please ask the presenting officer Tom Scriven to introduce the report whenever you're ready. Okay. Thank you chair. The application site relates to 165 to 167 New Kings Road and it's located to the south side of the road. It's an adjoining pair of three-storey mid-terrace properties. The existing dentistry on the site occupies the ground and basement levels and the separate self-contained residential properties above the ground floor and on part of the ground floor number 167. Site falls within the Sturridge Street conservation area and immediately to the opposite side of the road is Parsons Green conservation area and it's in a peat-out area of four with Parsons Green station located 0.3 miles northwest of the site. In terms of the proposal itself it's a variation of condition in relation to application 2020 03423/VAR and the conditions being varied are condition three which is going to be varied from 70 pupils to 90 pupils. Condition five relating to the hours of use essentially it will be opening quarter of an hour earlier so eight o'clock till six in the evening as opposed to 8.15 till six in the evening and then finally conditions four and seven would be updated from the old class D1 to class EF to reflect the new use class order but that wouldn't actually make any material change on site. These variations to the pupil numbers and hours of operation would reflect the two temporary permissions which have been in place since August 2020 to allow the this was essentially to allow the impact of these changes to be assessed so therefore the proposal is essentially a seeking to make the previous temporary permission permanent. Just in terms of having a look at the site in a bit more detail this is the front elevation so it's these two units in the middle with the blue canopy on the front of number 165 and on this aerial photo here you can see the nursery building in the middle of the terrace and there is also another nursery close to the site. Just in terms of the conclusion the nursery has been operating at this expanded capacity of 90 pupils along with the extended hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. for approximately four years during this time the council has received no formal complaints on the basis of noise disturbance highways or any other grounds the continued use of this community uses and in its expanded form would contribute towards meeting local need there are existing conditions in place to ensure that any noise impacts remain within acceptable limits and subject to conditions including requirements for an operational management plan and updated travel plan it's considered the proposal would not unacceptably impact upon highways there's one update to the report which is to admit condition 16 this um this wasn't actually relevant to this particular application and the recommendation is to grant permission subject conditions thank you chair thank you very much um i see that we have a speaker registered simon wallace uh simon whenever you're ready if you'd like to come to the seat and the button on the right will go green and then you'll be ready to speak and you have three minutes go ahead thank you chair good evening members excuse me um simon wallace i'm a planning director at savills i'm here representing pippa poppins nursery who are the applicants pippa poppins is a long-established nursery school on new king's road that has been in operation for some 30 years although it has grown in size over this time the school provides a valuable service for local residents as well as being a local employer the temporary permission to allow up to 90 children and to operate between the hours of 8 a.m and 6 p.m is first granted in august 2020 and again in september 2022 when the temporary permission was first granted the officer's report stated that it was unlikely to cause an unacceptable increase in noise impacts detrimental to the means of neighbors but that it should be granted on a temporary or trial basis in order to establish whether or not it would have any undue adverse impacts there has now been a period of nearly four years in which to monitor the impacts on neighbor immunity and the impact on traffic generation parking and pedestrian safety there have been no complaints made to environmental health the highways team or planning enforcement and this is confirmed in the committee reports pippa poppins is a well-run professionally managed nursery it is rated outstanding by austed and provides an exceptional learning environment for children of one to five years there's no doubt it will continue to be well run and provide a service for local residents the catchment area for the school gives priority to those in the sw6 postcode indeed there's currently a waiting list of 166 children with 74 wishing to start in september by allowing the occupancy level to remain at 90 children this need and demand can be met the school abides by the condition limiting the hours of use of the outside play area and limits the number of children outside at any one time to 32 again there has not been any complaints regarding its use the school will prepare an updated travel plan to build upon the measures already in place which seek to discourage car use and encourage walking cycling and the use of public transport for both staff and parents all parents are informed of the school's car free objectives and the admissions policy gives priority to those family who live closest staff have cycling facilities and the cycle to work scheme exists these measures will help the drive to continue to reduce the use of cars by both parents and staff thank you for the opportunity to speak thank you very much simon thank you if you'd like to return to your seat that's great thank you okay so now we move to uh questions for officers and just to clarify tom so since 2020 this this uh site has been operating in this manner so what we are doing if we approve this application is we're regularizing a temporary state of affairs and and to my mind we're actually using this opportunity to tighten some of the conditions as well but just to clarify since 2020 it's already been operating in this way yeah that's correct so it's been operating in this same manner with this same number of pupils for this same time period since 2020 and and as you say we're looking to put on well reimpose uh the requirement for a new travel plan to get them to update you know what they've been doing and try and improve on things in terms of highways but also we've added a requirement for an operational management plan to try and deal with how they'll be looking at um sort of informal parking but also trying to stagger arrivals and departures again to try and help with um any impacts on the highways great thank you and in that time again no formal complaints that's correct great thank you do we have any other questions yes council como just lost the uh the agenda on the screen i was looking at something else um a couple of questions um i noticed uh paragraph 6.26 uh talks about the travel plan that was uh page 72 off the top of my head let me put it down there um the travel plan in 2020 what was the time scale for the implementation of the travel plan please my understanding is that it had to be implemented at that time so whilst the temporary permission was was running they had a travel plan in place um but we're now looking for an updated one to then move forward and be reviewed over the coming years do we know uh looking at the first bullet point in 6.26 uh whether the nursery card mode share was reduced from 35 percent of pupils and parents who travel by car to 28 or if not yet uh at what stage are they currently at um i don't have that information in front of me sorry um i think i read somewhere in that and i can't find the uh the actual line in the report that uh i think i saw mention of the fact that there is staff car parking where because i know that area very well indeed the next door building used to be uh some 30 20 odd years ago used to be a club that i was a member of so i do know the area quite well yeah i don't believe there's any separate car parking um if there is any such staff car parking it could only be parking permit um because i can't see that there's any vehicular access to the site at all um yeah i'm sure i thought i'm sure i did see it somewhere but i can't actually um yes in 6.25 3 5 it says staff parking facilities are provided i think perhaps the the highways officer might like to add something here thank you i think the reference to parking is in relation to cycle parking rather than car parking so i think that maybe the way it's been written is incorrect but it's actually in reference to cycle parking not incorrect just slightly misleading yes and then in relation to the travel plan that's why we've asked for as part of a condition an updated travel plan so that we can get updated reviews of modes split so that we if if required depending on what they submit we can require them to update their targets and be more ambitious lovely thank you just on a point of uh personal reflection when i put my two children through nursery i think that in the between the between the age the age group i think in six years we went we went once by car because it was absolutely pouring with rain um and quite why they have to have 35 driving is another matter and on another reflection i would imagine that uh the uh the large waiting list is likely to come down with the imposition of 20 that on the fees okay thank you yes counselor pascu tobury thank you very much um this it's on my patch and the nursery is a really terrific local asset it's very very good news that uh that numbers are expanding there's such a healthy demand for it um one one of the issues that does exist is uh people being dropped off or dropping off by car and parking and maneuvering on chipstead and quarantin street um could the traffic plan have specific measures to aim to discourage that because that does create some real congestion some real issues at quite a tricky time in the morning yeah we we asked for an additional condition in relation to an operational management plan so that the nursery can be more proactive to be more naively and to to not um to discourage that kind of activity that would impact on the surrounding neighbors so that's part of that so they would have to introduce initiatives to discourage that and we would be scrutinized and if they submit warmly welcome that thank you thank you do we have any other questions no further questions okay great so now we'll move on to voting on whether recommendation one in the report is agreed that's on page 57 uh counselor melton four uh counselor trey four counselor walsh four counselor carmel four counselor pascu tubore four i'll also be voting four and now we'll move on to recommendation two which is also on page 57 counselor melton four counselor tray four counselor walsh four counselor carmel four counselor pascu tubore four i'll also be voting four so that application has been approved thank you very much thank you now we move on to item eight and uh tom whenever you're ready please introduce the report thank you chair the application relates to quennington mansions uh two adjoining purpose-built blocks of eight flats located to the northeast side of ross trevor road close to the junction with swift street the buildings form part of a terrace on this side of ross trevor road and consists of three-story mansion blocks with partial basements below and identical uh rear projection out just in terms of the conservation area it's located within uh central fulham conservation area um you can see on the plan um the site's just in here so it's right on the edge of the conservation area the boundary of the conservation area is actually the bound the rear boundary of the site just in the street scene it's these two blocks here with the identical front entrances in terms of the proposal itself the intention is to renovate and refurbish the blocks and introduce renewable energy provision this would provide uh sorry this would improve the energy performance of the building and reduce the reliance on carbon-based energy sources the proposal involves the following elements so it's predominantly at roof level where they're looking to erect a plant room enclosure with air source heat pumps looking to install 58 solar panels the erection of some associated safety balustrades the installation of automatic opening vent roof lights and the raising of the parapet walls and the installation of new insulation and in terms of the other changes it's also looking to replace the existing single glazed timber frame windows and doors with new double glazed windows and doors along with a small number of additional windows and doors across across the building and finally to provide a refuse store and cycle parking along with some associated landscaping on this site plan you can just see uh towards the bottom and the front of the site this is where the new refuse storage is going that's actually below street level so you wouldn't be immediately visible in the street scene and then the um sort of informal cycle storage it's towards the back of the site along this side and that's in a shared area just moving on to the roof plan um the proposed roof plan shows the more extensive elements of the scheme with the solar panels distributed across the whole of the roof and the plant enclosures is these blocks here towards the middle well towards the rear of each building but located relatively centrally on the front elevation you can see that the solar panels and the other associated equipment is predominantly screened behind the parapet but you've got the two plant enclosures located centrally within each front elevation on the rear elevation again you can see the two plant enclosures and on the side elevation you can see that it does have a slight pitch down to the front of the building to just try and slightly decrease the massing where possible and then this is the other side elevation essentially you can see it's being replicated across both buildings this is the 3d imaging showing the view from swift street which is the primary sort of long view that you'll get of the proposed enclosure within this view you can see this most prominent element in the street scene and also how the materiality has tried to blend in as much as possible with the skyline this slide just shows internally what is in that enclosure so you've got the air source heat pumps and the associated acoustic screening in the back section and then the slightly lower section to the front has all the other associated equipment and that also has a circulation space to allow for maintenance of these various bits and this is the section drawing of that plant area just showing the relative height of the various bits of equipment and how it's located across that plant enclosure and then in conclusion the proposal is to renovate and refurbish these residential blocks to improve their energy efficiency and to introduce on-site renewable energy sources in order to reduce the reliance upon carbon-based energy it would result in a positive benefit in terms of sustainability and energy efficiency in accordance with policies cc1 and cc2 of the local plan the site is within a conservation area and however given the siting scale and use of suitable materials it's considered overall that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the character of the conservation area and then this harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme in terms of sustainability and providing this for 16 units within the two mansion blocks in terms of neighbour amenity it's considered to be acceptable with regards to outlook and light and also there's conditions imposed in order to ensure that it doesn't have a significant impact in terms of noise and then subject to further conditions it's also considered acceptable in relation to all other material considerations there's one update to the committee report set out in the redendum that's just a slight correction to paragraph one and then there were also two additional letters of objection received in relation to the application these matters sorry these matters have already been raised previously so they are already covered in the report the recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions thank you chair thank you very much we have two speakers registered for this item first i'd like to invite nicholas showba who would like to object to the application and nicholas when you're ready you have three minutes once again it's the button on the right which will go green whenever you're ready to speak thank you thank you chair and committee for letting me speak today my name is nicholas i live on hazelwood mansions top floor with my wife and two children four of my eight windows face the top floor of kennington mansions and the report of the council makes it sound all very benign and manipulative but when you sit in my study or kitchen the expected rising up of a three meter high plant room has a terrific impact on my sleep because the light is going to go away and i would like to summarize three points here point number one in august i consulted the daylight sunlight surveyor to help me with the case they send a letter on 13th of september the council asking for detailed sunlight daylight assessment to understand the impact 68 documents have since been filed a daylight or sunlight report has not been submitted point number two the council's report mentions hs7 of the council's submen supplementary planning act february 2018 where it says the plant enclosure should not impede 45 degrees of my sunlight when you read hs7 it also speaks about existing re-additions re-extensions in addition to that and there's a different limit there's 15 not 45 degrees 15 should not be exceeded and i would argue even without the assessment 15 is exceeded and point number three i'm all for the green transition i have two young kids sustainability is at the forefront but this is substantive property there are more locations for the heat pumps the developer has excluded the rear garden which i would find a good location on the grounds of noise leaseholder amenities and impact the ability of deploying the heat pumps i would argue all three reasons apply to the roof as well plus the additional harm to hazelwood mansions so to summarize guidelines and regulation should apply to everyone and an important decision like the location of heat pumps should not be driven by the commercial interests of one party a sunlight daylight report was never filed the limit is 15 of 45 degrees and the rear garden might be a better location with that i thank you for your time this is a first step in a long journey i owe it to my children to protect daylight for them and i protect my right to potentially seek further steps and a judicial review thank you okay nicholas thank you very much thank you we now have a second speaker which is helen cuthbert and helen whenever you're ready please uh come to the desk and once again it's the button on the right and when you're ready you have three minutes thank you thank you i'm here on behalf of the applicants who are dorrington um who are a leading residential landlord in london established in the 1930s and are passionate about protecting and enhancing historic buildings they acquired quenington mansions in 2018 the building surprisingly was previously in the same ownership since its construction more than a hundred years ago when the mansion blocks relied on coal fires for heating so been quite some change since then they are hoping to upgrade the entire building to minimize the environmental impact and just to respond to the comments you've heard tonight we've explored the garden as an option i think it's a simpler option but it does there is simply not sufficient space to retain the gardens for the residents and put in the air source heat pumps this is something that we have explored with the council's officers since last summer so we've been working quite closely on how to minimize the impact of these proposals the the key design ambition is to improve the environmental standards of the building and we've looked at planning heritage energy noise and daylight and officers are satisfied we meet the policy tests as you've heard the air source heat pump will be provided in a central location on the flat roof replacing the individual gas boilers that are in each flat and there will also be pv panels on the flat roof as well which supplement the energy demands of the building and the approach is entirely in line with your council's new spd on climate change adopted by the council in october last year seeking to use heat pumps and pv panels in the interest of maximizing on-site carbon reductions we will be reducing the carbon reduction carbon use by 50 just under 50 so it's something quite significant in terms of the impact on neighbors the 45 degree rule is met and there is no significant loss of daylight or sunlight that that that is on the basis of the initial test they don't need there doesn't need to be a further examination of sunlight and daylight because the first test is passed if you think about it it's a bit like a pitched roof because it's centrally it's equivalent to a pitch and in fact the height of this enclosure is lower than the adjacent pitch roof on the on the adjacent building and is lower than some of the chimneys so it's not a substantial addition and where it's located means that your sight line and therefore your daylight and sunlight views are not impacted by it the application for you tonight has a attractive objection as it's a new addition to an existing attractive building in the conservation area and obviously involves the new technology it isn't harmful but it does represent change and i think that's the issue we have to grasp we have to grasp that in conservation areas and on attractive buildings as well as in new build otherwise we will not get to our climate change requirements i'm happy to answer any questions if you if you have any thank you thank you very much thank you much appreciated if you'd like to return to your seat thank you so much okay now we move on to committee i'm sorry it's just the allocated time now we move on to committee members questions to officers for clarification and my first question is around this issue of daylight and sunlight assessments can you speak to that what assessments were carried out how confident are officers that this wouldn't you know represent a a uh you know massive reduction or harm and just to the first speaker's point about assessments not having been carried out if you could just just clarify that if you if you could thank you yeah so uh there's a test set out in the planning guidance spd hs7 part one which relates to the impact upon windows located at a lower level than a particular development the test that it specifies should be carried out in this case is a 45 degree angle taken vertically from those side facing windows if there was a breach of that angle then potentially we would have asked for a daylight and sunlight assessment but because there was no breach given the separation distance and given the relatively low height it wasn't considered reasonable to request an extra sort of degree of assessment for a scheme of this scale which is meeting the test that's set out in the planning guidance spd okay thank you uh and my my second question is um can you tell us i mean the second speaker kind of uh uh sort of referred to this but what did the applicant what did the what did the developers try to do to conceal the enclosure did they try to do more uh the garden was mentioned a couple of times in both the the statements um were was every avenue explored um by by the developer so within their submission uh they did set out how they sort of um tested it to begin with to decide where was the best location the garden was looked at in terms of it being a potential area that these air source heat pumps can go the garden's terraced though so it's not necessarily immediately straightforward to put structure of this scale in there there's also two quite substantial trees there which are protected because it's in the conservation area um there's also the fact that you're losing amenity space albeit shared amenity space um so there's quite a few factors there that led to them then exploring the roof as a possible location um once that had happened we've been pushing quite hard to see if you know had they fully explored the garden we're satisfied that they have uh they also slightly reduced the scale as i was saying to the front of the enclosure and they changed the materiality so it's that lighter tone which will hopefully help it blend slightly better into the skyline um so i think hopefully that sort of summarizes it yeah and there's nowhere in the building where the enclosure could have been simply not enough space there's no there's no space for something like this in the building because it's all flat flats yeah actually yeah okay thank you uh do we have any other questions yes council walsh thank you um just for clarification what is the visibility of this from this street level how much is this going to be visible so you don't have a 3d image from the immediate street level but when you look at the um this image in the street scene so this is this is sort of from almost the opposite side of rosh trevor road i think you can see that something that set that distance back and only has a height of um between 2.1 and 2.6 meters you're not going to perceive it in the immediate street scene which is why we had that long view in swift street being more of a concern because you need to essentially get that far back in order to then be able to start to perceive it um in any real so in terms of the general character of the conservation area a person walking along uh the street is unlikely to have their eyes drawn to the particular um addition other than if they're approaching uh from that further away area yeah essentially along rosh trevor road i think rosh trevor road you'd be hard pushed to see it i would say but like i say we don't have the 3d imagery but i think from here you can see that given the height of the buildings and how far it's set back it'd be very very difficult to see it but yeah as you're saying i'll just quickly go to that swift street view which is the longer view um so then yeah you start to see it because you are now further away from the site and in terms of the servicing of the building i know you uh showed a picture there of um i think that the access to the maintenance could you identify how they will access from the i presume through the main building itself up onto the roof yeah so it's this is the access point here okay uh the the automated opening vent um in terms of how i don't have the internals so i can't show you where that comes up in the building i assume it's a communal area because that would make sense but i don't have those internals okay i'm happy to go with your assumption that it is something that can be easily accessible and serviced uh for the foreseeable future as is finally just to make a comment which is obviously you know as a borough we did declare a climate emergency a number of years ago and there has to be substance behind that rather than just noise itself so we do have quite a significant number of listed buildings quite a number of conservation areas as well so this is encouraging to see obviously steps being taken to get to that net zero that is obviously talked about a lot but uh policies and actions have to be taken as part of that as well yeah yeah i i would agree with that and a 50 reduction is significant yeah so i would agree with your comments councillor trey thank you thank you chair um i just wanted to bring up on below the proposal first of all there's the roof roof level erection of the plant room but it also says erection of safety balustrades um and from a street level i would have thought those safety balustrades would have would have made a more of a design impact difference um you know i i do um appreciate that it's going off on a bit of a tangent from the from the resident but um also well if you answer that first about the balustrade thank you so on here you can see the balustrade so it's labeled uh number four i know it's quite hard to see but it's basically this little area here so it's only the area immediately um in front of the plant enclosure on each one the rest of the safety um is is essentially by i think it's wires on the roof that you can attach to so you've only got the balustrades again quite centrally located so a bit like with the enclosure i mean i'm not sure you'll be able to see the balustrades at all but if you could you'd have to be stood quite a long way back in in the public domain anyway in order to see them so they're not they don't go all the way around the edge of the roof essentially that was basically answered my question because then you know we're talking this is only safety for um a relevant person that would be working on on the industrial side and that that we're not adding balustrades in order for people to use it as a roof terrace yeah so there's a condition on there as well that the roof can only be the access to the roof and going on the roof it can only be used in association with maintenance of the equipment on the roof and it can't be used as a terrace thank you just just before i come on i just want to have as much clarity as we can on this can the officers can officers uh assure us or reassure us that uh nicholas's sense um the daylight and sunlight coming into nicholas's property won't be adversely impacted and that it won't create a sense of enclosure and that he won't be sort of plunged into darkness and and won't you know his whole sort of you know uh residential amenity will be ruined can you assure us that that that won't be the case because that is an important consideration yeah and i think you can see in the report we looked at neighbor amenity quite closely it's quite a long section of the report um in terms of our guidance and what we consider to result in a significant loss of light or outlook or overbearing impact it passes that relevant test so if we were looking at a comparable extension on a you know a similar layout of building we would be coming to this same conclusion because we'd be applying the guidance that we use on every single application and that that would be the conclusion that we would reach if it was something that failed the guidance then we may well need that additional information in terms of the daylight and sunlight assessment in order to then prove that there isn't a significant impact but based on our own tests we consider that there isn't one okay thank you yes counselor pascal tobury thank you very much um if i'm reading this carefully one of the problems raised um is the fact that the extension is towards the back of the building um because it's the windows on the side returns of the neighboring building that would be affected um given the fact that this is pretty rapidly emerging technology is there is there a chance that a development of this size for this level of environmental improvement might actually become obsolete quite quickly and then in a couple of years you might be able to do something with the same environmental impact and a lot smaller i mean there is a potential that things like that could change over time um obviously it's quite hard to say how how much that will change and how long it will take for that to happen um so it could be that in years time this does become obsolete and perhaps there is something else but i suppose at the moment we have to look at it based on what is the existing equipment that is available and what benefit that provides and decide whether or not that's acceptable completely agreed of course we don't really do counterfactuals thank you yeah council como thank you i've got a few things i'll just start on uh carrying on from uh the points made by mr showba if i pronounced his name correctly um would it be fair to say that there will be a loss of sunlight and daylight and there will be a loss of output i'm not saying that it breaches any of the guidelines but it would be fair to say that this is going to impact adversely on the neighbour i think there's a difference between something being visible and having an adverse impact which is why sorry council come out if you could not interrupt yeah which is why the test is there for us to determine whether or not there would be that the the sort of significance of the impact would be such that it would be starting to adversely impact the neighbor so that's why the test is there to start with um sorry yeah i very carefully did not say adversely impact i said there would be an impact so just just to kind of confirm on the other part as well in terms of the outlook point i think there is an acknowledgement that this would have some visibility when you're looking out of those rear windows now what we've worked quite hard with the developers to do is select face materials particularly to the acoustic screens that do blend in as you could see within the derivative go back to that swift street view that do give that perception of it being you know a lighter material that does hopefully blend within the sky to mitigate any percent perceived change from that and that that kind of i suppose appearance when you when you have outlook from it both from these kinetic views but also from the the neighbors and that's something that we've worked quite hard to get the developer to really think carefully about in terms of the the tonality of those materials and how they do hopefully try and blend as much as possible with the the sky really i'm sorry to to interrupt uh your questioning what is that material exactly and is it some kind of you know see-through kind of material or can you can you just clarify that can we go back to the detail on that so the material itself isn't isn't completely perforated obviously because the acoustic performance but it is a material that that again is different to the appearance of the host property purposefully to try and give the perception again of it being lightweight and something that does blend within the sky let me just i'm just trying to find the actual product detail and actually while you're looking for that tom in this image i think we can see the garden there which is sort of stepped terraced and and that's what you're referring to yeah that's right yeah okay thank you yes matt i'm sorry just in the meantime it might help through the chair might help committee just to clarify the 45 degree angle line this test we use sits within i think tom mentioned earlier within supplementary planning guidance so it's not part of the development plan but it's still you know a serial you know heavyweight material consideration sitting within supplementary planning guidance and it has it's if you like it's been around for a long long time it's tried and tested we've had it in in in a number of iterations of our supplementary planning guidance the 45 degree angle and it's seen as that appropriate balance in a dense urban borough like hammersmith it's seen to strike that balance between allowing people to extend their properties carry out development structures such as this as well while still protecting sufficiently protecting neighboring amenity in terms of outlook and overshadowing if it does breach that line then we're in a different area and we need to look at it more carefully on site judgment comes into play the particular circumstances of the the sites and then potentially a more technical assessment may be required but because it didn't breach in this instance we were kept fairly confident it strikes our appropriate balance okay thank you alan so i'm still that's okay if you want to carry on well thank you thank you very much um you you referenced uh policy hs7 um and you rather glossed over the breach of hs6 uh from uh to the neighbors on uh chestleton road where in line point seven of the report it says the um no i should not reach a 45 degree vertical angle when taken from the ground level on the rear panel the proposed planting closure would reach this angle however the existing rear outrigger of the building already breaches this angle blah blah blah the impact of this enclosure is not significantly greater than the existing situation so it will worsen the existing situation by how much please i think when you can see on this image that if you were to draw a 45 degree angle from uh ground level on the rear boundary it would hit i can't draw one here here and now for you but it's going to hit somewhere along here on the existing rear outrigger much closer than this structure on the roof so the actual perceived impact there is a slight increase in the massing of the outrigger but this is set a long way away from the boundary compared to the existing rear wall so that's why we have looked at that key principle and this does sometimes happen with short gardens where there's existing rear outriggers something can be done on the roof that doesn't actually have a significant additional effect compared to that existing building matt did you want to add something yeah it's just because carmel was asking how much we don't have a technical assessment done here this is on-site judgment and we've looked at the circumstances of the actual site and we consider it's it's an opinion of an officer we've looked at that and we feel that it would be um not negligible of course but it would be insignificant council como i'll now move on to the the second string so to speak of uh mr shober's um part which was noise and there is a concern um the uh air source heat pumps installed has not been subject to assessments which adequately consider potential noise impacts and in particular also with the growth of uh the popularity of air source heat pumps are the ashps i'll just call this easier um in particular cumulative impacts uh from multiple ashps are springing up all over as we seek to become the greenest local authority in the country was a noise impact assessment undertaken as part of the planning process and if a noise impact assessment was undertaken was the assessment based on mcs 020 planning uh standard which is uh as i'm sure you're aware the micro generation certification scheme so there was a noise assessment carried out as part the application was submitted with it it was reviewed by the environmental protection team um so they had a look at it um they were satisfied uh with the conclusions it came to but they asked for a condition which includes a post installation assessment so that if there is any breach um of the levels that we're looking to achieve there then we can ask for further mitigation if necessary and then following on from that um the review of air source heat pump noise emissions pdr guidance and regulation 53 this standard does not take into account cumulative impacts and adopts a fixed background sound level to underpin assessment which means that noise assess noise impact assessments from uh air source heat pump may not be adequately considered um therefore if the mcs system standard was used even when associated with a full application it may not mean that significant adverse impacts are avoided or minimized um so i'm not sure what the question was there okay what was the uh assessment method used to do the noise impact assessment um i don't have the noise assessment in front of me um however the public protection officer is the specialist in that particular area um and as i say they've reviewed it and they were satisfied with the methodology that was used in order to carry that out and they were happy on the basis of conditions with this post installation assessment that that the noise impacts upon neighbors would remain within acceptable limits sorry chair i would i would just also point i mean again may be helpful for committee members any planning permission doesn't sort of uh restrict in any way protections that residents have through other legislation other environmental controls so if for any reason these started breaching any of those controls regardless of the planning permission what conditions we have on there is protection to residents and the separate legislation and standards um members who've been on this committee for a while know that i've been very keenly supportive of green measures um but i also do have to think about the the the impact on neighbors and i'm finding myself deeply troubled by this because uh the effect on uh the shoba family and somebody who's recently had very young children as well and i know how often they got woken by the merest noises um like this um i will listen to see if there are any more questions um but i don't know which way i'm going on this one yet okay thank you very much are there any further questions no i don't think there are any further questions okay in that case we will vote on this application firstly we'll vote on whether recommendation one in the report is agreed and that's on page 75 uh counselor melton for counselor tray for counselor walsh for counselor carmel counselor pasco tuberi against counselor carmel against and i'll be voting for so recommendation one in the report has been approved now we vote on recommendation two which is also on page 75 counselor melton for counselor tray for counselor walsh for counselor carmel for counselor pasco tuberi for i'll also be voting for so that application has been approved thank you very much that brings us to the end of tonight's meeting i'd like to thank everyone for attending or watching uh the draft minutes of this meeting will be published on our website shortly these will be formally approved at our next meeting on the 2nd of july 2024 and if you have any queries concerning applications in the interim please contact the case officer in the report thank you very much.