Agenda item

Site Including St Anselm's Church Kennington Road, Havilland House 13 Sancroft Street, Electricity Sub Station Sancroft Street And Garages Stables Way London (Prince's Ward) (11/01826/FUL)

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent.



(Case No. 11/01826/FUL) (Page No. 393 of the Agenda)


There was an officer presentation which covered the following additional representations:


  • A petition, containing 303 signatures, had been received earlier that day expressing concern about the adverse impact of the scheme.
  • A letter from Pathways giving greater clarity about the application.
  • A letter from the agent rebutting the comments from the 20th Century Society.
  • A representation from a local resident suggesting that certain conditions be amended.


The meeting was addressed by three local residents who made the following comments:


  • Reference was made to the fact that there had been 91 objections and the petition referred to above.
  • They were in support of the social aims.
  • The report contained inaccurate statements and omitted various details and a decision should not be made until these issues were properly addressed.
  • There would be overlooking and some areas would have no sunlight.
  • The site was not within the Kennington Local Central boundary.
  • The proposals would affect their quiet enjoyment of the area as the building would be significantly extended. The restaurant and apartments would result in extra parking in the area.
  • It was a massive building which would have a negative effect.
  • The area was a peaceful residential one and most people tended to go to bed early. Opening hours until 10.30 or 11.00 pm would result in intolerable noise and disturbance.
  • There was a need for a sound limit of 35-40 dbs to apply to any amplification.
  • Parking levels were higher than ever and the proposal would result in the loss of 48 parking spaces.
  • Children would not be able to play freely and their safety would be compromised. At present the communal garden was overlooked only by the residential properties that have access to it.
  • Concern that the residential element could be disposed and then let at a market rent without any conditions controlling it.
  • The scale and density was too high.
  • It was located in the wrong area.


In answer to Members the following points were made:


  • The objection regarding the overlooking was that at present there was a relationship with the present occupiers of the garden which would not be so in future.
  • There was disagreement with the report which stated that there would be little change in the amount of sunlight.
  • They were not in the built up commercial centre of Kennington and should expect to be able to enjoy a peaceful life.


Officers confirmed that there was a lift up to the second floor worship space which would make it accessible to disabled people.


The meeting was addressed by 2 representatives of the applicant and a representative from the Kennington Association Planning Forum who made the following points:


  • There was an overwhelming need for a centre in the area to help people acquire skills to prevent them from becoming marginalised in society.
  • Many local community groups would benefit from the proposals.
  • The proposals had been co-produced with people from the local community.
  • The representative from the Kennington Association Planning Forum stated that he considered that the design was good and that the proposals would enhance the area. The draft Kennington Consevation Area Statement was critical of the existing buildings.
  • St. Anselm’s Church was at the heart of the community.
  • There would be a minimal impact on traffic as 83% of users would not use cars to come to the centre as it was very well served by public transport.
  • As regards complaints of noise these were mainly from public houses and not restaurants.
  • The benefits of the proposals outweighed any disbenefits.
  • The representative of the applicant wanted to keep costs down and instead of having a Section 106 agreement he stated that he considered that the imposition of conditions would be just as effective in achieving the desired aims. 
  • As regards affordable housing there would be a management plan covering this provision and this was one of the suggested conditions.
  • It was also unlikely that the occupiers of the residential units would have their own transport.
  • There was no need for a designated service bay.


In answer to Members’ questions the following further points were made:


  • Access to the restaurant would be via Kennington Lane.
  • Access for disabled people and pedestrians would be via the main entrance to the church.
  • The representative from the Kennington Association Planning Forum stated that he considered that the impact of the proposals were entirely manageable.
  • There would be people going to the restaurant by car but at present the roads were uncongested and there were no parking charges. It was pointed out that the extra number of trips was not the same as the extra number of car journeys predicted. It was estimated that there would be an extra 50 car journeys per day which was relatively light.


The meeting was addressed by Councillor Stephen Morgan, Ward Councillor for Prince’s Ward, who was also speaking on behalf of the other ward councillors, and made the following points:


  • Objectors had felt that they had not been properly consulted and the ward councillors had tried to get them involved.
  • The decision should have been made 6 months ago but had been delayed to deal with their concerns.
  • He was supportive of the scheme and although the objections were recognised he considered that the benefits outweighed any disadvantages.
  • There was a proposal to remove two parking bays at the back of the development which indicated that the parking pressure in the area was not that great.


Members expressed the following concerns:


·        Whether the proposed condition applying to occupation of the residential units (number 22) was enforceable and that it should be replaced by a Section 106 agreement. Officers indicated that it was enforceable. The applicants could ask for a variation of that condition in the future but that might not be agreed. Alternatively even with a Section 106 Agreement it was possible for this to be varied after five years. It could be made tighter by asking that records of people living there be available for inspection.

·        A possible Section 106 agreement regarding a car free development. Officers stated that a Section 106 agreement would be needed if members felt it was necessary to ensure that the development was car free but that there was a ‘model agreement’ that could be used for this purpose.

·        The hours of deliveries as it was felt that the proposed hours were generous.

·        The lack of wheelchair accessible accommodation. The applicant indicated that he would be happy to accept a condition regarding this.

·        The fact that condition 18 should extend to ‘dead areas’.

·        The disposal of cooking oils should be added to condition 31.

·        The lack of a construction method statement.


Councillor Brian Palmer moved that a Section 106 be applied for management of the use of the residential units but this was not seconded.


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




That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report as amended below:


That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report as amended below:


·        A Section 106 agreement to be applied in respect of it being a car free development.

·          Condition 18 to be amended to make specific reference to dead areas.

·          Condition 22 to be amended to ensure the effective monitoring and management of the use of the development and amendments to ensure 60% limit on properties being available for market rent.

·          Condition 25 to be amended so that the hours read between the hours of 10.00 and 19.00 Mondays to Saturdays.

·          Condition 31 to include the disposal of cooking oils.

·          Additional conditions regarding the provision of a wheelchair accessible unit and a construction method statement.




For – 3

Against – 0

Abstain – 1


Note: Councillor Ruth Ling was not present during the vote.



Supporting documents: