Agenda and minutes

Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 11 October 2016 7.00 pm

Venue: Main Hall - Karibu Education Centre, 7 Gresham Road, SW9 7PH. View directions

Contact: Maria Burton Tel: 020 7926 8703 Email:  MBurton2@lambeth.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Welcome and Declaration of Pecuniary Interests

Under Standing Order 4.4, where any councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.

 

 

Minutes:

The Chair informed the Committee and members of the public that the application for 17 Newport Street (15/06029/FUL) had been withdrawn by the applicant so would not be considered.

 

In relation to application 15/01219/FUL (79-81 Clapham Common South Side) (item four), Councillor Gentry stated that he would stand down from this item and would be speaking in his capacity as a Ward Member.

 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 141 KB

To agree minutes of the meetings held on 2 August, 16 August and 6 September 2016.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Regarding the minutes of the meeting of 2 August2016, Councillor Gentry requested that a sentence be added to item three (52 Walnut Tree Walk) to state that ‘ Councillor Gentry called for an investigation into the reasons for the plans not being available at the time of publication, and therefore for the item being deferred.

 

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment proposed by Councillor Gentry in respect to item three, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 August 2016 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

 

Councillor Morris requested that an addition be made to the minutes of the 16 August 2016 meeting, item four (10 Albert Embankment), fourth bullet point on page 16 to state that ‘only the front two rows of the roof panels would be open’.

 

Councillor Gentry asked that it be noted as regards item five (The Spinney) (in respect of which Councillor Gentry observed that he had stood down from the item although had informed the meeting of 16 August 2016 that he had not been involved in discussion about the matter at CCMAC or FCC) that he had subsequently received an email from the Head of Legal Services which said ‘I advised you that that there was no need for you to stand down from membership of CCMAC and FCC but that you need to consider whether, when items come up for consideration at PAC, you can take part in the PAC decision making process. This will be a matter for you depending on the circumstances and the degree to which you have been involved in the discussions at CCMAC and FCC around planning issues’.

 

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment proposed by Councillor Morris in respect to item four, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 August 2016 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

 

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 6 September 2016 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

 

The Chair announced a provisional timetable for the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 9.9.1.

 

 

3.

52 Walnut Tree Walk (Bishop's) 15/04488/FUL pdf icon PDF 599 KB

    Officers’ recommendation:

     

    To GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and a S106 agreement.

    Minutes:

    Case No. 15/04488/FUL (agenda item four, page 71 of the agenda pack).

     

    The Chair explained that officers were recommending deferral of the item so that the report could be re-published and the application heard at a future meeting.  The reason given to the committee was that the report made reference to Appendix A (the report to the meeting of 2 August 2016) but this was not appended to the papers published for the meeting on 11 October 2016 and had therefore not been publicly available for the required five clear working days.

     

    It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Morris, and

     

    RESOLVED, unanimously

     

    To defer consideration of the application.

     

4.

79-81 Clapham Common South Side (Clapham Common) 15/01219/FUL pdf icon PDF 3 MB

    Officers’ recommendation:

     

    To grant conditional planning permission

    Minutes:

    [Councillor Gentry vacated the committee for the duration of the item].

     

    Case No. 15/01219/FUL (agenda item three, page 29 of the agenda pack, page one of the addendum and page one of the second addendum).

     

    The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included the information included in the agenda pack and subsequent addenda which had been published on Friday 7 October 2016 and on the day of the meeting.  Members were advised of the material planning issues for consideration which included the acceptability of an additional four rooms to the hotel, the impact on parking and highway conditions and amenity to local residents.  The Planning Officer explained that there had been some queries as to whether structures at the rear of the property had planning permission. A slide was displayed showing those structures which had been subject to a previous planning permission and those which had become lawful through the passage of time. This also showed the location of a further small structure which did not benefit from planning permission, but was not part of the present proposals.  The site visit and transport information had been requested when the application had previously been presented to the Committee in August 2015.

     

    Following the Planning Officer’s presentation, objectors raised the following points:

    ·         The application broke key aspects of the London and Local Plans.  The area was residential and was not one specified for hotel development.

    ·         There was insufficient space for taxi and coach set down and pick up.

    ·         The proposal to have access by spiral staircases raised accessibility issues and the proposed rooms were not of sufficient quality.

    ·         There was currently considerable impact on amenity, with commercial vehicles using nearby roads from early in the morning.

    ·         The impact of an additional 50 guests to the multi-purpose room had not been considered.  This would mean that there could be 180 guests using the hotel at one time.

    ·         The proposal would bring the number of rooms to 67, a figure previously given as ‘overdevelopment’.

    ·         The issues with enforcement were disappointing.

     

    The agent for the applicant spoke in favour of the application, stating that:

    ·         The application met planning policies.

    ·         The applicant understood the concerns regarding the multi-purpose room and had accepted conditions on times of operation and numbers of guests.

    ·         The parking survey had demonstrated that there was sufficient parking provision.  It was expected that a large number of guests would arrive by public transport.

     

    Councillor Bernard Gentry then spoke as a Ward Councillor for Clapham Common, raising the following points:

    ·         The conditions were largely unenforceable as they covered events inside the building.

    ·         Coaches could not unload onto Clapham Common South Side due to Cycle Superhighway 7 (CS7).

    ·         He had received a large number of complaints around parking and requesting a ban on commercial vehicles.

     

    In response to questions from Members, officers and the agent for the applicant explained that:

    ·         In the main agenda, condition 7 required the multi-purpose room to be ancillary and not hired out to non-patrons of the hotel, condition 8 limited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Winter Festival, Southbank Centre, Royal Festival Hall (Bishops) 16/04445/FUL, 16/04447/LB & 16/04446/ADV pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    Officers’ recommendations:

    1.    To grant conditional permission subject to conditions;

     

    2.    To grant listed building consent; and

     

    3.    To grant advertisement consent

    Minutes:

    Case Nos. 16/04445/FUL, 16/04446/ADV and 16/04447/LB (agenda item six, page 143 of the agenda pack, page 13 of the addendum and page 19 of the second addendum).

     

    The Planning Officer gave a presentation of the information included in the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 7 October 2016 and on the day of the meeting.  Members were advised that the second addendum proposed that condition 4 revert to the wording as detailed on page 166 of the published officer report.  This wording had been used in 2014 and 2015 and environmental health officers were satisfied with this.  An amendment to condition 15 was also being proposed to restrict the number of circus performers using the temporary caravan park to 37 and to require the submission of an updated accommodation management plan for approval prior to first opening of the Winter Festival. This updated accommodation management plan should detail measures to be put in place by the applicant to regulate and monitor occupancy levels of the temporary accommodation area (Zone 1) to ensure adherence to the maximum occupancy figure cited in the proposed condition. The Planning Officer explained that the Spiegeltent was being replaced with the NoFit State circus tent this year, that there would be a mobile ATM on site, that the number of market stalls would be reduced from 48 to 38, that there would be three licensed premises and that there would be a 2 metre high plain screening around the back-of-house and temporary accommodation/caravan area.

     

    Representatives from the applicant then provided the following information in support of the application:

    ·         This would be the fourth time that the Winter Festival had been held in its current form.  It would be the last year of using the Hungerford Car Park.

    ·         The Festival would be managed by the Southbank Centre and a partner, with a dedicated team of project managers and site managers.  Facilities would be provided to the Southbank Centre’s usual standard.

    ·         The on-site accommodation was a new element that had been requested by the NoFit State circus.  The circus had an ethos of performers living and working together to establish a community.

    ·         The NoFit State circus was a world renowned contemporary circus that had been established for 30 years.  It provided a unique and immersive experience.

     

    In response to questions from Members, officers and the applicants provided the following information:

    ·         The Festival would not be affected by the Garden Bridge proposal as construction of the Garden Bridge development would not begin before the temporary Winter Festival permission expired on 31 January 2017.

    ·         The number of market stalls on Queens Walk had been reduced to improve the flow of people along the South Bank and Queens Walk.  Transport officers were satisfied with the pedestrian comfort levels.

    ·         The precise number of gas canisters to be stored on site in the dedicated storage compounds was not confirmed yet, but a health and safety assessment had already been completed.  Gas canisters had been used in previous years without  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.