Agenda and minutes

Councillor Nigel Haselden declared a ward interest in the application relating to Rear of 58 North Street also known as 2A Turret Grove and that he would be speaking against the application. He would therefore retire from the committee table in order to address the meeting on this item only.

To agree the minutes of the meetings of 07.04.09, 11.08.09 & 08.09.09 as an accurate record of these meetings

RESOLVED:

(1)   That the minutes of the meetings held on 11^th August and 8^th September 2009 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

(2)   That agreement of the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th April 2009 be deferred to allow further clarification to be sought from officers.

Case ref: 09/02740/FUL

Recommendation: Refuse Planning Permission and recommend enforcement action

(Application No. 09/02740/FUL) (Page 33 of the Agenda)

In presenting the report, officers stated that since the publication of the agenda an additional 20 letters of support had been received.  Further, it was highlighted that the application was recommended for refusal and officers were also recommending enforcement action against the unauthorised change of use of the premises.

The applicant for the scheme addressed the Committee stating that he had been operating in West Norwood for 23 years.  As the area was quite derelict in the evenings, residents enquired whether the shop could remain open late because there were no restaurants in the area.  He was pleased that residents could come and partake their refreshments in a nice and calm atmosphere.

Supporters to the scheme addressed the Committee making the following points:-

Ø      A significant number of residents had to travel all the way to West Dulwich to eat.

Ø      Although there were a number of cafes in the vicinity they closed at 5.00 pm.

Ø      Felt that no more noise would be emanated from the premises than from KFC.

Ø      Only take-away establishments existed in the vicinity.

Ø      Expressed support for the application as a restaurant was much needed in the area.

Ø      Fully understood the rules but felt that the café would attract more people and to have it open in the evening for cooked food would be good, and a vital business that is needed for the area.

Councillor Clare Whelan addressed the Committee in her capacity as ward member for Thurlow Park echoing the concerns of residents.  She felt that there would be no over-concentration of food premises as nothing else of a similar nature existed in the area.  She also felt that the café had a positive impact in the area and would not encourage crime.  Therefore, she expressed her support for the application and hoped that members would use their judgement to realise the potential need for this type of establishment in the area.    

Councillor Jackie Meldrum addressed the Committee stating that her ward was directly opposite the development concerned.  She made reference to the Norwood Masterplan which would transform West Norwood and explained that local people wished to stay and shop in the area.  She emphasised that people not living in the area also supported the application, as did Tessa Jowell, MP.  Regarding the 2 out of 5 rule, Crystal Palace had 5 successive premises in the area.  Therefore, she could see no reason to suggest that additional noise would be generated.  She pointed out that a petition had been handed in at the recent Council meeting and since then she had an additional 100 names in support of the application.  Residents were now fed-up of having to travel outside of the area.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment.  All members felt that there was no over-concentration of food and drink usage in the area and that the revival of night-time activity was supported and vital.  A member pointed out that as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Case Ref: 09/01038/FUL /NGR/21078

Officer Recommendation: Refuse planning permission

(Application No. 09/01038/FUL) (Page 47 of the Agenda)

Councillor Nigel Haselden withdrew from the committee for this item, as he had a ward interest and wished to speak as an objector to the application.

In introducing the report officers explained that the application was recommended for refusal as outlined in the report.

Councillor Nigel Haselden in his capacity as ward member for Clapham Town addressed the meeting explaining why he requested for the application to be considered by Committee.  He stated that the applicants wanted to keep a roof over their heads and considering the long history of the case, wanted a conclusion on the matter.  Following a request from the applicants, he concluded by reading a letter from ‘Planning Aid for London’ (circulated) which examined the Reasons provided that refused the applicants’ proposal. 

An objector addressed the meeting making the following points:-

Ø      The garage had no windows or natural light.

Ø      The garage would create the loss of a parking space.

Ø      The garage was too small for residential use and does not comply with guidelines.

The applicants addressed the Committee, making the following points:-

Ø      They had a petition with 140 signatures that supported their application.

Ø      The property had potential.

Ø      Her husband was a multi-skilled builder with over 40 years experience in the building trade and was willing to comply with any reasonable planning and design recommendations.

Ø      The property had never been used as a garage.

Ø      For council tax purposes the property had been registered by Lambeth Council as a studio flat.

Ø      Only a small minority of objectors had been received.

Ø      Concluded by reading a judgement that supported their application.

In response, officers stated there was a danger that court cases were taken out of context and could be interpreted wrongly.  Regarding the application, members needed to consider the planning merits and if not satisfied they should refuse it.

In response to a question, officers confirmed that since the last application nothing had changed to make it more suitable.

A Member requested officers to put the applicants in touch with the Housing Department.

MOVED by the Councillor Smith, SECONDED by Councillor John Whelan and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That planning permission be refused subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

Case ref: 09/01791/FUL /PCH/16777

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to Section 106 Agreement

(Application No. 09/01791/FUL) (Page 59 of the Agenda)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Case ref: 09/02182/FUL/SDI/19385

Recommendation: Agree variation of condition

(Application No. 09/02182/FUL) (Page 21 of the Agenda)

MOVED by Councillor Smith, SECONDED by Councillor Palmer and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the application be granted to allow the variation of condition subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Case ref: 09/02616/FUL/SDI/23050

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to conditions

(Application No. 09/02616/FUL) (Page 77 of the Agenda)

On introducing the report officers drew the Committee’s attention to a letter of objection received from Councillor Dianna Morris.

The applicants for the scheme addressed the Committee and stated that the development was currently being used as offices where residents come in for advice and support.  He explained that the main work of the organisation was to create employment and training opportunities

Councillor Michael Hipwell in his capacity as ward member for Thornton addressed the Committee and expressed concern that although the site was a Key Industrial Business Area (KIBA), traffic and parking problems existed.  Therefore, he felt it was inappropriate that 500 students and 22 members of staff would be using the site.  He emphasised that councillors had no objections to the application or its use but felt that the site was inappropriate for a Training Centre, due to the number of students and potential noise that would be generated from the site, especially as the Big Yellow Self Storage unit was constantly in use.  

In response the applicant reassured members that 500 students would not be accommodated on the premises at the same time, as the full training programme had not started.  It was explained that 500 was given as an example.  There were only 8 parking spaces available and students would be advised to use public transport.  The 22 staff members would only be available on a part-time basis as and when needed. 

Members expressed concern regarding:-

Ø      The clarity on the number of students.

Ø      Health and Safety of the site.

Ø      The potential for the proposed use to be in conflict with the adjoining employment generating uses due to the fact that it could be regarded as a noise sensitive use.

Ø      Access arrangements

Ø      Travel Impact

Therefore, it was felt that more clarification on the above matters was needed in order to make a decision.

Officers responded that a condition could be imposed to limit the amount of students on the site at any one time.

The applicant further reiterated that students would attend and leave the site during various times of the day so no additional noise would be generated.  Also, to suspend the application would result in the training programmes being delayed.  If agreed, he would be prepared to fix the number of students. 

Following further discussion, it was –

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the application be deferred in order for the applicants to consider:

(1)         The building capacity and how the building operates in terms of student numbers and operational hours of use.

(2)         The travel impact.

(3)         How to ensure that the proposed use would not suffer from undue noise disturbance from the existing adjacent employment-generating uses which are located within the KIBA.