The Hammersmith and Fulham Planning and Development Control Committee met to discuss planning applications for Wellesley Avenue and Sulgrave Road, as well as a redevelopment project on Fulham Road. Councillors approved all recommendations put before them.

Wellesley Avenue Redevelopment Approved

Councillors approved the application for the demolition of a car repair workshop at 12 Wellesley Avenue and the erection of a part one, part two and part three storey building, comprising three single family dwelling houses and a single storey detached building.

Anisa Aboud, representing officer, told the committee that the addendum contained corrections, including a new wastewater heat recovery system condition and a cycle parking condition.

Oliver Jefferson, planning agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Cases Planning, stating that the application had been developed in consultation with neighbours, the Brackenbury Residence Association, and the Hammersmith Society. He said that residential land use is the preferred use for the site by neighbours and is supported by the Residence Association.

Councillor Patrick Walsh, Chair of Audit Committee, Deputy Whip, and Borough Representative for the Armed Forces Community, raised the issue of construction logistics plans and demolition plans, saying:

This is not part of the report, which is a problem, I think. We need to have an understanding of how this is going to work. If you mentioned the objections this evening, in particular, the concerns about transport. This is also, as mentioned, a residential site. I made the point before. I'll make it again. We need to have that as part of it when it is a substantial part of the objections.

Matt Butler, assistant director of development management, responded that it is fairly common practice that these plans are submitted as part of detailed conditions after the application has been submitted.

Councillor Adrian Pascu-Tulbure, Opposition Deputy Leader, asked about land contamination on the garage site. Ms Aboud responded that a desktop study had been reviewed and the council's land contamination officer had requested standard six conditions to ensure there is no harm to residents.

Councillor Pascu-Tulbure also asked about consultation with residents. Ms Aboud said there had been lengthy discussions with the Brackenbury Residence Association, and in the latest comments to the council, they had removed their objection and were in support of the application.

Another councillor asked about the use of contemporary designed houses in conservation areas. Alan Jones, design heritage team leader, responded that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gives guidance that contemporary or modern design should not be refused just because it is not in accordance with traditional housing styles.

A councillor asked why the development was having four car parking permits, one for each flat, when developments are usually car free. Ms Aboud responded that the applicant had provided a transport statement demonstrating that the residential scheme results in lower trip movements in comparison to the existing unrestricted B2 use¹, as well as in comparison to the consented office scheme. The committee voted to approve the recommendations in the report, as amended by the addendum.

Sulgrave Road Rear Roof Extensions Approved

The committee considered applications for rear roof extensions at Hazel House, Royston House, Suffolk House and Norfolk House on Sulgrave Road. The applications sought permission for the erection of a rear roof extension involving an increase in the ridge height by 300mm, in connection with the creation of a new self-contained studio flat, and alterations to part of the roof of the back addition to incorporate a flat roof and the erection of 1.7m high obscure glazed privacy screening around the resultant flat roof at third floor level to the rear elevation, in connection with its use as a terrace.

Neil Egerton, team leader, presented all four applications together. He told the committee that rear roof extensions are a very common feature within the street and officers consider this to be in keeping with the existing character and appearance of the area.

Councillor Walsh said that this has come to committee before and has been granted on the street as well. He added that there are several roof extensions and this seems entirely in keeping with what's been developed in the existing area.

Councillor Jackie Borland asked about the square footage of the studios, saying that she wanted good quality housing and the studios looked very small. Mr Egerton responded that the studios are small units, effectively for one person, but there is a need for a wide range of accommodation. He added that the planning inspectorate have never agreed with the council when they have tried to refuse permission based on the size of the studios.

The committee voted to approve the recommendations in the report for all four applications.

Fulham Road Redevelopment Approved with Conditions

The committee considered an application relating to a site at 517 - 523 Fulham Road. The application involves the conversion of the existing building, a vacant former college annex, to a mixed use Class E² at basement and ground floor level, and seven flats above. The plans include various alterations, including the removal of a fire escape, the formation of a roof terrace, rear extensions, and the installation of air source heat pumps. Roy Asagba-Power, team leader, presenting the report, drew members' attention to condition 21 in the addendum, which restricted the Class E use to exclude the sale of food and drink, indoor sports, and day nurseries.

Mr Trevelyan, the applicant, addressed the committee, saying that the building has been vacant for over four years and he felt the hours proposed would make it difficult to find tenants. He requested that the hours be relaxed to allow a breakfast takeaway service from 6am, for the gymnasium to start at 6am, and for the crèche to commence from 7am.

Councillor Pascu-Tulbure asked about the hours of operation of the pub next door. Mr Asagba-Power responded that he suspected they would be around 11pm.

Councillor Walsh said that a search on Google showed that the pub, Connor K, is open to the early hours, with the earliest closing being at 1.30am. He asked to what degree the committee needed to weigh the matter of hour restrictions in terms of its actual practical enforcement, as it seemed to be crossing into licensing matters.

Mrinalini Rajaratnam, chief solicitor - property and planning, responded that the licensing and planning matters would be considered separately, but the main issue on the immunity of the residents surrounding residents and the residents above would be applied in consideration.

A councillor asked what the time and cost would be for a variation of the conditions down the line. Mr Butler responded that he did not know the cost off the top of his head, but it was a statutory fee of less than £500, and the statutory target for determination of those applications is eight weeks.

The committee voted to approve the recommendations in the report, as amended by the addendum.