Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] In line with legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers visiting board members and members of the public have joined us either virtually or physically. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. Whilst we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient if we hit some challenges in this virtual environment. In the event that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the council's democracy Twitter account, which is at LBL democracy. Some housekeeping, the fire exits, you exit the room at either side and go up the stairs to street level. There's an accessible toilet just outside that door on the right hand side and there'll be a comfort break around 9pm if required. We've received apologists this evening, Councillor Diogo Costa and Councillor Rebecca Spencer and Councillor Saabarz-Bazz-Bazzindji will be subbing this evening. I now introduce members of the committee. We start with Councillor Ainslie and work this way around the room, so if you could just stage on name and which ward you represent. Councillor Scott Ainslie, I represent, I represent Stresham St Leonard's ward. Councillor Martin Bailey representing Luxor Wood, evening Councillor Malm Clark, Stresham Wells ward. Councillor Sallyha Jaffa representing St Martin's ward. Councillor Sally five, Ainslie and Councillor interjecting. I'm Councillor Joanne Simpson, I represent Stockwell West and Lark Hall ward and I am Chair of the committee. Now, I'll introduce lead officers starting with our presiding officers with us this evening. Good evening, my name is Rob O'Sullivan, I'm an Assistant Director in the Planning Service and I'll be presiding officer. Thank you, our backup presiding officer. I'm Kirishi Atworth Head of Development Management and I'm the backup presiding officer for this evening. Our Democratic Services Officer, I am Bonisha, I am the Democratic Services Officer and Clark to this week. Our legal officer. Good evening, my name is Peter Flockout. And our transport officer. You're on mute, Simon. Still on mute. Sorry, my apologies, Chair. Simon Phillips covering transport matters. They also have my colleague Joshua Lerner who's shadowing me here this evening. Thank you. And our conservation officers, I think we have two this evening. Sorry, start with you, Nicola. Nicola Schwaer, Principal Conservation Design Officer. Thank you. Brilliant. And the Director of the Generation. And the Presenting Officer for the London Eye. Yeah, good evening. I'm Ben LeMare, I'm the Area Team Manager for Students' Care. And the Manager for the Application is also here. We're shopping with her who's already introduced herself. The Presenting Officer for the Lambeth College. Good evening. Good evening, Luke Farmer, Deputy Head of Strategic Applications. Great. Thank you. Right. And we also have some external consultants for the London Eye. They are Nick Thompson from Litchfields, Hannah Whitney from Litchfields, and Nikki Mabelson from Litchfields. And we'll hear from them should be required to call on their expertise part of the meeting. So the order of business, there are four items on the agenda, and they'll be considered in the order that they appear on the agenda. All the paperwork is available on the council's website. Applications will be considered in the same way. Reports which should be to be debated will be presented by an officer who will then highlight the main issues. We'll then hear from speakers. There are two members of the public and one board councillor who registered to speak for the items on today's agenda. Members of the committee may then ask questions of the officers and we'll debate the application. Members would have read the officer reports and may wish to amend the recommended conditions or place informatives on the decision that's subject to officer advice. We'll then make a decision and each application will be decided this evening. And formal notification of the committee's decision will be sent to the applicants and any interested parties who made written representations. The minutes from tonight's meeting will be published after the meeting. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, one clear working day before the meeting. Item one is decorations of interest. Do any members have any declarations of interest they wish to share? I don't have a declaration of interest, but for transparency, I should state that I am a ward councillor for Stockwell, Western Lock Hall, where the Lamb of College application is based. However, I have not been involved as a ward councillor and I'm approaching this application with an open mind. Okay. Well, now move on to item two, which is the minutes are the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday the 16th of April, 2024 agreed. You can queue. Okay, item three, which is London, I and I'll invite the officer now to present the report. So, before I start with a presentation, we had two events of this item. So, the first event, um, published last week, just identifies a few iPhone within the report, which was found. So, we got the second event with published earlier today. This highlights some different representations made by the environment agency. They were submitted on the first of May. We've considered those representations. We do not consider that anything new has been raised in addition to what's already been addressed in the committee report. The representation to also suggest some changes to the condition that we've got for the application. We've carefully considered those. And we've run the wording past our legal advisors, and we have made some changes to those. They are set out in the published second. There's also a point of clarification, where officers consider that there was a representation, obviously, with from the environment agency talked about a conversation issue. Office is considered that the view of compensation is not material determining this application is charged condition one. However, even contrary to you were to be taken in office is considered a speculative nature, and no material waiting for to be given to the compensation issue as a material consideration. So, that's what we set out in the in the second agenda. I'm now going to move to presentation. The application which members are considering this evening to approve the details, the permanent retention of the London I. This is following plan which indeed run for the two thousand and three, the retention of the London I and associated structures and a change of use of part of the ground floor basement and so basement of county hall. Firstly, we're noticing that this is an unusual application. You've prevented that planning committee as a problem of being held applications are you dealt with a dedicated powers by the local planning authority. However, clearly, this is an unusual type of development, and therefore, at the time of being wrong planning permission subject to a different kind of condition. In the presentation, I'm going to talk you through the application you're considering tonight, time scales for this application being submitted. Details of the condition and the assessment undertaken by officers. I also address some of the representations we've received local groups and the environment agency. So the plan on the left hand side of the screen shows the red line down for the site. This is the same as the red line down which was submitted for the 2000 and one planning commission for the London I. The line in orange is indicative of the position of the visual river wall along the dead, which is great to listed. Who hatched aerial the plan shows the Queen walking to the side. So, turning to the aerial photo on the side. This shows the location of Jubilee Gardens to the north and the Shell Centre Development to the east. There's also the grade two listed County Hall to the south and Westminster Bridge, which is also grade two listed. We've got some photographs here of the London Eye. This has taken everything west with parks of Jubilee Gardens in the foreground. We've got the grade two listed County Hall to the left behind the London Eye. The Westminster World Heritage Site designation, as well as the Whitehall Conservation Air, which is in Westminster City Council. Not right photograph, there is the inside of one of 32 parts which has the capacity for 25 feet. There is a bench in the middle of the pond and there are four rails around the watch. The bottom right photograph shows the boarding platform structures which can deliver over the river wall. These are associated with queuing and accessing the London Eye. More photographs here. So, the photograph on the right hand side shows the walkway from Belvedere Road up to the London Eye. And on the left of the photograph is the access bridge into County Hall. Right photograph shows access to Waterloo Pier with the grade two listed lamp on the right hand side where the people are standing. These lamps are heritage features along the river wall. The bottom right photograph shows the support structures for the London Eye which are setting out of the river Thames. This slide shows some photographs which have been taken from views out of the London Eye. The top corner obviously shows the House of Parliament and the Elizabeth Tower. With the grade two listed Westminster here in the foreground, the bottom left hand photo shows the Shell Centre and looks north towards the City of London and London Bridge and the Shard. The top right photograph shows the Ministry of Defence building in the foreground with St. Card's brain, the walkway, walkway, walkway, and James' Park to the rear. The bottom right photograph shows the view from out of the pod over towards Southern. The next slide is a timeline for the London Eye up until date this year. In 1998, a temporary five year planning commission was granted for the London Eye. This commission was subsequently implemented. The London Eye then opened then customers in March 2000. A highly successful year in operation and patients were submitted for the permanent retention of the London Eye in 2001. Following a lengthy assessment of the 2001 application, the Council granted the London Eye commission in 2003. This was subject to a Section 106 agreement setting out the various heads of terms. It was also subject to condition 1 for the permanent retention of the Eye. The report member will be considering this evening. In 2003 and 2017, a number of members were made to the host permission of the London Eye. These two groups proposed changes to the signage and layout of the 15 fourth. In May 2001, we entered in for a Family Performance Agreement for the Council to discuss the scope of assessing this planning application that was required under condition 1. And the Times tells us for submitting this application and assessing it. June 2023, the application submitted the application for proof of details, which would be considered this evening. This slide shows condition 1 in full. I've highlighted some of the main points here for members benefit. I'm not going to read out the whole condition, but in summary, the London Eye and Associated Structures are required to be removed. Within 25 years of permission to be linked. Unless the Council approved a report assessing the continued acceptability for London Eye and any further mitigation that may be required. This report was required to be submitted by the 20th anniversary of the planning mission, which was November last year. The application was made in July. She, after the condition was satisfied by the applicant. Read for this condition, being applied in the first place was to assess the impact of the London Eye and reevaluating the long-term effects on the amenities of the area and the built environment. Essentially, at the time the application being turned 2003, there were concerns raised by his English heritage, now historically. About the continued maintenance of success of the London Eye and requested that any further mission is limited. The conservation officer at the time shared these concerns and agreed with the fine substitution. At the time, the applicant was not in agreement with this condition and proposed the revised condition on the screen. This was agreed by officers and their legal team at the time and appealed to the host permission. This slide talks about that was undertaken. In 2001, the 2001 planning application was accompanied by an environmental statement, which sets out the applicant's assessment or likely environmental impacts of the proposed development. They are required when a proposed development likely have a significant effect on the build, as well as natural environment. Documentally, they assessed suggestions for mitigation, protective measures to reduce or remove. The application was assessed on the 1999 by EIA regulations. As explained in the committee report, the EIA regulations have moved on since the application before members. This current application is being assessed on for the 2017. There was also a requirement for further environmental information, which is the report, which is being considered tonight for the district for the compliance with condition one. The scope of the FBE could be read in the scoping report between the applicant and the independent advisors. What is this included, the following topics, which set out on the screen. An escape of youth built heritage, traffic and transportation, the water environment, marine ecology and socioeconomics. As explained on the screen here, the decision maker is not tasked with re-affessing the principle of development. Focus needs to be on a continued acceptability of the installation on the amenities of the area and the built environment. As set out in condition one, this could include any further mitigation, which is deemed necessary. This report sets out key matters for consideration. It can be an impact heritage in that transport, the extreme flows and water environment. And so should we comment. And through these in turn, they are set out in the committee report, and there's an officer assessment next to them, but if you can read summary of them. Those of townscape offices consider that the London Eye for positive element on London sky. As it represents high quality design that contributes to local stateiveness, and its continued role as a landmark for London. It also has been recognised that the townscape acceptable to visual impact from the London Eye that was in 2021, become more of an established tourist attraction, highly familiar element of the London sky bike. The FBI identifies London Eye as having a generally beneficial effect on the wider, including the night time, including at night time. It also provides the benefit of allowing the public to appreciate elevated perspectives of the townscape. Through some of the London's most historic areas, officers therefore consider that need to have an acceptable impact. It's regard and no further in the action to recommend for it. During the heritage, a heritage assessment is undertaken and is taken to appreciate the publish committee report. Officers acknowledge the assessment undertaken by the correct evening and the council's conservation officer, and have reached different conclusions to that set out in the FBI submitted by the applicant. Notably, regarding some of the adverse impacts that have been identified, included a low degree of lessons, substantial harm to the setting of the Westminster World Heritage site, setting of the grade two listed county hall, and the significance of the Queen's Walk and Labs. During the considerable importance and weight, officers consider that harm will be outweighed by heritage, economic, social, cultural benefits of these are set out in pages, 63 to 65 of the published committee report. The rest of the MPPS Paragon, 208 has therefore been satisfied. Learning to transport, a full assessment was undertaken by officers in consultation with the transport team, and whilst there have been changes since 2003 requirements for car parking, cycle parking, as well as alternative modes of transport. Officers consider that the effects of the London Eye are acceptable and mitigated by current conditions and special moments that are in place. Another more environment, marine and ecology, officers do not consider that there are any environmental impacts that would require any further mitigation. Through the exception for a condition of one to address the matters raised by the environment agency, in terms of the requirement to raise the river walk, which will be discussed on the next slide. In terms of socio-economic benefits, these are set out in page 58 and 59 of the committee report. Through conclusion, officers consider that he makes a highly beneficial impact in terms of supporting and locating and sustaining local economy, providing for a source of revenue and management for the South Bank, while promoting wider social and cultural benefits. Finally, with regards to safety and security of the officers' abilities with various organizations, whom they're pleased to satisfy them and it's in place, minimize subsequent security risks. During the consultation period of the application, a number of representations were made of qualified support, including many local business groups on the South Bank, as well as the South Bank and want to lose the money. The South Bank and want to do neighbors. There were two representations of qualified support, which include a request for further mitigation. These were from the South Bank, as a request for an addition section 106, and on top of that already being secured was the life site replacement costs of the Queen's walk. There was also the Jubilee Gardens Trust, that requested a yearly capital contribution secured by section one of the two towards the asset renewals of the Jubal Gardens. There's also representation received by an environment agency, which they were available for support the agent and recommend approval contribution mitigation being proposed in relation to the requirement to build up the flood wall of possibility compensation claim for revenue from the funds, lots of revenue from the London. During work being carried out. They also required further ecological enhancements. It also requested that condition one planning, but both claim permission needs to be a path of regard. This slide sets out needed an ongoing commitment to section 106 agreement. First bullet points, that the financial contributions which are required of the London Iron people paid from the outset, the main ones being a million pounds towards the contribution to us. The landscape of Jubilee Gardens, and half a million pounds towards improvements to the Queen's walk. The ongoing commitment set out, would continue if the application was approved, and they include a payment of a bond associated with costs of dismantling works various other communities, that the eye is kept in addition. Fortunately, the section 106 also requires an annual contribution of 1% of an annual term, which since 2003 has provided the council with 13.5 million pounds. This is usually between 800 and 900 k a year. This has been paid towards the maintenance management public ground surrounding the site. It provides vital funding for the area. The South Bank and what to do neighbour the plan identifies the revenue section 106 model, as an example of management of services and ongoing funding. Officers have given careful consideration to the requirement by the South Bank Centre and duty gardens for additional financial contributions. However, if the section 106 obligations, including ongoing annual contribution, are facility acceptable and in line with planning policy. And it's nine of below plan. Further mitigation is not considered to be justified and would not pass a planning test relating to planning obligations as identified in the APS. These being necessary, relevant to planning and the development being permitted, which also bore precise and reasonable individual other aspects. Further mitigation is therefore not sorted in this. In addition to the section 106, there are 21 planning that London eyes host of the mission, which mitigated its impact on residential media. When you're working in the area, you've seen that the London eye, civil aviation works to county wall. And half and the river wall and transport. In response to these condition and additional condition is recommended to directly assess the key concerns of the environment agency, including future changes to the river wall to address climate change and access to London line. This is also an implementation of operations to the London eyes that affects an operation to facilitate the network through it. Which is raising of the. This would mitigate the effects of the London eyes associated structures that may make construction works to the flood to be complex. This has been reviewed by the council's lawyers and would meet the required six tests for planning condition set out in the APS. And I'm sorry, obviously, so recommending that the money application may be resolved to approve the submitted details pursuant to condition one of planning, commission reference 01 such 03315 or slash. That's on the 14th of February, 2000 degree subject to the position of condition set out in the drug decision. The AC reminded to approve the first submitted for this application. They will have passed a resolution confirming the removal of the London eye and associated structures pursuant to commission commission condition one of the host permission is not requiring. Thanks. Thank you. Just before I bring in the speakers. I just wanted to ask you to clarify about the listing of County Hall, because I think you said, grade two, instead of grade two star so can we just get clarification so that it's on record. Sorry, okay, no problem. Right. No, we move on to speakers now and I have Chris bird who is here in person I believe from Merlin attractions operations limited. Hi guys, so if you want to make your way to the table. If you could introduce yourself and let us know your relationship with the application, your two minutes will then begin what a beat when you have 25 seconds left and then a final beat when you're two minutes is up. And I'll ask you to finish your sentence. So whenever you're ready. Good evening, I'm Chris for bird and the group property director for Northern entities at the London line is now a picture on the south bank for nearly a quarter of a century has become an iconic feature of the London skyline. Following extensive local engagement is subject to the comprehensive report that's July setting out that no further mitigation measures required if the eye is thrown. As a committee paper sets out the officers are in agreement with the assessment, and therefore recommended the report can be. This will allow the eye to remain in this location permanently beyond 2028. If preparing a report was able to assess the mentally positive impact the eye has had on the south bank since its inception, particularly enabling the transformation of this area to a major tourist health. Contribution of 1% of our annual turnover has played a key role in this continues to ensure this areas maintained to our high standards. Not only is the iron created over 300 jobs, but it also has an economic output 24 million pounds of the land was. It wide benefits to London and beyond, you can use 500 local supplies. The environmental agency rate points regarding the future works to the river wall. The officers have drafted a condition which addresses it. Just now been updated to respond to the years must reset expectations. We are grateful to your officers for their temperatures. In conclusion, we believe that members can be confident and supporting the recommendation for them. They're doing so. It's still the future of the other night. It's about your destination. Thank you. Time could be out of time, I think. Thanks very much. Okay. So if you make your way back to the audience, and I'm now going to bring in Councillor Dokas, who is online, I believe. I am indeed. Hello. Hello. So if you could just introduce yourself, your latest application. And did you hear before about how the time it works. Yeah. Great. So whatever you're ready. My name is Evane Dokas. I'm the World Council, I have a vote to learn South Park for a London eyes based. As the report before you know, my work colleagues, the silver has written in sport of the sub patient. And I think how the London eyes and integral part of our community and the capital skyline and a huge asset along the South. I echo those words. The economic benefits speak for themselves. So I'd like to focus on the positive impact, which is a section 106 arrangements have locally. Our predecessor says this had the fourth. In three to secure an obligation that the land that I contributed 1% of its annual burnover to the spend on mitigating the impact of the eye on the public ground surrounding the site and to support the local community. Working in partnership with the South Bank employees group and with additional funding from South Bank. Recently water back in for five more years. One but cancel is in the driving city and show these monies are directed to the right priorities. It is evident how this funding has transformed the local area. We must not ensure this continues to be maintained to a high standard. This can only be achieved longer term. If the eyes permanent, which is secure with an ongoing commitment to 1% of turnover being contributed. The management and maintenance of jubilee gardens, the South bank cultural and the South bank team are all made possible because of this funding. These are the specific measures by the section 106, 106 sports that are crucial to the success of the eye and the wider sound. It is important to say that our residents and our communities benefit from these invaluable services. In addition, and from this year, section 106 money is will also support partnership work to make the area net zero by 2030. A court lambda priority family funds are being used to support the rein stated community chest grants program overseen by the South Bank and water and neighbors to support local community groups. The eye has more than proved itself over the past 20 years. Tonight we have the opportunity to secure its permanent future and all the benefits it thinks I urge you to support this recommendation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, right, so I'm going to open up to questions, I'll remember, do you members have any questions for officers. I have, Councillor Jaffa. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. On page 63, 4.6.3, I think about the report and it went to EIA. I want to know the results of the recommendations of the EIA recommendations. Letting associated with climate change and all that have you taken into consideration. Yes, in the application, the FBI, the applicant. A chapter that addressed this issue and it was found that the. The London, I itself would have a negligible impact on flooding in the local area. The EIA highlight we feel have been with regards to the raising of the flood wall in the future. We feel our address by the position. Can I have one more? Of course, that's a Jaffa. Social and cultural benefits. There is something mentioning about mentioned about. A number of range of homes can be provided in that range of homes. Are there any affordable homes provided there? It's not proposing any new housing. That might be nice. This is purely just for the London eye structure. That is clear. Councillor Ainslie. Just to interrogate the environmental agencies concerns a little bit more. The photographs that you very helpfully put up. But the raising of the ability to raise the wall. The structure of the eye, that one. Yes. I mean, I'm just an amateur. But if they didn't need to raise that wall at a faster rate than predictions. I mean, I noticed in the environmental report that they're bringing forward to debt because of potential for rising sea levels. How could you possibly raise that wall? It just seems to be such without moving the structure. I know that's probably a really technical question. I don't know if you can answer it, but it does seem to be quite difficult. Firstly, it's worth pointing out the environmental agencies haven't actually come to us with any with plans for raising of the wall along the Thames. They've got that identified date when they want to be implemented. First, we are yet to see any for home for the brave and the applicant has submitted some information to us that shows the raising of the of the river wall is possible with the London Eye in place. And they'd probably be best suited to answer any further questions if you had about that. I forgot to say members apologies that we've also got two technical specialists here from CBRE who can answer questions about the EIA. Would you like to hear a more technical answer about how that wall could be raised if the migrant agency ever wanted it to be? It's possible that would be great. Okay, so I've got two people here Rebecca, Rabie Smith and Ben Weldon Berry. I'm not sure who would like to take that. Hello, yes, it's Ben Weldon speaking here. Just to clarify, we are EIA technical specialists in terms of the EIA process, or in this case, the FBI. We are not civil engineers, structural engineers cannot provide a technical answer on how the river wall could practically be raised. We'd have to defer to others on that. Okay, well, who could answer of the war is a matter between between landowners. So that is something that they would have to come together in discussing how that was going to facilitate the advocates team might have an answer. Hey, I don't want to spend too long on this, given that it's not actually been requested by the environment agency. So I think I'm going to move on if that's okay. Is it? I mean, my, my, my follow up question was going to be related to 4.3.71, which does talk about the asset developers. It's not clear. I think Merlin are obviously the asset owners, but Landowner would have to be who asked Lambeth. I suppose what I'm getting at here is that if things do, if it's substantially the tipping points of race, the sea levels have to be arising the world of the world has to be raised. In granting full permission, not just a period of time. It would be reassuring to know that at least we ask the questions then, and we're given assurance that this could be possible. I realize it's a really difficult question to ask. And it probably does require civil engineers, but if there is anything, anything else to be extracted out of this meeting tonight with regards to those conversations that might have taken place with the applicant and civil engineers. It would be reassuring, at least to know that we have asked that question and raised that. Okay. Well, the case officer said that information has been provided by the applicant. So I'm just looking who I've got registered to speak from the excuse me, the applicant. So I've got three people from Litch fields. Would anybody like to take that question? Hi. Sorry. Can I take it as the applicant? Sorry. Can I take it as the applicant? Sorry. Can you call because you're registered to speak? Yeah, please. So take a seat. So if you could, did you hear Councillor Ayes's question? If you could come back to us on that, that'd be great. So we have two structures. So we have the eye that sits on its own columns in the, as you can see on the bottom right hand. So that's, that's itself. We then span over the wall in a structure. And that's obviously sort of a mental girder structure. So we have the ability to rebuild that and build that higher. So we still have ramping up to get to the actual eye. So we have more capacity. And I think the plan for 2100, the story is it by 50 cent. We would have the ability to redo that structure and probably at that time, but we have to replace it before that given that your other questions around ownership. So the Merlin Entertainment MAOL owns the structure of the London Eye, and then we have three landlords. So we have in the river that we pay a fee to the PLA. Then we have two legs that land on South Bank, the left hand leg is to Mr Macomoto. So he is the owner of County Hall. On the left hand side. So we pay him. So we pay rent, lease them in. So he gets future. There are requests for him to raise the river will wear his tenant. And on the other side it's South Bank. So the South Bank center of the other leg. So we pay them a lead. We have a lease with them as well. Thank you. You'd like to make your way back. I'm going to move us on to have a question. OK, Casa Clark. On Queens walk and understand the, the annual payment maintenance payments. I just wanted to understand a bit more from the city from the South Bank subjections or concerns if the Queens walk were to need substantial redoing beyond beyond just an annual maintenance, but say there were some serious structural problems that you're going to serious additional investment. Is there any capacity for, for some of that money to come from the, from the London I development or is it. You said points, I think I'm just trying to understand that given that there is a percentage of the pedestrian flow that is based on the use that is based on me. On the development on the London I whether there is any specific thing should be over and above the normal annual wear and tear. So, so it's, it's nearly that contribution portion appropriately. The council session, the developer and local groups around there. We've got Matt Dibben on the call from our regent team who you can totally answer that. OK, yeah, let's bring Matt Dibben in. Hi, I'm thinking actually that I mean the 1% that's overseen locally by the council, but then also with the visitor management groups that includes Merlin and cycling employers group and cycling bid alongside the council. I mean that that money is as was really outlined. I think by the council, the utilization for management and maintenance of the public realm, including public safety considerations. And there's an annual key decision reports entry that's agreed by the council to allocate that money. It depends really on the level of profit and the money in this available was to have that can be stretched to mitigate those local impacts and how much would be available to consider. You know, and obviously before those different parties and local interests to consider the best investment of that money, whether it be for some of the things that have been raised through this process. I can't really answer if that if the request for money is beyond what's available in that 1%, I think that's probably more of a question back to Ben sorry planning as to the consideration of whether a one off payment was was possible or not at this point in time. But that's how the 1% is managed and it can be, you know, any impacts upon the local public realm can be considered in that investment specifically. Further, the advance of them. Is there anything that the office so I think it's worth pointing out that we didn't identify that any further mitigation was required. It's been pretty much a constant the London either. They've had, they've had a. It's not changed in a way you're still going round and for 30 to 30 minutes to go around there's still 25 people in a pod. So that is pretty, pretty much remained a constant since it's been there. The popularity might go up and there are peaks times when it is obviously the summer months and that, but generally it's stayed a constant. So we haven't identified any further contributions in this instance that would be required was the Queensport. My question, the specific question here is with, as we're granting permanency to this, and I just wanted to be reassured that kind of, we have in play it. If queens walk needed 10, 20 years down the line needed, you know, really substantial investment that there are the processes in place. I guess what you're saying is that there are different groups who are looking at the looking at this and deciding kind of where investment might might be best spent. And therefore there are groups in place who would that at the time, shouldn't that be case that there is no, there's no obligation planning obligation, at least. I think your various, there are processes because that's neither. Right. Yes. Yeah, I mean, sometimes it's difficult to get landlords to agree who holds liability. So I'm glad that this has been interrogated some, some walls. And it's slightly concerning that there's two landlords that might be involved, but as long as there is insurance and mitigation in place, which I hope there is, then that's fine. But can I ask specifically about the damage that seems to be done payments from the coaches parking on them. That was a concern raised in the report. Whilst I appreciate 1% contribution of profits has generated quite a lot of income for the borough, and I am slightly concerned about the damage to our roads, our roads are not in the best state, but our payments around there from the coaches parking on them. And I'm just, there's that come out of the profits, the 1% those mitigations or do we have a kind of kitty to make sure that the payments are well preserved. You have to come back on that. Yeah, so I think the specific, I mean, there's been a specific investment program commitment by the council. For that stretch of highway essentially from where the London is across to towards Bernie's main gardens. That's the one off capital investment. So the maintenance question. It is, as I said before, the 1% can be considered for a number of different things to mitigate that local impact. So highways maintenance or maintenance specifically the payments can be one of those things or deterrence to try and improve. It will prevent that impact from taking place, but it's also part of the council's consideration. It's wider allocation across the borough of how to invest in the public realm and the highway. And I think the key thing to say is that there are a number of different pressures on that 1% that's available. So it does just have to be considered in the round. I best to allocate it to respond to the public realm to safety and other another another another impacts that might be had. Sorry, thanks. Just a follow up question to that. It would be, is it the local. Is it wiping its face that 1% contribution from the income is that covering all of the local area at least. Or is it, are we having to take money from elsewhere in order to maintain. It is beautifully maintained. Let me add that. So it is a beautifully maintained area, but. It's all those profits enough. How much is left over to help other areas access areas into the eye, for example. Right, I could probably start trying to answer that some of it might be. I mean, the money needs to be from my understanding from the 106 section 106 agreements specific to the surrounding. Neighbourhood impacted by the ice, but can't be utilized further afield. So I guess that's one specific points about the scope of the funding and how it can be used. It does draw in additional investments. So South Bank bid have much funded most years, which is a positive impact of the local employers committing. To that local public realm as well as they as they know they need to, because obviously has that wider impact on the economy and the cultural economy locally. I don't have it's a very complex question, probably by whether it washes the face of its, its impacts. I'm not sure I have the exact information that could, you know, work that out in all honesty. But it certainly has a huge impact in the ability to improve and maintain that that local public realm, as you say, to keep it in high, high state of condition. And that's, and to ensure the safety of the area too. Okay, right. I'm going to move us on to a discussion, but do you have another question? Two questions. Okay. Yeah. One on transport, still looking at pre book taxis and looking at page 51 of the report, 4.3.59. And it says, see, pre book taxis were using coach parking bays, there are measures in place to enforce against this behavior, should it escalate. So problematic level might just have a little bit of clarity on what those measures that aren't yet done, but it could be. That's a go to Fraser for that. I'm sorry. Yeah, thank you. Yes, thanks for the question. We've been discussing this with our enforcement team and they've been telling us about the work they do down there. They're very active in that area there, as has been noted, the coach base are sometimes used by mini caps and ubers. And we can enforce against that. And we do enforce against that. The advice I'm getting is that it's not considered to be a major problem at the moment. Obviously, that can be kept under review. We can step up enforcement as necessary. But the number of the number of mini caps or ubers seems to be relatively low, and it does not appear to be causing a significant problem at the moment. So I think we are content to continue. We can enforce. We can increase enforcement as necessary. And your other question was just a planning and process matter. So we're granting just my benefit with planting. I think it's a very important question for this to become permanent. At some stage, the infrastructure will be renewed. Is there, if it is renewed as existing. Yeah, as, as identically, is the assumption that there isn't a need for a new planning application, but if there was to be a change in the structure. There's a new planning application. I just wanted to collect that. Oh, I mean, the intention obviously would be to rebuild it as, as is, but obviously, any amendments would need to be made through the formal planning process. Very, the host permission. Final question. Thanks. So, we, we kind of heard in the presentation that lawyers had from the applicant had sort of agreed, rather than a 25 year extension for it to be permanent. I feel as though we're missing, we're missing quite a lot of justification as to why this isn't 25 years for some of the reasons that we've discussed already. And that we review again in another 25 years. Why did we allow that. And how easy was it for the applicant to obtain that. So, in consultation with our legal advisors, including council, we did consider the issue of the last 25 years and having the application. Then, however, the main reason for the condition being put on the first place was to identify whether the acceptability of the London I, and whether there any mitigation that could be proposed. That condition has hoped we ought to consider that's been satisfied. So we don't feel that it's necessary to then now reassess it further in another 25 years. What can happen to us. When you come to your stomach up, you can outline whether you feel that certain legal laws is in place to ensure that it's kept tight and the itself. Okay, I'm going to move us on to debating the application. Would any members like to outline their views or perhaps how they are minded to vote this evening don't have to say anything, but you are they welcome to me. No one can don't the absolute benefit of this this attraction and the interest that it's brought to the South Bank and for the field is is unparalleled to my grandmother up there she before she died she loved it. I love it. I go up take my kids there regularly. I'm so proud to have this in land. And so I am mindful to approve it with the academy with some of the concerns I raised tonight that sometimes I worry that as a council were a bit of a soft touch for hard nose developers and I perhaps would like to have seen a 25 year agreement. So there's some of the issues that we've raised tonight would have been renegotiated reconsidered in in light of what might happen in the next quarter of a century. But, having said that, I think we've interrogated it as much as we possibly can this evening. I would have preferred 25 years, but as a result, on balance, I support the application. Thank you. Anyone else. Perhaps there, um, Clark. Yes, sorry, and I think the lack of any, any individuals or organizations directly fully opposing objects really objecting to this application just as testament. Both to say, both the popularity of the of the, of the itself. So, to the purpose of the. I said the report and the work that has gone on to, to look at them, you know, whether it is right to, to extend this to be to be in permanent today's area is a big decision. To do to agree. My colleague, let's see. It's right that we interrogate these things. And the key things for me are that I say the additional position that we have regards to the, I said, just ensuring the. The act, the flux events, the risks of the sentence works. And so, just say that point. This structure isn't going to last forever. If it, if it does, you know, when the time comes to do it, I think. Realistically, technologies will probably have moved on. There will probably be some, you know, even even if the eye itself is maintained. It will be the maybe different structures to support it. And I think, again, there is the planning process will kick in at that point. So permanent is, you know, is not quite as permanent as. Yeah, as it seems in that sense. So I'm, I'm. Particularly appreciated the officer's reassurances on some of the transport, which you know, in this area can be challenged. So, yeah, I'm minded to support. Hey, thank you very much. Councillor Buzzingey, then Councillor Jaffa. Gosh, I didn't think we can have everybody something up on this one. Thank you everybody. It is a historic infrastructure, a historic day for the London Eye to be compiling it and all the right questions. I've been pulled forward, especially the technicality and I'm sure the engineers, structural engineers, civil engineers have the capability to raise the flood defense line of requirement. Now, like our friend has good food that they still have a headroom for the floods, the barriers to be raised if required, and considering the London Eye became an iconic part of land of London skyline. I think it would be beneficial for them to have that piece of mind that there is a pattern and structure, and we're in the future that requires maintenance or res strengthening. We already have technologies and materials that can reschengthen this type of structures that's required. And so having this in mind and also considering this is that, even though that is privately owned, but it does have, it does benefit the entire community and attracts visitors from all of the world and has helped Lambeth image internationally and also nationally as well to taking all this into consideration. I think I am myself in favor of granting this application. Thank you very much. I forgot your train structure engineer which we should have asked you. As I'm the lead for strong communities and faith. We have taken a lot of underrepresented communities to London I, they have really enjoyed it. Sometimes we get discount as well as a glue. And people from mosque, they all go there and there is facilities for accessibility is good. And it is a day out for all the communities I work with. So I strongly recommend. Okay, well, thank you everyone for your contributions. I'm going to propose that we accept officers recommendation, which is to resolve to approve the submitted. You have to condition one of the planning for making, like 0103315 full and together with the amended conditions are set out in the agenda. Do I see a seconder. Councillor Bailey, thank you. All those in favor, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay, right, we're going to move on now to our next application, which is Lambert College. We have the case officer with us. If you're happy to start your presentation. We have a presentation of the presentation of the presentation of the presentation of the presentation of the public health center at the Department of Education. I also know that there were two of them to this application. The first then that was published, it is to some of those in terms of cycling numbers, and it was that the site location plan in the one was incorrect. So that has been changed. The second then them first to some changes when congregation, following some further consultations with design offices. It was found that the lubus and the front elevation of lock B could have a potential for red nesting inside them. So we proposed a new condition, and there were some other minor templates found in the officer report. So the application site is located along the street to the west of one to the front. The site is contained within the red boundary on the map, and the land contained within the blue boundary is the land that is in the ownership of the government. The site is part of college, which is a further education college occupying three campuses located in voxel, ricksit, and latlin. This is part of the South Park colleges, and it's current and the site is currently going undergoing redevelopment to deliver high quality new educational campus. The surrounding area is prominently residential and character, but there are some industrial and commercial uses nearby. The commercial uses are located on Belmont Street, once of a throat, and for a drought as it can be seen on the marked area will map. The industrial uses are mainly located beyond the Brooklyn's passage, where we find the new Covent Garden markets, and there are some commercial uses located on one road. The photograph of the application site, the photograph on the left, shows the view of the site when you approach it from once a throat. The photograph on the right shows the front of the application site with the rear elevation of the mixtures building faces. The photograph on the left shows the residential block so it's this block over here. And then on the right in that photograph, you can see recently constructed block A, which was part of the. I would consider 2021. And the photograph on the right, just here shows the side elevation of the approval. With the service road and an edge of an application site. And all three photographs on this slide are showing the approved and existing block A building from various angles. The first image is from the back. I'm so lucky to what a Covent market got. This image in the middle is showing the side elevation facing the new Covent Garden market, and this is from this elevation that we saw previously. There are different types of planning applications that can be submitted to the local planning authority for considerations. And the application that we are considering tonight is a result of matters application that is linked to an album planning, but application that was allowed under hybrid planning. The table that is on screen provides a definition. By putting on the photos. So it's not an application. This type of consent is usually granted, and it doesn't include a full detail of an application. So this type of application usually tests whether the proposal is accepted and principle, and they usually five matters and that can be considered on the Internet for the next stage, which is reserved matters. So the five considerations that can be taken is access, appearance, landscape, layout, and size as well as scale. If that detail is not considered at an outline stage with an applicant consumes submit reserved matters application. This is an application that follows on and as I said before, covers any else. So when you then take consent, the alpha stage is the matter stage, you essentially get a full planning. For planning application is when all the details about proposal is being submitted. So we have all the details about the use, scale, massing, design, access, drainage, environmental impacts, and the list carries on. Lastly, a hybrid application is when we have part of the site being considered under outline planning application, and part of the site being said as a full planning application. So just to recap, as I mentioned before, on 11 February, a hybrid application was submitted and approved that permission granted a full planning mission for blog a, which has now been constructed. And there was an outline planning applications for blog B, C, and D, and the image on the bottom left shows the four buildings that the hybrid application considered with the full planning one being outlined in red that is being built. And the three other buildings are shown in different colors. What the outline commission have done, it's set parameters under which the other buildings need to be built. So you said how high those buildings can be, how big they can be. And it provided a design code, which explained how they should be designed going forward. So, this application is for the reserve matters will be in respect of appearance layout and scale. When we considering appearance, because the areas that we're thinking about is what the building will look like and how will affect the place where it's built. When we considering layout, it includes how the building open spaces around the roads will be laid out in relation to the surrounding area. And situations relating to scale include the height with and left of the building. There are no other planning to considerations that are relevant in the termination of this application. All these matters have been considered under the hybrid application. And there are conditions requesting some further details on certain matters. The outline part of the hybrid consent, as I mentioned before, did establish the parameters that the reserve matters application is to comply with. That includes the maximum height of the building, the maximum scale of the building, the separation between buildings, and that's around the application site. So cover it as well as the design code for the appearance of the building. This slide in front of you is showing the front elevation of the proposed building. In terms of appearance, design code mentioned that block B should have a bolt initial corner to provide strong visual relationship with ones of roads. Introduce a three dimensional projecting elements to mitigate some gain and to provide visual interest in the front elevation. And the design tools with design code mentioned, which is building to respond to the design of the completed block name. The proposal was reviewed by the design host offices who confirmed that building involves with the proof design code and planning offices agree with this assessment. This image shows the rear elevation of the proposed building. And the next show the side elevation, the image on the left shows elevation that will be visible from one sort of roads. This elevation will be facing existing block A. During the determination of an application, there was a concern raised with the bird roosting behind the lube is that in front elevation. A condition has been recommended in the second. Requesting that the applicant submits bird deterrent strategy. People above ground works in place. In terms of layout, the separation distances and relationships, whose building have been already considered at an online stage of the hybrid consent. And the situation is not given to the impact of the data done by looking at funds to feel that the vaccine is doing not negatively effective surrounding buildings and the occupiers. This proposed building has been designed to be in line with the establishment of some parameters, if the offices are satisfied. They would have been right on the surrounding neighbors. This image is showing the proposed landscaping that will be to the front of the building. The landscaping that is proposed picks up on the established principles for the site and it ensures that the public realm along the street will be improved. All soft and hard like scheme and detail will be secured by planning conditions that is attached to the hybrid consent. But what we are seeing is with the initial submission. The outline element of the hybrid consent sets the maximum height for block the 11 stories 42 meters in height from above the ground level. The proposed building will be 10 stories of 35.78 meters above ground level. It definitely can be confirmed that the proposed building has been designed to be fine with the established maximum parameters and one application. In terms of the cycle parking, the applicant has demonstrated that the required number of cycle parking that is based on the number of students and staff will come provided inside. The cycle parking will be provided around block B with short stay cycle in front here to have short stay cycle parking and not stay cycle parking to the room. It also will be some short stay cycle parking here and long stay cycle parking in this location. So overall, the recommendation is for members to approve the result of the application and subject to conditions included in the draft decision as well as the dent and report. Thank you, Chair. That is the end of my question. Thank you. Right, we have someone here to speak in support of the application. We've all a weekly is here in person, who I believe is the agent right there. So I think you're in the room when I explained how it works before. So yes, if you introduce yourself in relationship the application, then your two minutes will begin. Okay. Good evening. My name is new, and I'm an associate director at Lichfield planning consultancy. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the applicant, South bank colleges, in support of the Council's recommendation for approval of reserve matters in relation to block the of Lambeth College's voxel campus. As has already been mentioned tonight, the application proposals form part of the wider redevelopment of the site. This redevelopment represents significant capital investment within the local area, and an increase in both the quantity and quality of further education provision in Lambeth. The online planning commission for the site was granted in 2021, and therefore the principle of the development of block the has already been approved, the current application provides details of reserve matters in relation to layout scale and appearance. The applicant has engaged with the Council in detailed pre application discussions, including with the design officer who supported the proposals. The design of block the overall is of a high quality and in line with the design code approved under the hybrid permission. The proposals represent a slight reduction in education floor space in comparison to what was envisioned for block B in the outline scheme. This has been necessary to ensure that the internal building layouts are more functionally compliant with the Department of Education's classroom size requirements, delivering the optimal learning environment. The minor reduction in floor space is made up by an increased provision of education floor space in the proposals for block D of the same site. This ensures that the intentions of the outline permission to deliver up to 15,000 square meters of education floor space are still being met. Overall, it has been demonstrated throughout the submission that the proposal satisfy the objectives and requirements of the development plan, whilst complying with the parameters set out for the development within the approved outline permission. We therefore request that this scheme supported by the committee this evening, allowing the Department of Education funding to be unlocked and for this educational facility to be delivered in land. Thanks very much. If you'd like to make your way back to the audience and just remember the benefit we also have a technical specialist who I believe is with us in person. Should we need to form this expertise that is Peter Phillips from walk towns and whose expertise is designed. Okay, any questions. That's Ainsley. Can I ask a page 106 on 4.2.27. Why you have said that there's no need for the Department of Assessment of Mission 13. There's no need for a further assessment of the machine. Why have you said that. Please don't like said that is that report will be submitted at the later stage. So there was no requirement for it to be submitted right now. Sure, if I may. I've looked back over the sustainability statements since this hybrid application was put together. And first of all the material sourcing report dated 21 January 2021 by Holmes Miller has got nothing sustainability in it whatsoever. And the original application has a sustainability strategy report dated June 2019, prepared by Elementor, which is Lambert's planning consultants. My concern is that's marking your own homework. Can we get some communication again, because we're assessing the reserve matters. So that relates to layout, design, height, whether that fits with what was approved when the permission was granted for the hybrid and outline permissions. So not not the sustainability. I found right, but can I get the new officers clarification on that. Can I just say the director of climate change planning and transport. It's it's all kind of in the title. And my concerns are around sustainability. I was surprised. I'm going to go back to what I said, because this isn't just an open forum where we're looking at whether we've preserved matters. And that relates to the high layout design, not the sustainability. So we need to be all of this in this room really clear what it is that we're asking questions about and what we're granting permission on this evening. So that's why I want to go to the case officer to just make sure we're all clear about what we're assessing and giving permission to. So I don't want members giving approval or not on something that has nothing to do with this application that that would get us in bother. Absolutely right of what you have said. And just to quickly go back on that point, I do have condition 39 open and the wording of the condition is before development commences. Of ground level, if each relevant part and or face, a report demonstrating how the principles outlined in the proof sustainability statement with regards to material sourcing and selection have been adopted. There will be further justification. So it's not based on that report. It will be building on that. But the applicant will be requested and expected to do. What is right. We're going to point. Yeah, this is not something that is up with the late. All we are assessing is they have to scale. Can I just check everyone is clear what we're assessing because if not, I'll bring the presiding office because I appreciate where. This is an unusual application. We don't often get things like this, but we do need to understand what it is we're approving this evening or not. So that's the thing, Jane. Are we only considering block B, right, not block C that we had. And also the night. I'm visual. Is that the layer of the visual seems like the daytime to me where sometimes I can mislead the. The readers in that sense, if it makes it more. Kind of friendly is friendly looking when you have a loose guy. That'll does that vision. Yes, but that's your question. Yes, it is just reserved matters for block B. The office of presentation sort of showed the, the outline application so we could understand the context. But tonight it's it is just block being it's just reserved matters so highly out. Design thing. But yes, you have a question there about. Yeah. And I can do. Looks like it's been like to me anyway. And also the height of block B is it. The same level as a block A that's existing. Yeah, so lawyer. Look, see, seems like a lot higher. Is that something that you're proposing? While you have it in, in, in, in this. The application, but this image just showed what the one application has sent. So it's just for visual purposes, but it's not something that we're considering. Can I ask about the height? Is it within the parameters of what was permitted as part of the hybrid application? Yes, that's really the question, isn't it? Yes, so the maximum height was 42 and the 30. Right, please. Is it that we're working? The questions. I'll be very sorry. I've lost, I've lost control. Sorry. What questions by the chair, please. The night time vision was, is that. Correct night time. No. In terms of, yeah, maybe the visual is not in the best way. But maybe there's a bit of resource. So the block. If I was quickly. As far as we haven't had any complaints about the building and how it appears. And block B will be designed to pick up on some of the characteristics and the materiality of that building. We have no concerns that the visual periods of block B that is proposed will cause any negative impact on the surrounding to escape. Okay, thank you. Just before I come to you, that's a plug. I think it might be helpful if I ask about the, what was the design code that was agreed as part of the. Outline permission and how does the these reserved matters that the details have been submitted? How do they comply with that agreed design code? Yeah, of course. So the design code included a number of different areas that we obviously need to comply with, one of them was the common theme. So the text that is in, you know, it's what's relevant and it is quite small in the screen so I will, I will read it out. So what you're saying is the three buildings within the master plan that are to be developed as family blocks, which share common characteristics, namely clear articulation of base and middle elements with the toilet building blocks. So, which is not part of this application providing top element. Within the middle after elements should be updated at the top of building should be finished with the flat roof, we continue with parapets and and each building should include a special corner. It's considered that this application has comply with all those common themes. The design code requirement was to create a building that has a bold initial corner to provide a strong visual relationship with ones of roads. And ensure that primary street facing elevation contain protecting other three dimensional elements, which maintain interest and presence, whether you. From a normal street, why this three dimensional depth with horizontal initiative along with the site, make a full use of the building street level to provide an active frontage. We're appropriate and show privacy to neighbors who are held for careful location windows. And locations of the base of the building which are not provided opportunities for active frontages ensure that the base remains visually distinctive from the upper floors. Incorporate existing pavement levels. And also upper floors are said back and maintain in detail. A local cycle storage record storage and bubble bath away from the active street frontages again. It was considered that the design of what we provide with those principles. And there are some images of what the sides should look like and all buildings that will be coming home at certain matters. What was meant about the base articulation. And we have some examples about what external tools to clean up what the pallet should look like. And again, it was considered that the proposed building combined with the design codes. And this image is showing the proof layout of building B or block B is located over here. And then we go back to the slide showing the layout. It complies with walls fruit. And this image is showing the height level. The resolution is not marked on there. They mentioned the height. So overall, following careful review to the design offices. We are satisfied that is the site code. Have been have a question. Yeah, it was about layout specifically of the cycling spaces. Okay, just before that, I just want to check. Does anyone else have any questions about the design. To speak to the layout of the cycle parking. Firstly, I just wanted to double check that they're all the cycle parking. By block D is contained within the red line of block B. And there that we've got, and I just wanted to. I just wanted to understand the layout rationale for the cycle parking in. I blocked D. And to check that the. The roots, the use of that is as appropriate for users of block B as if it were being provided. By the closer to block B entrances itself. All buildings that will be provided or create an educational campus. So they're not good. The students and stuff are not necessarily just going to be in one specific building that could be moving around. So the strategy for cycle parking provision is considered to be appropriate. And the temporary storage. Once the result matters application for block D will come forward. It might be moved into more permanent location. That is a little bit more appropriate. But now it's your disability and to allow block D to be. To come forward in a safe manner. And that is the solution that is provided, but we need to leave at the one. So actually the lubus that will be provided to provide the solid shading will also help. So in terms of privacy and overlooking issues and also the distances between the elevation. So the lubus that will be provided to provide the solid shading will also help. So in terms of privacy and overlooking issues. And also the distances between the elevation so the front elevation is considered to be acceptable, not to cause any harm to this residence. Okay, right, I'm going to move us on then to debating the application. Would anybody like to say anything about. It's just very briefly to see if there's a member of the committee from a pre recent application that was on site. I'll see how that design code has been interpreted well for this for plot B. And that I say everything that we're being asked to judge tonight in terms of reserve matters is to me appropriate for the site. And I'll say it won't be the last time we see the site. So we just been told, but yeah, I'm, I can't see anything. And I do think that there's an extra degree of what we have to the thoroughness to the. Consider to the new condition around bird, nesting. Thank you. Yeah, I agree. The application, the details are submitted clearly comply with the heights and the design code and the layer as approved under the hybrid applications. And I've seen a reason why we just not agree with office's recommendations. So on that basis, I'm going to propose that we do that and approve the reserve matters subject to officer report and including the amended conditions are set out in the agenda. I see a seconder, a couple of popular counts in the Bailey. I think I saw first so all those in favor please raise your hand. That is 12345 in favor. All those against. And the abstention. Yes, one abstention. So for the benefit of those at home, those who've dated voting favor. So that's Bailey, Clark, Simpson, Jaffa, and Barzingi. And we have an abstention from Councillor Ainsley. Right. Thank you, everybody. That concludes the planning committee this evening. Thanks ever, ever so much for your time. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]

Transcript

• Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this evening's planning applications committee meeting. My name's Councillor Joanne Simpson, and I am Chair of the Meeting. In line with legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers visiting board members and members of the public have joined us either virtually or physically. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. Whilst we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient if we hit some challenges in this virtual environment. In the events that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned, and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the Council's Democracy Twitter account, which is @LBLDemocracy. Some housekeeping, the fire exits, you exit the room at either side and go up the stairs to street level. There's an accessible toilet just outside that door on the right-hand side, and there'll be a comfort break around 9pm if required. We've received apologies this evening from Councillor Diogo Costa and Councillor Rebecca Spencer. Councillor Sarbaz-Baz-Bazindji will be subbing this evening. I now introduce members of the committee. We start with Councillor Ainslie and work this way around the room, so if you could just state your name and which ward you represent.
• Councillor Scott Ainslie. I represent my represent Stresham St Leonard sport.
• Councillor Martin Bailey representing Vauxhall ward.
• Evening Councillor Malcolm Clarke, Stresham Wells ward.
• Councillor Stanley Hadzha for representing St Martin's ward.
• Councillor Sarbaz-Bazindji. Brixton Akerlin.
• I'm Councillor Joann Simpson. I represent Stockwell West and Lark Hall ward, and I am chair of the committee. Now, I'll introduce lead officers starting with our presiding officers with this this evening. My name is Rob O'Sullivan. I'm an assistant director in the planning service, and I'll be presiding officer.
• Thank you. Our backup presiding officer. I'm Kiri Shatworth Head of Development Management, and I'm the backup presiding officer for this evening. Our Democratic Services Officer. I am Dhanisha. I am the Democratic Services Officer and Clark to this week. Our legal officer.
• Good evening. My name is Peter Flockard.
• And our transport officer. You're on mute, Simon.
• You're on mute, Simon.
• You're on mute.
• Sorry, my apologies, Chair. Simon Phillips covering transport matters. They also have my colleague, Joshua Lerner, who's shadowing me here this evening. Thank you.
• Thank you. And our conservation officers. I think we have two this evening. Sorry, sorry. Start with you, Nicola.
• Sorry.
• Nicola Shwera, Principal Conservation Design Officer.
• Thank you.
• You have a brilliant principal, Simon.
• Hey, and the Director of Regeneration.
• I've been Director of Regeneration, I've set some purposes.
• And the presenting officer for the London Eye.
• Yeah, hi. Good evening. I'm the Mayor, I'm the Area Team Manager, I'll talk to you in a second.
• And the Manager for that application is also key. We're shopping for who's already introduced herself. The presenting officer for the Lambeth College.
• Good evening. My name is Victoria Shwera. I'm the Chief Planning Officer.
• Thank you. And the Manager for that application.
• Good evening, Luke Farmer, Deputy Head of Strategic Applications.
• Great, thank you. Right. And we also have some external consultants for the London Eye. They are Nick Thompson from Lichfield's, Hannah Whitney from Lichfield's, and Nikki Mabelson from Lichfield's. And we'll hear from them, should we require to call on their expertise part of the meeting. So the order of business, there are four items on the agenda and they'll be considered in the order that they appear on the agenda. All the paperwork is available on the council's website. Applications will be considered in the same way. Reports which should be debated will be presented by an officer who will then highlight the main issues. We'll then hear from speakers. There are two members of the public and one more council who have registered to speak for the items on today's agenda. Members of the committee may then ask questions of the officers and we'll debate the application. Members would have read the officer reports and may wish to amend the recommended conditions or place informatives on the decision that subject to officer advice. We'll then make a decision and each application will be decided this evening and formal notification of the committee's decision will be sent to the applicants and any interested parties who made written representations. The minutes from tonight's meeting will be published after the meeting. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, one clear work in day before the meeting. Item one is decorations of interest. Do any members have any declarations of interest they wish to share? I don't have a declaration of interest but for transparency, I should state that I am a ward councillor for Stockwell, Western Lockhole where the Lambeth College application is based, however, I have not been involved as a ward councillor and I'm approaching this application with an open mind. Okay, we'll now move on to item two, which is the minutes. Are the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday the 16th of April, 2024 agreed? You can queue. Okay, item three, which is London I and I'll invite the officer now to present the report. (clears throat)
• Good evening everyone else. So before we start with a presentation, we had two identities of this item. So the first identity published last week just identifies a few iPhone within the report which was found. So we got the second event with published earlier today. This highlights different representations made by the environment agency. They were submitted on the 1st of May. We've considered those representations. We do not consider that anything new has been raised in addition to what has already been addressed in the committee report. The representation also suggests some changes to the total condition that we've got for the application. We've carefully considered those we've run the wording past our legal advisors and we have made some changes to those. They are set out in the published second identity. There's also a point of clarification with the data where officers consider that there was a representation obviously with from the environment agency that talked about a conversation issue. Officers consider that a view of compensation is not material in determining this application is charged condition one. However, even the contrary view were to be tamed in. This is considered a speculative nature and no material weight before to be given to the compensation issue as a material consideration. So that's what we've set out in the second attendance. I'm now going to move to the presentation. The application which members are considering this evening to approve the details, the permanent retention of the London Eye South Bank. This is following planning commission de-run for the 2003, the retention of the London Eye and associated structures and a change of use part of the ground floor basement and start basement of County Hall. Firstly, we're noticing that this is an unusual application you've prevented out planning committee. As a proposal of detailed applications, you'll be dealt with and delegated powers by the local planning authority. However, clearly this is an unusual type of development and therefore, at the time of being wrong in planning commission, such as a different planning condition. In this presentation, I'm going to talk you through the application you're considering tonight. Times scales for this application being submitted. Details of the condition and the assessment undertaken by officers are also addressed some of the representations we've received, local groups and the environment agency. So the plan on the left-hand side of the screen shows the red line boundary for the site. This is the same as the red line boundary which was submitted for the 2000 and one planning commission for the London Eye. The line in orange is indicative of the position of the Wees Walk River Wall along the bend which is grade two listed. Who hatched aerial the plan shows the Queen Walk River side of the walkway. So, turning to the aerial photo on the side. This shows the location of Jubilee Gardens to the north and the Shell Centre Development to the east. There's also the grade two listed the county hall to the south and Westminster Bridge which is also grade two listed. We've got some photographs here of the London Eye. I'm going to look for it. This is taken over the west with part of Jubilee Gardens and the falls around. We've got the grade two listed county hall to the left behind and behind the London Eye is the Westminster World Heritage Site designation as well as the Whitehall Conservation Air which is in Westminster City Council. Not right photograph. There is the inside of one of 32 parts which has the capacity for 25 feet. There is a bench in the middle of the pod and there are four rails around the watch. The bottom right photograph shows the boarding platform structures which can deliver over the river wall. These are associated with queuing and accessing the London Eye. More photographs here. So, the photograph on the right hand side shows the walkway from Belvedere Road up to the London Eye. And on the left of the photograph, is the access bridge into county hall. Right photograph shows access towards a loop here with the grade two listed lamp on the right hand side where the people are standing. These lamps are heritage features along the river wall. The bottom right photograph shows the support structures for the London Eye which are set in terms of the river Thames. This light shows some photographs which have been taken from views out of the London Eye. The top corner obviously shows the house of Parliament and it is the tower. With the grade two listed Westminster here in the foreground. Bottom left hand photo shows the Shell Centre and looks north towards City of London and London Bridge and the Shard. The top right photograph shows the Ministry of Defence building in the foreground. With St Garde's reign, the walkway walkout reigns and James' Park to the rear. Bottom right photograph shows the view from out of the pod over towards Southern. The next slide is a timeline for the London Eye. Up until the date. In 1998, a temporary five year planning commission was granted for the London Eye. This commission was subsequently implemented. The London Eye then opened their customers in March 2000. We had a highly successful year in operation. Patients were submitted for the permanent retention of the London Eye in 2001. Following a lengthy assessment of the 2001 application, the Council granted the London Eye commission in 2003. This was subject to a Section 106 agreement setting out the various heads of terms. It was also subject to Division 1, but the permanent retention of the Eye. The report amendment will be considering this evening. In 2003 and 2017, a number of members were made to the host permission of the London Eye. Each of these proposed changes to the signage and layout of the 15th fourth. In May 2001, yeah, it entered in for the permanent performance agreement to discuss the scope of assessing this planning application that was required under condition 1. And the times that I was submitting this application and assessing it. June 2023, the application submitted the application for proof of details, which would be considered this evening. This slide shows condition 1 in full. I've highlighted some of the main points here and then there's benefit. I'm not going to read out the whole condition, but in summary, the London Eye and associated structures are required to be removed within 25 years of permission to be linked to. Unless the Council approved a report assessing the continued acceptability for London Eye and any further mitigation that may be required This report was required to be submitted by the 20th anniversary of the planning commission, which was November last year. The application was made in July, part of the condition was satisfied by the applicant. Read for this condition being applied in the first phase was to assess the impact of the London Eye and re-evaluate people on term effects on the amenities of the area and the built environment. Essentially, at the time the application being returned in 2003, there were concerns raised by his English heritage, now historically, about the continued maintenance of success of the London Eye, and requested that any further permission is limited in the years. The conservation officer at the time shared these concerns and agreed with fine substitution. At the time, the applicant was asked that the applicant was not in agreement with this condition and proposed the revised condition on the screen. This was agreed by officers and they leave the team at the time and are handed to the host permission. This slide talks about what was undertaken. In 2001, the 2001 planning application was accompanied by an environmental statement, which sets out the applicant's assessment or likely environmental impacts of the proposed development. They are required when a proposed development likely have a significant effect on the build, as well as natural environment. Documenting the assessor's suggestions for mitigation protective measures to reduce or remove the application was assessed on the 1999 by EIA regulations. As explained in the committee report, the EIA regulations have moved on since the application before members. This current application is being assessed on for the 2017 regulation. There was also a requirement for further environmental information, which is the report, which is being considered tonight for the district for the compliance with condition 1. The scope of the FBE, which is read in the scoping report between the applicant and the independent advisors. What is this included? The following topics, which is set out on the screen. Landscape review, built heritage, traffic and transportation, the water environment, marine ecology and socioeconomics. As explained on the screen here, the decision maker is not tasked with re-affessing the principle of development. Focus needs to be on a continued acceptability of the installation on the amenities of the area and the built environment. As set out in condition 1, this could include any further mitigation, which is deemed necessary. Physical report sets out key matters for consideration. These include impact. Territory, the Jane's hat, transport, pedestrian flows, and water environment. Quality and socio-economic. And then through these in turn, they are set out in the committee report, and there's an officer assessment next to them, but I'll move you a brief summary of them. Those of townscape offices consider that the London Eye is a positive element on London Sky. As it represents high quality design that contributes to local stateiveness, legibility and a continued role as a landmark for London. It also has been recognised that the townscape is acceptable to visual impacts from the London Eye that it was in 2021, become more of an established tourist attraction, a highly familiar element of the London Sky bike. The FEI identifies London Eye as having a generally beneficial effect on the wider landscape, including at night time. It also provides the benefit of allowing the public to appreciate elevated perspectives that the townscape lose some of the London's most historic areas. Officers therefore consider that need to have an acceptable impact with regard and no further extension to recommendations. The heritage assessment is undertaken and is taken is taken to appreciate the public committee report. Officers acknowledge the assessment undertaken by the heroic evening and the council's conservation officer and have reached different conclusions to that set out in the FEI submitted by the applicant, notably regarding some of the adverse impacts that have been identified, included to the low degree of lessons, substantial harm to the setting of the Westminster World Heritage site, setting of the grade two listed county hall, and the significance of the Queen's walk-in at labs. During the considerable importance and weight, officers consider that a harm will be outweighed by heritage, public, social, cultural benefits, and these are set out in pages, 63 to 65 of the published committee report. First of the MPPS Paragon, 208 has there all been multiplied. Learning to transport, a full assessment was undertaken by officers in consultation with the transport team, and whilst there have been changes since 2003, these are the requirements for car parking, cycle parking, as well as alternative modes of transport, officers consider that the effects of the London Eye are acceptable at mitigated by current conditions and section 1, 26 lines that are in place. As a more of an environment, marine and ecology, officers do not consider that there are any environmental impacts that would require any further mitigation, due to the exception for a condition 1, to address the matters raised by the environment agency in terms of the requirement to raise the river walk, which will be discussed on the next slide. In terms of socio-economic benefits, these are set out on page 58 and 59 at the committee report. Through conclusion, officers consider that the team makes a highly beneficial impact in terms of supporting and locating the focus of sustaining local economy, providing for a source of revenue and management for the South Bank, while promoting wider social and cultural benefits. There's no obligation here. Finally, with regard to safety and security, officers have liaised with various organisations, whom they are pleased with factifying them, and it's in place in a line of subsequent security risks. During the consultation period of the application, a number of representations were made of qualified support, including many local business groups on the South Bank, as well as the South Bank and more to new neighbours. There were two representations of qualified response, which include a request for further mitigation. These were from the South Bank, that was requested for an additional section 106 payment on top of that already being secured, whilst the life-site replacement costs of the Queen's walk. There was also the Jubilee Gardens Trust, which had left it a yearly capital contribution, secured by section 1 of the event, that towards the asset renewals of the Jubal Gardens. There was also a representation received by an environment agency, which I think one of the days they were available to support the agent and recommend the approval of the contribution mitigation being proposed, in relation to the requirement to build up the flood wall of possibility compensation claims from the revenue from the funds, lots of revenue from the London Eye, doing work being carried out. They also required further ecological enhancements. It also requested that condition 1 of planning for both claim permission needs to be a path regardless of development. This slide sets out an ongoing commitment to section 106 agreement. First bullet points that found the financial contributions, which are required of the London Eye, people paid from the outset, the main ones being a million pounds towards the contribution to us. The landscape of Jubilee Gardens, and half a million pounds towards improvements to Queen's Wall. The ongoing commitment set out would continue if the application was approved, and they include a payment of a bond associated with costs and dismantling works various other communities to do that the eye is kept in a big condition. Importantly, the section 1 of 6 also requires an annual contribution of 1% of an annual term, which since 2003 has provided the council with £13.5 million. This is usually between 800 and 900k a year. This has been paid towards the maintenance and management public ground surrounding the site. It provides vital funding for the area. The South Bank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan identifies the alumni revenue section 106 model as an example of management of services and ongoing funding. Officers have given careful considerations of the regret of many by the South Bank Centre and Jubilee Gardens for additional financial contributions. However, the existing section 106 obligations including ongoing annual contribution are considerably acceptable and in line with planning policy and the planning is 9 of below plan. Further mitigation is not considered to be justified and would not pass a planning test relating to planning obligations as identified in the AEFES. These being necessary, relevant to planning and the development being permitted, which also bore precise and reasonable individual other aspects. Further mitigations therefore not sorted in this. In addition to the section 106, there are 21 planning that London eyes host at the mission, which mitigated its impact on resentually being. Blocking in the area, you've spoken about the London eye, civil aviation, works to county board, ends half and the river board and transport. In response to these condition and additional condition is recommended to directly assess the key concerns of the environment agency, including future changes to the river wall to address climate change and access to London eye. There are quite details and implementation of operations to the London eye that affects an operation to facilitate the net through its ends which is raising of the river. This would mitigate the effects of the London eye associated structures that may make construction works to the flood conditions being complex. Education has been reviewed by the council's lawyers and would meet the required six tests for planning condition set out in the AEF. It's subject to the information set out in the drug decision. The AC reminded to approve details submitted for this application. They will have passed a resolution confirming the removal of the London eye and associated structures pursuant to commission commission. In addition, one of the host permission is not required. Thank you. Just before I bring in the speakers, I just wanted to ask you to clarify about the listing of County Hall because I think you said grade two instead of grade two star. So can we just get clarification so that it's on record? No problem. Right. We move on to speakers now and I have Chris Byrd who is here in person, I believe, from Merlin Attractions Operations Limited. Hi there. So if you want to make your way to the table. So if you could introduce yourself and let us know your relationship with the application, your two minutes will then begin what a beat when you have 25 seconds left and then a final beat when your two minutes is up and I'll ask you to finish your sentence. So whenever you're ready. Good evening. I'm Chris for Byrd and the group property director for Merlin Attitudes. The London Eye has now been a fixture on the south bank for nearly a quarter of a century. There's become an iconic feature of the London skyline. Following extensive local engagement, we submitted a comprehensive report that's July, setting out that no further mitigation measures required if the eye is turned up. As a committee paper sets out, the officers are in agreement with this assessment, and therefore recommended the report can be. This will allow the eye to remain in its location permanently beyond 2028. If preparing a report was able to assess the immensely positive impact the eye has had on the south bank since its inception, particularly enabling the transformation of this area to a major tourist's health. The contribution of 1% of our annual turnover has played a key role in this. It continues to ensure this area is maintained up to our high standards. Not only has the eye created over 300 jobs, but it also has an economic output of 24 million pounds at the Lambeth Borough level. It wide benefits to London and beyond. The environmental agency rate points regarding the future works to the river wall. The officers have drafted a condition which addresses it, which has now been updated to respond to EA's most recent reputation. We are grateful to your officers for their divisions. In conclusion, we believe that members can be confident in supporting the recommendation for them and doing so. So, still the future of the other night. Thanks very much. Okay, so if you make your way back to the audience, and I'm now going to bring in Councillor Dokas, who is online, I believe. I am indeed. Hello. So, if you could just introduce yourself. Did you hear before about how the time it works? Yeah. Thank you very much. My name is Evain Dokas. I'm the World Council of the Waterland South Bank, where London is based. Yep. As the report before you notes, my word colleagues, the silver has written in sport of the subcation. I think how the London is an integral part of our community and the capital skyline and a huge asset along the South Bank. I echo those words. The economic benefits speak for themselves. So I'd like to focus on the positive impact, which is a section 106 arrangements have locally. Our predecessors had the fourth. Three to secure an obligation that the London I contribute 1% of its annual turnover to the spend on mitigating the impact of the eye on the public ground surrounding the site and to support the local community. In partnership with the South Bank employers group and with additional funding from South Bank. Recently brought to back in for five more years. One bit cancel is in the dry driving city and show these monies are directed to the right priorities. It is evident how this funding has transformed the local area. We must now ensure this continues to be maintained to a high standard. This can only be achieved longer term. If the eyes permanent, appreciate secure with an ongoing commitment to 1% of turnover being contributed. The management and maintenance of Jibile Gardens, the South Bank cultural and the South Bank team are all made possible because of this funding alongside investment from the South Bank. These are the specific measures by the section 106, 106 sports. They are crucial to the success of the eye and the wider South Bank. It is important to say that our residents and our communities benefit from these invaluable services. In addition, and from this year, section 106 money is will also support partnership work to make the area net zero by 2030. A core land of priority. Similarly, funds are being used to support the reinstated community chest grants program overseen by the South Bank and water and neighbors to support local community groups. The eye has more than proved itself over the past 20 years. Tonight, we have the opportunity to secure its permanent future and all the benefits it brings. I urge you to support this recommendation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, right, so I'm going to open up to questions. I'll come members. Do you members have any questions for officers? I have. Councillor Jaffa. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. On page 63, 4.6.3. So if you think about the report and it went to EIA, I want to know the results of the recommendations of the EIA recommendations. Letting associated with climate change and all that have you taken into consideration? Yes. It was a application, the FBI, the applicant chapter that addressed this issue and it was found that the. The London itself would have a negative impact on flooding in the local area. The EIA highlight, we feel have been with regards to the raising of the flood wall in the future. We feel are addressed by the position of an independent team. Can I have one more? Of course, that's a Jaffa. Motion and cultural benefits. There is something mentioning about mentioned about. Some number of range of homes can be provided in that range of homes. Are there any affordable homes provided there? No. This is clearly just for the London structure. Councillor Ainslie. It's very helpful to put up the raising of the ability to raise the wall. So the structure of the that one. Yes. So, I mean, I'm just an amateur. So, but if they just need to raise that wall at a faster rate than predictions. I mean, I love to see the environment report that they're bringing forward today because of potential for the rising sea levels. How could you possibly raise that wall? It just seems to be such without moving the structure. I know that's probably a really technical question. I don't know if you can answer it, but it does seem to be quite difficult. So, firstly, it's worth pointing out the environment agency haven't actually come to us with any with plans for raising of the wall along the Thames. See, they've got that identified date when they want to be implemented. But we're yet to see any for home for the brave. The applicant has submitted some information to us that shows that raising of the of the river is possible with the London I in place. And they'd probably be best suited to answer any further questions if you had about that. I forgot to say members apologies that we've also got two technical specialists here from CDRE who can answer question about the EIA. Would you like to hear a more technical answer about how that wall could be raised. If the environment agency ever wanted it to be. If possible, that would be great. Yeah, okay, so I've got two people here Rebecca rabies Smith and Ben. Well, didn't Barry. I'm not sure who would like to take that. Hello, yes, it's it's Ben. Well, then speaking here, just to clarify, we are EI technical specialists in terms of the process or in this case, the FBI. We are not civil engineers structural engineers cannot provide a technical answer on how the river wall could practically be be raised. We'd have to defer to others on that. Okay, well, who could answer. Of the war is a matter between between landowners. So that is something that they would have to come together in discussing how that was going to facilitate the advocates team might have quite have an answer. Hey, I don't want to spend too long on this given it's not actually been requested by the environment agency. So I think I'm going to move on if that's okay. Is it? I mean, my, my, my follow up question was going to be related to 4.3.71, which does talk about the asset owners. It's not clear. I think Merlin obviously. The asset owners, but another would have to be who asked Lambeth. And I suppose what I'm getting at here is that if things do. Substantially, the tipping points of race, the sea levels have to be arising the world of the world has to be raised in granting full permission, not just a period of time. It would be reassuring to know that at least we ask the questions then, and we're given assurance that this could be possible. I realize it's a really difficult question to ask. And it probably does require civil engineers, but if there is anything else to be extracted out of this meeting tonight with regards to those conversations that might have taken place with the applicant and civil engineers. It would be reassuring at least to know that we have asked that question and raise that. Okay, well, the case officer said that information has been provided by the applicant. So I'm just looking who I've got registered to speak from the. Excuse me, the accident slide. So I've got three people from litch fields. Would anybody like to take that question. Sorry, can I take it as the applicant. Sorry, because you're registered to speak. Please. So take a seat. So if you could, did you hear Councillor Ayes's question, if you could come back to us on that, that'd be great. Okay. So we have two structures. So we have the eye that sits on its own columns in the, as you can see on the bottom right hand. So that's, that's itself. We then span over the wall in a structure. And that's obviously sort of a metal girder structure. So we have the ability to rebuild that and build that higher. So we still have ramping up to get to the actual eye. So we have more capacity. If I think the plan for 2100, the story is it by 50 cent, we would have the ability to redo that structure and probably at that time, but we have to replace it before then. Given that your other questions around ownership. The Merlin entertainment, MAL owns the structure of the London Eye, and then we have three landlords. So we have in the river that we pay a fee to the PLA. Then we have two legs that land on South Bank. The left hand leg is to Mr. Macomoto. So he is the owner of County Hall. But he owns that side. So we pay him. So we pay rent at least to him. So he gets future. There are requests for him to raise the river will wear his tenant. And on the other side at South Bank. So the South Bank center of the other leg. So we pay them a lead. We have a lease with them as well. Thank you. You'd like to make your way back. I'm going to move us on to have a question. I'll follow up. Okay, as the clock is on Queen's Walk, and I understand the, the annual payment maintenance payments. I just wanted to understand a bit more from the city from the South Bank subjections or concerns. If the Queen's walk were to need substantial, you know, redoing beyond beyond just an annual maintenance, but say there were some serious structural problems that you get a serious additional investment. And then the capacity, you know, for, for some of that money to come from the, you know, from the London I development or is it separate. I think I'm just trying to understand that given that there is a percentage of the pedestrian flow that is based on the use that is based on the, on the development on the London I whether there is any specific thing should. It'd be over and above the, a normal annual wear and tear. So, so it's, it's nearly that contribution portion appropriately council session, the developer and local groups around there. We've got Matt Dibben on the call from our regent team who you have to answer that. Okay, yeah, let's bring Matt Dibben in. Hi, I'm thinking actually that I mean, the 1% that's overseen locally by the council, but then also with the visitor management groups that includes Merlin and South Bank employees group and South Bank bid alongside the council. I mean, that that money is as was really outlined, I think by the council of the utilization for management and maintenance of the public realm, including public safety considerations and there's an annual key decision reports. Essentially, that's agreed by the council to allocate that money. It depends really on the level of profit and the amount of money in this available was to have that can be stretched to mitigate those local impacts and how much would be available to consider, you know, and obviously before those different parties and local interest to consider the best investment of that money, whether it be for some of the things that we've raised through this process. I can't really answer if, if the, if the request for money is beyond what's available in that 1%, I think that's probably more of a question back to Ben, sorry, planning as to the consideration of whether a one off payment was possible or not at this point in time. But that's how the 1% is managed and it can be, you know, any impacts upon the local public realm can be considered in that investment specifically. Would you like further be the answer for them. Is there anything that the, the officer with that. I think all things worth pointing out that we didn't identify that any further mitigation was required. It's been pretty much a constant, the lungs and either they've had, they've had a. It's not changed in a way you're still going around and for 30 to 30 minutes to go around there's still 25 people in a pod. So that is pretty, pretty much remained a constant since it's been there. Yeah, the popularity might go up and there are peaks times when it is obviously the summer months and that. But generally it's a state of constant. So we haven't identified any further contributions in this instance that would be required was the Queensport. That's the clock. My question, the specific question here is with, as we're granting permanency to this, and I just wanted to be reassured that kind of. We have in play it. The Queensport needed 10, 20 years down the line needed, you know, really substantial investment that there are the processes in place. I guess what you're saying is there. There are different groups who are looking at the looking at this and deciding kind of where investment might might be best spent. Therefore, there are groups in place who would at the time, shouldn't that be case that there is no, there's no obligation planning obligation. At least I think you're there is there are processes that need. Right. Yes. Yeah, I mean, sometimes it's difficult to get landlords to agree who holds liability. So I'm glad that this has been interrogated some somewhat. It's slightly concerning that there's two landlords that might be involved, but as long as there is insurance and mitigation in place, which I hope there is, then that's fine. I ask specifically about the damage that seems to be done payments from the coaches parking on them. That was a concern raised in the report. Whilst I appreciate 1% contribution profits has generated quite a lot of income for the borough, and I am slightly concerned about the damage to our roads. Our roads are not in the best state, but our pavements around there from the coaches parking on them. I've taken it's taken as tall a bit and just, does that come out of the profits, the 1% those mitigations or do we have a kind of kitty to make sure that the payments are well preserved. You have to come back on that. So I think specific, I mean, it's been a specific investment program commitment by the council for that stretch of highway essentially from where the London is across to towards Bernie's been gardens. That's the one off capital investment. So the maintenance question, it is, as I said before, the 1% can be considered for a number of different things to mitigate that local impact. So highway maintenance or maintenance specifically the pavements can be one of those things or deterrence to try and improve or prevent that impact from taking place. But it's also part of the council's consideration. It's wider allocation across the borough of how to invest in the public realm and the highway. I think the key thing to say is that there are a number of different pressures on that 1% that's available. So it does just have to be considered in the round, I best to allocate it to respond to the public realm to safety and other another another impacts that might be heard. That's right. Sorry. Thanks, chair. Just a follow up question to that. It would be, is it the local, is it wiping its face that 1% contribution from the income is that covering all of the local area, at least. Or is it, are we having to take money from elsewhere in order to maintain. It is beautifully maintained. Let me add that. It is a beautifully maintained area, but. Is others profits enough? How much is left over to help other areas access areas into the eye, for example. I could probably start trying to answer that some of it. The money needs to be, my understanding from the 106 section, 106 agreements specific to the surrounding neighborhood impacted by the eyes. It can't be utilized further afield. So I guess that's one specific points about the scope of the funding and how it can be used. It does draw in additional investments. So South Bank bid have much funded most years, which is a positive impact of the local employers committing to that local public realm, as well as as they, as they know they need to. It's a very complex question, probably, about whether it washes the face of its impact. I'm not sure I have the exact information that could work that out in all honesty, but it certainly has a huge impact and the ability to improve and maintain that local public realm, as you say, to keep it in high state of condition and to ensure the safety of the area too. Okay, right. I'm going to move us on to a discussion. Do you have another question or two questions? Okay. Yep. One on transport. So looking at pre book taxis and looking at page 51 of the report, 4.3.59. And it says, I see, pre book taxis were using coach parking bays, there are measures in place to enforce against this behavior, should it escalate sort of problematic level. You might just have a little bit of clarity on what those measures that aren't yet done, but could be. I'd like to get to Fraser for that. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Yes, thanks for the question. We've been discussing this with our enforcement team and they've been telling us about the work they do down there. They're very active in that area there as has been noted, the coach base are sometimes used by mini caps and ubers, and we can enforce against that. The advice I'm getting is that it's not considered to be a major problem at the moment. Obviously that can be kept under review. We can step up enforcement as necessary, but the number of the number of mini caps or uber seems to be relatively low, and it does not appear to be causing a significant problem at the moment. So I think we are content to continue, we can enforce, we can increase enforcement as necessary. And your other question was just a planning and process matter. So we're granting just my benefit with planting mission as it led for this to become a permanent at some stage, the infrastructure will be renewed. Is there, if it is renewed as existing. Yeah, as, as identically, is the assumption that there isn't a need for a new planning application, but if there was to be a change in the structure. There would be a new planning application. I just wanted to get that. I mean, the attention obviously would be to rebuild it as, as, as it's obviously any amendments would need to be made through the formal planning process. That's very, very, the host permission. So, we, we kind of heard in the presentation that lawyers had from the applicant had sort of agreed, rather than a 25 year extension for it to be permanent. I feel as though we're missing, we're missing quite a lot of justification as to why this isn't 25 years for some of the reasons we've discussed already. And that we review again in another 25 years. Why did we allow that. And how easy was it for the applicant to obtain that. So, in consultation with our legal advisors, including council, we did consider the issue of the 25 years and then, however, the main reason for the condition being put on the first place was to identify whether the acceptability of the London I, and whether there any mitigation that could be proposed. Now, that condition has hope we have to consider that's been satisfied. So we don't feel that it's necessary to then now reassess it further in another 25 years. What can happen to us. When you come to your stomach up, you can outline whether you feel that's a legal process in place to ensure that it's kept. It's like, and the, the I itself, whether it's a thing. Okay, I'm going to move us on to debating the application. Would any members like to outline their views or perhaps how they are minded to vote this evening don't have to say anything, but you are very welcome to me. No one can don't the absolute benefit of this, this, this attraction, and the, the, the interest that it's brought to the South Bank and for the field is, is unparalleled to my grandmother up there she before she died she loved it. I love it. I go up, take my kids there regularly. So proud to have this in Lambeth, and so I am mindful to approve it with the academy with some of the concerns I raised tonight that sometimes I worry that as a council were a bit of a soft touch for a hard nose developers and I perhaps would like to have seen 25 year agreement. So there's some of the issues that we've raised tonight would have been renegotiated, reconsidered in, in light of what might happen in the next quarter of a century, but having said that, I think we've interrogated it as much as we possibly can this evening. I would have preferred 25 years, but as a result, on balance, I support the application. Thank you. Anyone else. Yes, sorry, and I think the, the lack of any, any individuals or organizations directly fully opposing objects really objecting to this application just is testimony, both to. So, the popularity of the, of the I itself. So, to the purpose of the, I said the report and the work that has gone on to, to look at them, you know, whether it is right to, to extend this to be, to be in permanent today's area is a big decision. Um, so, to, to agree with my colleague that's it's right that we interrogate these things. And the key things for me are that I say the additional position that we have regards to the, I said, just ensuring the. The, the, the, the, the, the risks of like the sentence works. And so, just say that point. The structure isn't going to last forever. If it, if it does, you know, when the time comes to do it, I think. Realistically, technologies will probably have moved on. There will probably be some, you know, even, even if the, the I itself is maintained. It is, it will be the maybe different structures to support it. And I think, again, there is the planning process will kick in at that point. So permanent is, you know, it's not quite as permanent as. Yeah, as it seems in that sense. So I'm, I'm. I particularly appreciated the officer's reassurances on some of the transport. In this area can be challenged. So, yeah, I'm minded. Hey, thank you very much. Councillor Buzzingey, then Councillor Jaffa. Gosh, I didn't think we can have everybody. Something up on this one. Everybody is, is, is a historic infrastructure, a historic day for the London I to be compiling it. And all the right questions are being pulled forward, especially the technicality. And I'm sure the engineers, structural engineers, civil engineers have the capability to raise. The flood defence line of requirement, like our friend have. But forward that they still have a headroom for the floods, the, the, the, the barriers to be raised if required. And considering the London I became iconic part of land of London skyline, I think it would be beneficial for them to have that piece of mind that there is a pertinent structure. And we're in the future that requires maintenance or we're strengthening. We already have technologies and materials that can withstand this type of structures that's required. So having this in mind and also considering this is that even though that is privately owned, but it does have, it does benefit the entire community and attracts visitors from all over the world. And it has helped Lambeth image internationally and also nationally as well to taking all this into consideration. I think I am myself in favour of this application. Thank you very much. I forgot your train structural engineer, we should have asked you. Councillor Jaffa. As I'm the lead for strong communities and faith. We have taken a lot of underrepresented communities to London I, they have really enjoyed it. Sometimes we get discount as well as a glue and people from mosque. They all go there and there is facilities for accessibility is good. And it is a day out for all the communities I work with. So I strongly recommend. What's going on this. Right. Okay. Well, thank you everyone for your contributions. I'm going to propose that we accept officers recommendation, which is to resolve to approve the submitted deco to condition one of the kind of meetings. 0 1 0 3 3 1 5 full and together with the amended conditions are set out in the agenda. Do I see a seconder. Councillor Bailey, thank you. All those in favour, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay. Right. We're going to move on now to our next application, which is Lambeth College. We have the case officer with us. We're happy to start your presentation. I'm going to send them a call to me a little relating to a lot of cultural center at Belmont street. There are a vision that is submitted in relation to the site. This is our marketing application. We are going to move on. I should also note that there were two items to this application. The first then that was published. It is to some place in terms of cycling numbers, and it was going to be that the site location plan in particular one was incorrect. And that has been changed the second, then them first to some changes when congregation following some further consultation with design offices. It was found that the lubus and the front elevation of lock B could have a potential for that nesting inside them. So, the application site is located along all the streets to the west of one to the front. The site is contained within the road to the map, and the land contained within the blue boundary is the land that is in the ownership of the government. The site is part of college, which is a further educational college occupying three campuses located in voxel, ricksand, and platinum. The college is part of the South Bank colleges, and the site is currently going and the going of redevelopment to deliver high quality new educational campus. The surrounding area is prominently residential and character, but there are some industrial and commercial uses nearby. Residential uses are located on Belmore Street, once of a throat and for a throat, as it can be seen on the marked area will map. The industrial uses are mainly located beyond the Brooklyn's passage, where we find the new Covent Garden markets, and there are some commercial uses located on one to the road. Here are some photographs of the application site, the photograph on the left shows a video of the site when you approach it from once a throat. The photograph on the right shows the front of the application site with the rear elevation of the mixtures building faces. The photograph on the left shows the residential block so it's this block over here. And then on the right in that photograph, we can see recently constructed block A, which was part of the. Right with concept 2021. And the photograph on the right, just here shows the site elevation of the approval. And with the service road and an edge of application site. And all the photographs on this slide are showing the approved and existing block A building from various angles. The first image is from the back. So, looking towards a covered market garden. This image in the middle is showing the side elevation facing the new Covent Garden market, and this is from this elevation that we saw previously. There are different types of planning applications that can be submitted to the local planning authority for considerations. The application that we are considering tonight is a result of matters application that is linked to an album planning, but application that was allowed under a hybrid planning. The table that is on screen provides a definition. So, this type of consent is usually granted, and it doesn't include a full detail of an application. So, this type of application usually tests whether the proposal is accepted and principle, and they usually five matters and that can be considered or the next for the next, which is reserved matters. So, the five considerations that can be taken is access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and size as well as scale. If that detail is not considered at an outline stage, we an applicant consumes submit reserved matters application. This is an application that follows on. So, as I said before, covers any outside classes. So, when you then take consent at an outline stage on the matter stage, you essentially get a full planning approach. For planning application is when all the details about a proposal is being submitted. So, we have all the details about the use, skill, massing, design, access, drainage, environmental impacts, and the list carries on. Lastly, a hybrid application is when we have part of the site being considered under outline planning application, and part of the site being said as a full planning application. So, just to recap, as I mentioned before, on 11th February, a hybrid application was submitted and approved that permission granted a full planning mission for blog a, which has now been constructed. And there was an outline planning applications for blog B, C, and D. And the image on the bottom left shows the four buildings that the hybrid application considered with the full planning one being outlined in red that is being built. And the three other buildings are shown in different colors. What the outline commission have done, it's set parameters under which the other buildings need to be built. So it's said how high those buildings can be, how big they can be. And it's provided a design code, which explains how they should be designed going forward. So, this application is for the reserve matters, so we'll be in respect of appearance layout and scale. When we considering appearance, because the areas that we're thinking about is what the building will look like and how will affect the place where it's built. When we considering layout, it includes how the building open spaces around the roads will be laid out in relation to the surrounding area. And considerations relating to scale include the height with and left of building. There are no other planning to considerations that are relevant in the termination of this application. All these matters have been considered under the hybrid application, and there are conditions requesting some further details on certain matters. The design part of the hybrid consent, as I mentioned before, did establish the parameters that the reserve matters application needs to comply with. That includes the maximum height of the building, the maximum scale of the building, the separation between buildings, and that surround the application site site coverage, as well as the design code for the appearance of the building. This slide in front of you is showing the front elevation of the proposed building. In terms of appearance, design code mentioned that block B should have a bolt initial corner to provide strong visual relationship with ones of roads. Introduce a three dimensional projecting elements to mitigate some gain and to provide visual interest in the front elevation. The design code mentioned with building to respond to the design of the completed block lane. The proposal was reviewed by the design host offices who confirmed that building involves with the proof design code and planning offices agree with this assessment. This image shows the re elevation of the proposed building. And the next show the side elevation, the image on the left shows elevation that will be visible from one sort of roads. This elevation will be facing existing block A. During the determination of the application, there was a concern raised with the bird roosting behind the lube is that in front elevation. A condition has been recommended in a second. In terms of layout, the separation distances and relationships with building have been already considered at an online stage of the hybrid consent. The situation is not given to the impact of the day that don't might be overlooked in my policy to feel that the maximum is do not negatively affect the surrounding buildings and the suppliers. This proposed building has been designed to be in line with the establishment of some parameters, if the offices are satisfied. They will be able to impact on the surrounding neighbors. Next image is showing the proposed landscaping that will be to the front of the building. The landscaping that is proposed picks up on the established principles for the site and it ensures that the public realm along the street will be improved. A whole soft and hard light scheme in detail will be secured by a planning conditions that is attached to the hybrid consent. The outline element of the hybrid consent sets the maximum height for block B, 11 stories 42 meters in height from above the ground level. The proposed building will be 10 stories of 35.78 meters above ground level. It definitely can be confirmed that the proposed building has been designed to be fine. The established maximum parameters are one application. In terms of the cycle parking, the applicant has demonstrated that the required number of cycle parking that is based on the number of students and stuff. It will be provided on site. The cycle parking will be provided around block B with short stay cycle. So in front here to have short stay cycle parking and not stay cycle parking to the room. It also will be some short stay cycle parking here and long stay cycle parking in this location. So overall, the recommendation is for members to approve the reserve amount of application and subject to conditions and included in the draft decision as well as their dent and report. Thank you, Chair. That is the end of my presentation. Thank you. Right. We have a lot here to speak in support of the application. We've all a weekly is here in person who I believe is the agent right there. So I think you're in the room when I explained how it works before. So yes, if you introduce yourself in relationship, the application, then your two minutes will begin. Okay. Good evening. My name is Nina Wheatley and I'm an associate director at Lichfield's planning consultancy. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the applicant south bank colleges, in support of the council's recommendation for approval of reserve matters in relation to block the of Lambert college's box office. As has already been mentioned tonight, the application proposals form part of the wider redevelopment of the site. This redevelopment represents significant capital investment within the local area and an increase in both the quantity and quality of further education provision in Lambert. Outline planning commission for the site was granted in 2021, and therefore the principle of the development of block the has already been approved. The current application provides details of reserve matters in relation to layout, scale and appearance. The applicant has engaged with the council in detailed pre application discussions, including with the design officer who supported the proposals. The design of block the overall is of a high quality and in line with the design code approved under the hybrid permission. The proposals represent a slight reduction in education rules face in comparison to what was envisioned for block B in the outline scheme. This has been necessary to ensure that the internal building layouts are more functionally compliant with the Department of Education's classroom size requirements, delivering the optimal learning environment. The minor reduction in floor space is made up by an increased provision of education floor space in the proposals for block D of the same site. This ensures that the intentions of the outline permission to deliver up to 15,000 square meters of education floor space are still being met. Overall, it has been demonstrated throughout the submission that the proposal satisfy the objectives and requirements of the development plan, whilst complying with the parameters set out for the development within the approved outline permission. We therefore request that this scheme supported by the committee this evening, allowing the Department of Education funding to be unlocked and for this educational facility to be delivered in land. Thanks very much. If you'd like to make your way back to the audience and just remember this benefit, we also have a technical specialist who I believe is with us in person. So, what should we need to form this expertise that is Peter Phillips from walk towns and whose expertise is designed. Okay, any questions. Can I ask a page 106 on 4.2.27. Why you have said that there's no need for the Department of Assessment of Mission 13. If you did you tell me that you have to be a judge, once things, they want to be treated with this application and 39 will have to be submitted, and the whole life cycle carbon to then be submitted for our assessment. You're saying that this does no need for further assessment of the machine. Why you said that. The reason why I said that is that report will be submitted at the later stage so there was no requirement for it to be submitted right now. Sure, if I may. I've looked back over the sustainability statement since this hybrid application was put together. And, first of all, the material sourcing report dated 21 January 2021 by Holmes Miller has got nothing sustainability in it whatsoever. And the original application has a sustainability strategy report dated June 2019. So we're prepared by elementary, which is Lambeth's planning consultants. My concern is that's marking your own homework. Can we get some. Yeah, application again, because we're assessing the reserve matters. When the permission was granted for the hybrid and outline permissions. So not, not the sustainability. I found right. But can I get the new officers clarification on that. Can I just say the director of climate change planning and transport. It's, it's all kind of in the title. I'm going to go back to what I said, because this isn't just an open forum where we're looking at whether we preserve matters. And that relates to the high layout design, not the sustainability. So we need to be all of this and this being really clear what it is that we're asking questions about and what we're, we're granting permission on this evening. And I want to go to the case officer to just make sure we're all clear about what we're assessing and giving permission to. So I don't want members giving approval or not on something that has nothing to do with this application that that would get us involved. Absolutely right. And what you have said, and just to quickly go back on that point. I do have condition 39 opening and the wording of the condition is before development commences. If each relevant part end or face, a report demonstrating how the principles outlined in the proof sustainability statement with regards to material sourcing and selection have been adopted. They will be further justification. So it's not based on that report. It will be building on that, but the applicant will be requested and expected to do. We're going back to point. Yeah, this is not something that is up with the page. All we are assessing is experience. They have to scale. Can I just check everyone is clear what we're assessing because if not, I'll bring the presiding office in because I appreciate where we, this is an unusual application. We don't often get things like this, but we do need to understand what it is we're approving this evening or not. Councilor is in Jane. Are we only considering block B, right, not block C that we had. And also the night time visual. Is that the layer of the visual seems like the daytime to me where that sometimes I can mislead the readers in that sense, if it makes it more. And a friendly is friendly looking when you have a loose sky. That'll does that vision. Yes, but that's your question. Yes, it is just reserved matters for block B. The office of presentation sort of show the, the outline application so we could understand the context, but tonight it is just block being is just reserved matters. So, highly out design thing. But yes, you have a question there about. The night time visual looks like a bit like to me anyway. Also, the height of block B is the same level as the block A, that existing. Yeah, so lawyer. Look, see, seems like a lot higher. Is that something that you're proposing. So why do you have it in in in this. The application, but this image just show what the location is just for visual purposes, but it's not something that we're considering. Can I ask about the height? Is it within the parameters of what was permitted as part of the hybrid application? Yes, that's really the question, isn't it? Yes, so the maximum height was 42 and 30. Right. I need the questions. Can I be very sorry, I've lost control. Sorry. Questions by the chair, please. The night time vision was, is that. Correct night time visual. Oscar. In terms of maybe the visual is not in the best way. But maybe there's a bit of news. So the block. A, if I was quickly. Is already on site, it has been there for a little while. And. Or as we haven't had any complaints about the building and how it appears. And block B will be designed to pick up on some of the characteristics and materiality of that building. So we have no concerns that the visual appearance of block B that is proposed. Will cause any negative impact on the surrounding landscape. Okay, thank you. Just before I come to you, that's a plug. I think it might be helpful if I ask about the, what was the design code that was agreed as part of the. Permission and how does the these reserved matters that the details have been submitted. How do they comply with that agreed design code. Yeah, of course. So the design code included a number of different areas that you obviously need to comply with. One of them was the common theme. So the text that is in, you know, it's what's of relevance and it is quite small in the screen. So I will, I will read it out. So what you're saying is the three buildings within the master plan that are to be developed. As family blocks which share common characteristics, namely clear articulation of base and middle elements with the taller building blocks. We're just not part of this application providing top element. They should have engaging and active managers with two different points elements of each building. The upper stories within the middle after elements should be eliminated. At the top of building should be finished with a flat roof, we continues parapet. And each building should include a special corner. It's considered that this application has comply with all those common themes. Another design code requirement was to create a building that has a bold initial corner to provide a strong visual relationship with one's approach. Ensure that primary street facing elevation contain projecting other three dimensional elements, which maintain interest and presence from the street. And why this three dimensional depth with horizontal emphasis along the length of the site. Make a full use of the building street level to provide an active frontage. We're appropriate and show privacy to neighbors who are held for careful location windows. In locations of the base of the building which are not provided opportunities for active frontages, ensure that the base remains visually distinctive from the upper floors. Incorporate existing pavement levels. Ensure applications are set back and maintained in detail. Locate circle storage, directly stored and double bark away from the active street frontages. Again, they was considered that the design of blood to be required with those principles. There are some images of what the sides should look like in all buildings that will be coming forward at certain matters. For example, what was meant about the base calculation. And we have some examples about what external tools to clean up what the palette should look like. And again, it was considered that the proposed building combined with the design codes. The image is showing the proposed layout of building B or block B is located over here. And then we go back to the slide showing the layout. It complies with walls fruit. And this image is showing the height level. The resolution is not marked on that. As I mentioned, the height was all set. Overall, following careful review to the design offices, we are satisfied that is the site codes have been helped. Thank you. Can I have a question? Yeah, it was about layout specifically of the cycling spaces. Okay. Just before that, I just want to check. Does anyone else have any questions about the design? So, just the layout of the cycle parking. Firstly, I just wanted to double check that all the cycle parking part of it by block D is contained within the red line of block B. And there that we've got, and I just wanted to. I just wanted to understand the layout rationale for the cycle parking in. I blocked D and check that the, the roots, the use of that is as appropriate for users of block B as if it were being provided by Bible closer to block B entrances itself. So, all buildings that will be provided will create an educational campus. So, they know that the students and stuff are not necessarily just going to be in one specific building that could be moving around. So, the strategy for cycle parking provision is considered to be appropriate. And the temporary storage. Once the result matters application for block D will come forward. It might be moved into more personal location that is a little bit more appropriate, but now it's for accessibility and to allow block D to be to come forward in a safe manner. And that is the solution that is provided, but we need to leave out there. And I think it's very, it's just on what went out of the block the house on the street in what any mitigations we need to know, when we're looking for higher floors. So, actually, the lubus that will be provided to provide a solid shading will also help in terms of privacy and overlooking issues. And also the distances between the elevation so the presentation is considered to be acceptable not to cause any harm to this residence. Okay, right, I'm going to move us on then to debating the application would anybody like to say anything about it. So, very briefly to see, you know, as a member of the committee from a pre recent application was on site it on site for lots of the note, no, no the site. Well, and cannot see how that design code has been interpreted. Well, for this for plot B. And that I said, you know, everything that we're being asked to judge tonight in terms of reserve matters is to me appropriate for for the site. And, say, wait for the last time we see the site, as we just told but yeah I'm, I can't see anything. And I do think that there's an extra degree of what we have to the thoroughness to the, to the new condition around bird nesting. Thank you. Yeah. I agree. The application, the details are submitted clearly comply with the heights and the design code and the layer has approved under the hybrid applications. I see no reason why we just not agree with office's recommendation. So on that basis, I'm going to propose that we do that and approve the reserve matters. I'm subject to officer report and including the amended conditions are set out in the agenda. Do I see a seconder. Councillor popular, Councillor Bailey, I think I saw first so all those in favor, please raise your hand. That is 12345 in favor, all those against. Any abstentions? Yes, one abstentions. So, for the benefit of those at home those who've dated voting favor, Council is Bailey, Clark, Simpson, Jaffa and Barzingi, and we have an abstention from Councillor Ainsley. Right. Thank you, everybody. That concludes planning committee this evening. Thanks ever, ever so much for your time.