Venue: Committee Room (B6) - Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, London, SW2 1RW. View directions
Contact: Nicholas Joseph Tel: 020 7926 3123 Email: NJoseph@lambeth.gov.uk
Declaration of Pecuniary Interests
Under Standing Order 4.4, where any councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.
There were none.
To agree minutes of the meetings held on 23 April 2019 and 07 May 2019.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 07.05.2019 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.
The Chair announced a provisional timetable for the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 9.9.1.
1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 containing the planning obligations listed in this report.
2. Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:
a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and
b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report and PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.
4. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report and the PAC minutes.
Case No. 18/05029/FUL (agenda item 03, page 19 of the agenda pack, page 01 of the addendum and page 01 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 31 May 2019 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included diagrams and pictures showing the new entrances, ticket hall, viaduct and ground floor plan. The proposed entrance interior was also shown. The rationale for the application was set out, noting that the development would prevent future overcrowding; enhance access to Southwark Station and the public transport network generally; and increase footfall to shops, restaurants and other businesses in Lambeth. The site was noted as being within the Central Activities Zone and the area was projected to grow with 15,000 new jobs and 2,500 new homes. There were diagrams showing the projected use of the station and the assessments, including expected passenger growth on the Jubilee line. Data and modelling predicted that approximately 15-20% of station users would use the Greet Street entrance. The noise impact was considered to be acceptable. The impact of the application on daylight and sunlight would be negligible. Officers had assessed the operational management plan and considered it acceptable. Provision would be made for public realm improvement works to mitigate the impacts of the development and provide improvements, including 5 bike stands and 3 trees on Greet Street to be secured by a Section 106 Agreement.
Following the officer’s presentation, the objectors raised the following concerns:
• The transport case had not been made. Southwark Station was not congested. Brixton Station was busier. Tfl acknowledged that rat runs for Waterloo East and Blackfriars Street would be a problem.
• A covert entrance in a small station was not suitable. And it would not be presentable. The station building was not listed and the ticket hall could be redeveloped.
• No stations were found in central London which opened onto residential side streets.
• This was a residential area on a quiet back street. Residential amenity should be protected.
• The loss of open space which was currently a garden cared for by local residents.
• This was a very contentious application with no local support.
• A second entrance would increase anti-social behaviour, such as street beggars and loiterers.
• The location currently had a high crime rate and residents felt that if the application was approved it would cause further problems.
• It is contrary to residents’ amenity. The 2009 scheme was also contrary to residents’ amenity and the changes proposed do not overcome previous concerns.
• This application would not improve the area, it did not meet the Local Policy Q2 and would be harmful to local businesses.
• Due to the noise and amenity (paragraph 7.7 committee report) it was reasonable to presume that people would congregate around the new entrance which would be unacceptable. ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
1. Resolve to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.
2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Development considers reasonably necessary.
Case No. 19/00922/FUL (agenda item 04, page 128 of the agenda pack, page 05 of the addendum and page 05 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 31 May 2019 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the fact that the structure will be in place for a temporary period. The impact on heritage assets are positive noting the public benefits that arise from the proposal and are considered acceptable by officers. This included the temporary erection of a zip line from 28 May to 20 September 2019, including launch and landing towers 232 metres apart, the impacts on park users, neighbouring residents and heritage assets, the proposed operating hours and the public benefits of the application Slides and pictures of the application were shown. The zip line would cross a children’s play area and sports pitches. There would be 4 cables for riders, with 8 in total. The slides showed the land use of neighbouring properties the application covers 780sq meters, or 2.1% of the park and officers considered that it would offer a different way to enjoy the park.
There would be no harm to existing buildings or amenity. The application would create at least 50 jobs, at least nine of which would be staffed by Lambeth residents. The application would raise awareness of the park and increase spending in the Waterloo area. The noise would be appropriate and Planning would regulate the times of use.
The applicant and agent then provided the following information in support of the application:
• Since 2018 the design moved as the landing station was too close to the path.
• The operational hours would be shortened from the hours granted in 2018. There were no noise complaints.
• The application would be operational for 16.5 weeks between May and September, a reduction on previous years.
• The site would include toilets, litter picking and security on site.
• There would be limited impact to the conservation area.
• There would be heavy local engagement.
• Some fundraising events will be held for the public.
• An option of free rides would be available to all carers and free rides had been offered to local schools.
Officers and the applicant then provided the following information in response to questions from Members: The applicant held data showing how many return riders and new users there had been in 2018.
• Consideration of residents’ views regarding bringing people to Archbishops Park plays a crucial role.
• The event required a minimum of 50 staff members in order to fit with shift patterns
• Staff were paid higher than the London Living Wage.
• All machinery used would be in line with the London Plan.
• Due to weather conditions, reparative works to the park following damage from the 2018 event had not taken ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
To note the Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions for December 2018.
Members thanked officers for their work in defending Council policies.
To note the Planning Appeal and Enforcement Decisions for January 2019.
This item was considered alongside item 5: Appeal and Enforcement Decisions December 2018.