Agenda item

Lambeth Methodist Mission, 3-5 Lambeth Road (Bishops) 18/03890/FUL

Officer’s recommendations:

1.    Resolve to refuse planning permission for the reasons set in appendix 1 of the officer report.

 

2.    If 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 the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

 

3.    In the event that Committee resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report and any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London.Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

a.    Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

b.    Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

4.    In the event that Members resolve to grant planning permission that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within (3) 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 the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

 

Minutes:

Case No. 18/03890/FUL (agenda item seven, page 275 of the agenda pack, page 17 of the addendum and page 16 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 01 March 2019 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 and erection of a 1/4/12 storey building with church, hotel and ancillary café/bar uses, the land use principal of 137 bed hotel, the relationship and distances between the site and its neighbours with regards to amenity, the design and materials proposed.  Members were shown images of the site, its context, nearby heritage assets, maps of the CAZ and Opportunity Areas, location of visitor accommodation in in the Waterloo area and wider area, existing and proposed hotels in Lambeth, proposed, elevations, materials, floorplans and proposed views of the site.  The principle of 137 bed hotel use was not supported in policy.  The Waterloo Opportunity Area was to the north of the site and the CAZ boundary was located along the centre of Lambeth Road.  A summary of the approach taken within London Plan Policy 4.5(A)(c) and Lambeth Local Plan Policy ED12 to directing new visitor accommodation to appropriate locations was provided.  Local Plan Policy ED12 stated that ‘smaller scale’ hotels would be supported outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), Opportunity Areas and Brixton and Streatham town centres where public transport accessibility levels were ‘good’ Level 4 or above. The hotel would be the second largest in the borough outside the CAZ, Opportunity Areas or town centres.  It was officers’ view that the hotel element of the application did not accord with London Plan or Local Plan policies, and that the hotel would not be ‘smaller scale’, so were recommending that Members refuse the application.  Members viewed samples of the proposed materials with the Conservation and Design Officer.

 

The applicant and supporters then provided the following information in support of the application:

·         The need for community work was increasingly important due to the impact of austerity, youth violence and loneliness.  Lambeth Mission had a 150-year history of working with the community in the area.

·         The site was 3 metres from the boundary of the CAZ.

·         Without redevelopment, the church was in danger of closing down as the building was unsafe.

·         The Mission did not have any community space at this site.

·         The Mission was inclusive and welcomed all members of the community.

 

Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:

·         Policy EN1 stated that in an area of open space deficiency, on-site open space needed to be provided.

·         The number of hotel rooms that would be provided was greater than the median number of hotel rooms Lambeth and officers therefore considered it to be a medium-sized hotel. Members were directed to paragraph 10.39 of the PAC report which was read out by officers regarding the London Plan’s definition of ‘strategically important’ hotels, a level which a small number of Lambeth hotels met.

·         The amenity space would be on the communal roof garden on the roof of the single storey element.  It would not be accessible from the hotel, and screening would be erected between the hotel and the amenity area to ensure the privacy of users.

·         The coach pick-up and set-down point was on Lambeth Road, adjacent to the Imperial War Museum, and was an existing facility.

·         Access to the hotel would be through a passage off Lambeth Road.  The upper floor windows of International House that faced the passage were largely bathrooms and had obscured glazing, with the exception of one habitable room window on the ground floor.

·         TfL had recommended a contribution of £10,000 for Legible London signage to aid wayfinding that would be secured through the s106 Agreement and conditions if Members granted planning permission. 

·         Details on controlling odour and fumes from the restaurant and café had not been provided but would be required by condition if planning permission was granted.

·         At the pre-application stage, a proposal that included student housing on the site had been suggested, but this was not pursued further by the applicant.

·         The local context was varied in height and style, with Georgian, interwar and post-war buildings in the vicinity.  There would be no impact on the setting of Lambeth Palace or on views from Westminster.  Officers considered the change in the view from the conservation area to be acceptable.

 

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:

·         The principle of the application was positive, with the securing of community use particularly welcome.

·         The impact of the hotel use on local residents, as well as the contribution towards the area becoming more transient, would have a negative impact on the area.

·         Members were not convinced that the need for community space could overcome the officers’ reasons for recommending refusal.

·         There were potential issues with Policy ED12 (a) (i) regarding space for coach and taxi pick-up and set-down.

·         Some Members raised concerns regarding the height of the proposal, particularly from the conservation area facing north.

·         The design was well thought through and was respectful of the context.

·         Some Members expressed concerns regarding the relationship between the proposal and the neighbouring International House.

 

The Legal Officer advised Members that they could not reject the application because they considered that a use other than a hotel would be preferable, and that each application had to be judged on its own merits.

 

It was MOVED by Councillor Leigh, SECONDED by Councillor Windle, and

 

RESOLVED, by five votes for to one against

 

1.    To REFUSE planning permission in line with officers’ recommendations for reasons as outlined in the officer’s report and addenda with authority given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to amend the wording of the reasons for refusal to make them clearer and the following:

                 i.       The proposal would not meet Local Plan Policy ED12 (a) (i) regarding coach and taxi set-down.

 

2.    If 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, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

Supporting documents: