Agenda and minutes

Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 9 December 2014 7.00 pm

Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW. View directions

Contact: Katy Shaw Tel: 020 7926 2225 Email: 

No. Item


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.


Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 November 2014 pdf icon PDF 145 KB

    a)    Minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2014

    b)    Addendum


    Additional documents:




    That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 November 2014 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting and signed by the Chair.  


    Elizabeth House and 10 Leake Street


    As the two items on the agenda were connected there was one officer presentation covering both application sites and one discussion by Members.  The relevant resolutions were proposed and voted on according to each application site separately.


Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London SE1 7NQ (Bishops Ward) Case No 12/01327/FUL and 12/01329/CON pdf icon PDF 2 MB



    Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions, Section 106 Agreement, Stage 2 referral to the GLA and referral to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (12/01327/FUL)


    Grant Conservation Area Consent for Demolition (12/01329/CON)


    Additional documents:


    Case No 12/01327/FUL and 12/01329/CON, Agenda item 2 (page 1 on the agenda and addenda).


    The planning officer gave a presentation and noted that as the items were linked for the purposes of the EIA Regulations, there was a single Environmental Statement; addendums had been submitted since 2012.  This included assessment of the environmental impacts of the two schemes taken together as well as considering all other developments that had come into the pipeline since 2012.  In response to a late objection that had been received that day the planning officer drew the Committee’s attention to the design officer’s assessment as referred to within the Committee report at para 8.42.  Reference was made to the case of Barnwell Manor Wind Energy, including paragraph 28 of the judgment in that case (reproduced in Appendix 7, page 311 para 1.2) which set out how those taking planning decisions needed to approach the question of the weight and importance to be attached to preservation of heritage assets and their settings. 


    Following the planning officer’s presentation, the supporters of the application made the following points:


    ·         The applicants had worked in collaboration with consultees, residents and stakeholders during the development of the application.  It was a testament to the benefits of this work that there had been very few objections and no objectors had registered to speak at the meeting. 

    ·         There were a lot of empty shops on Lower Marsh.  6,000 more people would work in the proposed development than in the present building, which would provide additional customers.  

    ·         The rebuild would assist Network Rail’s plans for Waterloo Station and would move pedestrian traffic away from the riverside walkway.  

    ·         Waterloo Station had over 100 million passengers a year, a figure that was set to increase.  Network Rail wanted the station to play a role in the local community.  It was the intention that people would be able to walk from York Road, through Victory Arch Square or the Central Square, and onwards to the wider Waterloo Area including to the other side of the station, including Lower Marsh.  The proposed development would kick start the process of regeneration. 

    ·         The proposal was a good solution for a challenging site and would transform the whole area.

    ·         The community benefits were substantial; the developers were committed to building a strong community which would be reinforced by the benefits of the s106 agreement and CIL. 

    The Committee and officers then viewed the model of the proposal and the surrounding area together with supporting image boards.  The Director of Planning and Development reported that Members had asked questions about the following points: location of Milk Passage; the space between the International Terminal and the proposed building; the funding of a feasibility study to create a new walking route to Lower Marsh; the glazing of the scheme; and the operation of the Winter Gardens.


    The Committee’s legal advisor gave the Committee the following advice:


    Members were referred to the late letter of objection from Mr Tamplin, which had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.


10 Leake Street, London SE1 7NN (Bishop's Ward) Case No: 14/04268/FUL pdf icon PDF 13 MB



    To approve the application subject to conditions and completion of a S106 agreement.


    Case no: 14/04268/FUL, Agenda item 3 (page 335 on the agenda and addenda)


    This report was considered jointly with the report on Elizabeth House (agenda item 2) and the scheme is referred to in the minutes for Agenda item 2.


    It was MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Sally Prentice and


    RESOLVED unanimously


    To grant permission subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 agreement as set out in the reports as amended by the addenda.