Agenda and minutes

Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW

Contact: Nigel Harvey Tel: 020 7926 3136 Email:  nharvey1@lambeth.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interest

    Minutes:

    Councillor David Malley declared a personal interest in Item 6 as he wished to speak on the item in his capacity of Ward Councillor and would not sit as part of the Committee for this item.

     

    Councillors Roger Giess and David Malley both declared interests in Item 3 as they had expressed views on the temporary Ice Rink application for Brixton and on the original application for this site but neither considered these to be prejudicial.

     

     

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 220 KB

3.

Land At Numbers 382 386 388 And 390 Streatham High Road London (St Leonards Ward) (11/01057/FUL; 11/01058/FUL; 11/01056/FUL; 11/01059/DET) pdf icon PDF 313 KB

    Recommendations:

     

    11/01057/FUL; Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

    11/01058/FUL; Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

    11/01056/FUL; Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

    11/01059/DET: Grant approval of details

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (Case Nos. 11/01057/FUL, 11/01058/FUL, 11/01056/FUL and 11/01059/DET) (Page No. 191 of the Agenda)

     

    Guillotine

     

    During the discussion of this item, the guillotine fell at 10.00 pm.

     

    MOVED by the Chair, and:

     

    RESOLVED: That in accordance with Standing Order 9.9, the meeting continue for a further period of up to 45 minutes.

     

    The Committee noted that there had been requests for the item to be deferred and they considered this request and heard representations from the representative from “Save Skating in Streatham” and Councillor Jeremy Clyne on this point as follows:

     

    • The consultation had been mishandled and there was a request for a more diligent approach and more time to be allowed for consultation.
    • The wrong documents had been uploaded onto the website and incorrect CDs sent to Councillors. There had also been missing documents.
    • Councillor Jeremy Clyne referred to his submission produced in the addendum to the report and stated that the Director of Governance and Democracy in his response to the Councillor had indicated that there had been delays but that the statutory minimum requirements had been achieved and that plans had been available throughout the consultation period. He pointed out that documents on the website indicated that a key drawing had not been received until 25 May, which was after consultation had started on 20 May.
    • Sport England had not been included in the consultation and although that body was not a statutory consultee guidance had been issued by the Government that they should be consulted where the development included a major sporting facility which this application was.

     

    Officers reported that consultation had taken place on the plans from 9 to 30 May. It was subsequently discovered that there had been a mistake made in the description and reconsultation had taken place on line from 17 May to 7 June and on notices from 20 May to 10 June. The closing dates were before the date of the meeting. There had been confusion over the original plans and one had been missing from the original set. This had been discovered on 19 May and an electronic version of the correct plan had been uploaded later that day on the website and a copy sent to Streatham Library. In addition a meeting had been held with the representative from “Save Skating in Streatham” and Councillors Judith Best and Jeremy Clyne where queries were answered.

     

    In addition the need for consultation with Sport England related to outdoor and major sports and did not apply to this application so no prejudice had arisen as a result of them not being consulted.

     

    Legal advice was given that the statutory regulations had been complied with and although a plan had been missing this had not invalidated the application. Consideration of the application could go ahead as long as the Committee was satisfied that all the relevant parties had been given an opportunity to comment.

     

    The applicant stated that comments had been received from Sport England.

     

    A member of the Committee pointed out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

The River Thames And The Queen's Walk Adjacent To Jubilee Gardens And County Hall London (Bishop's Ward) (11/00505/FUL) pdf icon PDF 271 KB

5.

St Martin In The Fields High School, 155 Tulse Hill, London SW2 3UP (Thurlow Park Ward) (10/04056/FUL) pdf icon PDF 318 KB

6.

10 Hawkhurst Road London SW16 5EB (Streatham South Ward) (10/03401/FUL) pdf icon PDF 342 KB

    Recommendation: Grant Planning permission subject to conditions.

     

    Minutes:

    (Case No. 10/03401/FUL) (Page No. 39 of the Agenda)

     

    Councillor David Malley did not take part in the decision making for this item as he wished to speak in his capacity as Ward Member.

     

    The officers made a presentation and the Committee was addressed by the occupier of 109 Sherwood Avenue who presented evidence which he claimed suggested that the drawings provided by the Officers regarding sunlight and daylight were inaccurate.

     

    Members stated that they wished to see both sets of drawings and calculations together so that they could compare them. Councillor David Malley, speaking as Ward Member for Streatham South Ward, suggested that the item be deferred to allow this to happen.

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

     

    (1)   That the report be deferred so that both sets of drawings could be considered together.

     

7.

Rear Of 389 Coldharbour Lane London SW9 8LQ (Coldharbour Ward) (11/00715/FUL and 11/00761/CON) pdf icon PDF 328 KB

    Recommendation: Grant Planning permission and Conservation Area Consent subject to conditions and completion of Section 106 Agreement.

     

    Minutes:

    (Case Nos. 11/00715/FUL and 11/00761/CON) (Page 73 of the Agenda)

     

    Following the officers presentation the meeting was addressed by an objector who lived nearby and made the following points:

     

    • There were problems, including loud noise levels, from the Dogstar Public House and the proposals would result in more noise in the area.
    • The bulk and scale of the proposals were inappropriate, particularly in a Conservation Area.
    • There would be a loss of light and privacy due to the balconies of the flats.
    • There were problems with parking in the area and these proposals would exacerbate the problem.
    • The proposal was ill planned with no consideration.

     

    The meeting was then addressed by the applicant who stated the following:

     

    • The proposal would add value to a building which had not been looked after properly for a long time.
    • At present the area was being used as a beer garden which was seldom used.
    • The proposal was to reinstate the shop frontages that had been on the site.
    • At present the Dogstar had a licence until 3.00 am but it was proposed that the restaurant would close at 12 midnight. There would be residential accommodation above but there would be soundproofing to safeguard these and adjoining residents against noise.
    • The scheme would be car free so there would be no parking rights associated with the development. The scheme had been well thought out.

     

    In answer to questions from Members the following points were made:

     

    • The proposals would result in there not being a beer garden.
    • There were Juliet Balconies at the rear of the development which overlooked the rear yard area.
    • It was not anticipated that there would be an increase in the number of deliveries compared to those currently made to the Dogstar.
    • The new business units would be independent from the Dogstar although it was possible that the Dogstar would have a financial interest in them. The only internal links were connected with the emergency exits.
    • Bin storage facilities would be the same as the existing arrangements for the Dogstar.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Roger Giess and it was:

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

     

    (1)   That the application be deferred for further information on the provisions for refuse and recycling, soundproofing and the arrangements for access to the properties with reference to the adjoining residential properties.

     

     

8.

Guillotine Procedure

9.

80 Coldharbour Lane London SE5 9PU (Herne Hill Ward) (10/03098/FUL) pdf icon PDF 322 KB

10.

Arches 288, 290 and 292 Milkwood Road London SE24 0EZ (Herne Hill Ward) (11/00621/FUL) pdf icon PDF 319 KB

11.

25 to 33 Macaulay Road London (Clapham Town Ward) (10/03829/FUL) pdf icon PDF 459 KB