Agenda and minutes

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

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

Items
No. Item

1.

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:

Although not a pecuniary interest, Councillor Clark stated that he knew one of the objectors to 74 Roupell Street in a professional capacity, but that he had not had any discussions with her regarding the application and was satisfied that he was able to make an objective decision.

 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 144 KB

To agree minutes of the meeting held on 07 November 2017.

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Morris requested that in item three (Kennington Green), the first bullet point on page five be amended to include ‘The choice of brick design would result in the mortar appearing irregular.’

 

RESOLVED:  That, subject to Councillor Morris’ amendments, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 07 November 2017 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.

74 Roupell Street (Bishops) 17/01398/FUL and 17/01399/LB pdf icon PDF 4 MB

    Officer’s recommendations:

    1          Resolve to grant conditional planning permission (A) and listed building consent (B) subject to completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the planning obligations listed in this report.

     

    2          Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and      Development to:

     

    ·           Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Development (in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair) considers reasonably necessary; and

    ·           Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms as the Director of Planning, Transport and Development (in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair) considers reasonably necessary.

     

    3          Delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development to refuse planning permission in the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 31st January 2018 on the grounds that the development would have an unacceptable impact on transport and highways and emergency services.

     

    4          In the event that the Committee resolves to refuse planning permission and listed building consent there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to Officer, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a Section 106 Agreement in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

     

    Minutes:

    Case Nos. 17/01398/FUL and 17/01399/LB (agenda item three, page 11 of the agenda pack, page 1 of the addendum and page 1 of the second addendum).

     

    The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 24 November and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of the existing wall, railings and gates with the erection of a two storey extension, the impact on the Waterloo and Roupell Street Conservation Areas, the design of the application and the public benefits of the proposal. Members were shown images of the existing site, the proposed elevations, scale and massing, the proposed footprint of the site compared with the original infants’ hall, the existing and proposed waste storage and proposed views of the site.  Proposed materials were shown to Members.

     

    Following the officer’s presentation, the objectors raised the following concerns:

    ·         Roupell Street was a remarkably homogenous area, with its importance having been recognised through its designation as a Conservation Area.  The harm to heritage assets would not be outweighed by public benefits. Insufficient consideration had been given to the impact of the proposal on the local area.

    ·         The design was too assertive and was not respectful to the character of the area. 

    ·         The courtyard provided much-needed green space and mature trees would be lost if the application was approved.  The argument that the proposal would restore the original quadrangle was unconvincing.

    ·         Residents could make only limited changes to their homes, and it was not clear why the school should be able to make such substantial changes.

    ·         A petition against the proposal had received 11,000 signatures.

    ·         The extension was not necessary for the school’s success.

    ·         The proposal would break up the existing context of the street.

     

    The applicant then provided the following information in support of the application:

    ·         The applicant had occupied the site since 1992, providing English language classes to students from across the world.

    ·         Student numbers would not increase as a result of the application.

    ·         The application would improve facilities in an exemplary, contemporary building and an award-winning architect had designed the proposal.

    ·         The history of the area had been researched and the design had been developed to reference the architectural heritage of the site.

    ·         Extensive consultation had been conducted through the application process.

     

    Councillor Ben Kind spoke as the Ward Councillor for Bishops objecting to the application, stating that:

    ·         Pre-application advice from officers in 2016 had raised concerns regarding the amenity impact of Roupell Street as a result of the loss of open space from the courtyard.

    ·         There was currently an issue with students congregating on the pavement, which the application would exacerbate.

    ·         Officers had opposed the application in principle in 2016, but there was no mention of this in the report.

    ·         The application breached policies Q2, Q10 and EN1.

     

    Councillor Kevin Craig then spoke against the application as Ward Councillor for Bishops, raising the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Appeal and Enforcement Decisions July 2017 pdf icon PDF 299 KB