Venue: Karibu Education Centre, 7 Gresham Road, SW9 7PH
Contact: Henry Langford Tel: 020 7926 1065 Email: email@example.com
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.
In relation to applications 15/04314/DET; 15/05215/DET; 15/06977/DET; 15/06979/DET; 16/00249/DET (Garden Bridge Conditions), Councillor Prentice declared that she had a pre-determined view and would therefore not take part in the consideration of the applications. This did not equate to a pecuniary interest.
In relation to application 15/04244/FUL (124 Dalberg Road), Councillor Morris explained that a briefing had been distributed to Members by a neighbour of her brother. This did not constitute a declaration of pecuniary interest and she would be present for the item.
To agree minutes of the meeting held on 09 February 2016.
Councillor Simpson noted that in the Declaration of Pecuniary Interests she was listed as representing Bishop’s ward, when she actually represented Prince’s ward.
Councillor Morris stated that the reference to bins in the Garden Bridge conditions should be limited to condition 21, not condition 23. This was confirmed by officers. She added that in the Fenwick Estate item, the Committee rejected off-site children’s play facilities, preferring on-site facilities.
RESOLVED: That, subject to the proposed amendments, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 February 2016 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.
Grant Conditional Planning Permission.
Case No. 15/06451/FUL (agenda item eight, page 327 of the agenda pack and page 12 of the second addendum)
Members noted that this item had been deferred from the meeting of 9 February 2016 to allow for further consultation.
It was MOVED by Councillor Seedat, and SECONDED by Councillor Morris and
to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions as outlined in the officer’s report.
16/00134/FUL - Grant Conditional Planning Permission
16/00133/ADV - Grant Conditional Advertising Consent
Case Nos. 16/00134/FUL and 16/00133/ADV (agenda item nine, page 347 of the agenda and page 14 of the addendum)
It was MOVED by Councillor Simpson and SECONDED by Councillor Prentice, and
To GRANT Planning Permission and Advertisement Consent subject to the conditions as outlined in the officer’s report.
Land To The Front Of The London Television Centre, Queen's Walk
[Having declared that she had a predetermined view on the matter, Councillor Prentice vacated the committee for the duration of the item.]
Case No. 15/04314/DET, 15/05215/DET, 15/06977/DET, 15/06979/DET, 16/00249/DET (agenda item three, page 15 of the agenda pack and page 1 of the second addendum).
The Planning Officers gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addendum that was published on the day of the meeting.
Members were advised that the applications under consideration related to discharge of five conditions associated with the parent planning permission for the Garden Bridge which had been granted planning permission by the PAC on 11 November 2014. The Planning Officers addressed the five conditions separately.
Condition 9 (16/00249/DET) Piling Method Statement:
This condition had been requested by the Environment Agency, Thames Water and the Port of London Authority. It covered piling in the River Thames and on the South Bank. The majority of permanent river piling would be on the south cofferdam and permanent land piling would be on the grass area in front of the ITV building. There was no conflict with the subterranean sewage infrastructure.
Condition 10 (15/04314/DET) Construction Noise and Vibration Strategy (CNVS):
Key issues for consideration included impacts of noise and vibration upon general amenity and the operation of neighbouring land uses. The CNVS had been revised during the assessment period at the request of officers following feedback received from consultation with local residents and neighbouring land uses (in particular ITV studios). Amendments were also sought following comments received from the Council’s noise consultants, Waterman Group. There would be a tiered approach to take action on noise and the Council could seek to prosecute if the s61 notice (Control of Pollution Act 1974) was not adhered to. A movable baffle would be used to provide localised screening. ITV were deemed to be the most sensitive receptor due to the close distance to the site and the nature of their operations, and an agreement had been reached between the applicant and ITV.
Condition 21 (15/06977/DET) Detailed Design of South Landing Building:
This condition had been deferred at the meeting of 9 February 2016 to address issues relating to the colour of the metal cladding elements of the building and the design of waste receptacles. The cladding was now a lighter colour to complement the other external façades. Although the Committee had suggested that bins be attached to columns, this was deemed to conflict with counter-terrorism measures. In addition, the Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the agreed litter collection arrangements which had been approved under condition 25 (Waste Management Plan).
Condition 23 (15/06979/DET) Internal Layout of South Landing Building:
This condition had been deferred from the 9 February 2016 meeting due to Members’ concerns regarding the configuration and number of toilets and the balance of public and commercial facilities. There had initially been seven unisex and one disabled toilet, as well as a cleaning store. The layout was now split between male and female toilets, ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
Grant Planning Permission subject to Section 106 agreement and conditions.
Case No. 15/04244/FUL (agenda item 4, page 89 of the agenda and page 1 of the addendum)
The Planning Officer introduced the item, explaining that there had been applications at the same site refused and showing the new application’s layout against the previous ones. He added that the 1.7 metre high screen around the terraces was an area of contention, although windows would be staggered to avoid overlooking neighbouring properties.
Following the officer’s presentation, objectors raised the following points:
· Yoga Point was the only business in the immediate area and was adjacent to the site. The noise associated with the development would have a detrimental impact on the business and it was requested that building works only occur between 8.00 and 17.00 on weekdays to minimise disturbance.
· There was no way to prevent future residents from removing the 1.7 metre screen.
· The three-storey development would dominate the area and would be incongruous with neighbouring properties. The application was higher than the previously refused applications.
· The development would be detrimental to existing amenity.
· The use of a 3 metre façade would lead to a canyoning effect.
· The privacy screens had been shown to have large gaps, which would not address the privacy issues. It was requested that solid barriers be required.
· Some objectors supported an alternate design, which was two storeys high and with Juliet balconies in place of terraces.
The agent then spoke in favour of the application, explaining that:
· The site had been bought at the end of 2014 and three previous applications had been rejected.
· There had been three pre-application meetings and a dialogue had been maintained throughout the application process.
· The site was currently a run-down MOT garage and the application was an exciting, innovative design. The pavement line would be repaired and the housing provision would be in line with space and light guidelines.
Councillor Jim Dickson spoke as a Ward Councillor for Herne Hill, stating that:
· There had been 66 objections to the applications.
· Residents felt that the development would be too high, would block sunlight and would lead to noise nuisance. He had called in the application to mitigate against these issues.
· He proposed that the terrace be removed from flats 4, 5 and 6, that the solar panel be removed, that the windows in the elevation be opaque and that the times of building operation be 8.00 to 17.00.
The Planning Officer explained that an alternative scheme had been proposed following consultation with residents. However, removing the external amenity space would lead to the application not complying with the London Plan and Lambeth standards. He confirmed that the 1.7 metre screen would be secured permanently subject to condition 8. An informative could be added to require solid screens.
Following questions from Members, officers informed the Committee that:
· Conditions could be imposed to specify the solidity or material of the screens. The planned material could be obscure glazed, for example.
· Although the roof height was higher than neighbouring buildings, Dalberg Road had a variety ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to any direction that may be received following referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the provision pursuant to an undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the planning obligations listed in this report.
2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Development to:
· Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Development (in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair) considers reasonably necessary; and
· Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms as the Director of Planning and Development (in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair) considers reasonably necessary.
3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, 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 requirements of the Planning Inspector.
Case No. 15/06216/FUL (agenda item 6, page 209 of the agenda, page eight of the first addendum and page 10 of the second addendum)
The Chair noted that the Committee would forego the Officer’s presentation to enable more items to be heard at the meeting.
The applicant introduced the committee to the application and provided the following information:
· The application was for the above-station development at Nine Elms Underground station. Work may not start until after the station becomes operational.
· High quality employment space would be provided, leading to 30 retail jobs, 40 station jobs and 400 office jobs.
· 332 residential units would also be provided. These would all exceed space standards, and would all be dual aspect with balconies.
· 25% of residential units would be affordable, with the provision due to be revisited before commencement of the development.
· Pascal Square would be a new public space for the area.
In response to questions from Members, the applicant and officers stated that:
· The affordable housing would be on site.
· Although the jobs linked to the station were part of a different development, there would still be over 400 jobs created.
· At present, Nine Elms was not due to be part of the 24 hour Tube network. If it ever was, there would be noise limits in the tunnels to protect amenity for residents. The application was subject to a noise assessment.
· The section 106 agreement had a review process in place to take account of any changes in policy, including regarding affordable housing.
· Pascal Square would provide part of the walkway to Nine Elms station while also providing public space. It would have soft and hard landscaping. The square would be open at all times except during maintenance or an emergency.
· Instead of bay windows, 1.5 metre pop-outs were used to create dual aspect homes and to provide a more useful space.
· Condition 14 specified the equipment to be used in the playspace, and an informative on the playspace had been included in the addendum.
It was MOVED by Councillor Gentry and SECONDED by Councillor Seedat, and
To GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions included in the addenda and subject to any direction that may be received following referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the planning obligations listed in the report, and subject to the delegation to the Director of Planning and Development referred to below.
ii. To agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Development to:
· Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such amendments, conditions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Development (in consultation with the Planning Applications Committee Chair) considers reasonably necessary; and
· Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including adding to, amending ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
Grant Conditional Planning Permission subject to Section 106 Agreement.
Case no. 15/04010/FUL (agenda item six, page 147 of the agenda, page 5 of the first addendum and page 7 of the second addendum)
Members noted that additional conditions and an informative were included in the addenda.
The registered speaker supporting the application stated that:
· He lived directly adjacent to the site, which was currently used for antisocial behaviour, including dumping rubbish.
· The public square and play space was a welcome addition to the area and the housing would help address London’s housing shortage.
· While there had been objections, residents had been largely supportive in principle and the applicant had made adjustments in response to the objections.
Officers explained that the play space at raised podium level would only be for residents of the proposed development and would not be publically accessible.
In response to Members, officers and the architect explained that:
· Refuse lorries would be able to access and use the front forecourt area to the Clapham Road frontage for waste collection. In the unlikely event that they were not able to use the access road, there was a loading bay nearby that could be used. Using this loading bay would not block the cycle superhighway.
· The ground floor was for sui generis use, which does not benefit from any permitted development rights for change of use to residential. The layout of the ground floor meant that it would be unlikely that residential accommodation would work well.
· Pedestrian and vehicular access to the vehicle rental business use on the ground floor would be with a key fob.
· The existing one storey chamfer incorporating a kitchen window to Flat 3 of Coachman’s Terrace, 80-86 Clapham Road would be squared off and a new ground floor window inserted into the Clapham Road frontage. The planning officer advised that this could marginally improve the noise conditions to this flat.
It was MOVED by Councillor Prentice and SECONDED by Councillor Gentry, and
To GRANT Planning Permission, subject to a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the additional conditions included in the addenda.
Grant Conditional Planning Permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement.
Case no. 15/07141/FUL (agenda item 7, page 289 of the agenda and page 11 of the first addendum)
This item was deferred due to a lack of time.