Transcript

on GDB from 15% to 3%. However, following the quality and sensitivity analysis, this was accepted. Just with regards to the proposal also included some improvements to the public realm. This includes a new pedestrian and vehicle park, linking the Hinton Road to Burnhill Road, via Wellfleet Street to Hardest Street. So from Hinton Road here to Hardest Street across here. It would open up access to the viaduct at the northwest corner of the site in this location here, and it would also include works to Wellfleet Street that would be secured through section 27A works. This included improvements to the Carriageway and Cookway area. In terms of those buildings, they follow a linear north-east-west access that fronts onto with their entrances onto Wellfleet Street and the private road at this part of the development, and this is the, in reference to, there's references in the report with regards to under the undercroft, so it's this area that's under the undercroft. The proposed clover living building would have a stepped massing that creates a space between the proposal and the King's Yard scheme. This would create a well-defined building cluster, which announces the centre of Loughlin Junction, with King's Yard retaining its primacy in Pine. This is shown in the elevation drawings and also in this view. With regards to the massing, the proposed co-living building is expressed as three distinctive volumes stepping down from west to east, as illustrated in this image. The tallest block, fronting Hinton Road, is the only highest element at 47 metres that is slightly, that slightly exceeds the 45 metre tall building threshold criteria as set out in Lambert's local plan policy Q26. The lower elements reach up to 37.4 metres that are beneath the 45 metre tall building threshold and are considered mid-rise. A full heritage, townscape and visual impact assessment was submitted with this application. As discussed in the report, the proposal would not result in harm to heritage assets or townscape. Just to highlight, this proposal does differ from the previous scheme that was refused, which included two towers at 29 storeys, which is primarily broadly located to Hinton Road, with the 20 storeys located broadly towards Hardest Street. So Hinton Road would be around here and Hardest Street, over this way. Just illustrating the light industrial building that'd be located within the site. With regards to materials, the materials palette for the proposed co-living building aligns with the stepped massing, with the tallest block in the most recessive tones, which deepen as the proposal reduces in height. This is illustrated in image one here. The facade for the light industrial building is clad in panels with glazing. It draws from the contemporary warehouse language and is formed with dark metal panels. This is illustrated in image two, which provides examples of the dark metal panels and configurations. Just with regards to the ground floor layout of the proposed co-living building, just want to highlight the main entrance to the building is here off Wellfit Street. The cycle parking entrance is in this area here. Short stay cycle parking provided here, that could be accessed from Wellfit Street and also short stay cycle parking provided in this location here. In terms of servicing, there would be a servicing area provided within this part here under the undercroft and there are servicing bays that service the industrial units shown in these locations here. This is just an image to illustrate the various communal spaces to be provided within the co-living building. These are located on the ground floor, mezzanine first and 11th floor. This slide is just to illustrate the external communal spaces to be provided on the 11th floor and the ground floor in this location here. Overall, subject to securing conditions that follow in the amount of internal and external communal amenity space is considered acceptable and would accord with the relevant policies and GLA guidance. In terms of the private units being provided for the co-living accommodation, this image shows an illustration of the private unit layout and its amenities and this one just shows a visual image of what that could look like. With regards to the private units, they are considered to be of an adequate size. It includes accessible units. They all provide functioning living space and accord with relevant policies and GLA guidance. Just with regards to neighbouring amenity, this is a plan which shows the separation distances between the proposed building, co-living building and neighbouring properties. Just to illustrate, 11 to 15 Inter Road are located along here. As indicated previously, the church is located here. This is 9 to 15 Wanless Road along here and then you've got the Higgs Development over on this side north of the railway tracks. It's not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on outlook and sense of enclosure. The scheme has been amended with regards to light industrial building being reduced in height along the boundary of the properties fronting Higgs Road and the height of the building improved along the boundary with the properties fronting Wanless Road with the height being lowered slightly along this boundary line. With regards to privacy, adequate separation distances would be provided with appropriate mitigation secured where necessary. Impacts with regards to daylight, sunlight, no shadowing have been conceded and Council's Councilman Ian Diaz will touch on this briefly. Good evening, this slide shows the proposal in context with the more pertinent residential neighbouring property groups affected by the scheme having some daylight reductions not meeting the BRE guide default target criteria. The neighbouring new build development of Higgs Yard is on the opposite side of the railway viaduct and the proposal is coloured red. Direction of north is upwards at the top of the image thus for sunlight neighbouring dwellings and sun important living rooms for consideration the majority of such living rooms are on the southern side of the development excepting within Higgs Yard. The closest majority of applicable living rooms are in block C within Higgs Yard and because they are dual aspect arrangement for sunlight reductions BRE default target criteria is still met or still reasonably close to target. Next slide please. This slide now takes a view in a southernly direction to those property groups south of the railway line. Those facing or in close proximity of the scheme are referenced. Part of the existing massing on the site is in the foreground with the white warehouse roofs and representing limited existing massing on site. For existing neighbouring daylight review two tests are undertaken being the applicable vertical sky component via sea and also daylight distribution. In consideration of the property group numbers 2 to 18 evens on Wanless Road front elevations are facing the proposal. The applicable reductions in via sea these meet BRE default target criteria. For daylight distribution for six number isolated ground floor living rooms these have reductions not meeting BRE default target criteria. For the property group opposite at numbers 9 to 23 odds Wanless Road the rear elevations are facing sites. For via sea reductions these meet BRE default target criteria except at eight number rooms at first and second floor. The retained via sea would be circa 16.7 and above on a weighted via sea which could be considered reasonable for anticipated bedroom use. For daylight distribution again reductions meet default target criteria except to five number rooms. One number room at ground floor with a minor adverse reduction and four rooms at upper floors where reductions are greater but daylight distribution is considered less important to bedrooms. For the property group numbers 11 to 19 odds at Hinton Road for 17 and 19 these are offset from the site and so whilst there are reductions in via sea and daylight distribution these would meet BRE target for these particular properties in the main. For the remaining properties via sea main adverse reductions relate to major adverse reductions at rear ground floor rooms numbers 11, 13 and 15 Hinton Road and typically moderate verse reductions to first floor rear rooms in these properties. For daylight distribution main adverse reductions relates to major adverse reductions at ground floor to numbers 13 and 15 and also to first floor in number 15. Number 11 has reductions in daylight distribution but these are meeting for the particular room arrangements. Next slide please. I've already covered the first three property groups but moving on to Higgs Yard being the new build development to the north of the proposal. For reductions in via sea and for living kitchen dining rooms within block C these meter or are close to BRE targets except for two major adverse and one moderate adverse this review being on a room weighted via sea given the dual aspect arrangements of these particular rooms. There are three dining rooms to block D where there are moderate to major adverse reductions in via sea and there are 34 bedrooms overall having reductions in via sea not meeting BRE target criteria. For daylight distribution not meeting target there are six number living kitchen diners having a minor adverse reduction, three number kitchen dining rooms with moderate major adverse and various reductions to not meeting target for 225 number bedrooms. Next slide please. This depicts a typical lower ground floor arrangement second floor to within Higgs Yard to highlight the dual aspect arrangement of the living kitchen diners within block C with such arrangement has mitigated some of the effects of the proposal when daylight review is considered on a room basis. Finally in terms of sunlight to residential amenity in terms of the BRE two hour test at the 21st of March the main central amenity to Higgs Yard would still meet target and the rear amenity areas to the two numbers 29 to 23 one less road would also meet target excepting one number isolated instance. That concludes this neighbouring residential summary. Thanks to the considerations to land use officers consider sufficient industrial space to be provided to affordable housing payment in lieu of 9.21 million towards the delivery of C3 affordable housing would be secured. The designer purchase reported no harm to heritage assets. There are no significant impacts to amenity with mitigation secured where necessary sustainable development achieves carbon savings at 59% beyond the five percent for the co-living building and 37% beyond the minimum 35% part of 2021 for the light industrial building. There are no unacceptable impacts with regards to transported highways subject to appropriate mitigation secured where necessary and the scheme would increase the biodiversity and urban burning on the site. The application would offer a number of benefits that are associated on this image and disgusting the report on pages 222 to 226. These include bringing forward sustainable development with brownfield land, employing an economic activity including supporting jobs at construction stage and end use phase, including worker expenditure during the construction and energy space with substantial expenditure expenditure within the area. Opposed development would provide new high quality space for the industrial use within a building that is fit for purpose. The co-living building would contribute towards meeting the council housing supply requirements. The proposal would include a community investment project where specific areas are made available to local charities and organisations. It includes improvements to the public realm and enhanced ecological and biodiversity value to exceed the targets for urban greening factor and biodiversity. The application would also secure financial contributions in order to provide a policy. These are indicated on the screen and discussed in the report. These include $9.21 million towards affordable housing, $238,748 towards a healthy roof network, a total of $480,000 towards improvements to the Loughborough Junction station. This would be $250,000 specifically towards a feasibility and design study for an access for all scheme. It would also include $175,000 towards when it's likely by a docking station. This recommendation is set out. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. OK, we're now going to hear from registered speakers and I have three objectives who have registered this evening. I'm just going to take them in order of what they are on my list, starting with Andrew Makoa, I believe, who's here in person. Hi there, so if you'd just like to make your way to the table where it says speakers. So this applies to everybody who is speaking this evening. How it works is I'll ask you to introduce yourself and outline your relationship to the application, so local resident etc. Rajneesh will then start the timer and you have two minutes to speak. It beeps when you have 25 seconds left and then it beeps again when your two minutes is up and I'll ask you to finish your sentence. So if you'd like to just introduce yourself and then your two minutes will begin. I'm Andrew from Finston Road. My wife and I have lived in Loughborough Junction for over 30 years and I'm here as an individual to speak in strong opposition to this scheme. My wife and I love our neighbourhood, but if we were starting out now we couldn't afford it. Affordable family housing is what Loughborough Junction needs most and this scheme will provide none. As far as I can see, it'll provide expensive student privacy only not for students. There isn't any co-living in Lambeth at the moment and that is for a reason. Please don't start with us. The design, as Rosina presented it, will crowd onto a tiny site and tower oppressively over low-rise residential streets uphill from the railway. Higgs Yard has already significantly damaged local views including the view from the top of Ruskin Park and the visual impact assessment in pictures which weren't in the presentation you just saw makes it quite clear that this scheme will double the damage for no benefit. Local plan policy Q25 covers views and doesn't yet cover the view from the top of Ruskin Park. It should and if it did this would clearly breach it. Now reference has been made to a local centre. Loughborough Junction is not a town centre, it's an in-between place with its own character which this development would spoil. Part of that character is the Loughborough Estate which has openness, lightness, grass and trees. This scheme offers none of that. Another part of the character is the local businesses in the railway arches. They will be significantly disrupted during construction and any survivors will lose access and light. Higgs Yard isn't occupied yet. That's your two minutes I'm afraid. Do you want to finish your sentence? Just to say please block this application until his Higgs Yard is occupied and we can see the impact or even better please turn it down flat. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay I now have Jack Sedmon who I believe is online. Hello just switch my camera. So if you'd like to introduce yourself then your two minutes will begin. Sure thank you and so my name is Jack. I live on Olderton Road in the immediate vicinity of the development. I spent a few weeks talking to neighbours about their thoughts so these opinions and concerns are not just mine, they're shared by my neighbours and I have three points to raise. So I've updated this statement very slightly in light of information shared previously by Rosina just now but I retain the original intent of it. So echoing the previous speaker, the proposed development makes no provision for affordable housing. The official guidance in the London plan states that affordable housing cannot be offered by co-living developments. We've heard about the financial contribution that is being made. I would like to understand how much of that contribution would or could be used to cater for the housing needs of families in the immediate area and how we could make that happen but I haven't had the opportunity to digest the detailed breakdown just shared by Rosina. The second point I'd like to raise is around the total elevation of the proposed development which we consider unsuitable in its current form for the location. It doesn't sufficiently mediate between the elevation of Higgs Yard and the Victorian residential buildings to the south and this mediation is a requirement of the latest SADPD set to be adopted by the council. So the suggestion would be that the total height of the main building, the tower, is reduced to better integrate with the existing physical environment. And then the third point, third and final point, is around provisions and guarantees in relation to public access associated with this development. So no proposal to my knowledge has been shared by London Green in relation to providing access for local residents to new communal spaces associated with the development. The London plan states that for tall buildings developers should incorporate publicly accessible areas on the upper floors where appropriate such as the roof terrace. Additionally there have been no guarantees made by the developer in relation to continued public access via new external walkways that are being opened up into the arches. And given what we've seen with Higgs Yard and the fact that that is currently gated off for the foreseeable future as far as we can see, we would like to see some guarantees around access in that part. Thank you, that's your two minutes. Thank you very much. Finally we've got Matthew Clark who I believe is here in person. Hi I'm Matthew Clark, I'm a resident of Loughborough Junction. The application has no on-site affordable housing. Instead it has a payment in lieu. I object to the payment on the site of no on-site affordable housing. Emerging policies were a development with on-site affordable housing through the draft of the site allocation plan site 22. The emergency, the emerging policies you can re-await. The payment after viability assessments has been set at 9.2 million. For a development of this size a 35 on-site housing contribution would be required. An equivalent payment in lieu should be 24 million. 9.2 million is a means only 13.4% affordable housing on the site. This means that it's getting 14.8 million less than it should for the list of elements. It's not acceptable nor is it clear whether the payment will be linked to the Loughborough Junction area. From the officer report it appears there are disagreements between the GLA and the council how this viability was assessed. Without late stage the council caving in and knocking off 1 million from its original figure of 10.44 million. Officers claiming report that this was robustly scrutinized to ensure that it was still a payment. I don't see this myself and I ask committee to reject the scene as it's not following the emergency policy and the affordable housing payment is paltry. Also the application does not meet requirements of policy H13 that are shared in development should have still be more excellent public transport. BTAL for this site is three. If this development this application is passed it sets a role it sets a precedent for any future students and this should be resisted by the planning committee it weakens agreed policy. Okay that is our objectives and we have three supporters as well this evening to hear from. The first one is Matt Hill who's here in person. Hi so when you're ready. Good evening, my name is Matt Hill I'm the plan agent for the application. This officer has taken you through the details of proposals and won't repeat all that has been said. I'd like to emphasize that we've worked proactively with council officers and the GLA over the last three years in developing the scheme. This is included undertaking two design review panel sessions to ensure the design meets the highest standards. Pleased to say that the final scheme presented to you this evening has received full support from both Austin and the DRP firm in its quality. We've taken particular care to design industrial units that provide flexible spaces specifically tailored to support the local creative industries and maker spaces helping to maintain the growth and areas thriving creative scene. As officers have set out, our proposal fully accords with the local London plan policies and is in line with the GLA code involvement ensuring that both local and strategic plan objectives provide another form of residential accommodation available to local residents and the wider community. This is also supplemented by an affordable housing contribution in line with policy of over 9.21 million. The development will also provide significant section 106 contributions including up to half a million pounds to access stability and station improvements at Loughborough junction. We propose to reinstate the through road between Hardus and Welford street improving connectivity and circulation. Additionally the scheme includes improvements to Hardus street and enhanced landscaping and safer public realm benefiting all new vehicles today. We're also committed to strong sustainability credentials, starting both GMF standing and world platinum certifications. Whilst also providing above policy requirements on biodiversity net gain urban greening. This demonstrates a dedication to environmental responsibility and the well-being of future residents. It not only delivers significant benefits for the local community but it also represents a well-considered sustainable and high quality development. Quite a former much needed residential accommodation supports our production and a wider priority to keep good look. Let's make your way back. We have Harry Keane next in person. My name is Harry Keane. I'm a senior associate at LGL and we are the applicants. Like others after finishing university in 2017 I took a leap of faith and moved to London. An internship lined up with LGL but no idea whether the move would be temporary or permanent. But I really met with what felt like an impossible hurdle. Securing accommodation in a competitive rental market, something that was well connected, safe and allowed me to make new connections. Moving to a new city is an exciting experience but an equally lonely one. My personal experience tied directly to those going through a similar journey. They're equally for those already living in London who struggle to find appropriate housing. The number of PRS studios and one-bedroom flats across London has almost halved since 2019. Lambeth have also experienced a 58% decline in HMOs since 2020, rightly cracking down on poor quality and often unsafe housing. Furthermore the mental health foundation reported over a third of young people said they often feel lonely, a product of a growing disconnected society. The stats are scary but beyond the stats the reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of people in London struggling to find accommodation and community. It's hard thing to imagine for those of us who are fortunate enough to no longer face either problem but it's very urgent and very real. Co-living provides solutions to these issues whilst also playing a key role in addressing the UK's chronic housing shortage and catering for a diverse demographic of renters. In its simplest form co-living is rental accommodation purpose-built to solve these problems. Since inception our mission as a company has been to provide homes and communities that needs the rapidly evolving needs of Londoners. The Alpha building, just a stone's throw away from where we sit, was developed by us in 1998 and is an example of just that. Harness Chart would have provided a game-changing solution for me in 2017. I hope it also will do for its future residents. Thank you. Thank you. Our final supporter is Pastor Lorraine Jones. I'm Pastor Lorraine Jones, I'm the founder of Gwen Simpson Foundation, Gwen Unex Boxing. I met Harry about three years ago. I'm a bit shaky in my voice because it's just that time. I'm a resident in Lambeth and I have two business premises in Loughborough, Loughborough Park and Loughborough Junction. I have a boxing gym and a community centre. Harry walked into our community centre on the day that we were feeding hungry people. He reached out to me and it wasn't by email or phone, he walked in and when he walked in he told me about Hardish Yard and what they want to do. He was taken back by the scale of need that we were reaching out to and supporting. And he said, Pastor Lorraine, how can we help? This is what we want to do, how can we help? I said, Harry, we're desperate for money. As a small business, a community interest company, we need money to sustain ourselves and get a quick home. He said, okay, I can help you with specific equipment if you let me know, but what would be of good help longer term? He spoke to me about the investment programme to help the community and I said to him, look, let me organise a meeting with the young people so that you can hear from them himself. He came with another colleague and he met with about 10 of them, male and female. They spoke about job opportunities. They spoke about the crises they're having with housing. They spoke about nice spaces that they could go to together. And Harry said, if we get through with this, we will be able to help with opportunities for jobs. We will be able to open up our space so that young people and families can come in. We will be able to offer a more sustainable future for you and their eyes lit up. So I'm in favour because I'm a black woman in Brixton, 52, seven children, five grandchildren. I lost my son to knife crime and this programme means so much to us and I'm in favour of it. There are registered supporters and we also have the three board councillors to address this this evening. Starting with Councillor Jim Dickson. Hi there. Councillor Jim Dickson, Herndon Hill and Loughborough Junction councillor. This site is on the council's allocation plan and therefore development is expected here. However, as a local councillor, I'm opposed to this development on the following grounds. First, Loughborough Junction needs affordable family accommodation. This is a site where the overwhelming requirement is for general needs housing for families either already in the area coming from neighbouring areas to find housing which suits their needs. This was the model for the development of the next door Hig industrial yard which I fully supported and one which we wish to see replicated in this and other sites in our area if we're to properly meet landless housing requirement as set out in the council's plan. Second, co-living residents will tend to be transient while the result contribute less to the neighbourhood than families who have a long-term stake in the area. This is a missed opportunity to build on painstaking work to support and build a cohesive community undertaken over the past two decades. Three, there is no on-site provision for affordable housing as is nearly always the case for co-living development. This leads to the risk that nearby sites for investment in affordable homes will not be found or that these will fail to replicate the positive impact of on-site affordable homes that these can have on our neighbourhood. We need an affordable and social rented housing contribution on site at the full 35% requirement. There are other planning grounds for opposing the development. There are serious problems with daylight and sunlight to neighbours as has been outlined. It is contrary to what is proposed for this site, site 22 in Lambeth's draft site allocation development plan and Lambeth's policy for this type of development is that they should be sited in areas with good transport links i.e. people ratings of six and above whereas Loughborough Junction is only three. We hope the committee can join with councillors in opposing this development. Now we have Councillor Pauline George. I am Councillor Pauline George, one of the councillors for Henhill and Loughborough Junction and hereby in my position as a councillor for Henhill and Loughborough Junction would propose the planning permission for this development. The welfare of my residents is paramount to me I am standing here also on behalf of the Loughborough Junction neighbourhood forum. I'm supporting them. We support the provision of industrial space on site but oppose this development for the following reasons. One local resident needs more affordable family housing whereas this developer is proposing a large core living purposely built shared living which will appeal to many young professionals who may be establishing themselves in the capital for the first time. However, residents will be transient and unlikely to contribute to community life. There are no on-site provision affordable housing. How do you define affordable housing? The 320 core living unit proposed equates to 177 self-contained units and represent a massive over development on the site. The SADP recommends a maximum of 40 or 45 liters whereas the proposed development is 47 meters high. In conclusion, core living is unsuitable for Loughborough Junction and contrary to land back local plan H18 and London local plan H16 in terms of excellence or good public transport accessibility and local service and as a registered dog who have served the NHS for over 45 years it is not healthy for my residents. It can cause them a lot of other mental problems. Thank you very much. Councillor Sardiwal. Thank you, thank you chair. I'm Deepak Sardiwal to be one of the three board councillors to meet for Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction and also a local resident speaking in opposition to the motion. The local plan requires affordable housing to be on site in schemes providing more than 10 units. This development offers no affordable homes on site to meet the overwhelming local housing need despite being 320 units. Furthermore and crucially with tens of thousands of housing waiting lists the application offers insufficient justification for its inability to provide affordable housing on site. The local plan is clear a payment in yours should not be accepted in these circumstances. The previous site application proposed 51 affordable units and applicant offers no evidence of contact made with most of the pilots. The local plan requires a range of dwelling sizes including family size housing to be sought from all new developments to ensure mixed and balanced communities. This application fails to comply with the tenured mix requirements. It would exclude the abilities of families that form in the area. The application claims that providing a single occupancy it is delivering a greater mix of residential accommodation thus contributing to inclusive neighbourhoods. The reality is one bedroom units already exist in the neighbourhood. The Higgs yard development next door has increased the supply of one bedroom rooms by as many as 40 units. In addition the co-living demand study shows that one bedroom properties account for 29% of the total rental listings in the local area. Affordable family housing is what this area needs most. This is what will keep our local schools open such as the Saviors. Clause 2.66 of the local plan states that affordability is a major challenge in Lambeth. Furthermore the local plan acknowledges this location as one of the most deprived areas in the whole of Lambeth. The market rents would not be affordable for local people. There were no guarantees for the irreplaceable businesses on the current site. The development does not promote community cohesion and social diversity. Finally the application conflicts with the site allocation development plan document on planning balance with the document now submitted to the Secretary of State. This is deemed a substantive consideration. I beg that the application is refused. Thank you. Thank you. Right so that's all our registered speakers. Just a reminder to members that the applicant also has three technical specialists in attendance this evening. They are Catherine Rose from Verve Life, the operator I believe who can speak from the co-living arrangement, Andre Martin from VLP Architecture who can advise on design and sustainability and David Pearce from Canipaero from Canipaero Associates. So I'm going to open the floor to questions from members who would like to go first. Councillor Bailey. Thank you. I mean if I could start on design and some of the objectives comment in terms of it being 47 meters noting that it's just over the kind of tall building amount what did officers do in terms of how is that design developed and what officers don't in terms of wanting to bring that entire scheme within the 45 meters possible as there are three blocks. Itman who answers that. Well I mean I'll have a bash I suppose. Well policy 356 the local plan has different parts. So it defines tall building heights but part B allows schemes to come forward above the threshold. If you think of the Higgs scheme next door it's a tall building, it's over the threshold. So there's nothing policy to say you can't come over the scheme that's taller than the threshold. Some of the objectors have identified that the emerging site allocation doesn't consider the site appropriate but that has limited weight because the site allocation hasn't gone through its formal process and colleagues can advise you further on that. So we didn't at any time tell the applicant they couldn't apply seek permission for the height they're seeking. When they started looking at this scheme site allocation was favoring greater height so with earlier iterations of the site all the traditions. So when the applicant started the site allocation favored greater height site allocation has moved to a slightly lower threshold but the driver for that primarily is to maintain a degree of subordination in relation to the Higgs scheme. Officers think because Higgs is closer to the railway station closer to the town centre which you'd read is the tallest element in the town scheme and that's the driver behind the site allocation. Looking at this scheme the scheme is still slightly lower. Higgs scheme officers are comfortable with that tall building curves in terms of that relationship. That's a patient. I think it might be helpful at this point to maybe ask a question about the weight that we give the emerging site allocation and perhaps to explain why it's this limited weight because obviously it is underpinned by an evidence base so that evidence base is relevant. So yeah why can't we give it full weight at this stage? Okay so the the draft site allocations development plan document it sets out site allocations which are locations which the council has identified for potential development. To identify those sites we prepare an evidence basis as the chair mentioned. There are considerations about design they like sunlight, the land uses, infrastructure. We've been preparing that document for a number of years. It's in a final version. It's gone through a number of consultations. Why we're giving it limited weight is because it has to go through a public examination by an independent inspector. We can't prejudge the outcome of that examination. Now the national commanding policy frame the guidance as to way to apply an emerging policy document such as this site allocations DPD. Some of the considerations that you have to take into account are the stage that the document's at. So it's gone through some consultation but we do have a number of opposing views to aspects of the document. So in this site for site this is site 22 in the document we have submissions from people who are supporting aspects of it others are opposing it. So the applicant for example it's indicated that the height limit should be higher to include a range of uses including housing but also co-living housing. We have submissions from neighbours and other people in the area who don't think the site should should have the intensity that's being proposed. So when it goes to examination people have the opportunity to put that to an independent inspector. The inspector will review the document they'll see whether it's consistent with national policies with other local policies the London and they'll also decide whether there needs to be any changes to it and they'll be the ultimate determinant as to whether that plan is adopted as part of that policy. We can't prejudge that elimination and that's the reason why we're giving it limited play. Thank you that's helpful. Councillor Clark. Just a good question or clarification. That site allocation process for the site 22 does that continue irrespective of the application decision or is that possibly with that before and is there any site allocation is kind of after that the independent view. Is that in terms of then having wait for any future development coming on the site? I guess I'm trying to understand what it looks like. I mean for the purposes of this evening we have to look at the application before us against the current development plan policies plus any material considerations and the document that we're referring to is a consideration. What we're advising is that it should wait. It was submitted in its final version on I think the 31st of October so it's just gone in there isn't a date set for the examination but I'll repeat myself that we can't prejudge what happened in that examination. So for this evening you've just been determining it on the basis of the policies that we've discussed in the report. If there was a different decision made tonight then that might be something which the Inspector would need to consider but we can't sort of prejudge that as I said to base the decision this evening on the current policies and the considerations. Any other questions? Can I ask about how confident the applicant is about to bond for this type of accommodation in this particular area? What studies have they done to understand that? Okay if we go to the officer first and then I'll bring in the applicant if needed. Because there is a question I suppose are officers comfortable that this is meeting a local need? It doesn't specifically require a need assessment to be undertaken with regards to the housing needs point before we go to the housing plan. The guidance of the London Plan does anticipate this pro-living as a use which will contribute to the housing supply diversity in London. It's mostly the demand that's required for the nature of the accommodation. So as Harry said in the provisions of my speech it would be someone who would otherwise stay in a house or share flat that would be attracted by its office. So in terms of housing need this would help and as said in the reporting at certain locations it does contribute to the virus housing supply but one can judge when in measures and units. So the London Plan and outlook does allow this sort of thing to be completed as it means really being a centre. Thank you so that's the opposite of assessment of it but I agree it might be helpful to hear from the applicant. Mr Keene did touch on it a bit in his representation to us but with somebody from the applicant's team like to come back to the table and perhaps give us some more details about the demographics, the types of people that this type of housing is attractive to in your experience that is a new and an emerging type of residential development. I think the first thing to say is as part of the application we submitted a co-living needs assessment that was prepared by Knight Frank. It looked at both things on a granular level in Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill but more borough wide and then more kind of London wide. I don't have those statistics off the top of my head but what it did show is that there is a significant demand for this type of housing and the co-living developments that we've seen that have come on stream in London of which there are only kind of seven or eight operational co-living assets in London. The rate at which they fully let is exceptional. Some of these schemes are kind of three, four hundred bed schemes and they're letting in like two, three months and maybe for a normal built rent scheme you might expect to rent that in a year so that's kind of showing the demand. In terms of the kind of demographic of people who live in these developments, the typical average age, so for example FOCA is another kind of co-living developer and they've got three assets across London, one in Harrow, one in Aylesfield and one in Battersea. The average age of the occupants is 30 years old but the range is from 18 all the way up to 67. It's a bit of a misnomer but students actually only make up about 6.5 percent of the population of co-living assets and from my experience of actually staying in these co-living schemes, I stayed in the Battersea one for some time, people are from all walks of life who live in these developments. They're police officers, they're professional dog walkers, they're dancers and they're artists, they're working in the west end, they're working in the city so there's kind of no one shoe, these people from all walks of life and currently another kind of misnomer whilst we're kind of on the topic of the type of people who live in and how long they stay for. The typical stay is kind of over 300 days. There's this idea that there's a kind of a transient population and although kind of the GLA guidance suggests tenancies of three to twelve months, people tend to always go for the upper limit and we also see that over 50 percent of people come to re-let at the end of their kind of AST. So hopefully that gives a bit of a flavour and I think also last thing to say is maybe 41 percent of Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction population are aged between 20 and 39. That is our ideal candidate for these developments and you know we think we've got kind of a kind of a population of people ready within the local community who would really benefit from this product. Okay thank you. Did you have a question for the applicant Councillor Clark? Thank you for that. Okay Councillor Clark. My question has partly been answered but I guess I just wanted to understand from an officer's perspective did they have a look at the the Knight-Frank assessment and where do we feel particularly from a, understand from a London perspective, that there is a need but was there, even if there wasn't a full needs assessment done from from a Lambeth point of view, where do they think that there is a need from the local side so that there will be, the expectation would be that if this were to be developed there would be people from Lambeth coming in rather than people who might be living, who might choose to live in any part of London whatsoever and this came up that's my question is what was there any consideration of those? So the, as Rosina said there was no sort of policy requirement to demonstrate need because that's sort of assumed within the policy but having read it no sort of, couldn't see anything that could challenge the conclusion so and also it's these commercial schemes assuming that these would come forward to be viable and deliverable. Marion's commercial viability assessment he's done himself would hopefully consider that these would be, this accommodation would be let at a timely fashion to meet that demand so more than from officer from the planning policy point there's no requirement to confirm the need for it, we're confident that based on what we've seen it will be a successful product. Can I ask a question about what happens so at the moment there's a demand for this type of accommodation, what happens in the future if that demand ceases because how the policies written for student accommodation they need to demonstrate that they could reconfigure the building so that it could be adapted to become conventional housing and I understand there isn't that policy requirement for this type of housing and it's quite new as well so we haven't even seen this worst case scenario happen in London but what are the officer's thoughts on that or perhaps it's just that that really that isn't for our consideration this evening but it is an interesting question. She does have the reference as the student accommodation policy does and any changes were to be considered on if they would have to come in did we go through a pre-app process of planning application process or amendments depending on what the proposal we did. Yeah okay thank you. Any more questions on the land use? Councillor Clark. We heard about the 10 years between or the terms of the lease between three and twelve months and the policy states it can be from three months. Was any weighting done or was any weighing up done around the benefits of people staying and both the benefits of what they bring and any disbenefits of if it's a three month versus a twelve month stay and if it turned out that the majority of people ended up say being three months aside with that because that was what the market demanded. Would that change any assessment that was made? With regards to tenancy lengths the policy requirement as you've indicated is a minimum of three months but they are likely to be extended to 12 months and the applicant has provided information to officers that across the three folks operational schemes in London as indicated by Harriet Earlsfield, Harrow and Babersey 73% of the people stayed for 12 months and over 50% of occupiers renew their leases. All secured as part of the section 106 is a minimum of three months but the indication is that people will stay on on that 12 months and within the management plan that was submitted it does make reference to tenancies from three to twelve months and that they will be required to then come into an end. I think that's maybe something we can come back to you know something that... One stat just on the clear was it's 50% of the 73 who have 12 months then stay for longer. 50% of all occupiers say anybody who signs a lease you're talking 50% again that's fine. Anything else on land use? There's more on the affordable housing contribution and the offsite kind of payment. Have officers identified any specific sites for that or the need kind of the availability of sites in the local area? I'm aware that that may not be a specific part of the plan but I say having heard it from the objectives I just wanted to understand whether there had been any conversations around it because sometimes we have offsite payments where we say it must be within X number of hundred metres or something so I just wondered if there had been conversations around that. In terms of securing the affordable housing contribution it would be regards to affordable housing coming in the GARA. It's not specifically expressed in any way to a certain area and that's primarily indicated it's dependent on projects coming forward and it depends on where they come forward, if they come forward and funding going towards that. The presiding officer, sorry I thought you'd finished. The presiding officer was saying the other element is the money is secured for a certain period of time and if it's not spent within that certain time you have 10 requests for that contribution back. I was just going to come in and advise that I sit on a housing delivery group within the council so post the exact review which I'm sure Councillor Cranach is familiar with and Homes for Lambeth were brought back within the council so the council has reappraised how it delivers housing and in particular how it delivers affordable housing. So there is discussions ongoing with a number of sites that the borough owns with the intention of bringing forward affordable housing either bringing forward 100% affordable housing on sites or in some cases bringing forward policy compliance levels. I'm actively contributing to that. I can't at this moment in time, it's not in the public domain so I can't name sites but I can reassure you that Lambeth as a local authority are actively looking at bringing forward affordable housing in the future. This £9.1 million affordable housing dual payment would very much be welcomed to be put towards delivery of affordable housing in the borough. Thanks. I've got a question about the industrial space. How will it be divided? Will it be co-working? Will it have private offices? The industrial space is... Excuse me. This is images of the industrial floor plan so it's ground floor with the mezzanine level and then a further additional floor on an additional upper floor and the premise is that the ground floor and the first floor can be used either as a whole contained unit or it can be split up into smaller units and the upper floors would be their own contained units. Okay I'm going to move us on to transport. I have some questions but I'll let members go first. Anyone else has a transport question? I just ask about the step three access for Loughborough Junction station which has been a long-term ambition in the borough. Some of the accommodation is wheelchair accessible so it would make sense that they actually use the station. It mentions on page 49 £250,000. I assume that's new lifts for the station there, should it go ahead and if that is the case could it be conditioned? If I can come in chair. Sorry Rosina. Just to say that yes, so the development obviously has secured that 250k. That will pay for a detailed study and early stage design for a lift to make the station fully accessible. It will then enable network rail to promote the scheme for the government's access for all program. The access for all program delivers step-free access to stations across the country and the more advanced your design and the more feasible the cost of the lift addition, the better chance you have of receiving government funding. So it will be significant in moving the station forward higher up the list but it will still depend on government funding to actually deliver the infrastructure. Thanks. I have a question on transport which is about the Loughborough Junction station that currently has insufficient capacity or is reaching capacity and whilst there are some financial contributions secured that would contribute to step-free access etc, I don't see how they specifically address the capacity issue and also that then coupled with the fact that this is a pitel area of three, could you outline why then this application of this type was deemed acceptable in this area? Yes I'll do my best chair. So as you say the site itself is in pitel 3 which is classified as moderate however it is in very close proximity to both pitel 4 which is good and pitel 5 which is very good and pitel I should say obviously it is the industry standard we use it for all the applications but it is not a perfect tool and you do get some anomalies like low pitels right next to relatively high pitels. This location, there are several transport options, public transport options available to potential residents of this location and existing residents. Obviously one of them is Loughborough Junction station that's probably going to be the most popular choice for train travel into town. As you point out there is limited capacity on trains serving Loughborough Junction at the peak times. Now the data presented by the applicant which comes from the train operator does show that on certain trains capacity is as high, obviously we should say occupancy, is as high as 99% on a limited number of service in the morning peak which is by far the busiest time of day. Now that data is actually not for Loughborough Junction station itself because data was not available from the operator so it's actually taken from Elephant and Castle station which is further to the north and loadings on the trains can be expected to be higher by the time the train gets to that station. So it's probable that the actual loading is a little bit lower at Loughborough Junction. Nonetheless, no question, some of those trains are very very busy. In terms, well I should say also that it's quite a narrow window when the trains are right at that, you know, very very busy and obviously people will make their own choice, rational choices about when to use a station and simply shifting a journey by 20 minutes earlier or later can make a big difference in that respect. I should also say that the data does not account for changes in travel patterns since the COVID pandemic and it's well documented that ridership hasn't quite returned to the levels of pre-COVID. Now to the question of what does our section 106 contribution do, well it's not within our gift, or the developer's gift, to increase the number of trains serving the station and the trains can't be extended so what we've what we try to secure here is improvements to the station which will encourage passengers using the station to use the full length of the platform to board the trains. So by improving for example shelters and the arrangement of furniture on the platforms it is hoped that that will encourage passengers to board more evenly across the train and often that will enable them to board and pass to the train which are less congested and generally to improve the station environment which will be of course a benefit to all users of the station and you know certainly it's not the best station it does need investment so it's quite a significant section 106 contribution as we said before some of that is for the access for all. I should just say that there are quite a few other travel options which people may choose to use, notably I think Brixton Underground station which is a short bus ride or a slightly longer walk or a bike ride indeed away and has has plentiful capacity because it's the terminus and will get you into town fairly quickly. Also Loughborough sorry Denmark Hill station as well plus local buses so there's quite a good mix of options so in my view that I think you could fairly say that the location is well connected and the development does what it can to improve the passenger experience and to make those options more usable. Any questions about transport? That's Lacosta. The first building is quite near to the railway arches will that prevent any future expansion of the overground to the station? No no I mean there has there was talk has been talk about building an overground station at Loughborough Junction but feasibility studies have shown that that is it is the business case for that does not really exist but in terms of the actual its ability to serve Brixton no I think the focus is now turning to whether a station can be provided in bricks in itself and this development would not would not inhibit that. Thank you. Councillor Clark. Just for sort of the section 106 I think on the station improvements and there was no detail so I was just wondering is that are those improvements around improving the the flow, the space for people to wait, would that money be used to in effect help, we've used some of this bottleneck at least in terms of the pain of the overcrowding at the station itself not in the numbers of people using it, is there any detail on that? I don't believe we have the detail yet Councillor but I think what you say is certainly would be an objective you know we would then need to develop options with network rail. If the applicant knows more information coming to pass over to them. I just highlight Councillor that the contributions and their purpose was directly requested by network rail and Govea Thameslink were consulted as part of that so three categories of contribution are made in direct response to the request of network rail, it was to improve the station volume, investigate whether the access can be improved, those amounts are the amounts. There's the accesses and the accessibility but there was also additional money I thought that was separate to that. There's three types of contributions, there's $250,000 that's the access for more, there's the $30,000 that's towards platform facilities and waiting shelters seating and then the $200,000 is towards the remodelling of existing platform buildings. That's as far as the information that we've been provided that I've been provided with in terms of from network rail comments. In planning terms what would be if they came to the discussion part I wanted to suggest that money on the platform remodelling that I said there might be an idea for what's that model, what can we say about that remodelling because I guess network rail or the station might have a particular idea of what they want their buildings for but it's also worth reiterating what the public concern might be. If I was interested in putting something later would that be an informative, the best way? I believe that would be possible if you do have a relationship with network rail, they are the statutory undertaking sponsor for this obviously they have the ability to do certain works to stations without needing planning permission. I'll be able to tell you they're in discussions with authorities across London, GLA, TFL, London Underground. We would expect to be consulted on any significant changes to stations in the borough. Okay well maybe we can come back to that whether it's informative or not. Any other questions? Councillor Costa. Black clarification on the £165,000 contribution was a cycle hire docking station, that the Santander bicycle scheme is. Yes it is, Santander. Okay I have one final question about the, something that one of the objectives raised about access to the communal areas. Is there going to be public access for neighbouring residents? In terms of being open to the public, it's a program that our minds at the moment are station programs, local charities and providing them with access to use the communal facilities. And at the moment that's been submitted as a draft and some community access to the building. So it would have to be ancillary to aspects of the community facilities primarily being provided for the residents. Access to those facilities being in that program. Yeah and I just add to that and say it wouldn't be appropriate in this instance to have public access to the roof level, just given the nature of the building which is a residential building, its size. So it would be impractical to provide a separate dedicated lift. So what you'd be asking for is for members of the public to be sharing a residential lift, which wouldn't be safe and secure. But for the people living there, they would have potentially other people in their lift going up to a viewing gallery. So when you go to those buildings in London that do have that provision, that public benefit of having a viewing gallery or a floor which people can look out and appreciate the view. They usually do have a secure dedicated lift or a system of managing that which the scale of this building it just wouldn't be practical or appropriate. Okay I'm going to move us along now to debating the merits of the application. Would anybody like to go first and outline their thoughts on the application and perhaps indicate how they have minded to be voting this evening? Thank you Councillor Clark. Firstly it's worth pointing out the thoroughness of the job done by officers both in the committee pack and in the presentation and answers today. There is an awful lot to go through and to consider here. On an anecdotal level when I talk to colleagues in the charity I work for and colleagues in their 20s and 30s about this idea of this type of accommodation. I got a lot of enthusiasm for the concept and even for locations within Lambeth. Obviously he wasn't talking about this specific scheme and so I guess the first point is on an anecdotal level I recognise the need and the anecdotal we are hearing that from a commercial side there is the belief that there is this need or this shared living accommodation to add to our housing mix. But on the other hand we need to judge more not from my anecdotal conversations but from policy and I think what's interesting today is recognising this is a new type of development or newish. It's only new to us and maybe what we are experiencing from my point of view is a potential limit on the policies that we have in front of us that don't cover every eventuality and everything that we would like to see. I guess particularly around the housing need and the understanding, it would be good if we had something that understood from a local Lambeth housing need that had to be demonstrated but I understand that's not where our policy is at the moment. The same again in terms of the affordable housing offer and having some more, it had some comfort but having more comfort in actually the affordable housing contribution being spent at least in that part of the borough or not necessarily in that redemption directly but somewhere relatively close by but again that's not part of what our policy is at the moment and I have to judge on our policy and that is very much a theme going through my mind. The other thing is kind of obviously recognising again where we've got to with the SAPD and perhaps slightly regrettably in terms of timings this coming forward now and not being able to go through the whole process first of all of the SAPD which would mean that we would be able to grant that more weight than we can at home. Again I kind of recognise I guess the limitations of where we are in judging the policy because I think there are some questions around this but equally from the policy in front of us and the benefits that I can see that the scheme does bring maybe not as much as maybe like but benefits it does bring. I think I'm probably on balance and it is on on balance kind of looking to support it but potentially with looking with a couple of extra. Thank you, anyone else? You don't have to but I'd like to. Yeah sure thank you. I think this would be the first one and I think it does bring interesting challenges in terms of consideration. I think I disappoint, I feel applicant and officer could be more innovative with the affordable on-site and I don't understand why we couldn't have had affordable doing inside this development. I think there's opportunity there but I do think it's not overall to see the world around and I think it gives an opportunity to there is demand noting the demographics of the living and some of the co-living. I think there is going to be some significant demand for this and I can also see this should relieve or add to our housing need or under this of my acceleration to settle and be comforted by the longevity we're playing. It's not a planning consideration but I think on the management plan I think it feels slightly over draconian noting other demographics in terms of about visitors only staying two nights and 14 for example but that's not a very different situation but on my balance of the public benefits I'd probably manage to vote. Anyone else? So I think the question really is do the benefits outweigh some of the issues brought to us tonight and on issues like the heights? While you say it may not be affordable for local residents although you know I'd echo lots of positive comments that were made by the other councillors tonight I would be minded to refuse because we can't withstand. On the balancing that's based on what? On the heights, on whether it's affordable for local people it's disappointing that we'd have to go to government on the lift and not being able to get guarantees that we'd be able to get that upgrade improvement. I know that's not the fit of the applicant or of officers but what are the benefits to the public alongside the development and I'm not wanting to proceed at the moment. Okay perhaps it'd be helpful if I come in with my views on the application. So this is a new type of development that we're seeing coming forward and as Councillor Clark has indicated our local plan is sort of playing catch-up and I imagine we'll have a policy specifically on co-living when we come to draft our new local plan. So at the moment we're kind of assessing it against the London plan which does recognise it as an appropriate form of housing that is coming forward and has its own policies on it and in terms of assessing this application against the relevant London plan policies it does in my mind meet them and the London plan does make clear that it's seen as a bespoke and unique form of housing and that it wouldn't be appropriate as family housing or affordable housing which is the reason why that payment in the off-site payment is secured rather than providing it on site which is my understanding. I think so it does meet a need and whilst I'm sure there are a lot of people in the room who would prefer family-sized housing or more conventional housing as the committee we need to assess the application as it is before us against the relevant policies and in my mind it does comply with that regards with regards to land use and the housing. I think there are a lot of positives to the scheme, the re-provision of the industrial use and it's to the applicant's credit I think that the conversations do seem quite advanced with potential end users and beneficiaries of the space and the community aspects of that and we heard from one earlier, Pastor Lorraine for example, so it does seem that the applicant has made an effort to have those conversations with local organisations etc who might benefit from the application which we don't always see when we get applications coming forward and so you know we're sometimes a bit in the dark about you know who's going to be taking up that space so that I think that's to the applicant's credit. In terms of the design I recognise it is higher than the prescribed heights within the site allocation and the SADPD but again in terms of when you have to judge it against policy and we've heard from the officers why we can only give that emerging document limited weight because it's yet to go to the examination we can't assume that everything that's written as it is and is within that site allocation and the policy text is going to even become policy so that's why it has limited weight and we do have relevant policies already in the local plan where heights exceed recommended maximum heights and those heights are recommended and there are specific policies for how to assess an application where the height is exceeded and this application has done that and I feel it meets that policy. I haven't myself identified any adverse harm to heritage assets or the local townscape or to such a degree that would warrant refusal of the application on design grounds. The transport issue, we heard from the transport officer about why officers have made a general assessment as to why this type of development would be okay in an area where there's a PTAL of three. We've heard before that PTAL is not always a completely accurate way to measure accessibility to various modes of transport within the local area and I feel that has been given due consideration by transport officers so I think we'd be on quite weak grounds were we to refuse the application on transport matters because the evidence has been submitted and has been assessed and tested by the transport officers and we haven't got our own to present this evening so I think I accept it as it's presented in the report. So I think I've covered most things that colleagues have raised. There is one thing I wanted to ask about though which is about the length of the tenancies. Now I recognise that the London Plan pays three to twelve months. We do have policy that, we always try to strive within our housing policies for mixed and balanced communities and I do feel that three months is very short and that would add to the worry amongst local people that the population would be transient and we heard from the applicant themselves that it's not a particular popular option so I wondered if there is scope for us to this evening amend that to six months minimum? Chair if I can comment on that and it's interesting the point you picked up on on London Plan and policy H16 and the London Plan. Clearly our local plan followed pretty much in tandem with the London Plan in 2021 and we have got our own co-living policy as well which is policy H13. We do add some additional requirements on to the London Plan so very much we follow in behind that and we agree with things like the length of tenancy so we didn't make a point at the time we were adopting our local plan of amending that or deviating it in any way so our current local plan does fall in behind the London Plan and supports three months. My advice would be we couldn't look to secure a longer tenancy because we have both London Plan and local plan policies which are looking to advocate three months. I think we would be on shaky grounds if we were to to seek a longer period. It clearly is within the applicant's gift if they do want to offer up longer tenancies. We have got a management plan in draft form they are going to have to supply a final management plan in the event that the proposal was to be submitted. We will be in post decision negotiations if consent is granted and of course we can reflect the committee's wishes for that but yes in terms of securing through the planning system we don't think that would be possible. We have a specific local plan policy that hasn't challenged the minimum three months tenancy in the London Plan. Correct it's fallen behind that it did add some additional requirements on so the 15 square meter minimum unit size for a co-living unit that is a local plan requirement. I hadn't realized that I thought it was only set out in the London Plan. I suppose with both of those policies I think we would have had the opportunity maybe to deviate from the London Plan and maybe have a longer time period but we don't. It's definitely something as well chair. I think one of the things I'm taking away the notes I'm making is there is concerns from committee that there is a lag in policy. As you know we first started drafting these policies in 2019 you know so we're five years on we are going to be looking at starting to draft our local plan again in the near future so it's something I would be conveying to my colleague who's at the policy team that you know there are some concerns coming out it's from members. Okay thank you okay I think I'll retract that then I don't think that's we've got the policy basis to amend that from three months to six. What about Councillor Clark's point about when it comes to delivering improvements to the station whether we can leave that just to network rail or have the community a bit more involved or the council? Yeah I think mine would be it talks about remodelling and I guess it would be remodelling not the redesigning the buildings if presumably a bit of a TLC to the buildings but it can can we at least state the things that support the say think the good flow of you know passengers at peak at peak time type of thing that you know don't don't don't harm you know don't don't don't worsen overcrowding anything don't know it's the simple answer of what you're looking at but it's just that point of one of the concerns is about you know while it's not going to do anything just to increase the number of trains we would at least want to ensure that there is cognizance around the general overcrowding at that time. I think yes in terms of the obligations we've put forward to members for your consideration it is just giving you a financial contribution that will have to be transferred into legalese when we're drafting a section 106. I don't see any reason why you couldn't amplify into 106 or you know in making the payment to Network Rail that we do have some form of engagement maybe seek to views of members of maybe if it is board members as part of that what I'll defer to colleagues. Yeah I'll just add I was just reading from the letter from Network Rail so in respect of the the remodelling of the platforms the purpose of that is to provide more circulation space for rail passengers so I suppose as we will have to find what that purpose is in the section 106 agreement. That's useful just hearing that that extra bit that I guess there is that alignment between what Network Rail is trying to do. Okay right okay so I'm going to propose that we accept officer's recommendation and grant planning permission. Do I see a seconder? Councillor Bailey or those in favour please raise your hand and all those against please raise your hand. Okay so that is four one in favour so that is carried. For the benefit of those from watching at home those who voted in favour were Councillors Coster, Bailey, Clark, Ance, Simpson and those who voted against were Councillor Nye. Okay thank you for your time everyone that came. We're just going to let people leave the room and then we will start the second presentation with Patricia. Obviously we have our break at nine o'clock how long is your presentation? Three to ten minutes. Okay so I think we'll take your presentation then have our break. Perhaps we don't need him for the presentation. I'll check. Okay and so we're going to now move on to item four which is Wydell Road. And so I'm going to invite the case officer to present her officer reports. Just before we start I just want to note that the officer report on page 338 listed a correct court name. So the application that I'm going to present is a section 73 application located at 12 to 20 Wydell Road. The consent scheme that was approved at the reference 16/05/114/4 is amended by a few novel amendments being implemented by less than being progressed. The congested consent scheme proposes a response to recent fire safety requirements to provide the second staircase in tall buildings and the response to weaker office market with the changes also optimising design to help deliver more homes including more affordable housing. Just for context the application side is edged in red on the slide. It's located on the northern side of Wydell Road. The side is located within the urban neck of tall buildings surrounding the site. There are also other examples of lower scale development south of Wydell Road. The side is now located within the conservation area and the buildings on the side are not listed or locally listed. The site lies within the voxel 9 elms patacy of the collection area. It is also situated within the Lambeth look plan at site 11. These two programs are showing the site on Wydell Road and showing you the context of the site. As I mentioned before the consent scheme approved demolition of the buildings and redevelopment of the site to deliver a mixed use development that would consist of 278 residential units, 23 of which would be affordable rent. There will also be 1917 square meters of office space and 318 square meters square meters of retail. This application also secured payment in lieu of 10.5 million for offsite affordable housing for intermediate. The proposed development seeks to change the approval space for the retail and office. At 69 new homes 43 will be private tenure and 23 will be social rent over the consent scheme. This new will show the footprint of the building. It will also come to the former residential building which is the tallest building on site. It will change the materials of the buildings, increase height of two lower buildings which are building A and C. It provides additional stairs for fire purposes to help with evacuation, fire or increase in climate and office space requirements due to the increase of houses on site. There is a revised energy strategy which changed the scheme from communal heating to air source heat pumps. There are also changes to parking and woodworking on viable roads on the side and balcony levels and there's also a reduction of the size of the basement from two storeys to one parcel basement. So as I mentioned the consent scheme had 203 square meters of office space and 334 square meters of retail space across four units at ground and first floor level. The image is that on the slide showing the proposed scheme. The proposal will now provide 365.7 square meters of affordable workspace and 75.3 square meters of retail which will be facing viable roads. So it's the first image from the left and that's the unit at the bottom that will be the retail unit. The applicant justification for the reduction of office and retail floor spaces was the lack of interest from end users and to support the application there was a markers and assessment that was submitted which looked at other components in the surrounding area. The report found that since 2019 pandemic the demand for office spaces has gone down. To avoid having a large amount of unused office space the applicant has submitted the application to change some of that floor space to residential and provide more housing on site including affordable housing. The provision of an element of affordable workspace is welcomed by officers as it will ensure that the remaining element is an employment space that is more likely to be let out and occupied to the benefit of lumber businesses and businesses and organisations. The retention of the retail floor space is also supported. The occupational management of the space would be determined by the affordable workspace managed plan which will be secured by the section 106 agreement. The proposed scheme will also increase the number of homes other than 69, 23 of which will be social rented and 64 will be private rented. The increase in the number of homes was possible because the applicant has reduced the floor to ceiling height buildings from 2.7 meters to 2.5 and added additional height to building the lower buildings A and C as well as removing the previously approved office space. Looking from the table you can see that the proposed schemes removed studios and free bed housing from the previously consented scheme. So the proposed housing tenure will be between one and two beds with some free beds only in the social rented so the affordable tenure. Officers agree with the applicant's rationale for this. What the applicant has told us is that at this time there's no market for private rented family homes due to probability demographic trends and location of the developments. We also know that it was enabled the scheme to support the maximum amount of on-site affordable housing which include the provision of free beds and family homes. Those two images on this slide are showing members of the consented scheme and the proposed scheme in terms of savings size. The consented scheme includes two-storey basements which had plans for these. The proposed basement is reduced in size due to a hidden social with the build. There's also reduction in car parking so that has three laps of space and the proposed basement will now hold a plan through. Officers have no objections to this change. All of the provisions are provided on the ground floor and the first floor. This nice strategy for the extent of the annual space upon sound principles aimed at improving site permeability and connectivity with the matting approach with the middle mid-rise scale being around the streets and the taller building being in the middle of the site. The proposal does retain its principles. However, the rectangular form of the building has been improved to maximise the visual impact on surrounding buildings and to reduce the impact when the proposal is viewed from the difference. The image on the left is showing the heights of the consented and the proposed scheme. As I mentioned before the proposed height has slightly changed so the tallest building will be exactly as it was so there's no changes in the height of that building. Building A, if you look at the image on the left so that's the building shaded in pink that is on the right of the tall building and for increasing height by 0.85 metres and the other shaded area to the left of the tower that building will be raising height by 3.07 metres. The impact that the buildings will, the changes to the height that will have on the surrounding area until those tiles keep impact will be the same as the consented scheme and on the right we have two images that show the CGI scheme. In terms of the materials, the image to the left is showing the consented material scheme for the development which was mainly placed and used for materials. Trying to respond to developments in Nine Isles to the west, since that rule was given a large number of developments have come forward in the surrounding area and they've begun to create a unifying character. In response to this the applicant has changed the material palette to better respond to this and to contribute to the emerging character and materiality in the area. So the image to the right is showing the materials that will be used which will be mainly light and brick and typically coloured concrete and other material elements to support the appearance of the building. So the changes to the shape of the building and layout improve the separation instances to the neighbouring properties as it can be seen from the image to the left. I also note that the standard of residential accommodation wouldn't be acceptable and in line with the policy requirements for the residents. This has reduced mainly because of the need to provide the second evacuation fire staircase but the applicant has tried to minimise the number of single aspect homes through introduction of deep cutouts windows to create secondary or enhanced aspects that improves natural light and aids with natural ventilation as well as special quality of a previously single aspect home. On balance when officers were looking at the application and the reasons for submission and the changes to the standard of residential accommodation we were satisfied that the proposal continued to deliver a high standard of residential accommodation. In terms of impact to neighbour amenity, in terms of the air and sun lines the proposal will have similar impact to the surrounding buildings given that the height of the building ended massing and changing drastically. Officers are also satisfied that the building will have similar impact on neighbours in terms of overlooking privacy and use. Moving into external shared amenity space, the consent and scheme provided segregated out amenity space. Residents in the private tenure had also access to indoor spaces on the first and 35th floor. A foldable block had no access to those internal spaces. The proposed development would provide an outdoor space that is accessible to all. There will also be 120 square metres of shared indoor space which will be used as a communal space for socialising and relaxation. If the exact plans are not confirmed then they will be subject to a review that everyone will have to pay towards maintenance of those spaces but it's likely to have some play facilities for young adults. They could also be a seating area or perhaps a study area, good desk or a lounge for communal gatherings and those are the spaces in the light green right next to the outdoor amenity space. In addition to that, the residents in the private tenure would have access to indoor spaces on the first floor, that's the darker green area and there's also going to be amenity space available to them on the 35th floor. Given that the private tenure represents the majority of the scheme that was considered acceptable and on balance, the provision of indoor and outdoor space was meeting the requirements of the policy through that indoor mitigation. Moving on to benefits of the scheme, we can deliver a number of public benefits which include an effective use of land by reusing previously developed land to deliver comprehensive regeneration with acceptable uses and high architectural quality. The proposal will increase the number of homes on site including a foldable house. The proposal will also provide high quality affordable workspace that will provide capacity to support jobs and enterprises in the area. The proposal will provide £238,389 that will go towards upskilling residents and helping them get into jobs. The development will also open up the site that's currently closed off to public access and it will provide large areas of public ground that will transform the local area. The proposal will also deliver a good greening and biodiversity improvements. So with that, offices recommend that this planning application should improve the subject to completion of agreement with section 106 and all the changes in the publish addendums. Thank you. Okay, we're going to take a comfort break now. It's four minutes past nine so I suggest we come back at quarter past nine. I'll be starting at 9.15. So please come back. I'll see you in 10 minutes. We just heard the officer presentation for Wyville Road prior to our comfort break and now I'm going to introduce the three registered speakers to come and address us. They're all in support and the first one is Samantha Wells. If it's okay, I was just going to defer to the applicant, it's Ricardo Mazzetti for now. We don't want to use up your time given it's quarter past nine. You still only have two minutes. If you remember, if you introduce yourself and let us know your relationship with the application then your two minutes will begin. My name is Ricardo Mazzetti, I'm the Director at London Square and the applicant. I'd like to thank officers for their comprehensive presentation and committee report. I don't intend to take up any unnecessary time reciting back what officers have presented beyond reinforcing that if this planning application is approved this evening, London Square are committed to the future of the site and delivering the revised proposals at Wyville Road which will bring this long derelict site back into a productive use for much needed new homes within the borough. London Square acquired the site in February 2024 and the scheme that has been presented before you maintains the key principles and we believe enhancements and benefits against the approved and implemented plan including the creation of Newport Rail, the ground floor enhancements to the lower line and doubling the amount of affordable housing, changing that tenure from affordable rent to social media. Our proposals have been formed by extensive engagement with officers, local stakeholders and the community including public consultation earlier this year, meeting with councillors and the local community including our neighbours on the Wyville State. We're grateful for the input we've received to date and we'll be maintaining a constructive dialogue moving forward ensuring that residents have a clear way to contact. We hope that members can agree with the officer's recommendation and grant planning permission this evening. Thank you again for your time and the team behind me and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Robert High, would you like to come and speak to us? I think we're going to stick with just Rick and we're here to answer any questions you may have. Lovely, all right thank you and just for members' benefits the applicant also has technical specialists in attendance this evening should we wish to call them in to answer any of our questions. They are Steve Billington from DS2 on viability, Andrew Clements from Point2 daylight and sunlight and Vanessa Jones also from London Square. Okay open to questions, who would like to go first? Professor Costa. Regarding the workspace and the retail, would that be rented out to Living Wage employers? Possibly, we secured the space and whoever will then take on that unit, there is possibility or I think we can put an obligation on the applicant. We've heard him speak and we want to be a Living Wage borrower. It can come to discussing informatives or community comments when we come to the discussion but I note your interest in that area of the application so I will come back to that. Thank you, just in terms of the public amenity and child play space, can I just better understand why the affordable tenants can't access, well what are the residential facilities on level 125 and why can't affordable tenants access those and then understand the shortfalls outside space but what on site is provided in terms of child play space and for what age groups and therefore what the contribution made or what age groups are we targeting in terms of the end of the parks? So to answer the first part of the question as to why old residents would not be able to access all spaces within the normal especially level 135. There are issues associated with a service judge and what we can pay. There are also more residents in the private tenure so to balance those two users and to ensure that everyone has access to a super space and there will be some segregation of the spaces but the important thing is that this scheme is actually an improvement of what was previously consented. Previously you had two secretaries on the outside that were only able to use by separate groups, now we have that all included and also they will shed indoor space and that would be for all. We considered that that was a suitable trade-off taking account of affordability of those spaces that will be provided in those houses. On play space there will be play space provided within the external outdoor space and that will be mainly for younger kids so you'll be stepping through things like that that you see. We did secure contribution by area for older children also to know the applicant is intending to provide some spaces such as a table space so that will also be able to ensure higher age groups. On play space for higher age groups there are facilities at wide for the state, could the applicant by contribution to improve some possible but these are just across the road? Yeah I'm just going to get the specific voting but we can we can make it so that is included but yeah that's great. I've got a question on the office space please and the boss of office space and the evidence that's been submitted by the applicant which doesn't comply fully with our marketing requirements so I wondered what could it be because I'd like this I know it's sort of in the report but I think it's important we discuss this because should this application be approved and we have applications in the future for office space in this area I think it's important committee understand what's going on with the market etc so I'd like to understand why officers are comfortable with the loss of office space and haven't requested the full-on marketing exercise that's required by policy and is what the applicant is saying being borne out in other schemes maybe in the area and also is there anything specific to this site context which is maybe preventing interest in in the office space as well that we should bear in mind that might not apply to a future scheme we might get coming to committee that's of a different configuration and location etc. So on the point about complete compliance with SPD yeah you are right in saying that it doesn't but we need to know that it is a guidance it's not actually it's listed in the policy but we do have a marketing that have been submitted and and just because there are some inconsistencies with what the city wants we can't just fully nullify and then when we reviewed what the applicant has done which we considered to be reasonable and we taken into consideration the location of the site and it's close to public transport but it's not in the sort of key area where you have a lot of businesses given the configuration of the scheme and the size of the units we took a balanced view that trade-off that we are getting in the provision of for homes significant amount of affordable and as well as provision of affordable space which is discounted and provides good opportunities for local businesses taking a balanced view and everything that was in front of us and we were happy with the applicant proposal okay yeah yeah just to obviously very important point is that the the marketing evidence marketing exercise should be done when a unit is exists and it's vacant of course in this instance there's no existing unit but the market or the African could market importance with the policy so with that sort of simple fact you will never be able to completely beat the letter of the policy but so they really identified that conflict requirement but considering the evidence they have submitted comparables with uh it has been delivered by a couple of spaces again but also considered the turn proposal which is for housing and also for the workspace although maybe a market rate of uh commercial space might not be successful here to be appropriate for an element of subsidized affordable workspace so we're still getting employment on this side but i mean like the occupied given its affordable nature does that balance that be structured and considering that okay thank you any more questions that's the clerk uh it's on the a loss of retail floor space um it's not a complete loss it's a for a dodge just i'm shy um loss but uh in the report it says yeah the site is not an attempt to this removal is welcomed and i guess it must have been welcomed at the time that we approved the application um my memory doesn't stretch back though i was on with metty at that stage um i can't fix but it was just a sense of has our policy changed or is it a new local plan that or is it something else that means that you know we are you know very comfortable with the loss of retail space yeah so uh at the time of the previous scheme we had the voxel spd which um if he sort of um is the aspirational document creating a new town's local center in voxel in voxel cross with the new local plan that uh yes to the uh local uh local policy form so um under that policy plus the central activity zones policy we try to direct tell users even those that are within the within the cas to these identified centers and voxel is one of those centers we now emphasize that so although the site allocation does support town center uses here if there was a comfort and box we prefer them with the voxel cross town center itself so we didn't feel that there was a i've got a final question from me on the affordable housing contribution um so the amended application has come in with a new viability study which shows that it can be able to provide the same amount of affordable housing off-site financial contribution as before but that the applicant has made a commercial decision that they're still willing to make a contribution um so um given that that it's not required in policy terms and are we definitely confident that that can be secured and that we can consider that contribution as part of our planning balance then it does lock in the applicant to that commitment yeah so um that has been logged in in the last section 106 so that that contribution is already locked and the applicant wouldn't be offering this if they didn't think that well for that to move it and obviously as the scheme is progressing there could be changes and positive changes in terms of so various but unless we are satisfied that through section 106 obligations okay so so you saying they can't come in and try to amend the section 106 because there's also the previous section 106 which um is that what you're saying hypothetically yes they could come in with a legal variation um but that will have to be scrutinized um by by us that we will be going out to get independent review of of that information um and we will be likely to accept such a change uh so it's a very high bar and unlikely to happen by hypothetically speaking is a possibility but what we have in front of us is that we will be securing that payment the apathy commitment yeah okay i i hear what you're saying but i i still like some more reassurance in that matter because because it's a commercial decision so it's nothing to do the viability of the application so if the applicant changed their mind and said well commercially actually it doesn't suit us i mean we we are as noted with now with the section 73 occasion so there is historic consent um it's been implemented for your obligations um secured at the time one was the payment in lieu um so that was a payment made in lieu of providing shared ownership housing on site but there was at the time was affordable rented homes were provided on site um there's a raft of changes that have been proposed within this location design changes there's an uplift in homes the approach to the affordable housing is effectively the same so they're keeping some on site so it's only partly in lieu in fact you've got the 23 that we consented this can be social rent another 23 being proposed now and social rent on site the payment in lieu approach which was agreed as part of the previous assessment um we're looking just to maintain that approach there is a policy requirement in relation to the on-site forwardness of the preference um we only allow our payment in lieu and exceptional circumstances and there's a a sequence of i suppose tests that you go through if we can get to the final um in lieu off site and in this case look in in the obligations we've got um on page 404 um we're maintaining the same approach so we're with a payment in have asked that um will they get to that they actually investigate whether the applicant can deliver off-site somewhere else if they can't do that then it cascades the payment in lieu the viability side of it because it's it's not meeting policy the original scheme didn't need policy this one doesn't need the the fast rate which is five percent it had to be viability tested at the time and it was that's where the new came from before actually has been viability tested um and and as a chair's noted that's showing that there is um an issue with with viability is that what they're offering is is the maximum feasible but they're offering to maintain the payment in lieu as as what was agreed um now they haven't paid that to us yet um that the payment was going to be made um in stages of progress of construction and occupation um in theory they could have could have already started out that payment they haven't done that we're going to maintain the approach not unusual where a developer is going down the viability tested route to to basically say that they'll take the risk um anticipate some future growth in the residential value in the market um and that is part of the i suppose the overall section 73 package you're considering so it's it's the pill that we've already agreed they're not looking to diminish that because they think obviously that's a public benefit the affordable housing was a consideration at the time another consideration now i think for us we're able to do that we we had of course we don't have our ability advisor on but they challenged and scrutinized the review and confirmed that yes there was this issue as far as um and it's it's diminished it's the original application but they were content to maintain the approach and also the offer and just to note that offer of the 10 and a half million index linked um to inflation so it's actually higher now it's i think it's approximately seen so it's proportionately gone up but yeah it's this i'm not the expert on flexibility itself the approach isn't only the way you've got a viability test that's been and the offers be Any other questions? Councillor Clark then Councillor Bailey? The one on transport the disabled are in the blue badge parking they have been reduced from 10 to 2 percent um and which is not policy compliant but obviously having said that based on the foreign and overall assessment of the percentage um of bad hold within the borough as a whole i guess i'm just interested in hearing a little bit more about that decision and also whether it has any impact on any future decisions you know if we're accepting that in effect our policy can be overwritten shall i come in on this one um yes so um yeah as you point out uh Councillor um in this on this in this particular case we have accepted an argument based partly around the sort of known uptake or ownership of blue badges in the borough and that's something we've done on previous developments we know that about 1.6 percent now 1.7 percent of residents according to government statistics own a blue badge in the borough and therefore we've taken a slightly more flexible approach on some developments also considering the local travel context and the degree of accessibility of public transport infrastructure so this is our set out in the decision report essentially this location has is obviously a very high p-tail that means excellent access to public transport and most of that that transport is fully accessible um voxel station for example the train station that is um and the northern line and of course the buses as well so um yeah um we tried to take a pragmatic approach does it set a precedent well we have already elsewhere used um the um uh the the data from the government about ownership of blue badges to help guide our decisions on a case-by-case basis um so i think um it's specific to this local context um so we would continue to apply um london plan standards in in in most scenarios unless there are particular um local factors i saw cuts mainly first then counselor costa yes clarification point uh but then the change social rented to affordable rent throughout does that mean there's now different there's different affordable tenures within that affordable mix or is it all social so that difference was between the two schemes so the consented scheme the changes in addendum change it to affordable rent this scheme is providing social rent how's the costa on transport is there a reason why there's no um attribution towards the wife or um i'll be straight we are securing a contribution towards that and i'm going to move us through a discussion uh does anybody want to say anything uh perhaps indicate how they will be voting this evening and why patty welcome to counselor costa um i'm quite favorable to the team in general uh i welcome the increase in uh in social and affordable housing the clarification that's social rented i think i also welcome the removal of car parking spaces and the mood and moving it away from live old uh road well uh yes thank you um can we also get clarification about the costas earlier points about um the end users um the london living wage providers and obviously we can't secure that so i'm wondering can we put an informative onto that effect or which would that just need to be minuted did you want to come in because we did yes yeah we have um just remind that through the employment and skills plan we we do seek that provision in terms of the end users but yes we can minute that um that especially there we can communicate that to the council priorities we'll have that minuted okay any other summings up um okay if i'll just say um i accept the you know the balanced um judgment that officers have made with regards to the loss of office and the securing of the affordable um workspace so i do agree with that planning judgment um and again welcome the uplift in housing and the and the affordable housing and that's all i have to say really um so with that in mind i'm going to suggest we um i'm going to propose we accept officers recommendation and grant planning permission can i see a seconder councilor clark all those in favor that is unanimous and that concludes lambda plan and applications committee this evening thank you very much for your time everybody um there's been a lot of reading and a lot of consideration so my thanks to officers for putting these applications and particularly for members for your time as well [BLANK_AUDIO]