Agenda and minutes

Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 21 March 2017 7.00 pm

Venue: Main Hall - Karibu Education Centre, 7 Gresham Road, SW9 7PH. View directions

Contact: Maria Burton Tel: 020 7926 8703 Email:  MBurton2@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:

In relation to application 15/04274/FUL (Land at Mayfield Close and Rear of 83 – 87 Park Hill), Councillor Bernard Gentry declared that he would take leave from the Committee for the duration of the item as he was registered to speak against the application.

 

With regard to application 16/05627/FUL (79 Braxted Park), Councillor Clair Wilcox declared that she would absent herself from the meeting and move to another room for the duration of the item as she was the Ward Councillor and knew the parties involved. 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 133 KB

To agree minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2017.

 

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 28 February 2017 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.

79 Braxted Park (Streatham South) 16/05627/FUL pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    Officer’s recommendations:

     

    Grant Conditional Planning Permission.

     

    Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

     

    1.    Complete the planning obligation for car club membership referred to at section 11.4 below.

     

    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 Section 106 agreement in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

     

    Minutes:

    [Councillor Wilcox vacated the Committee and absented herself from the meeting room for the duration of this item.  Councillor Morris acted as Chair for the duration of this item.]

     

    Case no. 16/05627/FUL (agenda item six, page 173 of the agenda, page 11 of the first addendum and page six 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 Friday 17 March and on the day of the meeting.  Members were advised of the material planning considerations which included the conversion of the building to four self-contained flats and a single-storey extension, the alterations to original features, the impact on the conservation area and the impact on local transport.  The application had overcome previous reasons for refusal.

     

    Following the Planning Officer’s presentation, objectors raised the following points:

    ·         The second addendum was incorrect and there were 174 signatures on the objectors’ petition.

    ·          Government guidance had not been followed as drawings had been inconsistent. 

    ·         The application made a mockery of the Leader’s letter from 2009 confirming the Streatham Lodge Estate Conservation Area.

    ·         Officers had not followed best practice in areas such as technical appraisals, lighting assessments and parking assessments.

    ·          There was considerable existing parking stress in the area and the application would worsen this.

    ·         The rear extension would be highly visible and would impact on neighbours’ privacy.

    ·         The fence boundary, the bin stores and the alteration to the bay window needed to be considered under Article 4.

    ·         The proposal would paint over the pebbledash rendering, which had been in place since 1906.

    ·         The conservation area status had been designated by Cabinet in 2009.  In conservation areas, the heritage had to be preserved or enhanced.

    ·         The scheme would be highly visible from the street.

    ·         The orientation of the building would be changed, with the entrance for the majority of the flats being moved from Braxted Park to Strathbrook Road. 

    ·         Considerable changes were proposed to the building, despite minor changes on other properties in the area being rejected.

    ·         The conservation area had Article 4 protection, which appeared to have been overlooked.

    ·         The building line would be altered and was therefore inappropriate.

    ·         A petition of over 450 names against the application had been presented.

     

    The applicant then spoke in support of the scheme, stating that:

    ·         There would be minimal change to the outside of the building.

    ·         Materials had been chosen to match original materials, with timber-framed doors and windows to be used.  A condition required examples of materials to be provided.

    ·         The objectors’ desire to retain the pebbledash could be accommodated.

    ·         The property was very large and four well-sized flats would be provided.

     

    The Ward Councillor, Councillor Danny Adilypour, addressed the Committee, raising the following points:

    ·         Not enough consideration had been given to the conservation area status and Article 4 protection.

    ·         Officers appeared to have a relaxed attitude towards whether architecture was original and whether the extension constituted an alteration to the site. The title deeds should be checked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

41 - 45 Acre Lane (Brixton Hill) 16/03327/FUL pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    Officer’s recommendations:

     

    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 of the planning obligations listed in this report.

     

    2.      Agree to delegate authority of the Assistant Director of Planning and Development to:

    -     Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report; 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.

     

    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 requirement of the Planning Inspector.

     

     

    Minutes:

    Case no. 16/03327/FUL (agenda item four, page 55 of the agenda, page four of the first addendum and page three of the second addendum)

     

    This item was deferred due to a lack of time and due to concerns that residents had not been adequately notified.

     

5.

Land At Mayfield Close And Land Rear Of 83 - 87 Park Hill (Clapham Common) 15/04274/FUL pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    Officer’s recommendation:

     

    Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in this report.

    Minutes:

    [Councillor Gentry vacated the Committee for the duration of the item].

     

    Case no. 15/04274/FUL (agenda item seven, page 201 of the agenda, page 13 of the first addendum and page seven 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 Friday 17 March and on the day of the meeting.  Members were advised of the material planning considerations which included the erection of two three storey properties, the harm to conservation areas and the lack of compliance with policy Q14 (development in gardens and backland sites).  Members were advised that officers recommended refusal of the application.

     

    Following the Planning Officer’s presentation, objectors raised the following points:

    ·         They supported officer’s findings.

    ·         While it was necessary to maximise provision of additional homes, this had to be done sustainably.

    ·         NPPF guidance was key to backland development.  NPPF guidance also advised that previously developed land be used for development.

    ·         The proposal would cause harm to the local area and could create a  precedent  for  similar schemes.

    ·         The design was inappropriate and did not reinforce the distinctiveness of the local area.  The size, height and massing was out of keeping.

    ·         The application did not meet polices Q5 (local distinctiveness), Q7 (urban design: new development) and Q22 (conservation areas).

    ·         Properties on Park Hill would overlook the site.

    ·         There was no access to the site from the public highway.

     

    The agent for the application then spoke in favour of the scheme, stating that:

    ·         The site was not garden land and had been severed from Park Hill for over 30 years.  It provided little in terms of biodiversity or visual amenity.

    ·         The site was accessible from Mayfield Close and the applicant was in discussion with the Salvation Army to secure access. It was not a backland site.

    ·         The leafy, suburban character of the area was achieved through properties being set back from the highway with front gardens.  This proposal would not impact on front gardens.

    ·         The scheme would not be particularly visible from the road and there would not be significant issues of overlooking.

    ·         The scheme would contribute to the evolution of the local area.

     

    The Ward Councillor for Clapham Common, Councillor Bernard Gentry, addressed the Committee, stating that:

    ·         Approving the application would set a precedent for similar schemes in the future.  There was a risk that development would spread across the green corridor of the area.

    ·         There was a need to preserve gardens to protect biodiversity and quality of life.  There were few areas of the borough with such high levels of green space.

    ·         The application would have a highly detrimental effect on the area.

    ·         A number of local residents were vulnerable.

     

    The Ward Councillor for Clapham Common, Councillor Tim Briggs, addressed the Committee, raising the following points:

    ·         It was a finely balanced proposal. He had called the application in to the Committee as the applicants had been given conflicting information from officers for four years as they sought to develop  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

340A Clapham Road (Larkhall) 16/06668/FUL pdf icon PDF 5 MB

    Officer’s recommendations:

    1.     Grant conditional planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

    2.     Agree to delegate authority of the Director of Planning and Development to:

     

    -     Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report; 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.

    3.     Delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development to refuse planning permission in the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed (by 2nd May 2017) on the grounds that the development would have an unacceptable impact on – affordable housing; transport and highways; sustainability and local labour in construction.  

    4.     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 Section 106 Agreement in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

     

    Minutes:

    Case no. 16/06668/FUL (agenda item five, page 99 of the agenda, page five of the first addendum and page four 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 Friday 17 March and on the day of the meeting.  Members were advised of the material planning considerations which included the demolition of the existing building, the erection of a building up to nine storeys tall, the provision of a café, office space and residential uses, the redevelopment currently underway in the area and the provision of amenity space. Members were shown diagrams displaying the existing and proposed plans, sightlines and floorplans.

     

    Following the officer’s presentation, the applicant’s representative stated that:

    ·         The application was the result of two years of work, a year of consultation and frequent consultation with Ward Councillors.  Where there had been concerns, revisions had been made.

    ·         The proposed development would include family homes and would provide on-site shared ownership housing.

    ·         The application would complete the development of this section of Clapham Road.

    ·         The tenant currently occupying the building was satisfied with the development and would relocate staff to prevent loss of employment.

    ·         New homes and jobs would be provided as a result of the proposal.

     

    In response to questions from Members, officers stated that:

    ·         Discussions were had throughout the application on how to maximise the affordable housing offer.  The constrained nature of the site presented issues in providing additional affordable housing, as Registered Providers generally requested a separate access for rented units which would reduce the amount of affordable housing.  The level of affordable housing at 19% had been independently verified and the level provided was higher than the amount assessed as viable at 16%.  There would be a review mechanism to take into account any uplift in value.

    ·         The possibility of providing a separate core at the front of the building for affordable housing had been investigated.  However, it was not suitable and Registered Providers had raised concerns.

    ·         The café unit on the ground floor would activate the frontage and provided connectivity in the site.

    ·         The proposal was a mixed use scheme and complied with policy on retaining employment space.  The office space would provide employment space for SMEs and research with local estate agents had demonstrated that there was demand.

    ·         The applicant had won NLA awards for enterprise space at other schemes.

    ·         The application met standards of design excellence.  The height of the building had been discussed at length and it had been decided to locate the highest point towards the front of the site, with the rear of the site being closer in height to the neighbouring Notting Hill Housing scheme.  The proposal would sit comfortably within the street scene.

    ·         There would be no detrimental impact on nearby heritage buildings.

    ·         The scheme would have grey brick on the frontage and a lighter brick towards the rear of the building, although the precise materials had not yet been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

22 - 25 Lower Marsh (Bishops) 16/06417/FUL pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    Officer’s recommendation:

     

    Resolve to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a s106 legal agreement.

     

    Minutes:

    Case no. 16/06417/FUL (agenda item three, page 9 of the agenda, page one of the first addendum and page one of the second addendum)

     

    The agent and architect for the application introduced the application, stating that:

    ·         The application would provide welcome investment and redevelopment of a neglected block, and would be a positive addition to the local area.

    ·         The applicant would work with the Council’s officers to ensure that the proposal would be of a high standard and in keeping with the character of the local area.

    ·         The distinct character of Lower Marsh had inspired the design of the application. 

    ·         The scheme was designed to be perceived as individual buildings incorporated into the area.

    ·         27 Lower Marsh had a mansard roof which was able to conceal two floors, which had inspired the design of the mansard roof of the scheme.

     

    In response to questions from Members, officers and the applicant’s representatives explained that:

    ·         One of the characteristics of Lower Marsh was the lack of uniformity in the built forms and officers did not want to introduce excessive formalisation or uniformity.

    ·         The current corner building (22 Lower Marsh) was from the 1950s, was different to other nearby buildings and was not attractive.  Design and Conservation officers were of the opinion that a brick building with a single tier mansard was appropriate.

    ·         While demolition would not normally be supported, the existing building was not in a good level of repair and there were few original features to preserve.  Effort would be made to remove rendering to reveal the original brickwork to retain the historic character.

    ·         The concealed double mansard at 27 Lower Marsh was effective and was similar in style to the proposed balustrade and mansard.

    ·         There would be hotel rooms behind the balustrade and a solid parapet would block light from entering those rooms.

    ·         The application complied with Policy PN1 regarding the level of A1 use.

    ·         All applications had to be assessed on their own merits.  The proposal met policy requirements.

    ·         Although there were other examples of ghost signage in Lower Marsh, the signage on this site was not of particularly high value.  On other sites in the borough ghost signs had been created on new builds and treated to appear aged.

    ·         The existing façades that were to be retained were rendered, although revealing the original brickwork was preferred.

    ·         The new building at 22 Lower Marsh and the rear elevations would be constructed of brick.

    ·         Ten per cent of hotel rooms would be acceptable for visitors with disabilities, as required by policy.

    ·         The applicant would be required in the s106 agreement to allocate £10,000 to provide one disable parking space.

    ·         Condition 10 required details of materials before construction.  Extraction from the commercial units would be through an internal riser and ducting system, which would provide a more aesthetic appearance.  There would be no cooking in the hotel.

    ·         The applicant had been in contact with and was due to meet the We Are Waterloo BID to secure training and local employment after  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions October 2016 pdf icon PDF 260 KB

    To note the Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions for October 2016

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Members noted the results and thanked officers for their effort in defending the Council’s decisions.

     

9.

Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions November 2016 pdf icon PDF 228 KB

    To note the Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions for November 2016

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    This item was considered with the Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions October 2016.