Agenda item

2 - 7 Stockwell Green (Larkhall) 16/02035/FUL

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, Development and Transport 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.    That if the Section 106 Agreement is not signed within 4 months of this committee the Director of Planning, Development and Transport be given delegated powers to consider refusing the application in the absence of a legal agreement.

 

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. 16/02035/FUL (agenda item 3, page nine 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 01 September and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of the existing building, the erection of a part 2, 3 and 4 storey building with residential and A1 use, the impact on nearby heritage assets, the provision of refuse storage, cycle parking and communal amenity space and agreed payments in lieu of provision of affordable housing and on-street - disabled car parking.  Members were shown images of the existing site and streetscape, and of plans, elevations and on-street views of the proposal.  Two conditions were proposed that had not been included in either addendum, regarding piling/basement construction and details of the children’s playspace.

 

Officers and the applicant’s representatives then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:

·         All three residential blocks would be linked and the rooftop amenity space would be fully accessible.  The condition regarding secured by design would cover security between the blocks.

·         While the amount of playspace to be provided fell below London Plan standards, the shortfall was relatively small at 5.4m2.  This was deemed acceptable due to the constraints of the site.  Some flats in Block C would have gardens.

·         After liaising with Transport Officers, the applicant had agreed to pay £10,000 towards an on-street disabled car parking space.

·         To access the cycle parking at the lower ground level, users would have to walk along a corridor and down a set of steps, with a cycle ramp.  A condition was in place to approve the details of the cycle storage.

·         The refuse storage would be shared by residents and the A1 unit.  The contribution of £20,000 towards a loading bay had addressed Veolia’s concerns.

·         A tenant had not yet been secured for the A1 unit. 

·         Policy ED10(d) was not breached as some retail space would be retained.  Officers had worked with the applicant to maximise the amount of retail space as the initial application had been wholly residential.

·         Six people were currently employed on the site, whereas nine would be employed in the new development.

·         The local centres of Brixton and Stockwell were within 400 metres of the site.

·         The viability assessment had been considered several times by BNP Paribas and the contribution of £38,000 was deemed appropriate.  The viability assessment had been based on the lapsed approval granted in 2016.  There would be a review mechanism for the financial contribution.

·         The permission granted in 2008 did not include any affordable housing provision, as it was not then required in policy.

·         It was the opinion of officers that the provision of family sized units had been maximised given the constraints of the site.

·         Achieving an acceptable design had been difficult due to the differing architectural styles and massing of historic and modern neighbouring buildings.  The stepping up of the building’s height mediated the height differences and the horizontal banding accentuated the details of the listed buildings.

·         The potential use of the ground floor commercial unit for A2 use had not been considered, and could not be considered at this stage.

·         The proposal did not have any more of a detrimental effect than the existing neighbouring modern building.  The application would be a positive contribution to the streetscape.

·         According to official figures, the child yield of the development would be two.

[At 22:00 the Committee elected to proceed with the meeting for a further 45 minutes in order to conclude the remaining matters of business.]

 

The Committee considered information provided by officers and the applicant in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:

·         The proposal did not look appropriate next to a listed building.

·         The anticipated child yield appeared unlikely to be correct and the provision of children’s playspace was inadequate.

·         The justification for the reduction in A1 retail space was not clear.

·         It appeared unlikely that a development with 24 units would not be able to support any affordable housing.

·         The application complied with policy ED10 as there some retail space was retained.

·         The shortfall in playspace was relatively small and a refusal on that shortfall would be difficult to justify.

·         The site was constrained and design officers had worked to achieve a high quality design.

 

It was MOVED by Councillor Simpson, SECONDED by Councillor Seedat, and

 

RESOLVED, by five votes for to one vote against

 

1.            To GRANT planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions as outlined in the officer’s report and published addenda and the following:

i)      A condition requiring that work on the children’s playspace shall not commence until details have been provided and approved.

ii)     A condition stating that no piling shall take place until a piling method statement has been provided.

 

2.            To delegate authority of the Director of Planning, Development and Transport 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.         That if the Section 106 Agreement is not signed within 4 months of this Committee the Director of Planning, Development and Transport be given delegated powers to consider refusing the application in the absence of a legal agreement.

Supporting documents: