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 John Whelan declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 9 (8 Albert Embankment SE1) as he had been a member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority that had made the decision to proceed with the scheme and did not take part in the decision on that item.

     

    Councillors Jennifer Braithwaite and John Whelan declared an interest in Agenda Item 3 (Norwood Hall, 25 Devane Way, SE27) as they were Councillors for adjoining wards and that residents from their wards would benefit from the services offered, but did not consider this to be prejudicial.

     

     

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 95 KB

    To agree minutes of the meeting held on 27 September, 2011.

     

     

    Minutes:

    RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27 September 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings subject to the following amendments:

     

    Item 5 – Hitherfield Primary School

     

    Page 9 – first paragraph after the bullet points

     

    Delete ‘A Member’ and insert ‘Councillor Brian Palmer’.

     

    Page 9 – insert extra paragraph before the resolution as follows:

     

    ‘A Member expressed the view that the design was lacklustre and also referred to UDP Policy 36 which stated that extensions should be subservient to the extant building as this did not appear to be the case.’

     

    Item 6 – 75-81 York Road

     

    Page 10 - 4th bullet point – at end of sentence delete ‘from Belvedere Road’ and insert ‘at Belvedere Road’.

     

     

3.

8 Albert Embankment, SE1 (Prince's Ward) (10/04473/FUL) pdf icon PDF 633 KB

    Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent for the development, subject to conditions and Section 106 planning obligations.

     

    Minutes:

    (Case Nos. 10/04473/FUL; 10/04475/LB and 10/04476/CON) (Page 177 of the Agenda)

     

    Councillor John Whelan did not take part in the discussions or voting on this item.

     

    It was reported that the applicants had requested that the item be deferred as they had submitted revised drawings which would result in additional consultation having to be carried out.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling and:

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

     

    That the application be deferred to allow further consultation to take place.

     

     

4.

Tesco Stores Kennington Lane SE11 5QU (Oval Ward) (11/01357/FUL) pdf icon PDF 246 KB

5.

8-17 Hanover Gardens And 11-44 Elias Place (Oval Ward) (11/00631/FUL) pdf icon PDF 342 KB

    Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission with conditions.

    Minutes:

    (Case No. 11/00631/FUL) (Page No. 131 of the Agenda)

     

    Officers made a presentation drawing Members’ attention to the amendments as set out in the addendum and that the application had been called in by Councillors Ishbel Brown and Jack Hopkins.

     

    The meeting was addressed by a local resident opposed to the scheme who made the following points:

     

    • There was support for measures to be introduced to reduce heat loss in the dwellings.
    • There was a difference of opinion as to whether the present design was satisfactory. Some of the residents, including architects and people working in construction, considered that the existing design of the buildings was very well integrated into the conservation area.
    • The proposed materials would attract dust and grime.
    • If the coating was damaged the mesh would be exposed.
    • The present materials had been there for 70 years and did not show signs of ageing and should not be changed.
    • Upgrades to the doors would minimise heat loss and there could be insulation inside the flats.
    • The proposal to site refuse facilities in the centre of the green would be an eyesore.

     

    In answer to a question from a member the resident stated that she did not know whether the proposed material would be self-cleaning.

     

    The architect and two local residents supporting the scheme addressed the meeting and made the following points:

     

    • The material to be used would be render over the insulation. A silicon base would be used which was of a smooth texture and would spread water and also protect sills.
    • The residents had waited for at least 10 years for these improvements.
    • Flats in Elias Place were smaller than those at Hanover Gardens and there was no potential for insulation to be installed internally.
    • At present there was no security resulting in the flats being used by drug users and for other Anti Social Behaviour.
    • In addition there were frequent break-ins and residents were fearful of going outside their flat.

     

    Councillor Jack Hopkins, Ward Councillor for Oval Ward, stated that the scheme was one that was much needed and was overdue as residents deserved to be able to live in a safe dry warm home.

     

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

     

    • There had been an assessment carried out with regards to the render. The engineers had been nervous about there being brickwork cladding as suggested as this could have an effect on the foundations. In addition it was not as thick as render and could easily fall off. The render proposed would be 1½ to 4 metres thick and would allow movement of joints. It would also be water repellant and there would be a quicker water runoff.
    • No anti-graffiti rendering was available that would not compromise any warranties. Maintenance and cleaning would combat graffiti and the proposal to have brickwork up to the first floor level would also minimise the problem.

     

    Councillor Jack Hopkins made the following points as clarification:

     

6.

Plot Bounded By Parry Street And Bondway And 7 To 93 Wandsworth Road (Oval Ward) (10/02060/FUL) pdf icon PDF 358 KB

    Recommendation: Resist the granting of planning permission at the forthcoming public inquiry.

    Minutes:

    (Case No. 10/02060/FUL) (Page No. 271 of the Agenda, Second despatch)

     

    Officers introduced the report and referred the committee to amended recommendations, details of which were tabled.

     

    No representations were made to the meeting.

     

    Members requested that officers should endeavour to stress the following during the public inquiry:

     

    • The liveability of the proposed development.
    • Concerns regarding the distance between the two buildings.
    • The additional pressures that will be added to the area as a result of the scheme, particularly on open spaces.

     

    A member requested that consideration should be made of the effect on Brunswick House which would be sandwiched between high rise buildings as a result of the scheme. Officers stated that Brunswick House was already affected by other developments in the area but that the further impact of the proposed development on buildings such as this would be included in the Council’s representations regarding the effect on the public realm.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite and:

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

     

    (1)       That the Planning Inspector be advised that it is likely the council will seek to resist the granting of planning permission for the development for the following reasons:

     

    Strategic

     

    1.      The proposed development would prejudice the comprehensive regeneration of the Vauxhall area and cause demonstrable harm to the establishment of a sustainable community in this part of North Lambeth.

     

    2.      The proposed development is contrary to London Plan policies, including: 3.6, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7 and the comprehensive approach to development described within the draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework and the draft Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

     

    3.      The proposed development is contrary to Saved Unitary Development Plan policy 33 (building scale and design) and Core Strategy policies including: S1 (Delivering the vision and objectives), S2 (Housing), S4 (Transport), S5 (Open Space), S9 (Quality of the built environment) and PN2 (Vauxhall).

     

    4.      The proposed development is contrary to Saved Unitary Development Plan policies MD0 76 and 50.

     

    5.      The proposed development will not satisfactorily contribute to the formation of a new district centre as described in the draft Vauxhall SPD.

     

    Detailed

     

    1. The proposed development will not improve pedestrian accessibility in this area to an adequate level. The Council requires, as a minimum, the need for an at-grade crossing from the island across Wandsworth Road to the St George development. The applicant has not demonstrated that this can be achieved without an unacceptable impact on the capacity and function of the gyratory and wider highway network. The development would be contrary to Saved Unitary Development Plan Policies 9 and 33, Core Strategy Policies S1, S4, S9 and PN2 and London Plan Policies 6.3, 6.10, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7.

     

    1. Due to the increase in activity and pedestrian movements that will be generated as a result of the nature of the proposed development there is likely to be an increase in the demand for pedestrian movements across Wandsworth Road between the northern end of the site to and from the St George Wharf development and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Norwood Hall, 25 Devane Way, SE27 0DF (Knight's Hill Ward)

7a

(11/02658/FUL) pdf icon PDF 334 KB

    Recommendation: Grant variation of condition.

    Minutes:

    (Case No. 11/22658) (Page No. 13 of the Agenda)

     

    Officers gave a presentation and pointed out that the Committee had agreed that the Leisure Use hours would be from 07.00 Monday to Friday but that a mistake had been made on the decision notice where 08.00 had been stated. In addition two further responses had been received to the consultation, one in support and one making comments.

     

    Councillor Jane Pickard, Ward Councillor for Knight’s Hill Ward was present to answer any questions.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor John Whelan and:

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

     

    (1)       That condition 32 of planning permission 10/02230/RG4 be varied as set out in the report.

    (2)       That delegated authority be given to officers to negotiate and complete any consequential variation to the Section 106 legal agreement by way of a deed of variation.

     

     

7b

(11/02368/DET) pdf icon PDF 270 KB

    Recommendation: Grant Approval of conditions.

    Minutes:

    (Case No. 11/02368/DET) (Page No. 33 of the Agenda)

     

    Officers made a presentation.

     

    Councillor Jane Pickard, Ward Councillor for Knight’s Hill Ward and the architect for the scheme were present to answer any questions.

     

    A Member stated that the design would be better with more cladding and felt that the materials were dreary.

     

    In answer to a Member’s question it was stated that the estimated life of the doors and materials was 30 years.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling and:

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    (1)   That approval be granted of the details for Condition 3 attached to planning permission 10/02230/RG4 as set out in the report.

     

    Voting:

     

    For – 4

    Against – 1

     

     

8.

68 - 70 Clapham High Street London SW4 7UL (Clapham Town Ward) (11/01093/FUL) pdf icon PDF 283 KB

    Recommendation: Grant Conditional Planning Permission.

    Minutes:

    (Case No. 11/01093/FUL) (Page No. 45 of the Agenda)

     

    Councillor Nigel Haselden, Ward Councillor for Clapham Town Ward, requested that the application be deferred as he was concerned that there had been limited consultation on the application.

     

    The meeting was addressed by a representative of the applicant who gave the following reasons why the application should not be deferred:

     

    • This had been lodged as 3 applications over a year before and there had been delays caused by officers. Following advice these had been withdrawn and replaced by the present application which had been lodged nearly 6 months ago. If the application was not dealt with at this meeting an appeal for non-determination would be made.
    • The application had been known about for a long period and natural justice meant that it should be determined at this meeting.

     

    A Member expressed concern about delaying the application as there had been an exhaustive process already and that this would be open to judicial review.

     

    Another Member expressed concern as the opening hours had been previously set for a temporary period of one year, when they would be reassessed. This application was asking for these to be made permanent. Consultation with 18 neighbours was not sufficient, as there had been no consultation with properties opposite the site, and it appeared that there had not been direct engagement with the Safer Neighbourhood Team.

     

    A further Member considered that enough consultation had been carried out but suggested that the letters could have been lost in the post, particularly as the Clapham Society normally responded but had not in this case.

     

    Officers pointed out that consultation had been carried out with the Crime Prevention Unit on two occasions and they had not raised any objections. Normal procedures had been carried out in this case and the statutory provisions had been exceeded.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor John Whelan and:

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    (1)   That the application be deferred to allow a further 14 days consultation with properties opposite the site extending to the side roads off Clapham High Street and a detailed response being obtained from the Safer Neighbourhood Team.

     

    Voting:

     

    For – 3

    Against – 2

     

     

9.

Wah Kwong House, 10 Albert Embankment, SE1 7SP (Prince's Ward) (11/00909/FUL) pdf icon PDF 322 KB

    Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to condition and deed of variation to Section 106 Agreement.

    Minutes:

    (Case No. 11/00909/FUL) (Page No. 65 of the Agenda)

     

    Following the officer’s presentation the meeting was addressed by a local resident objecting to the application who made the following points:

     

    • The deadline for commencing the works had passed and there should be no extension of time.
    • There had also been a recent application for the premises to be converted to student accommodation, which would not result in an increase in the number of floors.
    • The proposals would result in lack of privacy for residents on the 11th floor of 9 Albert Embankment and also sunlight for residents in the courtyard. There was an objection to the proposal to increase the number of floors.

     

    Officers stated that the application, which had been received before the expiration of three years, was to extend the starting date for commencement of works. As permission had been previously agreed the main issue would be whether there had been any changes in circumstances since then to affect the granting of permission. As it was the same scheme and circumstances had not changed it would be difficult to refuse permission.

     

    In reply to questions from Members the representative of the applicant confirmed the following:

     

    • There would be no windows overlooking 9 Albert Embankment.
    • The applicant had been pro-active in marketing the office space at the property.
    • There would not be an application for any further extension of time.

     

    Officers requested that delegated authority be given to them to vary the Section 106 Agreement so that the eligibility for on street parking permits be removed and to specify the location of the car club parking bay.

     

    MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and:

     

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

     

    (1)   That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions and a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement as set out in the report.

    (2)   That delegated authority be given to officers to vary the Section 106 Agreement so that the eligibility for on street parking permits be removed and to specify the location of the car club parking bay and any consequential amendments.

     

     

10.

26A and 26B The Pavement, SW4 0JA (Clapham Town Ward) (11/00819/FUL) pdf icon PDF 280 KB

    Recommendation: Refuse Planning Permission.

    Minutes:

    (Case No. 11/00819/FUL) (Page No. 107 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.

     

    Following the officer’s presentation the meeting was addressed by the agent and the applicant and supporter who made the following points:

    • The present permission for the ground floor was granted in 2002 but it had previously operated as a Restaurant.
    • The scheme would restore the traditional shop front that had previously existed at this location.
    • It was planned to have ties with Lambeth College to encourage local employment.
    • Although there was a concentration of A3 use in Clapham Town Centre this did not apply to the immediate area and there was only one other A3 use on The Pavement as other premises were A1 use.
    • The premises would also be partly A1 use as it would be a Fishmonger and Restaurant.
    • There was wide public support, including the 3 Ward Councillors and the local MP. The petition in support had attracted 50 signatures in an hour.
    • The proposal would enhance the appearance of the property.
    • The premises would close at 23.00 and would be a restaurant and therefore not contribute to the problems late at night.
    • Historically there had been a restaurant at these premises.
    • 32 local jobs would be created.
    • There would still be residential accommodation on the premises.
    • Exceptions had been made to Policy 29 in the past, for example at Mary Seacole House.
    • There would be community benefits if the application was agreed.

     

    Councillor Nigel Haselden, Ward Member for Clapham Town Ward, on behalf of all Ward members, addressed the meeting and made the following comments:

     

    • Confirmation that all 3 Ward Councillors supported the application.
    • The proposal would result in the building playing a more active role in the community and it would be in accordance with the original appearance.
    • There would be training provided for local people.
    • The premises would use sustainably sourced products.
    • The small percentage increase in the number of premises in breach of Policy 29 would be outweighed by the wider benefits that would accrue.

     

    A number of Members expressed support for the proposal as they considered that there were special circumstances.

     

    A Member pointed out that although the ground floor was not suitable for residential use it would be preferable if it was A1, rather than A3, which would comply with Policy 64.

     

    Another Member expressed the view that the policy should be adhered to in view of the fact that another business could take over the premises.

     

    Members were concerned that if they granted permission there should be adequate conditions and that the links with Lambeth College and job creation were secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement.

     

    In answer to Members officers stated the following: