Issue - meetings

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment to provide four storey teaching block with basement; hard and soft landscaping; parking (demolition of existing building) (as amended by the Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Ashley Vickers (Objector) and James Govier (Agent for Applicant).  Both speakers outlined their reasons for seeking refusal, and approval, of the application, respectively.

The Committee also received representations from Councillor Dan Anderson and Councillor Stephen Greek, who both urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reasons:

1)            the proposal, by reason of excessive scale and inappropriate siting, would do harm to the local character of the area and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to policies DM1, DM6, DM7 and DM46 of the local plan, CS18, CS10 and CS3A of the Core Strategy and 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016) and D1, D2 and HC1 of the Draft London Plan (2019).

The motion was seconded by Councillor Anjana Patel, put to the vote, and agreed.

The Committee resolved to refuse officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report; and

2)            grant planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the modification of the Section 106 legal agreement (subject to planning application P/2504/19) and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of the report) or the legal agreement.

RECOMMENDATION B

That, if by 30 January 2021 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Interim Chief Planning Officer, the section 106 Planning Obligation modification was not completed, then delegate the decision to the Chief Planning Officer to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason.

1)            The proposed development, in the absence of a modification to section 106 planning obligation relating to planning permission WEST/695/94/FUL dated 23 June 1995 (principal agreement), the development would be constructed on land outside of the development envelope in breach of the Section 106 and the development could give impacts to the character, appearance and openness of the conservation area in terms of site coverage.

DECISION:  REFUSE

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to refuse the application was by a majority of votes.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter, Brown, Patel, Ramchandani and Shah voted against the application.

Councillor Ferry abstained from voting.