Venue: Committee Room B6, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill SW2 1RW
Contact: Maria Burton Tel: 020 7926 8703 Email: MBurton2@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.
With regard to application 17/02936/FUL (Graphite Square), Councillor Simpson stated that she would stand down from the Committee for the duration of the item as she had a pre-determined view and would be speaking in objection to the application.
Case No. 17/03986/FUL (agenda item four, page 85 of the agenda pack, page 7 of the addendum and page 3 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 2 February 2018 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of the existing building on site, the proposal for new television studios, office space and 213 residential units, the provision of 22 affordable units and a contribution to off-site affordable housing, the provision of landscaping and of a public square and the public benefits of the scheme. Members were shown images of the site and its surroundings, the protected views potentially impacted by the development, and the proposed layout of the scheme. Two additional conditions had been included in the addenda.
Following the officer’s presentation, the objectors raised the following concerns:
· Redevelopment of the site would enhance the appearance and environment of the area.
· There were concerns of the impact that noise and vibration from construction work would have on nearby businesses. This was a particular issue due to the noise-sensitive work of IBM and the 3.5 year expected construction period.
· IBM employed 3,500 people in its building adjacent to the site and representatives from IBM and ITV had been in contact regarding the application.
· Conditions 5 and 48 did not go far enough to protect neighbours from noise, dust and vibration. Condition 48 should include specific reference to IBM as a noise receptor and should require impact from vibration to be monitored. Condition 5 should be amended to include specific reference to consulting IBM.
· The s106 agreement should include a commitment to a Section 61 notice.
· Lambeth had had a policy to secure a pedestrian link from Upper Ground to the riverside since 1992. The pedestrian link that had been proposed in August 2017 would not now provide a route to the riverside. LB Southwark had expressed disappointment that the pedestrian link would not be secured by this application.
· CSCB considered that the applicant could provide a pedestrian route as they owned all of the necessary land. A legal agreement should be put in place to secure this pedestrian link.
The applicant, agent and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:
· There had been extensive consultation with individuals, community groups and businesses.
· The application included a draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and demolition plan.
· Section 61 was not part of the planning regime and should be addressed outside of the planning system.
· The application aimed to complement and enhance the character of the South Bank. It would provide office space and studios for ITV, a new public square and a pedestrian connection to the river.
· The use of a podium and three towers reduced the massing of the proposal.
· The design was distinctive, with curved glass corners and internal blinds. Cut-out balconies would maintain ... view the full minutes text for item 2.
Resolve to grant conditional planning permission
Case No. 17/04152/FUL (agenda item two, page one of the agenda pack and page one of the second addendum).
The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addendum that had been published on the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of structures on the west of the site alongside the London Television Centre. This demolition would enable the London Television Centre development to come forward.
It was MOVED by Councillor Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Wilcox, and
To APPROVE planning permission subject to the conditions as outlined in the officer’s report and published addendum.
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 to secure the planning obligations listed in this report.
2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Development to:
- Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report; and
- Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report 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 officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, 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.
This application was deferred due to a lack of time.
3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, 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 requirements of the Planning Inspector.
Councillor Joanne Simpson stood down from the Committee for the duration of the item.
Case No. 17/02936/FUL (agenda item five, page 179 of the agenda pack, page 24 of the addendum and page 17 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 2 February 2018 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of existing buildings, the construction of an up to 14-storey residential-led mixed-use development with 160 residential units, 50 of which would be affordable, offices, flexible commercial space and community use space. The site was within the Albert Embankment conservation area. Members were shown images of the existing site, the local context, proposed floorplans, the impact on protected views and the amenity impact on neighbouring properties. The second addendum included five additional objections and officer responses. New pedestrian access routes through the site would be provided, public realm improvements would be secured, there would be an increase in flexible B1 floorspace and the community use currently on the site would be re-provided. A petition objecting to the application based on the height and massing of the application, and its impact on Arne House, had been submitted by one of the objectors.
Following the officer’s presentation, the objectors raised the following concerns:
· Residents wanted the site to be redeveloped but the proposal was inappropriate. The site should be developed in a way that would complement the local area.
· The applicant had not complied with NPPF paragraph 66 in its failure to work with local people, and the application failed London Plan policy 7.6 on the impacts of tall buildings.
· Residents of neighbouring properties would be closer to the development than the recommended 18 metres. There would be a reduction in light in a number of flats.
· Construction works would have a significant impact on air quality for neighbours.
· The application was not in the tall buildings cluster and the height was not appropriate.
· Vulnerable residents of neighbouring buildings would be harmed by the development due to the loss of daylight and sunlight.
The architect and agent then provided the following information in support of the application:
· The development would bring improvements to the streetscape and public realm and would double the existing quantity of employment space. The community space had been designed in collaboration with the Methodist Church that currently occupied part of the site.
· The application had been designed to complement its surroundings and would continue the building line of Jameson House.
· The outdoor amenity space and playspace would be accessible to all residents.
· New homes and jobs would be provided through the application, which would also remove a local eyesore.
· Extensive consultation had taken place in developing the application. There was broad support for the development.
· The affordable housing provision met local policy. 72% of the affordable homes would be for social rent and 88% of ... view the full minutes text for item 5.