Venue: Committee Room B6, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill SW2 1RW
Contact: Maria Burton Tel: 020 7926 8703 Email: MBurton2@lambeth.gov.uk
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.
There were none.
Land At Clarence Avenue Poynders Road Atkins Road King's Avenue New Park Road And Streatham Place Including Clapham Park Estate Adjacent Land And Agnes Riley Gardens (Thornton, Clapham Common, Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill)) 17/03733/FUL PDF 7 MB
1. Resolve to approve the application, subject to conditions, completion of a Section 106 agreement and any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London.
2. Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant 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 Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development 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 Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development considers reasonably necessary.
3. That if the Section 106 Agreement is not signed within 6 months of this committee the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development be given delegated powers to consider refusing the application in the absence of the legal agreement.
4. 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.
Case No. 17/03733/FUL (agenda item 2, page 1 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 2nd March, Tuesday 13th March and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the proposed land use and principles, the affordable housing provision, an environmental assessment, sustainable transport measures, parking, tree retention, housing standards, design and conservation. Members were also briefed on the phased history of the scheme and shown images of the site location and development plan. Officers then explained the planning obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions before recommending that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report. The Chair said that several site visits and technical briefings had taken place in relation to this application. Members then viewed a scale model of the proposed development.
Following the officer’s presentation, three local residents addressed the committee and raised the following concerns:
· The development was having a detrimental impact on the lives of long-term residents, some of who would be forced to move away from the area.
· The applicant, Metropolitan, had distributed erroneous information about the proposals and had misled the local community.
· No viable housing options had been presented to existing residents. A Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) valuation, based on highly conservative assumptions, prevented existing residents from obtaining comparable properties in the area.
· Metropolitan had produced an inaccurate record of the public consultation meetings that failed to capture the concerns of residents. They could not be trusted to complete such a development.
· Residents of Poynders Gardens Estate objected to the loss of the shops at Poynders Parade. These local shops had been the heart of the community and provided essential services for many elderly and vulnerable residents, including the Post Office and café before they had closed. The proposed retail units at Kings Avenue were too far for some people to walk to.
· The Post Office had provided Paypoint facilities, which many residents relied on to pay for gas and electricity. The loss of this facility at Poynders Parade was a significant inconvenience.
· The new buildings on Clapham Park had already increased the numbers of people using Agnes Riley Gardens. Residents were pleased there would be improvements to the park but wanted them to happen as soon as possible.
· The proposed planning application did not reflect the designs that had initially been consulted on and gained the support of local residents.
· The height and density of the development was excessive and would impact on neighbouring residential amenity.
· 100 new documents had been added to the planning portal on 6th March and residents had not had enough time to assess the changes.
· No new health centres were proposed and an expanded Clapham Park Group Practice would not be enough to cope with the ... view the full minutes text for item 2.
To note the Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions for November 2017.
The report was noted.