Agenda and minutes

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

2.

68-70 Clapham High Street, SW4 (Clapham Town ward) pdf icon PDF 316 KB

3.

1 Highland Road, SE19 (Gipsy Hill ward) pdf icon PDF 301 KB

4.

360-366 Coldharbour Lane London, SW9 (Coldharbour ward) pdf icon PDF 397 KB

    Case ref: 09/01222/FUL/DC_EMR/16394

     

    Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions

    Minutes:

    In introducing the report, officers advised that the application before the Committee attempted to regularise breaches of planning controls arising from the implementation of a previous scheme and that it was recommended for approval subject to condition, a section 106 agreements. It was also stated that the wording of the conditions in the officer’s report was to be amended to allow the applicant two months to submit any details if the scheme was approved. Members were also advised that an additional standard condition regarding the stopping up of the crossovers on Coldharbour Lane would be added and that the condition regarding renewable energy would be deleted as this was now addressed in the Section 106 Agreement.

     

    Occupants of a neighbouring property addressed the meeting raising concerns about the impact of the development on residential amenity, a sense of enclosure, overlooking, light spillage from illuminated stairwells, falling debris and encroachment on private land.

     

    The Applicant’s agent addressed the meeting and drew attention to conditions 4 and 7 which addressed many of the concerns raised by neighbours.  He advised that the previous developer had been responsible for the disturbance caused to neighbours whilst works were carried out.  The applicants had taken measures to minimise any disturbance to residents and there was potential to alter the landscaping.

     

    During the course of discussion, Members made the following observations:

     

    • Was there any scope to improve the current building façade which was bland and uninteresting?
    • Was the internal courtyard space sealed off to ensure privacy?
    • Could the stairwells be glazed with opaque glass to reduce glare?
    • Were officers confident that the development was not encroaching on private land?
    • What play space provision was made

     

    In response officers stated that there was potential to add Juliet balconies to the front façade.  The neighbours wanted to retain the boundary wall to avoid disturbing recently planted flower beds and new trellises.  However plant beds on the other side of the boundary would prevent overlooking. It was advised that there was potential to reword the existing conditions to provide greater certainty as to the type of screening required. It was advised that a condition could be added to reduce glare from the stairwell. Officers advised that encroachment was a civil matter and that the applicants had signed a certificate on submission of the application advising that all the land to which the development relates was in their ownership. No playspace was provided as part of the previous scheme. Officers advised that Section 106 contribution of £350,000 had been negotiated with the developer which was considerably more than the £60,000 Section 106 contribution which was agreed with the previous owners of the site.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Toren Smith, SECONDED by Councillor Nigel Haselden

     

    That that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report (with minor changes to condition/additional conditions as follows:

    ·              Amend wording of conditions to require 8 week compliance due to Christmas period.

     

    ·              Add a condition regarding the stopping up of the crossovers to Coldharbour  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

129 Valley Road, SW16 (Streatham Wells ward) pdf icon PDF 7 MB

    Case ref: 09/03052/FUL/AB/40927

     

    Recommendation: Refuse permission

     

    Minutes:

    In introducing the report, officers advised that the application was

    recommended for refusal.

     

    The applicants addressed the meeting and stated that the site was an ideal location for the development and that the business would employ local people. The location of the buildings and canopy would make the business more visible to passers by.

     

    The Committee agreed that the building design was not in keeping with the area. Some members of the Committee were concerned that the site was not a suitable location for a car rental business as the carriageway was a busy narrow road with a school nearby in a predominantly residential area.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Toren Smith, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and

     

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

     

6.

13-19 Knight's Hill, SE27 (Knight's Hill ward) pdf icon PDF 345 KB

    Case ref: 08/01660/FUL/AB/19370

     

    Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions

     

    Minutes:

    Following the officer introduction, representatives from Emmaus, an organisation providing housing and support for the homeless, addressed the Committee.  Concerns were raised about the close proximity of the development to Emmaus’ residential units as many of the residents were rehabilitating after alcohol abuse and the close proximity of a café/bar would undermine their recovery.  The development would also detract from the active frontage of the Emmaus building and was heavily reliant on passing trade. 

     

    A local resident also addressed the meeting supporting the application which would bring much needed regeneration to the Norwood Town Centre area

     

    The applicant addressed the meeting and stated that he was very supportive of the work of Emmaus and wanted to run a business which was supported by and at the heart of the community.  He was happy to accept any conditions/and or implement measures to minimise disturbance to residents.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Toren Smith and SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer

     

    That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and revised/additional conditions to:

    • Protect residential amenity
    • Secure sound insulation to external envelope of unit (not just between ground and first floor).
    • An exit management plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development (to minimise noise and disturbance to neighbours when patrons leave the premises)

     

    For – 4

    Against – 0

    Abstentions - 1

     

    RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and revised/additional conditions to:

    • Protect residential amenity
    • Secure sound insulation to external envelope of unit (not just between ground and first floor).
    • An exit management plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development (to minimise noise and disturbance to neighbours when patrons leave the premises)

     

7.

136 Acre Lane, SW2 (Ferndale ward) pdf icon PDF 320 KB

    Case ref: 09/03391/FUL/ASP/19119

     

    Recommendation: Refuse permission

     

    Minutes:

    In introducing the report, officers advised that the Licensing sub-committee had granted a premises license for the supply of alcohol and late night refreshment the previous day.  The Legal advisor drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that Councillor Brian Palmer was one of three members who had determined the application for a premises licence.  However this did not preclude Councillor Palmer from participating in the debate on the application before the Planning Applications Committee.

     

    The applicant addressed the meeting and advised that the application for a premises licence had been revised to protect residential amenity and prevent disturbance.

     

    A local resident also addressed the meeting supporting the officer recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds that the application had not been well thought through and the purpose of the change of use was unclear.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Toren Smith and SECONDED by Councillor Nigel Haselden

     

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

     

    For – 4

    Against – 0

    Abstentions - 1

     

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

     

8.

Tesco, 13 Acre Lane, SW2 (Brixton Hill ward) pdf icon PDF 318 KB

9.

Penzance House, Seaton Close and 6 & 7 Tavy Close (Prince's ward) pdf icon PDF 289 KB

10.

Agnes Riley Gardens, Poynders Road, SW12 (Thornton ward) pdf icon PDF 305 KB

    Case ref: 09/02920/RG3/CSN

     

    Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions

     

    Minutes:

    Councillor Diana Morris addressed the meeting in her capacity as a Ward Member and welcomed the much needed improvements to the pond.  Although residents had been consulted about the improvements, there was uncertainty over the extent to which residents’ feedback had been taken into account in the final proposals before the Committee.  There were concerns about the safety of the boardwalks and an informative was suggested to allay any safety concerns.

     

    Councillor Morris then withdrew from the meeting.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Toren Smith, SECONDED by Councillor Nigel Haselden and

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report including an informative in respect of child safety.

     

11.

Planning Appeal Decisions Received From 01.08.09 - 31.08.09 pdf icon PDF 70 KB