Case No 16/01229/FUL and
16/01230/LB (agenda item
three, page 19 of the agenda pack, page one of the addendum and
page one 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 10 June 2016 and the day
of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning
issues for consideration which included the proposed loss of
employment floorspace, affordable
housing offer and quality of residential units. Members were also
advised to consider the proposed height and bulk of the development
along with the impact on neighbouring residential amenity and
Officers confirmed the
procedure for submitting written and visual representations to the
planning authority prior to the committee meeting. All the
information councillors needed to make a balanced decision of the
application was included within the officer’s report, addenda
Following the officer’s
presentation, the objectors raised the following
- The garden at 1
Hazelwood Mews was currently secluded and peaceful. The building on
the south side of the proposed development would directly overlook
the garden and result in a loss of privacy to
- The proposed building
would be overbearing on neighbouring properties.
- A number of late
amendments had been made to the application and local residents had
not been given enough time to fully consider their impact.
Residents had also not had enough time to employ a planning
consultant to represent them at the committee.
- The building would
unduly impact on the level of sunlight and daylight received by the
residents at 1 Hazelwood Mews. This contravened Policy Q2 of the
Lambeth Local Plan 2015.
- The proposals would
have a devastating impact on local neighbouring residents’
quality of life and more time was required for further consultation
and revision to the plans.
- The gardens
neighbouring the site at 361 Clapham Road were particularly special
and contributed to the local conservation area. Privacy would be
compromised by the proposed development and residential amenity
would be effected by office workers and noise from the
applicant’s arboricultural report did not confirm that there
would be no damage to local trees. The basement construction was
likely to harm tree roots and this would have a knock-on effect for
local wildlife and the conservation area.
- The height and
massing of the development was significant and would undoubtedly
effect the levels of sunlight and daylight reaching 361 Clapham
- There was no
precedent for new tall buildings or basement developments in the
area and the height of the proposed rear building was not offset by
being set back from the property boundaries.
- A development
containing 28 residential units and the potential for 120 office
workers on site was not consistent with the character of the local
- The refuse and waste
management issues remained unresolved.
- Planning officers and
the Arboricultural Officer needed
to visit the site and reassess the impact of the
The planning consultant, agent
and architect then provided the following information in support of
- The applicants had
worked for over two years to produce a development that would
respond well to the local environment and respect the privacy of
neighbouring residential properties. Following consultation with
residents, fundamental changes had been made to the application and
it was not considered that the resulting development would have any
undue effect on residential amenity.
- Extensive work had
been carried out to ensure the proposals were consistent with the
local conservation area.
- The design minimised
the level of overlooking on neighbouring gardens and opaque louvers
had also been included to this effect.
- No trees would be
felled as a result of the development and all would be
- The existing listed
building would be carefully restored.
The Ward Councillor for
Larkhall, Councillor Andrew Wilson,
then stated the following:
- The garden at 361
Clapham Road was particularly beautiful and its privacy would be
compromised by the excessive height and bulk of the proposed
- The development would
have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential
- The permanent
retention of the proposed opaque louvers must be secured by
- The health of local
trees would suffer as a result of the basement
- There was a risk that
the employment units would be converted to residential
accommodation under permitted development.
- The tenure mix
cascade strategy would not necessarily result in any social rented
units on site. It was likely that all the affordable units would be
Intermediate and these could not be considered truly affordable.
More affordable housing was required.
Officers then provided the
following information in response to questions from
- The applicant had
agreed to develop the office units to turnkey standards. This would
appeal to small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) by making it easier
for them to establish on the site. There was clear demand for SME
office space in the area and the development was consistent with
council policy to retain commercial space in the
- Condition 29 would
prevent B1 to residential change of use without planning
- The council had
employed a specialist to review the sunlight/daylight assessment
submitted by the applicant. They had requested additional
information before agreeing that there would be no impacts on
neighbouring properties outside of the BRE standards.
- The opaque louvers
were one of a number of strategies being employed to protect the
privacy of neighbours. The positioning of balconies and perimeter
walls would also prevent overlooking. The louvers would allow
residents of the proposed development to look up and out, but not
down, on neighbouring gardens.
- No balconies had been
proposed for the front building in order to conserve the
significance and setting of the listed building.
- The council’s
independent viability consultant (BNPP) noted that there was a high
alternative use value for the site and confirmed that the applicant
was providing the maximum amount of affordable housing.
- The tenure mix
cascade strategy would allow for a six month period of marketing of
the affordable housing units to an agreed list of registered
providers. If no providers took up the offer in this time, the
applicants could revert back to the current affordable housing
offer of six Intermediate units.
- Should Members
consider it necessary, an informative could be included requesting
as much soft landscaping as possible within the landscaping
- It would be difficult
to enforce a condition preventing people from smoking in particular
parts of the site, however Members could request that a designated
smoking area be provided via a Site Management Plan. The smoking
area could be positioned sensitively away from residential
- It would be difficult
to restrict the amount of people visiting the office units at any
- The retention of the
opaque louvers would be required by Condition 15.
- The height of the
front building would be marginally lower than the adjoining listed
- The council did not
give guidance regarding the steepness of the slope that bins would
have to be wheeled up for refuse collections. However the gradient
would be consistent with the gradients required by other similar
- The applicant had
agreed to retain the existing boundary wall next to 1 Hazelwood
Mews. This agreement would be secured by condition.
The committee considered points
raised by speakers and information
provided by officers in conjunction
with the report before making the
- The retention of
office space was in line with council policy and was to be
commended. The level of commercial space was not excessive and B1
employment units would be compatible with the residential
- One Member remained
unconvinced about the level of demand for employment units in the
area, however other Members were satisfied that there was
sufficient demand for this type of office space.
- An additional
informative was required to advise the applicant to include as much
soft landscaping as possible in the landscaping plan.
- A Site Management
Plan should be secured by condition.
- An informative should
be included requesting that any designated smoking area within the
office outdoor amenity space be sited as considerately as possible
from the point of view of the residential occupiers.
- The Site Management
Plan should also make reference to the numbers of people using the
office amenity space at any given time in order to safeguard
It was MOVED by Councillor
Wilcox, seconded by Councillor Seedat,
To GRANT Planning Permission
(16/01229/FUL) subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions as
outlined in the officer’s report and published addenda and
An additional condition requiring a Site Management
An additional informative that requests that the
Site Management Plan includes a provision that any designated
smoking area within the office outdoor amenity space be sited as
considerately as possible from the point of view of the residential
occupiers and that it contains a provision regarding managing the
numbers of people using the office amenity space at any given time
to protect residential amenity.
An additional informative requiring that there is as
much soft landscaping as possible included in the landscaping
That the words ‘and returned’ are
inserted into the waste management condition to ensure the bins are
returned to the site on collection day.
The committee also delegated
authority to the Director of Planning and Development
Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in
this report including such refinements, amendments, additions
and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Development
considers reasonably necessary;
Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning
obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, including refining, adding to, amending and/or
deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms as the
Director of Planning and Development considers reasonably
Complete the planning obligations in the
It was then MOVED by Councillor
Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Simpson, and
To GRANT Listed Building
Consent (16/01230/LB) subject to
the conditions as outlined in the officer’s
report and published addenda.
The committee also agreed to
delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Development to
finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report
including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions
as the Director of Planning and Development considered reasonably