Transcript

Good evening everyone and welcome to this evening's planning applications committee meeting. My name is Councillor Joanne Simpson and I'm chair of the meeting. In line with legislation committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers, visiting ward members and members of the public have joined us either virtually or physically. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. 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, please remain at your level. There's an accessible toilet just outside that door on the right. There'll be a comfort break around 9pm. We've received apologies from Councillor Martin Bailey this evening. I'll now introduce members of the committee, starting with Councillor Ainslie and we'll work round this way. Good evening, I'm Councillor Scott Ainslie. I represent Streatham's and Learners Ward. De Geoghe Costa, overboard. Councillor Jaffa, I'm from St. Martin's Ward. Hi, Knights Hill Ward. Councillor Malcolm Park, Streatham Wells Ward, Vice Chair of the committee. And I'm Councillor Joanne Simpson. I represent Stockwell West and Larkhall Ward and I am chair. I'll now introduce the senior officers at this evening's meeting, starting with our presiding officer. Venetia Mischief, Democratic Services Officer. Our legal officer, our conservation officer, Nicola Schwerer, Principal Conservation Officer. Our transport officer, Kieran Coghlan, Transport Officer. Thank you. Our presenting officer for Ruskin Park. Mila, senior planner in the Brixton Clapham team. Thank you. And the team manager for that application. Jennifer Walsh, I'm the area team manager for Brixton Clapham. Thank you. The presenting officer for the Walker House application. Hi, I'm Nathan Barrett, the principal planning officer in the strategic applications team. Thank you. And the manager for that application. Jeff Holt, Deputy Head of Strategic Applications. Thank you. I'm the presenting officer for the Hungerford Coach Park application. Bethany Malick, Planning Officer for Waterloo and Streatham team. Thank you. And the presenting officer for 87 South Lambeth Road. That's me this evening, Jack. OK, and we have some external consults with us. For the Walker House application, we have Giulio Antionuto from Aret, Speciality, Daylight and Sunlight. We have Elise Kidd from Blueburton on Sustainability. OK, the order of business, there are seven 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 websites. The applications will be considered in the same way. Reports which are to be debated will be presented by an officer who will highlight the main issues. Although for two of the applications, the Hungerford Coach Park and the Ruskin Park application, we're not having an officer presentation because we believe all the information that we need is in the officer report. And given the scale of the schemes following an officer presentation, we then hear from speakers. There are six members of the public and two ward councillors who have registered to speak for the items on today's agenda. We then move to a debate where members of the committee may ask questions via the chair of officers and will then debate the application. Members will have read the officer reports and may wish to amend the recommended conditions or place informatives on the decision subject to officer advice. We then reach a decision. Each application will be decided this evening and formal notification of the committee's decision will be sent to the applicants and any interested parties who made written representations. The minutes from tonight's meeting will be published after the meeting. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, two clear working days before the meeting. So item one is declarations of pecuniary interest. Do any members have any declarations of pecuniary interest they wish to share? Thank you very much. Item two is declarations of other interests. Do members have any declarations of interest they wish to share? House La Costa? For item five, Walker House, the Voxel One business district was consulted and I'm a member of the board and I have a relationship with the House. However, I'm open. I have an open mind to this application and item number seven about the South Lambeth Road application that is in my ward. So and likewise, I have an open mind. Thank you very much. We'll move on to agenda item three, which is the minutes. Are the minutes of the meeting held on the 25th of February 2025 agreed? Thank you. Our first planning application, item four, which is Ruskin Park. So we're not going to have an office of presentation. So we'll move straight to speakers. And I have the ward council registered to speak. Well, who should be here in person? If you just want to come to the table. Hi there. OK, so for the benefit of Councillor Sadwell and everyone else who's speaking, how this works is we have a timer. I'll first of all ask you to introduce yourself and your relationship with the applications in this case, ward Councillor. And then your two minutes will begin. We have a timer and there's a 20 second warning. But when you have 20 seconds left and then it will beep a second time when you're two minutes up and I'll ask you to finish your sentence. So first of all, introduce yourself. And then the timing will begin whenever you're ready. Thank you very much, Chair. I'm Councillor Deepak Sadewal, the ward Councillor for Hernickel and Loughborough Junction. It is my pleasure to address the Planning Applications Committee for a second time in as many months. The building at the centre of this application predates the creation of Ruskin Park having been built in the 19th century. It represents a rare example of a time when Londoners were highly dependent on the climate forces and horse drawn. The stable block is locally listed by Lambeth in recognition of its undoubted heritage value. However, it has been boarded up and increasingly derelict for well over a decade. This planning application represents a once in a generation opportunity to restore the building and bring it back into use for the benefit of park users and the local community that I represent. It is also anticipated that the restoration of the building will promote a sense of safety and reduce the risk of anti-social behaviour in this particular area, the Ruskin Park. I look forward to the future tenants of the building, of course, subject to approval, having an ambitious business model with strong community and social value. Coming towards the end of my speech, I'd like to thank everybody who has campaigned for the stable blocks restoration over a number of years. And for Lambeth Council, who has allocated this significant funding, showing its strong commitment to investing in local communities. It's really been a collaborative joint undertaking getting to this point this evening. Members of the committee, I strongly urge you to approve this application. Thank you very much for your time this evening. Thank you. I'd like to make your way back to the audience and that is it for speakers for this application. So opening up to questions. I don't feel you have to ask a question, but if you would like something clarified, now's your chance. Any questions from members? Just a small one. If it is a cafe, there will be rubbish collected around it. So who is going to clean it? Who is going to be responsible for that? So we're conditioning the refuse collection details on condition 10. Obviously it is located within the park, so that's something that probably will be discussed at a later date between the two parties and will then be provided with full details when it comes to the discharge of the condition. I don't see any more hands, so I suggest we move to a vote on this one. Don't feel that you have to do any summing up, but if somebody would like to add a comment, feel free. No. OK. I'd just like to add that I welcome the addition of the condition in the addenda that the toilets will be accessible. And I'm going to propose that we accept officers recommendation to include the conditions as worded in the addenda and approved planning commission. Do I see a seconder? Councillor Ainslie, all those in favour? OK, that is unanimous. Thank you very much. Right. Well, moving swiftly on to our next application. Which is Walker House. Which is Walker House. So we'll have an officer presentation for this one, and I invite the officer to make that presentation now. Hi. So you can see our site just outlined in yellow here. This photo is a wee bit sort of dated because there's graphite square over the back here, which is now largely built out. And the code here, 10 storey building, which has also been recently built out. Mixed character sort of area. You have the NCAA officers here, some officers in here. The Staybridge Suites Hotel just here and sort of residential flats around here. The committee may recall approving the Glasshouse Walk student accommodation scheme, which is located just here. I think it was about October last year. We can't see your cursor, I can't anyway. Not sure where you're pointing, is there a way you can give you a minute just to work that out? Chair, will you go close to the screen? Can you? I think so. Can you see me if I sort of move it a bit? Is there a way you can make the cursor? Chair, if he opens up in the browser, then the cursor will look like a normal cursor. OK. Did you hear that? You open up in the browser, it'll look like a normal cursor. I'm not sure how I do that, I'm afraid. Yeah, you can right click on the PDF and say open with Microsoft Azure Google Chrome. Yes, that's better. Yes, thank you. If there's any way I can make a full screen out of this. Great, thank you. If you could just point those landmarks out again. Yeah, so you've got Graphite Square, which is the largest construction site, just the rear of the site, which I'm just circling there, number two. This photo is a wee bit dated because, as you'll see soon, Graphite Square is largely built out. That's a 14 storey development that was approved by appeal, which I think the Chair will be aware of in about 2019. There's also the code building here, which again, this is shown as under construction here. That's about 10 storeys high. That's recently been completed, so that's number seven. You've got the National Crime Agency's office just here with Peddlers Park just beyond to the north there. And then you have the Glass House Walk development, which I'm just circling at the bottom of the screen there, which was, I think, approved by this committee in October last year. So that's the student accommodation scheme. So quite a mix of uses in the area. So lots of office, hotel, staybridge suites here and residential sort of in this area here. Here we have the existing buildings on site. So throughout the report, you'll have seen reference to buildings one, two, three and four. So building one is the one at the southern end of the site here, 91 Vauxhall Walk. Building two is 93 to 95 Vauxhall Walk. And building three is 97 Vauxhall Walk. And finally building four, 83 to 89 Vauxhall Walk. Here we have some existing photos of the site as seen from Vauxhall Walk. Buildings currently used as offices by the applicant. So here you'll see from Vauxhall Walk link southwards with buildings one, two, three cross here. And building four here just in the middle. And again, that end of building one just shown here as seen from Vauxhall Walk. So quite a sort of an active frontage you can see there. And also reasonably an active frontages here. You can probably just make out there's some shutters, sorry, some metal shutters behind those windows just there. Here we also have a photo of the rear of the site prior to Graphite Square's construction. So buildings one, two, three and four. You can see the code under construction in the background there. Again, that's completed now. And the Staybridge Suites with its double mansard roof just above there. So just on the opposite side of Vauxhall Walk. So this is a view of the site as seen from Tinworth Street. So looking eastward. A bit more of an up-to-date photo as you can see there's Graphite Square sort of looming in the background there. And here's building three with a little bit of building four just shown there. And here we have again a view looking southward along Vauxhall Walk. Graphite Square again you can see the sort of quite dominant feature to the left of your screen. And I think it's the Spring Gardens Court just here with the application site just in that area I'm circling right there. So turning to what's proposed, the applicant proposes partial demolition, excavation and retention of 91, 93, 95 and 97 Vauxhall Walk. Including erection of new upper floors for office use to the existing buildings and new retail uses at ground floor level. So building four which is 83, 89 Vauxhall Walk would be demolished and a six storey office building erected in its place with basement and retail uses in its ground floor. All would be internally connected together with provision of cycle parking, end of trip cyclist facilities, refuse storage, installation of PV panels at the roof and other associated works. So the scheme is partial full demolition, partial facade retention I suppose for lack of a better term. So this slide you can see all the areas in grey, that would be the areas of facade that are retained. All the areas in red are what would be demolished. You can just make out that facia sign there that would be kept and reinstated on the new building. But everything you can see in red there would be demolished. Internally building two is pretty much fully demolished aside from that facade to Vauxhall Walk and building four is completely demolished. Those areas of green, this is a section through the site, would be retained. So those floors you can see retained in building one along with the floors within building three. Here we can see the Vauxhall Walk West elevation, so the existing to the top and proposed at the bottom. So you can see this additional sort of share storey coming along the tops of buildings one, two and three with mansards above, which you can just sort of faintly make out there and there. This is the new building four, which would also include a mansard roof above. You can just make out some plant screens above that too. You can also see enlarged windows along with building three and also building two and building one. And these two areas of metal louvers would be introduced to accommodate refuse stores and a substation which the building currently doesn't have. This is just a rear elevation of what's proposed. So this is the existing to the top and proposed to the bottom. So you just sort of make out that increase. This entire facade would be removed and replaced along all four buildings. And you can see the sort of existing lift shaft that would be re-clad or rebuilt and sort of a zinc cladding. Now here we have a basement floor, so the basement areas between buildings two, three and four would be enlarged. The basement to building one largely stays as it is. This would allow for the introduction of a dedicated cycle store and end of journey facilities that you can just make out there. Here we have the ground floor plan. So the ground floor would include flexible class EU, so that's what you can see in purple there. It would be a retail or cafe with similar sort of views. The office reception you can see in pink there. The entrance to the cycle store would be via the existing alleyway which connects to Graphite Square to the rear via that green arrow that you can see there. And again, you can see the new substation there and the new refuse store there, which are behind the metal levers that have proposed to the voxel walk elevation. So these are some street views of the new building, so building four here. You can see those sort of lowered, or building four is completely new should I say. You can see those lowered cells here and new entrance introduced at building three there. And the fascia sign retained. Building four on the left, there you can see again that's that reinstated fascia sign. And we'll talk a wee bit more about the design detail later on, but you can just make out that metal lever there. And again, similarly, this is building one. Again, there will be a change largely to these windows here, but this entrance stays more or less as it is. So here we have some applicants, the applicant's CGI's of what's proposed between north along voxel walk. So yeah, you can make sort of Graphite Square there, Staybridge Suites to the left. You can see that new shear red brick story there with a mansard roof on top of it there. And you can also see, I mean, you can't quite make it out in this picture, but a bit of additional activation on that corner there that doesn't exist at present. And here we have the view along Tinworth Street. So again, retained red brick here with the double mansards on top of it with Graphite Square in the background. This is probably about the only view that you can actually make out the double mansards, largely due to the other buildings that exist in the area. You can't really sort of make them out aside from this particular long view here. And 19, we have that sort of view looking south along voxel walk with Spring Gardens Court in the middle here with Graphite Square to the left and our new building 4, just here with the double mansard, well sorry, with a mansard and plant area just to the top of it there. So the main planning considerations for this application are the land use, design, impact on heritage, sustainable design and construction, amenity impact, transport and landscaping, trees, ecology and biodiversity. Turning to the office. 4,547 square metres GIA of office would be provided. That includes a net uplift of 617 square metres from existing. That would create 15 additional direct jobs and 14 direct jobs through services and the like for the office building. Currently, the existing buildings do not provide the space or facilities, including energy efficiency requirements expected from the occupiers of modern office buildings. The site is located within the CAS, where London Plan Policy 1 and Lambeth Local Plan Policy ED1 strongly support large offices. The offices would include 20 flexible, affordable workspace memberships in accordance with Policy ED2 of the LLP. Just on the existing buildings and why they're proposed to be demolished, the existing buildings have been adapted in an ad hoc manner for the existing office use from their original industrial use, resulting in an inefficient layout that doesn't meet the needs of modern office occupiers. All four buildings are served by a single elevator and have a cellular layout due to the party walls of the original buildings, rather than the open and flexible layout favoured in modern buildings. All three buildings are currently only accessed from Building 1, and there is no level access from the street. There's also no bin or softball. And buildings are poorly insulated and have no centralised services and associated distribution system. So the new buildings would introduce a more efficient layout and those modern sort of amenities that you would tend to expect from these buildings. Turning to the Flexible Class E use, so 489 square metres of Flexible Class E use is proposed at ground floor. So Policy ED7 supports this throughout the year. So Policy ED7 supports this throughout the CAS without the need for a sequential test provided the impact on the CAS retail cluster, so in this case Vauxhall, and the lower Marsh Cut, Leek Street special policy area is carefully considered. So the site is too far from the Vauxhall retail cluster. and the proposed units too small to have an unacceptable impact in officers opinion. It's also probably worth noting those uses can contribute to sort of the facade activation, which is largely not there at present. Turning to the Height and Bulk of what's proposed at ground floor, so 489 square metres of Flexible Class E use is proposed at ground floor. So 489 square metres of Flexible Class E use is proposed at ground floor. Turning to the Height and Bulk of what's proposed, so the height of the existing buildings increased by two to three storeys. They're not really subordinate to the existing buildings and there would be a conflict with Policy Q11 of the LLP. Development as a whole was probably more akin to redeveloping another site though, given the scale of demolition proposed and the increased height would be consistent with the prevailing heights in the local area. The mansard's reduced perceived bulk by sort of pulling that bulk away from the frontage of the building. So overall, officers are happy with the height, bulk and massing and consider it compatible with the existing and emerging site context. Turning to the Detailed Design of what's proposed, so with regards to buildings 1, 2 and 3, the retained facades and bays maintain the existing sort of rhythm of development in the streets. So that sort of plot with that sort of sense of what's there at present. The facial signs will be repaired and retained. Existing joinery and brickwork would also be repaired and retained. And as you can see, these with sills would be lowered, so limited sort of loss of heritage fabric there to allow for more larger windows for the shops that are there and access there to provide more facade activation. Similarly with building 4, so this is the new building, would reflect the industrial aesthetic, I suppose, that is there at present. It includes a sort of three bay width with large industrial scale windows. Again, this facade, this facial sign gets retained and that would be required by condition. It would also be quite richly detailed, glazed bricks at ground floor level, white precast lentils, you can see articulation of the facade here with the brickwork, these soldier courses and the like. And again, those sills lowered to create that facade activation along with the entrance here to the new office. So in terms of the heritage impact, it's recognised that the existing buildings contribute positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area. There is a locally listed war memorial which would be retained and reinstated and a condition is recommended to secure that. The facade retention, sorry, facade retention scheme, which is what is kind of happening with buildings 1 to 3, is usually not considered appropriate by policy Q22B of the Lambeth local plan. And the lowering of sills and introduction of metal louvers, there would be limited sort of loss of additional fabric there as well as creating some small areas of blank. Of course, there would, I suppose, create a lot more activity created with the sort of larger openings provided. So overall, officers consider the scale of development compatible with the existing and emerging context of the site. However, there would be a low level of less than substantial harm due to the loss of fabric proposed as well as that additional height and that harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. Turning to sustainable design and construction, the proposal would achieve 29% carbon savings beyond Part L and that would also include an 18% saving through energy efficiency. So that generates a calculated carbon offset payment at present of £58,287. The applicant's also targeting Bream Excellent. The level of demolition proposed strikes a balance between creating modern offices and minimising the release of embodied carbon. CLT is being used throughout to further reduce embodied carbon. So the slide here sort of indicates what you would achieve with a conventional, I suppose, concrete slab versus what you can achieve with CLT. You can see a 55% less embodied carbon than using a traditional construction method. It's probably worth noting that that doesn't actually include sequestration, which would presumably increase that figure. Turning to amenity and particularly daylight impacts. We've assessed the impact on 79 Vauxhall Walk, Graphite Square, which is currently under construction and not occupied, although we will be shortly, Kennedy House and Jamison House. So on 79 Vauxhall Walk, two rooms would have marginal NSL losses, but all would have BRE compliant VSC levels. Jamison House would have VSC losses of 20 to 35%, sorry, to four windows, but all would have BRE compliant NSL levels. Kennedy House, VSC losses of 20 to 30% to five windows would occur, but all would have BRE compliant NSL levels. As you'll note from the report, there's some quite high VSC, well, on paper, VSC and NSL losses to the lower floor flats. Although these do appear disproportionately high due to the low existing VSC levels experienced currently at Graphite Square, or would be experienced at Graphite Square given it's unoccupied. These absolute losses are relatively small, and also there are existing balconies at Graphite Square which have a bigger impact on VSC levels than in proposed development, and the applicant has demonstrated that. It's probably worth noting that the retained VSC levels are also consistent with those found by the Inspector when allowing Graphite Square, so the impact of Graphite Square on some of the neighbouring properties like Zidane House, for example. Those losses have been reviewed on behalf of the Council by Arup, who consider them acceptable. They and the applicant's technical specialists are here to answer any technical queries the committee may have. Turning to Transport and Servicing, the application, sorry, the development would be car free. The area, the site is well served by public transport and a PTEL 6A area, would have a London Plan compliant level of secure long stay cycle parking and end of trip facilities, so this is just another excerpt from that Basement Plan. So you can see the long stay spaces here and significant areas of showers, lockers and the like for the users of that cycle parking. Section 106 contributions toward healthy routes improvement along Vossa Walk, provision of on street blue badge parking and short stay cycle parking are also recommended. Turning to Landscaping and Biodiversity, the roof currently, sorry, the roof would have a biosolar roof, so it includes areas of PV just in that sort of area there and that sort of area there. That would also have a sedum roof, so that would create a 611% biodiversity net gain at present. There is literally no habitat on site at present, so quite a significant uplift. In terms of urban greening factor, it doesn't hit the 0.3% that would be sought by the London Plan. However, again, it has to be recognised that it is a great improvement on what's there at present because at present there is no greening. And we've also recommended a section 106 contribution towards offsite greening in Peddlers Park and or Vossa Pleasure Gardens to offset that. Turning to the planning balance and public benefits, the scheme would create a low degree of less than substantial heritage harm through the level of demolition and the sort of additional height and bulk of the buildings. There would be some conflict with design and heritage policies as a result in the development plan, but officers consider it consistent with the development plan when looked at as a whole. And that heritage harm outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The key public benefits that we've identified would be redevelopment of a brownfield site, an uplift in employment floor space in the CAS, so that with those 15 extra jobs and 40 indirect extra jobs, provision of affordable workspace, 611% biodiversity net gain, employment and economic activity during construction, operational carbon reductions, encouraging travel by sustainable transport modes and securing the optimum viable use of the site by essentially allowing it to continue as an office. So overall, it's recommended that permission is granted subject to the completion of agreement, an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and agree to delegate authority to the Director of Climate Change Planning and Transport to finalise the conditions and addendum and negotiate the Section 106. So thank you. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Right, we've moved to speakers now and I have Mike McGrath, who is here in person, I believe, who's here to support the application. Hello, I'd like to make your way to the table and then once you're ready, if you introduce yourself, then your two minutes will begin. Good evening, everybody. I'm Mike McGrath, the Chief Financial Officer of Walker Books Ltd, a children's book publisher who have owned and occupied Walter House since 1987. Thank you all for the opportunity to present our proposals for the redevelopment of Walker House. Walker Books has been part of Lambeth for over 35 years and we are proud of our deep roots of connection to the area and surrounding community. However, our existing offices are now chronically outdated, inefficient and simply no longer fit for purpose. I remember when we moved into this building in 1987 and fitted it out, no major works have been done to it since. We now experience a whole host of issues with the building, including water regrets and leaks and flooding of our basement for all times in the last 10 years, resulting in the loss of thousands of books. Additionally, inclusivity is called value of our business, which is children's book publishing, as this community outreach is called value that Walker Books have. However, our buildings are failing to provide safe and inclusive access for staff and children with disabilities. The proposed development will rectify these issues and allow Walker Books to maintain our historic connection with Vauxhall and the local community. On the ground floor, a dedicated children's bookshop and events space will be created to enhance our public engagement and community outreach. On the upper levels of the building, we are committed to providing 20 affordable workplace memberships for local businesses and charities who will be able to work from the building alongside our business. Virtually level access will be provided across all four buildings, ensuring inclusivity for all users of the building. This proposal represents a unique opportunity to secure Walker Books future in Lambert. We hope you share our vision and ask for your support in granting planning commission. Members of the team are here to answer any questions you may have and thank you very much for your timeless evening. Thank you. OK, if you'd like to make your way back to the audience, our second speaker is the Ward Councillor, Councillor Isla Rathmore, who is online. Hi, yes, my name is Isla Rathmore, I'm a Councillor for Vauxhall Ward. So, as a Vauxhall Councillor, we support this planning application by Walker Books for the redevelopment of Walker House. We've met with Walker Books and their development partner and are impressed with the amount of work they've undergone to produce a redevelopment which is aesthetically sensitive to local context. We also wanted to praise the commitment to sustainability, as proved by the BEAM rating of excellent solar panels and inclusion of cycle storage. We are glad that this redevelopment both supports the business operations of Walker Books itself and provides flexible space for SME businesses and further light retail space on the frontage. Together, we hope this will help Walker Books, we're very proud to have in our ward, further flourish and also help the growth of local businesses as well. In terms of any concerns, daylight and sunlight losses are often a chief concern we have regarding development work. I'm glad to say the impacts here are relatively minimal, though a flattened 79 Vauxhall walk and a number of residents in Great Fright Square will be affected. On balance, given the benefits the redevelopment brings, we think this is tolerable in terms of overall utility. We are very conscious, however, of the impact of building projects on the local area. And this particular area has been the site of a number of developments, with further developments being built or at some stage in the planning process. These have caused distress and disruption to some local residents, particularly in 79 Vauxhall Walk, which is at the epicentre for a number of development projects. Arna House has also been affected, with Cromwell and Shaftory House also likely to be affected in the future. I say this because it is very important the developer is aware of the distress and concern of some residents in these blocks, and if permission is granted that they do all they can to ensure local residents are not affected unduly in the building process. Rest assured, if not, WIS Councillors will intervene swiftly and will encourage Lambeth Council to do likewise. But overall, as I say, we support the application. Thank you. Thank you very much. And that is all our speakers this evening. The applicant, as was mentioned, there are some technical specialists that we can direct questions to should we need to. We have the architect here this evening, the planning consultant and also a sustainability officer. Right, so over to members for questions. Who would like to go first? Councillor Ainslie. Thank you very much for a very clear presentation and I agree with the ward chancellor. I think this is a great business and a great design. My question is... Just a reminder to members, just let me say it anyway, Ainslie, for other members. We're not to be debating the merits of the scheme in this section, just the questions, but we will move on to that. So here's my question. Why not retain all? So why demolish Building 4 and what considerations? I mean, I heard something in the presentation, but how much consideration was given to retaining Building 4? What were the main concerns around it that it had to be demolished or it has to be demolished? Thank you. OK, if we go to the case officer first of all. Sure. I understand that the level of intervention needed within Building 4 to retain it and achieve the applicant's objective would mean that you essentially will end up having to demolish it. So you'd have to include things like lift shafts, new WC core, new stair core, which would essentially mean that you need to remove it. Then I think to create the sort of larger sort of open plan spaces that you've got to create, and I think there's some slight disparity in floor levels, so I think you might be able to direct that to the architect, means that it essentially does have to be demolished to achieve that. But I'm happy for the applicant's sort of architect to advise on that. Would you like some more narrative from the architect? OK, so I will just introduce them. So it is Matt Thornley, who should be here in person. Hello, if you'd like to come to the table. Thanks very much. So hopefully you heard Councillor Ainslie's question, just like some more rationale and understanding why Building 4 was not retained. So we are retaining Buildings 1 and 3, so they're not facade retention, structure of Buildings 1 and 3 is being retained. Building 4 is where we're putting all of the new kits that isn't in the building at the moment. So we're putting in escape staircases, lifts, including evacuation lifts, WCs, we're creating level entrance, open access. The main risers go up and down the building to move all the air, et cetera, up and down the building. So on the basis of once we've done all of that, we are demolishing the majority of the footprint of the building. Similarly, the building at the moment is ground plus two storeys with two later extensions that were put on the top. So effectively, by the time you take those lightweight later extensions off, you're only retaining a level of ground plus two storeys of the existing building. Those levels don't run through with the building adjacent as well. So if you kept those in the facade and you put the new floor levels in to try and level the floors between each of the buildings, you'd have floors coming below windows, et cetera. And similarly, there's no entrance into Building 4 at the moment, so there's no way of getting into that building and into the building, et cetera. The ground floor level is about 800 mil above or nearly a metre above the pavement level, so there's no level access into the building. So we're focusing the main demolition in a single building so that we can then create level access for all of the plant, all of the lifting kit. Minimise the impact on the other buildings. Thanks for letting me, does that answer your question? Can I just come back with one thing? How much exploration of that option of retaining even just the outer part of the shell or the foundations? We did tests and we went through that in Pre-App as well. So we looked at the retention of all the different options and how you could retain certain bits, whether it was from full demolition to trying to retain the most amount possible. But once you actually kept, you'd only be keeping a small portion of the facade, so you'd only be keeping effectively one and a half storeys of brickwork. So that facade, as we see, is the lowest grade of all the facade. It's got bits of UPDC window put into it. So actually we think the replacement with a new consolidated facade that's in keeping with the language of the better buildings, which we think one, two and three, we think is actually improvement. Thank you. Any more questions from members on design? Yeah, just why the sink cladding in the lift housing? The back, it's actually, it's sort of metal cladding, it's not the sink technically, it's just a metal press. I suppose the bits at the back is in keeping with the industrial nature of the building. So the lifts cores, which are separated from the building, it's going to be a simple metal enclosure that goes on. It's completely galvanised metal. Any more questions? Thank you very much. If you'd like to make your way back to the audience. So we'll move on from design. Are there any other questions members would like to ask in other policy areas? Councillor Clark. Thank you. On, I guess, the use of offices, was there any assessment made of local need for offices, particularly in terms of, I guess, we're looking here at the uplifted office space? Was any assessment made of the need and demand locally? Thank you. Yeah. And I'd just like to tack on to Councillor Clark's question, because we have had some applications come to committee, albeit not in this particular area, but in Vauxhall, further along towards Nine Elms, where there was a change of use because we're told there was no longer a demand for office space. So can we perhaps have some comfort or answer from the case officer about the, yes, as Councillor Clark says, the local need for office space in this location? And we haven't done a assessment of need per se, but the site is located within the CAS and I mean, all policy does strongly encourage office in this location. Certainly protects office and encourages new office, so there isn't really that need for it. I mean, I am aware of, I think the application you're referring to in Wyville Road, where I think that might be more of a speculative office development, whereas this is, I think, essentially an occupier, essentially renewing their existing premise. But strictly from a policy perspective, there really isn't a requirement to do that sort of assessment of need because the plan very much encourages office use in this location. Councillor Clark. Thank you. And I say thank you, Chair, that you had one of my follow ups already in there. I guess just understanding in terms of, is it a material planning consideration that it's being redeveloped by the existing applicant who is likely to move back in? Or are we treating this as, I guess, an office, a random office scheme? So I guess I'm trying to understand if there is any weight from a planning considerations perspective to it being the applicant redeveloping, use it to come back in. I think given the land use that's proposed, we have to really treat it quite applicant neutral. Again, the use of the site for an office, it's very strongly encouraged in the central activity zone. So we're not talking about a conflict with a plan, for example, where there might be a personal circumstance of the applicant that we would have to consider. It's very strongly encouraged by the plan. So I wouldn't want to put a lot of weight on that as a material consideration when deciding this application. Any other questions on land use? No one else? A couple of things on sustainability. So I wonder in the whole life carbon assessment, whether you've given yourself enough credit, actually. I think you alluded to it in your presentation with regards to the use of cross laminated timber, which, of course, sequesters carbon. I see from the second addendum that you have changed the calculations on sustainability so that they're closer to the target. Has anyone got a way of calculating the CLT? It's in questions carbon. Have you netted those figures off? We go to the sustainability consultant on behalf of the council who would have assessed the application, Elise Kidd. Hello. Did you hear the question about the calculations? Yeah, I did. Yeah, I did. So I think. First of all, we need to separate the figures in the addendum. From the whole life cycle carbon assessment. That I think it's 29 percent in the addendum is about operational emissions. So the update to that had nothing to do with the whole life cycle and the embodied emissions. So with regards to the whole life cycle carbon assessment, the results are positive there, and the report does show that the sequestered emissions aren't accounted for. I am not aware of a way that that can be calculated, but perhaps if the applicants consultant is here who's done this work, they might be able to talk further on whether that's something they could do as an additional piece of work. But the results at the moment are compliant with policy targets in terms of the whole life cycle work. Would you like to hear from the applicant sustainability expert? If they have an answer. Yes. Yeah. Great. OK. Thank you. Charlotte Gray from Hydroc. Hello. Charlotte Gray from Hydroc. I'll answer the question on the whole life carbon piece first. At the moment, you're right. I think Anita is to have an account for sort of further sequestration of carbon within those figures in the report as it stands. It's actually there's no kind of defined methodology to do that. And it's actually quite tricky. It's something we would be happy to explore. OK, let's take that away from when we do our summing up. I'm just wondering if you are. This is a rhetorical question, I guess, in a way. I mean, are you thinking that at the end of the. Rhetorical questions please. Are you are you are you thinking at the end of the life that carbon will be that that wood will be burnt and therefore. Because I. Yeah. I think in the life of it will be. It is a tricky subject. OK, thank you. All right. All right. Lovely. Thank you. You want to make your way back. Any other policy areas that members have questions on? Councillor Clark. Just on sunlight daylight impacts. Just on graphite square. It's not yet happening at the moment. But is is am I right in thinking it's it's a private scheme. So it's not social, though, that the the rooms affected with not enough from social housing. Is there a sense that do you have a sense of what type of shots those are? Are those one bedroom studios, multiple bedrooms? Just having a bit better understanding of the specifics. Yeah, I'm comfortable about asking that question. Would you. Shall we bring in Eric? I can. Well, in terms of the rooms affected in the tenure, I suppose I'm actually dealing with the graphite square site as well and have actually visited it quite recently. I understand and I think it's probably more that northern tower, which is unaffected, is where the affordable tenures are. These are, I think, the private flats that are affected in the central and southern towers. And in terms of size, I can't comment on all of the affected flats. I wouldn't be able to answer that. But I think the one ones I have seen sort of two beds, two to three beds, some of them. I don't think there was any studios that would be necessarily relying wholly on outlook over the site. That's my recollection of the site. On that note, something else. That's fine. OK, thank you. So graphite square is the elephant in the room. So when it comes to all the sustainability issues like green factor, where you're slightly under target, but the biodiversity net gain is is great. Have you and it's difficult because you've got those two big buildings. What's the being the calculation as to whether we increase the PV on the roof or whether we increase the biodiversity and what biodiversity can grow in such a shaded area, given that we've got those two towers right behind this building? OK, if we go to the case officer for that, some answer on why the offices are comfortable with that balance between PV and biodiversity and whether the ecology officer was satisfied that it is a viable location for there to be biodiversity on the roof. I mean, the ecology officer was fine with what was proposed and from a biodiversity and urban greening perspective, he was happy with it. Obviously would have preferred it to be more, but does also recognize that there are quite a lot of demands on the roof space. So the roof is being asked to do quite a lot in this case. Those areas of green roof also do have solar PV on them. So that can take place. There's also heat pumps, I think, proposed in these areas that I'm sort of circling here as well, as well as things like lift overruns and the like. In terms of shading, I wouldn't actually think it's probably as bad as you would think with the code and Graphite Square because south is that direction and there aren't actually any tall buildings in that direction. So I imagine through, I suppose, the middle of the day, you would have this in full sun. But yeah, certainly going back to the question, our parks officer was not fazed by the species proposed. Thank you. If you could just comment on the balance that has been arrived at between, you know, because roofs always have to do a lot in this balance between sustainability and biodiversity. We think they've maximized as much as they possibly can. Yeah, I mean, you've got a combination of sort of PV in these areas here. But yeah, we feel it's been maximized as much as it can be. Let me clarify, because I don't think I was very clear. Sorry about that. Is the solar going to work? And maybe should we, because of the short window that might get the sun, and should we go for more biodiversity? Although we've got a good hit on biodiversity, could we go further? Is the solar going to work is my main question. It's probably more of a technical question that I'd probably want to throw over to this kid to initially answer. Sorry. So when the buildings have been modelled in the SBEM software, which is the methodology for determining operational carbon emissions, any solar PV arrays would have to be entered, taking into account their pitch, orientation and the level of shading from surroundings. So that's all been taken into account within the model. OK, I'm going to leave it there. I think we have the information we need to make a decision. I'm going to move us on now to a discussion of the application. If members would like to comment, perhaps indicate how they'll be voting and why. Councillor Ainslie. So this is the kind of application that should be raised for three reasons. One, the option of retention of much of the existing fabric that has been chosen. It's mainly a retrofitted building, which is exactly what the council should be doing to meet its net zero obligations. The design and access statements very well presented and opts for a cross laminated timber floor slab as opposed to concrete, which is finally something that has been said in this committee many, many times. The use of that material is sequesterous carbon. And that you've tried to maximise the just on cross laminated timber. The committee did visit a building at Old Paradise Street that is using cross laminated timber. And it was it was exceptional to see it working, knowing that that building is going to be sequestering a lot of carbon. So well done to everyone who has really tried to work very hard to make this a as impactful, sustainable development, which doesn't have a great impact, but looks very, very well presented and tries to blend in with the greenery of this space around and is sustainable. So I think that this is the kind of considered design that this council should be working towards constantly. And it's really encouraging to to see it. And I just want to applaud the the report, the design, the team, the whole team behind it. And as I started saying during questions, it's great to have this business with all the other benefits that it's bringing in terms of jobs and the pride of children's books, accessibility for our children in the borough. It's it's a real credit. And I'd like to thank all the work that's gone into this very much. And I will be very much approving this application. Thank you. Anyone else? Councillor Clark. Yes, I am no less supportive, if not as speaking as effusively as as my colleague. I'll keep it keep it brief, just to say that it's a really interesting scheme in terms of that balance between retention and new. Each has benefits and limitations. I think we've heard in the report and in the answers, I guess the play that playing out. And I think what we've got is a really is a really positive balance that keeps that looks at the sympathetic design treatment, maintains some of that heritage or some of the key heritage while bringing, most importantly, bringing up to modern standards and indeed updating in terms of office space. What is there? And I think that the economic rationale is very important. I think there is still a question mark around, I guess, the long term if the applicant decided to move out. You know, is an office space going to be long term? What's the best use there? But we're not looking at that. We are looking at what's in front of us now. And as I've heard the policy, it is policy compliant on that. And so I'm in favour of officers recommendations. OK, thank you. Councillor Jaffa. Yeah, just very briefly, I agree with my colleagues. I just wanted to know that this affordable workplace, we need to know how affordable it's going to be. OK, I'm not taking questions, I'm afraid. It is in the report, so we have got an answer. Local employers seeking to remain and expand in Lambert. That is quite encouraging. And I hope that it is going to be affordable. I'm not asking. I'm just hoping that it's going to be affordable. There is some affordable workspace. So my comments, I sometimes take committee planning applications. There's lots of policy goals and you push one in and another pops up. And it's a constant juggling act to try and meet all these different policies. And it's very rarely possible that you can achieve everything. You have sustainability. Then you have heritage considerations. You have the land use. You need a viable scheme that's actually going to be fit for purpose for somebody to stay there. And I think, as my colleagues have said, there is a very good balance here. And there are some things about the design I'm not keen on. I'm not keen on the double mansard. And I think it's a shame about the metal louvers, which will be appreciated at street level. I think they'll be quite visible. But that said, with the double mansard roof, I do recognise that there are an existence in the local vicinity, so part of the local character now, and that views of them would be limited. And I accept the justification for the metal louvers. Again, there's that balance. They are needed for the operation of the bin source. So, you know, I understand that. And I think on balance, the officer assessment is correct that there is a minor level of harm, less than significant, less than substantial harm to the conservation area, but that the public benefits do outweigh that. I just want to draw attention to Councillor Rathmill's comments about construction. Having previously been the ward councillor for this ward, I'm aware that it is under a lot of pressure with development. A lot of the roads are residential and narrow, but heavily used by construction schemes. I hope the applicant will be mindful of that and also officers when they come to discharge the construction method statement. And if it's not part of the condition or I hope that the applicant will consider signing up to the considerate construction scheme. OK, so having taken all that into account, I'd like to propose that we accept officers recommendations, including the amended conditions as set out in the agenda, do an approved plan of mission. Do I see a seconder? I don't know who I saw first. Councillor Jaffa. Councillor Jaffa seconding. All those in favour, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. OK, right. We're going to move now on to our next item, which is the Hungerford coach park. We're not having an officer presentation for this one, so I'm going to just let members of the public leave and then we'll go straight on to questions. Thank you. So any questions from members on this application? Councillor Ainslie. Are we going to continue to go on to short term obligations for this site? We have been doing so for 17 years. Not that I have, but this committee has. Well, we'll be accepting them on a case by case basis. So the question today is whether we're going to be approving this form. I'm going to move to a vote and I propose that we, unless everyone has a comment, I'm going to go straight to a vote. OK, I'm going to propose that we have read the report spacing the application to what we've approved previously. I'm going to propose that we accept officers recommendation and approve planning commission. Do I see a seconder? Councillor Clark. All those in favour, please raise your hand. OK, that is one, two, three, four, five in favour. All those against, please raise your hand. Any abstentions? OK, so for the benefit of those at home, then voted in favour were Councillor Costa, Jaffa, Nye, Clark and Simpson and an abstention from Councillor Ainslie. OK, so our final item this evening, which we. Oh, yeah, sorry. Yeah, Kiwi is swapping roles, so just give her a second. OK, right, so we're going to have an officer presentation for our final application, which is 87 South Lambeth Road. You'll see Kiwi has swapped places, so it will not be the presiding officer for this one, but it's the case officer. So over to you. Yeah. So this application relates to 87 South Lambeth Road. And time for us to sort some activities. In its spread. Building area. There are a number of listed buildings located at the rear of the site and two TPO trees. Quite light falls within the spread. Is it possible for the officer to speak up slightly or move slightly away from the volcano? Shall I move? The big screen that sort of acts as a sound barrier, unfortunately. Thank you. I'll just repeat that. So it's not located within a conservation area, but it's bounded by the Vauxhall Conservation Area and is part of the setting. And there's a number of listed buildings that are located at the rear of the site and two TPO trees. Light falls within the edge of centre and site defined within the MPPF. And directly to the site where I was further away. The south is a six-storey terrace, with retail at ground floor and residential above and the rear of predominantly three storey residential buildings. The proposal seeks to further extend the hotel through extensions to the roof of the rear emperor. 256 rooms on the site. That number is inclusive of the previous lawfulness. That's about 60 hotel rooms. The assessment on the application has been on the basis that both of those. This and the certificate of lawfulness could be implemented. The elevations that you can see on to me. The view will be 1.5 metres and would bring building height in line with the adjacent big tall mansions on South Landerth Road. Proposals include replacement of the front extension. On the top image in the centre of the building and relocation of the main entrance to the hotel, which is currently at the rear of the building from the rear car park. And this new extension will bring it to the front, so you have the proper front entrance on the front of the building. And there's also a sequence that ensure there'd be no harm to the TPO trees through the front. This plan shows the existing layout of the site. You can see the main entrance is currently shown at the back of the car park. And in the new layout, you would have the main entrance of the hotel from the front from South Landerth Road. The changes to the car parking to produce parking spaces from 18 down to two parking spaces and the turning zone. The site has a P tell of 6B and the turning point at the rear is to allow drop offs. There's a condition that we do ensure that the development is kept country. The final considerations. Land use, urban design and heritage, amenity, energy and sustainability, transport and highways, urban grieving and obligations. In terms of land use, the expansion of the hotel is considered exceptional. There's a hotel suppression needs assessment that was submitted. We have that independent. Available sites within the area of the search. And in addition, no alternative site would be capable of meeting the identified need to extend and make improvements. So that that review did that. Mental test has been charged and those use complies with all parts of that. In terms of complying with the development plans. But the current building has a somewhat disjointed appearance with piecemeal extensions added over the years. In particular, the two upper floors in the front extensions, the proposal seeks to amend this and result in a more cohesive placing of flooring and extension. Opposed extensions are considered to harmonise beautifully with the existing building and result in an overall enhanced appearance. In terms of the conservation area, the site is bounded by an octal conservation area, which you can see is outwinded purple, as you can see the skirts around the site. And a number of grade two listed buildings, which are located to the rear of the site and region's bridge gardens. The step design detailing the rear extension, conservation was not identified any harm to the surrounding heritage assets and therefore there's no conflict. The design is considered suitable and acceptable. The rear extension has been designed to be stepped away from the boundary to reduce impact on properties to the rear and the daylight and sunlight study has been independently assessed and confirmed that the sunlight and daylight availability of the canary bodies is aligned with the relevant items and the conclusions are acceptable. The report demonstrates that the proposed design closely matches the existing baseline condition of the hotel as it stands today. There's one room located on the ground floor of the Queen's House, B, which is noted as not meeting the BRE criteria in terms of the new. I like that the differences in daylight availability is very small, in material, that room currently exists. Also, new windows to the upper floors in the extensions would be conditioned to be non-openable and obscure glazed up to 1.7 metres above floor level to maintain privacy. It's acknowledged that the expansion of the hotel wouldn't involve increased comings and goings from the site from both customers and staff. However, the fact that the main entrance is now being relocated to the front of the site from the main road, this seems to mitigate that and there's a much more improved arrangement. It's subject to conditions that are in the first and second addendum and in the requirement of the existence of the hotel would not have an adverse impact on the amenities surrounding the occupiers. In terms of energy and sustainability, the proposal will show 57% on site improvement. It's due to a particular issue, which is high hot water demand, and it's confirmed that is a known issue with the Queen's House, and in general, it does meet and exceeds 35% targets. It's also going to achieve 3M excellence, which is what it's supposed to be looking for. The relocation of the entrance, that's also from the Highway Safety perspective and also creates an active frontage. The TfL confirms that the vehicle has been accessed and is also supported. Delivery and servicing will continue to take place through the rear as it does during current arrangements. Vehicles will reverse from the highway into the site and will then egress back out and forward here, and that is why there is a specific turning location shown. The servicing delivery already occur in that location, and so the arrangement is considered acceptable in principle. It can be acceptable and there are important measures and hours for delivery secured in the delivery and servicing plan to secure by condition. The submitted urban cleaning factor report indicates the proposal would achieve EGF more than before, which is the minimum target, and that's achieved through elements such as external soft landscaping and green walls, and that will also be by condition. We're securing a number of planning obligations. These relate to sustainability, where we'll be getting the carbon offset, which is currently shown at 82,944. The site will be business plan 3. The skills plan for the occupational phase will be secured along with the financial contribution and the monthly fee. In summary, the expansion of the hotel is considered acceptable in this location, and it is an existing hotel. The improvements to the front facade and relocation of the entrance are welcomed. We consider the impacts on amenity can be mitigated and are secure in those conditions. There's no harm to heritage assets, and actually the front extension is considered to enhance the blocks of conservation area above the situation. It's acceptable in terms of transport and highways, which will achieve a 3M excellent rating and above 35% reduction in carbon emissions and increase urban greening. On that basis, we are recommending people subject to conditions and a section 106. Thank you very much. Okay, we have some registered speakers this evening. We have three people who are here to object. Two people here in person and one where an officer is going to read out their script. I'm going to take them in the order they are on my list, starting with Orlando Finzi. Hello. Hi there, so once you've introduced yourself, then your two minutes will begin. So whenever you're ready. I'm the chair of the hotel, and I've been a meeting with Ricardo for 10 years. I'm also the chairman of the meeting with Ricardo and we meet at all, representing the board of directors, and I have a number of residents behind me here from the site. So, process. To be clear, we do not do this development per se, but it must be well conceived and well delivered. We warmly welcome the implied return of the hotel to regular commercial use or visiting guests. However, we are disappointed with the process, being that Regent British Highlands was insufficiently consulted with an adequate context and notice. I only know of a few residents who received the original planning application letter, and I also did not. We were concerned and responded hurriedly. Sometime after the community engagement event was announced, we willingly participated at this, and some of the points we raised have been considered and addressed. However, here we also only received formal email response at our point a few days ago, less than a week ago. So overall, there have been a series of late communications and an information symmetry that, right or wrong, leads to us creating an adequate field for this process. But we just certainly inhibited our ability to respond in a fully considered effective and timely manner. Designing materials. We have made clear at the community engagement event and in writing of a need to improve the design and to clearly specify the key materials used. For instance, the standing seam roof with zinc cladding should provide sunlight, shade and shadows to the block. It must be executed in high-volume materials such as this. If further improvements are prepared, which we would support and welcome, we would need to go via a process of architectural refinement through the process of planning consultation, like planning conditions. Likewise, regarding the area extension windows, all fourth and fifth floor windows, would obscure glazing to 1.7 metres and non-opening, secure shut windows, assuming that many rooms have suitable air-conditioning ventilation, which would also give off significant reassurance to Wreathbridge Gardens residents. It should help alleviate our very real concerns of over-looking and noise transmission, also experienced since the prior development approval. Thanks very much. Next up is Russ Holden. Hi, I'm Russ Holden. I also live in Regent Street Gardens along with all my colleagues here. I fully support Orlando's comments about the consultation process having been inadequate, but I would like to move on from there and say I'd like to thank the planning team for doing a thorough report. You've got probably the most extensive reporting from here, and they have responded appropriately to some of the comments that we made through consultation. However, there are two points we made in consultation, which I believe have not been adequately addressed. And so I would like to propose two additional conditions through which I believe these could be addressed if you, the committee, are minded to support me right here, right now. So the first concern of local residents is the hotel has been used exclusively by asylum seekers for the last two years. We cannot enter that hotel today. It's not a hotel, it's an asylum seeker's place. And so, of course, the developer says it will be a hotel, and he's reassured us it will be a hotel again. That's great. But we would like a planning condition on that because if it's not a real hotel, then it does not meet the sequential needs assessment. And so we would like a condition 40, which would state that the development hereby approved to be kept free from asylum seekers and be available at normal market rates to tourists, visitors and normal guests with a lifetime for development. Unless, otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority after consulting with local residents. That's the first condition that we would like with your permission. Now the second, we believe this should be acceptable because obviously they've told us it will be a hotel and your needs assessment is based on it being a proper hotel. So we believe that should be entirely acceptable to you. The second major concern of residents of Regent's Bridge Gardens is, like me, many of them have been here for a long time. I've been here for 25 years. Some of my colleagues have been here for 35 or 40 years. I guess you could finish your sentence, please. And therefore, we want to ensure that we do not miss the big picture. And the big picture is that there is a progressive creep, a mission creep, through the various applications that have been made over the last 20 years. Therefore, we would like condition 41, which would state that prior to... That's your two minutes, I'm afraid. I've given you a lot extra. I'm very sorry. I have to be fair to everybody. Everybody gets two minutes. We have it in writing before you. We have condition 41 in front of you. And we believe... Thank you. I'm going to have to ask you to go back because I have to be fair to everybody. Everybody gets two minutes, but thank you very much. The final person here who is registered as an objector is Daniel Namer, whose script is going to be read out by an officer, I believe, who is online. Yep. Good evening, everyone. Hello, Patricia. OK, so if you could let us know who it is you're reading out on behalf and what their relationship is to the application, and then the two minutes will begin. Yes. So I'm reading an objection letter on behalf of Daniel Namer, and he's a resident living in the local area to the application site. Many of us live here permanently, and the density of the proposal is unprecedented. The number of rooms was initially obscured in the original application, but analysis shows that room compression is almost twice that of the nearest travel lodges in Vauxhall and Oval. Beyond the density issues, the application is not located within the designated town centre and therefore is not considered a suitable location for an intensification of town centre uses. We raised concerns regarding the applicant submitted sequential tests. Whilst the council was relied on independent assessment of this test in the officer report, this assessment is not on the public register and therefore cannot be scrutinised by the members of the public. Given that this is a critical planning consideration and the council is relying on this material to justify an approach that may not be in accordance with the development plan, we believe this assessment should be made publicly available. In our opinion, the lack of transparency in this regard could in itself provide grounds to challenge any decisions made. That's the end of the statement that was provided. Thank you so much. We have two people registered to support the application. We start with Simon Fowler, who is the planning agent. I could only have one person at a time at the speaker's table, so if you could go back and I'll invite you when it's your turn. Thank you. Hi there. So if you'd like to just read out your name and your relationship to the application, then your two minutes will begin. Thank you. I just wanted to speak very briefly about the process and the application that you got in front of you as part of the refurbishment of the hotel and it was last refurbished in 2014, so hotels obviously have a lifespan of sustainability. Buildings coming to the end of that, and that sort of coincided with the change in hotel trends and seeing the demand for hotel accommodation in London was changing, so people would buy store rooms in a slightly different So that often means slightly different room layouts and that's working through the plan that Kiwi had up on screen for what is IHG's standard urban hotel room nowadays. Her book objects to that to say, and I think it's pretty clear when probably should have spoken to local residents before we made the application and then hearing the objections, we welcome their comments in the public consultation event that we had in December. One of the things that's always been fundamental is about making sure the extensions and alterations are sympathetic to residents. So that's why the rear extension, bringing that extension around and bringing the activity to the front of the building rather than having that rear storage area being payment entrance. Something that Ainsley's been talking about is the playing abilities, the fundamental prevention of the building has been expressed through to us. Production in the bike park being assisted, which you can build with the city's platform and possibly towards certain challenges, like what's the action plan. The BRIM extension is the standard that we're going to achieve and we've also got the additions which require constructing waste materials from the existing buildings. So that's what we're going to be doing here. I hope that's going to make a very long tradition. Thanks very much. So if you'd like to make your way back and then our final speaker this evening is Steve Fox. You'd like to come back. Hello. Actually I don't have a presentation, I was just here to answer questions. OK, that's fine. OK, so members note that. Right, so that's all our speakers. I'm going to open up to questions. Who would like to go first? Councillor Costa. I've got a couple of questions. I'll start with the first one. The hotel has been closed for many years. So with this application is the plan to reopen the hotel? I'm assuming so. Do we need clarification from the case officer? So the purpose of the application is to increase hotel rooms. We are here to assess the application based on the information provided, if that's acceptable. But the existing hotel is still in a hotel use under the use class. That's its lawful use and this proposal will continue with that within these hotel rooms. We can't specify exactly how occupants use their buildings, as long as it's within the class that we have proposed. But as you've just heard from the applicant team, part of the purpose of this application is to use the facilities in the existing building. And because it hasn't been closed for a number of years. So I think we have to take that. That's what we've made the application for. We're assessing the application based on the information we have. We've assessed it and it is acceptable. Anything else on the hotel use? Is it still a hotel? I'm not about the demand for the hotel. Recently there was a hotel open near the Govell Preground. So I question the assessment done about the demand for hotel when the supply has already increased and they're not wearing it. So the applicant did submit a potential assessment and that's assessed it. It is suitable and acceptable. You don't necessarily need to find information on the need as part of this application. So you don't necessarily have to prove demand. But we've done the sequential assessment, which is based on the location of the hotel. Is this an acceptable location for what is proposed? And the conclusion is yes it is. And that's the assessment we can make at the time. Anything else on the hotel use? Did you have any more questions? Was it hotel use? Bedroom use. Thank you. There were 64 new bedrooms under this application. Are there details of whether these are double rooms, triple, family, what's the expected occupancy? Could I ask you to direct that question to the architect? Can I just ask you, why are you asking that question? I'm asking that question to better understand, I guess, the type of new hotel accommodation that is being provided. And I guess it is while it is there in the sequential test, I was just trying to understand better is these. There would be a difference if this was double rooms versus these whole family bedrooms and they're trying to attract a particular other type of demographic. So I was just trying to understand whether there was anything unusual within these just being applied for. OK, I don't know who is best to answer that, the applicant or the architect? Can I answer from here? No, sorry, you have to come to the table. Yeah, thank you. So the rooms are IHG standard double room, so it can comfortably have two people in it. Generally, they're aimed at individuals for business, say for instance, it's probably about the size of it. So there's space for luggage, decent sized beds. It does meet IHG standards, so there is a standard room that they are rolling out. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any other questions from members? That's the clerk. Just on the trip generation, the figures in the report on trip generation, I just wanted to understand when were they done? What year were they with the trip generation figures? OK, we could maybe go to our Transport Officer for that one. Thanks, I'll just get through the statement at the back. They have the outputs from the trip generation and in terms when they were done, the earliest was 2009, latest is 2018. OK, anything else? OK, Councillor Costa and then I saw Councillor Ainslie. I've got a question on section 106 and still contributions, if that's OK. My question is whether that can be designated to the nearby Y4N or be council estates? What? Since it's right opposite the developments or any contributions, if the money could be directed to those states as they might be the most affected? OK, if we can have some narrative about the purpose of planning obligations and what's within our remit. In terms of section 106, they had the planning obligations that are specific to this development that needed to mitigate the impacts of the development. And I ran through the main ones that were securing S&X Energy and Sustainability. So if that's an offset payment, it's £2924, that has to go towards... They can only be made towards us reducing the carbon. Not necessarily at this state, say that would go towards the state. It'll be business benefit, there's no contribution there. Employment and skills plan, that's construction phase and at the completion phase. That's to try and help get local people into the job opportunities, both through construction and on site. So again, we can't necessarily reinvent that for the estate immediately opposite. It's more land wide, but this is something we can do more than work on with employment and skills to make sure we have the opportunities available. There's also a financial contribution there, but again, that contribution is towards getting people into those opportunities. And then the monetary fee is to monitor those section 106. So there are none of those obligations that are necessary to be removed. That's fine. In terms of the sill payment, that obviously goes into community infrastructure levy. And that can mitigate the impact of employment and skills and also provide the infrastructure that we need. So whilst we can look to your request, we can't at this point specify where that money is to be spent at this moment in time. And also, as with all these things, when we actually get the sill payment, the development starts and there can be a lag. So we can't at this time specify exactly where that sill money would be spent, I'm afraid, but we can make a move that. On the carbon offset payment, just to also note that there is a local library right on the other side of the hotel as well, which is a very old building. So as part of the net zero, connected to the council, it's one of our buildings which will need to be net zero as well. Is there a question? No, just a comment. I find they might. In the summing up, please. Thank you. Councillor Ainslie, you had your hand up earlier. Yeah, my question is on sustainability. So it's not clear. I mean, it's clear in the report that it falls short on certain be lean and be lean stages. And that's why we've got a carbon offset payment. But I can see the amount of conditions that are being slapped on at the end. Why aren't they front loaded? Because it kind of leads to a bit of ambiguity. Are they going to be putting, are they proposing to put solar PV on the roofs? Yes or no, because it seems to be a bit ambiguous. Well, we might do it, but I'm not sure. We could do this, but we're not going to commit. So it'd be good to get some clarity on that. In terms of what they're hitting, so they are committed to achieving a minimum of 57% above regular CO2 emissions. That's what they're committed to, so that would be the minimum, because that's what's set out in their energy statement. And that is then what the conditions require them to prove to us at a later date. They have achieved on site and it has to look at that. So in terms of the sustainability statement, we are comfortable with the sustainability and energy statements they've submitted. So we have conditions that meet those documents. I mean, they have to build in accordance with those details. In terms of, it is quite usual for us to have information at an application stage to determine that that is acceptable and to develop the details later, that we will be secure at a minimum, that they have to achieve what they've told us they have achieved. Thank you. Councillor Ainslie? So if we know that demand for hot water and hotels is high, and sometimes you're in a hotel and it's, you know, it's too hot, I'm just concerned about the lack of commitment, solid commitment on keeping the building cool during hot times and keeping the energy demand at a minimum with a firm commitment. Why can't we reload this stuff so that, I'm probably repeating the same question, but it's to do with keeping the building cool as well as the energy used to go into cooling as into heating. Okay, we've had the answer about the reason for the conditions and why they're attached. But can we have an answer about whether officers are comfortable that there'll be no overheating in the rooms? Yes, we will have assessed all the things that were provided and our recommendation is based on having assessed the information provided. It meets the policy requirements and that's why we're recommending and then securing conditions. Thank you. Final question on this. Well, it's just that we are saying that the sustainability consultants has confirmed that hot water demand is a known issue. I get no sense if this refurb is going to mitigate against that issue, in which case they probably could hit the target rather than going, oh, well, we're not going to get a cut target, so we're not going to... Can I have your question? Maybe it needs to be answered by the applicant. I don't understand the question. Can you repeat the question? Are they going, is the applicant planning to, with their new design building, hit a target of 15%? Can you only come up if I invite you? Sorry. Because it's like we're just admitting that in a hotel, we're making a concession here at 4.2.85. I would like to know... What's the question? Why are we doing that? I'm really sorry to ask again, but I'll come to you, Councillor Clark. I have to understand the question. If you go to 4.2.85 in the report... It says that whilst this falls short of the target of 15%, second part of the paragraph, this is due to high water demand. The sustainability consultants confirmed that... I've read the report properly. Can I have your question, please? So why are we accepting that as acceptable? It needn't be. If we could hear from the applicant that they've got plans to do something more than that. Why are we accepting a lower than target? I have a specific question around that, which is that will the applicant be doing anything to encourage users to reduce the hot water use? Or is there a way of looking at and monitoring the temperature of the hot water? I guess on an ongoing basis to ensure that the applicant is continuing to do what it can to reduce the hot water usage. Thank you. OK, so can I have the applicant come to the table or the architect? I don't mind who's best placed to answer that question. So if you could talk us through how you tried your hardest to maximise those sustainability figures and then with a specific answer to the question about hot water usage. I mean, the issue is that a hotel in its very nature has got 256 roofs in it and there's a particular amount of demand that comes from 256 showers. Whereas if you had a commercial building or something like that, that's maybe got a different heating system, something like that. So every hotel application I've ever done has this particular issue where there's a known draw on that particular thing. And that, I guess, artificially skews the reporting in the energy appraisal. But if you take a look, step back and it might come down on that particular point. But we've got substantial enhancements to building fabric which benefit in being in Sage. We're being cleaned by having a roof full of PV panels and air source heat pumps. We've got comfort cooling as well. That was a question that was asked as well. And that's that's dealt with through the air source heat pumps as well. They've taken it in the round. We've got a 35 percent target and we're achieving 57 percent. So it's pretty efficient in terms of the question about it was the heat, was it the temperature of the hot water? So that's again, that's measured by IHG. They'll have a standard where they'll say the hot water has to be at this Celsius or Fahrenheit. If you can go to another exchange, have the same shower experience that you'd have at this one going forward. So and as Kimmy pointed out as well, that there's a requirement to do the steam monitoring stage. So if there's opportunities to improve the percentages that we've got in the energy stage, it's been improved. We'll do that and then report back at the meeting stage, which uses the financial contribution to offset the carbon targets. OK, thank you. All right. If you'd like to return to the audience, thank you for that. I'm going to move us on to debating the application. So I invite members to make any comments, whether they have any opinions or merits of the scheme, perhaps suggest how they'll be voting. Who would like to go first? Councillor Clark. Thank you. Not sure you even put your hand up. I smiled at you, I made eye contact. That was my mistake. I think this is I say it's a slightly unusual application to have on a number of grounds, partly because I say we are dealing with something that has a certificate of lawfulness for some additional hotel rooms. In effect, we're then looking at the the over above that from the extension and the new works. And I guess and again, we're looking at something that while it has under planning considerations, hotel use, I accept that. I guess a wider perspective, it may not be seen as the same type of hotel that is currently in use as being as is envisaged potentially for that and afterwards. So I think there are some sort of challenges and just getting our heads around this. Ultimately, what we're left with is still a policy compliant application that I say improves the ground floor experience for the wider experience for users. It has a positive of reducing parking, which is welcome. And that I say it takes into account, I say, a number of other policy considerations. So I say I will be the officer recommendations. OK, thank you, Councillor Costa. As Markham, as Councillor Clark stated, the application fully complies with planning policy. And I'm sad to hear that. By the applicant. And I do hope to see that the hotel will be open back to the public. And overall, I'm inclined to vote in favour of this application. Thank you. If I add my comments, let's start with the use of the hotel. So I understand it as previously or as currently being booked by the Home Office for asylum seekers. And that is absolutely not within the remit of this planning committee to place conditions on the types of people that can use a hotel. That is not a material planning considerations. And it would be illegal, I believe, to to place such a condition where it is in a hotel use in planning terms and will remain as such. And that is that is all we can consider. Just some points about what was raised by some of the objectives that there is a condition that requires details of the design to be submitted to the local planning authority for consideration and decision. And of the windows and them being only openable, a certain I can't remember what it is, but non-openable or part openable and obscure place. Again, there is a condition for that. So were that breach, that would be a matter for planning enforcement so that again, that's outside of our decision making process today. We sometimes get applications for hotels on completely new sites. And whilst we talk about whether it is, what's the word, jeopardising that we can have more conventional housing there. And so it's, I think, maybe not so much a planning matter, but I think as councillors, it may be favourable that this is an existing hotel site. So it's not going, it's not replacing what could be more seating conventional housing, C3, I can't remember. So I think I agree that it does comply with relevant planning policies. On that basis, I'm going to propose that we accept officers recommendation and approve planning permission. Do I see a seconder? Councillor Clark, all those in favour, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Thank you ever so much, everybody, for your time this evening. And that concludes planning committee. Thank you.