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:

With regard to application 18/03773/FUL (Graphite Square), Councillor Simpson stated that she would stand down from the Committee for the duration of the item as she had a pre-determined view and would be speaking in objection to the application.

 

 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 114 KB

To agree minutes of the meeting held on 09 October 2018.

 

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 09 October 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.

Graphite Square (Prince's) 18/03773/FUL pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    Officer’s 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 containing the planning obligations listed in this report 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:

     

    a.     Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

    b.    Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes 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 the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report and PAC minutes, 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.

     

    4.     In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within (6) months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report and the PAC minutes.

     

    Minutes:

    Councillor Joanne Simpson stood down from the Committee for the duration of the item.

     

    Case No. 18/03773/FUL (agenda item 3, page 7 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 09 November and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of existing office, warehouse and church buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide residential, office and replacement community space, improvements to public realm within and outside the site, the provision of 35% affordable housing and the changes made to the application compared to the previously refused application.  These changes included increased separation distances from 79 Vauxhall Walk and a reconfiguration of the block heights to reduce the height of Block C.  Members were shown images of the site and its context, conservation area designations and the existing buildings on the site, the proposed uses for each floor of the proposed development and comparison images of the proposed and refused developments.  The Council’s daylight and sunlight consultant provided Members with information on the daylight and sunlight impacts that the development would have on neighbouring residential properties., He advised that while there would be improvements in Vertical Sky Component (VSC) levels compared to the refused scheme there would still be significant reductions in light, however these were considered acceptable given the minimal massing currently on site and the urban context.

     

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

    ·         The community wanted the site to be developed, but not in such a way that would negatively affect residents.

    ·         Solar panels had recently been installed on nearby residential blocks for a co-operative solar panel scheme.  There had been no consideration of the potential impact on the panels.

    ·         Nearby buildings were five storeys tall, and this development would be significantly higher than neighbouring buildings.

    ·         Although kitchens under 13m2 had been considered ‘uninhabitable’ when assessing daylight and sunlight impacts, residents spent a lot of time in their kitchens.  Residents’ living rooms would face the development, with associated impacts on the light received to these rooms.

    ·         The development would not benefit local residents.

    ·         The length of construction time could increase pollution in the immediate area.

     

    Kate Hoey then spoke in opposition to the application as the MP for Vauxhall, stating that:

    ·         This application was a new application, so the reasons for refusing the previous scheme were not applicable.

    ·         The height of the proposed development did not match surrounding blocks and had been justified based on the height of nearby Hayman’s Point, although this development was one storey taller.

    ·         The tallest element had been moved from Block C to Block A.

    ·         The surrounding area was predominantly low-rise, and the development would be imposing.

    ·         Limited changes had been made to the application, with the building line being moved only one metre further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Surrey County Cricket Club, Kennington Oval (Oval) 18/01799/FUL pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    Officer’s 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 containing the planning obligations listed in this report and any direction as may be received from referral to the Health and Safety Executive.

     

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

     

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

    b.      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 the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report and PAC minutes, 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.

     

    4.    In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within 3 months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report and the PAC minutes.

     

     

    Minutes:

    Case No. 18/01799/FUL (agenda item 4, page 101 of the agenda pack, page 5 of the addendum and page 2 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 09 Novemberand the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of the existing Lock Laker stand and the erection of a three tier spectator stand and linked four storey buildings for a concourse, club shop, ticket office and hospitality, the net increase of 2,303 seats, the relationship with heritage assets, the application history of the site and proposed changes to the footpath which were reserved by condition.  Members were shown images of the site and its context, proposed floorplans and views, comparisons between the application and previously approved but unimplemented schemes and the proposed materials.  Members viewed samples of the proposed materials with the Conservation and Design Officer and were advised that the final choice of materials was reserved under condition.

     

    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.

     

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

    ·         This was the third application for the site.  The applicant was a long-time occupier of the site and wanted broad support for the application, having conducted discussions and consultations.

    ·         The application would improve facilities on match days with more toilets and catering, and non-match day events through the provision of space for conferences.  The applicant hosted 1,500 non-match day events per year.

     

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

    ·         Construction traffic would enter the site from the south, while traffic for the gasholder site would enter from the northeast.

    ·         Kennington Oval was closed on major match days to ensure pedestrian safety.

    ·         The cycle hire docking station was adjacent to the site and would be retained.  Six Sheffield stands would be provided, but given the low modal share for cycling on match days, more cycle parking was not considered necessary.

    ·         The lift shaft would be higher than the rest of the building to enable access to the upper tier of the stand.  It was set back from the building line by seven metres and the contrasting style would make it a feature.  The signage shown on the images was indicative and was not part of the application.

    ·         Issues around cyclists’ access on match days would have to be addressed separately to the application, as it was part of the safety management plan.  However, an informative could be added to ask the applicant to consider these issues.

    ·         Condition 9 required a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which could control the movement of large vehicles.  Given consent had been granted at the gasholder site, it would be expected that the CEMP for this application would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.