Venue: Committee Room B6, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill SW2 1RW
Contact: Maria Burton Tel: 020 7926 8703 Email: MBurton2@lambeth.gov.uk
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.
There were none.
To agree minutes of the meeting held on 12 December and 19 December 2017.
Regarding the minutes of 12 December 2017, Councillor Morris requested the following amendments:
· The ninth bullet point on page 2 state ‘for car sales’ instead of ‘as a car showroom’.
· The second bullet point on page 5 be amended to read ‘meant’, not ‘mean’.
· Item four (Woodmansterne Primary School) be amended to include ‘Councillor Wilcox stood down from the Committee and Councillor Simpson chaired the meeting for the duration of this item’.
Regarding the minutes of 19 December 2017, Councillor Morris suggested the following amendments:
· The sixth bullet point on page 15 state ‘houses in multiple occupation’, instead of ‘houses in multiple occupations’.
· The fifth bullet points on page 16 be amended to read ‘be provided on site’, not ‘be provide on site’.
RESOLVED: That, subject to Councillor Morris’ amendments, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 December and 19 December 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.
1. Resolve to grant planning permission subject to conditions and subject to the provision of a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure 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
b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
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, agree and finalise the planning obligations within the unilateral undertaking in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.
Case No. 17/03981/RG3 (agenda item three, page 21 of the agenda pack, page 1 of the addendum and page 1 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 19 January 2018 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the redevelopment of the vacant site, the loss of 773m2 of open space, the provision of a resource centre and accommodation for adults with learning disabilities and the provision of community space, café and a shop. Daylight and sunlight impacts to residential properties would be within BRE guidance, and six windows to the rear of the resource centre would be obscured to reduce the impact on neighbours. Members were shown images of the site at present and of the proposal and the distances between the proposed building and residential properties.
Following the officer’s presentation, the objector raised the following concerns:
· He had proposed an amended condition that would ensure that the Palace Road Estate Residents’ Association (PRERA) would be able to use the community space and café for free. Policy S2 of the Local Plan supported this approach.
· The community space was 68m2, which was too small to be used as a meeting venue.
· Service users’ access to the resource centre and accommodation could be safeguarded while improving community access.
The applicant, agent and supporter then provided the following information in support of the application:
· The proposal was a high quality design for the day service and long?term accommodation for people with complex needs. The integration of community facilities would enable inclusion.
· Although a small amount of open space would be lost, it would be mitigated by improvements to the landscape.
· The application had been developed in consultation with service users, carers, staff, PRERA and other residents. Consultation with residents had demonstrated that a café available to the community would be popular.
· The resource centre would provide an integrated service for all of the health needs of service users, as well as providing space for employment and skills training.
· The location within a residential setting and within an established community was a factor in choosing Coburg Crescent as the site. The resource centre would allow service users to be and feel safe while giving local residents access to community spaces.
· The application had the support of local residents and PRERA would be welcome to hold meetings in the community space.
Councillor Liz Atkins then spoke in objection to the application as Ward Councillor for Streatham Hill, stating that:
· The resource centre needed to be at the heart of the community and would replace a community hall that had been well-used. Free access to the community space was needed to compensate for the lost hall. Cabinet had endorsed this principle in December 2017.
· It was not clear what was intended by reference to the ‘conventional meetings’ and ‘associated community ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
To note the Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions for October 2017.
Councillor Wilcox stood down as Chair and Councillor Simpson chaired the meeting for the duration of this item.
Councillor Wilcox informed the meeting that in relation to the appeal decision for 79 Braxted Park (for which she had stood down when it had been considered by the Committee), she was aware of some concerns regarding the decision of the Planning Inspectorate and that the appeal decision might be subject to further challenge.