Agenda and draft minutes

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

Contact: Nicholas Joseph Tel: 020 7926 3123 Email:  NJoseph@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:

There were none.

 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 148 KB

To agree minutes of the meetings held on the 05 March 2019 and the 26 March 2019

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 5 and 26 March 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.

Streatham and Clapham High School, 42 Abbotswood Road (St Leonards) 18/04221/VOC pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    RECOMMENDATION

     

    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. 18/04221/VOC (agenda item No. 3, page 21 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 Thursday 18 April 2019 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the variation of Condition 3 of planning permission granted in 2008 in order to allow use of the pitch by non-school groups within the permitted hours, the acceptability of use of Metropolitan Open Land, the proposed restrictions on hours for non-school groups, the amenity impact on neighbouring properties and the impact on parking stress.  There was no new use associated with the application, and this application sought to regularise the existing use, noting the existing use by non-school groups was not authorised by Condition 3. Members were advised to consider the impacts from the proposed use on the basis of use to the full extent of the hours of operation proposed. Members were shown images of the site and its context.

     

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

    ·         The proposed non-school use would create an extra 860 hours’ usage per year, including during school holidays, and would harm  amenity contrary to policies S2a and S3d.

    ·         The effectiveness of condition 6 in preventing the use of artificial lighting.

    ·         The use of the pitch had increased over time, with consequent issues of noise, resulting in complaints from residents.

    ·         This application would double the amount of non-school use.  80 residents had signed a petition against the application.  The petition suggested that fewer hours of non-school use be permitted and to introduce more traffic controls.

    ·         The application could cause more congestion and air pollution as 70% of non-school users of the pitch arrived by car.

     

    The applicant and a member from a hockey club that currently uses the pitch then provided the following information in support of the application:

    ·         The application sought to address the ambiguity of Condition 3 in order to meet the aims of the original planning permission of making the pitch available to the community.

    ·         The pitch had been in use since 2009 and was used by a range of groups, including the Lambeth Youth Games. 

    ·         The use of the pitch would not be intensified and there would be no artificial illumination.

    ·         A parking survey had been completed since this application was deferred in February 2019.

    ·         Community hockey teams used the pitch, particularly at weekends, and had a large proportion of members who were female or under 18.  If the application was refused, fewer people would be able to join these teams.

     

    Councillor Nicole Griffiths then spoke as Ward Councillor for St Leonards:

    ·         The application was not a straightforward change of condition due to the issues of intensification and the impact on the wider community.

    ·         Lambeth-based community teams should be offered free use of the pitch.

    ·         80 residents had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Clapham Common (Clapham Common / Clapham Town) 18/05422/RG3 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    RECOMMENDATION 

     

    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.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Case No. 18/05422/RG3 (agenda item No. 4, page 75 of the agenda pack and page 5 of the addendum).

     

    The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Thursday 18 April 2019. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the temporary change of use from 1 January to 31 December 2019 to accommodate various events, including music and charity events, with 19 events to be held over 89 calendar days. Winterville was not included in this application.  Improvements had been made to noise measurement and ground protection following the previous year’s events.  All events must be approved by EventLambeth before taking place, with some also subject to the licensing regime.  Members were shown images of the site, its context, heritage assets and servicing arrangements.

     

    The objector raised the following concerns:

    ·         Clapham Common Management Advisory Committee was made up of councillors and other members of the community and it objected to the application as each event should be considered on its own merits.  The application was a missed opportunity for meaningful consultation.

    ·         The application was a blanket application for events on the Common and lacked transparency.

    ·         Overuse of the Common for commercial purposes was a key local concern, due to the impact that each event had on the Common.

     

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

    ·         The application was not a blanket application, and was only for the events named in the application.  It allowed the named events, many of which were for charity, to take place without needing to go through the planning process individually.

    ·         All events would still need to go through the events application process, and larger events would be subject to the licensing regime.

    ·         Friends groups and other relevant stakeholders were informed when an event application was made.

     

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

    ·         Permitted development rights allowed use for temporary events for up to 28 days in a year, with any more than that requiring planning permission. Officers explained that each event is assessed and then determined whether it requires planning permission or not; and the 89 event days listed in the report are the events that Officers consider require planning permission. The application reduced bureaucracy, as individual events would not need to apply for separate planning permission. It’s not a blanket consent as details for each event have been provided and it is possible to assess the planning impacts of those developments in turn.

    ·         Winterville was not included in the application. The events included in the application were named in the report.

    ·         In the report, for major and large events Officers have presented Members with full details of sound levels that would be reached and levels of parking as ‘worst case scenario days‘. The worst case scenario is SW4 which officers have gone into most detail with. For smaller events they wouldn’t have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Sudbourne School, 21 Mandrell Road (Brixton Hill) 18/04964/RG3 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    RECOMMENDATION 

     

    1.         Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) as 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 this 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 this 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 document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 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 such a document securing the mitigating contributions identified in the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

    Minutes:

     

    Case No. 18/04964/RG3 (agenda item No. 5, page 141 of the agenda pack and page 9 of the addendum

     

    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 Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and provided subsequent addenda that had been published on Thursday 18 April 2019. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the construction of a new primary school campus to the existing Sudbourne School, the principle of the land use, the provision of hard and soft landscaping, including eight new trees, and the acceptable impacts of the application.  Members were shown images of the site, its context, proposed floor plans, elevations and materials.

     

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

    ·         Sudbourne School had been committed to expansion on this site for a number of years and had worked with the local community in developing the application.

    ·         Breakfast clubs and staggered start and finish times would be utilised to ensure efficient movement between the two sites.

    ·         Expanding a successful school would bring significant benefits to the area.

    ·         There would be 8 new trees planted.

    ·         The new campus would allow the school to expand, less than 10 minutes’ walk away from the existing site.  Both sites would operate as one school, with the same Head teacher at both sites.

    ·         Active travel would be encouraged, with car use limited in the travel plan.

     

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

    ·         There were 14 parking spaces in the previous use as a school in 2010, with a significant reduction in this application. Two disabled parking spaces would be provided, and spaces would be available for deliveries and servicing.  There would be sufficient scooter parking for pupils.

    ·         The potential School Street closure at the current (future Infants) site would be on Hayter Road not Sudbourne Road, as the majority of pupils arrived at the current site from Hayter Road.

    ·         .  Other interventions, such as a raised table, could be used at the proposed (future Juniors) site at Mandrell Road

    ·         The possibility of parents driving between the two sites had been considered when determining the start and finish times of both sites.  Both sites were located within a Controlled Parking Zone, and traffic calming measures made driving less attractive.

    ·         Specific tree species had not yet been selected, but would be chosen to improve biodiversity.

    ·         A lighter shade of brick had been selected to reduce the visual impact on the area.  The ground floor would be fully glazed to provide passive surveillance and the bridge element would provide visual interest.  The materials would be of a high quality and would be sensitive to the context.

    ·         Routes for construction vehicles accessing the site would be included in the construction logistics plan, and it would be expected that narrow roads, such as Lyham Road, would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.