York House, 199 Westminster Bridge Road London, SE1 7UT (Bishop's Ward) (12/04421/FUL)
- Meeting of Planning Applications Committee, Tuesday 29 January 2013 7.00 pm (Item 4.)
- View the background to item 4.
Recommendation: Resolve to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a S106 agreement; for referral thereafter to the Mayor and Secretary of State.
(Case No. 12/04421/FUL) (Agenda Item 6, Page 101 of the Agenda)
There was an officer presentation that covered the following additional points:
· The proposed college was a ‘Further Education’ establishment, as opposed to a ‘Higher Education’ establishment as referred to in the report.
· Comments had been received from CABE in support of the scheme.
· Comments had been received from the Waterloo Community Development Group supporting the recommendations but raising the following points regarding the recommended Section 106 contributions:
- Increased community access to the swimming pool. This point is addressed below.
- The fact that the level of the CIL would be £1,270,378 and not £1,468,215 as set out in the report as schools and colleges are exempt from the CIL. This figure was confirmed by the officers.
- A commuted sum of £40,000 to be made for a library/community hub. Officers pointed out that the councils’ policy was that student accommodation and college uses were not expected to make contributions towards library facilities.
- In the event of the incubator space failing, the benefit be cascaded to support the Business Improvement District (BID). Officers pointed out that this provision was not a planning policy requirement for the site but the provision added to the public benefit offered by the development. In the unlikely event of it failing, the cascade of the benefit to the BID would not be necessary to mitigate any unacceptable impacts of the development.
· Comments had been received from the owner of Becket House which were broadly supportive of the application but raising concerns about the daylight levels in Becket House and the viability of future development of Becket House. Officers stated that the proposed scheme fell within a recently permitted building envelope granted permission earlier that month. The location of the student residences facing Becket House should not affect the future development of Becket House. It was not expected that students would be in their rooms during the daytime.
· A change to the recommendation regarding Section 106 contributions to state that the Railway Arch Contribution of £453,000 be applied towards improvement works to the railway arches within the vicinity of the site, but with priority being given to works to Upper Marsh and/or Westminster Bridge Road.
· An amendment to condition 30 and minor amendments to conditions 9 and 26.
The Members then looked at the model displayed at the meeting.
Officers confirmed that access to the cycle provision was at the back of the building and that as part of condition 13 the lighting scheme to that area would have to be submitted so that it was compliant with any recommendations around the prevention of crime.
The meeting was addressed by a representative of the South Bank Employers Group who made the following points:
· The proposed Section 106 obligations were too prescriptive and should be more flexible so that they can be used towards the improvements in public accessibility needed in the area.
The meeting was addressed by the applicant who made the following points:
· If planning permission was granted the scheme could go ahead as soon as possible.
· There would continue to be engagement with stakeholders.
· It was an opportunity to create purpose built high quality accommodation for students in the area.
In answer to questions from Members the applicant made the following additional points:
· The Health Suite would consist of a swimming pool and two studio spaces. They were not intended for public use although they would be made available to Lambeth/Local School groups from 10.00 am to 12 noon and 2.00 pm to 4.00 pm Mondays to Fridays during term time.
Officers confirmed that the extant scheme (08/00629/FUL) still had planning permission and could be built instead of this scheme even if planning permission were to be granted. However it was understood that there was no demand for that scheme.
The applicants added the following points:
· They had recently completed the purchase of the site and their clients were only concerned with providing student accommodation in Central London.
· As regards increasing community access to the swimming pool there would be security problems in identifying who would be using the pool if it was a swimming club. However they were open to continuing a dialogue with local stakeholders.
A member raised concerns about the proposed design of the scheme.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling, and:
That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the addendum to the report, the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement (heads of terms set out at section 7.13); referral to the Mayor under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 and the Secretary of State under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 and the following amendments:
· Condition 9 to be amended to require the submission of more specific, key 1:20 drawings on the details of the external envelope.
· Condition 26 to be amended to state that the programme of archaeological work be triggered by construction works and not development.
· That Condition 30 be amended to read as follows – “The development shall not begin until details of the external drainage system including a sustainable drainage system and measures to ensure that there is no transfer of water between the highway and the site have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no part of the development shall be occupied until the works for the disposal of surface water have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.”
· That the railway arch contribution in the Section 106 agreement be prioritised for works to Upper Marsh and/or Westminster Bridge Road, then works to other railway arches in the area and then other public realm works in the area.
· That an informative be added encouraging the applicants to continue a dialogue with local stakeholders with a view to widening access to the swimming pool for local clubs.
For – 5
Against – 0
Abstain – 1