Agenda and draft minutes

In the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair chaired and welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Sinan Boztas (Chair), who was substituted by Cllr Nawshad Ali; Cllr Jim Steven, who was substituted by Cllr Andy Milne; Cllr Nelly Gyosheva, Cllr Bektas Ozer and Cllr Suna Hurman.

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relating to items on the agenda.

Cllr Bedekova declared a non-pecuniary interest on item 5, application reference 21/01140/FUL, as she had used the agent’s services on an application for one of her properties previously. It was confirmed that this was not a sufficient interest to prevent Cllr Bedekova from taking part in discussions and voting on item 5.

To receive and agree the minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday 17 September 2024 and Tuesday 15 October 2024.

Cllrs Chamberlain and Rye queried why votes were not being recorded as they had been previously. The Director of Law and Governance conveyed that there had been an inconsistency in approach so had asked for this to be changed, that the minutes were accurate, and she would take away this suggestion and consider reverting to the previous approach moving forwards. Members asked that the vote for the application at this meeting be recorded.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on Tuesday 17 September 2024 and Tuesday 15 October 2024were AGREED.

To receive and note the covering report of the Head of Planning and Building Control.

Received the report of the Head of Planning and Building Control, which was NOTED.

RECOMMENDATION:

1 That planning permission be REFUSED

2 That the Head of Planning & Building Control be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the reasons for refusal as indicated in the Recommendation section of the report

Ward: Brimsdown

Gideon Whittingham, Planning Decisions Manager, introduced the report and highlighted the key aspects of the application. Members were updated that since the report was published, the applicant had provided some commentary on the application which among other things, indicated that they were capable of contributing towards the Section 106 requirements.

A deputation was received from Murat Aydemir, agent representing the applicant, who spoke against officers’ recommendation.

In response to Members’ questions relating to financial viability, officers advised that the applicant had submitted a viability report. An independent adjudication found a greater deficit than had been assumed by the applicant, who had not taken account of the contributions required as part of the application. Discussions had since taken place with the GLA, who the application would have to go to for approval, who appointed their own consultant to assess the applicant’s financial report, the outcome of which also showed a deficit. The applicant had indicated a higher than typical profit margin, which if reduced would likely only reduce the deficit, rather than result in the application being in profit. The development would result in a number of pressures, for which financial contributions were sought to alleviate them, but it was not thought that these could be paid. The viability assessment submitted found that if the scheme were to provide 100% open market units, it would result in a £1.95m deficit, and if it were to provide a policy compliant 40% affordable housing, it would result in a negative of £4.26m. Any contributions would be expected following the signing of Section 106 legal agreements, and without these, any mitigation required for additional pressures brought about by the proposal would need to be picked up by the public purse. The documents provided by the agent since the publication of the report before the committee, had not been evidenced, hence officers could not comment on it.

In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding design, officers replied that the emerging Local Plan deemed this area as appropriate for tall buildings, and national policies and the London Plan promoted densification in such an area. The proposal was 3 metres or 1 storey taller than what would be deemed an appropriate height, but there was flexibility for this to be permissible if the public benefits were judged to outweigh the harm. The reasons for refusal captured the height in so far as they made reference to the form, appearance and design, which height came into; but the reasons needed to be formulated in such a way that they were robust/ defendable if the decision were appealed, and did not expose the council to challenge or cost. The London Plan requires that the architectural quality and materials of tall buildings be of exemplary standard, but the scheme did not meet this bar, as limited information had been provided as to the details of materiality. One of the reasons the scheme wasn’t viable was because it had a low net gross efficiency, with lots of space in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To note that the dates of future meetings are as follows:

Tuesday 19 November 2024

Tuesday 17 December 2024

Tuesday 21 January 2025

Tuesday 11 February 2025 (provisional)

Tuesday 25 February 2025

Tuesday 4 March 2025 (provisional)

Tuesday 18 March 2025

Tuesday 1 April 2025 (provisional)

Tuesday 22 April 2025

Members NOTED the dates of future meetings as set out in the agenda. The 19 November meeting was described as unlikely to be used, so the 17 December would likely be the next meeting.

Cllr Rye expressed his thanks to Cllr Boztas for his Chairmanship of the committee and courtesy towards members of the opposition whom he always gave an opportunity to contribute to discussions on applications that came before the committee, and wished him well as he moved on to other roles in the council.

The Chair thanked Members and officers for their time and contributions, and the meeting ended at 20:03.