STOCKWELL PARK RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE MEETING

            held 7.30 p.m.Tuesday 8th January 2008 at  29 Stockwell Park Crescent.

 

Present: Anthony Gladstone-Thompson, Janine Gladstone-Thompson, Elizabeth Aves, Roberta Bonometti, Amanda Cornish, Stuart Jarvis.

 

Apologies: Simon Doff, Caroline Hirst, Karim Kassam

Stockwell Park School Development: update

Stuart Jarvis attended the meeting to update on developments. He has kindly written this detailed summary himself:

SJ - Following planning approval I have had the approval reviewed and opinion is that the conditions regarding operating hours are as firm as could be and any increase in hours would need to go to full planning committee.

AG-T Raised questions regarding obligation of school to operate with those hours.

SJ - School is obliged to operate within the conditions of the planning approval - failure to comply would need to be addressed by the council. The planning application did include restrictive access measures to the pitch but closure of these and operation of floodlights would be the responsibility of the school. There were no details concerning the staffing or auto operation of the lights within the plan.

SJ -General opinion as to where we should go from here has been very mixed. There is a strong view amongst some residents that good concessions have been achieved and that we should not risk 'handing those back' by pursuing matters further. Others have expressed fears that whilst the pitch is sited where it is planned then there will always be the danger of light, noise and trespass issues and that we should continue to 'fight'.

SJ - Options available are limited as there is no right of appeal on planning approvals. I have been speaking to 'The Environmental Law Foundation' (ELF) who are a charity who advise on planning matters - their advice is as follows:

 1/ Only option now is to ask for Judicial review. 
   

2/ Judicial Review does not make judgement on the quality of the planning approval, only on the process - if the process is flawed or protocols not followed then there may be grounds to get the planning result overturned

3/ If the judgement were in favour of the appellants - the original application would be null and void and applicants would forced to re-apply. Despite requiring a new application, there is no obligation on the applicants to amend plans though in reality this often happens. Similarly there is no guarantee that original planning committee conditions would be re-imposed (i.e. we potentially would risk losing current concessions)

 4/ Judicial Reviews are a 2 phase process - firstly a 'Permission to object' must be reviewed by a judge (cost £2,000 - £3,000). If this was successful then we would go to a full hearing

 (cost £ 10,000 - £20,000). In most cases costs are awarded in favour of the winner (i.e. if we were to go to full hearing and lose we would be responsible for the council’s costs as well). The only way to avoid costs is if someone who qualifies for legal aid were to bring the case.

  5/ ELF have reviewed our case and believe that there WAS a flaw in the planning approval - notably that approval for removal of the pool was given whilst simultaneously the committee requested that the applicants reviewed their design to see if there was any chance of amending to keep said pool. There were two other technical points which may have constituted procedural flaws.

 6/ ELF have referred our case to a barrister for his/her opinion of our chances of victory - (this is a free service that they offer and does not constitute any intention on our part to proceed further).

 7/ We have until 02 Feb to initiate the Judicial Review procedure. 
        
       

 It is my view that we should await the barrister’s review before deciding how to proceed.

Cautionary note that was given by ELF is that it is often more successful to work with the council rather than go through legal route.

SJ - Heard from Kate Hoey that Building Schools For The Future (BSF)  have appointed S&P Architects to review the feasibility of retaining/refurbing/extending the existing pool (which could by default involve re-siting the  Multi-Use Games Area/Sports Pitch (MUGA) or possibly building a new pool on site (no decision on siting). This may be merely a public relations exercise but Kate believes that the BSF and involved parties feel that they have 'messed up' a little and that this may be a genuine attempt to appease the local community. Kate will revert as and when she knows more.

Stuart will draft a letter for SPRA to send to Stockwell Park School to ask whether mature trees can be planted as screens along the boundary with  the private houses.

                                                                                                                                                                                /cont.

                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                 -  2  -

Stuart will also look into the question of the proposed  siting of the school’s industrial-sized rubbish bins. From the plans, it looks as if these may be  hard up against the back garden walls of the Stockwell Park Road houses to the left of the Stockwell Park Road entrance – unacceptable to these families.

Thank you very much, Stuart, for all you are doing.

Liz Aves mentioned Lucy Annan’s report on the Stockwell Park website:

‘I thought residents might be interested to hear the following....CABE the Commission for the Built Environment assessed all the designs for Schools for the Future recently rating them from mediocre to excellent.  Only good and excellent get the go ahead, for the others it’s back to the drawing board.  The only one in the excellent category was Stockwell Park High School.’

45 Stockwell Park Road:

This planning application, refused by Lambeth Planning Committee in July 07, is to be the subject of an appeal. The official submission from SPRA, supporting Lambeth’s planning committee in objecting to this proposed development, has now been finalized and submitted to the planning inspectorate, together with the many supporting letters and emails opposing the planning application.

New Street Lighting:

The new lighting is progressing...

Pavements:

It was noted that Lambeth’s Head of Highways Martin Sachs had confirmed that there is a possibility of funding for resurfacing pavements in Burnley Road, the condition of which is considered by many to be the worst in the area. Councillor Pav Akthar is also pressing for this. Elizabeth Aves agreed that she’ll recontact Mr. Sachs to pursue the question of the footways throughout the Conservation Area being resurfaced.

Lorn Road Garage:

Roberta’s report: The application to develop the garage at the Brixton end of Lorn Road, which SPRA had supported in principle, has been turned down by the council on the grounds that the application did not give enough details on the proposed development and did nothing to enhance the neighbourhood. It was feared that the foundation works might have harmed the roots of the old trees on the neighbouring property. It is not known if the garage owner, Mr. Clarke, intends to appeal or resubmit another application.

Carol Concert:

A great success! Many thanks to Martin and Christine for their organization and to all who took part, including the children’s choir. * Next year: a retiring collection for the church.

Summer Festival Dates:

Last year’s Festival organisers to be asked which of the following weekends would be best in terms of school events/national sports’ fixtures; 6/7/8 June 2008; 13/14/15th June; 20/21/22 June.

 

Thank you Anthony and Janine for hosting this meeting.

 Thank you Stuart for attending.

 

NEXT MEETING: 7.30 Tuesday March 4th at 28 Stockwell Park Road

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A.C.