Transcript

I will do that in the pecuniary interest there. Welcome to this evening's planning applications committee. I am Councillor Malcolm Clark and I will chair the start of the meeting tonight. Apologies for the late running of this meeting. In line with legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers visiting ward 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. While 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 X account, which is @LBLDemocracy. Quick bits of housekeeping. So, fire exits, you can exit the room from either door to street and up the stairs to the street level. Toilets, there's an accessible toilet just outside the right-hand side of the room, and that's from the public's point of view, the right-hand side. And if we need it, there'll be a comfort break around nine o'clock. Apologies. We have received apologies from Councillor Simpson and Councillor Jaffa. I will now introduce members of the committee, starting on this side. Good evening, I'm Councillor Scott Ainslie. I represent Streston's and Leathersport. Councillor Dio Costa, Overward. Leatherman I, Knights Hill Ward. Councillor Malcolm Clarke, Streaton-Wells and Ward, and a Vice Chair of the committee. Councillor Martin Bailey, Vauxhall Ward. Thank you. I will now turn to introducing the senior officers at this evening's meeting, starting with the Presiding Officer. Good evening, my name is Rob O'Sullivan. I'm an Assistant Director in Lambeth's Planning Service, and I'll be Presiding Officer. The Backup Presiding Officer. Thank you. Democratic Services Officer. Hi, I'm Venetia. I'm a Democratic Services Officer and Clerk to this meeting. And our Legal Officer. Good evening, I'm Craig Hallett, Legal Officer and Senior Planning Solicitor in Lambeth Hills. And our Conservation Officer. Hello, I'm Jack Bennett. I'm Principal Design Officer. Transport Officer. Good evening, Chair Simon Phillips, Assistant Director, Climate Change and Strategic Transport, covering Transport this evening. Presenting Officer for Seven Glass House Walk. Hi, Lauren Schalke, Senior Planner in the Strategic Applications Team. And the Manager for Seven Glass House Walk, Jeff Holt, Deputy Head of Strategic Applications. We've also got two external consultants for that application. We have our Daylight and Sunlight Consultant. Julia. You can see him online. We do have somebody from Arup who's doing a Daylight and Sunlight Consultant, and we have our Sustainability Consultant from Blue Burton. Hi, good evening. Elise Kidd from Blue Burton. Thank you very much evening. So there are four items on the agenda tonight, and they'll be considered in the order they appear on the agenda. And all paperwork is available on the Council's website. The applications will be considered in the same way. Reports. You'll hear Officer Presentations, which are reports to be debated, and they'll be presented by an Officer who will highlight the main issues. And tonight there will be three members of the public and one Lord Councillor who registered to speak for the items on today's agenda. Then there will be a debate where members of the committee may ask questions of the Officers and will then debate the application. Members will have read the Officer reports and may wish to amend the recommended conditions, place informatives on the decision subject to Officer advice. The application decided this evening and formal notification of the committee's decision will be sent to the applicant and any interested parties who made written representations. The minutes from tonight's meeting will be published subsequently. Written representations. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, one clear working day before the meeting. So that was the Monday before the meeting yesterday. So Item 1, declarations of pecuniary interest. Do any members have any declarations of pecuniary interest they wish to share? I do. So I'm Councillor Malcolm Clark and I have a disclosable pecuniary interest, which is that for Item 4 that my wife worked for London School of Economics and I will be standing down from the committee for this item and we will be electing a chair to a new chair to take the place of myself for that item. So that is what will follow shortly. But just checking, do we have any other declarations of pecuniary interest? No. Item number 2, declarations of other interest. Do any members have other declarations of interest they wish to share? Just to clarify which ward is that? Any other declarations of other interest? In which case we'll move to Item 3, the minutes. Are the minutes of the meeting held on the 1st of October 2024 agreed? Agreed. Thank you. We will in fact I say there's an extra item now on the agenda, which is that I will be stepping down from this item and the committee will elect a chair for this item. Can I just see what the next step is for us? The next step chair would be for a member of the committee to nominate themselves as chair of the committee to then put that to a vote with the rest of the committee. Just wanted to clarify, do I have somebody wishing to put themselves forward? Thank you Councillor Bailey. All those in favour of Councillor Bailey being chair of the next item, that is a unanimous vote amongst the four members who are voting on this item. The current chair I didn't vote, but I say we will now formally step down from this item and I will invite Councillor Bailey to chair the next item. Thank you very much. Thank you Councillor Clark. Thank you everyone. I'm not chair planning committee for so please bear with me for a moment. Item 4, so we'll now move on to item 4, seven glass house walk box award. I will invite the officers to present the report. Thank you Councillor Bailey, I'll just share my screen. Good evening. This application is for the redevelopment of the site at seven glass house walk for mixed use scheme, comprising purpose built student accommodation for the London School of Economics and Political Science, light industrial space and a social science incubator space. The application site is encircled in red. The site is located on the north side of glass house walk opposite Foxhall Pleasure Gardens and the site is situated approximately 100 metres east of Albert Embankment. The site shares a selection of existing site photographs taken from glass house walk. The site comprises a series of vacant commercial industrial buildings. The site was most recently occupied by an art storage and logistics business that vacated the premises in November 2022 to relocate to a more modern premises close to Heathrow Airport. This slide shows a site context which shows a diverse range of uses, including offices, hotels, public house, housing and open space, which together gives the locality a mixed use character. Proposals for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part six, part eight, part 10 storey building comprising social science incubator space on the ground floor with ancillary cafe, light industrial employment space on the lower ground floor with halls of residence and ancillary facilities above. The proposal will be owned and operated by the LSE. The scheme will provide 1,220 square metres of light industrial floor space on the lower ground floor. Access to the light industrial floor space will be from a dedicated entrance on the eastern side of the building along with a secure separate cycle store within the basement. Access from the core at the entrance with a dedicated cycle lift. The scheme will provide 656 square metres of commercial floor space including an ancillary cafe at ground floor level. The LSE will occupy this space as a social science incubator, bringing economic and social benefits to Lambeth, providing flexible workspace for suitable micro businesses of priority access for LSE affiliated and Lambeth enterprises. It will provide opportunities for existing Lambeth businesses to benefit from LSE expertise, training, support and mentorship within a peer community setting and create a local engagement hub and network for businesses. The space will include an ancillary cafe for informal LSE business community interactions and events and programmes to support local community growth. Access to the incubator space will be from Glasshouse Walk via reception area. The space will have a dedicated cycle store within the basement, access from the core at the entrance with a dedicated cycle lift. The proposed hall of residence will be provided across the upper floors of the building and will provide purpose built student accommodation. The engine and five student rooms will be provided. The proposal will be a fully nominated scheme to be owned and operated by LSE and occupied by LSE students. All rooms will be accessed from single entrance on Glasshouse Walk with a 24 hour concierge. This slide shows the proposed elevation to Glasshouse Walk set in the adjacent townscape context. This slide shows some CGI's of the proposal from Glasshouse Walk. The key planning considerations are detailed in the officer's report. The following ones identified on the slide will be discussed in turn. Light industrial space. The proposed light industrial floor space replaces the existing warehouse functions on the site and will be located on the lower ground floor, with its area re-providing and exceeding the existing industrial capacity. The proposed light industrial space is separated from the main student accommodation on the upper floors by the ground floor, which has the incubator space and student lobby area. It will be suited to a wide range of small scale industrial processes, workshops or studio spaces. The proposed social sciences incubator space will replace the existing office floor space on the site and will be located on the ground floor. Whilst there be a minor reduction in office floor space, this is acceptable in this instance, and offices are supportive of the bespoke Galaxy affiliated social sciences incubator. The overall employment offer would represent a significant investment by LSE that will deliver economic benefits, job opportunities, flexible work space for micro businesses and affordable work space, which would justify the conflict with the development ban policies. The proposed incubator space includes a small cafe which would be integrated with the operations of the incubator space, including sharing, access and servicing, and would not be a separate unit in any way. The cafe would be open to both users of the building and the public, and would support collaborative sector specific clustering to foster innovation, employment opportunities and business growth. BOSO would deliver 305 new student accommodation units and meet the test of land below command policy H7, such as being part of a mixed use scheme, not contributing to over concentration of similar uses and being able to demonstrate an linkage to a higher education provider LSE. The travel distance LSE can be reached in less than 30 minutes using public transport, 50 minutes by cycling or 48 minutes on foot. The site is also in a P-TOW of 6B and as such meets the criteria for being located in an area with good public transport accessibility. A nominations agreement will be secured with LSE and a student management plan will be secured by condition, which is set out the key principles by which the building would be managed. In terms of the over concentration point, the scheme is not located within the over concentration of purpose built student accommodation identified around Marsh Street in Vauxhall, which has 1,965 student rooms within a small area as identified by the cluster on this map. The site is separate to the Marsh Street area, and while there's also a purpose built student accommodation development under construction at Juliet, Kennington, Lame around 550 metres walk to south east of the site and the distance from the site is sufficient to avoid any concern about over concentration of student accommodation. Also given there is substantial intervening development comprising residential and commercial development as well as open space. There's one student accommodation scheme in the immediate locality directly adjacent to the site, which provides 399 private student beds. The neighbouring scheme is not university nominated scheme, and it forms part of a wider mixed use development for land in the north, which includes residential offices and hotel uses. The proposal will deliver 35% onsite affordable student accommodation by how to resume and meet the threshold for fast track routes. Affordable bedrooms will be allocated by LSE to students it considers most in need of accommodation. An early review mechanism will also be secured. In terms of design, the proposed street frontage building aligns with the existing buildings, which is an acceptable site layout in this context. The proposal have a maximum height of 10 storeys and a T-shaped form, which is developed to mitigate the site constraints. The matter of the frontage has been broken down into two double bays to reflect the rhythm of the townscape with upper floor setback. The proposed height and matter would not pair out of context within the urban block or result in unacceptable townscape impacts. The architectural approach is informed by the industrial heritage of the site and the Albert Embankment Conservation Area. The site lies within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area. The southern site boundary is directly opposite the boundary of the Vauxhall Conservation Area and to the east in proximity is the Vauxhall Gardens Conservation Area. The Black Dog Public House is a non-designated heritage asset and is located in the corner at the junction of Glasshouse Walk and Vauxhall Walk. Officers have not identified any harm to surrounding designated or non-designated heritage assets. The GLA has indicated that they are concerned that the proposal would result in a very low degree of left of substantial harm to the significance of the Albert Embankment Conservation Area and Vauxhall Conservation Area. Where members define similar harm, MPP paragraph 208 would reply. If such harm were identified, it would need to be given considerable importance and weight. An officer's assessment such harm as identified by the GLA would be outweighed by the purpose of the proposal and as a result, the test in MPPF paragraph 208 would be satisfied. 305 student rooms were comprised of 128 en-suite cluster rooms with a shared kitchen, 161 en-suite studio rooms and 16 en-suite accessible rooms. This is an indicative plan of the unit and kitchen types. The proposal includes study and social common room facilities including reception space for greeting visitors at ground floor, a common room, study area and project space at first floor and a cinema room and gym on the eighth floor. All common room facilities will be available to all students regardless of tenure. The image of this slide explores the proposed look of the student amenities and internal spaces. Neighbourment amenity. This slide shows a relationship of the application site with surrounding neighbouring developments. The pink lines show the walls with no windows other than to corridors. The separation distances are considered acceptable. The daylight and sunlight. This slide shows the baseline condition, the low rise existing building, large development to the north west, residential properties to the east and hotel to the north east corner. This also shows the proposed massing. Although more different in scope, the existing is organised as a T shape. This option maximises the access to daylight for spring news as the facade and the proposed development is staggered. Rose condition T configuration is also identified on this slide. The alternative of building and mirror massing would have a much larger impact as seen by the proximity of lines to neighbouring properties identified here. The applicant has measured the impact of the proposed design. It is common to classify the impact in relative terms by considering the rate of change. A reduction of less than 20% in daylight or sunlight availability is considered within the BR 209 guidance. Anything beyond is classified as minor, moderate or major adverse depending on the percentage reduction. However, the percentage reduction is not the only consideration that is available. One also needs to consider the residuals. For example, a receptor with a high rate of change can still have a residual aligned with the values you can measure in city centres. Most of the tests carried out which show a large rate of change also show a residual which is typical of dense areas. The proximity of the proposed development and its size makes it possible to retain the same level of daylight and sunlight. However, by adopting the T configuration, one can ensure the residuals are within reasonable values. So even if some of the windows show a change which is major adverse, the actual values for daylight availability are within reason. Values between 10% and 20% are very common in dense city centres. This image shows the VSE values at the lowest occupied spaces which are the worst case scenario. Any other receptors on this elevation will register higher residuals than the ones shown. The same happens for the hotel stay bit streets, although in this case the impacts are less due to the increased distance to the leg of the T shape. This shows the residuals as expected. The residential properties series is in discussion with additional note that the projected elements of the flank hall at Saybridge Hotel and the projected elements of Shaftesbury House itself in conjunction with the proposed development matter can create a tunnel effect. It shows the impact of the change. Residuals are within reason. You'll notice the 5% VSE to the left, this is a low value. However, the baseline registers an 8% which is also a low value and this is due to the tunnel effect mentioned just earlier. And the same can be said for the Monwell House. This shows the impact of change and also the residual VSE. Turns out Vauxhall Walk shows less of an impact, most not negligible for all receptors but for most and the residuals are expected for the density proposed. And in terms of Kennedy House, there's no significant impact for Kennedy House is recorded. Our Dayline Sunlight Consulting is an attendance to answer any specific questions members may have on the daylight and sunlight this evening. It is considered that levels of activity likely to be generated by the student accommodation are considered compatible with a surrounded mixture of uses and any impacts arising will be mitigated through a student management plan. A draft student management plan has been submitted with the application and includes details of tenancy management system, security, health and safety, maintenance, management of antisocial behaviour, compliance procedure and site management arrangements for ensuring a clean and safe environment. A final student management plan will be secured by condition. A number of conditions are also recommended to ensure the proposed development would not result in acceptable disturbance to neighbouring residents and any increase in noise would be appropriately mitigated. As a transport, the site is located within an area of excellent transport accessibility and would be car free save the blue badge parking. Cycle storage is located at basement level and complies with London plan policy. The proposal includes changes to the highway layout to relocate the existing loading bay from the southern to the northern curbside directly adjacent to the proposed building entrance. Sustainable travel modes will be provided through the implementation of a travel plan and contributions towards healthy routes. Sustainability. The proposed development will achieve a 22% onsite improvement over baseline emissions for regulated CO2 emissions. This includes an 8% reduction from energy efficiency measures at the bealing stage which fall short of the 15% requirement under the London plan. The target 35% reduction in CO2 emissions on site is considered challenging to meet for commercial buildings, especially those with high hot water demands such as purpose built or student accommodation. The GLA have released a guidance note which states that initially commercial developments may find it more challenging to meet the minimum 35% reduction. This is because the new part L baseline now includes low carbon heating for non residential developments but not for residential developments. A carbon offset payment will be secured to meet the shortfall and the development board will achieve premium excellence. The policy compliance outdoor maintenance space is proposed at first and eighth floor which can be accessed by all students. There is a well considered approach to integration of green infrastructure and urban greening across the site, notwithstanding the site constraints and a policy compliant urban greener factor would be achieved alongside a biodiversity net gain. This slide shows indicative images of what the terraces and landscaping could look like. The development plan policies identified as relevant to the assessment of the application are all complied with and accordingly the development plan as a whole is considered to be complied with. The public benefits generated by the proposal and material considerations remain in favour of the application. These are outlined on the slide and in detail in the committee report at section 4.6.14. Officers consider that the scheme delivers significant public benefits. Officers resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement containing the planning obligation listed in the report and addendum and subject to any direction that may be received following referral to the Mayor of London. That concludes the officer presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we'll now hear from three supporters and one board Councillor, a reminder that everyone has two minutes to speak and the two minutes will commence once the individual has introduced themselves and the item they're representing. So I'll start with three supporters who are all in the room. Can I call Ian Spencer for the place to speak. I'm Ian Spencer, I'm Director of Residential Services at LSE. I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the proposal tonight. LSE specialises in social sciences and we're currently ranked number one in the UK Times and Family Times through the university guide. Pottole Gardens is ideally located for us with excellent access to our campus on the overhead. Opposed in a high quality LSE goal of residence provided much needed accommodation for students which is in very short supply. What we're aiming to do is to offer to guarantee accommodation to every first year student at the school. We're also proposing a social sciences incubator which we're very excited about being the first of its kind in the UK. My colleague, Dr Gern Benson, is here tonight in case you've got any questions on the incubator space. The LSE has a strong social agenda and we've already started to develop a relationship with BGCC and the Friends of Vauxhall Gardens. Our students are encouraged via our residential life programme to undertake volunteering work and we see a real opportunity for our students to work on local projects in the community. The idea of the incubator space is one that will support start-up businesses through the provision of a physical space, advice, opportunities, networks and events. Their work could take many forms, for example advising on improving business processes, data management tools and to consumer apps. We believe that Vauxhall offers a fantastic location for such an incubator given the number of mission-led social-based organisations in the area. By building an innovation community, the facility will support public events, talks, debates, a community cafe and linking businesses together. We hope that we can work in partnership with the local community to make this exciting vision a reality. Thank you very much, perfect. Great to thank you if you would step back please. I'm going to invite Sophia Boncie. Thank you very much. Good evening Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I represent the Board of Trustees of Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre known as VGCC. When I completed our five-glass house walk right next to us the proposed development and we will be the closest neighbour. After Care for Deliberation, the board supports the proposal and is excited about the possibilities. VGCC is a hub of arts and culture committed to advancing social justice, building community connections, encouraging creativity and enhancing the lives of everyone in our vicinity. Established in 1985, for nearly 40 years we have focused on making Vauxhall a better place to live and to work. This involves producing numerous community projects and activities from arts and culture and music, employability and skills projects in the local area. Our wellbeing and frontline support offer, including a very popular food bank, every Friday we serve people in need from across the borough and sometimes as far as Croydon and Yorkin with food parcels and personal care items totally free of charge. The proposed social sciences innovation hub provides a great opportunity to collaborate with the LSE. We think this is a resource with infinite possibilities, supporting local entrepreneurs and other focus of ours and also could increase and extend our program of works to benefit local beneficiaries. Furthermore, LSE has told us that their students in their accommodations are encouraged to volunteer at the local community. This is fantastic, we always need volunteers. This offers us an opportunity to work with these students in the future. We've met with both LSE and Hollybrook several times to discuss, understand and share thoughts on how the building will be constructed as well as mitigating measures to univise the impact of the construction phase on our internal tenants and our users. Their approach has been collaborative, positive and proactive, and they've also promised to continue working with us closely. You've got 30 seconds, so in our view on balance, the proposed development will make a positive contribution to the local area and economy and we're looking forward to continuing positive dialogue with the LSE and Hollybrook for the benefit of the local community and all of our stakeholders. Thank you very much. And could I ask our fast forward, Paola Piglia to come forward please. Thank you for allowing me to speak and I am speaking on behalf of the Friends of Oxford Pleasure Gardens to support the LSE planning application. I am the Chair and I've lived in Boxhall for over 30 years and for over 20 I've been a member of the Friends of Oxford Pleasure Gardens, a volunteer organisation working to preserve and enhance our local park. I've seen it transformed from a desolate wasteland to a vibrant environment well used by the local community. We have a prominent local presence and in the last 15 years I've been invited to endless, a plethora of planning presentations by developers whose only goal was to take the consultation month. The LSE has proven to be one of the few exceptions. We have been impressed by their team who have conducted a thorough consultation process and gave us early through the process and have been responsive to the community feedback and our requests. We generally believe the LSE presence locally at the redevelopment of the site will bring many benefits to the local community. We are impressed with the design and architecture of the building which is in line with local character using bricks which align with our architectural heritage and we are part of the conservation area. Such a respected institution as the LSE in Boxhall will be great news for our community. We hope to welcome a vibrant student community that could boost the local culture and economy. We hope their presence also enhances security and help with antisocial behaviour around the pleasure gardens which is quite rampant unfortunately. LSE students will also enrich local life, bring new ideas and energy. We hope they will help us with their professional expertise, fundraising by quite terribly, support our new biodiversity garden and some volunteer and work in partnership with us to improve the pleasure gardens for all. We're pleased the scheme will make a significant financial contribution towards environmental improvement to the pleasure gardens and we look forward to working together in partnership identifying appropriate projects which can be spent for the betterment of the pleasure gardens. Thank you, sorry perhaps that's time. It's time, sorry. If you don't mind I'll leave, I just had a new operation and you know. Thank you for coming. And we'll move to the ward councillor who's appearing online, Councillor Rothmark. Hi everyone, I'm speaking today to demonstrate my support of this particular scheme but to also express my wider concerns about the proliferation of student housing in Boxhall Ward. This scheme is a good scheme which apart from the housing it provides brings substantial wider benefits in terms of both a social science incubator space, a light industrial employment space replicating the previously existing provision and a cafe for the local community on the ground floor. Design also fits well into local surroundings with an aesthetic which thoughtfully reflects local heritage. I did have concerns about the effect of the daylight on the daylight and sunlight for Shaftesbury and Cromwell House and the Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre but I note that the surveyor indicated that these buildings would receive an adequate amount of daylight and sunlight. I also have faith in LSE because of its reputation and I have faith that it will be a responsible and considerate constructor and I'd like to thank them for engaging widely in the local community throughout this process. Despite this, I'd like to put on record appointment that we are seeing so many planning applications for student housing in Vauxhall Ward. We already have half of all the student housing in Lambeth and there are a number of new applications now going through the planning process. While more housing of any kind is welcome to some degree, what we urgently need in Vauxhall is social housing and affordable rent properties. A community cannot be built in a population that by definition is transient which does not provide children for local schools and which comes without the guarantees of matching investment in infrastructure such as GP surgeries. I would like the committee to be mindful of this when considering further applications for student housing in Vauxhall. Thank you Councillor Bethnal. Just to inform members of the committee, we also have three technical specialists, Erland Hulin from Energy and Sustainability, Mike Bottomley from Wolf Blood and Justin Alcombe from Almeo Hollybrook, the developer as well, as he can be called on. So do members, do members have any questions, they want to start with four of us, want to start Michael? Scott? Yeah thanks, so I'll take the points in order. I just wondered what exploration was made of the affordable workspace and whether that's whether the officers felt as though that was enough. I mean there is a convenience of achieving a certain amount of workspace which would mean that you've got less affordable units. Could I ask what interrogation officers made around the decision to have the small amount of, well the amount of workspace that has been decided upon? Could I have some information on what that means? Just to confirm, are you talking about the affordable, 10% affordable workspace or the amount of...? So I think Councillor's answer to these questions around why the 10% or why the...? So yes, it seems quite a small amount of affordable workspace, but also the light industrial use equates to allowing the developer to have less of a percentage of affordable units. How much interrogation was done by officers to either expand the affordable workspace or expand the amount of affordable accommodation units to get up from 35% to 50%? I'm so sorry, that's two questions, but I hope that's clear. Yes, I think it is clear, thank you. I think there's a requirement policy for the light industrial space to be re-provided, which the applicant has done, which is why we get 1,220 square metres of new light industrial floor space. There was previously 1,021 square metres of existing warehouse floor space. So this has been re-provided with a net uplift of additional 199 square metres of floor space. So this was considered to comply with policy and due to be providing the industrial floor space meant that following the London plan and affordable student accommodation policy says that if we provide an industrial floor space and only 35% affordable is required to follow the fast track route, which the applicant has followed. And there was no requirement in policy terms for them to provide more than 35% affordable student accommodation as they have been re-provided the industrial floor space. Excellent, that's helpful. Just take that forward. Do we know if the applicant's demand for that workspace, is there demand for that to have been re-provided, noting that the site was empty for a number of years before this came forward? I assume there will be demand for that floor space, especially due to the build to modern standards sort of the kind of goods lifts that will be provided and the 3.5 metre kind of floor to ceiling heights and kind of designing that in line with GLA guidance and industrial floor space. I'm sure that that space would be, yeah, would be uptaken by kind of light industrial units, such as workshops or studio spaces in the locality. Remember any other questions around land use design, Councillor Cressy? Thank you, Chair. My question might be more to the applicant. I assume the flexible workspace will be rented out to businesses and if so, would there be living wage employers? Yeah, is that easy to go straight to the applicant? Can I go straight to that? Yeah. So in third, Councillor Cressy, do you want to repeat your question? So the flexible workspace, I assume that's going to be rented out to businesses and if so, are they living wage employers? I don't believe there's a direct requirement for that, but they'll certainly be where it promotes itself. Can you come forward so the camera can pick you up as well? Could you say, could you come forward to the speakers? If you can answer the question, just come forward to the people. Just so that it means those watching online can see you. Yes, so there's for the employer provision, there's the LSE Social Society to speak out to space and then on the lower ground floor, which I think that these spaces are referring to, there is the commercial space. The 10% affordable that was referenced previously of 10% policy compliant affordable workspace is located in that commercial floor space in the lower ground floor. There's no direct requirement within the planning application for it to be in terms of the wages offered, but I would say that with the terms that are the usual contributions for ensuring that local people are involved in terms of apprenticeships and experience and construction of the building, I would say as a borough, we encourage people to be their wage employers. You can remind us by the chair. Councillor, any more questions Councillor Gostin? No. Councillor Ainslie, do you have more questions on design and land use? Thank you for answering the question regarding the 35% affordable accommodation. In terms of affordable workspace, we've got experience of other buildings within the borough of a good healthy offer of people that can afford market rates, businesses that can afford market rates rather, businesses that are aspiring and innovative. And I just wonder why we've got zero affordable office space. I see we got 10% of light industrial, but we've got zero affordable office space. What's the thinking behind that? Lauren, do you want to comment? I think I was answered previously in terms of the policy was to re-provide the light industrial space, but I'll get Lauren to... Yeah, that's correct. And there's only a 10% requirement for affordable workspace and how the applicant decides to provide that 10%. I think at the moment it seems that it will be for the light industrial floor space and that's policy compliant. I think it's just important to confirm that affordable workspace is usually only required when you're providing more than a thousand square metres of office space, so the old B1A. So the scheme is not doing that voluntarily, providing an element of affordable workspace as part of the light industrial element. So it's going beyond the policy minimum to make that as a planning benefit. And the light industrial, we promote the light industrial space much more difficult generally to secure that kind of space on affordable terms because usually office space is more lucrative to developer. So the discount is easier to explore, but in the light industrial space, the rents are quite usually lower. So securing affordable light industrial space is quite a significant benefit. Geoff, Councillor Ainslie. Yeah, thank you, Chair. So just to raise the Councillor's point about the amount of student accommodation that we do have in that part of the borough. What consideration have offers given to the policy which states that we shouldn't have too much of one set of housing? I mean, it seems, I would also pick up on the point that not only is there quite a lot of student accommodation in that part of the borough, there's also a lot of hotels, and what we desperately need is affordable homes. So can I just interrogate the officer's thinking around this sort of balance and the over concentration of student housing? Lauren, did you get that? Yeah, of course, in terms of the over concentration, obviously, each application is considered on a site by site basis. In this instance, it's not located in the concentration of the purpose built student accommodation identified around the Miles Street in Vauxhall, which identified in the presentation. It's worth noting that the wording of the student accommodation policy H7 was subject to various modifications of the draft local plan that went through public examination by the planning inspector prior to it being adopted. And although originally sought to restrict all additional student housing development in Vauxhall, this was rejected by the inspector. As the wording went against the grain of locating student housing development in areas with good access to places of learning in the CAS and public transport and other parts of central London, which I suppose Vauxhall is. The inspector did agree to the wording which restricted new student housing development within the Miles Street character area, where there was a higher concentration as you saw the kind of cluster on the map that I showed in the presentation. However, where this proposal is located and the Miles Street accommodation area doesn't compare to the cluster in Miles Street, it is noted that there is another purpose built student accommodation in construction at 238 Kennedy Lane which is also in the Vauxhall ward pertaining to account the distance from the Miles Street and 238 Kennedy Lane. The distance is sufficient to avoid any, in officer's view, any concern of over concentration of student accommodation given that there was actual intervening development comprising residential commercial development as well as open space in the vicinity. And also the scheme itself does provide a genuine mix of uses with the light industrial and kind of social incubator space. And as identified I think on the site context plan in the presentation as well, it also includes this, surrounding the site is also offices, hotels, public house and housing, which give the locality a mixed use character. And also there's been recent permissions in the local area for new self-contained housing at Jonathan Street, Albert and Bankment and at Graphite Square for over 240 new homes. So I think taking all that into account, officer's view of it, that in turn that will contribute to maintaining appropriate mix and balance of uses in the locality and there would be no over-concentration of student accommodation in that area.

• I just want to push back a little bit on our Lambeth policy, age seven, which says the development will be supportive where it does not compromise capacity to meet the need for conventional dwellings, especially affordable family homes. We look at planning and application of its own merits. I just want to reconfirm the concerns that the ward Councillor has already voiced. I think you've answered the question, but I just wanted to point that out. So I think that's one of the questions that remained in my head. Thank you.
• Thank you. Do other members have questions around land use before I move to the move topic?
• Can I ask one very quickly just around the ancillary cafe. It does say in the report that officers believe that there won't be a large impact on local businesses, but will there be a view of that impact at any point in the future just to check that local businesses aren't the only ones?
• Lauren?
• Yeah. In terms of the cafe, it is quite a small cafe and it is tied to the function of the incubator space. So I suppose we won't review in futures the cafe will have to remain as ancillary to remain lawful and any kind of larger cafe or kind of impact that it might have on the additional impact would have to be quite like a kind of separate planning and we would review that impact at that stage. So I think in future there wouldn't be any kind of additional review of the cafe noting that its main role is ancillary to the incubator space.
• That's right. Any follow-up question?
• No, I think that's...
• Great. Any other questions members? Any talk of news work? That's the cost, is it... No, can't say anything.
• Thank you. Can we move on to amenity and lights and sunlight and daylight, please?
• So I wonder if the lighting specialist could take us through some of the, what seemed like a lot of red, so major impacts on some of the windows of neighbouring properties. So as I understand in the officer's presentation that they were seeming to mitigate against the loss on the vertical skyline, on the daylight and sunlight, I'm not entirely sure I understood just exactly what the impacts are going to be of such scale and mass on those neighbouring windows of those existing buildings.
• Is he having camera issues?
• Yes. So hopefully my camera is working.
• We can't see you. We can hear you well, so that's fine.
• Yes. So this is Giulio Antonuto from Arup and I have reviewed the report and then I can tell you everything about. So I think the first thing to consider is that when assessing sunlight and daylight, the methodology that is used is the one that is included in the document BR209, which requires to carry out a series of tests for sunlight, for daylight and for over shadowing over the external areas. This test proposed to compare results to a set of targets, which are like ideal targets. And if those are not met, then compare the existing to the proposed condition and check what the ratio between the results is. If the rate of change is less than 20%, it's said that the difference is not noticeable. User would not see anything different from before and post ante. However, if the rate of change is higher, then yes, there is likely to be an effect that is visible. Now, the thing is that when you're dealing with the city center or like a place where the density of the area is increasing, is being redeveloped, it's often impossible to retain the same amount of daylight. So there will be a change. And therefore, by looking at the rate of change, the impact may be significant. However, the residual value of vertical sky component, for example, for daylight, may still be into a range, which is typical of that density of that type of website. In the case of the proposed development, most of the results are around 20%, actually, with some of them as low as 10%, 13%, 15%. Those values at low occupied level are typical of a city center, not a fully developed one, but simply like a dense one. So even if the rate of change is high, because at the moment, for example, the spring news windows don't overlook anything, so they do have quite an unobstructed view of the sky. As soon as something is put in front of those, the rate of change will be high. However, because it's a T-shaped configuration, therefore the highest and most impactful massing is located between the two blocks of the existing spring news, making those two elevations free from a direct overlooked obstruction. Those values retain a certain degree of daylight, which is typical for a decent city center location. So as you can see in the picture, you've got 19% to the left, 19%, 16%, 13% in the corner, which is next to the front of the T-shaped building. And then to the right, you've got, again, 19%, 20%, 20%, and 13% in the corner. So those values are not a concern, in my professional opinion, even if the rate of change is measured for some of them. So that's why the reds in the report. And the conclusion of the report are similar, and they highlight that the residual are typical of this type of location. The discussion on the T-shape, it's because it maximizes the distance between the proposed development massing and the existing receptor. Any other configuration will sacrifice one of the elevation. If I move, for example, like the big black let's say of the proposed development to the left in front of one of the two elevation, that elevation would be likely obliterated in terms of view, daylight and sunlight. By moving it to the right would be the same and even more so to the residential properties that are to the east of the development. So having the T reverse configuration with a lump of the proposed development in the middle is the optimal configuration for this given density. Then there is another discussion which is mentioned in the report, which is the so-called tunnel effect. This is particularly relevant to the properties, the residential property to the east. So I don't know if you're familiar with sunlight and daylight assessment, but most often discussion is about balconies. And what happens with balconies is because balconies are above a window, they block the higher portion of the sky. So as soon as I build something in front of a balcony, even if it is like not a particularly high development, it is possible that the height of the development will essentially meet the angle of the projected width of the balcony by making like a beautiful box where the receptor, the window doesn't see anything of the sky, even if maybe the proposed development is not particularly high, it is a combination of the two. Now, the tunnel effect is very similar, but instead of...
• My chair, may I come in? It's just Robert Sullivan, Presiding Officer. I know members have had training on sunlight, daylight before, and a lot of these principles might be established already. Could I ask, has Councillor Ainslie got any particular concerns of any adjoining properties he wants further advice on or explanation on?
• Yes, I've seen, well, actually he was just coming onto the tunnel effect, which I've never heard of before. I've been on planning for a couple of years. So I would like him just to finish that sentence before I, and about the tunnel effect, before I pick up a question on some of the specific properties that I'm most concerned about.
• It can help to layer the questions, such as if you can continue on after, if you got some questions already. - Yes.
• Could you lay them out, is that right? - Okay, so one of the questions is, the slide that was just back, is that 90% retained sunlight and daylight or loss? And why, if BRII guidelines are BRII guidelines, do we, are you making the exception that in, the obvious answer of course, in an urban environment, the BRII guidelines are not, here are the BRII guidelines for urban environments, and here are the BRII guidelines for rural environments. The BRII guidelines are the BRII guidelines, and therefore the loss of daylight and sunlight must not be excused because we're in, well, I would argue that it maybe shouldn't be excused in an urban environment. I understand the point you're trying to make, but if the BRII guidelines are the BRII guidelines, why aren't we just applying the BRII guidelines?
• Could I just come in, Chair, just in response on that, just before my colleague comes back in, Councillor Ainslie, there's a couple of things. One is, yes, the BRII guidelines are just out to help inform an assessment, so they're not mandatory and slavishly applied. You are correct, they're guidance for the whole country, whether it's a rural setting or whether it is a very tight urban grain as we have here. So they have been used as consideration, they are referenced in local plan policy, as I'm sure you're aware. But another consideration that my colleagues looked at in assessing this is other material considerations, appeal decisions, decisions that this committee have made in recent years elsewhere in Vauxhall Ward. So schemes such as Graphite Square, which went to appeal on two occasions, and the Inspector in that instance on both occasions felt that reduced levels of sunlight and daylight was acceptable. So we feel, as an officer group, that that is quite strong material consideration through our other schemes, such as Johnson and Norset as well. So I think we are, as officers, when we are looking at considering amenity and applying policy Q2, we are looking at the BRII as one consideration, but looking at looking at other decisions we have made as a local planning authority in recent years as well. But sorry, I know you have specific questions around tunnel effect and specific properties and I'll hand back over to my colleague to answer on that. Thank you Robert. Hilo, do you want to continue just on the tunnel effect you were getting to? Yeah, so basically if you look at the image on the screen now to the left, you will see that there are two red dots, one with a green rectangle and the other one with a yellow rectangle. So those windows, those receptors, and the one below the yellow one, are located in a position which is flanked to the right by an extended wall essentially, which blocks any sort of daylight. So we are in a corner position. The corner position can see a quarter of the sky, but then there is also an extension to the right side where we block also a relevant portion of the sky on that side. Therefore, all we can see is a very narrow slice of sky in front of us and that is the tunnel effect. Now by having an obstruction in front of this very narrow view of the sky, obviously I am reducing even further what is visible, but this is not a normal scenario. The fact that the impact that is registered is the impact of change is measured for two of those points. It is because those points are in a corner which is also flanked by another extension, which is a very particular situation. So there is nothing that can be done. The applicant has provided data in the report also for configuration which removes the effect of those extensions to the sides and the results improve largely. For example, there is a point which records, if I'm not mistaken, something around 5% residuals and 8% in the baseline condition, so it is already a compromised location per se, but without the edge on one side and the other one, the values go up to 20%. So one can determine that the effect of the tunnel where that point is located is greater than the effect of the proposed development on it. One other question that I would like to ask that is kind of related and that is, we saw some photovoltaic panels on some of the council states and maybe some of the other buildings surrounding the proposed development. What's not clear in the officer's report is the season in which they measured the effect on those photovoltaic panels that exist. Was it during the winter? Was it during the summer? They were spotted indeed. The applicant report is not very specific, as you said, but by looking really into the picture, you will notice that he mentioned March 21st, I think is in some of these diagrams. That is a typical scenario which is used for open areas. It's not really relevant to photovoltaics. However, the applicant has already provided a series of diagrams which show the summer and the mid season projected shadow of the proposed development with color-coded red, I think. And from those diagrams, you can see that the only moment in which those photovoltaics are overshadowed is really like a sunset sunrise. So it is the difference of height between the buildings, so small that there is no concern on the effect of the proposed property on those panels most of the time, if not sunset and sunrise in the winter season and mid season. Thank you. Just clarity on that. So it's the spring equinox, the 21st of March. That's not as low as the sun ever gets, is it? Absolutely, yes, correct. So what would the impact be on those solar panels during the winter months? Can that at all be quantified? Well, I think it could be derived from the data in the report. It would have been nicer to have it in the report, but I would agree with the applicant's consideration about the difference in height, but I would expect that maybe considering like the sunrise and sunset in the last 15 degrees of the day is when you have a projection of the property on those. I think that it may happen something after two in the afternoon and maybe before 10 in the morning for winter scenarios. So you would have an interval between 10 in the morning to two in the afternoon where you should have sunlight on the panels. Thank you very much. Other members, any questions? Is now a good time to ask how many weeks a year students will be in halls? Yes, of course. Do you want to start with that? Is this whether the accommodation be rented out sort of in the summer months? Would we be able to just pass over to the applicant to just confirm that? Yes, come forward, thank you. We have a range of accommodation lengths going from 31 weeks to 38 to 51 weeks. Depending on demand, with any academic year, we can seek to move that between different buildings. If we did use this site for any summer activity, it would be for our summer school students. So we have three sessions of three weeks of LSE summer school, so it's a nine week extension. For affordability, we would look at 38 weeks plus the nine weeks of our student use. But we would like to reserve the right just to issue a 51 week for students. And that summer school, that's people who are already starting at the LSE? So this is students, normally between the ages of 18 and 21, who want to do a short and three group calls at LSE and gain a certificate in school. Other questions before we've got in, any questions around student accommodation, student accommodation? If I could ask one, just on the affordable accommodation, how is that allocated in terms of how do you, who gets it essentially? So the difficulty of the institution as about affordable accommodation is that we can only need to test or we can get the income details for undergraduate students. And that happens through Student Finance England. So they would get the priority if they were undergrads for the affordable beds. The problem with graduate students in the UK is that institutions don't know what their financial income or what the background is. So it's very difficult to allocate on a needs basis. But what we do do is that we prioritise students with disabilities, students who have previously we kick them to first go to the affordable accommodation. But that's the same for any institution in the UK. But there is a mechanism for working out how you'd offer it to the student. Sorry, if no one else wants to ask a question on that, I just want to drill down a bit because I didn't feel as though it was clear from the officer's report. I think at one point I thought the affordable subsidised all the rooms, but it clearly doesn't. But the standard of the room that the, those that cannot afford it, what sort of standard of room do they get? So the standards are the same throughout buildings. We work with different standards for the affordable accommodation. The thing I've not mentioned and I should have mentioned is that our strategy at the school is not to go for market rent accommodation. Everything that we develop is sub-market rent. So we're not seeking to maximise the income in the building. It's not a direct light scheme as such. So our rent will be very competitive and affordable to the student accommodation in the household. So that's not my question. I think what I'm getting at is, again, I'm sorry if it's my confusion over reading the papers incorrectly, but I thought there was some sort of difference in each room. I know that obviously the disabled rooms are accessible and larger. So we can ask around the tenure mix in terms of the Royal Studios and shared rooms, shared communal spaces. So I guess your question is, is the affordable accommodation spread across that tenure mix as well in terms of studio and shared rooms and communal space and traditional flats essentially? It seems to spread around the accommodation. Just an example on the affordable studios, they are of the size of the accommodated student in the wheelchair. Any student using a wheelchair would want accommodation very near the school. It would be the first choice of that. But if we did have a student who wanted a studio that would charge them the same price as a standard single room would charge them the price of a studio room. But there are differences in the rents of the different room types. But again, that's standard in student accommodation. If I may press, so can a working class kid like me with a single mother, how would I be receiving less of a room if I couldn't afford it? Because that's going back to the difficulty of how do you identify the income back land of the back of a student, as long as he was doing that at any institution. There is, if I may, a challenge, chair. The school service uses the criteria for defining working class. What was the occupation of the main breadwinner at the age of 14? Did you receive free school meals? Did you live in a council front? Yes, it's not a main planning consideration. That's helpful information. I'm sure the applicant can be keen to have a conversation afterwards around some of that information. Is there a question there, Councillor Ainslie? Just stay standing off of the working class. Perfect plan, Councillor Ainslie. Do the members have questions for the applicant while he's at the table? You can come in and let us know if that's helpful. If you don't consider a 48 minute walk to the campus as a short walk, was there not any other locations closer to the campus? I've been at this field for 19 years and we've been trying to secure more accommodation. It's a very, very difficult task in London to be able to afford more accommodation. So our strategy is if the students who can afford it, they can go to the private sector. The schools attempts to do is look at locations where we can provide banks that are submarket. So we are developing existing hall residents in Southwark that I don't know about. But this is considered ideal for us in terms of public action areas. I think you alluded to it, sorry, Ian. Is this accommodation intended to people, undergraduate, graduate students, more, MECs or? Again, we would move accommodation round over a year, depending on where the demand comes from. But in the first instance, it would be aimed at graduate students. Just to pick up on Councillor Costa's question. There's a kind of theory in the report that says that people stay in the area, they tend, students tend to, the international students often come to the LSE for the kudos. No one can doubt your reputation, it's second to none globally. So what indication can we get that how many of your graduates might stay in the area? Maybe graduates might partake. I mean, it's probably a non-material consideration. Just while we have the applicant, I wonder if we could just tease that out a bit more. I think our concerns as Councillors is that they might come, they study and then they go back with their LSE badge and they, you know, rule the planet, wherever they are in the world. How many stay put? I'll take it off the top of my head as skilled may have a shaker on that, which I can be eating. But a lot of it will depend on government visa at the time. We can see whether we're welcoming graduates to stay for a few years in the UK. That's a good point. Thank you. Thank you. You can come to your seat. Thank you very much. Do the members have any other questions? Otherwise I might move this. Councillor I do. You know, I do. It's about sustainable design and construction. Yeah, so we've we've fallen short of a lot of policy areas with regards to the LP policy SI2 on the energy strategy. What? I guess my question would be. What interrogation was given to maximise and try and comply with policy SI2 with regards to the energy strategy? And I've got a specific question about the. This this idea that you're going to put in, if I understand it correctly pipe work to perhaps link up to the thermal substation at the. Box online Alps and fantasy heat net. I if we've got the specialist here, I'd love to. Find out 'cause the report says this will be revisited at the detailed design stage. I'd like to find out about a bit more about that. If I may pause you there. So I've been working extensively with Holly Brook for a number of years. All the energy sustainability strategies and your first question regarding the SI2 policy. As we know, the London Fan policy is 35% and as Lauren explained during her presentation, when part L 2021 came in, we started assessing commercial buildings against a low carbon baseline. Traditionally, it's always been gas. We've assessed it against as we move into a low carbon future and the future home standing coming edge. They start to assess everything against the low carbon baseline, so it simply means you could. You can do everything to the building that you can't get every good carbon reduction. I think it's important to say that this building is highly sustainable. We've done a lot of investigation into how to make it sustainable. So starting from passive design measures, we've got low U-values, we've got low permeability, we've got excellent thermal bridging and then we've added in air source heat pumps for the heating of hot water. We've got ventilator panels. We've also got mechanical communication with heat recovery. We've also got wastewater heat recovery which captures waste water, heating waste water from showers. I've got all that from the report and thank you for that. I just wonder if I could, could you explain this putting in the pipes to hopefully take the thermal substation link up because that's just science to me and I don't. Yeah, no, absolutely. So part of the energy hierarchy for London Plan is called Be Clean, where you have to show that you can, if a district heat network in the future came past the site, that there'd be capability to connect straight into that. That's what it's for. As we know, the Vauxhall 9Ls is not anywhere near there at the moment, but we have to, as per policy, put that connection and visibility in. And all it's all, that's why we can't use refrigerants. So we've had to use low temperature water to connect straight. If, I don't know when it might come, it might never come, but if it came past, we could connect into it immediately. That's really helpful. If I may, Chair, I've got questions on policy SI2. It might be better directed towards Lauren, case officer first, but what's your question, Councillor Ainslie? So, yeah, just, I guess, the carbon footprint of demolishing and rebuilding an existing structure, what investigations really eat up a lot of carbon? Pretty much our entire housing stock will, carbon emissions will be released with the demolishing and rebuilding of this particular, a couple of times over, I believe. What investigation was done with the council and the developer regarding the, what could have been, without saying that it'll be knocked down and everything will be recycled, I get that. What investigations were made to try and use and retrofit the existing structure? I'll turn to Lauren first. Thank you. I think within the kind of weight and circular economy statement that was provided, there was a pre-demolition audit that was undertaken, which did conclude that existing buildings weren't fit to be reused due to kind of limitations of load capacity, layout constraints, construction type, which makes extending the low rise buildings and feasible. Existing buildings being poorly maintained, poorly insulated and have ageing kind of equipment, making them inefficient in terms of energy and issues with also layout access and emergency routes with the current buildings. So that was looked at by officers internally, our consultant and also by the GLA. And that was considered to be acceptable that there was no reason to kind of keep the building due to those instances. And also the demolition of the existing buildings on site is estimated that 99% of the demolition products either be kind of reused on or offsite or by recycling, which would exceed the GLA target as well. If I may, thank you chair. Yeah, sure. I've got all the detail that is in the report. So, but what's not clear to me is are we absolutely wiping that building down and then are we digging down? Because I didn't get a sense of that in the papers. I think the officers make clear that the existing buildings are to be demolished. Yes, sure. But is there's nothing, so can we use the hard standing of existing and build on that or are we digging down and piling or whatever it's called? Yeah, there is a basement. It might be for the purpose of a basement. Thank you. Great. Any more questions on sustainable design and construction? Are there any other questions members would like to ask? Thank you, thank you. That's mainly. I'm willing to give way if someone else wishes to go before me. No, go for it. So, I noticed in the addendum the reduction in the money TfL have requested. That is an appropriate contribution to help us build the Lambeth bridge. It's quite a substantial drop. How did that come about? Sure, Lauren. Can you talk to the changes between the report and the addendum and numbers of the TfL contribution please? Yeah, of course. So, I think at the time when TfL did require the 550,000 contribution we're still waiting to see how much Lambeth Council wanted for their healthy neighbourhoods, healthy routes and how much contribution they were providing. Following that discussion between Lambeth and TfL, it was considered that the contribution that TfL were requiring as a significant overlap between the two contributions. That's why the contribution for TfL was subsequently reduced due to the additional of 250,000 that Lambeth Council was securing for their healthy routes network and neighbourhood regeneration. Thank you. Yeah, I think the TfL contribution reduced but there seems to be a net amount the applicant is providing but it's in combination to TfL and Lambeth. So, you'll see the healthy neighbourhoods contribution but refer to Simon who's the transport officer. Thank you, I just wanted to make the point that the Lambeth bridge scheme is fully funded by TfL so while this contribution will help them release funding for other projects, it's not required for that project to go ahead. Whereas obviously as Lambeth officers we're very keen to fund projects on streets that we control and this area has been designated as a future healthy neighbourhood in our healthy neighbourhoods plan. That will involve a number of measures to be determined to improve the area and we do need funding for that and so my team have been very keen to secure as much as possible. We asked for the 250k which will enable us to implement a trial scheme in the area. Thank you Simon. Councillor Ainslie. It makes sense just to pick up on Councillor Costa's question earlier to create a healthy active travel route from this extensive path from Vauxhall up to Waterloo bridge. Has that been considered by officers? It's a very cheeky question, I'm sorry. Well, I mean we do have separate proposals to improve routes through Waterloo which are funded in a variety of ways. We felt the best use of funding from this development would be to benefit the whole community, not just the residents, the students who will be living there but everybody being there for focusing on the local area seemed to be the best approach. Thank you Simon. Just wanted to remember the provision of new healthy routes is not of my consideration for the application for entity. Can I just come in as well. Just wanted to thank Councillor Ainslie. We've talked in the past about planning obligations and the fact that there is reg 122 tests, so just three tests when you're considering whether a planning application should be sought. One of those is a fairly reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. So, you know, for this development to fund a route up to Waterloo bridge, you know, it couldn't do that on its own. It could contribute towards the delivery of a new route or highways improvements. But yeah, we couldn't ask one developer to entirely fund a piece of infrastructure. Whilst we've got the additional transport. Yeah, just to clarify, I think Simon Phillips talked about 250k. Is that money will Lambeth Council be receiving for the healthy neighbourhood? And I do have a question about does TfL not want any money for the box? Yes, so the 250k will go towards improvements in the local area focused on the healthy neighbourhood, which will be seeking to bring forward in the next couple of years. Do TfL want funding for vaults or gyratory? Well, I think the answer is probably yes, but the scale of funding required would significantly exceed what this development could provide. Without going into detail, there are complex discussions going on with land owners and TfL and the government about bringing forward the vaults or gyratory scheme. Okay, thank you Simon. Any questions on transport? I have questions on trip generation and service and service trip generation as well. Noting that we're talking about the loading base going to 45% utilization, excluding food deliveries, when you've got 300 students who probably will do that a lot. How are we comforted by the trip generation in terms of sufficient capacity for cycles and loading bay and actually how AM peak has been generated when students don't necessarily do the normal peak hour commute that doesn't look how conventional residents would be? Yeah, thank you chair. So yes, as you mentioned, the trip generation normally focuses on that AM and PM peak, traditionally the busiest time. However, the applicant has also calculated trips over the day and as you pointed out, they've worked out a certain level of utilization for that loading bay. And across the day, we feel that it can accommodate two vehicles at the same time and that it should be able to accommodate the demand, the likely demand from developments. In terms of those other trips, many of them will be by, you know, e-bikes and e-scooters, not e-scooters hopefully, but e-bikes. And there is a provision of short stay cycle parking, which can be used by those vehicles or indeed loading bay itself. It's quite hard to determine exactly the number of those trips and their exact distribution, but the applicant has looked at other sites within its knowledge and within its estate and has come up with an estimate, they're kind of high estimate, they might be up to 100 food delivery trips across the course of the day. But again, those can be accommodated within the facilities provided by the development. It's not an exact science, but officers have a reasonable level of confidence that what is being provided is adequate. Members, any questions? Councillor Haynes. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I should have asked this earlier, but what conversations took place at preamp and setting on this application stage about height, scale and massing? Just before you finish, are there any other questions on transport before you finish that question? That's my question. That's a factor design. So Lauren, do you want to come back on? Yes, height, scale and massing, but also what conversations took place? Was there any further guidance from GLA that reduced the scheme, that expanded the scheme? But yes, I'm just seeing the images on screen being more so than in the papers. It does look like a large development. What conversations took place around height, scale and massing, other than the fact that they've got it for a T shape and they filtered it in at the sites to let more light in the existing properties? I just wonder if I can, officers can just talk about that for a minute or so. Lauren, do you want to come in at all? That's fine. In terms of the height, scale and massing of the building, I think when the first situation was a lot higher and the mass was denser, so it has been reduced in height and also obviously the T shape has developed noting the impacts of daylight and sunlight and the impacts it might have to neighbours and properties. So we have gone on that journey with the applicant throughout the process of reducing the height, scale and massing to where it is today, where officers thought that it is an acceptable proposal. Thank you, Lauren. Great, thank you. Are there any other further questions from members? Move to a summit. Great. Would any members like to, just a mind for those in the audience watching at home, just because a member hasn't asked questions on the topic because they may not have given it full consideration. We have had the reports in advance and the briefing on the site as well. Would any members like to outline their views on how they're likely to vote on this application? Thank you, Chair. I think I'm inclined to vote in favour, only slightly. I'm disappointed with the land use, the North of the borough requires much more social housing, and there's an over concentration of student accommodation and it's still quite close to the site. Thank you. Any other members want to offer their views? Yes. I will. Yeah, go on. I mean, I'd like to thank officers for the report and for the further explanations that came from the experts. I'm really torn on this one because I understand the drive to bring investment into London. I have concerns over the impact it might have on the locality however, with points that have already flagged earlier on, the severe lack of affordable housing and over concentration. I think it's that H7 that is bothering me about this application. We're compromising the capacity to meet potential dwellings, especially affordable family homes. We're seeing stalls close across the borough and I guess my concern across the North of the borough particularly is what's going on in that area of our borough and are we upsetting the balance? And I agree with Councillor Costa. I think that although offices have come to the conclusion that because other student accommodation is 600 metres away, 500 metres away, I still do worry and I hope officers will be mindful to take note of any future applications too with regards to the... Because there seems to be an ever increasing amount of developers that are coming forward with new schemes that get us out of this hole that we're in at the moment, but as a council before, we've gone down a track and... But I understand that that's not beyond what the scope of this application is. I think pretty much I'm concerned about the imposition of such a large structure in amongst those existing properties and houses and I don't believe that we should be... Although I appreciate what the officer said about what's happened at appeal, I don't always believe that it has gone our way. I don't know for sure that I'd have to check with some colleagues on that, but I just... I do... I am concerned about the scale and massing and the impact that it's going to have on the local community as it currently exists and it could one day be if we one day build tonnes of affordable homes that families, working class families particularly, need. So with that in mind, I don't think I can support this application much as I would love to. I really would. I think it's nearly a good scheme, but I think it needed some further mitigation to help just blend in future proof where we need to be in the north of the borough. So I don't think I'll vote against it. I will abstain on the vote. Thank you Councillor Ainslie. If I could just ask the Presiding Officer to come back in on your point around land use for conventional housing and the sites. Yes, Chair, if it's okay, Geoff Holt next to me, who's Lawrence Manager, is going to come in and just provide Councillor Ainslie with some comments on interpretation of policy H7. Yeah, so just the point of whether this scheme is displacing housing potential, which is obviously a key point, and the policy recognises that and to make it clear, sets the four tests. It's in the Officer Report, but I'll just briefly rehearse them. So if there's existing regular residential on the site, we wouldn't allow development to student housing. There's no existing residential on the site, so it passes that test. The site hasn't been allocated for housing. So we haven't got a policy document saying the site should be contained housing, C3 housing. This site is just a regular industrial site with no designation on it in that sense. It hasn't been identified in our local plan housing trajectory for conventional housing either. So that frees it up for this kind of non-self-contained accommodation. There's never been a sort of historic planning permission for C3 housing on this site. So we set these quite high tests to make sure that sites that are capable of housing are protected. This site is one of the sites which meets that test and therefore it's open to student housing or self-contained accommodation. So there is that protection built in the policy to deal with concerns about lots of family housing, potentially falling pupil numbers, etc. But this scheme just happens to meet the policy and it doesn't fulfill that test. You don't need to come back, Councillor. I know I don't. I just understand exactly what you're saying and I totally hear it might not be this particular application. I just want the committee to be mindful and I would like it minuted that we do not, as it says in H7, compromise capacity to meet the need for conventional dwellings, especially according to family homes. That was the point I was making. I totally understand that this specific site couldn't ever achieve that goal. I'd like us to be mindful of the fact that that should be our objective going forward. Thank you, Councillor Ainslie. And in my own second before I move to the vote, I'm grateful to the applicant for the scale of consultation engagement they've had and that's ball fruit with the supporters from Oxford Gardens Community Centre and Friends of Oxford Park tonight. I'm comforted by it in asking the insurances from NSE on ensuring students will engage themselves in the local community and want them to really get students in that accommodation who most need. On consideration of the over-concentration point, I think it's probably been the biggest topic. I don't think this particular scheme tips us into over-concentration, but I would also caution officers to be mindful of future applications coming forward, particularly in the north-western corner of Oxford Ward. Oxford has 2,500 existing student rooms and the 6,000 lecturers and we'll take that balance further. Right, so moving on to the end of the vote, I am happy to move the recommendation. Two, please interrupt. What's the cost that did make the point that we're a living wage borrower, could you mention that? It would be an informative - yeah, it couldn't be a condition. Can we add that? What you do Chair is you just put it forward as part of your - yeah, so it would be moving officers recommendations subject to an additional form. So look to move officers recommendations subject to an informative that the applicant seeks to - business occupiers should be living wage employers. Sorry to interrupt Chair, but I don't see why you couldn't add it as almost like a sub-requirement of your employment plan that's required to be put in as part of the planning obligations, if you wanted a bit more strength to it then informative. Let's see. There's various plans that have to be submitted as well. I mean, I think members work up where there's some form of information that's about not legal. Rent and workspace, not the tenants. The tenants, yeah, the future tenants being that we already have the living wage provision and the employment skills, but that wouldn't necessarily extend as far as future tenants level. It's informative as to - What do we pay the apprenticeships for the employment? Oh, I understand we require the employment skills plan, which secures all that to a living wage employer. It's the third party tenant basically, being living wage employers. I think we're content for that to be very informative and we'll delegate officers to strengthen that. So, yeah. So again, yeah. So move recommendations subject to the informative as I previously laid out, which I won't repeat again. As amended, can I have a seconder, please? Councillor Costa and ask those all in favour of that recommendation. For video that's Councillor Klein, Councillor Costa, those voting against - sorry, sorry, Councillor Bailey, and those voting against, and those abstaining, Councillor Ainslie, those voting against. So that is carried. Thank you very much. And that, I believe, now concludes the PAC meeting for tonight. Thank you for attending.