Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Lambeth Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 14 January 2025 7.00 pm
January 21, 2025 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this evening's Planning Applications Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Joanne Simpson, and I am Chair of the meeting tonight. In line with legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Visiting ward officers, visiting ward members, and members of the public have joined us either virtually or physically. The meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. Whilst we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient if we hit some challenges in this virtual environment. In the event that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the council's democracy. Twitter account, which is at LBL Democracy. Some housekeeping. By exits, you exit the room from either door and up the stairs to street level. There's an accessible toilet just on the right outside that door there, and there'll be a comfort break around 9pm if the meeting is still going. We've received apologies from councillors Martin Bailey and Sally O'Jaffa, and I'll now introduce members of the committee who are present, starting with councillor Diogo and will work our way round. I'm councillor Diogo, councillor Opal Ward. Thank you. Good evening, I'm councillor Malcolm Clarke of Stretton Wells Ward and Vice Chair of the committee. I'm councillor MNI, councillor Penights and Ward. Good evening, everyone. I'm councillor Scott Hainsley, I represent Stretton's and Wellness Ward. And I'm councillor Joanne Simpson, I am Chair and I represent Stockwell West and Larkhall Ward. I'll now turn to introducing the senior officers at this evening's meetings, starting with our presiding officer. Hello, Kiri Shetworth, Head of Deportment Management and presiding officer at this evening. Thank you. Our Democratic Services Officer. Hi, I'm Venetia, Democratic Services Officer and Clark, good to this meeting. Thank you. Our legal officer. The Filingham Legal Officer. Thank you. Our presenting officer for the application. Sydney Planning Officer for Water Legislative Team. And the manager for the application. I'm Astrid Stevere, Principal Bank Officer and the Water Student Stretton Team. Thank you. OK, the order of business. There are four items on the agenda and they'll be considered in the order they appear on the agenda. All the paperwork is available on the council's website. The applications will be considered in the same way, although we just have the one. And we'll receive a officer presentation. Reports which are to be debated will be presented by an officer who will highlight the main issues. We then hear from speakers and there are five members of the public and two ward councillors who have registered to speak for the items on today's agenda. We'll then move to questions from members to be directed to the case officer in the first instance. And we then move to debate the application. Members of the committee may ask questions of the officers and will then debate the application. Members would have read the officer reports and may wish to amend the recommended conditions or place informatics on the decision subject to officer advice. We then reach a decision and formal notification of the committee's decision will be sent to the applicants and any interested parties who made written written representations. And the minutes from tonight's meeting will be published after the meeting. Written representations. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, one clear working day before the meeting. Thursday before the meeting. I think that's a mistake. Not one clear working day, but it was last Thursday. Item one is declarations of pecuniary interest. Do any members have any declarations of pecuniary interest they wish to share? Okay. Item two is declarations of other interests. I would like to start by declaring that I know Ms. Morris, one of the people registered to speak this evening, who is a former colleague of mine and friend, current friend, former friend. We'll see how tonight goes. But it's not a pecuniary interest and I continue to approach the application with an open mind. Anyone else? I'm sorry. I'm losing my voice. Councillor Clarke here. I would like to declare a non-precuniary interest just for the same reasons as Councillor Simpson in terms of having been a former colleague, including here on planning committee. As far as. Thank you. Okay. Right. Item three minutes are the meeting minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday, the 19th of November, 2024 and Tuesday, 10th of December, 2024. Agreed. Agreed. Thank you very much. So we'll move on to agenda item four, which is our planning application this evening at Agnes Riley Gardens, and I invite the officers to present the report. As part of the beginning, the, the, the, the, the operating. The. The. The. The. The. Yeah. The. The. The. The. The. The. The afternoon. The. an update to these operating hours. The applicant had sought operating hours of 8am to 45 minutes before sunset, not to 30am as outlined in the report. The applicant would therefore recommend that Condition 11 is amended in accordance with the proposed operating hours of 8am to 45 minutes before sunset as originally sought by the applicant in order to address this. The plan permission is sought further from an exchange of use of the existing public changing rooms for building facilities and storage building located within Agnes Riley Gardens into a CAF use class EB, also a design of the means of improvement associated with works. The existing building forming the application site is located towards the of Agnes Riley Gardens as indicated in red. The wider boundaries of Agnes Riley Gardens are indicated in blue on this image showing the site in relation to its wider context. The proposal site sits along the northern side of Atkins Road and Clarets at the east to the east. The proposed ground floor plan is shown at the top elevation of the bottom of the building. The ground floor plan shows the layout of the public toilets located located in the normal sections of the ground floor plan, the indicated cafe layout in the central and eastern sections and the ancillary kitchen and storage areas located in the southern section, as well as the proposed seating area towards the front of the building. Officers give note to the separate offices to the water closets, both through the cafe as well as separately, externally leading to the park. Additionally, whilst not shown on the proposed floor plan, officers have been in discussions with the applicant over the potential to incorporate a public water fountain as part of the proposed works. The applicant has confirmed that they will install a water fountain for public use and details of this will be submitted as part of Condition 4. This is outlined on page 32. Obstahs therefore recommend that Condition 4 is amended to capture the submission of these details. The front end of elevation plan, shown on the bottom, shows the proposed demonstration arrangement, timber cladding to the external elevations and replacement roof lights, the location of the air conditioning unit and extraction plan on roof level. Chair, can I request that the officer uses his mouse to mark where he's referring to each case? Thanks, that's really helpful. So I'll just pull the external elevations to the cladding towards the front, the proposed roof light replacements, roof level here, as well as the two air conditioning units here and the extract induction one shown here. So here are the current side visit state of the existing building, shown in these side visit photos in the following images. The entrance doors to the existing public toilets and changing facilities are shown in this top left image here. Additional public toilets are also accessed from the door, showed in the image in the top in the middle. And the existing storage entrance, which is accessed behind the gates, shown in the middle. The public toilets are currently opened by the Council of weekends, during the summer months, and the remainder of the building can't be set to vacant. Most of the buildings therefore underutilised at present. So here we can see the table that outlines the recommended conditions by officers that to be secured subject to any political office commission. In conclusion, officers are satisfied with the existing building. I recommend that the application for antiseptic activities are set to help and the officers are at ball and late attendance. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay, so we're now going to hear from registered speakers. First of all, objectives and I'm just going to take people as they appear in my list. So first is Diana Morris, if you'd like to make your way to the table. So for everybody who's registered to speak, how this works is we have a buzzer. But first of all, I'll ask you to introduce yourself and your relationship with the application. And then once you've done that, the timer will start. You have two minutes to speak. It beeps when you have 25 seconds left and then it will beep a final time when your two minutes is up and I'll ask you to give your sentence. So whenever you're ready. Just before I introduce myself, can I circulate some visual material to the members of the committee? Are these the same that are in the attachment of your representation that we received? Yes, as long as members have seen that? Yes, and I've asked them in the preemie. Everybody's seen those. So yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Well, my name is Diana Morris and I'm a member of Friends of Agnes Riley Gardens and have been for about 20 years and I'm a former co-chair. So I fully support the principle of a cafe in the park and welcome the fact that the council is now proposing such a facility. I do however have reservations about two aspects of the scheme as proposed. Firstly, I'm concerned about proposed materials, cedar shingles. There are two examples of this treatment I've been able to find that Baker moved in Platton and at Bristol Palace Park and members have seen the photos of both of those developments. They display all the features, differential weatherings and deterioration that have led to this treatment being generally discouraged in Lambeth, except in gardens, parks and open spaces. It's understandable to allow exemptions to the general policy in the rustic surroundings of some of our parks. But in this location, sandwiched between a road and a brightly coloured playground, I would question the rationale for such an exemption. So I'd ask the committee to delete the reference to timber caddy and condition for it, replacing it with requirements for maintenance free and graffiti resistant materials and further to instruct officers to consult on the discharge of that condition, including with the friends. Secondly, the proposed access to the lavatories by the general public, as well as capital users, is cited by officers as a public benefit and is recognised by the friends as such. But there's nothing in the proposed planning permission that requires this. So I would request that the committee adds a condition requiring the operators to provide public access by opening external doors to the loos during opening hours. This would reflect policy Q1 in the local plan in relation to child friendly environments. Without such a condition, the development would result in the reduction in public toilet access in our park. Thank you very much. Thank you. If you want to make your way back to the audience. Next, I have Yasmin Kilji, who's here in person as well, I believe. Hello. So again, if you take a seat, introduce yourself and your relationship to the application, and then the timer will begin. Adjacent to where the proposal is to be, where the cafe is supposed to be, it's on our boundary wall. My parents have lived there for over 40 years, so I'm here to present them. So I've submitted a raft of questions and concerns to the committee beforehand, questions that haven't been answered in the public reports pack, which were submitted with my original concerns to the planning officer. These are concerns that I feel need to be addressed before any further consideration can be made or decisions made that will impact our life significantly. So my main discussion today, sorry, details today will be about how it impacts us in particular. It's on our boundary wall, it will impact our family life in terms of the noise, the pollution, the smells of the way we actually currently live our life in terms of using our outdoor space, being able to open windows and have sufficient ventilation if the smells are overpowering. My mother is disabled. We have a medical report that actually stresses the concerns to her health and the detrimental impact to life in terms of perfumes and her ability to access and use her outdoor space in the same manner that she has been using up until now. Also from a personal perspective, considering our faith, how that actually concerns us in terms of forbidden foods that will seep into our garden area and our home, the noise that will prevent us from using our private space as we have done. Separately to that, we're not objecting to having a cafe in the park. It's more to do with the location and why other areas have not been considered. There's various areas. To cluster all of the facilities into one corner on a residential street is not making best use of the grounds itself. We have concerns about the single glaze, not to have cooked food on the premises, they can serve hot food, which will mean they don't need to have a fully-cooked kitchen and noise regarding music in the cafe. Thank you. Thank you very much. And our third object is, are you sure? Sorry, we have timer issues. Are we okay? Sorry about that. If you'd like to introduce yourself, your relationship with the application, then the timer will begin. My name is Charles Rochelle. I'm resident of Atkins Road and I'm here really to object to the location and cafe on the following grounds. The proposed location is ill-conceived as it takes no regard to the residential home adjacent to it. For those occupants, their quality of life will be adversely affected. My colleague spoke about the personal effect that it could have on her and her family's life immediately. Mitigating such outcomes is nearly impossible when sighted along a boundary wall. Immortial venues have an important part to play in any community. However, thorough investigation and serious consultation with those most likely to be affected should have been at the forefront of this enterprise. It was not. If the council was looking to add to the current amenities and Agnes Riley Gardens, it should be directing its resources in upgrading and providing better facilities to the existing building, housing the public toilets and changing storage area. I have been a resident in Atkins Road for 45 years. Our children grew up fully utilizing the playground and playing fields. In the last few years, the introduction of the AstroTurf and additional attractions in the children's playground have given a new life to the gardens. Converting the existing building into a cafe deprives valuable space that serves the many families, schools and organisations currently making regular use of the enclosed sports fields. Improvements and regular maintenance of these facilities would benefit far more users of the gardens than the current planned cafe. However, by relocating the planned cafe to another area of the gardens and upgrading and supporting the provision of those vital sporting facilities that council would deliver two key objectives in the well-being of any community. Health and leisure for all. Thank you so much. Okay, we now move on to our registered supporters, starting with Maria Sharifi, who's here in person too. Apologies, we're having another time again. I just do my introductions while we're waiting. Have you done it? Okay. Hi, my name is Maria Sharifi, I'm one of the co-chairs at Atkins Reilly Gardens. I've been in posts, I think, since 2019. Yeah, and in general, we're supportive of the application. So, are you ready? Yes. So in the autumn of 2017, the friends of Atkins Reilly consulted with some members of the local community, including partner uses of alternative uses for building housing in question. The most responses being in favor of a cafe in the park. The friends are therefore generally supportive of the council's proposal for a cafe and by refurbishing carousians in the park. And we've had some, a bit limited, input to the scheme as it has been developed. A cafe, we believe, will provide the local community of the park users with a place to socialise and access to refreshments. There'd be a no cafe nearby. The friends believe a cafe in the park would benefit the public, not just the cafe users by providing lavatories during the hours of operation of the cafe, which would be many more days which are currently in place. At the moment, it's just the weekends and summer only. Our support is contingent on the number of matters. Some of these will be raised, have been raised already by objectives. In particular, we are assuming that the measures to mitigate any negative impact the cafe has, the operation of the cafe would have on the amenity of the closest residential property to the site, namely Centre 3 Atkins Road, that will simply be adequate. We would like to be reassured that the permission granted would allow the occasional ancillary use for the cafe premises as a community meeting place. And we would like some input into the waste arrangements. For example, to be consulted with a discharge of condition 14 to ensure that they're already stretched existing waste arrangements in the park and not be over impacted. The friends hope that the refurbishment of the building will approve the aesthetics of the building, be appropriate for materials including lower maintenance and resistance to graffiti so that it remains an asset to the park. Thank you. I now have James Boyd on my list who's online, I think. Good evening. Can you hear me? Hi, yes we can. So if you're ready, if you introduce yourself and then the two minutes will begin. Sure, I'm James Boyd. I'm a resident of Atkins Road. I live about 200 metres or so within 200 metres of the park and use it regularly. Yes, whenever you're ready. OK, in my view this cafe will be a wonderful community asset for the benefit of many hundreds of local residents. I think the proposed designs that I've seen will significantly improve the aesthetics and the safety of the park and provide an invaluable social hub for the expanding local population. I think the newly renovated playground is the perfect location for this much needed facility. Clapham Common, Toothin Common, Bathsea Park all have cafes in close proximity to playgrounds. It's very common now. And this area between Abbeville, Ballam Hill and Hyde Farm is light on facilities like this. And I think this will be a space that's open and welcoming to all and will provide everybody, especially those who are lonely, with somewhere they can interact with others. Parents and dog walkers who spend many hours at the playground and in the park have a place to get a drink and snack and socialise. The cafe is not going to attract gangs of youth, as has been cited in some of the objections. It's more likely to discourage them. It'll attract families and groups of friends who want to enjoy the park and spend time together. I have a young family and as I said, I live very near the park and we use it regularly. And if I had concerns the area would become less safe, I would not support the proposal. But anti-social behaviour occurs when places are darker and there are fewer people around and this cafe will make the park and playground safer by its very presence. I think the proposed location in the disused block is the perfect location for it. I don't see that any other location makes any particular sense. I think it's good to reuse an asset that is in need of regeneration. I think the demographic of the area is changing. There are lots of young families and people are investing in their homes. The Clapham Park estate regeneration is progressing well and I think it's really important that we improve the local infrastructure in this sort of way to support these changes. So I do hope the planning committee will approve this proposal which I believe will improve our local area to everybody's benefit. Thank you. Right, we'll turn now to our registered ward councillors starting with Councillor McGibbon. Thank you. I'm Meriton McGibbon, councillor for the park ward. Yes, so thank you. We really welcome that this application has come forward. We support the proposal. Some contact has already been provided. This park is in a really poorly served area of the borough in terms of any hospitality, any retail. There's no cafes, restaurants, shops, anywhere in the area and really limited community space and the community really needs this cafe. Expectations are high for what it will deliver. Community members have been clear with us that what they want is a park cafe. They also want a flexible space that could, for example, under temporary events licenses, open later for events through the summer. Could be a space of community groups to meet outside of opening hours. We feel that the sunset linked opening hours and noise conditions will limit both the community desire for flexible space and for meeting gaps in community provision and limit the viability in a cafe in this location, particularly the winter months. The original opening hours that were applied for in the application form were actually 8 till 8 Monday to Friday and 8 till 9 at weekends and bank holidays. But we've recognised that somewhere in the discussion with planning, the opening hours of the park have been introduced. Those don't apply. We haven't had a locked park at Agnes Riley for around a decade. We understand why that's happened and why officers have sought to align with that, but it's not in line with current or intended use for the cafe. We acknowledge that there are amenity-related objections, recognise the concerns particularly of the immediate neighbour. There are no openings in this proposal that are facing the residential neighbouring property. We believe that noise concerns can be managed in a more balanced way and having both strict noise controls and limited opening hours are very restrictive and really sort of will limit the viability of this as a cafe. So we're requesting that the committee recommends an amendment to condition 11 which would at least adopt those hours that were applied for by the applicant. We prefer them to be extended. That was that was what we responded to in the consultation and an amendment to condition 10 to at least remove the restriction on on live music. We'd be happy for that to be subject to temporary event licenses and with appropriate noise controls in place. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker at the evening is Councillor Tiedemannan. Thank you. Good evening everyone. I'm Martin Tiedemannan. I'm also a councillor for the Clapham Park Board. So thank you. I very much welcome also plans for a cafe in Agnes Riley Gardens, not just as a place to grab a coffee, but also with the appropriate cabinet caveats to protect the neighbours, of course, the wider community and the park as a community space and investment in the fabric of Clapham Park, a much needed facility in a sometimes under-resourced corner of the borough, as you've heard. In particular, there's a lack of community meeting space in the area and the community have been clearing consultations that would like to include the possibility of informal use of the cafe as a meeting space. For example, for the Friends of Agnes Riley Gardens themselves, who probably should meet in the park to be most useful and relevant. The application is quite a restrictive use category. We recognise that the PAC can only consider what has been applied for, but as such, we request that the committee considers allowing for limited community meetings as an ancillary use for the building, noting this within the minutes of this meeting. Secondly, the change of use removed the obligation for the site, as Diana has already mentioned, to offer public toilet facilities. While we recognise that the applicant, the council, intends to ensure ongoing public use of toilet facilities through the lease, we feel it would be appropriate for the committee to include a condition within the plan that the toilets remain open for public use. For example, by insisting that the external access to the toilets remains open to the public while the cafe is in operation. This would offer assurance and also mitigate the loss of facilities implied by the change of use. And in fact, it's obviously much increased access to public toilets, as we've heard from other speakers. And then finally, Chair, we'd like to highlight waste management as a concern. As Ms Sharifi mentioned, we ask that the committee requires that the cafe waste management strategy is submitted to officers for approval and indeed to consult with the friends group. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so that is all our registered speakers. I'm opening the meeting to questions from members who would like to go first. Councillor Ainslie. I see the pictures that you have, because I see them online, but if I may, let's look at it. Did you see them in the email? Yeah, yeah. Okay. See them again. So it wasn't really a factor when I looked at them on the email. Is it all right if I pass them on? Yes. I mean, I don't normally like to accept materials, but given that we have had sight of them and Councillor Ainslie has requested, I'm happy for him to take a copy. Okay, I'm going to start with a question about the land use. And so the current use class is F something, social infrastructure. And what's been proposed is use class C and cafe. And I'd like to update that more because it's not in the report, how the application has been assessed against policy S1 and whether it's compliant. So the, in regards to policy S1, obviously felt that the relevant policy excerpt for assessment of this scheme was part of B3. Part B3 states the development of the site process for other uses or the inclusion of other uses would enable the delivery of improved strategies for service improvements. The changing facilities were to be removed, but the toilet facilities, public toilet facilities, were to remain in place. Alongside this, the addition of the cafe would seem to provide improvements to the park itself and additional improvements to the community and users of the park. And I've felt that the assessment against this policy was found to be acceptable. Okay, is it about land use? Because I have to stick on this theme. So I'd like to ask about what's been raised by some of our speakers this evening. And there's clearly a desire for the space to be used in a more flexible manner with opportunity for community meetings, etc. How is that possible given the use class? Can officers give us some assurance that that would be possible? Yeah, so community members are able to meet within the cafe at the description of the cafe operator in the cafe's operating hours. Use of the cafe by the local community would be acceptable so long as they remain auxiliary to the E-class E-B cafe use. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on the use class or? Yeah, can I just ask the clarification around whether any sill is generated? Sorry? Community infrastructure levy. No, I don't believe it is. Oh, James Boyd, would it be okay if you turn your camera off, please? It's just cameras on when people are speaking. It was off as far as I know. I'll put it back off again. Thank you. Also, we can't send it off for participation online. I mean, it doesn't matter given that we're not referring to the opposite presentation at this point. Can I leave that with you then to the ASAP IT and we'll continue. Apologies, just had some technical glitches. about what can and can't be seen online. I can't see any, Councillor Ainslie. Councillor Ainslie. Yeah, so I had an issue in my ward with a kind of industrial unit right next to a residential unit, a residential unit, and the coffee maker in this instant, and we were able to, through the extractive pipes, recycle it within the building, and not direct any fumes, in this case, much closer than this situation that we're looking at here, because if I look at figure one, I can see that there's a bit of land between the house and the boundary wall. of number 73, but there's a bit of distance in the example I'm talking about in my ward, it was right, fumes are going straight into the window of the house, but there's a bit of distance in the example I'm talking about in my ward. It was right, fumes are going straight into the window of the house, so how closely have we looked at extraction and, you know, not allowing the escape of fumes to go, are most likely to be affected by it. So we did get a review from our external health consultant, and they considered that subject to conditions, that the immunity impact is acceptable. In terms of the conditions that they're secured, we've looked to secure the full specifications, details of the extraction equipment, as well as well as a scheme of assessment, both internally and externally for the located plant, and a post insulation noise assessment in regards to noise matters. Alongside this, the applicant has outlined that they were happy to provide screening to the extraction plant equipment, and we saw that that was accepted and have sought under conditions 7, as outlined on page 32, that details of the screening are provided to us for review and confirmation. So in the incident of my ward, there was an issue, and the issue went away because of some new technology, some new way of stopping the extraction going in the direction of the person's window. How can we try our best to ensure that that takes place in this instance prior, so that it's not a case of doing it afterwards and see? I know you might not have the details of that, but is that something that we could be looking at in terms of the smell extraction as well as the noise? I mean, in terms of the details that will be submitted to us before the extraction is ever operated, they'll be submitted to us by the applicant for review. And as part of that, we can have discussions with our external environmental health consultant to ensure that they're sufficiently happy that there would be no resultant impacts in terms of additional smells in relation to the details that are provided. Can I ask, where is this example that you're referring to? On Conyers Road, there's a little industrial estate just opposite, where the Councillor Robert Hill is round the back, and they say they were producing coffee right next to someone's kitchen window. And they were able to stop the extraction. So the planning permission was given, they were making coffee for some time, things went in, and working together they were able to stop the extraction going. I don't know the technical details, they've managed to transfer it back in to reuse it, but none of the smells didn't escape, and therefore the problem was solved. And I've not heard anyone praise it again since it was a couple of years ago. Okay. I mean, I'll seek officers' advice, but it might be that we could perhaps include an informative that you submit the information to the officers and they may be looking to that as part of the discharge of the condition, should approval be granted. I've made a note of that. Thank you. I saw a hand up in the audience. I just want to remind everybody that this isn't a public meeting. It is a meeting in public, so I don't tend to take interventions from the floor unless specifically invited by me as chair. Councillor Clarke. Just continuing on residential amimity on music. I just wanted to check the wording of condition 10, which talks about the playing of amplified music shall be restricted to ambient and background levels only, and there should be no playing at any time for the purposes of public entertainment. What's the difference between public entertainment and ambient background noise? Because presumably ambient noise is still for the purpose of mildly entertaining. So I just wanted to clarify kind of to understand that clause a bit better before I understand what's going on. So in terms of the playing, no playing restrictions to playing amplified music, that would be in relation to sort of any speakers that may be inside the cafe or a radio or anything akin to that. And as you mentioned, the playing live amplified music would just be separate to that. So any, anyone, anyone or anything separate external speakers being moved in, or participants like music, bands, et cetera. Okay, so that, that's fine. That's the, that's the clarification is obviously there is some internal, sort of fitted speakers as it were, but in terms of then the separate entertainment, as things stand without separate licences. Okay, thanks for clarifying. On that, can I ask a question about relationship between planning and licencing in this instance, and where the, should permission be granted and the owner or operator decides to apply for a TEN on occasional occurrences. How would that say the opening hours they're applying for don't comply with the ones that are in the planning condition, and also this condition with regards to amplified music? How, how does that work? Does the TEN override the, the planning conditions temporarily or? Uh, I don't think in terms of the, uh, any approval of the TEN that it would override planning against the restriction of operating hours. No. Right. Okay. Okay. I've got another question about opening hours. Is yours related? Okay. Oh, yes. Okay. Councillor Ainslie. I've got one on that too. Um, so, um, sunset is a bit ambiguous of summer. Um, I don't, I don't know when that's likely to be. Is that likely to be at the nine o'clock? 10 o'clock? What, what in the summer? 45 minutes before sunset is. I don't know what hour that might be. The time of the day when there is sunset, um, is on my, is on my weather app. Yeah, I know, but you know how we do that assessment on daylight and sunlight. We've got the equinox or, or the. Different. 21st of June. Is it? Okay. That's measured. Yes. So for example, have you, what, what, what assessment have you made for, um, the time that it might close. Um, at mid summer evening, the 7th of July. Or the 21st of June, the longest day. Um, in terms of. I mean. Yeah. Um, so the timings I think, um, is, is worth outlining. That obviously officers assessed, um, the app, the information that was submitted to us application stage. Uh, and at that stage, we just want to be aware that actually wouldn't be closed or locked. Um, we were aware from the parks department that the site itself would be closed 15 minutes before sunset. Um, which is outlined on the website on that. In terms of the distinction, um, you're getting at in terms of the differences between winter and summer. Um, there were. Um, there were, as far as I know, further assessments in terms of, um, the distinction between the two in relation to the operating costs. So, so, so if we're looking at the equinox as well, we're probably looking at 8.30 to 8, sort of, uh, 8.45 closing. Uh, because sunset is at 9, 9, 9.21. Okay, so that's good, because it gives us a rough time as to when knowledge might start to event. Yeah. Um, very sorry committee. I forgot to tell you that we also have two registered, um, technical specialists, um, who are here in person should we need to call on them. Um, and they are Dan Thomas, um, who is representing the applicant, which is Lambeth Council. And Sophie Potter from Dannet Johnson Architects, who's the architect and planning agent for the application. Um, so apologies. I, I didn't mention that sooner. Um, continuing with the hours of operation, um, councillor McGovern mentioned that the applicant originally in the application form applied for 8 till 8 Monday to Friday and 8 till 9 on weekends and bank holidays. Um, so how, how has the application gone from, from that as was originally applied for to, to what is now being proposed with much shorter operating hours during the winter months? And, and why is that being necessary just because it's winter? Um, so obviously the, uh, as I mentioned in terms of the information that was available to officers, uh, during the assessment of the application, um, the application form did state that, uh, the proposed operating hours were to be 8 a.m. to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday to Friday and 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, uh, public holidays, bank holidays. Um, following the information being made aware and going out to consultation, we received a number of representations and concerns were raised, um, in those representations. Um, about how those operating hours would coincide with the, uh, opening closing times of Agnes Riley Gardens. Um, we weren't, um, made aware that Agnes Riley Gardens, um, wouldn't be locked or closed. The information that our parks team have is that Agnes Riley Gardens opens at 7.30 a.m. and closes 15 minutes before sunset. So following that information, we sought further discussions with the applicant to clarify with them how the operating hours that are being proposed, uh, would coincide with the opening and closing of the park. Um, and following those discussions, it was then proposed by the applicant that the, uh, opening and closing times of the cafe would be 8 a.m. till 4 to 5 minutes before sunset to coincide with the opening and closing hours of the park as we understood it at the time. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, perhaps that's something we can pick up when we come to discuss the application. Um, any more questions? That's the clock. Might be one of the applicant just, just on, on this issue of opening hours. Does the. Is we've heard that there might from others that there might be a question of viability of the, of an operator based on opening hours. Has there been any, does the applicant having experience of similar sites have any thoughts around the opening hours and the viability? Okay. So if we invite the applicant to the table. Thank you. So if you just want to quickly introduce yourself again, then answer councillor Clark's question, and maybe tell us about what, what open hours you were hoping for. So, um, yeah, Dan Thomas. I'm, uh, Head of Service for Capital Delivery, um, with Presidents Enabling Services. So, um, we do have an experience. We have a number of cafes recently built and, uh, on the conveyor belt, let's say, for, uh, in the council. So. Archbishop's cafe. Archbishop's park was other sites such as Boxall park. And we have a number of preexisting cafes as well, where we serve, you know, a variety of audiences and use a variety of, um, tenants that do that. So it's really, it will be for the tenant to really propose, um, how they wish to operate that cafe. And obviously we go out through our council estate agents to seek interest. And at that point, uh, obviously viability is, is the main concern for that cafe operator. So, um, we use, yeah, specialists to go out there and, uh, interact with the market to try and find the best operator for each, each site. And it differs across the whole, you know, the current, uh, makeup of our cafe providers. It, it differs. It's very big operators. Well, it's not very big. It was bigger operators than some very small operators. And in fact, some cafes we run ourselves. There's the council. So in Clapham Common, for example, we have a couple of kiosks which are internally run and are kind of demand led. Okay. Thank you. If you'd like to make your way back to the table. Um, I have a question about the materials and the. Timber cladding. Um, and. Part of one of the representations, we were given some examples of similar use of materials that hasn't, according to the photos, worn very well. Um, so, I mean, I don't know about those application sites. I don't know if they were treated properly. I don't know if officers have any other information, but perhaps you could give some assurance to committee why you, um, how you know that the timber were applied in this instance, that it would wear well. Um, so the, I think, proposed, uh, western red cedar cladding, um, and along the external elevations of building. Um, and this material has been outlined not only as being sustainable, um, but the shingles, uh, having a life expected to have approximately 50 years when uncreated. Uh, aside from this as well, we are equally secure under condition for the addition of weatherproof, uh, as well. Trying to increase the durability and life expectancy of the timber cladding, um, to ensure the longevity of the extended elevations of building. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions? I'm quite keen for us to start debating the application. Councillor Nye. Can I just ask a question around, um, access to the toilets for the public and whether that could be a condition that it's made available when the cafe is open? Uh, so we, uh, in terms of the, the access, yeah, as noted in, in the presentation, uh, and in the report, there are separate entrances. One thing that the cafe itself, uh, the right access to the park, um, we could put on or seek to secure a compliance condition, um, that any, uh, future operators ensure that the toilets, uh, are open to the public at all times, uh, when the cafe is, is, is open in conjunction with cafe operating house. That's one that we really clicked on. That's an eye. Um, just around waste. And obviously there's a concern that it might generate more waste. Um, so are there going to be more food plant cleaning collections if needed? And are you happy for the applicant to submit to you their waste plan when they have a presenter? Um, and to, um, and to speak to the Fenton group as outlined in one of the speakers. So the, um, bins that are provided, uh, outside of the application site within the park, uh, are operated by, uh, Lampers Park services. Um, so in terms of the, this current application, um, we can't seek to, um, request that those are approved as they are. We do however, um, outline that, uh, there's, uh, a provision of a hundred, uh, eight hundred fifteen litres of, uh, waste storage provided onsite, um, to be provided in the storage section on the, uh, southern section of the, um, uh, building. And as part of those, I mean, if you would seek, uh, waste management data, which may include, uh, waste management plans to ensure that there'll be no, um, increase, um, uh, unacceptable increase in waste and litter, um, to, to prevent the park and that they're collected, um, in an appropriate fashion. Final question, then I really want to move to the debate. I'll give you a question on scale and massing. So, um, you're removing the chimney stack, um, often chimney stack. I'm just wondering how creative that is when you, you know, maybe catch it and use that as one of the extract, extractor outlets. Um, was that ever looked at, considered? And the other question is around, uh, the amount of natural light that is allowed to pour in through those, uh, uh, it's a shame we didn't have more graphics, actually, but, um, your pictures of just how much natural light is going to go along that long elevation. Um, so I can't speak for the, um, uh, design considerations that went into, um, both the, the, the skylights as well as the, uh, chimney. Obviously officers, uh, says the application on the design that was submitted to them. Um, and in terms of the, uh, the massing itself, uh, see, the massing is, is, um, remaining the same, if not a slight improvement. It can be stacked. Um, but as mentioned, there was no, uh, obviously I've known, but in terms of the design, uh, prior to submission, um, the skylights, uh, that are currently there are sought to be replaced. Um, and they, uh, are going to be slightly larger than the ones currently there. Um, they will have some, uh, external cladding around them, um, to, um, with the external elevations, um, in terms of matching the design. Um, but, uh, uh, they were quite, uh, similar and acceptable at Reliance, the cafe itself. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to move on to a debate now, and I'm going to invite members to give their opinions on the application. Um, we can debate the merits of the scheme, um, perhaps give an indication of how you'll be voting this evening and why. Who would like to go first? Hatsula Clark. Uh, uh, thank you. Um, I, uh, I think that, uh, this is, uh, a welcome improvement of, uh, community assets. Uh, I, uh, no, yeah, use, use, use, use, use the park occasionally as, uh, on, on, on jogging and have, uh, know, know the area and know the park and know the, uh, the, yeah. Yeah. I can understand and agree with what has been said around filling the improved community asset, fulfilling both practical and social need. Uh, and that it is, uh, I think the key is that there are the additional public benefits of access to lose and drinking water provided, secured by condition. And I think that's one of the things that I wanted to kind of follow up on was to ensure that those conditions. Uh, are, are, are, are the wording of the conditions is sufficiently tight to ensure that the, uh, those public benefits, uh, to, to the lose and to drinking water are secured. Uh, and we're hearing some concern over that not being the case. And then my point is to, uh, to look at the, uh, the, the impacts on neighbouring residential immunity and seeing how they, you know, have been mitigated. Uh, and if there is anything further that could be done to mitigate, um, and, uh, uh, I, I didn't hear anything that. Certainly suspicion the in terms of needing additional mitigations. Um, uh, but I do think that the, you know, there is a valid debate around the opening hours. Uh, and I say, I would be interested myself to hear what, what others are, are, are, are, are, are, are thinking, but certainly from my point of view, something that. Uh, for the sake of argument, you know, was a, a eight year amending that condition to extend in the time since GMT from 8am sunset. Uh, which so in effect 45 minutes extension during the winter, early spring while retaining the, the current level, uh, current condition in the summertime, uh, gives the balance some extended opening. But, uh, uh, uh, at, uh, half of a particular, uh, significant, uh, uh, impacts on amenity. So I would so expect half expect that as the applicant himself said, once the, uh, end user has been known and everything's been tested, I wouldn't be surprised if something came back. Um, I think, um, to officers around this, but I think, um, from my point of view, being more courtier, a little bit cautious is. I don't know. What else, Councillor Nye? So I'll keep it brief. I welcome the application. I'm concerned we might be missing opportunities to provide affordable meeting space and ancillary use outside of the cafe opening hours. I see the noise condition limits a lot of the impacts on the local community. Um, and I would, uh, welcome the extension of Aids Aids as was initially suggested, but in, in principle, really supportive. I think it's, yeah, great to see it get this far. It's just around opening hours. Anybody else? Councillor Ainslie. I'm impressed. The Friends did a survey in 2017 and, uh, canvassed for local opinion to, uh, to look at what the community wanted. Um, that's really encouraging to hear, encouraging to hear that the toilets will be kept open for public access. Um, uh, encouraging to see the, the, the, the use of an existing building and the, the re, uh, commissioning of it, which is great. Um, there's a nice long flat roof. I like to see solar panels and more natural daylight. Um, the concern about the, um, cladding, uh, if we can ensure that condition four is held to, then there's no reason why, um, it can't be prevented from deteriorating and, uh, be anti graffiti from what I'm reading in the office's report. Um. On, on, on the waste management thing, um. Hopefully they won't be using that many single use, uh. Uh, you know, just washing up and, and, and using. Proper cups and stuff. Um, but yeah, it's, I'm, I'm mindful to approve this application, uh, provided the, um, conditions around the licking of smells, orders, uh, noise pollution. Are mitigated against the, um, neighbouring property as much as possible. It's very a mindful point I made during the questions. Thanks. You don't have this in here, but would, would you like anything else to add? Uh, yeah. Yeah, I'm generally supportive of the application, uh, improves the local area. Uh, uh, the only concern I have is the opening hours. I'd like to see be extended and, um, condition 10 about live music or amplified music and the relationship it has with licensing, whether 10s would be able to override that temporarily. Okay. I'll get, I'll ask you this. Okay. Um, I'm going to ask the officer to advise us on what is within our remit in terms of the opening hours. If I just perhaps start with my thoughts. Um, I would like to see the, um, the site to have as much a chance as possible to secure a suitable end user. And I think, um, concerns with regards to amenity have already, um, been mitigated with the quite stringent noise and, um, odours, et cetera, conditions. So I think to have such limited opening hours together with those other conditions is, is very restrictive and perhaps not representative of what we're normally having in cafes across the borough. And I also would be concerned that such restrictive opening hours would prevent the use of the site for more of more flexible, but albeit ancillary use allowing communities to meet there and other meetings. Noting the councillors concerns that the area in itself is, is, um, quite devoid of such spaces, unlike other, um, possible parts of the borough. Um, so I, and I also don't see any reason why it, the site would have to close earlier just because it's winter. Um, because at the moment if it closes 45 minutes before sunset, it's have a much longer opening hours in the summer, but communities still meet in the winter. You know, you know, we don't all like stay indoors come three, four PM in the winter. So I'd still want the site to be used for that reason. And I think the current hours restrict that. So perhaps you could advise as presiding officer what is in our gift. Yeah, so fully understand the comments that have been made in terms of the, the opening hours. Um, however, um, it is the duty of planning committee to assess the application that's been put before them. Um, and, um, the application has been assessed on the basis of, of the opening hours being aligned with the park opening hours, notwithstanding the comments that have been made about maybe how those park opening hours have been operated. Therefore, as it currently stands before you, um, if you were minded to extend the opening hours, um, you'd be able to extend them. Uh, to from sorry to 8 AM to 15 minutes before sunset, which aligns with what our parks team currently tell us is the opening hours, um, under this application. If the parks team then to, um, take a decision outside of planning, as they're perfectly entitled to do in terms of what those formal opening hours for the park are. You could then potentially be, uh, potentially be an opera, uh, an opportunity to come back to amend, um, um, and that would be fully assessed at that time with, um, all the relevant details for extended opening hours. But as it, as it sits before you, the application has been assessed on the basis of ATM to 45 minutes before sunset, um, but it could be extended to ATM to 15 minutes before sunset, which would align with those park operating hours, which, uh, the officers have had discussions with the council's parks team on, um, extending beyond that has not currently been assessed within the documentation, um, in the application. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, I'm just mindful that as a committee, we have previously amended opening hours for various things, whether they're, um, restaurants, cafes, bars, Moogers, for example. And we have been able to do that, um, as a committee. Um, sometimes the hours that we've sought to amend have, have, have varied significantly to what has been presented to us in the report. Um, so it, is there like a legal reason why we, why we'd not be able to amend that condition or is this, it's more like officer good practice? It's, it's good practice, but also because currently as it stands, the, the publicized hours of opening for the park are 8am to 15 minutes before sunset. And so to, for us to, um, consider and approve opening hours for a facility within that park, which is outside of hours, which our current parks team are saying that the park is open. We as officers have not assessed the implications of allowing additional people in the park at hours that our parks team are currently saying the park is not open. As I've said, the park team can change those parks hours outside of the planning process. And there are, um, planning processes in place for out for applications to vary hours, um, on a, on a permission if such a commission is granted at a later date. Councillor Clarke. Councillor Clarke. Councillor Clarke. Uh, is there any scope for, um, I guess giving our views and delegating the decision with our clear views to the head of planning? Definitely. Title is these days. Um, what do you mean as in, as in, if we said, um, we would like to see, um, we would, we would like to see as an, yeah. As a minimum, we, we are happy with, you know, the, the compromise proposal, but we would like to see, um, the hours extended further in. Um, it's range if this is possible and we delegate that to the, you know, to planning to see if that is possible. I don't know. Yeah. Well, we could put, we could have it minuted or we could put an informative on. Um, I think we also need to, um, decide whether, you know, as part of our considerations, the opening hours as, as proposed, um, would. Um, restrict the type of, uh, the, the popularity of the, uh, the desire of an end user to take it on in the first place. Um, you know, balance that with delays that could be caused for, you know, if an applicant comes in and has to amend the condition. So I think that is a possibility, but I think we also need to consider whether we, we do want to amend the opening hours, but taking on board the officer advice that the impact hasn't been fully assessed. But whether we think there is such a risk that there is likely to be, um, a negative impact of an extended opening hours, given the very stringent noise and odour conditions. So I think it's the, the gift is ours, but also noting the, the officer advice. Yeah. Councillor Clarke. Yeah. I see Councillor Clarke was asking, did you get an answer about the lead? Was there any legal reason? Evidence. Um, as with any, um, needs to be assessed on merits and what's been assessed due to what's before. So, so this would change the dynamic assessment. Can you expand on that a bit more? In what, in what way? Um, well, officers have come to you with recommendation. They've consulted on a particular suite of, uh, issues. That's been, um, responded to. Therefore, the best information available to officers at this time is, uh, captured in, in the report. Uh, so deviating from that, uh, could potentially be an irrational decision because it hasn't been properly assessed. Okay. They expose, uh, the authority to challenge. Okay. All right. Well, that's very helpful. That's very helpful for us to know. Any other thoughts of you? Okay. Well, um, having heard the legal advice and, um, you know, I think it is within our gift to extend the open hours to what was applied for, but I take on both the legal advice. So I'm also mindful that the extended opening hours, which would be eight till eight and eight till nine, haven't been consulted on. Um, so I think there's perhaps that to, to take into account. Um, so I think, um, we perhaps should, uh, on the side of caution and go with Councillor Clark's, um, suggestion, which is that we have, uh, it's minuted that the committee would really strongly. Um, like for the hours to be, uh, as were originally applied for, um, to give it a chance of a end user, you know, being interested in, in the site and to allow the flexible. Flexible use of the site and for meetings for the community, et cetera. But, um, having heard officer and legal advice, I think perhaps it wouldn't be a wise decision for us this evening. And within our gift to make a rational decision to extend them, um, as proposed in the application form. But I do, however, think we should at least change them to 15 minutes before sunset, um, which isn't such a huge extension, but is a later closing date. So we'll have that as a starter and then it is within the applicant's gift to come in and amend that application, uh, amend the condition to an extended opening hours in the future. So it's not completely restricted. Um, okay. So subject to an amended condition for, um, um, I'm going to suggest or feedback whether committee agree with me, but that we do amend, um, condition. Condition. Sorry, condition 11. Sorry, I've got a lot of conditions going on informative. So subject to an amended condition 11 for the extended opening hours to 15 minutes before sunset. And, um, amended condition for, um, perhaps removing the reference to timber cladding, um, which doesn't restrict the applicant from coming in and submitting timber details anyway. Um, it just means that they wouldn't be, um, wedded to that. Um, um, so subject to that amendment with an informative that the friends are consulted on when that condition comes to be discharged, as well as, um, an informative, the same effect for the waste management condition. And then subject to an additional condition that the toilets remain, um, accessible during the cafe opening hours. Um, and an informative for Councillor Ainslie's example of the flu and, yeah, the flu in somewhere, um, that you email officers and they, they look into that when, when that, when that, um, relevant condition comes to be discharged, they can look into that further. Something else, Councillor Clarke, have I missed something? Uh, on the drinking water fountain, the office so mentioned that there was a amendment to condition potential verbal amendment to condition for. I don't know if it's been captured. Am I right in saying that? Can we include in that as well? Thank you. Um, I suppose we accept officers recommendation approved planning permission. Do I see a second death? Councillor Costa, all those in favor, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Okay. Thank you everybody for your time this evening. That concludes planning committee. Thank you.
Transcript
Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this evening's Planning Applications Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Joanne Simpson, and I am Chair of the meeting tonight. In line with legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Visiting ward officers, visiting ward members, and members of the public have joined us either virtually or physically. The meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. Whilst we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient if we hit some challenges in this virtual environment. In the event that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the council's democracy. Twitter account, which is at LBL Democracy. Some housekeeping. By exits, you exit the room from either door and up the stairs to street level. There's an accessible toilet just on the right outside that door there, and there'll be a comfort break around 9pm if the meeting is still going. We've received apologies from councillors Martin Bailey and Sally O'Jaffa, and I'll now introduce members of the committee who are present, starting with councillor Diogo and will work our way round. I'm councillor Diogo, councillor Opal Ward. Thank you. Good evening, I'm councillor Malcolm Clarke of Stretton Wells Ward and Vice Chair of the committee. I'm councillor MNI, councillor Penights and Ward. Good evening, everyone. I'm councillor Scott Hainsley, I represent Stretton's and Wellness Ward. And I'm councillor Joanne Simpson, I am Chair and I represent Stockwell West and Larkhall Ward. I'll now turn to introducing the senior officers at this evening's meetings, starting with our presiding officer. Hello, Kiri Shetworth, Head of Deportment Management and presiding officer at this evening. Thank you. Our Democratic Services Officer. Hi, I'm Venetia, Democratic Services Officer and Clark, good to this meeting. Thank you. Our legal officer. The Filingham Legal Officer. Thank you. Our presenting officer for the application. Sydney Planning Officer for Water Legislative Team. And the manager for the application. I'm Astrid Stevere, Principal Bank Officer and the Water Student Stretton Team. Thank you. OK, the order of business. There are four items on the agenda and they'll be considered in the order they appear on the agenda. All the paperwork is available on the council's website. The applications will be considered in the same way, although we just have the one. And we'll receive a officer presentation. Reports which are to be debated will be presented by an officer who will highlight the main issues. We then hear from speakers and there are five members of the public and two ward councillors who have registered to speak for the items on today's agenda. We'll then move to questions from members to be directed to the case officer in the first instance. And we then move to debate the application. Members of the committee may ask questions of the officers and will then debate the application. Members would have read the officer reports and may wish to amend the recommended conditions or place informatics on the decision subject to officer advice. We then reach a decision and formal notification of the committee's decision will be sent to the applicants and any interested parties who made written written representations. And the minutes from tonight's meeting will be published after the meeting. Written representations. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, one clear working day before the meeting. Thursday before the meeting. I think that's a mistake. Not one clear working day, but it was last Thursday. Item one is declarations of pecuniary interest. Do any members have any declarations of pecuniary interest they wish to share? Okay. Item two is declarations of other interests. I would like to start by declaring that I know Ms. Morris, one of the people registered to speak this evening, who is a former colleague of mine and friend, current friend, former friend. We'll see how tonight goes. But it's not a pecuniary interest and I continue to approach the application with an open mind. Anyone else? I'm sorry. I'm losing my voice. Councillor Clarke here. I would like to declare a non-precuniary interest just for the same reasons as Councillor Simpson in terms of having been a former colleague, including here on planning committee. As far as. Thank you. Okay. Right. Item three minutes are the meeting minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday, the 19th of November, 2024 and Tuesday, 10th of December, 2024. Agreed. Agreed. Thank you very much. So we'll move on to agenda item four, which is our planning application this evening at Agnes Riley Gardens, and I invite the officers to present the report. As part of the beginning, the, the, the, the, the operating. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. wish to note to members of an update to these operating hours. The applicant had sought operating hours of 8am to 45 minutes before sunset, not 30am as outlined in the report. The applicant would therefore recommend that condition 11 is amended in accordance with the proposed operating hours of 8am to 45 minutes before sunset as originally sought by the applicant in order to address this. Plan permission is sought further for an exchange of use at the existing public changing rooms for building facilities and storage building located within Agnes Riley Gardens into a CAF used class EB, also a design of the means of improvement associated with wallets. The existing building forming the application site is located towards the site of Agnes Riley Gardens as indicated in red. The wider boundaries of Agnes Riley Gardens are indicated in blue on this image, showing the site in relation to its wider context. The proposal site sits along the northern side of Atkins Road, that sits at the east. The proposed ground floor plan, shown at the top front elevation of the bottom of the field. The ground floor plan shows the layout of the public toilets located located in a normal section of the ground floor plan, the indicated cafe layout in the central and eastern sections, and the ancillary kitchen and storage areas located in the southern section, as well as the proposed seating area towards the front of the building. Officers give note to the separate offices to the water closets, both through the cafe as well as separately, externally leading to the park. Additionally, whilst not shown on the proposed floor plan, officers have been in discussions with the applicant over the potential to incorporate a public water fountain as part of the proposed works. The applicant has confirmed that they will install a water fountain for public use, and details of this will be submitted as as part of Condition 4. This is outlined on page 32. Officers therefore recommend that Condition 4 is amended to capture the submission of these details. The front end of elevation plan, shown on the bottom, shows the proposed vegetation arrangement, timber cladding to the external elevations, and replaced with roof lights, the location of the air conditioning units, and extraction plan on roof level. Chair, can I request that the officer uses his mouse to mark where he's referring to, which takes? Thanks, that's really helpful. So I'll just pull the external elevations to the cladding towards the front, the proposed roof light replacements, roof level here, as well as the two air conditioning units here, and the extract reduction one shown here. So here are the current side visit state of the existing building, shown in these side visit photos, in the following images. The entrance doors to the existing public toilets and changing facilities are shown in this top left image here. Additional public toilets are also accessed from the door, showed in the image in the top and the middle. And the existing storage entrance, which is accessed behind the gates, showed in the middle, from the image appears. The public toilets are currently opened by the Council at weekends, during the summer months, and the remainder of the building currently sits vacant. Most of the building is therefore underutilised at present, so here we can see the table that outlines the recommending conditions by officers that are to be secured in the subject of any political office commission. In conclusion, officers are satisfied with the ability to recommend that the application for the participants are to help in the offices of Paul and Lady Lyndon. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay, so we're now going to hear from registered speakers. First of all, objectives, and I'm just going to take people as they appear in my list. So first is Diana Morris, if you'd like to make your way to the table. So for everybody who's registered to speak, how this works is we have a buzzer. But first of all, I'll ask you to introduce yourself and your relationship with the application. And then once you've done that, the timer will start, you have two minutes to speak, it beeps when you have 25 seconds left, and then it will beep a final time when your two minutes is up and I'll ask you to finish your sentence. So whenever you're ready. Just before I introduce myself, can I circulate some visual material to the members of the committee? Are these the same that are in the attachment of your representation that we received? Yes, as long as members have seen that. Yes, and I've asked them in the pre-me, everybody's seen those. So yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Well, my name is Diana Morris, and I'm a member of Friends of Agnes Riley Gardens and have been for about 20 years, and I'm a former co-chair of them. So I fully support the principle of a cafe in the park and welcome the fact that the council is now proposing such a facility. I do, however, have reservations about two aspects of the scheme as proposed. Firstly, I'm concerned about proposed materials, cedar shingles. There are two examples of this treatment that I've been able to find that Baker moved in Sutton and at Bristol Palace Park, and members have seen the photos of both of those developments. They display all the features, differential weatherings and deterioration that have led to this treatment being generally discouraged in Lambeth, except in gardens, parks and open spaces. It's understandable to allow exemptions to the general policy in the rustic surroundings of some of our parks. But in this location, sandwiched between a road and a brightly coloured playground, I would question the rationale for such an exemption. So I'd ask the committee to delete the reference to timber caddy and condition for it, replacing it with requirements for maintenance free and graffiti resistant materials, and further to instruct officers to consult on the discharge of that condition, including with the friends. Secondly, the proposed access to the lavatories by the general public as well as capital users is cited by officers as a public benefit and is recognised by the friends as such. But there's nothing in the proposed planning permission that requires this. So I would request that the committee adds a condition requiring the operators to provide public access by opening external doors to the loos during opening hours. This would reflect policy Q1 in the local plan in relation to child friendly environments. Without such a condition, the development would result in a reduction in public toilet access in our park. Thank you very much. Thank you. If you want to make your way back to the audience, next I have Yasmin Kilji, who's here in person as well, I believe. Hello. So again, if you take a seat, introduce yourself and your relationship to the application and then the timer will begin. Adjacent to where the proposal is to be, where the cafe is supposed to be, it's on our boundary wall. My parents have lived there for over 40 years, so I'm here to present them. So I've submitted a raft of questions and concerns to the committee beforehand, questions that haven't been answered in the public reports pack, which were submitted with my original concerns to the planning officer. These are concerns that I feel need to be addressed before any further consideration can be made or decisions made that will impact our life significantly. So my main discussion today, sorry, details today will be about how it impacts us in particular. It's on our boundary wall or impact our family life in terms of the noise, the pollution, the smells of the way we actually currently live our life in terms of using our outdoor space, being able to open windows and have sufficient ventilation if the smells are overpowering. My mother is disabled. We have a medical report that actually stresses the concerns to her health and the detrimental impact to life in terms of the fumes and her ability to access and use her outdoor space in the same manner that she has been using up until now. Also from a personal perspective, considering our faith, how that actually concerns us in terms of forbidden foods, you know, that will seep into our garden area and our home, the noise that will prevent us from using our private space as we have done. Separately to that, we're not objecting to having a cafe in the park. It's more to do with the location and why other areas have not been considered. There's various areas to cluster all of the facilities into one corner on a residential street. It's not making best use of the grounds itself. We have concerns about the single glaze, not to have cooked food on the premises. They can serve hot food, which will mean they can, they don't need to have a fully cutted kitchen and noise regarding music in the cafe. Thank you very much. And our third object is, are you sure? Sorry, we have timer issues. Are we okay? Sorry about that. If you'd like to introduce yourself, your relationship to the application, then the timer will begin. My name's Charles Walshaw. I'm resident of Atkins Road and I'm here really to object to the location and cafe on the following grounds. The proposed location is ill-conceived as it takes no regard to the residential home adjacent to it. For those occupants, their quality of life will be adversely affected. My colleague spoke about the personal effect that it could have on her and her family's life immediately. Mitigating such outcomes is nearly impossible when sighted along a boundary wall. Emotional venues have an important part to play in any community. However, thorough investigation and serious consultation with those most likely to be affected should have been at the forefront of this enterprise. It was not. If the council was looking to add to the current amenities and Agnes Riley Gardens, should be directing its resources in upgrading and providing better facilities to the existing building, housing the public toilets and changing storage area. I've been a resident in Atkins Road for 45 years. Our children grew up fully utilising the playground and playing fields. In the last few years, the introduction of the AstroTurf and additional attractions in the children's playground have given a new life to the gardens. Converting the existing building into a cafe deprives valuable space that serves the many families, schools and organisations currently making regular use of the enclosed sports fields. Improvements and regular maintenance of these facilities would benefit far more users of the gardens than the current planned cafe. However, by relocating the planned cafe to another area of the gardens and upgrading and supporting the provision of those vital sporting facilities that council would deliver to key objectives in the well-being of any community. Health and leisure for all. Thank you so much. We now move on to our registered supporters, starting with Maria Sharifi, who's here in person too. Thank you. Apologies, we're having another time again. I'll just do my introductions while we're waiting. I've done it. Have you done it? Okay. Hi, my name's Maria Sharifi. I'm one of the co-chairs at Atkins River Gardens. I've been in post, I think, since 2019. Yeah, and in general, we're supportive of the application. So, are you ready? Yes. So, in the autumn of 2017, the friends of Atkins Riley consulted with some members of the local community, including partner users of alternative uses for building in question. The most responses being in favour of a cafe in the park. The friends are, therefore, generally supportive of the council's proposal for a cafe and by refurbishing corrections at the park. And we've had some about limited input to the scheme as it has been developed. A cafe, we believe, will provide the local community of the park users with a place to socialise and access to refreshments. There being no cafe near there. The friends believe a cafe in the park would benefit the public, not just the cafe users, by providing lavatories during the hours of operation of the cafe, which would be many more days which are currently in place. At the moment, it's just the weekends and summer only. Our support is contingent on a number of matters. Some of these will be raised, have been raised already by objectives. In particular, we are assuming that the measures to mitigate any negative impact the cafe has, the operation of the cafe would have on the amenity of the closest residential property to the site, namely Centre 3 Atkins Road, that will simply be adequate. We would like to be reassured that the permission granted would allow the occasional ancillary use for the cafe premises as a community meeting place. And we would like some input into the waste arrangements. For example, to be consulted with a discharge of condition 14 to ensure that they're already stretched existing waste arrangements in the park and not be over impacted. The friends hope that the refurbishment of the building will improve the aesthetics of the building, be appropriate for materials including no maintenance and resistance to graffiti, so that it remains an asset to the park. Thank you. Thank you. I now have James Boyd on my list, who's online I think. Good evening. Can you hear me? Hi, yes we can. So if you're ready, if you introduce yourself and then the two minutes will begin. Sure, I'm James Boyd. I'm a resident of Atkins Road. I live about 200 metres or so within 200 metres of the park and use it regularly. Whenever you're ready. Okay, in my view, this cafe will be a wonderful community asset for the benefit of many hundreds of local residents. I think the proposed designs that I've seen will significantly improve the aesthetics and the safety of the park and provide an invaluable social hub for the expanding local population. I think the newly renovated playground is the perfect location for this much needed facility. Clapham Common, Toothin Common, Battersea Park all have cafes in close proximity to playgrounds. It's very common now. And this area between Abbeville, Ballam Hill and Hyde Farm is light on facilities like this. And I think this will be a space that's open and welcoming to all and will provide everybody, especially those who are lonely, with somewhere they can interact with others. Parents and dog walkers who spend many hours at the playground and in the park have a place to get a drink and snack and socialise. The cafe is not going to attract gangs of youth as has been cited in some of the objections. It's more likely to discourage them. It will attract families and groups of friends who want to enjoy the park and spend time together. I have a young family and as I said, I live very near the park and we use it regularly. And if I had concerns the area would become less safe, I would not support the proposal. But anti-social behaviour occurs when places are darker and there are fewer people around and this cafe will make the park and playground safer by its very presence. I think the proposed location in the disused block is the perfect location for it. I don't see that any other location makes any particular sense. I think it's good to reuse an asset that is in need of regeneration. I think the demographic of the area is changing. There are lots of young families and people are investing in their homes. The Clapham Park Estate regeneration is progressing well and I think it's really important that we improve the local infrastructure in this sort of way to support these changes. So I do hope the planning committee will approve this proposal which I believe will improve our local area to everybody's benefit. Thank you. Right, we'll turn now to our registered ward councillors starting with Councillor McGibbon. Thank you. So I'm Meriton Gibbon councillor for the park ward. Yes, so thank you. We really welcome that this application has come forward. We support the proposal. Some contact has already been provided. This park is in a really poorly served area of the borough in terms of any hospitality, any retail, there's no cafes, restaurants, shops, anywhere in the area and really limited community space and the community really needs this cafe. Expectations are high for what it will deliver. Community members have been clear with us that what they want is a park cafe. They also want a flexible space that could, for example, under temporary events licences, open later for events through the summer, could be a space of community groups to meet outside of opening hours. We feel that the sunset linked opening hours and noise conditions will limit both the community desire for flexible space and for meeting gaps in community provision and limit the viability in a cafe in this location, particularly the winter months. The original opening hours that were applied for in the application form were actually eight till eight Monday to Friday and eight till nine at weekends and bank holidays. But we've recognised that somewhere in the discussion with planning, the opening hours of the park have been introduced. Those don't apply. We haven't had a lot to park at Agnes Riley for around a decade. We understand why that's happened and why officers have sought to align with that. But it's not in line with current or intended use for the cafe. We acknowledge that there are amenity related objections, recognise the concerns particularly of the immediate neighbour. There are no openings in this proposal that are facing the residential neighbouring property. We believe that noise concerns can be managed in a more balanced way and that having both strict noise controls and limited opening hours are very restrictive and really sort of will limit the viability of this as a cafe. So we're requesting that the committee recommends an amendment to condition 11 which would at least adopt those hours that were applied for by the applicant. We prefer them to be extended. That was what we responded to in the consultation and an amendment to condition 10 to at least remove the restriction on live music. We'd be happy for that to be subject to temporary event licences and with appropriate noise controls in place. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker of the evening is councillor Tiedman. Thank you Sherry. Good evening everyone. I'm Martin Tiedman. I'm also councillor for the Clapham Park Board. So thank you Sherry. I very much welcome also Flansbury Cafe in Agnes O'Reilly Gardens, not just as a place to grab a coffee but also with the appropriate caveats to protect the neighbours of course, the wider community and the park as a community space, an investment in the fabric of Clapham Park, a much needed facility in a sometimes under-resourced corner of the furrow as you've heard. In particular there's a lack of community meeting space in the area and the community have been clearing consultations that would like to include the possibility of informal use of the cafe as a meeting space, for example for the Friends of Agnes O'Reilly Gardens themselves. They probably should meet in the park to be most useful and relevant. The application is quite a restrictive use category. We recognise that PAC can only consider what has been applied for, but as such we request the committee considers allowing for limited community meetings as an ancillary use for the building, noting this within the minutes of this meeting. Secondly, the change of use removed the obligation for the site, as Diana has already mentioned, to offer public toilet facilities. While we recognise that the applicant, the council, intends to ensure ongoing public use of toilet facilities through the lease, we feel it would be appropriate for the committee to include a condition within the plan that the toilets remain open for public use, for example by insisting that the external access to the toilets remains open to the public while the cafe is in operation. This would offer assurance and also mitigate the loss of facilities implied by the change of use, and in fact it's obviously much increased access to public toilets as we've heard from other speakers. And then finally Chair, we'd like to highlight waste management as a concern, as Ms Sharifi mentioned, we ask that the committee requires that the cafe waste management strategy is submitted to officers for approval and indeed say consult with the friends group. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so that is all our registered speakers, so I'm opening the meeting to questions from members who would like to go first. Councillor Ainslie. Councillor Ainslie. I see the pictures that you have because I see them online, but I can't, if I may, let's look at it. Did you see them in the email? Yeah, yeah. Okay. See them again, because it wasn't really a factor when I looked at them on the email. Is it all right if I pass them on? Yes. I mean, I don't normally like to accept materials, but given that we have had sight of them and Councillor Ainslie has requested, I'm happy for him to take a coffee. Okay, I'm going to start with a question about the land use. And so the current use class is F something, social infrastructure, and what's been proposed is used class C and cafe. And I'd like to understand more because it's not in the report, how the application has been assessed against policy S1 and whether it's compliant. So the, in regards to policy S1, obviously felt that the relevant policy excerpt for assessment of this scheme was part B3. Part B3 states the development of the site premises for other uses, all with the inclusion of other uses, would enable the delivery of improved strategies for service improvements. The changing facilities were to be removed, but the toilet facilities, the public toilet facilities were to remain in place. Alongside this, the addition of the cafe would seem to provide improvements to the park itself, and additional improvements to the amenity and uses of the park. And I've felt that the assessment against this policy was found to be acceptable. Okay, is it about land use? Because I have to stick on this theme. So I'd like to ask about what's been raised by some of our speakers this evening. And there's clearly a desire for the space to be used in a more flexible manner with opportunity for community meetings, etc. How is that possible given the use class? Can officers give us some assurance that that would be possible? Yeah, so community members are able to meet within the cafe at the description of the cafe operator in like the cafe's operating hours. Use of the cafe by the local community would be acceptable so long as they remain auxiliary to E-class E-B cafe use. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on the use class or? Yeah, can I just ask the clarification around whether there any sillies generated? Sorry? Community infrastructure levy. Um, yes. No, I don't believe it is. Oh, James Boyd, would it be okay if you turn your camera off, please? So it's just cameras on when people are speaking. It was off as far as I know. I'll put it back off again. Thank you. Also, we can't send off participation online. Share to here. So as long as what's on these screens is being beamed to what's online. I can't see online. We need IT to resolve that because it's shown on here. This is how we want to share it. And then that's what's shown online. I mean, it doesn't matter given that we're not referring to the presentation at this point. Can I leave that with you then to the ASP IT and we'll continue. Apologies, just had some technical glitches about what can and can't be seen online. So I had an issue in my ward with a kind of industrial unit right next to a residential unit and the coffee maker in this instant. And we were able to, through the extracted pipes, try to remove the pipes, recycle it within the building and not direct any fumes, in this case, much closer than this situation that we're looking at here. Because if I look at figure one, I can see that there's a bit of land between the house and the boundary wall of number 73. So there's a bit of distance. In the example I'm talking about in my ward, it was right, fumes were going straight into the window of the house. So how closely have we looked at extraction and, you know, not allowing the escape of fumes to go, most likely to be affected by it. So we did get a review from our external health consultant and they considered that subject to conditions that the immunity impact is acceptable. In terms of the conditions that they're secured, we've looked to secure full specifications, details of the extraction equipment, as well as a scheme of acoustic assessment both internally and externally for the located plant and a post-insulation noise assessment in regards to noise matters. Alongside this, the applicant has outlined that they were happy to provide screening to the extraction plant equipment and we saw that that was accepted and have sought under condition 7 as outlined on page 32 that details of the screening are provided to us for review and confirmation. So in the incident of my ward, there was an issue and the issue went away because of, I don't know, some new technology, some new way of stopping the extraction going in the direction of the person's window. How can we try our best to ensure that that takes place in this instance prior so that it's not a case of doing it afterwards and see? I know you might not have the details of that, but is that something that we could be looking at in terms of the smell extraction as well as the noise? I mean, in terms of the details that will be submitted to us before the extraction is ever operated, they'll be submitted to us by the applicant for review. And as part of that, we can have discussions with our external environmental health consultant to ensure that they're sufficiently happy that there would be no resultant impacts in terms of additional smells in relation to the details that are provided. Can I ask, where is this example that you're referring to? On Conyers Road, there's a little industrial estate just opposite of where the Councillor Robert Hill used is round the back and they were producing coffee right next to someone's kitchen window. They were able to stop the extraction. So the planning permission was given, they were making coffee for some time and things went in. And working together, they were able to stop the extraction going. I don't know the technical details, they managed to transfer it back in to reuse it, but none of the smells didn't escape and therefore the problem was solved. And I've not heard anyone praise it again since it was a couple of years ago. Okay, I mean, I'll seek officer's advice, but it might be that we could perhaps include an informative and you submit the information to the officers and they may be looking to that as part of the discharge of the condition should approval be granted. I've made a note of that. Thank you. I saw a hand up in the audience. I just want to remind everybody that this isn't a public meeting, it is a meeting in public. So I don't tend to take interventions from the floor unless specifically invited by me as chair. Councillor Clarke. Just continuing on residential amimity on music. I just wanted to check the wording of condition 10, which talks about the playing of amplified music shall be restricted to ambient and background levels only. And there should be no playing at any time for the purposes of public entertainment. Is and what's the difference between public entertainment and ambient background noise? Because presumably ambient noise is still for the purpose of mildly entertaining. So I just wanted to clarify to understand that clause a bit better before I understand what's going on. Yeah, so in terms of the no playing restrictions to playing amplified music, that would be in relation to sort of any speakers that may be inside the cafe or a radio or anything akin to that. And as you mentioned, the playing live round five music would just be separate to that. So anyone, anyone or anything, separate external speakers being moved in or bands, et cetera. Okay, so that's fine. That's the, that's the clarification is obviously there is some internal sort of fitted speakers as it were, but in terms of then the separate entertainment as things stand without separate licences. Okay, thanks for clarifying it. On that, can I ask a question about relationship between planning and licencing in this instance and where the, should permission be granted and the owner or operator decides to apply for a TEN on occasional occurrences. How would that say the opening hours they're applying for don't comply with with the ones that are in the planning condition and also this condition with regards to amplified music? How does that work? Does the TEN override the planning conditions temporarily or? I don't think in terms of the, any approval of the TEN that it would override planning for the restriction of operating hours. Right. Okay. I've got another question about opening hours. Is yours related? Okay. Oh, yes. I've got one on that too. Um, so, um, sunset is a bit ambiguous of summer. Um, I don't, I don't know when that's likely to be, is that likely to be at the nine o'clock? 10 o'clock? What, what in the summer? 45 minutes before sunset is, I don't know what hour that might be. The time of the day when there is sunset, um, is on my, is on my weather app. Yeah, I know, but you know how we do that assessment on daylight, sunlight. We've got the equinox or the 21st of June or something. Is it? Okay. That's measured, yes. So for example, have you, what, what, what assessment have you made for, um, the time that it might close, um, at mid-summer evening, the 7th of July, I'm sorry. Or the 21st of June, the longest day? Um, in terms of timing. Yeah. Um, so the timings, I think, um, is, is worth outlining that obviously officers assessed, um, the app, the information that was submitted to us at application stage. Uh, and at that stage, we want to be aware that actually wouldn't be closed or locked. Um, we were aware from the parks department that the, uh, site itself would be closed 15 minutes before sunset, um, which is outlined on the website on that. In terms of the distinction, um, you're getting at in terms of the differences between winter and summer, um, there were, as far as I know, further assessments in terms of, um, the distinction between the two in relation to the operating costs. So, so if we're looking at the equinox as well, we're probably looking at 8.30 to 8, sort of, uh, 8.45 for closing, uh, because sunset's at 9, 9, 9, 21, obviously. That's where I'm going to be in it, yeah. Okay, so that's good, because it gives us a rough time as to when the knowledge might start to event. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I'm very sorry, committee. I forgot to tell you that we also have two registered, um, technical specialists, um, who are here in person should we need to call on them. Um, and they are Dan Thomas, um, who is representing the applicant, which is Lambeth Council, and Sophie Potter from Dan at Johnson Architects, who's the architect and planning agent for the application. Um, so apologies, I didn't mention that sooner. Um, continuing with the hours of operation, um, Councillor McGovern mentioned that the applicant originally in the application form applied for 8 till 8 Monday to Friday and 8 till 9 on weekends and bank holidays. Um, so how, how has the application gone from, from that, as was originally applied for, to, to what is now being proposed with much shorter operating hours during the winter months and, and why is that being necessary just because it's winter? Um, so obviously the, uh, as I mentioned in terms of the information that was available to officers, uh, during the assessment of the application, um, the application form did state that, uh, the proposed operating hours were to be 8 a.m to 8 p.m, Monday to Friday and 8 a.m to 9 p.m on Saturdays, Sundays, uh, public holidays, bank holidays. Um, following the information being made aware and going out to consultation, we received a number of representations and concerns were raised, um, in those representations, um, about how those operating hours would coincide with the, uh, opening closing times of Agnes Riley Gardens. Um, we weren't, um, made aware that Agnes Riley Gardens, um, wouldn't be locked or closed. The information that our parks team have is that Agnes Riley Gardens opens at 7.30 a.m and closes 15 minutes before sunset. So following that information, we sought further discussions with the applicant to clarify of them how the operating hours that are being proposed, uh, would coincide with the opening and closing of the park. Um, and following those discussions, it was then proposed by the applicant that the, uh, opening and closing times of the cafe, will be 8 a.m till 4 to 5 minutes before sunset to coincide with the opening closing hours of the park as we understood it at the time. Okay. All right. Well, perhaps that's something we can pick up when we come to discuss the application. Um, any more questions? That's the clerk. Might be one for the applicant just, just on, on this issue of opening hours. Does there is, we've heard that there might from others that there might be a question of viability of the, of an operator based on opening hours. Has there been any, does, does the applicant having experience of similar sites have any thoughts around the opening hours and the viability? Okay. So if we invite the applicant to the table. Thank you. So if you just want to quickly introduce yourself again, and then answer Councillor Clark's question and maybe, um, tell us about what, what open hours you were hoping for. So, um, yeah, Dan Thomas, I'm, uh, head of service for capital delivery, um, with presence and enabling services. So, um, we do have an experience. We have a number of cafes recently built and, uh, on the conveyor belt, let's say for, uh, in the council. So Archbishop's cafe and Archbishop's park, as well as other sites, such as Boxall park. And we have a number of preexisting cafes as well, where we serve, you know, a variety of audiences and use a variety of, um, tenants that do that. So it's really, it will be for the tenant to really propose, um, how they wish to operate that cafe. And obviously we go out through our council estate agents to seek interest. And at that point, uh, obviously viability is, is the main concern for that cafe operator. So, um, we use specialists to go out there and interact with the market to try and find the best operator for each, each site. And it differs across the whole, you know, the current, uh, makeup of our cafe providers. It, it differs. It's very big operators. Well, it's not very big. It was bigger operators than some very small operators. And in fact, some cafes we run ourselves. There's the council. So in Clapham Common, for example, we have a couple of kiosks, which are internally run and are kind of demand led. Okay. Thank you. If you'd like to make your way back to the table. Um, I have a question about the materials and the timber cladding. Um, and one of the representations, we were given some examples of similar use of materials that hasn't, according to the photos, worn very well. Um, so, I mean, I don't know about those application sites. I don't know if they were treated properly. I don't know if officers have any other information, but perhaps you could give some assurance to committee why you, um, how you know that the timber, if timber were applied in this instance, that it would wear well. Um, so, uh, I've been supposed, uh, a western red cedar cladding, um, and along the external elevations of building. Um, and this material has been outlined, not only as being sustainable, um, but the shingles, uh, having a life expectancy of approximately 50 years when I'm treated, uh, aside from this as well, we are equally secure under condition for the addition of weatherproof, uh, as well, trying to increase the durability and life expectancy of the timber cladding, um, to ensure the longevity of the extended elevations of building. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions? I'm quite keen for us to start debating the application. Councillor Nye. Can I just ask a question around, um, access to the toilets for the public and whether that could be a condition that it's made available when the cafe is open? Uh, so we, uh, in terms of the, the access, yeah, as noted in the presentation, uh, and in the report, there are separate entrances, one through the cafe itself, the right access for the park. Um, we could put on or see to secure, uh, a compliance condition, um, that any, uh, future operators ensure that the toilets, uh, are open to the public at all times, uh, when the cafe is, is, is open, in conjunction with the cafe operating house. Um, that's one that we really clicked on. Councillor Nye. Um, just around waste, and obviously those who've got a zone of concern that they might generate more waste. Um, so are there going to be more footprint cleaning collections if needed? And are you happy for the applicant to submit to you their wasteful plan when they have a presenter and to speak to the Fenton group as outlined in one of the speakers? So the, um, bins that are provided, uh, outside of the application site within the park, uh, are operated by, uh, Lampers Park services. Um, so in terms of the, this current application, um, we can't seek to, uh, request that those are approved as they are. We do, however, um, outline that, uh, there's, uh, a provision of 100, uh, 815 litres of, uh, waste storage provided on site, um, to be provided in the storage section on the, uh, southern section of the, um, uh, building. And as part of those, I mean, to continue to seek, uh, waste management data that may include uh, waste management plan to be sure there'll be no, um, increase, um, uh, unacceptable increase in waste and litter, um, to, to prevent the park and that they're collected, um, in an appropriate fashion. Criminal question, then I really want to move to the debate. Quick question on scale and massing. So, um, you're removing the chimney stack, um, often chimney stack. I'm just wondering how creative that is when, you know, maybe captured and used that as one of the extract extractor outlets. Um, was that ever looked at, considered? And the other question is around, uh, the amount of natural light that is allowed to pour in through those, uh, uh, it's a shame we didn't have more graphics actually, but, um, your pictures of just how much natural light is going to go along that long elevation. Um, so I can't speak for the, um, uh, design considerations that went into, um, both the, the, the skylights as well as the, uh, chimney, obviously the officers, uh, says the application on the design that was submitted to them. Um, and in terms of the, uh, the massing itself, uh, see, the massing is, is, um, remaining the same, if not a slight improvement. Um, but as mentioned, there was no, uh, obviously I've known, but in terms of the design prior to submission, um, the skylights, uh, that are currently there are sought to be replaced, um, and they, uh, are going to be slightly larger than the ones currently there. Um, they will have some, uh, external sort of cladding around them, um, to, um, with the external elevations, um, in terms of matching the design, um, but, uh, they will provide, uh, similar and acceptable after that reliance, the, the cafe itself. Okay, thank you. I'd like to move on to a debate now, and I'm going to invite members to give their opinions on the application, and we can debate the merits of the scheme, um, perhaps give an indication of how you'll be voting this evening and why. Who would like to go first? Housler Clark. Uh, uh, thank you. Um, I, uh, I think that, uh, this is, uh, a welcome improvement of, uh, community assets. Uh, I, uh, no, yeah, use, use, use, use the park occasionally as, uh, on, uh, on jogging and have, uh, uh, know, know the area and know the park and know the, uh, the, uh, I can understand and agree with what has been said around filling the improved community asset, fulfilling both practical and social need, uh, and that it is, I think the key is that there are the additional public benefits of access to lose and drinking water provided, secured by condition. And I think that's one of the things that I wanted to kind of follow up on was to ensure that those conditions, uh, are, are, are the wording of the conditions is sufficiently tight to ensure that the, uh, those public benefits, uh, to, to the lose and to drinking water are secured. Uh, and we're hearing some concern over that not being the case. And then from my point to, uh, to look at the, uh, the, the impacts on neighbouring residential immunity and seeing how they have been mitigated. Uh, and if there is anything further that could be done to mitigate, um, and, uh, uh, I, I didn't hear anything that's certainly suspiciously in terms of needing additional mitigations. Um, uh, but I do think that the, you know, there is a valid debate around the opening hours. Uh, and I say, I would be interested myself to hear what, what others are, uh, are, are, are, are, are thinking, but certainly from my point of view, something that, uh, for the sake of argument, you know, was a, a eight year amending that condition to extend in the time since GMT from 8am to sunset, uh, which so in effect 45 minutes extension during the winter, early spring while retaining the, the current level, uh, current condition in the summertime, uh, gives the balance some extended opening, but, uh, uh, uh, at, uh, half of a particular, uh, significant, uh, uh, impacts on immunity. So I would so expect half expect that as the applicant himself said, once the, uh, end user has been known and everything's been tested, I wouldn't be surprised if something came back. I would like to jump to officers around this, but I think, uh, from my point of view, being more courtier, a little bit cautious is, uh, I don't know. What else, Councillor Nye? So I'll keep it brief. I welcome the application. I'm concerned we might be missing opportunities to provide affordable meeting space and ancillary use outside of the cafe opening hours. I see the noise condition limits a lot of the impacts on the local community and I would, uh, welcome the extension of AIDS AIDS as was initially suggested, but in, in principle, really supportive. I think it's, yeah, great to see it get this far. It's just around opening hours. Anybody else? Councillor Ainslie. I'm impressed. The Friends did a survey in 2017 and, uh, canvassed for local opinions to, uh, to look at what the community wanted. Um, that's really encouraging to hear, encouraging to hear that the toilets will be kept open for public access. Um, uh, encouraging to see the, the, the, the, the use of an existing building and the, the, the re, uh, commissioning of it, which is great. Um, there's a nice long flat roof. I'd like to have seen solar panels and more natural daylight. Um, the concern about the, um, cladding, uh, if we can ensure that condition four is held to, then there's no reason why, um, it can't be prevented from deteriorating and, uh, be anti-graffiti from what I'm reading in the officer's report. Um, on, on the waste management thing, um, hopefully they won't be using that many single use, uh, because they will be, uh, you know, just washing up and, and, and using proper cups and stuff. Um, but yeah, it's, I'm, I'm mindful to approve this application, uh, provided, uh, the, um, conditions around the leaking of smells, orders, uh, noise pollution are mitigated against the, um, uh, neighboring property as much as possible, to very remind the point I made during the questions. Thanks. You don't have this in here, but would you like anything else to add? Uh, yeah, I'm generally supportive of the application, uh, improves the local area. Uh, uh, the only concern I have is the opening hours. I'd like to see it be extended and, um, condition 10 about live music or amplified music and the relationship it has with licensing, whether 10s would be able to override that temporarily. Okay. I'll ask you this. Okay. Um, I'm going to ask the officer to advise us on what is within our remit in terms of the opening hours. If I just perhaps start with my thoughts, um, I would like to see the, um, the site to have as much a chance as possible to secure a suitable end user. I think, um, um, concerns with regards to amenity have already, um, been mitigated with the quite stringent noise and, um, odours, et cetera, conditions. So I think to have such limited opening hours together with those other conditions is, is very restrictive and perhaps not representative of what we're normally having in cafes across the borough. And I also would be concerned that such restrictive opening hours would prevent the use of the site for more of more flexible, but albeit ancillary use allowing communities to meet there and other meetings, noting the councillors concerns that the area in itself is, is, um, quite devoid of such spaces unlike other, um, possible parts of the borough. Um, so I, and I also don't see any reason why it, the site would have to close earlier just because it's winter. Um, because at the moment if it closes 45 minutes before sunset, it's have a much longer opening hours in the summer, but communities still meet in the winter. You know, we don't all like stay indoors come three, four PM in the winter. So I'd still want the site to be used for that reason. And I think the current hours restrict that. So perhaps you could advise as presiding officer what is in our gift. Yeah. So fully understand the comments that have been made in terms of the, the opening hours. Um, however, um, it is the duty of planning committee to assess the application that's been put before them. Um, and, um, the application has been assessed on the basis of, of the opening hours being aligned with the park opening hours, notwithstanding the comments that have been made about maybe how those park opening hours have been operated. Therefore, as it currently stands before you, um, if you were minded to extend the opening hours, um, you'd be able to extend them uh, to from, sorry, to 8 AM to 15 minutes before sunset, which aligns with what our parks team currently tell us is the opening hours, um, under this application. If the parks team then to, um, take a decision outside of planning, as they're perfectly entitled to do, in terms of what those formal opening hours for the park are, you would then potentially be, then potentially be an opera, an opportunity to come back to amend, um, um, and that would be fully assessed at that time with, um, all the relevant details for extended opening hours. But as it, as it sits before you, the application has been assessed on the basis of 8 AM to 45 minutes before sunset, um, but it could be extended to 8 AM to 15 minutes before sunset, which would align with those park operating hours, which, uh, the officers have had discussions with the council's parks team on, um, extending beyond that has not currently been assessed within the documentation, um, in the application. Okay. Um, I'm just mindful that as a committee, we have previously amended opening hours for various things, whether they're, um, restaurants, cafes, bars, moogers, for example. And we have been able to do that, um, as a committee, um, sometimes the hours that we sought to amend have, have, have varied significantly to what has been presented to us in the report. Um, so it, is there, like, a legal reason why we, why we'd not be able to amend that condition or is this, it's more, like, officer good practice? It's, it's good practice, but also because currently, as it stands, the, the publicized hours of opening for the park are 8 AM to 15 minutes before sunset. And so to, for us to, um, consider and approve opening hours for a facility within that park, which is outside of hours, which our current parks team are saying that, that the park is open. We, as officers, have not assessed the implications of allowing additional people in the park at hours that our park team are currently saying the park is not open. As I've said, the park team can change those parks hours outside of the planning process. And there are, um, planning processes in place for out, for applications to vary hours, um, on a, on a permission if such a permission is granted at a later date. Councillor Clarke. Uh, is there any scope for, um, I guess, giving our views and delegating the decision with our clear views to the head of planning, typically, the title is these days. What do you mean? As in, as in, if we said, um, um, we would like to see, we, uh, we would, we would like to see as an, yeah, as a minimum, we, we are happy with, you know, the, the compromise proposal, but we would like to see, um, at the hours extended further in its range, if this is possible. And we delegate that to the, you know, to planning to see if that is possible. I don't know yet. Well, we could put, we could have it minuted or we, we could put an informative on. Um, I think we also need to, um, decide whether it is part of our considerations, the opening hours as, as proposed, um, would restrict the type of the, the popularity of the, the desire of an end user to take it on in the first place and, you know, balance that with delays that could be caused for, you know, if an applicant comes in and has to amend the condition. So I think that is a possibility, but I think we also need to consider whether we, we do want to amend the opening hours, but taking on board the officer advice that the impact hasn't been fully assessed, but whether we think there is such a risk that there is likely to be, um, a negative impact of an extended opening hours, given the very stringent noise and odour conditions. So I think it's, the gift is ours, but also noting the, the officer advice. Yeah, Councillor Clarke. Yeah. I see Councillor Clarke was asking, did you get an answer about the league? Was there any legal reason? I didn't. Um, well, as with any plan of application needs to be assessed on merits and what's been assessed due to what's before. So, so this would change the, like, assessment. Can you expand on that a bit more? In what, in what way? Um, well, officers have come to do with recommendation. They've consulted on a particular suite of, uh, issues that's been, um, responded to. Therefore, the best information available to officers at this time is, uh, captured in, in the report. Uh, so deviating from that, uh, could potentially be an irrational decision because it hasn't been properly assessed. Okay. They expose, uh, the authority to challenge. Okay. All right. Well, that's very helpful. That's very helpful for us to know. Any other thoughts of you? Okay. Well, um, having heard the legal advice and, um, you know, I think it is within our gift to extend the opening hours to what was applied for, but I take on board the legal advice. I'm also mindful that the extended opening hours, which would be eight till eight and eight till nine, haven't been consulted on. Um, so I think there's perhaps that to, to take into account. Um, so I think, um, we perhaps should, uh, on the side of caution and go with councillor Clark's, um, suggestion, which is that we have, uh, it's minuted that the committee would really strongly, um, like for the hours to be, uh, as were originally applied for, um, to give it a chance of a end user, you know, being interested in, in the site and to allow the flexible use of the site and for meetings for the community, et cetera. But, um, having heard officer and legal advice, I think perhaps it wouldn't be a wise decision for us this evening and within our gift to make a rational decision to extend them, um, as proposed in the application form. But I do, however, think we should at least change them to 15 minutes before sunset, um, which isn't such a huge extension, but is a later closing date. So we'll have that as a starter and then it is within the applicant's gift to come in and amend that application, uh, amend the condition to an extended opening hours in the future. So it's not completely restricted. Um, okay. So subject to an amended condition four, um, um, I'm going to suggest or feedback whether committee agree with me, but that we do amend, um, condition, sorry, condition 11, sorry. I've got a lot of conditions going on in the informatives. So subject to an amended condition 11 for the extended opening hours to 15 minutes before sunset and, um, amended condition four, um, perhaps removing the reference to timber cladding, um, which doesn't restrict the applicant from coming in and submitting timber details anyway. Um, it just means that they wouldn't be, um, wedded to that. Um, um, so subject to that amendment with an informative that the friends are consulted on and when that condition comes to be discharged, as well as, um, an informative, the same effect for the waste management condition and then subject to an additional condition that the toilets remain, um, accessible during the cafe opening hours. And an informative for councillor Ainsley's example of the flu and, yeah, the flu in somewhere, um, that you email officers and they, they look into that when, when that, when that, um, relevant condition comes to be discharged, they can look into that further. Something else, Councillor Clarke, have I missed something? Uh, on the drinking water fountain, the office so mentioned that there was a amendment to condition, potential verbal amendment to condition four. I don't know if it's been captured. Am I right in saying that? Can we include that as well? Thank you. Um, I suppose we accept officers' recommendation and approved planning permission. Do I see a seconder? Councillor Costa, all those in favour, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Okay. Thank you everybody for your time this evening. That concludes planning committee.
Summary
The committee voted unanimously to grant planning permission for the change of use of a building in Agnes Riley Gardens to a cafe. A condition was added to require the toilets to remain open to the public when the cafe is open. Councillors also added an informative asking officers to encourage the use of technologies that prevent smells from escaping the building.
Agnes Riley Gardens
The meeting considered an application for the change of use of a vacant building previously used as public toilets and changing rooms in Agnes Riley Gardens to a cafe, operating under Class E(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 19871. The application also sought permission to refurbish the existing building to accommodate the cafe. This included replacing the windows, doors, roof and roof lights, and removing a ramp. The applicant also proposed to install a kitchen extraction flue, two air conditioning units and an external seating area.
The cafe would be operated by a third-party tenant and would sell hot and cold food and drinks.
Public Benefit
The planning officer presenting the report highlighted the public benefit of the proposals, stating that:
The proposal would seem to provide improvements to the park itself and additional improvements to the community and users of the park.
The new cafe would provide much-needed refreshments for visitors to the park, and the refurbished toilets would be open to the public year-round. Currently, the toilets are only open on weekends during the summer months.
Objections
Objections to the proposals were received from some residents of Atkins Road, a residential street adjacent to Agnes Riley Gardens. Yasmin Kilji, speaking on behalf of her parents, who live at 73 Atkins Road, raised concerns about the noise, pollution and smells the cafe would generate, saying it would have a detrimental impact on their family life.
Charles Walshaw, who lives on Atkins Road, also objected, saying:
For those occupants, their quality of life will be adversely affected. Mitigating such outcomes is nearly impossible when sighted along a boundary wall.
Support
Supporters of the application, including Friends of Agnes Riley Gardens, argued that the cafe would provide a valuable amenity for the local community. Maria Sharifi, speaking on behalf of the friends group, pointed out:
There'd be no cafe nearby. The friends believe a cafe in the park would benefit the public, not just the cafe users by providing lavatories during the hours of operation of the cafe, which would be many more days which are currently in place.
James Boyd, a resident of Atkins Road, also spoke in favour, arguing that the cafe would improve the safety of the park and provide a much-needed social hub.
Both of the ward councillors, Councillor Verity McGivern and Councillor Martin Tiedemann, spoke in support of the application.
Design
Diana Morris, speaking on behalf of Friends of Agnes Riley Gardens, raised concerns about the choice of materials for the refurbishment. In particular, the applicant proposed to use timber shingles, a treatment that she argued, “has led to this treatment being generally discouraged in Lambeth”. The officer presenting the report responded, saying:
This material has been outlined not only as being sustainable, um, but the shingles, uh, having a life expected to have approximately 50 years when uncreated.
Officers also advised that the timber shingles would be treated with a clear coating and an anti-graffiti coating.
Hours of Operation
The applicant initially proposed that the cafe be allowed to open between 8am and 8pm on Monday to Friday, and 8am and 9pm on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. This was subsequently reduced to between 8:30am and 45 minutes before sunset, seven days a week.
This decision was made in response to concerns from officers that longer opening hours would not be compatible with the existing opening hours of Agnes Riley Gardens, which is open from 7:30am until 15 minutes before sunset.
Ward councillors expressed concern that these opening hours would be too restrictive. They argued that longer opening hours would be necessary to ensure the cafe's viability, and that they would also allow for more flexible community use of the space, for example for evening meetings.
Councillor Malcolm Clarke asked if the cafe would be able to apply for a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) to extend its opening hours. The officer presenting the report advised that this would not be possible.
Officers advised the committee that they could extend the opening hours to align with the existing park opening hours, but that extending them further would constitute a “irrational decision” as it had not been assessed.
Councillor Clarke suggested that the committee could delegate the decision to the Head of Planning and “give our views” that the opening hours should be extended. The committee agreed to an informative stating that they would like the opening hours to be extended to those originally proposed by the applicant. They also voted to amend the condition on opening hours to allow the cafe to remain open until 15 minutes before sunset, in line with the park.
Noise and Odour
Local residents expressed concerns about the potential for noise and odour nuisance from the cafe.
The planning officer presenting the report explained that the applicant had proposed to screen the plant equipment, saying:
The applicant has outlined that they were happy to provide screening to the extraction plant equipment, and we saw that that was accepted and have sought under conditions 7, as outlined on page 32, that details of the screening are provided to us for review and confirmation.
The proposals were also reviewed by the council's Environmental Health Officer, who recommended conditions requiring a noise assessment and details of the proposed odour control measures.
Councillor Scott Ainslie expressed particular concern about the potential for odour nuisance. He described a similar case in his ward where a coffee roaster was located next to a residential property. Councillor Ainslie explained that the problem was resolved by using technology to prevent smells from escaping the building. He asked if a similar approach could be taken in this case.
Officers agreed to add an informative to the decision notice asking the applicant to investigate this possibility.
Community Use
Both ward councillors asked if the cafe could be used as a community meeting space outside of its normal opening hours. The planning officer presenting the report advised that this would be possible, saying:
Use of the cafe by the local community would be acceptable so long as they remain auxiliary to the E-class E-B cafe use.
However, they also clarified that the applicant was not proposing to change the use class to include community use.
Waste Management
Concerns were also raised about waste and litter, and whether adequate bin provision would be made.
The planning officer presenting the report explained that bin provision outside the building is the responsibility of the council's Parks Service, and that this is not within the remit of the planning application. They added:
We do however, um, outline that, uh, there's, uh, a provision of a hundred, uh, eight hundred fifteen litres of, uh, waste storage provided onsite, um, to be provided in the storage section on the, uh, southern section of the, um, uh, building.
The committee added an informative to the decision notice asking officers to consult with Friends of Agnes Riley Gardens on the waste management strategy for the cafe.
-
The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) puts uses of land and buildings into various categories, known as 'Use Classes'. This allows Local Planning Authorities to control the change of use of land and buildings through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Class E(b) of the order covers cafes and restaurants. ↩
Attendees
Documents
- Agenda frontsheet Tuesday 14-Jan-2025 19.00 Planning Applications Committee agenda
- Public reports pack Tuesday 14-Jan-2025 19.00 Planning Applications Committee reports pack
- PAC Minutes 19 November 2024 other
- PAC Minutes 10 December 2024 final other
- 24.02837.RG3 - Agnes Riley Gardens PAC Report FINAL
- First Addendum Tuesday 14-Jan-2025 19.00 Planning Applications Committee other
- PAC First Addendum - 24.02837.RG3 - Agnes Riley Gardens