Agenda and minutes

Councillor Diana Morris declared an interest in item 6 (Land at St. Agnes Place) as she was acquainted with one of the supporters but did not consider this to be prejudicial.

To agree minutes of the meetings held on 12^th April 2011 and 3^rd May 2011.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 12 April 2011 and 3 May 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

Recommendations:

10/03606/FUL: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

11/00166/FUL: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

11/00167/ADV: Grant Advertisement Consent subject to conditions

(Case Nos. 10/03606/FUL, 11/00166/FUL and 11/00167/ADV) (Page No. 63 of the Agenda)

RESOLVED:

That the report be deferred to a future meeting pending further details being provided on the noise impacts from the mechanical plant and air conditioning.

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

(Case No. 11/00129/FUL) (Page No. 147 of the Agenda)

The officers gave a presentation and drew the meeting’s attention to the additional information contained in the addendum and the fact that the recommendation was that there be a Section 106 agreement.

There were no objectors present at the meeting.

The Committee was addressed by two residents of the Estate who explained that the proposals were supported by the residents who wanted the works to start as soon as possible.

Members expressed concerns at the reasons for Condition 11 and asked that an additional reason regarding the safeguarding of residential amenity also be inserted and that there be an additional condition on boundary treatments.  Members also felt that the quality of the scheme was dependent on ongoing maintenance of the landscaping.

Assurances were given that the fence outside the Tenants Hall would not be removed when that facility was refurbished.

MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:

RESOLVEDUNANIMOUSLY:

1)     That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 agreement, the conditions set out in the report as amended by the addendum, and the following amendments:

·        The reason for condition 11 to be amended to make reference to need to safeguard residential amenity during the course of construction.

·        Add extra conditions about landscape maintenance and details of boundary treatments.

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement

(Case No. 11/00251/RG3) (Page 19 of the Agenda)

The officers gave a presentation referring members to the additional information contained in the addendum and the fact that it was recommended that there be a Section 106 agreement The officers gave a presentation referring members to the additional information contained in the addendum and the fact that it was recommended that there be a Section 106 agreement to secure the provision of a car club parking bay and membership for 2 years for the future occupiers. The Section 106 was also required to secure affordable housing and additional affordable housing should the site be subdivided or additional housing provided on site.

Officers also advised that an additional condition was required to remove permitted development rights.

It was also reported that the Parks and Open Spaces Officer had proposed that tree 14 be removed and tree 13 be retained whereas the Arboricultural Officer had supported the proposal that tree 13 be removed and tree 14 retained. The presence of tree 13 would affect the footings of the development.

The meeting was addressed by three residents of Brief Street who made the following points:

• The planning website did not contain details of the 11 objections which had led to problems in identifying objectors.
• Whilst they did not object to the site being developed they considered that the proposals were not appropriate in a conservation area and did not reflect the design of the neighbouring properties.
• The proposed design did not retain the lines of the neighbouring properties.
• There would be an unacceptable loss of trees.
• There was very little provision for cars and there would be an increase in parking pressure in the neighbourhood.
• They asked that the design be resubmitted to address their concerns.

In answer to questions from the Members the following points were made by officers and the applicant:

• Fruiting trees had been proposed as that had been advised by a Council Officer.
• No parking was proposed on the site as the development was on a corner where there were traffic signals. As there was no off street parking the proposal to provide a car club parking bay and car club membership for future occupiers had been proposed as part of the Section 106 agreement.
• The timber to be used on the building would be sustainable such as chestnut or larch and would not need to be treated. It would go grey after a year and could last for 60 years.
• As regards the buildings these did not have steps because of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. There was an alignment with the top of the Bay Window of the neighbouring property.
• It would not be appropriate to refuse the application on the grounds of there being a loss of garden as this referred to the loss of back gardens and this was an infill site, as a result of bomb damage.
• The site was presently underutilized as the present property did not meet the standards for Decent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

(Case No. 11/00391/RG4) (Page No. 205 of the Agenda)

Councillor John Whelan left the meeting during consideration of this item and did not play any part in the remainder of the meeting.

The officers presented the report and drew Members’ attention to the proposed amendments in the addendum. In addition the following items were brought to their attention:

• An additional Water Drainage Strategy had been submitted to the Environmental Agency by the applicant in light of the Environment Agency’s comments as set out in the report.
• The applicant was offering the following parks and open space contribution as part of the Section 106 agreement:

£30,000 for the construction of a new green waste recycling plant

£10,000 towards improvements to the footpath across the park from Bolton Crescent to Mead Road.

·        The applicant was offering 40% affordable housing by units on a non-grant scenario and 52% affordable housing by units on a grant scenario.

The following points, raised by an objector from the Kennington APG Support Group, in a written submission were noted:

·        The proposed new play area would be much smaller than the existing play area (the Adventure Playground and One o' clock club). The new play area should be the same size as the present one.

·        Assurance that the existing play area would not be demolished or closed until the new one (the new adventure playground and One o' clock club) was open and ready for children to use.

The meeting was addressed by a supporter from the Friends of Kennington Park who made the following points:

• They supported the proposals and as regards the play area it would have much better facilities than the existing provision and be better utilized.
• There were concerns regarding the proposal to share the space with the park as there could be problems with anti social behaviour.

The applicant made the following points:

• It was important that the new play area was available before the existing one was closed and this was one of the conditions proposed as part of the planning permission.
• The scheme would continue to be developed and long term management would be retained.

Members expressed some concern at the proposal to share space with the children’s play area and asked that this be a matter for further discussion amongst the interested parties. It was confirmed that this would happen.

A Member expressed concerns at the amounts offered as part of the Section 106 agreement and considered them to be insufficient. In addition any contribution should be spent in Kennington Park as this would be most affected by the development as it would result in a higher use of the park. Officers gave an assurance that the Section 106 contribution for parks and open spaces would all be spent in Kennington Park.

It was reported that the provision of public art would be made as part of the development. Members requested that consultation be carried out as to what form this should be.

MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Agreement and referral to the National Planning Casework Unit.

(Case No. 11/00832/RG3) (Page No. 1 of the Second Despatch)

Guillotine

During the discussion of this item, the guillotine fell at 10.00 pm.

MOVED by the Chair, and:

RESOLVED: That in accordance with Standing Order 9.9, the meeting continue for a further period of up to 45 minutes.

The officers presented the report and drew members attention to the amendments proposed in the addendum. In addition there were the following amendments to the conditions as set out in the report:

• Condition 12: delete all references to ‘cycle parking’ and insert ‘pushchair/buggy parking’.
• Condition 14: delete the word ‘relocated’ and insert ‘new’.

It was noted that there were no objectors present.

The Committee was addressed by the Assistant Director, Building Schools for the Future, and the Head Teacher of Julian’s School who made the following points:

• There was a demand for additional pupil places in the West Norwood area.
• Julian’s School was heavily oversubscribed with 200 applications for 30 places
• The proposal was to retain Gabriel House rather than demolishing it, therefore retaining the links to the community.

Councillor Jane Pickard, Ward Councillor for Knight’s Hill Ward, addressed the committee and made the following points:

·        She supported the principle of a school on the site.

·        Local residents had identified two problems – the pedestrian right of way to the west of the site and the amount of traffic that would be generated.

·        As regards the right of way she understood that it had to have been established for at least 20 years. She knew that this had been in existence for 30 years. It was used on a regular basis as it was a more pleasant walk to the station and West Norwood Town Centre and was well used by more than 300 persons per day.

·        If it was blocked off it would cause problems with access to the proposed Health and Leisure Centres on the Norwood Hall Site.

·        As regards traffic she was content to wait and see what the situation would be although she questioned the result of the survey which indicated that there were a lot of parking spaces in the area.

Members were concerned about the problems relating to the pedestrian right of way. It was noted that proposed condition 34, as amended in the addendum, covered this point. Concern was expressed at the scope of the proposed audit and they were informed that this was a well established methodology which would look at established patterns and at the new ones that would develop as a result of the Norwood Hall development and of the school itself and which would be consulted upon. It would look at pedestrian movement in the area on a wide basis. 

Members also raised concerns about the boundary treatment and the management of deliveries and of staff travel.

MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling and it was:

RESOLVEDUNANIMOUSLY:

1)     That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Recommendation: Refuse Planning Permission

(Case No. 11/00787/FUL) (Page No. 187 of the Agenda)

MOVED by Councillor Brian Palmer and SECONDED by Councillor Diana Morris and it was:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

1)     That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

(Case No. 11/00726/FUL) (Page No. 121 of the Agenda)

The meeting was addressed by a representative of the owners of the premises who made the following points:

• In condition 4 the hour of 12.00pm Sunday to Thursday should read 12 midnight.
• The request that in condition 5 the time be 22.00 and not 21.00 as it was intended that the area be utilized for the break in the performance which occurred between 21.00 and 21.30.

Officers confirmed that the hours of use of the outdoor area had not been part of the consultation regarding the application.

MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:

RESOLVEDUNANIMOUSLY:

1)                 That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following amendments:

·        Condition 4: the hour of 12.00pm Sunday to Thursday to read 12 midnight Sunday to Thursday.

·        Condition 5: amend the time to 22.00.

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

(Case No. 11/01073/FUL) (Page No. 49 of the Agenda)

MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:

RESOLVEDUNANIMOUSLY:

1)     That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

(Case No. 10/04228/FUL) (Page No. 135 of the Agenda)

MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:

RESOLVEDUNANIMOUSLY:

1)     That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

(Case No. 11/00855/FUL) (Page No. 253 of the Agenda)

MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris and SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:

RESOLVEDUNANIMOUSLY:

1)     That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report

(Page No. 261 of the Agenda)

RESOLVED:

1)     That the report be noted.