Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Antoinette Duhaney; Tel: 020 7926 3133 Email: 

No. Item


Declarations of Interest


Minutes of Previous Meeting (12.10.10 & 14.12.10) pdf icon PDF 82 KB

    To agree the minutes of the meetings of 12 October and 14 December as an accurate record of these meetings.


    Additional documents:


    RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 12 October 2010 and 14 December 2010 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings subject to the following amendments:


    14 December 2010


    Item 3 – Norfolk Mansions, 108 Streatham High Road, SW16


    Paragraph 14 line 2 – delete the word ‘unit’ after ‘unviable’.


    Item 6 – The London Eye, Queens Walk, SE1


    Paragraph 1 – 6th bullet point to read ‘Data on user numbers


    Item 7 – Jubilee Gardens, SE1


    End paragraph in brackets – add a full stop after ‘weathering’


    Item 8 – 68-70 Clapham High Street, SW4


    Paragraph 2, line 3 delete the word ‘office’ and insert ‘officer’.


Knight's Hill House, 210 Knight's Hill, SE27 (Knight's Hill ward) pdf icon PDF 386 KB

    Case ref: 10/02504/FUL


    Recommendation: Grant conditional permission



    (Case No. 10/02504/FUL) (Page 71 of the Agenda)


    Responding to a question regarding discussions at pre–application stage, officers confirmed that the plans presented at that stage had been similar to the final application but that there had been a considerable amount of additional information submitted, including an external noise impact assessment.


    The meeting was addressed by 3 residents who made the following points:


    • A petition against the proposal with 259 signatures from residents had been submitted. 
    • The proximity of neighbouring properties to the area where training would be carried out every other day as the nearest properties were 2 metres from the site and the next nearest 15 metres.. It was stated that this would be during the working day but there were still a number of people who were at home all day.
    • In addition when spraying took place this could be up to 4 metres high and would not be contained by the proposed 3 metre high wall.
    • The Emergency Generator would be noisy.
    • The proposed tower would be an eyesore.
    • This would be a new fire station in an established residential area. 
    • There were issues with road safety as Knight’s Hill was a busy, narrow thoroughfare and had a dreadful road safety record. There were particular difficulties when there was inclement weather and there would be extra congestion.
    • Turning on of sirens would disturb residents, particularly at night.
    • The proposal was that it would be a direct replacement for the present station in West Norwood but it was understood that ‘resilience vehicles’ would be based there which was not the case currently at West Norwood and the application was therefore based on a false premise.
    • They questioned why planning permission had not been sought for alterations to the present premises in Norwood Road.


    In addition photographs of Fire Brigade Vehicles and operations at another fire station were submitted to members of the Committee.


    Councillor Jane Pickard, Ward Councillor for Knight’s Hill Ward, addressed the meeting. She raised the question of why the present station needed to be vacated. It was stated that a conversion was not possible because the existing building was listed. She considered this reason to be unconvincing as in March 2010 new guidance had been issued regarding listed Fire Stations which gave the Fire Authority more leeway. She felt that the new guidance had not been taken on board. In addition it was likely that the present premises would remain derelict until they fell down from disuse.


    It had been agreed that the Fire Station would have a residents meeting room but this had subsequently been ruled out and she questioned why this was.


    If the application was agreed she asked that there be stricter conditions on noise, particularly at weekends as it was possible that training would take place on Saturdays and Sundays.


    Andy Hickmott, Assistant Commissioner London Fire Brigade, addressed the meeting. He stated that the current station had been built in 1914 and was now listed and in the highest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.


195 Gleneldon Road, SW16 (Streatham Wells ward) pdf icon PDF 294 KB

    Case ref: 10/03257/FUL


    Officer recommendation: Refuse planning permission



    (Case No. 10/03257/FUL) (Page 53 of the Agenda)


    In introducing the report officers referred to the fact that the applicant had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s failure to determine the application within the prescribed 8 weeks time limit and therefore the officer recommendation was that the word ‘minded’ be added.


    The meeting was addressed by a local resident who also represented the Stanthorpe Triangle Residents’ Association who stated that there was a concentration of bedsits in the area and a decrease in the number of family houses. This was bad for the community, creating a transient population and was against current council policy. It was pointed out that the property opposite comprised 5x2 bed flats. This had been agreed following a successful appeal. The increasing density of population was resulting in rising traffic congestion. The proposed development was intrusive and not in keeping with the area. There was also concern in that the Certificate of Lawful Development had been granted shortly before the present application had been made.


    David Gandhi, applicant, addressed the meeting. The property was 190 metres square and there should be no restriction on the conversion. There was a mix of unit sizes (3x2 bed flats and 1x1 bed flat) and that should be acceptable. The scale of the proposed extensions were modest. As regards the house opposite the original building had been demolished whereas this proposal would retain the original building and provide 4 good quality units. The extensions were only to the side and rear; it was a very large plot and would accommodate 4 families. He had submitted previous similar applications that had been refused and subsequently upheld on appeal and this property had more land space than other sites. He also stated that all the proposed rooms were above the minimum standards.


    Councillor Alexander Davies, Ward Councillor for Streatham Wells addressed the meeting and stated that he supported the residents and that there were clear planning grounds on which to refuse the application.


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


    RESOLVED: That the Committee be minded to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.


Hampton House, 20 Albert Embankment, SE1 (Princes ward) pdf icon PDF 330 KB

    Case ref: 10/03287/FUL/DSM/17941


    Recommendation: Approve subject to a satisfactory Deed of Variation of Section 106 Agreement



    (Case No. 10/03287/FUL/DSM/17941) (Page 21 of the Agenda)


    In introducing the report officers explained that they were recommending that in the wording for condition 14 the phrase “the relevant works” be substituted by the words “above ground works”. They also drew attention to the addendum circulated at the meeting which stated that as regards paragraph 7.5.5 of the report the applications referred to had not been determined. In addition in paragraph 9.0 the date in recommendation ii) should read 2011 not 2010.


    The Chair expressed concern regarding some of the proposed conditions in that she considered that the phrase “the relevant works” should be substituted by the words “above ground works”. Matthew Gibbs, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the proposal.


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




    i)                    That the permission be re-issued inclusive of the conditions as set out in the report and the amendments below, but subject to the satisfactory completion of a Deed of Variation of the s.106 agreement (inclusive of an amendment to Schedule 7 to allow for the submission of a scheme for public art prior to works above ground as opposed to prior to implementation); or


    ii)                  In the event that the Deed of Variation is not completed by 24th January 2011, then the Head of Development Control is authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:


                “In the absence of a completed Deed of Variation transferring the obligations of the s.106 agreement pertaining to application 07/04264/FUL onto this new consent, the Local Planning Authority can not be guaranteed that the obligations conferred upon the developer that were considered necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms would be delivered”.


    Revised conditions


    7, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 30 - where the phrase “the relevant works” is to be substituted by the words “above ground works”.