Agenda and minutes

Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 23 November 2021 7.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room (B6) - Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, London, SW2 1RW

Contact: Farah Hussain, Democratic Services,  020 7926 4201, Email: fhussain1@lambeth.gov.uk

Note: Information on how to access the meeting is set out on the agenda. However, if you just want to watch the live broadcast you can copy and paste the following link into your browser: https://bit.ly/3F76jKg The video will remain available to view for 180 days. 

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 383 KB

To agree minutes of the meetings held on 5 October and 19 October.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  The minutes from the 5 October and 19 October 2021 meetings were agreed as correct records of proceedings.

 

Guillotine arrangements

 

The Chair announced a provisional timetable for the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 9.9.1.

 

 

3.

42 Clapham Manor Street (Clapham Town) 21/00344/FUL & 21/00345/LB pdf icon PDF 4 MB

    Officer Recommendations:

     

    21/00344/FUL:

     

    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 this report.

     

    2. Agree to delegate authority to the 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 (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 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 Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six months of committee, delegated authority is given to the 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, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

     

    21/00345/LB:

     

    1. Grant Listed Building Consent

    Minutes:

    Case No. 21/00344/FUL & 21/00345/LB, (agenda item 3, page 29 of the agenda pack and page 11 of the first addendum).

     

    The Presiding Officer advised that numerous late representations had been received raising concerns with how development plan policies had been applied, as well as the nature of the proposed public benefits and the mechanisms for securing them. Officers needed more time to fully consider these matters and additional information was likely to be required before the application could be determined. It was recommended that the item be deferred to allow officers to look into the late representations and seek additional information if required. 

     

    The Chair proposed that the item be deferred to a future meeting.

     

    21/00344/FUL & 21/00345/LB:

     

    It was MOVED by Councillor J Simpson, SECONDED by Councillor I Simpson, and

     

    RESOLVED, unanimously

     

    To defer consideration of the application.

     

4.

Cressingham Gardens Estate, Roper's Walk (Tulse Hill) 20/02406/RG3 pdf icon PDF 5 MB

    Officer Recommendations:

     

    1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission including a Grampian condition requiring the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in this report.

     

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

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

     

    3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability, 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.

    Minutes:

    Case No. 20/02406/RG3, (agenda item 4, page 97 of the agenda pack, page 44 of the first addendum and page 7 of the second addendum).

     

    The Officer introduced the report and highlighted that:

    -       The proposal was for a redevelopment of the site and this application first came to Committee on 9 February 2021 and the Committee resolved to approve the application. Permission was granted on 19 March 2021. In April 2021 a Judicial Review claim was filed on two grounds: firstly the Local Planning Authority (‘the LPA’) did not consider whether the Cressingham Gardens Estate (‘the Estate’) could be a non-designated heritage asset; and secondly the LPA did not address the implications of development on the remainder of the Estate

    -       The LPA agreed to quash the decision on the first ground. All information first submitted with the application and all consultation responses received during both consultations must be considered.

    -       The site formed part of Cressingham Gardens and the redevelopment of Roper’s Walk would provide 20 residential units.

    -       It would be 100% affordable housing, with 70% of units being for low-cost rent and 30% being intermediate tenure.

    -       The application was supported by a revised Heritage Statement which assessed the Estate against the Council’s Local List selection criteria and officers concluded that the Estate has some limited interest and should be treated as a non-designated heritage asset.

    -       Officers concluded that there would be a low degree of harm to the Estate as a non-designated heritage asset; no harm to Brockwell Park, which was a registered landscape; modest enhancement to the setting of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area; no harm to the setting of the Listed Holy Trinity Church; and no harm to the setting of Brockwell Park Water Trough. 

    -       The development would result in the loss of some estate amenity land but would deliver regeneration benefits in return that could not be delivered in any other way.

    -       The residential accommodation would include family housing and wheelchair accessible units and there would be a proposed play space within the application site boundary.

    -       Improvements would be made to the existing amenity land within the Estate which would improve the land fronting 2-12 Upgrove Manor Way.

    -       Neighbouring properties would experience an acceptable impact on daylight and sunlight and all properties apart from two would meet the BRE guidelines.

    -       The loss of trees would be mitigated by planting of replacement trees on Hardel Walk and Trinity Rise as well as a financial contribution to planting elsewhere. The first time the application came to Committee, there was a departure from the relevant development plan policy; however, the policy now allowed for financial contributions to be made to mitigate loss of trees, so the proposal was no longer a departure.

     

    The following points were raised in objection to the application:

    -       The application had no consideration for Cressingham Gardens as a heritage asset; had no design changes; would cause the demolition of a freehold home of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.