Erection of 26 sets (1, 2 or 3 poles) of 5.5m high supporting poles (black colour coated steel poles) and linking wires (clear nylon filament) associated with the creation of an Eruv (continuous boundary designated in accordance with Jewish law) within the north of Westminster around and including St John's Wood NW8, Maida Vale, Westbourne Green and Little Venice W9, Prince Albert Road and vicinity NW8 and Randolph Gardens and vicinity NW6.
Additional representations were received from:
1. Officer Note
2. Representation from Councillor Arzymanow (Little Venice Ward) dated 12.01.2017.
3. Representation from Councillor Thomas Crockett (Maida Vale Ward) dated 13.01.2017
4. Representation from Councillor Caplan (Little Venice Ward) dated 13.01.2017
5. Representation from the Islamic Cultural Centre & London Central Mosque Trust Ltd, 146 Park Road London NW8 7RG dated 11.01.2017.
6. Letter from the United Synagogue 305 Ballards Lane London N12 8GB
7. Representation from the occupier of 65 Eton Avenue Flat 5 dated 04.01.2014
8. Representation from the occupier of Flat 3 75 Shirland Road dated 09.01.2017
9. Representation from the occupier of Flat 5, 46 Hamilton Gardens dated 09.01.2017
10. Representation from the occupier of Flat 7, 105 Elgin Avenue dated 09.01.2016
11. Representation from the occupier of Flat 2 13-14 Gloucester Square London.
12. Representation from the occupier of 43 Hogarth Hill London
Late representations were received from:
1. Officers revisions to draft decision letter
2. Email from Councillor Prendergast (Maida Vale Ward) dated 17.01.2017
3. Email from Councillor Qureshi (Westbourne Ward) dated 17.01.2017
4. Email from Metropolitan Police Service MPS Crime Prevention & TP Capability dated 10.01.2017.
5. Email from the occupier of The Garden Flat 221 Elgin Avenue London dated 16.01.2017
6. Email from the occupier of 19 Ordnance Hill London dated 16.01.2017
7. Emails (x4) from the occupier of Flat 5, 46 Hamilton Gardens dated 16.01.2017.
8. Email from the occupier of 15 Cunningham Place dated 17.01.2017
The Presenting Officer tabled the following changes to the draft decision letter on the case:
Revised wording of condition 2
You must apply to us for approval of detailed drawings showing the following alteration(s) to the scheme:
a. Relocation of poles 1A/B
b. Relocation of poles 2A/B
c. Relocation of pole 25B
d. Relocation of pole 27A
e. Relocation of 33A/B
f. Relocation of 37B
g. Relocation of 39B/C
j) Amended drawings to accurately reflect current on-site circumstances including existing street furniture.
You must not start on these parts of the work until we have approved what you have sent us. You must then carry out the work according to the approved drawings.
Additional informative (No.7)
You should be aware that details submitted under condition 2 will be subject to full consultation and assessment.
Councillors Hall, Rigby and Warner addressed the committee in their capacity as Ward councillors in objection to the application.
Councillor Astaire addressed the committee in his capacity as a Ward councillor in support of the application.
a) The Committee considered that the advantages to parts of the Jewish community, outweigh the harm caused by additional street clutter and street pruning and harm to the setting of heritage assets.
b) The Committee considered that poles 1A/B, 2 A/B, 25B, 27A, 33 A/B, 37B, and 39 C require further changes and these can be dealt with by an amending condition as tabled and set out above.
2. Subject to 1. above, permission be granted subject to an amending condition as tabled and set out above to secure amendments under 1b above, and subject to the additional informative and the completion of a s106 legal agreement to secure:-
I. Maintenance Strategy for poles and wire.
II. Cost of maintenance of street trees
III. Applicant to take on public liability.
3. If the S106 legal agreement has not been completed within six weeks from of the date of the Committee's resolution then:
a) The Director of Planning shall consider whether the permission can be issued with additional conditions attached to secure the benefits listed above. If this is possible and appropriate, the Director of Planning is authorised to determine and issue such a decision under Delegated Powers; however, if not
b) The Director of Planning shall consider whether permission should be refused on the grounds that it has not proved possible to complete an agreement within an appropriate timescale, and that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the benefits that would have been secured; if so the Director of Planning is authorised to determine the application and agree appropriate reasons for refusal under Delegated Powers.
Councillor Burbridge dissented with the decision.