Transcript

Thank you. Good evening and welcome to this evening's Planet Applications Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Joanne Simpson and I am Chair of the meeting. In line with legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers, visiting ward members and members of the public have joined us either virtually or physically. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. Whilst we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient if we hit some challenges in this virtual environment. In the event that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the Council's Democracy Twitter account, which is at LBL Democracy. Some housekeeping, the fire exits, you exit the room from either door and up the stairs to street level. There's an accessible toilet. There's an accessible toilet just outside the right-hand side of that room and there'll be a comfort break at around 9pm if the meeting is still going. We've received apologies from Councillor Scott Ainslie. I'll now introduce members of the committee starting with Councillor Nye and we'll work our way this way. I'm Councillor Nye, Councillor Knight's award and a permanent member of the committee. Councillor Saliha Jaffa, I'm from St. Martin's ward and I'm from Erlen and Amber. Yes, comment. Councillor Diogo Costa, Oval ward, member of the committee. Councillor Martin Bailey, Vauxhall ward, member of the committee. Councillor Malcolm Clarke from Stretton Wells ward and vice chair of the committee. And I'm Catso Joanne Simpson, I represent Stockwell Western Larkhall ward and I am chair of the committee. I'll now turn to introducing the senior officers at this evening's meeting starting with our presiding officer. I'm Shane Baker, I'm the head of strategic applications and I'll be the presiding officer tonight. I'm Surin Damak, I'm a solicitor, I will be legal advisor to the committee. Thank you, our democratic services officer. Good evening, my name is Raj Nishtulsi, democratic services officer and a clerk to the committee. Thank you, our transport officer. Thank you. The presenting officer for Timber Millway. Good evening, I'm Luke Farmer, deputy head of strategic applications. Thank you and the manager for that application, you again? That's me again. And the presenting officer for Pope's Road. I'm Catherine Leftwich and I'm a planner of the Brixton Company. Thank you. And the manager for that application, please. I'm Jennifer Walsh, area team manager for Brixton and Catherine. That's great. OK, and we have some external consultants for the Timber Millway application. If you'd just like to introduce yourself, we have Lee Money from RSS. Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Lee Money. I provide technical support to Lambethon noise and other environmental issues. Thank you. And Elise Akud from Blue Burton. Hi, Elise Kidd, energy and sustainability consultant. Thank you very much. OK, the order of business. There are five items on the agenda and they'll be considered in the order they appear on the agenda. And all the paperwork is available on the council's website. The applications will be considered in the same way. We'll first have an 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 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 questions and debates. Members of the committee may ask questions of the officers and will then debate the application. Members would have read the officer report 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. And the minutes from tonight's meeting will be published after the meeting. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, one clear working day before the meeting. So if we'll move to item one, which is declarations of pecuniary interest. Do any members have any declarations of pecuniary interest they wish to share? Thank you. Item two. Do any members have any other declarations of interest they wish to declare? Thank you. Item three is the minutes. Are the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, the 18th of March, 2025 agreed? Thank you. Right. So we'll move on to agenda item four now, which is Timbermill Way. So I asked the officer to present their report. Yeah, this is the application of Timbermill Way. It's for demolition of all the buildings on sites and it's for its redevelopment via industrial floor space. The site's here outlined in red. It's located on Timbermill Way, New Glatt, North Tube. The site contains six industrial units accessed via two service yards. It was occupied by three at the time of the application solution. The site's now vacant. The site borders residential properties on Gowdon Road, Gowdon Clothes, Railway Line and Hitchley Road property. This is just showing an aerial site. The site is within the Timbermill Way key industrial business area, which is Kiba for short. Its planning policy encourages the intensification of business, light and general industry storage and distribution services in Kiba's. There are two other sites in the Kiba and Timbermill Way itself. South East, Showning Grey. These sites have been redeveloped in the past 20 years. Safe stores, self storage sites, immediately next door. And then Liberty Wines at the entrance to Timbermill Way, which is a distribution facility. This map shows the heritage assets around the site. There are no heritage assets at the site itself, but it is bordered by the Speller Road conservation area. The main access point to the site is via the junction of Clackham High Street, Gowdon Road and Lendell Terrace, showing the left image. And then onto the junction of Timbermill Way and Gowdon Road, which is shown in the right image. On the right hand image, you can see the Liberty Wines site and the reddish material and the safe store sites beyond. Moving on to the site itself, the left hand image shows the buildings at the entrance to the application sites with safe store off image to the left. The rear of Gowdon Road properties are to the right of both images. You can see the rear of the Gowdon Road properties are higher than the application sites with a retaining wall and green strip of land separating the site and the rear of those Gowdon Road properties. The right hand image is further up Timbermill Way to approach Gowdon Close. The left hand image shows the northern end of the application site by Gowdon Close. The change in land levels flattens out here. And the right hand image is looking back the opposite way down Timbermill Way towards safe store. This slide is showing the existing site plan at the top and the proposed site plan at the bottom. The application proposes the complete redevelopment of the site by modern flexible light industrial, industrial and storage uses. As noted earlier, this is encouraged by development plan policy. It is therefore supporting the principle. Plans have been amended slightly in the assessment of the application to remove the ability for it to be serviced by our team. It is therefore to be serviced by articulated lorries, given our concerns with the safety of such vehicles using the Gowdon High Street junction to access the site. The next three slides show visualisations of the proposed development. This is an aerial image over Edgley Road facing east. Scale of development would be akin to other development in the Kiva on Timbermill Way, which is a broadly similar scale. Parts consider that the development have a neutral impact in the townscape and we have identified no harm to any heritage assets. This is on Timbermill Way, looking north towards Gowdon Close. The proposal includes new landscaping around the site, providing visual and ecological enhancements, with a biodiversity net gain of 100% anticipated. This is on Timbermill Way, looking south towards Safestore. Scale and siting of development would ensure no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity with respect to daylight, sunlight and outlook. Window placement at upper levels is minimised where possible. Getting separation distances would ensure no unacceptable overlooking impacts. Noise management has been a key matter to consider in this application. This all begins with the design, with a layout of buildings arranged to screen surface yards from neighbouring properties. This is combined with acoustic screening along Gowdon Road and the railway boundaries. As mentioned, mitigation is provided from the design itself. Further mitigation is provided from management of the operations, secured by conditions. With a noise management plan and estate rules provided, these have followed TfL's code of practice for quieter deliveries. The noise management plan includes measures such as a named contact for a state management plan procedure. Officers consider development not resolving any unexpected impacts on neighbouring amenity with respect of noise, subject to the mitigation set out here in committee reports. In respect of transport and highways impacts, planning policy seeks development to help reduce road danger and provide an improved environment for the cyclists. As mentioned, the main access point to the site, via the junction of Clapham High Street, Gowdon Road and Len North Terrace, has a history of accidents between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Opposed development is only anticipated to result in minor increase in vehicular traffic when compared to existing, but with more trips in the AM and PMPs. Mitigation is needed to manage the impacts and provide highway safety improvements. This must be proportionate to the potential impacts of additional vehicular trips at the junction and account for the fallback position of the use of the existing premises being intensified by our planning commission. Mitigation improvements provided would include ensuring no articulated lorries servicing the site, which they can do currently and have done previously. There would be a vehicular gate installed by Gowdon Close to prevent rat running on Timmuble Way. There would be an improved environment for pedestrians and cyclists on Timmuble Way itself. There would be contributions provided for improvements at the junctions to TfL and the Council. And there would be conditions in respect to the management of servicing, travel planning, etc. The officers consider the development to be acceptable with respect to the transport matters subject to these measures. In summary, the development would provide a number of public benefits, principally employment and economic benefits, and the intensification of this key site, and encouraged by development and policy. The development would also provide improved management of the site, namely in respect to vehicle movement, highway safety and operational noise. Officers are recommending approval of this application subject to suggested conditions and a 626 agreement containing the planning of applications listed in the reports. Thank you. OK, so we now move on to our registered speakers and we'll start with objectives. And I have first on my list, Henry Wayne, who is online, I believe. Hello, yes. Hi there. So if everyone could listen who's registered to speak, how this works is it's two minutes. And once I so I'll ask you to introduce yourself, let us know your name, your relationship to the application. Once you've done that, your two minutes will begin. My colleague Rajneesh here has a timer. Excuse me. You have a warning when there's 20 seconds to go. And then when the two minutes is up, there'll be another beep and I'll ask you to finish your sentence. So if you could just start with your name and your relationship with the application and then the timer will begin. Sure. So my name is Henry Wayne. I live at 28 Gowden Road. So one of the houses that directly overlooks the development. And alongside Barbara and Craig, who will be speaking next, we've represented the community of residents on the road, gathering feedback where we come from our neighbours. So what I'm going to say today is sort of not just my opinion, but also the opinion of others on the street. When you're ready. Okay. So I would like to reiterate neighbours concerns regarding the proposed 24-7 operations of the site. A recently approved similar application at 61 Lilford Road included conditions that restricted night time and weekend operations. However, the officer for this particular application has made no such suggestions despite the similarity of the applications. So I would like to know why the applications have been treated differently and why it's considered appropriate for this development to operate 24-7. There hasn't been any particular justification to say why, just that it would be acceptable. A key concern is the impact of broadband reversing alarms and other delivery sounds at night. In particular on the bedrooms on the upper floors of the houses on Gowden Road that face the development site. as these have direct line of sight into the loading yards. Paragraph 4.2.105 of the officer report determines that commercial vehicle movements will have no discernible impact, but does not explain this decision. The noise assessment itself provided by the applicant doesn't specifically address impacts to the upper bedroom windows, which will not benefit from noise reduction from the proposed acoustic fence. I have done a bit of a technical assessment of this myself just to demonstrate numerically the issue that we'll be seeing. Broadband reversing alarms have a typical sound pressure level of 100 decibels, which reduces to approximately 66 decibels at an undisturbed distance of 50 meters. This is roughly where bedroom windows are. So 66 decibels. This exceeds the World Health Organization guidelines for nighttime noise, which states that noise should be lower than 40 decibels outside of bedroom windows. Finally, whilst condition 22 is welcome to automatically turn off office lights at night, this will not be sufficient where there are cleaners in the offices at nighttime because that will cause the lights to come on. So we would suggest as well there should also be automated blinds required, which is very similar to the existing building which has automated shutters. OK, thank you so much. OK, we're going to move on to Craig Broadley now, who I also believe is online. Hello there. Hi, thanks, Council Simpson. Thanks so much for letting me join. My name is Craig Broadley. I live at number two Gowden Road. I've lived here for 20 years and I'm at the junction of also with Gowden Close. And as Henry said that I'm representing, along with Henry and Barbara, the wider interests of the Gowden Road Community Group, which includes over 100 houses in the area. So our views are representative of all of them, not just ours. Thank you. When you're ready. OK, thank you. So my focus is that we dispute the fact that you were saying that there's a reduction in road danger. We are concerned that the council considers that 333 additional trips a day on Gowden Road is not significant. The traffic at Clapham High Street Junction is already extremely difficult and a well-known dangerous hotspot. The stats from TFL show that there were seven accidents at the junction in 2023, including three serious events. One of those included my neighbour and her young child in her car that was hit by another car at that junction. In the same year, 10 other accidents were recorded on the High Street within 60 metres of that junction, including a fatal accident. The council are well aware of these stats, but yet they are looking to increase the traffic into this known dangerous hotspot. Under the proposal, from what we can see, there will also be an additional 62 additional HGVs which will turn into Clapham High Street. The junction at Gowden Road is extremely small. There's already blockages on a regular basis with vehicles turning into the High Street from Gowden Road. So we believe that the impact of the additional traffic onto the resident safety will be very significant. From a survey that we conducted in July 2023, there were 815 pedestrian crossings between Gowden Road at that junction between 8am and 9.20am in the morning. Many of them were mothers and children. The High Street is also a busy cyclist route. This development is turning our residential area into a nonstop noisy commercial traffic spot day and night. We therefore require the council to provide a detailed traffic safety assessment referencing current levels of traffic congestion and accidents to demonstrate whether I am cruise traffic is deemed acceptable. Also, we are asking that the gate be put up immediately before construction work start to prevent traffic. That's your two minutes. Thank you. OK, if we move on to Barbara Koteca now, please. Hi there. If you just want to introduce yourself and then the timer will begin. Good evening, Mrs. Simpson. My name is Barbara Koteca. I'm one of the Gowden Community residents and I speak in the name of residents living in a close proximity to the development. Thank you. When you're ready. As I said, I speak in the name of the residents living in a close proximity. The scale of the project, including the demolition works, heavy truck traffic and extensive equipment mobilization over an anticipated 12 to 18 month period raises serious issues around noise, pollution, disturbance and potential property damage. Given the impact of these works, I request that a clear and direct line of communication is established between residents, developer, the onsite teams and council representatives. This will allow for the timely reporting and resolution of any issues, emergencies or damages. Additionally, once construction is complete, a permanent emergency contact line and senior management contacts for the estate must be provided publicly. This is essential to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards we require of them. Considering the size and duration of the development and number of the residents affected, maintaining open and structured communication before, during and after the project is critical to protecting communities' interests. The proposed planting plan has got the urban greening factor guidance of one, it doesn't meet it, it has got the UGF of 0.14 well below the London plan target of 1.3 required for commercial projects. While this is not necessary for B2, B8 use, the committee should really ensure the developer meets the 0.3 E class use, as that is a part of the application as well, for the whole of the development. And that will significantly increase the CO2 pollution due to the motor vehicle reliance. More intensive planting is needed to counteract that impact. The urban greening factor guidance, that's 0.4.122, justifies revising that target by taking into consideration the development's effect by CO, CO, light and nose pollution on existing infrastructure. The planting plan also only allows for 52 weeks of post-planting maintenance. The committee really should seek assurance to make sure the greenery is maintained to an applicable standard afterwards. The proposed structure's height, which is double the current one, near the Cybella Conservation Area, sets a precedent for taller buildings harming the area's historic character and protected views out of the conservation area, contrary to the Lambda for Local Plan Policy Q22. We do strongly urge you, dear committee members, please. You've worked so hard on making sure that Borough is green, working towards reliable transport, reliable, accessible routes for all. Putting a really heavy motorised commercial development on that side is literally blocking every single thing we've worked so hard for to get there. It crosses two minutes, I'm afraid. OK, thank you very much. OK, so we now move on to people in support of the application. There are two people registered, starting with Jo Wilkinson, who I believe is here in person. Hi there. So if you just want to make your way to the table. So it's the same drill when you're ready, if you introduce yourself and then your two minutes will begin. Good evening all, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jo Wilkinson. I'm a development manager at Seagrow. I'm here to present our vision for Seagrow Park Capham North, a modern sustainable industrial park for Lambeth. On site, on Timber Millway, on Timber Millway is an important industrial site within your borough, designated as a key industrial business area, Kiva, within your local plan. In line with Lambeth's policies, our proposal seeks to protect and enhance this site with a best in class industrial park, providing high quality business space, supporting economic growth and creating around 165 new jobs. We've worked diligently on these plans with your officers and residents, consulting and incorporating feedback to shape our plans. We have lowered building heights to reduce visual impact, introduced acoustic fencing to minimise noise, altered building design to better protect residents' privacy and removed articulated lorry access entirely. As a business, Seagrow shares Lambeth Council's passion for sustainability. Like the Council, we have a set target to be net zero by 2030, and to achieve this, all our new developments need to play a role. At Seagrow Park Capham North, we are targeting the highest Bream outstanding certification, reducing on-site carbon emissions by nearly 150% and improving biodiversity by 100%. We are committed to not only developing this site, but to investing in its long-term success through our community investment plans. These plans have already supported over 25,000 Londoners with our career insight and helped over 750 unemployed residents into stable work, benefiting local communities directly. To conclude, this is a rare opportunity to unlock the potential of an underused and deteriorating site that isn't contributing to Lambeth's funding. In its place, we can create a thriving industrial park that supports businesses, generates employment and enhances the environment. Thank you. Thanks very much. I also have an Adam Garcia here in person, so if you want to swap places, then when you're ready. Good evening, all. I'm Adam Galtheer, Associate Director in the planning team at CBRE, and I'm very pleased to be speaking to you tonight on CBRE. CBRE acquired this site in 2022, and since then we have worked with key stakeholders, including your officers, to develop a scheme which optimises the site's capability to deliver a modern and best-in-class industrial scheme as required by its designation as Akiba. Our proposal consists of 8 units, carefully designed around 2 yard areas, ensuring safe and efficient servicing. The existing site can accommodate 16.5m articulated vehicles. However, to respond to pre-existing safety concerns at the nearby Clapham High Street and Gowder Road Junction, we've made the decision to limit operational vehicles to 10m. Remarked improvement. In addition to this, CBRE is contributing £150,000 towards local highways improvements, as outlined in the committee report. We've sought to ensure that neighbouring immunity is safeguarded, incorporating robust noise mitigation measures into our design. A 4m high noise barrier will be installed along the Gowden Road and railway boundaries, whilst the site's layout has been optimised to maximise separation distances from noise sources to receptors. Furthermore, we have developed a noise management plan and estate rules, which will be enforced by Seagro's estate management team, a permanent team that can be contacted about issues from nearby residents. In conclusion, our proposals represent a policy compliant development that has responded thoughtfully to concerns raised throughout the process. Thanks for your attention and we welcome any better professionals. Thank you. If you want to make your way back to the audience, we're going to turn now to the ward councillor, Councillor Tim Windle, who's online, I believe. Yes, thank you. Hi, Councillor Windle. So if you just want to introduce yourself and then your two minutes will begin. Brilliant. Thank you. I'm Councillor Tim Windle. I'm one of the ward councillors in Clatham Town, which includes this development. So basically, I guess I just wanted to start by, I think, welcoming some of the engagement that the applicant had done and some of the changes that they've made on the back of that set on planning committee before and seen a few larger strategic developments. And I really hope that that positivity will continue through construction and operation if the committee is minded to approve this in terms of communication with local residents. I just wanted to reflect some resident concerns and hope that the committee satisfies itself on those. I guess, obviously, firstly, the heritage impact on the Cevalla Road conservation area. I think, secondly, noise, I think has been extensively spoken about by residents. Then I think the transport impacts. I know residents are particularly concerned that it's likely that this will be a distribution centre. So it would be fantastic if the committee could ensure it is satisfied that the transport modelling adequately captures that. And then finally, obviously, the interactions between overlooking and the proximity of the buildings at the back of Garden Road, particularly given they are elevated and in line with the first floor of the proposed development, which is higher than the existing development. I just wanted to finish by, I think, welcoming condition four, which proposes that there won't be any night kitchen or night grocer operation overnight. The removal of the use of articulated lorries and then also the installation of the gates on the western side of Garden Road. But I think also to ask if the committee might be able to explore whether the installation of that gate might be able to be brought forwards or that it could be in place as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Katsula Windle. That's all our registered speakers for this item. But the applicant does have three technical specialists in their team this evening should be wished to call on them. They are Des O'Dwyer from Michael Sparks Associates, Danny Fumicelli, who's from Vanguardia, expertise, noise and acoustics. And Phil de Jong, who is the technical director of motion. OK, so we're going to move now to member questions. And just a reminder to everybody here that just because members might not ask a question on every issue, it doesn't mean that they haven't given it due consideration. We do also have a comprehensive officer report, which all members have read. And we've also had a technical briefing on this item. So if members aren't asking questions on everything, it's that they're satisfied that they have enough information to make their decision this evening. OK, would any members like to ask anything of officers? Thank you. Councillor Bailey. Yeah, starting with land use. Who's the opposite? Tell me how they convince the intensification of the Kiva here is quite a thing to do, thinking more long term, and actually why we've not, in line with London Plan, explored a more mixed use site. So yeah, the policy on Kiva's, obviously, ED3. That doesn't, as I mentioned, it had part of the intensification of these types of uses in Kiva's. So that's where you get the, in principle, support for the land uses. You obviously then have to go through assessing against other policies in respect of impacts. And with this application, the main impacts are around operational noise, of how that's managed and transport, private safety matters. So, yeah, land use wise, obviously supports, supports this. As I say, we have to go through that other assessment that follows from the other policies. Yeah, before that, next week, how are we assured that, so we talk about the public benefits of higher value employers, how are we assured that we're not just moving from low-density warehousing to higher-density, low-wage warehousing? Yeah, well, the scheme itself is anticipated to increase, have more jobs than existing. So there is, yeah, there's an increase there. So that does have benefits itself. There's, I mean, in terms of other employment benefits, I think you mentioned, any major scheme you have to have private skills, obligations that are in the 106 agreement. So there's going to be obligations, not only in respect of construction jobs, but in the operational phase of this scheme, below the multiple jobs and apprenticeships. So you, that's the way of securing, it's the benefit, public benefits from, you know, a scheme like this. I think our presiding officer wants to come in. Yeah, thank you Chair. I'll just, I'll just supplement that by saying that, obviously at the moment, the buildings were in a certain condition and there was only a number of, a small number of businesses there. What you're looking at would be redevelopment, and then providing new purpose-built premises, which can be more attractive to businesses and also more viable in the long term. And I know there's, I think there's nine units, but there's opportunities for multiple businesses. The range of uses as well is, is more flexible. So there's types of industry and storage and distribution within the description of development. So it's providing the, I suppose, the maximum opportunities for, for business and, and prize. And following from that, obviously the economic benefits, including employment. That's the Jaffa. If I heard correctly, that there will be more job opportunities for young people. If I have, and I would like to know that, are they going to be for local people? Are they getting the knowledge piece? So, um, yeah, it just takes that section of. Of the report, so. I mean, there are obligations, as I'm interested in. What policy requires, to get provided. to local people. So you're section. 4.3.4. 3.6. Page. 64. Of course. That sets out the obligations, the headlines, that would be included in employment skills plan. That's going to be included in the section 6 group. That will be included, the reason it's going to be indebted to 25% of construction jobs. Local residents. Engage with local schools and colleges, promote skills and qualifications. Construction of sectors of the end use. Working at work, experience, opportunities. The construction and end use phases. Friendships across both phases. And paid, supported employment places. In the end use phase, in the end of six months. And then also the financial contribution that goes with that. to help the council. Work with, with the developer to enact on those opportunities. Thank you. Any other questions? Perhaps the clerk. Mine's on, uh, amenity impacts. Okay. Um, so, um, couple of questions, but I'll start with just, uh, an assessment. Officers give an assessment around the noise and light impact. On those, uh, upper bedroom windows. And Gowden road backing on from Gowden road. Um, and particularly in terms of considerations. Where the one specifically around the question raised around the. van bursting alarm. And secondly, around. I guess light pollution from, uh, let's say. Any, any activity. Uh, overnight. Inside. Not the external lighting. Are you happy to answer that? Or should we go to our technical specialist? I mean, I can answer on the lighting. I mean, I think Lee can cover a bit on that too, but, um. Yeah, so the internal lighting, uh, so. Around. Yeah. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. Is there anything specific? anything specifically on when it is used at night time? Has any assessment made of that? Any mitigation such as flights or anything else? Well, I'm just thinking the conditions you've got. Condition 22. So it talks about lighting to the office areas. It talks about lighting and made it so it's sensitive. When there's no activity, you won't come on. There is some control of that. And obviously, the facade is actually glazing. The office is only a smaller element of the location facing the neighborhood. It's been the... The room knows on the other floors, I'm just moving away, as I mentioned, has been fitted to where it can be. The windows are needed to light the areas where they can, they maximise those on the courtyard areas. Yeah, there is... There are windows on to move away, there are as existing. Yeah, I don't believe what's coming on the other points throughout the lighting. Yeah. Good evening, everybody. I think it's important to look at condition 23, which requires the developer to comply with the Institute of Lighting Professionals guidance on avoiding obtrusive light. So when we look at schemes, obviously, we refer to that guidance and we expect the developers to come up with a appointed lighting engineer who will make sure the lighting scheme complies with that guidance. Obviously, that's subject to a condition. And until we actually know the final details of the lighting scheme, we can't say for sure where the lighting will be and what form of lighting it will be. But that guidance sets out important principles and sets threshold limits, which we would expect the developer to observe. And depending on the area, so for example, in a rural area, you'd have different thresholds to an intense urban centre, would expect the developer to design accordingly. And that condition is designed to ensure that we do get a properly designed, properly considered and fully assessed lighting design. So that minimise and that minimises the impacts, direct impacts on residents. Obviously, what is hard to manage in any urban environment is there will be an element of sky glow, not directly from the lights themselves, but simply from reflections and things like that. So it shouldn't be designed to a point where there would be significant upward light. Most of the light fittings would be down lighters. That's typically what people tend to install these days. There's a limited use for freestanding flood lighting of the yards because most of the lighting will be attached to the buildings. So the kind of things we would expect to cause a problem are already being considered. But until we see the final scheme, obviously it's going to be subject to that condition. We can't say for sure, but ultimately it's designed. The condition is designed to ensure there are no adverse light impacts for residents. The clock just clarifying the condition 23 thing. The lighting scheme is both internal and external. They light. Yeah. Sorry, I was just going to say, yes, I mean, the ILP guidance is primarily concerned with external light because that's generally more dominant than any light spill from a window. But as Luke's already said, the developers already considered this and designed the majority of windows to be facing away from the residents. Plus also the proposed four metre acoustic bunds on the boundary of Golden Road would also help to reduce any light trespass from that area. Thank you. Any more questions on amenities? Just picking up one on noise again, just could officers kind of give some reassurance around the broadband reversing alarm and just how they think that would work in terms of the residential impact of that? Thank you. Yes, should I come in on that one? Yeah, well, certainly broadband reversing alarms are loud, but they're very loud when you're close to them. They do have a high sound energy, but they operate with much higher frequencies. And these are these travel less well with distance compared to a standard tonal reversing alarm, which is quite penetrating and designed to be heard some distance away. Broadband reversing alarms are designed to be heard principally by the people who might be in the path of the vehicle. So there will be some noise spill from them, but it will attenuate much more rapidly and the modelling done by the noise consultant for the applicant suggests that there shouldn't be any adverse impacts, even at second floor level from the use of these reversing alarms. OK, any other questions? Catherine and I. I know the noise management plan around deliveries that will be ongoing, but it would be good to just get a bit of the assurance around the specific inspection scheme and that might reduce impact on residents and whether they will have an emergency contact line during the inspection of any issues arise. Yeah, we could go to the case officer for that one. So the Considuate Constructed, sorry, the Considuate Contracted scheme is part of the head of terms. And then in respects of the construction management, so yeah, Condition 10 does have requirement for them to, the developer to have a final contact for residents, once they act through that construction process. Can I just also push on the maintenance of the cleaning, the greenery, is there, are we able to have some sort of informancy around the long term maintenance strategy? Yeah, well, there was mentioned 52 weeks, so Condition 33 is going to require the landscaping details and a part of that is a landscape management plan, having a period of no less than five years. So, and then Condition 34 is fairly, standard condition is one that is implement the landscaping scheme and obtain it for five years and it would be longer than that. I've just had a request, Luke, if you could speak up when you're answering, I think is it people online who are struggling to hear? I have a question about transport, please. I'd like to have some more information about what are the safety, highway safety proposals, the council scheme and also the TfL scheme and also an idea of time scales. It's hard to say at the moment because there is no shovel ready scheme or even design for improvements along there. I know it's something that TfL are looking at, but they've looked at certain like specific interventions such as signalizing, such as extending the island on Tapan High Street. But they're reluctant to do anything because it's more realistic. But the impacts on moving traffic, etc. And what's going at times. And also we unfortunately don't have any scheme designed currently, but we anticipate that anything that we do on our streets, we're looking at movement into and through the junction and will be part of the healthy neighbourhood framework. In terms of timelines, I can't give you any more clarity on that, unfortunately. It will be consulted upon, obviously. It seems to be looking to do that on our network. OK, I've got my own follow up question and I'll come to you. So, the officers are suggesting that this financial contributions are sought for these improvements and they're needed to make the planning, the developments acceptable. But I'm just struggling to then understand if there aren't any specific schemes in place. So how we justify that it's required to make the development acceptable, but we haven't got any plans and we haven't got any time scales. So is the development unacceptable if these highways safety schemes don't go ahead? And does that therefore mean it's unacceptable in the meantime whilst there's nothing in place? The TFO contribution, I believe that's towards a feasibility study. That's where we get, we'd expect the plan to come out of. Yeah. So, it's part of a package of mitigations and policy is around, not only mitigation, but it's enhancements to improving highway safety. So there are enhancements to highway safety that we are getting here, removing the lorries. That's quite a key issue. The current site is existing and can't have lorries and it has done. That's going to be removed and that's a bit of a problem. Those lorries getting through the junction. They're part of the package. And the site is existing is unrestricted. It can, it doesn't have any management plans or anything like that. So this, we have all that delivery and service management plan, travel plan, all those things that just aren't on the site as existing. So there are people to say, it's all part of the package. Did you have a related question, Councillor Clarke, please? Again, on the money side of the transport. So I can see from the section 106, 50,000 towards developing a highway safety scheme, which suggests that obviously something coming from TfL would be costing more and they would be providing other funds and that's their business. And it says 100,000 to the council for highway safety improvements. I guess it's, are we, I understand there's no plan. There's no specific plan that we're. But is 100,000, I guess, where did that 100,000 come from to better understand what that might deliver? And would we be actively looking potentially for other funds, other section 106 or other things for, for a wider scheme? I'm just conscious that we don't say developing. Yeah, it's, it's, is that the totality of what we expect to spend? Well, it does depend on, on the scheme. If it's something like, um, blocking to traffic or new ocean vehicles or, um, printers or something like that. Then obviously the cost would be, um, actually low. If it's something that would require more in, like, um, extensive infrastructure. It, it could cost more than that, in which case we just, um, I'm offering sources of funding to compliment that. Um, and we anticipate that the, um, if TfL come forward, a holistic scheme and. The 100,000 that the counselor is getting could be better used. Uh, that holistic scheme. Uh, I don't see any issue. If you have the way that section 106 is murdered, that that could be achieved. Thank you. Um, I just want to go back to my earlier question, which is, so I understand what you were saying about some of this is mitigation, but some of it is enhancements and both are required by policy. Um, but whilst, um, the safety, um, uh, improvement measures aren't in place. Um, cause there will be a period of time when, if, if this development is approved, they'll be operating. Um, I'm assuming, um, the feasibility study, um, the outcome of that won't, won't be done yet. And same with, with the, what the council is thinking about. So are, are the impacts on highway safety in the meantime, considered by officers to be, to be reasonable and acceptable? Yes. Um, the actual number of additional trips compared to existing, the, the increase is pretty minimal, really. And you look through the junction over the course of the day, all the other trips that go through that junction, pretty low change. So. Yeah. As I mentioned, there's things like removing the lorries that helps. So improvements that helps mitigate the impacts to existing. So yeah, I would say even without schemes going ahead, the actual. You have some highway safety and road nature. I don't think it's materially made worse from this scheme. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Clarke. Um, I think it's partially been answered already, but I just, uh, as it was raised, um, by one of the objectives, I just wanted to get a clear answer from officers around why we specifically weren't strict in 24 seven operation, um, here, uh, beyond what has been restricted in conditions around, um, the, um, uh, dark kitchens and dark, uh, grocers. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'll bring Lee in in a minute, but it's, it's, it's, it's something we've considered and it's something we've discussed. Uh, it's. Something which, uh, developers who wants to, um, they want to maximize the options at the site. We want to make sure there's a balance between optimizing the site for its key destination, but also protecting neighbor amenity. It is something that we've considered, but we've, uh, working through the, these issues with the, the applicant, uh, part of the, the, sort of conditions and, and the plans that we've gone, um, we think that that's. An acceptable form of mitigation. Don't need the controls on the, on the hours of operation. But yeah. Yeah. I think. The. The kind of controls that we've got and what the. Comfort we can have from the. We've got. Yeah, I mean, I think, um, I would like to stress that, um, Luke and I had some, um, quite robust conversations with the applicant on this issue. Um, as I understand it, there are planning issues around the fact that the site is currently unrestricted in terms of its hours of operation. And that can make it difficult for the local planning authority to support restricting hours. Um, I do a lot of work around Gatwick. Um, and obviously there are some big 24 hour logistic hubs that work there with residential not far away. So. You sometimes it's easier and stronger to go with the issues. Um, and what the proposed decision notice contains is a significant series of conditions related to activities at the site. Um, which in combination will, um, hopefully. Well, I think, I think they will ensure that, um, there's no significant adverse amenity impact, particularly at night. One of the things we were very keen to do was to restrict external activity at night. So while we are allowing, um, some vehicle movements at night, there are strict conditions attached to those and even stricter conditions imposed by the estate management plan. Um, I mean, for example, in terms of broadband reversing alarms, the, the management plan, the noise management plan produced by Segro is that, um, a banksman is used rather than an audible reversing alarm during the night time period. There's also to be no external use of things like forklifts and pallet trucks. Um, there's not to be any, um, loading of bins or anything of that nature externally during the hours, night time hours. So there are a series of, um, significant conditions which will control impacts. The hours of operation is obviously something for, um, the committee to decide. Um, but I, I'm satisfied based on my experience at other sites that this level of control will protect residents' amenity. Thank you. That's the Bailey. Officer, I'm interested to explore and the practicality of an informative or by way of condition of until a holistic transport plan is introduced or done by TFL. a restriction on movements in the AMN PN peak, which the officer report demonstrates there are additional LGB vehicle movements and would probably tackle the majority of local residents' concerns in terms of those conflicts. And that restriction can be reviewed and, and removed post a holistic change to the highway system introduced. Sorry. You mean, um. Basically a strictly, yeah, restricting vehicle movements from one side is operational in the AMN PN peak, which we've already acknowledged is going to have an increase in vehicle movements and is the, and is probably the principal pinch point of residents concerned in terms of those things. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm not coming. Uh, yeah, it's, it's, it's quite difficult to enforce any controls over those, those periods, because how do we know what vehicles are going through there? Um, whether they be for this site or another site, then it's around is, do we need to do that? Um, yeah, I think even with the additional trips, I would say it's, it's still a minor change really through that junction. It's what's, what's going on currently. Um, but there are, the delivery and service management plan does have a, something in there about trying to encourage deliveries outside of those hours. Um, but one of the knock on effects of potentially not having any deliveries in those hours is that they might have to be other times. They could be earlier or they could be later, which could also have knock on impacts. So it's all trying to find that, that right balance really amongst all the different issues. And yeah, sorry, if I can give more comfort on, or more clarity on the additional impact at those peak hours. We're talking maybe, um, 12 to 15 vehicles in each direction, and, uh, additional trips at peak hours, um, which equates to maybe one every, one every four minutes. So, um, it's, it's about to be reasonable of, of, of, such a condition when the additional traffic will be quite low, relatively low. Right. Right. I'm going to move us on to debating the application then. So this is members opportunity to let us know their thoughts on the scheme, the merits of the application. Excuse me, perhaps give an indication of how they're going to be voting this evening. Who would like to go first? That's the clerk. Thank you. Uh, thank you. Um, yes, I think we kind of, uh, tonight and through the reports kind of. This balancing and making the most, uh, beneficial and economically best beneficial, uh, use of the, of the sites and of, of, of Akiba and ensuring, uh, residential immunity and, uh, limiting any, any impact, additional impacts and that we need good design and those acceptable forms of, uh, and strong forms of mitigation. And I think what we have seen is this. Uh, uh, uh, a good effort has been made by officers and applicants to get this balance right to put in sets of strength, strong conditions around those management plans. Um, I think there is still, there is still a little bit of onus on kind of. Um, uh, the, um, uh, the, the, the, the conditions are, are met and the conditions are enforced. I mean, there is that, you know, obviously there are those things, the management plans, and we're here, uh, I think kind of in the conditions, also the construction management plan. And. I think, uh, beyond that in the management plan, I didn't need to check. It includes the details of the, um, uh, the, the developer or the constructor having those public details available for, uh, for residents. So certainly it was in the construction management plan. I'm assuming. Well, uh, and that, that is good. And I think it gives the, gives some level of, if the problems do arise, they have somebody immediately that they can contact to, to, to, uh, make their, uh, to make their feeling known. So from that perspective, I think kind of, kind of comfortable with. It's being proposed. I think it is, um, is the, the right, the, the right level of intensification on the site without being kind of, uh, not in keeping with, with the wider area. Uh, I think from my point of view, as I was pleased that there's the amendment in the, uh, to condition 30 around the maintenance of the, uh, the barrier, um, uh, of the vehicle barrier. Uh, and I know a question was raised about whether, uh, I guess at what stage of development that could be, um, uh, uh, that could be introduced as I didn't forgot to raise it earlier. But I'd say, obviously from my point of view, it would certainly be welcome if the, that barrier, uh, was implemented sooner rather than later, uh, to deal with some of the impacts that are currently there. Yeah. Generally, uh, I think it is, uh, the right, the right balance. Right. Thank you. Any other contributions? Dr Bailey. Dr Bailey. Dr Bailey. Thank you. Um, I think, um, I think it makes the trick of maintaining this as a Kiva and not actually just building more housing in the middle of Clapham. Um, but, uh, I think if we're committed to maintaining a Kiva in an area that it's, it's good to intensify that, um, to be honest, at least the benefit of employment, um, I think this, this, like, um, but based on what it is, I think I would strongly encourage the employers who use the site that we, where they are informed, but they should be living wage employers at the very least. Um, and all those, all those tenants should be that, and that should be, um, part of the lease terms. Um, and then to just kind of deny reference to the landscape management, because there's no UGF target score in this use class, I think. Well, that's again, whether that's by informative, but the, um, the, uh, should aim higher than, there is no policy minimum. So they should aim quite high to best in class in terms of what that landscaping and greening and that management and the, in perpetuity beyond the minimum five year plan should look like. Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. So my thoughts on the application, I think it's important to note that this is an existing Kiva, um, and, um, the protection of, um, industrial space within the borough is very important. Um, sometimes very difficult to protect. Um, and, um, once it's gone, it's gone and, um, noting that policy requirement is for the intensification of industrial uses on Kiva's and also the policy requirement to optimize the site. Um, I think this application has done a reasonable job of getting that balance right of meeting those land use policy requirements as well. And I can also tell that a lot of consideration has gone in from officers, um, together with the applicants about, um, mitigations in terms of neighboring amenity. Um, I acknowledge, um, concerns around transport, but I have, um, read the report and listened to officers about the increase in trip generation and, um, don't think it's exponentially high. Um, I think the increase is reasonable and together with the mitigation measures, which, um, currently are not in operation on the site at the moment in terms of articulated lawyers and there's a lack of management plan. So this application actually brings in some improvements. Um, it's a shame that the enhancement measures, there isn't more certainty with regards to to what is the wish list of TFL and, um, what is the council proposing and when in terms of the highway safety improvement measures. But I accept that that detail is not required in order to make the application acceptable, but nevertheless, it is still a positive of the scheme. Um, I'm going to ask, it's minuted, um, that members would like to see optimization of law enforcement and that any future employers, um, a London, sorry, Lambeth, Lambeth living wage. Lambeth, not London. Yes, I'm sorry, I haven't got our own wage. London living wage, um, accredited and also minuted that the, um, the installation of that barrier is brought forward as soon as possible. Um, having, um, taken all that into consideration, um, I'm going to propose that we accept officers' recommendation and approved planning committee, including the amended condition 30 as set out in the addenda and, um, and grant planning commission. Do I see a secondary councillor Costa? All those in favour, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Okay. Thank you to those who have attended, um, for that application. It's going to let people leave the room and then we're going to move right on to our, um, next item. The office there to present their report for 18 to 24 Popes Road. Good evening. Uh, this presentation relates to item 5 of the committee agenda for the island new application at 18 to 24 Quotes Road in the Bristol. The application seeks temporary permission for period of five years. This means you resist the vacant, the open air, the rooftop park, the garden, to create a mixture spending range. It includes food skills, cars, a stage area, off-screen, or students, and associated and general, cycle storage, offices, toilets, and storage areas. That would have a capacity of a thousand people with a minimum of 500 people seated. This is the condition of the premise licence. The opening hours are proposed to be 2pm to 11pm Monday to Thursday, 10am to midnight Fridays to Saturdays, and 10am to 11pm Sundays. Members should be aware that the application is part retrospective, a majority of the structures associated with the proposed use already having been installed on site, but the use has not commenced. The site is situated within the Brixton Major Town Centre between two railway viaducts, which run along the northern and southern boundaries. The site forms part of site allocation 6C under the Lumber's Local Plan. The site is situated opposite the boundary of the Brixton Conservation Area to the west, and there are two listed buildings including the site's local context, the Grade 2 listed Brixton Recreation Centre and the Grade 2 listed Brixton Village Market. The site is spread over two rooftop car parks, which are joined by a branch to the south edge. The upper roof situated to the west is proposed to be used as the main customer area of the site, and the lower roof to the east is proposed to be used for staff facilities, storage, servicing and customer toilets. The shaded area shows the customer areas of the site, which include the upper rooftop and the raised area of the lower rooftop, which would contain the customer toilets. The main customer access to the site is proposed to be via the first arch on Brixton Station Road, with step-free access available with staff assistance via the ramp on the landing page. The venue is proposed to be constructed for civic containers clad in polycarbonate sheeting, timber-framed perglas with polycarbonate roofing, and a metal trussing structure as proposed to the central area of the site. The majority of structures on site would not be visible to the street, due to the position of the site between two railway riders. At ground floor level, the arch on Brixton Station Road is proposed to be opened up, and a new shopfront installed, incorporating fine mesh panels, backlit polycarbonate sheeting and a metal roller shutter. The arch would form the main entrance to the site, holding up to 60 queuing guests, and keeping customers away from the valley of the streets. There are the existing slight entrance to the bar on Pope's Road, which is supposed to call the exit. The site would have been tall for the sport from the front elevation on Pope's Road, however it would appear set back from the roof edge, due to the canopy fascia of the shops below. The front elevation would be constructed with backlit polycarbonate sheeting, tank framing, and black ritual needs. The clean efforts for consideration are the protocols for the land use, the design and the impact of heritage assets, the sustainability and community impact, transport, and transport. It is noted that the current application is revised from a permanent proposal, from a five-year temporary proposal, due to the site allocation, which outlines that a larger mixed-use scheme of the site allocation. To date, no permanent proposal has been granted to the developed site. It is therefore considered that five years of being an acceptable period would allow a legal use of the land in the interim. The most recent use of the rooftop car park was as a tankard shoe carpet from the establishment, similar in nature to the current proposal. This was operated under the name Brixton Beach between 2016 and 2018. Other than this period, the rooftop has been vacant for almost 20 years. It previously served a Tesco supermarket which occupied the retail unit that is now Sports Direct. The archway on Brixton Station Road was previously used by the retail unit as a storeroom. However, the connection between the arch and the retail unit has since been removed. The arch is now vacant and is blocked on Brixton Station Road. The proposal would improve the appearance of this archway and its surrounding context by opening up this arch. The temporary use of the archway and car park as a drinking establishment, food market and event space bring vitality to an area which is currently underdeveloped and partially derelict. The owners are made aware that the applicant has agreed to a financial contribution of £45,000 which is proposed to be used for general public railway improvements in the Federal and Brixton Station Road area, with particular consideration to street lighting improvements. The uses would align with the predominantly commercial character of Brixton Major Town Centre. The proposal would incorporate single-storey structures placed onto a single-storey rooftop, and the impact would be small-scale relative to the immediate townscape context. No harm has been identified to the Brixton Conservation Area opposite the site or to the nearby Grade II listed Brixton Recreation Centre or Brixton Village Markets. The proposed opening up of the archway would improve the appearance of the junction between Brixton Station Road and Popes Road, and the shopfront design would align with the Lambeth Design Guide SPD. The site currently has no biodiversity value given that it is an open-off of our park, but the planters are proposed to be installed alongside the ramp and the seating booths. Further details of the quantity and position of these planters are recommended by the position. Due to the open-air nature of the venue, the energy and sustainability requirements of the site are not simple, and a bespoke and pragmatic approach should be adopted in this instance. Rainwater harvesting is proposed for irrigation and watering exterior areas. Further details are recommended to be secured by condition. The site will have no heating or ventilation demand due to it being open-air. However, there will be lighting hot water demand, so details of how emissions will be actively reduced are recommended to be secured by condition for our water metering details. The circular economy aspect of the reuse of shipping containers in terms of the construction materials is supported. Due to the single storey scale of the design and the proposed siting of the structures between two viaducts, it is not anticipated that there would be an impact to neighbouring amenity in terms of overshadowing, daylight and sunlight, outlook or privacy. The key consideration of the proposal with regards to neighbouring amenity is the noise impact of the open-air venue. The applicant has submitted a noise impact assessment, which has been reviewed by Lambeth's Environmental Health Consultants, EHST. Whilst the predominant character of the area is commercial, there are several residential developments which have been considered in terms of immunity and battery. The blocks known as Carnie Place and Mars Square are considered to be the most likely to be impacted by the proposal, due to the height of these buildings and their relative proximity to the site. Submitted noise impact assessment outlines that sound system configurations will be a key method to reduce noise impact. Poor quality equipment which has been poorly configured can cause greater impacts, and it is proposed that noise limiters will be installed on all speakers throughout the site. The site will close at 11pm Sunday to Thursday, and midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. This aligns with the closing hours of Brixton, which is opposite the site, and the previous tamping commission of Brixton Beach. It is recommended that further details regarding the sound system setup, noise limiters and noise management are provided by pre-presenter conditions. The applicant has submitted a detailed operational management plan and dispersal policy, which demonstrates a high level of management control. Details of proposed kitchen extraction equipment are also required to be secured by pre-presenter conditions. It is noted that the customer area has been reduced from what was previously listed under the Brixton Beach Temporary Scheme. The blue area shown on the first image was used for the customer toilets and access was provided by the existing car park ramp between the upper and lower levels. This allowed customers to access an area much closer to the residential blocks at Kearney Place and Mars Square. Additionally, the car park ramp access from Valencia Place was used for the venue exit, meaning that groups of people would move onto Valencia Place at closing time. The current proposal was carefully considered the neighbouring impacts and the toilet facilities positioned to the northern side of the site. Customers would not have access to the car park ramp under the current proposal. At closing time, customers would lead via the Brixton Road arch away from residential streets at the rear of the site. The Valencia Place ramp would only be used as step free access and for servicing. Overall, it is considered that subject to pre-commencement conditions and given the major town centre context of the site, the proposal would not cause an adverse impact to neighbouring immunity. The site has excellent public transport accessibility of Level 6B, which is the highest possible level. The applicant has provided a trip generation plan which has been reviewed by Lambeth Transport Officers. No objections have been raised subject to the provision of a travel plan by Section 26. The site would have no on-site parking for staff or customers and it is recommended that the site is secured as car parking permit free by Section 26. In terms of cycle parking provision, the proposal will provide 81 customer spaces on the lower roof and 14 staff cycle spaces. Eight customer spaces are also proposed beneath the staircase within the arch on Brixton Station Road. There will be a shortfall of 28 customer spaces as required by the London Plan. Financial contribution of £7,000 is recommended to secure this shortfall off-site. Bin storage is proposed to the lower roof as well. Servicing vehicles will access the site via Valencia Place using the existing ramp. Deliveries and servicing would occur outside of opening hours between 9am and 6pm. In terms of crime, security will be present on site to manage customers in line with the premise licence. This is outlined within the submitted Operational Management Plan. It is recommended that the proposal follows Secure by Design Standards, which is recommended to be secured. No directions will register by the Metropolitan Police, the Transport Police and the Royal Park Police. In conclusion, the office is noted that the Parliament Security Security has also approved this application, subject to the imposition for conditions to set out the final decision notice and the following conditions. In section 6, we will secure £45,000 for a good amount of safety improvements, £1,000 to offset the cycle shortage, travel plan and travel plan reviews, business car parking permit 3, employment strategy and then monitoring fee capped at 5%. In section 6, we have one person who is here to object, who is Sonia Friera Trigo, who is here in person. Hi there, if you want to make your way to the table, I think I saw you for the application before, so you know to introduce yourself and then your two minutes will begin. I'm Sonia Friera Trigo and I'm a lecturer in Urban Planning and Urban Regeneration, but I'm here today as a resident from Kearney Place and I'm also not speaking just on my behalf, but on the behalf of residents from Kearney Place who have been particularly objected to the application. So I'd like to ask the committee to reject the proposal for the following reasons. The open-air nature of the proposal, together with its long operating hours, seven days a week, capacity for a thousand people, and live music events, as well as continuous amplified music on site, things that are advertised by the applicant on the social media posts, would create unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring residential areas, that is Kearney Place and Miles Square, as mentioned in the official report, but also Walton Lodge and Canterbury Crescent. The noise impact assessment of the proposal has not included any measurements inside surrounding residential properties, and it has not estimated the noise that a thousand people listening to music will generate on site. Therefore, the proposal has underestimated the noise it would refuse, and it has also misrepresented the existing noise climate that residents currently endure in their homes. In other words, the current noise impact assessment has underestimated the unacceptable noise the proposal will generate. And having an accurate assessment of noise impact matters when considering policies ED7 and ED8 of the local plan. While these policies encourage the delivery of meanwhile uses on empty blocks to activate town centres, the policies are also very clear that such uses will not be permitted on rooftops if their noise causes unacceptable harm to neighbouring residential authorities. The numerous complaints about similar venues in the area, such as Pope Brixton and Lost in Brixton, and which the Brixton example mentioned, are evidence of the massive noise that open-air venues without singing to music have on neighbouring residential properties. For this reason, the proposal, we asked the committee to reject the proposal, or approved with significant changes, such as a permanent cover on the site, reduce operating hours, and a number of interest in your business. Thank you. Thanks so much. Okay, now our final speaker this evening is Councillor O'Hara, who's also here in person. So if you just want to introduce yourself, and then your two minutes will begin. I'm Councillor O'Hara, I represent her in Wainfresh Ward. This is not an empty downtown area, far away from where people live. This is adjacent to the social housing of the Canterbury Gardens Estate, flats on Valencia Place and Coal Lane, and the large developments of Nilly Square and Kearney Place. These are homes to families with children, young adults studying, people with demanding jobs, and older people who have lived here for decades. There are other late-night venues around Brixton, but they are not vast open-air places with up to a thousand party-goers shouting into the night. Outside noise carries. The bass and the screams of party-goers will impact hundreds of residents in nearby housing, especially in summer when people have their windows open to help them sleep. And I see little public benefit to outweigh the heritage harm. The poor quality site is next door to a conservation area and will detract from it with noise, light shows, crowds, and the associated litter, public urination and antisocial behaviour. This makeshift set-up just delays the permanent development of the site, the housing and active workplaces, with well-paid jobs that is wanted here, and the significant Section 106 money that comes from these. Money to pay for public toilets in the town centre or better lighting near the station. Things that would benefit all of the residents, rather than the demographic who in the main are coming for a big night out and don't live here. Residents and the local police will tell you that Brixton Station Road and the train station are the greatest areas of drug trade and use in the town centre. I ask that the financial contribution is used for public toilets between this location and the tube station, as we don't need hundreds more people urinating in our town centre, as well as improved lighting on Brixton Station Road and the cupboard, which is a currently unsafe area of drug use around the station and the market area. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have no more registered speakers, but we have two technical specialists. We have Lee Money again for environmental health and we also have Richard Vivian, who is here from Big Sky Acoustics, an acoustic expert. OK, so questions? I'm the representative of the applicant and I've registered my name. I've been with them throughout this application, so... You think you've registered to speak? Yeah, I am. I've sent my details in. I've been dealing with it throughout. OK, just one moment for you. Gareth Hughes. I'm the lawyer for the applicant. Say the name again. Can you say your name again, please? Gareth Hughes. I'm the lawyer for the applicant. When did you email? Was that to Democratic Services? Certainly, yes, I think. Yes. When was that? I don't have that on me, madam. But yes, I obviously put in that I want to speak as it is that I'm his lawyer. I'm sorry. I'm being told that you haven't registered to speak. I beg your pardon. I've made it quite clear to everyone concerned that, of course, I've been involved with this application since the very beginning. That might be so, but I'm being told that you've not registered to speak and there is a deadline for that. So I'm sorry. Well, I've certainly told the planning officer I wish to speak. I know. I know that. Yeah. I shall only take two minutes. I'm sorry. I do apply the rules fairly. There's a deadline and I'm told you're not registered to speak. So I'm going to open to questions. Madam, I must ask, significant prejudice will be done if we're not allowed to put our application before you. The rules are that people have a deadline to register to speak. And I'm afraid I'm being told that you haven't registered to speak. At the same time I registered me, I registered Mr. Vivian and Mr. London, the other participants you've heard of. The information I'm having from my committee clerk. I apply this rule fairly and I won't be changing it this evening, I'm afraid. Apologies, but I'm going to now move on to questions. Well, I've registered it well. I'm not updating it anymore. That's my decision as chair. Thank you. Okay. Would anybody like to ask a question? Councillor Costa. On public realm improvements, how did we work with the figure of £45,000? And do we have details on how much street lighting and where it would be? Yes. So this was discussed with the regeneration team. The figure was based on the previous calculation when the funder scheme was under consideration the same site. So obviously they would have had a larger contribution, but we focus on the street lighting element of that original calculation and then it accounted for inflation. So that's where that figure has come from. So it's not an exact number of street lighting, but it is based on the previous calculation related to this exact site. Follow up, Councillor Jaffa, was it a follow up? It's another issue. Okay, Councillor Jaffa first. This is an open air feature. So with that sound and noise will travel far. And in summer, as they said, if windows are open, people cannot sleep if the sounds affect them. So is there any way of containing the sound in not spreading far away? So there's been a number of suggested mitigation strategies within the noise industry. The main one is the noise industry. All speakers, regardless of cheaper episode, and no one will be able to change that other and will not be able to change. The configuration of the sound system as well is really important because if there's a good quality sound system, it will feel less necessary for the sound, which should be more vibrant. So that's also been. And also further details regarding the translation and the materials. And more of what should I try to do as well. And hopefully wants to comment at all. Yes, please. Perhaps Mr. Money could provide some comfort to committee members also on the points that were raised by the registered speakers about the live music and it being open air. Yes, certainly. Sorry, can I just have one person on the screen at one time? Thank you. Yeah, I mean, it is an issue for open air venues. There's no doubt about that. There are a number of structures you can use to control it. Noise limiters is one. For a site like this, I'd probably want to see a dispersed speaker array. So if you can imagine, rather than having the traditional big sets of speakers either side of the stage, you have a series of relays of smaller speakers spread across the site. And what that does is that helps to contain the music within the site because the individual loudspeakers themselves don't have a very high output and they don't have very high base. But if you're standing within the footprint of the speaker, then you're getting the acoustic experience you're expecting. And obviously that has the great benefit then of not radiating noise across the wider environment. And certainly when you've got people in flats nearby that overlook the site. So there are strategies and techniques that can be adopted to do successfully. And it is a case of, as has been pointed out by the case officer, something that we want to secure through condition so that we can be satisfied that the speaker system and the relay system are going to be appropriate and not cause excessive noise spill. Anything else on acoustics? Yeah, Councillor Clarke. Just to follow up, just to understand better, see there's a noise limiter, a limit. How do we set that? How is that set? Because that wasn't in the, I assume that will be then in the management plan. Yeah, it was just an understanding of what actually means in terms of that noise limit. Who sets it? Normally it's set by the acoustic consultant appointed by the applicant, which we then approve. So it involves taking a series of noise measurements with the venue, both empty and full, because what you don't want is for the noise limit to trip prematurely. And then what tends to happen is people try and defeat it and you get various incidents of sabotage trying to route power supplies through different sockets or people even putting aluminium foil over the microphones of the noise limiter. So it is setting up. They're not an easy option noise limiters. They need to be regularly calibrated. They need to be regularly maintained. They need to be regularly checked by someone who's competent to do it. So they are, they are a cost for the business. And generally speaking, if there's no, I recommend them only when there's real, no real alternative. And obviously in this case, because it's an open air venue, there isn't really an alternative. Can I ask about the noise management plan? I don't know if a draft one has been submitted yet or details are being requested by a condition, but would there, is there going to be in there a dedicated contact if, if residents, you know, feel that noise levels are being breached or there's some kind of unreasonable disturbance? Yes, that's in the wording of the condition. Right. So I don't think we have one. OK, thank you. Councillor Nye. So also on noise, in terms of refuse and recycling, is there a condition around when that can be taken out? So we're not having thousands of bottles emptied up? Yeah, delivering and servicing can only apply between 9am at the 6pm. And that means then also putting the bottles out as a company. So not just in terms of when they're collected, but when they're actually approved the venue. I don't know, that isn't included. Servicing of the units is often included in the management plan. So if that's a particular concern, we can seek to include that in the approved management plan. But generally, most operators don't want to delay their staff by doing extensive cleanups in the early hours of the morning. It's usually done the following morning. So, but if that's a concern, that can certainly be addressed. Katzla Costa. I've got a question on urination. Will patrons be able to urinate as they leave the premises before closing time? Oh, sorry. And whether the toilets will be available to the public to help. Help reduce the amount of public urination that exists already in Brixton Town Centre. Can I also ask on that, how many toilets are there going to be as well? I think there's been a special... No, it's not got a specific... Again, it's not proposed to open to the public, but it has been stated in the Community Management Plan that they might open the site on Mondays and Tuesdays of use. Perhaps we could, again, in normal condition, come from part of a community management plan rather. So maybe that could be a problem from the start. Again, the operational management plan and by condition can outline whether the customers can use the toilet before. Is this on toilet? Yes, councillor and I. Yeah, in terms of toilets, it's actually something... In terms of maybe signage to tell people where they can go so that we're reducing the risk of them going round the corner. And thinking about when we're placing the lighting, reducing spots at dark where people are going to go into might be really effective in actually sort of changing residents' behaviour there. Yeah, I think that's enough. Yeah. I'm just... I'm wondering what is officers' opinion in terms of planning grounds for some of that either additional financial contribution or some of that £45,000 do go towards public toilets? Because I know there's a campaign for that in Brixton and we're not all councillors in that area, but we are aware that it's a big public issue, public urination in Brixton. So, but if we don't have the details of how many toilets are available, but at the same time, a thousand people is a lot. And then people leave once it's closed and then they need the toilet. That's just the nature of how you need the toilet. You know, you had your drink an hour ago and then you need the loo later on. And that's when people tend to pee in Brixton town centre. So is there scope to contribute to that pot of money for public toilets in Brixton? I think it's a temporary scheme, so it's only a five year commission. But the £45,000 isn't tied down to lighting. So if it's determined that something could be better to enhance the public realm in other ways, for example, then we could word the section 106 so that that could... I think going back to your point, sorry, just on the lighting scheme is to look at those dark places to improve. So it's sort of the both to improve that public realm around the outside of the site to eliminate those dark spaces as well. Will you also work with residents and the local councillors to identify the areas that need that attention because they will know where they are as well? Yeah, the regeneration team have got ideas of what they wanted to do that will be subject to public consultation as well. But yes, it will be led from them in conjunction. Can I check the PISWAS on Electric Avenue? Are they working? You know, the pop-up ones? Yes. Yeah. Are they currently operational? I don't know, I'm afraid. I think after that guide, I didn't want to square it. No. They're not one. Yes. Can we be careful not to turn this into a chat? Questions by the chair, please. Any more questions? Councillor Bailey. On a different topic. Was yours, Councillor Clark, on a different topic too? Okay, Councillor Bailey. On the visitor experience, what have officers done in terms of ensuring that wheelchair users come consciously that they can put up and go and also you've got to go to a separate entrance? What have we done to kind of make that better experience with wheelchair users? So, there will be a member, there'll be several security members of staff at the door. If you need to use a separate access, you would have to notify a member of staff. This is outlined in the management plan. And then they'll be escorted by a member of staff through the back entrance up to a lunch place. And then there's the RAM access. Unfortunately, there's just not scope to install a lift in that arch. It's just not big enough. And the previous scheme that was at the site did also make use of that route. That's in the back as well. Councillor Clark. I was just on transport on the short stay customer spaces. It was just an understanding because that's on the lower roof, which is more sensitive in terms of residential impact, what steps have been done to ensure that I guess you're not getting a whole bunch of people congregating there, for instance. So again, there won't be general public access to that lower roof. They would have to also request to access that part of the site. So they would also be escorted by security as well to store a bike there. There are eight spaces in the actual archway underneath the stairs, which would be used first just to reduce the need to go by the electric place. But yeah, there won't be large groups of people using at the same time. Any more questions? Councillor Clark. I can see there's been sort of quite a carefully thought out process of the ingress and egress and the different kind of scenarios. Can I just ask when you've got the scenario of. An event on a. At Brixton and at this site at the same time with a similar closing time is that. Yeah. Can I just ask for reassurance on what officers have thought about that to ensure that there is safe egress for that large amount of people? Yeah. So again, that can be secured specifically with the operational management plan. Um, it is noted that the exit is slightly further above Pope's road. Um, so. So. So really go down Brixton station road the same way as people that are leaving Brixton. Um. Yeah. Further details. Good condition. Yeah. Follow up. Um. I'm not a council in Brixton, so I don't know how these things work, but is there a, I guess, a nighttime forum that. Uh, the, uh, the site manager and Pop Brixton would be part of where they could regularly communicate around. I say events and ensuring that there is, they know what each other are doing so that if there is, there are events at the same time they've got. Yeah, that's also part of the requirement of the license. That's a nice. Can I ask a question about, um, violence against women and girls in safe spaces? I know some venues will have dedicated areas that anyone can go into. They need to go somewhere. It may be followed or there's antisocial behaviour. Is that something that we can condition? Venue. Uh, we may be outspoken. Uh, we may be outspoken. To follow up, that's where the, um, public benefits of opening up that arch, that there is an additional space and it's not just a continuation of a blank call. Can we improve that as well? Councillor Costa. Uh, could officers clarify if the, um, applicant will have to join the Brixton Business Improvement Groups? I don't think that's a planning requirement, is it? I think so, but we could add an informative if they're not already part of it. Councillor Nye then, Councillor Bailey. Let's ask about jobs and making sure that jobs that do come off are, there's an informative program of being, you need to support the local people at an under the new age. Yeah. So they've stated that they are about, but we've also included. That's the baby. I'm the, I'm the live, the live, the live, not my question, but the living wage point in the, in part of that, in part of the strategy as well. Uh, yes, it will be. Uh, my question was just understanding, what's the interaction between, uh, our operating hours, queue of breath condition and licensing? And actually, are we, in aligning ourselves with licensing, are we not being over-restrictive to the venue being flexed in terms of, say, new year? Are there Sundays and things like that and how that, how that interaction works? So the opening hours are the same as the license. Um, many of the actual mitigation measures as well are recommended in the license as well, including the noise limiters. Um, so, yeah, it aligns with the license that they've brought. So, um, I guess the flip of, are we being, are we being too restrictive though by aligning? Because basically I'm basically saying, Brixton, Brixton's town centre, they're going to have to do an outcome strategy. Why should we not be less, should we not be less restrictive in our planning conditions, don't there is licensing hours that they have to go through that process anyway? We're creating perhaps two layers of bureaucracy for no reason. Um, yeah, we, we do follow in line with the licensing and I think because of the, um, some of the noise impacts that we have identified and through the following on from what we've done to Brixton, we're following that sort of pattern of it. I think if they did want a one off license to extend it, they could, and then they could apply to vary the condition for the license, for the, um, condition, for the planning application as well. Could we not preempt some future proofing of say that, of that other variance or like where tens come in and actually have within that condition then some work in there allows the variation automatically for say 10 tens per 10, temporary events, things per year or something that at least. So I think we're being over restricted when we're trying to activate Brixton's in our time. Can I just make a small comment before you elaborate things? Um, that is that licensing is covered by the licensing act 2006 and is subject to the licensing objectives, which are five. That is a separate regime from what we're doing here. So it's not a material consideration for us to determine those matters. I understand you understand that. Yes. Um, so they are mutually exclusive. So we have to impose our conditions at this moment we're facing today. The application today. And the licensing, uh, aspect runs in parallel. But it doesn't really link in with this particular decision making process. Yeah, I would disagree. Our, our, our justification for the, as we put in our plan conditions are because they align licenses hours. So there is, there is, there is, there is a, there is a parallel running and a justification based on existing license hours. So I would, I would accept the different regimes, but we've come to these at different licensing that had agreed different hours. Condition would be different hours. So there, there is a connection. I think we're being restrictive by having this. That then means that if New Year's Eve happens, which always happens and they want to open, say an hour later, we're adding an extra layer bureaucracy for New Year's. Well, perhaps we can hear from the presiding officer what is within our gift. Well, I mean, we're looking at what's before us in the application and there, that's, that's what we've assessed and we have taken into consideration the balance of issues, which includes the neighbours objections. The, the, the, the very valid concerns around late night noise. But from our experts in respect of the noise mitigation. But we haven't got anything before us to. Broaden that into other, other events. The applicant, there's nothing to stop them applying again separately for another. Event that have to demonstrate at that time that they've put in the, the necessary mitigation and controls. We don't really have that before us to, to make sure that that's okay. Um, I, I think we would believe it. The hours that they are, um, obviously. Applicants here. They've heard that. They can apply again. They can. Win for, for details for, to, to, to get support for a one off event or special event. But at the moment, what we've got before us is the application. I think we should focus on that. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Costa. Yeah. I just, I agree with Martin Bailey. I don't know. Councillor Martin Bailey. I don't. Well, we're not summing up just yet. Is it not planning over reaching and entering into the licensing realm by imposing operating hours? Is that a decision for licensing, not planning? Well, we've heard, we've heard from, um, our League of Representatives that there are two regimes. There's obviously overlap. Um, but, but planning, we're looking at, at development and land use. Um, we're not tying that necessarily in generally to a particular operator. Um, in this case, there'll be operational management plan. Um, and, and the noise management plan licensing is looking at, uh, has a, has a narrower focus. It looks at how, um, the license simple activities are operated and how they're, how well they're run. And they've got a more narrow focus looking at crime. Um, safety protection of children around, um, that of alcohol and, and the entertainment. Um, that's, that's there. So. Yes, there's, there's overlap. I think the hours that we're looking at under planning are the, what we consider, um, appropriate. And we, we do think they should be restricted by conditions. It's good practice in some cases to align with licensing, uh, for consistency sake. But we've looked at it on its planning merits in this case. Okay. I think we're now coming to debating the application. Do you have another question, Councillor Clark? Okay. Councillor Clark. Uh, it was just on the, the meanwhile use. And, um, recognising that we have a very similar site in, uh, which has meanwhile use, which has, you know, is renewed. Um. Learning kind of, or basing ourselves on that. Um, what measures are in, uh, here to ensure that we are accurately recording and monitoring what is happening in relation to, I guess, all of these conditions so that, um. Um, uh, say an assessment can be made of, uh, if an application came again for meanwhile use at the end, that we were sufficiently understanding the impact of this meanwhile use. Um. So if any noise complaints are logged. Um. Um. Um. Um, it's, or if there's been an enforcement, so that will be in the stock industry. They apply to renew the five year temporary information. We would have that as a material consideration in determining whether or not to improve that extension. It would also depend on whether or not under the schemes come forward. Okay. I'm going to move us now onto a discussion, um, some members of the week started prematurely, uh, who would like to either, um, give us their opinions on the application. Um, perhaps let us know how they're minded to vote this evening. And I. So, um, yeah, I'm sort of also aware of the antisocial behaviour in these things in central Brixton and especially urination. Um, that sort of have a really big impact on residents in the local area. You know, having said that, the noise limiter and making sure that we have the right kind of speakers, I think, will have a really big difference in terms of noise. Um, but it's really disappointing that the applicants are comfortable in terms of toilets. It's a massive issue in Brixton and it's very hard to make a decision. Um, but it's a good use of the space, so I would be minded to be saying that, but I, I wish that we really, given what they want. You know, advised it once we've got more funds. I think we'll figure it out. If we could have an approximate number. Yeah. I'm just looking at one of the drawings. Um, so it looks like there's about 18, 19, um, so cubicles. Then there's a series of urinals as well. Thousand people. So about, about 20. So one. One to 50. How big is pop? Okay. So no. Questions is over. Um, right. Any more opinions on the application? Councillor Clarke. Yes, I can see. Yeah. Thank you. I can see that the, yeah, that there is an interesting balancing act here between, I say, a, I say almost a three things. Um, a meanwhile use of making, you know, making good use of the space. Um, uh, on land use while, uh, something, uh, more permanent, uh, come, you know, uh, wait for that application. Um, it's on one level. The second level around the, you know, I said Brixton as, uh, uh, uh, uh, this area particularly has a, a place for nighttime, uh, suitable place for nighttime activities. Uh, uh, uh, yeah. Yeah. Evening, uh, uh, entertainment. And then thirdly, obviously the residential impact, uh, immunity impact. Uh, and it is quite, it is quite hard to judge because there had, there wasn't a huge amount of detail on what went before when, uh, in Brixton Beach and things. Um, and, uh, but I have been reassured by the, um, uh, by the, by, by our consultants on noise around, uh, the conditions of exactly how we go about or how, how through the conditions we can limit the noise to, uh, what are seen as acceptable levels. Um, and I think that for me is, is the main thing is that, that process that we've got, um, and, uh, I guess I would to ensure that, uh, I say officers are, you know, treat, treat the process from now on as robustly as they have treated it up until now in terms of ensuring, uh, that's mitigations. Um, and then I would just, uh, with what's already been said around, uh, toilets and urination. It's, it's the, a, a desire to, uh, spend, I say, to have money on, um, uh, that, uh, based on the people coming out. Any more comments about Sir Bailey? I'm strongly supportive of the application that I've presented. I just wish it, um, went further in terms of actually activated, but since, um, I'm sent to, and actually that the operation hours that I don't think are needed for application because they are scared by light to, um, actually probably add to the noise problem. You are going to end up with, as people coming out to the street at midnight, as opposed to, uh, the venues in, let's say, fire, for example, and have such a hard stop for the normal tubes even. So you don't have that direct amount of people just coming out to the street. You know, it's actually more gradual because they should accept it. Mm-hmm. Yeah. That's an interesting point. Um, okay. Any more, um, summing ups? Okay. Right. Well, um, my thoughts on the application, um, Brixton is a major town centre. Um, I think this application will contribute to its continued vitality and viability, um, which is important. And I think again, the officers have done, um, due consideration of, of, of, you know, bearing that in mind, the, the land use, um, together with mitigation for, um, neighbouring amenities. Um, so I'm, I'm, I'm comfortable with the conditions as presented. Um, I personally would have been comfortable with, with later opening hours, given this is a, a major town centre and the importance of, of retaining the vitality of that. Places are, are struggling. Um, so, um, um, the applicant is listening. Um, so, um, um, they probably noted, um, some of the committee members, um, thoughts on that. And also the officers advice that is open to them to come forward and, um, amend, amend the hours. Um, I've got, I've had a lot of suggestions, so I might need members and officers help with, um, just bringing this all together. Uh, so firstly, um, I think it might have been suggested, suggested that any, um, approval would benefit from a additional condition that the toilets are open to the public. Did I, did I understand that correctly? That was your advice. Yeah, it was a discussion. Yeah. I think it was to go in the manager, the operational management plan. Yeah. Rather than be a separate condition. Right. Okay. So, so how do I do this then? Um, informative for that or? So we can amend. Condition 11. Mended. Right. Okay. So condition 11 amended. Um, for the public. My only concern with that is whether that's feasible with purity and the access. Oh, no, no, no, no. I think that's really confirmed that because it's restricted access in, in some aspects. Okay. So let's have that minuted. Yeah. Have that minuted about, um, members desire that the toilets are open to the public and the officers will, um, go back and look at condition. I think we can explore. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, and also, um, about the financial contribution going towards public, a public toilet pool. Members felt very strongly about that. How can we secure that? Well, I think, I think the public realm, um, yeah, it is for improvements to public realm and safety improvements. Um, how we define that now. Well, the facilities contribute to that. I think we could broaden that. Again, it would be subject to feasibility. I know the Honda scheme was going to make a contribution and they were going to, um, improve the toilets. This is at a different scale. This is a temporary use. Um, there's obviously aspirations to provide more toilet facilities in the town centre. Um, 45,000 may or may not be enough to do that. I don't know. I think we could just broaden the obligation, include that as a, as a possible use of the money. So at the moment it just says for public realm and safety improvements. Yeah. For public convenience, it's public toilets. Okay. As another option. So is that minuted or? Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to think. Right. Okay. Got that. Um, and then, um, about the servicing plan, I believe, um, looking at the hours of disposal of bottles. Minuted. Coming up. Condition. Condition. The service money. Yeah. The. Condition 11 again. Okay. Um, and we want it minuted that, um, we would like. The operator to join Britain bid. Um, minuted again about, um, operator employing. Um, um, the, um, using London, being a London living wage employer. Um, and also minuted that, um, as part of that, looking at the public realm improvement, um, that there's adequate signage about the toilets. I think I've captured everything. Spaces. Thank you. And also, um, in the operational management map plan that, um, safe spaces for, um, women and girls is considered. Okay. Right. So, um, bearing all that in mind and the discussions we've had, I'm going to propose that we accept officers, um, recommendation approved planning application planning commission. Do I see a second there? Councillor. Um, Costa. All those in faith. Everybody seconded it. So, okay. All those in favor. That is unanimous. So that motion is carried. Okay. Thank you everybody for your time this evening. And that concludes planning applications committee this evening. Thank you everybody. Thank you.