Agenda and minutes

Planning Applications Committee 1 - Tuesday 15 March 2011 7.00 pm

Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW

Contact: Antoinette Duhaney; Tel: 020 7926 3133 Email:  aduhaney@lambeth.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interest

    Minutes:

    Officers declared that they sometimes use the café at South Lambeth Road (Item 8 below) but that this had not affected their report or recommendation..

     

2.

Minutes of Previous Meeting (15.02.11) pdf icon PDF 87 KB

    To agree the minutes of the meeting of 15 February 2011 as an accurate record of the meeting.

     

    Minutes:

    RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 15.02.11 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings subject to additional wording being included in Minute 4 – Plot at rear of Brixton Garage, to reflect the Committee’s wishes for the parks and open spaces Section 106 contribution to be prioritised for Hillside Gardens.

     

3.

Plot Bounded by Parry Street and Bondway and 7 - 93 Wandsworth Road (Oval ward) pdf icon PDF 847 KB

    • View the background to item 3.

    Case ref: 10/02060/FUL

     

    Recommendation: Grant permission, subject to conditions, a Section 106 Agreement and referral to the Mayor and the Secretary of State.

     

    Minutes:

    RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

     

4.

Claremont East Housing Estate (Streatham Hill ward) pdf icon PDF 477 KB

    • View the background to item 4.

    Case ref: 10/04147/FUL/SDI/38112

     

    Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement

     

    Minutes:

    In presenting the application to the Committee, officers drew attention to the addendum sheet.  During the course of discussions the following observations were made:

     

    ·        There was little mention of the impact on Christ Church, a Grade 1 listed building and this was disappointing given that other less important buildings which were not listed had been mentioned.

     

    ·        It was felt that the Section 106 contribution for parks and open spaces should be used for a children’s play space within the boundaries of the estate and located close to the residential units.

     

    ·        Further details were sought on the location and amount of cycle parking provision

     

    ·        Where were the rooms that would be affected by loss of light located

     

    The applicant addressed the meeting and reported that the scheme had been prepared in close consultation with Council officers.  Land would be purchased from the Council with the intention of providing 100% social rented housing.  All possible measures would be taken to protect the viability of the scheme.  However, due to uncertainty over the availability of grant subsidy and other factors, the applicant could not commit to 100% social rented housing. A cascade mechanism was proposed whereby the tenure split could be altered to ensure viability of the scheme with a worst case scenario of 100% intermediate provision.

     

    Councillor Jeremy Clyne addressed the meeting in his capacity as Ward Councillor.  He made a request for the Section 106 contribution to be used for Hillside Gardens.  He had concerns regarding the relation of Block B to Balcombe House and impact on residential amenity in terms of loss of light which would be exacerbated by the new development.  It was disingenuous to suggest that the overhanging balconies at Balcombe House already reduced the amount of light and that the proposed development would have little impact.

     

    In response to questions and comments, officers stated that Christ Church was not mentioned in the officer report because the proposed development was not considered to affect the setting of Christ Church as there were other buildings between the site and Christ Church.  Site A was outside the public realm as it would not be visible beyond the site.  A representative from Housing, Regeneration & Environment stated that the Parks & Open Spaces element of the Section 106 contribution would be used for a fully enclosed playspace for under 12s within the site of the proposed development.  Planning officers suggested that any surpluses could be cascaded to other projects/ such as Hillside Gardens.

     

    Officers stated that any assurances given by the Council in respect of the previous scheme could not be taken into account as financial commitments were not a material planning consideration.  Similarly the allocation of capital receipts was not a planning consideration.  The new scheme would have a similar relationship to neighbouring buildings and any impact would be minimal.  The Coach House currently overlooked the derelict garages but there would be no loss of amenity arising from the development given the distance to the Coach House.  Officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

4 Pinfold Road, SW16 (Streatham Wells ward) pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    • View the background to item 5.

    Case ref: 10/02660/FUL/AB/41620

     

    Recommendation: Refuse permission

     

    Minutes:

    In presenting the report, officers stated that the Pinfold Road had been designated within the Core Strategy as experiencing conversion stress.  The property had been unlawfully converted 5 years ago and enforcement officers had inspected the property and confirmed that the property was now used as a single dwelling home.

     

    Neighbouring residents addressed the meeting supporting the officer recommendation to refuse the application.  Residents had campaigned to get the property reinstated as a large family unit. Basement excavation had been undertaken to increase the number of habitable rooms.  The unlawful conversion had increased parking stress which was already very severe on a street where 60 single family homes had been converted.  If the application was approved, this would lead to loss of residential amenity for future occupants and neighbours in terms of increased noise and litter and loss of light.

     

    Councillor Daphne Marchant addressed the Committee in her capacity as Ward Member echoing the sentiments of objectors and urging Members to refuse the application.

     

    In response to questions, officers stated that although the application was submitted before the new conversion policy within the Core Strategy was formally adopted by the Council, it was in the gift of the Committee to consider the application in the context of the newly adopted policy.  Furthermore, the Committee would need to justify any decisions which went against the Core Strategy.

     

    The Committee supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application and sought assurances that the property would be reinstated as a single family unit.  Officers were also asked to investigate whether the basement excavation was lawful and add an informative that in the event of a successful appeal, the Local Planning Authority would not wish to see the basement used as a habitable room.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SEONDED by Councillor Julia Memery and unanimously

     

    RESOLVED: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

     

6.

Former Lilian Baylis School Site, Lollard Street, SE11 (Princes ward) (Second despatch) pdf icon PDF 373 KB

    • View the background to item 6.

    Case ref: 10/04389/RG4/DC_JWO/15118

     

    Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions

     

    Special circumstances justifying urgent consideration

     

    The Chair is of the opinion that although this report has not been available for at least five clear days before the meeting, nonetheless it should be considered now as a matter of urgency because the application has to be determined prior to the end of the financial year if funding is to be available to provide the “community hub” at this site. The consequences of delay to the next meeting would mean that the applicant would be unable to implement the proposed development within this financial year and as such the funding would be lost, thereby preventing the provision of the “community hub”.

     

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    In presenting the report, officers advised that the site was a listed building but was not within a conservation area. 

     

    The applicant addressed the meeting urging Members to approve the scheme which would improve facilities on the site and provide opportunities to access external funding opportunities.

     

    In response to questions, officers advised that the proposed development would rationalize the current use.  English Heritage had requested a Masterplan to ensure a beneficial development and although there was a potential funding gap, it would be unreasonable to penalize the developers but that an informative was proposed to indicate that any future proposal to develop the site for example for residential purposes could require a Section 106 obligation to help fund refurbishment of the listed building.  There were not details on the viability of redeveloping the entire site but the proposed development would offer short term benefits.

     

    The applicant stated that lighting would be switched of when not in use and there would be 2 lux lighting levels at the site boundary. The procurement process had been extended for the pavilion and 2 storey building which would meet all sustainability requirements.  If the Committee was minded to approve the scheme, the applicant was willing to accept reduced hours of operation.

     

    Members had concerns regarding over intensive use of the site, the potential for noise and disturbance, management of the site and drainage.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling and unanimously

     

    RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, additional/amended conditions and informatives in respect of:

     

    ·           Conditions 8 and 10 respectively being varied to 7am to 11pm and 9am to 10pm on Sundays with floodlights being switched off one hour before closure;

    ·           Add noise emission condition;

    ·           Condition 5 to include “and management” of the site;

    ·           Amend condition 9 (lighting) to add ref to controls.

    ·           Add informative regarding 2 lux lighting level at the site boundary

    ·           Add condition requiring a surface water drainage scheme as requested by the Environment Agency.

7.

Hampton House, 20 Albert Embankment, SE1 (Princes ward) pdf icon PDF 361 KB

    • View the background to item 7.

    Case ref: 10/03882/FUL/DSM/17941

     

    Recommendation: Grant permission, subject to conditions, a Section 106 Agreement and referral to the Mayor

     

    Minutes:

    In presenting the report, officers drew attention to the proposed amendments to conditions 2 & 18.

     

    The applicant advised that no changes had been made to the layout and design of the previously approved scheme.  However the affordable housing provision had been reassessed in the context of the changing financial climate.

     

    Councillor Lorna Campbell addressed the meeting in her capacity as Ward Member and flagged up the need for the Section 106 contribution to achieve the widest possible community benefit in close liaison with residents and Councillors.

     

    In considering the merits of the scheme, Members flagged up the need for phased implementation and prioritising Durning Library and Spring Gardens in the Section 106 Agreement.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, a section 106 Agreement and the following:

    ·        amendments to conditions 7, 8,11,14,16 and 30 allowing for phased implementation,

     

    ·        amendments to conditions 2 and 18 to reflect previously discharged conditions as itemised in the addendum report;and that local Councillors are consulted about how the Section 106 obligations for non specific aspects are to be spent:

    ·        Libraries Section 106 contribution to be prioritised for Durning library;

    ·        Parks & open space contribution to be prioritised for Spring Gardens with a cascade allowing for spend on other local open space in the north of the Borough if the money is not required for Spring Gardens

     

    For - 4

    Against - 0

    Abstentions - 1

     

    CARRIED

     

    RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report as varied below, a section 106 Agreement as recommended in the report but varied so that

    •  Local Councillors are consulted about how the Section 106 obligations for non specific aspects are to be spent:

    • Libraries Section 106 contribution to be prioritised for Durning library;

    • Parks & open space contribution to be prioritised for Spring Gardens with a cascade allowing for spend on other local open space in the north of the Borough if the money is not required for Spring Gardens

     

    • Amendments to conditions 7, 8,11,14,16 and 30 allowing for phased implementation and amendments to conditions 2 and 18 to reflect previously discharged conditions as itemised in the addendum report

     

8.

39 South Lambeth Road, SW8 (Oval ward) pdf icon PDF 222 KB

    • View the background to item 8.

    Case ref: 10/03443/FUL/RMF/15386

     

    Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions

     

    Minutes:

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and unanimously

     

    RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition in respect of the disposal of cooking oils.

     

9.

1 Glyn Street, SE11 (Princes ward) pdf icon PDF 192 KB

    • View the background to item 9.

    Case ref: 10/03895/S106/ADI/8301

     

    Recommendation: Agree variation to Section 106 Agreement.

     

    Minutes:

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and unanimously

     

    RESOLVED: That the variation to the Section 106 Agreement be approved.

     

10.

Planning Appeals Decisions Received from 1 - 30 November 2010 & 1 - 31 December 2010 pdf icon PDF 86 KB

11.

Planning Enforcement Appeals Decisions Received from 1 - 30 November 2010 & 1 - 31 December 2010 pdf icon PDF 55 KB