Issue - meetings

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, Steve Weeks referred to additional letters of objection from residents of St David’s Close on grounds of detrimental impact on parking, pedestrian safety, sewerage system, overcrowding and out of character adding that those concerns had been covered in the main report.  The concern about loss of property values was not a valid planning consideration.  He added that although London Underground (LU) and TFL had no objections, LU would want to review the foundation arrangements for the development before any work commenced, if the application was be approved.  Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to an amendment in the second reason for refusal as set out in the tabled supplementary.

Mr Richard Wimberley an objector started by emphasising that there was a need for the retention of the garages as their demolition would worsen the parking problems in the area and thus lead to a detriment to the quality of life of the residents.  He added that one of the ways by which the deterioration of the parking situation could be prevented was by restoring the garages to satisfactory condition which would in turn encourage usage by local residents.  In respect of the planning application for Garages 1-3, Mr Wimberley stated that there were no off-street parking provisions to address the resultant congestion and parking problems.

The Committee heard from Mr Luke Warren the applicant’s agent that he intended to file for a 3-stage complaint against the Planning Service for its failure to decide on the applications for an unusually long period.

The Chair in response reiterated that the Committee always decided all applications based on planning grounds and applicable policies and that threats of complaints against any part of the Council’s services was not a planning consideration.