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 18/05029/FUL (Land Adjacent to Southwark Underground Station), Councillor Ben Kind stated that he had met with TfL when he was a Councillor for Bishops and had a pre-determined view on the application, so would withdraw from the Committee for consideration of the application.

 

Councillor Ben Kind stated that when he was a Councillor for Bishops, he had met with the applicant for application 18/03890/FUL (Lambeth Methodist Mission) about how they could meet and consult with the community.  He did not talk about the merits of the application with the applicant and did not have a pre-determined view.

 

With regard to application 18/03890/FUL (Lambeth Methodist Mission), Councillor Becca Thackray stated that she had been in contact with the applicant on matters within her ward, but had not discussed the application.

 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 20 KB

To agree minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2019.

 

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 February 2019 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.

Land Adjacent to Southwark Underground Station, Greet Street (Bishops) 18/05029/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 the 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 the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

    b.    Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the 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 the 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 six 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 the report and the PAC minutes.

    Minutes:

    Councillor Ben Kind stood down from the Committee for the duration of this item.

     

    Case No. 18/05029/FUL (agenda item five, page 143 of the agenda pack and page 9 of the second addendum).

     

    The Planning Officer explained that following publication of the agenda, Members had requested additional information regarding pedestrian footfall.  This had been received from TfL and would require further analysis from officers and further public consultation.

     

    It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Thackray and

     

    RESOLVED, unanimously

     

    To defer consideration of the application.

     

4.

Lambeth Methodist Mission, 3-5 Lambeth Road (Bishops) 18/03890/FUL pdf icon PDF 12 MB

    Officer’s recommendations:

    1.    Resolve to refuse planning permission for the reasons set in appendix 1 of the officer report.

     

    2.    If 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 the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

     

    3.    In the event that Committee resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report and any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London.Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

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

    b.    Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

     

    4.    In the event that Members resolve to grant planning permission 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 the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

     

    Minutes:

    Case No. 18/03890/FUL (agenda item seven, page 275 of the agenda pack, page 17 of the addendum and page 16 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 01 March 2019 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 and erection of a 1/4/12 storey building with church, hotel and ancillary café/bar uses, the land use principal of 137 bed hotel, the relationship and distances between the site and its neighbours with regards to amenity, the design and materials proposed.  Members were shown images of the site, its context, nearby heritage assets, maps of the CAZ and Opportunity Areas, location of visitor accommodation in in the Waterloo area and wider area, existing and proposed hotels in Lambeth, proposed, elevations, materials, floorplans and proposed views of the site.  The principle of 137 bed hotel use was not supported in policy.  The Waterloo Opportunity Area was to the north of the site and the CAZ boundary was located along the centre of Lambeth Road.  A summary of the approach taken within London Plan Policy 4.5(A)(c) and Lambeth Local Plan Policy ED12 to directing new visitor accommodation to appropriate locations was provided.  Local Plan Policy ED12 stated that ‘smaller scale’ hotels would be supported outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), Opportunity Areas and Brixton and Streatham town centres where public transport accessibility levels were ‘good’ Level 4 or above. The hotel would be the second largest in the borough outside the CAZ, Opportunity Areas or town centres.  It was officers’ view that the hotel element of the application did not accord with London Plan or Local Plan policies, and that the hotel would not be ‘smaller scale’, so were recommending that Members refuse the application.  Members viewed samples of the proposed materials with the Conservation and Design Officer.

     

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

    ·         The need for community work was increasingly important due to the impact of austerity, youth violence and loneliness.  Lambeth Mission had a 150-year history of working with the community in the area.

    ·         The site was 3 metres from the boundary of the CAZ.

    ·         Without redevelopment, the church was in danger of closing down as the building was unsafe.

    ·         The Mission did not have any community space at this site.

    ·         The Mission was inclusive and welcomed all members of the community.

     

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

    ·         Policy EN1 stated that in an area of open space deficiency, on-site open space needed to be provided.

    ·         The number of hotel rooms that would be provided was greater than the median number of hotel rooms Lambeth and officers therefore considered it to be a medium-sized hotel. Members were directed to paragraph 10.39 of the PAC report which was read out by officers regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

The Cricketers, 17 Kennington Oval (Oval) 18/00338/FUL pdf icon PDF 3 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 (as amended) securing the planning obligations listed in the report.

     

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

     

    a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the draft decision notice at Annex 1 of the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

    b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in section 20 (paragraph 20.3) of the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

     

    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 section 20 (paragraph 20.3) of the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

     

    4. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within three 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 to secure the planning obligations identified in section 20 (paragraph 20.3) of the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

     

    Minutes:

    Case No. 18/00338/FUL (agenda item three, page 3 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 01 March 2019 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the development of the pub, the provision of residential units with seven affordable units, the relationship with the Oval Gasholders site, the previous application that was refused in 2016 and the planning obligations.  No viability assessment had been conducted as the proposal met the Mayor of London’s ‘fast track’ approach for affordable housing.  Members were shown images of the existing site, its context, proposed floorplans and elevations. The height of the proposal had been reduce by one storey in response to officer and public comments.

                                                        

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

    ·         The plan for diamond windows in the previous application had not been replicated in this proposal as it was considered too complex.  The cruciform detailing in the balconies would provide the visual link to the gasholders.

    ·         The roof would have a solid element within the structural glass exterior.  There would be a curve to the glazing to soften the building shape.

    ·         Photovoltaic panels would be provided on the roof.

    ·         The development would not meet the expected 35% emissions reduction, but the Mayor of London’s energy hierarchy had been applied.  A zero carbon payment had been secured, which would be allocated towards energy efficiency schemes.

    ·         The site was not an appropriate size to have Combined Heat and Power (CHP). An informative requested the applicant to engage with the developer of the Gasholder site on the possibility of signing up to the CHP there.

    ·         Housing was responsible for enforcing parking on Council housing estates.

    ·         Up to three HGV movements per day associated with the development were expected.  HGV movements had not been provided in the transport assessment.

    ·         Kennington Park was a seven minute walk from the site.  On-site playspace would be provided for under-5s, although each flat would have private amenity space, and older children could make use of the communal amenity space.

    ·         There were a number of conditions relating to noise to ensure that the pub could provide live music as had been done in the past. Licensing would also be able to attach noise conditions, and there were review mechanisms for a premises licence if those conditions did not adequately control the noise.  Appropriate sound systems would be used.

    ·         An electricity substation was necessary due to the power network upgrades associated with the development. UK Power Networks required that an entrance to the sub-station be provided to allow access in the event of power failure. 

    ·         The smoking area for the pub would be on Clayton Street.  This was considered to be the least harmful location and officers did not envisage it impeding pedestrian flow.  However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

17 Bellefields Road (Ferndale) 18/04311/FUL pdf icon PDF 3 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 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report.

     

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

     

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

    b.    Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

     

    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 the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

     

    4.    In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six 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 the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

     

    Minutes:

    Case No. 18/04311/FUL (agenda item six, page 219 of the agenda pack, page 7 of the addendum and page 11 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 01 March 2019 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 and erection of a 3/4/5 storey building with office and restaurant/bar use, the unimplemented planning permission from 2013 and 2015, the acceptable impact on daylight and sunlight and the amenity impact on neighbouring properties.  Members were shown images of the site and its context, views to the site and images of the proposal.

     

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

    ·         Although Bellefields Road was near the centre of Brixton, it was a quiet road.  Noise from Brixton Academy was limited, whereas the proposal would be used daily.

    ·         The nearby Canova Hall restaurant had recently opened and there had been issues with noise.  It was likely that the restaurant associated with this application would have similar issues.

    ·         There were issues of streets urination, litter and anti-social behaviour, with increases since Canova Hall opened.

    ·         Stockwell Avenue was partly pedestrianised, but private hire drivers regularly drove along it to reach Canova Hall.  There were then impacts on congestion in Bellefields Road.

    ·         Objectors wanted to know where the smoking area would be located.

    ·         There were already issues surrounding parking on Bellefields Road, and the application would exacerbate them.

     

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

    ·         The section of Stockwell Avenue that the application site was on was commercial in character, and the site was within the Brixton major centre and primary shopping area.

    ·         The restaurant/bar entrance would be on Stockwell Avenue, as far as possible from Bellefields Road.  There would be a lobby to prevent noise escape.

    ·         The proposal would remove the alcove mentioned by objectors that was used for street urination.

    ·         The applicant had made significant investments in Brixton, and schools and community groups used the applicant’s other building.  The need to respect neighbours was emphasised to visitors.

    ·         The office element application would provide space for start-ups and the restaurant element would support other uses in the building.

     

    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 response to questions from Members:

    ·         Conditions would restrict seating areas for the restaurant/bar element.

    ·         The pedestrianized part of Stockwell Avenue allowed vehicle access for servicing and the Blue Star House car park, so access could not be removed completely. 

    ·         The surface of Stockwell Avenue indicated that it was a ‘shared space’ for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

    ·         As part of the application, a loading bay would be created on Bellefields Road, with the intention of reducing delivery vehicles  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

King's College Hospital (Herne Hill) 18/04058/VOC pdf icon PDF 3 MB

    Officer’s recommendations:

    1.    Resolve to grant conditional planning permission.

     

    2.    Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport  and Development to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.

     

    Minutes:

     

    Case No. 18/04058/VOC (agenda item four, page 95 of the agenda pack and page 5 of the second addendum).

     

    Members agreed that the officer’s presentation was not required.

     

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

    ·         The application sought permission for 24 hour operation of the helipad.

    ·         Permission for the elevated helipad had been granted in 2013, and the helipad had been operational since 2017.  Since then, over 450 severely injured patients had been received by air.

    ·         One complaint had been received, relating to a landing in Ruskin Park.

    ·         It was estimated that there would be 1.6-1.8 additional landings per week.

    ·         The applicant had a charitable grant to fund the operation of the helipad for 12 months.

    ·         The noise levels and frequency would meet World Health Organisation recommendations.

    ·         The application would ensure that patients could

     

    Officers, the applicant and the applicant’s advisor then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:

    ·         After the initial one year permission, any new application would be considered by the Committee, and evidence such as flight logs and complaints would be expected.  The one year permission was a trial period, and longer applications would be for longer periods.  The other helipads in London at Royal London and St George’s had permissions for five years.

    ·         Leeds and Southampton had 24 hour helipads.  London was the only capital city in western Europe without a 24 hour helipad.

    ·         The use of helicopters reduced the time taken to arrive to hospital. This was particularly critical in cases where the patient was further away from the hospital and severely ill or injured.

    ·         Officers expected residents making complaints to approach either the Council or the hospital.  Condition 9 in the second addendum required the applicant to provide a log of all complaints at the end of the permission period.  If a future application was made, a new public consultation would be done.  LB Southwark had been consulted during this application but had not provided comments.

    ·         The hospital had a dedicated complaints phone number.  When complaints were received, the hospital was able to check flight logs to verify if the helicopter was associated with the hospital.

    ·         If 24 hours operation was approved, there would be no advantage to land in Ruskin Park.  Ruskin Park was an approved landing spot and was used by police and army helicopters.

    ·         The Civil Aviation Authority set regulations on conditions that helicopters could fly.

     

    The Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development advised that Condition 4 be amended to remove “without the permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority”.

     

    It was MOVED by Councillor Kind, SECONDED by Councillor Masters, and

     

    RESOLVED, unanimously

     

    To GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions as outlined in the officer’s report and published addendum and the following:

    i)             An amendment to Condition 4 to remove “without the permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority”.

    ii)            An informative requesting that officers liaise with LB Southwark in order to collate complaints.

    iii)           An informative requesting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Appeal and Enforcement Decisions October 2018 pdf icon PDF 372 KB