Agenda and minutes

Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 27 February 2018 7.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room B6, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill SW2 1RW

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

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Chair

    Minutes:

    MOVED by Councillor Anna Birley, SECONDED by Councillor Malcolm Clark

     

    RESOLVED: That Councillor Diana Morris be elected Chair.

2.

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:

With regard to application 17/06112/FUL (Land on the Westbury Estate), Councillor Nigel Haselden stated that as he had been involved in the application as a Ward Councillor and had a pre-determined view of the application, he would stand down from the Committee for the duration of the item and would speak in support of the application.  He would also stand down from the Committee for application 18/00010/S106 (22-29 Albert Embankment) as it was an associated application.

 

3.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 113 KB

To agree minutes of the meetings held on 23 January and 06 February 2018.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 23 January 2018 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

 

Regarding the minutes of 06 February 2018, Councillor Morris suggested the following amendments:

·         Remove ‘although Members could suggest one’ from the final bullet point on page 8.

·         The third bullet point on page 9 be amended to ‘Changing this in the future would require planning permission’.

·         The third bullet point on page 10 be amended to ‘Conditions 5 and 48’.

·         The ninth bullet point on page 10 be amended to ‘Consultation with neighbours on a CEMP( or indeed a Method of Demolition Statement) was not normally required as it related to the discharge of a condition, but, given the scale and impact of the development in this case, consultation would take place.’

·         The seventh bullet point on page 11 be amended to ‘Conditions 5 and 48’.

·         An amendment to the resolution on page 11 to ‘1 ii. Condition 5 iii. to be amended to read ‘high levels of noise, dust or vibration’ and Condition 5  vii should be amended to read ‘regarding dust, noise and vibration mitigation measures’.  Resolution 1 ii. of the published minutes to be amended to resolution 1 iii.

 

RESOLVED: That, subject to Councillor Morris’ amendments, the minutes of the meeting held on 06 February 2018 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of proceedings.

 

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

 

 

4.

41-45 Acre Lane (Brixton Hill) 17/03846/FUL pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    Recommendations:

     

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

     

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

     

    -       Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report; 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.

     

    3.    In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

     

    Minutes:

    Case No. 17/03846/FUL (agenda item three, page 17 of the agenda pack, page one of the addendum and page one 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 23 February 2018 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of the existing building, the erection of an up to five storey mixed use office and residential building with associated cycle and refuse storage.  Members were shown images of the site location, the proposed site plan and proposed floorplans.  The current use of the site, a coffee shop, was not a lawful use and was being investigated by Enforcement.  A previous application on the site was refused by the PAC in April 2017 because of its inappropriate scale, massing and design.  This application differed from the previously refused scheme in the removal of retail space, a change in configuration of balconies and reduced massing.  Members viewed samples of materials.

     

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

    ·         This was the third application on this site.  Following the refusal by the Committee in April 2017, the applicant had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, which had upheld the Committee’s decision.

    ·         The issues of bulk and scale had not been addressed.  The application was only one storey lower than the previously refused application, and was still taller than surrounding buildings.

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

    ·         The applicant had worked closely with officers following the prior refusal to develop an acceptable application.

    ·         Surrounding houses were 3.5 storeys tall, and the application was five storeys at its highest.  The proposal fit well within the wider Brixton context.

    ·         There would be good quality residential accommodation of a range of tenures, including houses and wheelchair accessible units.

    Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:

    ·         No treatment was planned on the blank facing walls, but texture and variety would be provided with brick choice and zinc massing.

    ·         The curved design to the corner was a good design feature, and would add interest and prominence to the corner.  Officers had been provided with additional detail of the glass box element of the corner, and felt that it would be a positive addition to the design.

    ·         The detailing of the balustrades would be agreed through conditions, and privacy and transparency would be considered when agreeing detailing.

    ·         Of the five affordable units, three would be shared ownership and two would be for social rent.  21% of homes in the application would be affordable, which the viability assessment had calculated was the maximum amount of affordable housing that could be viably delivered.

    ·         The existing value was calculated from the last lawful use.

    ·         There would be lightwells in the offices in the basement.  Each office unit would have some space on the ground floor.

    ·         Weekend operating hours for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

St Margaret's Church (Streatham Hill) 17/05541/FUL and 17/05542/LB pdf icon PDF 3 MB

    Recommendations:

    17/05541/FUL:

     

    1.    Resolve to approve the grant of conditional planning permission 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; 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.

     

    3.    Delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission in the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 1May 2018 (or an alternative timeframe agreed with the LPA) on the grounds that the development would have an unacceptable impact on – transport and highways, sustainability and availability of community facilities.

     

    4.    In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to Director of Planning, Transport and Development, 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.

     

    17/05542/LB:

     

    1.      Resolve to grant conditional listed building consent.

     

    2.      Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report.

     

    Minutes:

    Case Nos. 17/05541/FUL and 17/05542/LB (agenda item four, page 91 of the agenda pack, page five of the addendum and page two 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 23 February 2018 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of the existing church hall and the erection of three new buildings for residential and monastic accommodation.  Replacement community facilities would be provided in the church, and did not require planning permission.  The application was an enabling development in accordance with paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  Although no affordable housing was proposed, the s106 agreement would have a review mechanism.  Members were shown images of the site, the location of nearby conservation assets, and images of the proposals.

     

    The architect and supporters then provided the following information in support of the application:

    ·         The church was not suited to the current needs of the community, and had had declining use for 20 years.  The application would provide much-needed housing and would enable the church to have a viable future.

    ·         Open days and events had been held prior to the application, with over 500 responses received, the majority of which were positive.

    ·         The proposal was an enabling development, which would provide funding for the church remodelling.

    ·         The community space rental in the church would be affordable.

    ·         The s106 agreement would ensure that community space would be delivered prior to housing.

    ·         The application had been designed to follow the existing context in scale, frontage and materials. 

    ·         The proposal and associated internal works would encourage greater use of the church.  The community uses would address local needs.

    ·         The church did a large amount of work in the community, such as running the food bank, providing debt advice and youth work.

    Councillor Rezina Chowdhury then spoke in support of the application as Ward Councillor for Streatham Hill:

    ·         The church had been a part of the community for generations, and without this application, there was no prospect of development of the church.

    ·         Many residents were supportive of the proposal.

     

    Councillor Liz Atkins then spoke as Ward Councillor for Streatham Hill in support of the application:

    ·         The church had been part of the community for over 100 years, but had become underused in recent years.

    ·         There was a lack of community facilities in the area.

    ·         The application would enable the church to be brought back into community use.  Providing monastic accommodation would allow the church to provide more outreach work.

    A request to defer consideration of the application had been received and included in the second addendum.  Members agreed to proceed, in line with officers’ advice.

     

    Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:

    ·         The s106 agreement would be worded to prevent more than 75% of the private accommodation from being sold until the mezzanine floor of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Land on the Westbury Estate, Wandsworth Road (Clapham Town) 17/06112/FUL pdf icon PDF 3 MB

    Recommendations:

     

    1.    Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the provision of an undertaking or agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the planning obligations listed in this report.

     

    2.    In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

     

    3.    In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

     

    Minutes:

    Case No. 17/06112/FUL (agenda item six, page 177 of the agenda pack, page 10 of the addendum and page nine 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 23 February 2018 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the erection of two buildings of up to nine storeys and up to six storeys on two sites to provide 64 affordable homes, and associated cycle and refuse storage.  This application was separate to the outline scheme for the Westbury Estate, but would fit in to the masterplan.  Members were shown images of local heritage assets, the site context, proposed street scene, proposed public realm improvements and proposed floorplans.

     

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

    ·         The application should be deferred until the outline application for Westbury Estate could be presented to the Committee.  Separating the applications did not make sense.

    ·         The application would double the housing density of the estate.

    ·         The nearby primary school in St Rule Street would be impacted by construction traffic.  Residents would be affected by noise and pollution during construction.

    ·         There had been no viability reports, and objectors had not seen financial information relating to the application.

    ·         There were homes metres away from the proposed site.

     

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

    ·         The applicant had already delivered eight homes at social rent, community space and homes for older people in the borough.

    ·         The application would provide 64 socially rented homes, flexible commercial space and improvements to children’s playspace.

    ·         The development would be independent of the outline application for the Westbury Estate, but was designed to integrate with the rest of the estate.

    ·         The applicant had consulted with residents of the estate and wider stakeholders, attending six resident engagement panels and holding open events.

    Councillor Nigel Haselden then spoke as Ward Councillor for Clapham Town in support of the application:

    ·         The applicant had engaged with the community through the resident engagement programme and holding design training workshops.

    ·         64 new council homes would be provided and improvements would be made to amenity space and children’s playspace.

    ·         The garages that were to be demolished were lightly used.

    ·         The Construction Management Plan (CMP) should address potential impact on St Rule Street.

    With regard to the objectors’ request that consideration of the application be deferred to when the outline application was to be heard, officers stated that the two applications were independent of each other, with separate planning references, so could be considered separately. 

     

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

     

    RESOLVED, unanimously

     

    To PROCEED with the consideration of the application.

     

    [At 22:00 the Committee elected to proceed with the meeting for a maximum of a further 45 minutes in order to conclude the remaining matters of business.]

     

    Officers then provided the following information in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

22-29 Albert Embankment (Prince's) 18/00010/S106 pdf icon PDF 190 KB

    Recommendations:

     

    1.    Agree to the principle of the Deed of Variation pursuant to the Section 106 Agreement for 14/04757/FUL.

     

    2.    To delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Development to negotiate, agree and finalise the Deed of Variation pursuant to the Section 106 Agreement for 14/04757/FUL.

    Minutes:

    Case No. 18/00010/S106 (agenda item five, page 171 of the agenda pack and page ten of the addendum).

     

    The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 23 February 2018 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement to 22-29 Albert Embankment relating to off-site affordable housing units.  The application site for these homes had been selected as land on the Westbury Estate and planning terms had been agreed.

     

    Questions and discussion of this item was heard alongside item 7, Land on the Westbury Estate.

     

    It was MOVED by Councillor Clark, SECONDED by Councillor Birley, and

     

    RESOLVED, unanimously

     

    1. To agree to the principle of the Deed of Variation pursuant to the Section 106

    Agreement for 14/04757/FUL.

     

    2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Development to negotiate, agree and finalise the Deed of Variation pursuant to the Section 106 Agreement for

    14/04757/FUL.