Agenda and minutes

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.

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:

Councillor Joanne Simpson stated that as a Councillor for a neighbouring ward, she had received representations from residents, but that she had directed all residents to her ward colleague, Councillor Amos, and would approach the decision with an open mind.  She also declared in the interests of transparency that she was married to Councillor Jack Hopkins, who would be speaking in objection to the application as a Ward Councillor, but this would not influence her decision-making.

 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 139 KB

To agree minutes of the meeting held on 10 April and 17 April 2018.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 10 April and 17 April 2018 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.

Gasholder Station, Kennington Oval (Oval) 17/05772/EIAFUL and 17/05773/LB pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    Recommendations:

    1.    Resolve to grant planning permission and listed building consent for the reasons given in the report and subject to:

    a.    referring the application to the Mayor of London and any direction by the Mayor of London;

    b.    referring the application to the Secretary of State and any direction by the Secretary of State

    c.    the conditions set out in this report; and

    d.    completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the planning obligations listed in this report.

     

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

    a.    Consider any direction from the Mayor of London and to make any consequential or necessary changes to the recommended conditions as set out in this report;

    b.    Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Assistant Director of Planning and Development considers reasonably necessary; and Issue the permission.

    c.    Negotiate, agree and finalise an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the planning obligations listed in this report.

     

    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.

     

    4.    In the event that the s106 is not signed within 4 months of committee (or an alternative timeframe as shall be agreed between the applicant and the council), delegated authority is given to officers to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report and to defend any subsequent appeal.

    Minutes:

    Case Nos. 17/05772/EIAFUL and 17/05773/LB (agenda item 3, page 19 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 08 June and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included removal and restoration of the listed Gasholder 1, the provision of a mixed use development with public realm improvements, on-site and off-site workspace, a community space and 738 residential units, 236 of which would be affordable, the proposed height, scale and massing of the proposal, the departure from policy ED1 (Key Industrial Business Areas), the planning obligations included in the Section 106 Agreement, the impact on heritage assets, the daylight and sunlight impacts to existing properties, the impact on local transport and the proposed measures to mitigate the impact of the development.  This application was the result of work over several years and the proposal was part of the masterplan for the area.  Members were shown images of the site context, the heritage assets and the vehicle access and servicing plans.

     

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

    ·         Objectors brought an unverified model and queried the images used in the officer’s presentation. 

    ·         There would be little or no sunlight in the communal amenity space, public realm and children’s playspace, limiting the species of plants that could be used in landscaping.

    ·         The proposal would not provide long term benefits to the area and would set a precedent.

    ·         The consultation had been based on the original proposal of building heights of 3 to 8 storeys, rather than the 10 to 18 storeys in the application.

    ·         The application was not in accordance with the masterplan and breached the KIBA designation.

    ·         An online petition had received 1400 signatures and over 90% of responses on the planning portal were objections.

    ·         The Kennington Conservation Area statement from 2012 stated that care should be taken with applications in or adjoining the Conservation Area.  The application would result in buildings up to three times as tall as some buildings in Montford Place.  The application should be refused and be modified to be in line with the requirements of the Conservation Area statement.

     

    The applicant, agent and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:

    ·         The site was recognised worldwide as part of the view from the Oval cricket ground, and the application would bring it back into use while referencing the area’s industrial heritage.

    ·         A third of the site would be new public realm, with tree-lined routes.  The site had been closed off to the public for over 150 years.

    ·         1,000 jobs would be created through the office and co-working space.

    ·         A new townscape would be created, with minimal overlooking.

    ·         Significant benefits to the community would be provided through the development.

    ·         The application was the result of over four years’ work with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.