This week in Southwark:

• The Overview & Scrutiny Committee met on Monday, but no transcript or recording appears to have been made public.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider applications for new premises licences for a JD Wetherspoon pub near London Bridge station, and an arts and music venue in a railway arch.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application for premises licences for four railway arches at 36-39 America Street in Southwark.
• And another meeting of an unknown committee was scheduled for Thursday, but no transcript or recording is available.

Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 04 November 2024

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee was scheduled to meet on Monday 04 November 2024, but no transcript or recording of the meeting has been made available. As you may recall, scrutiny committees play a vital role in holding the council to account. They are made up of councillors from all parties, and they have the power to call witnesses and to request evidence.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Tuesday 05 November 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee of Southwark Council was scheduled to consider two applications for new premises licences at its meeting on 05 November 2024. One application was from JD Wetherspoon PLC Limited for a new pub called The Sun Wharf at 50 London Bridge Station, Tooley Street, London SE1 2TF. The other application was from South London Arts Group Ltd for a new arts venue called Cheeks at Railway Arch 3, Almond Road, London SE16 3LR.

The Sun Wharf

The Sun Wharf would be a traditional JD Wetherspoon public house with no music or similar entertainment, located in arches that were previously part of the London Dungeon. They were seeking permission for both on and off sales of alcohol from 08:00 to 00:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 23:00 on Sundays. The application was included for discussion because it was situated in the Borough and Bankside cumulative impact area (CIA)¹, and had received representations from the Metropolitan Police and the Council's Licensing team objecting to the grant of a licence. The Police were concerned that the off-sales would realistically… be consumed in the nearby streets, on public transport or its hubs. They also stated that they object to the granting of this licence in its current form as the control measures offered do not address the licensing objectives sufficiently in particular that of prevention of crime and disorder.

The Licensing team pointed out that the venue's opening hours would exceed those recommended in the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy², which recommends 23:00 closing for pubs from Sunday to Thursday and 00:00 on Friday and Saturday. They also requested a raft of conditions to be added to the licence. There was a further representation from a nearby restaurant, Vivat Bacchus, that was not scheduled to be considered by the Sub-Committee, because the Licensing Act 2003 prohibits taking business competition into account when considering licensing applications.

Cheeks

South London Arts Group Ltd applied for a licence for Cheeks, which would operate from a railway arch, with the arch itself being currently empty, the only constructed features are WC and water point at the Almond Road entrance. Their application requested permission to host Plays, Films, Live Music, Recorded Music and Dance performances, as well as selling alcohol and providing late night refreshment. The applied for hours varied by day, but included 24 hour operation from Friday to Sunday. The application was referred to the Sub-Committee for discussion because it had received representations from four Responsible Authorities³ objecting to the application: the Metropolitan Police, the Council's Licensing team, Trading Standards and the Environmental Protection Team.

The Police representation argued that the hours requested, far exceeds those recommended by the Southwark statement of licensing policy and it would appear the venue wishes to operate without constraint and could operate as 24hour night club. They went on to state that police object to the granting of this licence as the control measures offered by the applicant does not effectively address the licensing objectives, because many of the control measures suggested are not enforceable due to the wording used.

The representation from the Council's Licensing Team raised similar concerns about the applied for hours. They were also concerned that the conditions proposed need clarification to ensure that they are precise, practicable, enforceable and unambiguous.

The Trading Standards representation was primarily concerned with the protection of children from harm, and the lack of detail in the application about measures that would be taken to prevent children from accessing the venue. They requested that the operating schedule include four conditions relating to the sale of alcohol to children.

The Environmental Protection Team objected because they were concerned with the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective and they felt that the proposed operating hours significantly exceed the recommended hours for this area as set out in the council’s statement of licensing policy and the controls contained within the application are considered insufficient to ensure the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. They added that there was a care home for people with alcohol dependency located near the venue. They recommended that the operating hours should be reduced, that the designated smoking area should be moved away from the care home, and they proposed eight additional conditions to be attached to the licence relating to the prevention of noise nuisance.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Thursday 07 November 2024

This meeting was about an application for premises licences by The Arch Company Properties Limited for four railway arches at 36-39 America Street in Southwark. The Arch Company are requesting permission for the sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises, the provision of late night refreshment, and the provision of live and recorded music. There were objections to the application from the Metropolitan Police Service, Southwark Council's Trading Standards, Environmental Protection and Licensing departments, and 14 members of the public, including one Ward Councillor.

Arches 36-39, America Street SE1 0NJ

The Arch Company is requesting the licences be granted for a potential future tenant, whose exact business plans are not yet known. The company says it is applying on behalf of the tenant so that it can advertise the premises as ready to trade with a licence.

The Arch Company is requesting the following:

• Sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises:
  • Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 23:30
  • Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 00:30
• Provision of late night refreshment, indoors and outdoors:
  • Sunday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30
  • Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30
• Live and recorded music, indoors:
  • Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 23:30
  • Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 00:30
• Opening Hours:
  • Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 00:00
  • Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 01:00
• Non-Standard hours for all of the above:
  • From the end of permitted hours on New Year's Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Year's Day

The Arch Company says in the application that:

“The premises do sit within the Southwark Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP). However, these premises are small in size and the application seeks hours similar to the framework hours suggested within the policy. The locations are not residential and provide an opportunity to develop sites which are currently vacant.

Conditions have been offered within the application which we believe to be proportionate and adequate for the style and size of the operations.

Due to the reasons listed above we believe the application promotes the Licensing Objectives.”

Objections from Responsible Authorities

All of Southwark Council's relevant departments objected to the application. The Metropolitan Police Service also objected to the application.

The Metropolitan Police Service objected on the grounds that the premises are located in the Borough and Bankside Cumulative Impact Area. The police said in their representation that they are concerned that four new licences could have a significant cumulative impact, especially if the businesses operate as vertical drinking establishments².

Southwark Council's Trading Standards team objected to the application on the grounds that the measures proposed by The Arch Company to protect children from harm are not sufficient, and that additional conditions should be added to the licences to promote this objective.

Southwark Council's Environmental Protection team objected to the application on the grounds that The Arch Company is requesting longer opening hours than they agreed to in the recent planning application, which was approved subject to the condition that the premises close at 23:00. EPT also highlighted that the application requests permission for licensable activities to take place in outside areas, which is in contravention of Southwark Council's Statement of Licensing Policy. This states that outside areas of premises situated within a Cumulative Impact Policy Area or Major Town Centre must not be used for the sale of alcohol or the provision of regulated entertainment after 22:00. EPT also objected to a number of proposed conditions, and requested that 2 new conditions be added to the licence.

Southwark Council's Licensing team objected to the application on the grounds of cumulative impact. They disagreed with The Arch Company's assertion that the location of the arches is not residential. In its representation Licensing said:

“We contend that granting the application in its current state will further contribute to the negative local cumulative impact of licensed premises in the Borough and Bankside CIA.

Granting the application as it stands will exacerbate the serious problems caused by licensed premises in the locale.”

Licensing went on to say that, because of the precedent set by the case of Westminster City Council vs Middlesex Crown Court, the applications could be refused on the basis of cumulative impact alone, even if the applicant is a fit and proper person and the premises are well run. Licensing also objected to a number of the conditions proposed by the applicant, and requested that a further 28 conditions be added to any licence that is granted.

Objections from Other Persons

A number of local residents objected to the application, mainly on the grounds of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Many residents mentioned the narrowness of America Street, and expressed concern that noise from the premises would travel into their homes, especially late at night.

Councillor David Watson, the local Liberal Democrat councillor, also objected to the application. He highlighted the high rates of alcohol-related crime and disorder, and alcohol-related hospital admissions in the area, and said that the new premises would negatively impact efforts to prevent these.

This week in Southwark:

• The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application to vary the licence of a Bubble Bubble Bar on Old Kent Road.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Thursday 31 October 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee cibsudered an application to vary the premises licence for Bubble Bubble and Bar, 194 Old Kent Road, London. The application sought to extend the hours the premises could trade until 6am, seven days a week.

No transcript was available for the meeting so it is not yet known what decision was reached.

Southwark Council’s Licensing team submitted a representation objecting to the application, stating:

It seems that the style of operation proposed regarding the premises is moving away from the applied for restaurant / bubble tea bar with karaoke, to being primarily a late night / early morning karaoke bar. We contend that it is entirely inappropriate to situate a late night / early morning karaoke bar in the locale.

The Licensing Authority concluded by recommending that the Licensing Sub-Committee refuse the application in its entirety.

• The Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) gave planning permission for the construction of a temporary food kiosk on Peckham Rye, for the erection of netting at Griffin Sports Club, and for the change of use of 291-299 Borough High Street.
• The Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission discussed the Cabinet's response to their report on access to toilets, received an update on the impact on Southwark of the cyber-attack on the NHS, and discussed the priorities for the next iteration of the Refresh Partnership Southwark.
• The Licensing Committee meeting scheduled for Monday was cancelled.

Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) - Wednesday 23 October 2024

Southwark's Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) met and granted planning permission for the construction of a temporary food kiosk on Peckham Rye, for the erection of netting at Griffin Sports Club, and for the change of use of 291-299 Borough High Street. The meeting also considered a number of other planning applications.

291-299 Borough High Street

The committee voted to grant planning permission for the change of use of the ground and upper floors of 291-299 Borough High Street from retail and offices (Use Class E) to a 47-bedroom hotel (Use Class C1), subject to conditions. This decision was made despite objections from members of the public. It is relatively common for planning applications to attract objections. The council has to consider all objections carefully, but it does not have to refuse permission just because there have been objections.

The committee heard from a representative of the developer, who argued that the hotel would provide a number of benefits to the local area, including jobs and investment. They also argued that the development would not have a negative impact on the character of the area.

The committee also heard from a number of objectors, who raised concerns about the impact of the development on traffic, noise and parking. They also argued that the development would be out of keeping with the character of the area.

After hearing from all of the speakers, the committee debated the application and then voted to grant planning permission.

Pavement between 285 Rye Lane and 289 Peckham Rye

The committee voted to grant temporary planning permission for the erection of a food kiosk on a traffic island on Peckham Rye. The kiosk will be in place for a period of three years.

The application was controversial, with a number of objections from local residents. The objectors raised concerns about the impact of the kiosk on traffic, noise and litter. They also argued that the kiosk would be out of keeping with the character of the area.

However, the committee decided that the benefits of the kiosk outweighed the drawbacks. They argued that the kiosk would provide a valuable service to local residents and visitors, and that it would not have a significant impact on the character of the area.

12 Dulwich Village

The committee voted to grant planning permission for the erection of netting at Griffin Sports Club.

Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission - Monday 21 October 2024

The Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission met to discuss the Cabinet's response to their previous reports, and to receive updates on the impact of the cyber-attack on the NHS. They also discussed the priorities for the next iteration of the Refresh Partnership Southwark.

Scrutiny commissions, like this one, are responsible for auditing the work of the council, and for making recommendations to the Cabinet. They are made up of councillors from all parties, and they have the power to call witnesses and to request evidence.

This week in Southwark:

• The Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting scheduled for Monday appears not to have been recorded, so we don't know what was discussed.
• The Cabinet approved plans to submit the Old Kent Road Area Action Plan for public consultation, agreed to use a compulsory purchase order to acquire six remaining properties on the Aylesbury Estate, and approved a contract to Plentific Ltd to provide a dynamic purchasing system to procure housing repairs.

Environment Scrutiny Commission - Monday 14 October 2024

The Environment Scrutiny Commission was scheduled to meet on Monday 14 October 2024, but no transcript or recording of the meeting has been made available. As you may recall, scrutiny commissions play a vital role in holding the council to account. Readers may be interested to know that Southwark has eight scrutiny commissions, each of which scrutinises a specific area of the council's work.

Cabinet - Tuesday 15 October 2024

Southwark's Cabinet met and approved the month 4 capital monitoring report, the submission for public consultation of the Old Kent Road Area Action Plan, and a compulsory purchase order for land on the Aylesbury Estate. The Cabinet also agreed the disposal of a property on Westminster Bridge Road and awarded a contract to Plentific Ltd to provide a dynamic purchasing system to procure housing repairs. The meeting also considered the council's response to a number of reports by its scrutiny commissions.

Old Kent Road Area Action Plan

The council's cabinet approved the draft Old Kent Road Area Action Plan for public consultation. The plan, which sets out the council's vision for the future of the Old Kent Road, has been in development for a number of years. The plan will now be subject to a 6-week public consultation, during which time residents and businesses will be able to have their say on the proposals. The cabinet also approved the associated Consultation Plan, Consultation Report, Integrated Impact Assessment, Habitats Regulations Assessment, Equality Impact Assessment and Health Impact Assessment.

The plan sets out a vision for the Old Kent Road as a thriving place for everyone. It includes proposals for new homes, jobs, and improved public spaces. The plan is also intended to improve transport links in the area.

The OKR AAP seeks to ensure that new development is of the highest possible design quality, referencing the existing and evolving character of the area.

The plan has been the subject of a number of previous consultations.

The cabinet also agreed to review plans for cycle lanes on the Old Kent Road with Transport for London to ensure public investment is going into the best possible active travel routes in the Old Kent Road area.

Aylesbury Estate Phase 2b Compulsory Purchase Order

Southwark Council's cabinet has agreed to use a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to acquire the remaining properties on the Aylesbury Estate that are needed for the next phase of its regeneration.

The CPO will affect 6 leasehold properties. 309 households have been rehoused and vacant possession of 348 properties has been achieved. A planning application for the redevelopment of the site has been submitted. It proposes 640 homes, including 173 social rent homes.

This report provides an update on Notting Hill Genesis’ current design proposals, updated tenure mix and programme, and the council’s progress on rehousing existing residents and achieving vacant possession of the blocks on Phase 2B.

The report notes that the plans have been updated since they were last approved by the council on June 14, 2022, prior to new legislation on fire safety and 2 staircases, and prior to the outcome of the judicial review hearing on the resolution to grant consent on the previous planning submission.

Capital Monitoring Report

The Cabinet noted the Capital Monitoring Report. The report is the council's quarterly update on its capital programme. The report provides details of the council's spending on major projects. It also includes information on the council's borrowing and how it is managing its debt.

The Cabinet noted that there were significant borrowing requirements for both the General Fund programme (£303m) and the Housing Investment Programme (£515m) in order to fully deliver them.

The report also considers the alignment of the council's capital programme with its strategic objectives.

The Southwark 2030 priorities are intrinsically linked to the capital programme, with every capital bid required to demonstrate its alignment with at least one of these.

The Cabinet approved a number of virements and variations to the capital programme. They also agreed to the inclusion of a number of new bids in the capital programme.

The Cabinet also agreed to a request from officers to authorise the use of Green Building Fund funds to a programme of decarbonisation projects to support delivery of the climate change strategy and action plan.

Gateway 1 Housing – Procurement Support And Supply Chain Management System

The Cabinet approved the use of its procurement framework to directly award a contract to Plentific Ltd to provide a dynamic purchasing system for housing repairs.

A dynamic purchasing system (DPS) is an electronic process for procuring commonly used goods, works or services.

The contract is for a period of three years, with the option of a one-year extension, and is worth £1,439,700. The system will be used to procure works up to £6.45m per year, with a total value of £25.8m over the four years.

It is not intended to be used as a substitute for any works currently delivered by directly employed staff.

Responses to Scrutiny Commissions

The Cabinet considered its responses to reports from three of the council's scrutiny commissions.

The Cabinet approved its response to the Education and Local Economy Scrutiny Commission's recommendations on school amalgamations and closures. The commission's report was published on 22 July 2024.

The Cabinet also approved its response to the Education and Local Economy Scrutiny Commission's recommendations on community wealth building and youth employment.

And the Cabinet approved its response to the Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission's recommendations on access to toilets. The Cabinet noted the intention of officers to report on progress of the development and implementation of an accessible toilet plan back to the Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission within 12 months.

This week in Southwark:

• The Licensing Sub-Committee considered applications for a new premises licence for a shisha lounge in a railway arch, and for a review of an off-licence accused of selling alcohol to a 15 year old.
• The Planning Committee (Major Applications) A considered applications for the construction of a logistics hub on Verney Road, and a mixed-use development in the Canada Water Opportunity Area.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Thursday 10 October 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider two applications. The first was for the grant of a new premises licence for Hot Box Chicken and Pizza on Manor Place, the second was for a review of the existing premises licence of City Wines on Jamaica Road.

Readers may remember an article from a few weeks ago about a different sub-committee meeting in which an application was considered for a licence for a new nightclub in the same railway arch. It's not unusual for multiple different operators to make applications for the same premises, particularly when the premises is in a desirable location. In these cases, the council will consider the applications in the order in which they are received.

Hot Box Chicken and Pizza, Arch 182, 30 Manor Place, London SE17 3BB

Mr Ibrahim Mohamed applied for a new premises licence to sell late night refreshment indoors from 11pm to 2am Sunday to Thursday, and 11pm to 3am on Fridays and Saturdays.

The application describes the business as a “takeaway, delivery and cafe” offering “takeaway and delivery of hot food, consumption of hot food on the premises, cafe area serving hot and cold drinks”.

However, a site visit by an officer from Southwark Council’s health and safety team found the premises already operating as a shisha lounge, with customers smoking indoors, in possible contravention of The Health Act 2006.¹ This may remind readers of similar cases from previous emails where operators have begun trading before being granted the correct licences. In these cases, the council will often impose additional conditions or even refuse to grant licences.

The application attracted four representations from responsible authorities, all of them objecting to the granting of the licence as applied for:

• The Metropolitan Police Service objected on the grounds that the applied-for hours were outside those recommended in the Southwark Statement of Licensing Policy 2021-2026 and would be likely to lead to increased crime and disorder, noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
• The council’s environmental protection team was concerned about noise nuisance to nearby residents, particularly from delivery drivers collecting orders late at night.
• The council’s health and safety team expressed concern about the hours being excessive, about the lack of a specified accommodation limit, and about the potential for the shisha lounge operation to breach The Health Act 2006.
• The council’s licensing team, acting as a responsible authority, also objected to the hours sought and recommended the imposition of a significant raft of additional conditions.

Although none of the objecting authorities formally withdrew their representations, email correspondence in the report pack indicates that all four of them were prepared to withdraw their objections if Mr Mohamed agreed to certain changes to his application. This is relatively common: it is often the case that these kinds of disputes can be resolved through negotiation. Councils often prefer to reach agreement without the need for a formal hearing where possible.

The report pack also includes three representations from members of the public supporting the application. These representers variously describe Hot Box Chicken and Pizza as “an invaluable addition to our local area” and “a hub for the community”.

City Wines (aka Dennis Wines), 141 Jamaica Road, London SE16 4SH

Southwark Council’s trading standards team applied for a review of the premises licence of City Wines under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The application was submitted on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder, and the protection of children from harm.

Trading standards officers alleged that the licence holder, Mr Kavirach Nagarajah, sold a bottle of beer to a 15-year-old volunteer on 15 June 2024. In addition, they alleged that officers found illicit vapes and smuggled alcohol on the premises during a subsequent inspection.

The review application was supported by the council’s licensing team, acting as a responsible authority.

The licensing officer noted that Mr Nagarajah had previously accepted a caution for the sale of a vape to a child in February 2024.

Both trading standards and the licensing team recommended that the sub-committee revoke the premises licence.

This is clearly a very serious matter. Selling alcohol to children is a criminal offence and if convicted, the licence holder could face a fine of up to £5,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to six months. In addition, the council could choose to revoke the premises licence, which would mean that the business would no longer be able to sell alcohol. Previous emails have detailed similar cases of off-licences having their licences revoked for selling alcohol to children, so Mr Nagarajah will likely be very concerned by this development.

Planning Committee (Major Applications) A - Tuesday 08 October 2024

The meeting included a proposal for the creation of a new Article 4 Direction, and the consideration of two planning applications, one for the construction of a logistics hub on Verney Road, and another for the construction of a new mixed-use development on Lower Road.

Proposed Article 4 Direction

The first item on the agenda was the council's proposal to make a new Article 4 Direction² to remove the permitted development rights³ for Communications Development in part of Croxted Road and Norwood Road. This is being proposed because of the impact of telecommunications equipment that has been installed outside 294 Croxted Road, which is the location of the Umana Yana Caribbean Restaurant and Takeaway. The equipment is believed to have been lawfully installed by communication companies exercising their statutory right to install certain equipment on the public highway under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

Because it was installed under permitted development rights, the council had no control over its installation, and now has no ability to require its removal. The council is proposing to make the Article 4 Direction so that any further development would need to go through a planning application process to be lawful.

The report states that:

The impact of the installed communications apparatus is such that the premises is not visible to traffic travelling north along Norwood Road.

The proliferation of communication equipment has had a detrimental impact on the streetscene at this location and the ability of this business to announce and advertise itself in the way that the majority of commercial premises on a shopping parade do.

The Article 4 Direction is also proposed to include the adjoining properties, 85 and 87 Norwood Road, even though there is only one piece of equipment outside 85 Norwood Road, because:

there is a risk that equipment could be installed outside number 85 and 87 Norwood Road if an Article 4 Direction is limited to the area immediately outside of 294 Croxted Road.

The report says that:

The intention of the proposed Article 4 Direction is to return control to the council for this development type at this particular location.

The direction would mean that the council would be obliged to determine the proposal in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The report pack notes that compensation is payable when a council removes permitted development rights, but that because this direction relates to prescribed development, if it is made with at least 12 months' notice, no compensation will be payable.

6-12 Verney Road

The second item was a planning application submitted by BL Whiteley Limited to demolish the existing buildings on a site on Verney Road, and build a new four-storey building to be used for industrial and logistics purposes.

The building would have a gross internal area of 22,881.8 sqm. This includes:

• 10,650.8 sqm of industrial and logistics floorspace
• 485 sqm of flexible space, which could be used for retail, food and drink, or light industrial purposes.
• 11,746.1 sqm of light industrial floorspace

The application was originally submitted in April 2023, proposing vehicular access from Verney Way. The applicant then submitted an amended scheme in February 2024, changing the access point to Verney Road.

The site is located within the Old Kent Road Opportunity Area, which is designated in the London Plan, and allocated in the Southwark Plan for mixed-use development under Site Allocation NSP68. It is also within the area covered by the draft Old Kent Road Area Action Plan (OKR AAP). Within the draft OKR AAP, the site is part of the area named Old Kent Road (OKR) 13, which is planned to become a mixed new neighbourhood with a diverse range of uses.

The report notes that there is an extant planning permission for the site (reference 17/AP/4508), allowing the construction of a mixed-use scheme, with 338 residential units and 5,234 sqm of commercial floor space. No applications have been submitted to discharge any of the pre-commencement conditions on this permission.

The proposed scheme would have a number of impacts on the surrounding area, including on the nearby John Keats Primary School, and on Canal Grove, which includes a number of grade II listed buildings. The report concludes that the scheme:

would comply with the council's policies on urban design and ensure that it responds appropriately to its urban context.

The development is expected to lead to some loss of daylight and sunlight for residents of the Bermondsey Works development, but the report says that the submitted daylight and sunlight assessments:

demonstrate that the overwhelming majority would either experience improved levels of retained daylight and sunlight by comparison to the position where that scheme were developed out, or no further change.

The report states that the applicant would be expected to enter into a Section 106 agreement to mitigate against the adverse impacts of the scheme, including through the provision of:

• £697,981.83 towards the redesign and landscaping of Bramcote Park
• £208,163.27 towards the renewal of the grade II listed mural at the former Kentish Drovers public house on Old Kent Road.
• £3,075,169.93 towards delivering employment and training programmes across Southwark.

City Business Centre (St Olav's Court)

The third item was an application from The SoCo and Blue Coast Capital Ltd for planning permission to demolish the existing buildings on a site on Lower Road, and build two new buildings.

The buildings would provide:

• 216 co-living rooms, which would be sui generis⁴
• 24 affordable residential homes (Use Class C3)
• 1,666.6 sqm of commercial floorspace (Use Class E)⁵ The site is allocated in the Southwark Plan for mixed-use development under Site Allocation NSP79: St Olav's Business Park. It is also in the Canada Water Area Action Core and Opportunity Area.

The allocation requires redevelopment of the site to deliver:

• at least the same amount of employment floorspace (E(g) ⁶) as is currently on the site
• increased permeability across the site
• high quality public realm at the centre and at the confluence of three routes The allocation also says that redevelopment of the site should provide new homes (C3) and active frontages at ground floor level and sets an indicative residential capacity of 125 homes.

The report notes that the application site covers less than half of the site allocation area, but that the applicant has undertaken a wider masterplan exercise to show how the remaining area of the allocation could be redeveloped in the future.

The application would involve the loss of 530.4 sqm of commercial floorspace, but the report says that this is acceptable, and that a financial contribution would be sought towards training and jobs for local people, to mitigate the loss of employment floor area.

The scheme would also involve the felling of 13 trees. Two of these are grade A, four are grade B, five are grade C, and the remaining two are grade U. Mitigation is proposed, including through the planting of new, semi-mature trees.

The report states that the proposed development would meet the council's guidelines for distance to existing residents so there would not be a harmful impact with respect to outlook, privacy or from a sense of enclosure. Daylight and sunlight would be reduced for some existing properties, but the report says that:

Of those affected, none exceed a daylight level of more than 27% as existing, suggesting daylight levels are already low for these windows prior to the development being built.

The report goes on to conclude that:

Overall, the proposed development would likely result in a noticeable reduction in daylight levels for these rooms.

The report concludes that the applicant would be expected to enter into a Section 106 agreement to mitigate against the adverse impacts of the development, including through:

• the provision of affordable workspace
• the payment of a £1.4m payment in lieu for affordable housing, to bring the total equivalent to 40%
• improvements to Christopher Jones Square and a financial contribution towards a new play space there.
• the payment of £61,416 towards the council's carbon offset fund
• a contribution towards mitigating the loss of trees.

Last week in Southwark:

• The Southwark Maternity Commission was scheduled to hear about the conclusions of its investigation into maternity care in the borough, but the meeting doesn't appear to have been recorded.
• The Pensions Advisory Panel discussed the Southwark Pension Fund's performance over the first six months of 2024, and approved a new equality, diversity and inclusion policy.
• The Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) meeting scheduled for Monday was postponed.
• The Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) considered two planning applications for developments in Peckham and Bermondsey.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider an application for a new premises licence from Green & Fortune Limited for WPP London Campus 3, but no transcript is available.

Pensions Advisory Panel - Monday 30 September 2024

This meeting of the Pensions Advisory Panel was scheduled to discuss the performance of the Southwark Pension Fund. The panel is responsible for advising the council on the management of the pension fund, which provides pensions to current and former employees of the council and a number of other organisations. The meeting considered reports on the fund’s asset allocation, investment performance and carbon footprint. It also considered a number of other matters, including a new Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy, and noted the audit findings from the 2021-22 and 2022-23 accounts.

Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) - Wednesday 02 October 2024

This meeting of Southwark Council's Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) considered two planning applications, one at Land adjacent to Warwick Court, Choumert Road in Peckham, and one at 224-226 Tower Bridge Road in Bermondsey. As you may already know, planning applications are decided in line with the development plan¹ unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Land adjacent to Warwick Court, Choumert Road (rear of 160-162 Rye Lane) London SE15 4SH

This application requested permission to build a four-storey co-living² development comprising 11 rooms with shared facilities, a rooftop pavilion and a roof terrace.

The application site is located in the Rye Lane Conservation Area. The report pack included an assessment of the application by the council’s Design and Conservation team. It highlighted the heritage³ of the conservation area.

The report pack also included a Daylight and Sunlight report submitted by the applicant. This assessed the impact of the development on the daylight and sunlight received by neighbouring properties. It concluded that 8 of the 16 habitable rooms assessed would comply with the relevant standards. The report also considered the impact on the amenity of residents in 14-19 Kapuvar Close, stating: "Overall, the alternative assessment (excluding the balcony/overhang) demonstrates that the presence of the existing architecture is the main cause of the restricted daylight and not the proposed development.”

A planning application was previously submitted for the site (reference 15/AP/2995) and was dismissed at appeal in 2016. The inspector concluded in their report that the development, which proposed 6 flats, would have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers at 14-19 Kapuvar Close, despite the limited light already received to these units as a result of the existing architecture. The report pack states that the current scheme has been designed to reduce its impact on residents of Kapuvar Close, resulting in a larger separation distance between the site and Kapuvar Close.

Under the requirements of Southwark Council's Affordable Housing policies, the developer was required to make a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in the borough. They proposed a contribution of £492,000.

The application also included an assessment by the Council’s Environmental Protection team. It identified a number of issues that should be addressed by conditions attached to any planning permission granted. These included noise, land contamination, air quality and construction management. The Council's Ecologist also assessed the application and requested conditions relating to the removal of invasive plant species and protection of foraging mammals on the site.

224-226 Tower Bridge Road London SE1 2UP

This application requested permission for a number of variations to be made to a previously approved scheme (19/AP/1975). These variations related to the retention of a loading bay and the removal of a disabled parking space and an EV charging point. The development site is located in the Tower Bridge Conservation Area and the application included a Design and Access Statement and Heritage Statement.

The application was referred to the Planning Committee because it received objections from members of the public, and because it was a Section 73 application made in relation to a major application.

This week in Southwark:

• The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider an application for a new premises licence for a series of railway arches on America Street, but we don't know what they decided because the council haven't released a transcript of the meeting.
• The Education and Local Economy Scrutiny Commission was scheduled to discuss the council's support for town centres and its local economy programmes, but they haven't released a transcript of the meeting yet.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Tuesday 24 September 2024

This meeting was about considering an application for a new premises licence for four railway arches, Arches 36, 37, 38 and 39 America Street London SE1 0NJ. The applicant was The Arch Company Properties Limited. The application was submitted by their agent, Alex Tomlinson of Poppleston Allen Solicitors. Representations against the applications were received from the Metropolitan Police, Trading Standards, Environmental Protection, the Licensing Authority and local residents. The committee were asked to determine whether the applications should be granted. Because we do not have access to the minutes or transcripts of the meeting, this article describes only what was scheduled to be discussed, and does not reflect what may or may not have been decided at the meeting.

Arches 36, 37, 38 and 39 America Street

The Arch Company Properties Limited, who own the arches, applied for new premises licences for the four arches under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.¹ The applications sought permission for the following licensable activities:

• Recorded music - indoors:
  • Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 23:30
  • Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 00:30
• Live music - indoors:
  • Monday to Saturday: 08:00 to 00:30
  • Sunday: 08:00 to 23:30
• Late night refreshment – indoors and outdoors:
  • Monday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30
  • Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30
• The sale by retail of alcohol - on and off the premises:
  • Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 23:30
  • Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 00:30
• Opening hours:
  • Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 00:00
  • Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 01:00
• Non-standard timings for all activities:
  • From the end of permitted hours on New Years Eve to the start of permitted hours on New Years Day.

The applications said that The Arch Company was the landlord and would not operate the premises themselves, and that they were applying because

“in challenging economic times, it is more attractive to an independent operator to take a premises with a premises licence thus avoiding the time and costs involved in making the application.”

The applications included a number of conditions to address the four licensing objectives. These are:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• Public safety
• The prevention of nuisance
• The protection of children from harm

However, representations against all four applications were received from responsible authorities:

Metropolitan Police

The Metropolitan Police objected on the grounds that the applications did not specify an accommodation limit, or confirm the style of operation of the arches, stating that

“Four new licensed premises potentially operating as vertical drinking establishments² in this area would in my opinion have a significant cumulative impact on an area already saturated with licensed premises.”

The Police said that if the applicant confirmed the accommodation limits and style of operation, and agreed to suitable conditions, they would be willing to conciliate.

Trading Standards

Trading Standards were concerned that the applications did not offer sufficient protection to children from harm. They requested four additional conditions to the licences that would require the operators to adopt a 'Challenge 25' policy, to train their staff in the policy, to display signage and to maintain a register of refusals.

Environmental Protection Team

The Environmental Protection Team objected to the applications for Arches 36, 37 and 39 on the grounds that planning permission had recently been granted for the arches, and that the requested hours were longer than those specified in the planning permission, stating that

“This licensing application therefore seeks extension to the opening hours only months after they were agreed to by Arch Co via the planning application process.”

and

“At present the licensing authority is being asked to grant a licence in the CIP area³ for a currently unknown tenant. As such EPT make representation against this application and would request the hours of opening are brought back to be in line with the planning permission.”

The requested hours under the planning permission were:

• 8:00 - 23:00 on Monday to Fridays;
• 8:00 - 23:00 on Saturdays and;
• 8:00 - 23:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

They also requested that the licences be amended to require that all external areas be closed by 22:00, that no drinks be permitted to be taken outside after 22:00, that no deliveries take place between 23:00 and 08:00, and that amplified music not be played in external areas. They also requested that alcohol sold for consumption off the premises be sold in a sealed container.

The representation concluded by stating that

“If the amended hours are agreed to and conditions drafted to reflect the above then EPT would be in a position to conciliate the representation.”

Licensing Authority

The Licensing Authority objected to the applications on the grounds that the arches are all within the Borough and Bankside Cumulative Impact Area, and because it is not known what type of premises will operate from them. The licensing authority disputed the applicant's assertion that the arches are not in a residential area, stating that

there are residential properties close to America Street, and the effect on cumulative impact that this application could have, if granted, in the wider cumulative impact area must be considered.

The representation referred to the judgement in R (on the application of Westminster City Council) -v- Middlesex Crown Court [2002] EWHC 1104, which held that

"Notwithstanding the applicant being a fit and proper person and the premises would be well run a licence could be refused on the sole ground that the area was already saturated with licence premises….and the cumulative effect of the existing premises was impacting adversely on the area to an unacceptable level.”

The representation concluded by saying that

We are not in a position to be conciliated, and again state that it must be the licensing sub -committee that determines this application.

Local Residents

Fourteen representations from local residents, including a ward Councillor, were also received. The representations, which were not conciliated, expressed concerns about the potential for noise and anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact on the area, which is already home to a large number of licensed premises.

Education and Local Economy Scrutiny Commission - Thursday 26 September 2024

This meeting was scheduled to discuss the council's support for town centres and its local economy programmes. In particular this included the Southwark Pioneers Fund, the council's strategy for supporting local businesses, and the Town Centre Action Plans for the borough. Because we do not have access to the minutes or transcripts of the meeting, this article describes only what was scheduled to be discussed, and does not reflect what may or may not have been decided at the meeting.

Draft Town Centre Action Plans

The meeting was scheduled to include a presentation on the Draft Town Centre Action Plans for Peckham, Camberwell, Elephant and Castle, Canada Water and Bermondsey.

The report pack explains that the council is taking a new approach to town centre support.

It is recognised that while existing town centre action plans are a helpful repository of all town centre activity, they are internally focused and are not easily accessible to communities and businesses.

It then goes on to say that they are developing plans to engage communities more directly with the plans.

The external action plans will align with and complement the neighbourhoods work. Whilst the community plans aim to cover all aspects of a neighbourhood such as public health, community safety, street cleanliness, transport and housing; the town centre action plans will sit alongside the community plans as a more focused, complementary document which is targeted specifically towards local businesses, with a focus on issues affecting our high streets and town centres.

The report also discusses the Thriving High Streets Fund. This fund has awarded grants of up to £25,000 to businesses and voluntary sector groups in Southwark. A total of £484,703 has been awarded to 21 organisations. Appendix 1 of the Draft Town Centre Action Plan Report details all the organisations that have received money from the fund, and what they received the money for.

Local Economy Programmes

The meeting was also scheduled to include a discussion of the council's Local Economy Programmes.

Southwark 2030 and Southwark Economic Strategy

The report pack says that the council's new economic strategy was adopted in December 2023.

The strategy puts forward a vision for a more inclusive local economy, with a focus on narrowing inequalities and raising prosperity across all parts of the economy and in every neighbourhood, summarised as ‘A fairer, greener, more resilient economy’.

The strategy is based on eight delivery themes:

• Investment and growth
• A greener economy
• Thriving high streets
• Inclusive neighbourhoods
• Extending local ownership
• Southwark’s Youth Deal
• Good work for all
• Skills for now and the future

Employment

The report pack says that the council's Southwark Works programme has been recommissioned for another four years. This programme consists of a network of employment support providers who are directly contracted by the council. It is designed to help people from priority cohorts into work.

The council has committed to creating 2,000 new apprenticeships by 2026. As of the first quarter of 2024/25, 1,270 apprenticeships have been created.

Paid Internships

The council has committed to creating 250 paid internships for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds by 2026. The report pack says that, since 2022, the paid internship programme has created 182 paid internships.

Southwark Pioneers Fund

The Southwark Pioneers Fund was set up to support local businesses.

Since its original inception the economic climate has changed significantly (covid-19, Brexit, Climate Emergency, and Southwark Stands Together), making it particularly important that we support local enterprises to build resilience, sustain and grow.

The fund has been split into four themes:

• Start-up Programme - Enterprise support for start-ups and aspiring entrepreneurs.
• Growth Programme - Enterprise support for later-stage enterprises focused on growth.
• Green Programme - Support for enterprises to decarbonise and reduce their environmental impact.
• Social and Community Programme - support for social and community enterprises led by women or people from Black or minoritised backgrounds.

The report pack says that since it was relaunched, 206 start ups and entrepreneurs have received support.

On the subject of the Growth Programme, the report says:

63 enterprises have completed an in-depth Accelerator and 12 of these have received combined grant funding of £102k to help their businesses to grow. Nearly 250 entrepreneurs have also been support via the Community offer, which includes 1-1 consultations and a range of online workshops and talks.

The Green Programme is being delivered in partnership with ReLondon.

Approximately 15 high street businesses will receive grant support to implement a new, circular initiative in their business, either by procuring products/services from circular innovators or by developing products from scratch.

The Social and Community Programme is being delivered by the Local Access Programme.

Southwark’s Living Wage Unit

The council has committed to doubling the number of Southwark employers who pay at least the London Living Wage to 498 by March 2026. As of the first quarter of 2024/25, 363 employers in the borough are accredited Living Wage employers.

Education and Local Economy Scrutiny Commission Work Programme 2024-25

The meeting also included an item to discuss the draft work programme of the commission for the rest of the 2024/25 municipal year. The Work Programme⁴ contains a provisional list of discussion topics for the three remaining meetings of the 2024-25 municipal year.

This week in Southwark:

• The Cabinet saw Labour cabinet members celebrate their record on housebuilding, and agreed to use a Compulsory Purchase Order to acquire the remaining properties on the Tustin Estate.
• An unknown committee met, but no information is publicly available.
• The Housing, Community Safety and Community Engagement Scrutiny Commission was scheduled to discuss high levels of gas consumption in some of the council's district heating networks, the role of Tenants and Residents Associations, and to agree their work programme for the year ahead.

Cabinet - Monday 16 September 2024

This meeting of the Cabinet was a busy one. It saw them discuss the council's Borough of Sanctuary status, approve its first report on the Environment Act 2021, and note the council's financial position. This meeting also saw the Cabinet agree to take the first steps toward making a compulsory purchase order for part of the Tustin Estate, and approve the Southwark 2030 Climate Change Strategy annual report.

As you may recall from previous emails, Southwark Council's Cabinet meets regularly to make decisions about the council's budget, policies and services. The Cabinet is made up of the Leader of the Council and nine Cabinet Members, each of whom is responsible for a specific policy area.

Perhaps the most interesting items on the agenda for this meeting were the two motions originally from the full council meeting: 'Renewing our borough: a strategy for building the homes and infrastructure we need' and 'Declaring a Housing Emergency'. Both of these motions praised the Labour administration in Southwark for its record on housing, and blamed the previous Conservative government for the current housing crisis. They went on to set out how the council intends to address the housing crisis in the borough.

Tustin Estate Compulsory Purchase Order

Readers may recall that Southwark Council are in the process of redeveloping the Tustin Estate. They have partnered with developers Linkcity, part of the French construction company Bouygues. The council issued demolition notices on some of the properties on the estate in 2021. These will expire on 30 April 2025.

The meeting agreed to take the first steps toward making a compulsory purchase order for the land and properties in phase 2 of the estate redevelopment. Cabinet members were told that 15 leaseholder properties on the estate have yet to be acquired, despite the council having issued demolition notices on some of the properties in 2021.

Should the council not be able to acquire the remaining properties, they will issue a Compulsory Purchase Order. This will force the owners of the remaining 15 properties to sell their homes to the council.

The council intends to offer leaseholders a new leasehold property on the estate, with options to part-own under a shared ownership or shared equity scheme. They will also offer financial compensation.

Compulsory purchase orders are a controversial issue. They are seen by some as a necessary tool for local authorities to be able to assemble land for regeneration projects. However, they are also seen by some as an infringement on the rights of property owners.

Housing in Southwark

The Cabinet meeting discussed two motions relating to housing in the borough. The first, 'Renewing our borough: a strategy for building the homes and infrastructure we need', argued that everyone should have access to affordable and secure housing. It also argued that 14 years of Conservative rule had left the country with under-investment in housing and infrastructure.

The motion went on to praise Southwark Council's record on housing. In 2023-24 the council had overseen the completion of 550 new council homes, more than any other local authority in London. Planning permission was granted for a further 794.

The second motion, 'Declaring a Housing Emergency', highlighted the scale of the housing crisis. The motion argued that the housing crisis is the biggest issue facing the borough, with 3,920 households living in temporary accommodation and over 17,000 households on the waiting list.

The motion blamed the previous Conservative government for increasing homelessness, highlighting a number of policies, such as the removal of the 'bedroom tax' and changes to the definition of 'affordable housing'.

Unknown Committee - Monday 16 September 2024

An unknown committee was scheduled to meet on Monday 16 September 2024. No information is publicly available about the name or remit of this committee, nor what was discussed during the meeting.

Housing, Community Safety and Community Engagement Scrutiny Commission - Wednesday 18 September 2024

The Housing, Community Safety and Community Engagement Scrutiny Commission was scheduled to meet on Wednesday 18 September 2024. The meeting was due to discuss the levels of gas consumption in the council's district heating networks, the role of Tenants and Residents Associations (TRAs) and Tenant Management Organisations (TMOs), and to agree a work programme for the year ahead.

This commission has a very similar role to the Environment and Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commissions. It is responsible for scrutinising the council's policies relating to housing, community safety, and community engagement, and making recommendations to the Cabinet where appropriate.

You may recall that this was the commission that investigated the fire safety of the borough's housing stock following the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017.

This week in Southwark:

• The Licensing Sub-Committee considered applications for new premises licences for a cinema and bar at 10 Bermondsey Square, and a nightclub in a railway arch at 30 Manor Place.
• The Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) considered two planning applications in the borough, one for the construction of a new house on Plough Way and one for the construction of a new house and annex on Eastlands Crescent.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Thursday 12 September 2024

This meeting was scheduled to consider two applications for new premises licences. One for a cinema and bar at 10 Bermondsey Square, and the second for a nightclub in a railway arch at 30 Manor Place. As regular readers will know, the Licensing Sub-Committee is responsible for considering applications for a wide variety of licences within the borough, under the terms of the Licensing Act 2003.¹ The committee has the power to grant new licences, vary existing licences, and revoke licences where it is deemed necessary. In considering licence applications, the committee must have regard to the licensing objectives, which are:

• the prevention of crime and disorder;
• public safety;
• the prevention of public nuisance; and
• the protection of children from harm.

The Arzner, 10 Bermondsey Square, SE1 3UN

This application was made by Revolting on Screen Ltd.

The application proposed:

• The screening of films and plays
• The provision of live and recorded music
• The performance of dance
• The sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises
• Late night refreshment
• Opening hours from 10:00 to 23:00 Sunday to Wednesday, and from 10:00 to 00:00 Thursday to Saturday.

This report was provided to the attendees for the meeting after representations made by Southwark Council's Trading Standards and Licensing teams were withdrawn because the applicant agreed to their proposed conditions. This is not uncommon in licensing matters, as applicants will often agree to conditions in order to avoid their application being refused. The committee will usually be more likely to grant a licence if all of the relevant parties are in agreement.

The report pack details representations from three other persons. One from the Bermondsey Square Recognised Tenants Association and two from residents of the area. The representations were made on the grounds of the prevention of public nuisance. In particular, they expressed concern about music pollution, litter and light pollution from the venue and patrons. They asked that the application be rejected, or if that was not possible, that the council impose additional conditions to protect residents' amenity. It is important to note that the Licensing Sub-Committee is not obliged to follow the recommendations of those who make representations. However, it must consider all representations carefully before making a decision.

Barrio Latino, Arch 183, 30 Manor Place, London SE17 3BB.

This application was made by Barrio Latino Management Limited. It requested permission for the venue to be used as a nightclub, with the following hours:

• The sale by retail of alcohol (on sales only):
  • Sunday and Thursday: 16:00 to 02:30
  • Friday and Saturday: 16:00 to 03:30
• The provision of late night refreshment (indoors):
  • Sunday and Thursday from 23:30 to 02:30
  • Friday and Saturday from 23:30 to 03:30
• The provision of regulated entertainment in the form of recorded music (indoors) and anything similar:
  • Sunday and Thursday from 23:30 to 02:30
  • Friday and Saturday from 23:30 to 03:30
• Opening Hours:
  • Sunday and Thursday from 16:00 to 03:00
  • Friday and Saturday from 16:00 to 04:00.

This report was provided to the attendees of the meeting after an initial application for a licence for a venue named 'Level High' in the same arch was rejected because it was incomplete. It is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple applications for the same premises, particularly if their initial application is unsuccessful.

The report pack contains details of all of the representations that were made on this application. The Metropolitan Police Service Licensing Division said that because the venue is in a densely residential area, it is not suitable to operate as a nightclub. They went on to say that the proposed conditions were insufficient to address their concerns and that the granting of the licence with these hours would have a detrimental impact on the community. Southwark Council's Environmental Protection team said they were concerned that granting the licence would cause significant public nuisance from noise. They asked for a noise impact assessment, which at the time of the meeting had not been provided. They also asked for the applicant to prepare a people management plan to manage the flow of patrons to and from the venue. Southwark Council's Trading Standards team said that the conditions offered in the application are insufficient to meet the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm. They proposed four additional conditions to require the venue to implement a 'Challenge 25' age verification policy and keep records of staff training and refused sales. Southwark Council's Licensing team said that they object to the application because the hours requested were significantly outside those recommended in the council's Statement of Licensing Policy 2021-2026. Ten residents also submitted representations about this application. Their representations made similar points to those made by the Metropolitan Police, and also expressed concern that the venue had already been operating without a licence. This is something that is taken very seriously by the Licensing Sub-Committee, as it shows a disregard for the licensing regime.

The report pack provides details of the Temporary Event Notices that were granted for the premises over the past year, including 11 that were granted to Mr Jose Manuel Perez De La Cruz, and three to Mr Sergio Esteban Perez De La Cruz. Mr Sergio Esteban Perez De La Cruz is the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor for the venue. The fact that Temporary Event Notices have previously been granted for the premises does not necessarily mean that a full premises licence will be granted. Temporary Event Notices are intended to allow for one-off events, whereas a premises licence allows for the regular carrying on of licensable activities.

The report also includes a statement from a council enforcement officer that he visited the venue at 02:30 on 13 July 2024 and found it operating as a nightclub, despite not having a premises licence. The officer spoke to Mr Sergio Esteban Perez De La Cruz, who was in charge of the venue at the time, and issued a notice requiring the venue to stop trading. The report includes details of a warning letter that was later sent to Barrio Latino Management Limited. This is likely to be a significant factor in the Licensing Sub-Committee's decision-making process, as it suggests that the applicant may not be a fit and proper person to hold a premises licence.

Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) - Monday 09 September 2024

This meeting of the Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) was scheduled to consider planning applications for two sites in the borough: 67 Plough Way and 9-29 Eastlands Crescent. The meeting was also scheduled to approve the minutes of the previous meeting which was held on 30 July 2024. You may remember that was the meeting at which the committee considered the controversial application to demolish and redevelop the existing building at Friars Close. These applications were for much smaller developments. This committee is one of two Planning Committees in Southwark. The other, the Planning Committee (Major Applications) is responsible for considering larger, more complex applications.

67 Plough Way

A planning application (reference: 23/AP/3428) was submitted by Mr Darryl Henson, seeking permission to construct a single-storey, one-bedroom house fronting onto Greenland Quay and Cunard Walk on a vacant plot of land behind No. 65 and No. 67 Plough Way. This is what is often referred to as 'infill' development, because it involves developing a small, unused or underused plot of land within an existing urban area. In London, where there is significant pressure on housing, these kinds of developments are often viewed favourably by councils, as they can provide new homes without the need to build on greenfield land. However, infill developments can also be controversial, as they can sometimes have a negative impact on the character of an area, or lead to a loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.

The application site is unusual, wrapping around the back of the garden of the neighbouring No. 65 Plough Way. This kind of awkwardly shaped site is quite common in London, particularly in areas that have been developed over a long period of time. This is one reason why this type of development often attracts objections from neighbours: they often involve building very close to the boundaries of the site, which can impact on neighbours' light and privacy.

The report submitted to the committee recommended that planning permission be granted for the development, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement. ² This is a common outcome for planning applications. It means that the council is minded to approve the application, but only if the applicant agrees to certain conditions, such as providing affordable housing or making a financial contribution to local infrastructure.

Eighteen objections to the application were received from neighbours. This is not an unusually high number of objections for a planning application of this size. Objections from neighbours are one of the most common reasons why planning applications are refused.

The main issues that the report said were to be considered by the committee were:

• The principle of development
• Affordable housing
• Quality of residential accommodation
• Fire safety
• Design and layout
• Landscaping and trees
• Impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers and surrounding area
• Transport and highways
• Refuse and recycling
• Noise and vibration
• Energy and sustainability
• Ecology and biodiversity
• Air quality
• Ground conditions and contamination
• Water resources and flood risk
• Archaeology
• Planning obligations (S.106 agreement)
• Mayoral and borough community infrastructure levy (CIL) ³

This is a standard list of issues that the Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) would consider when determining a planning application.

The proposed development is located in Canada Water, which has been designated an Opportunity Area by the Mayor of London and is undergoing significant redevelopment. The site is also located within Flood Zone 2, meaning that it has a medium risk of flooding. This means that the applicant will need to demonstrate to the council that they have taken appropriate measures to mitigate the risk of flooding to the development. This might include measures such as raising the ground level of the development, or incorporating flood-resistant materials into the design.

The report highlighted that the proposed development would be car-free, with two cycle parking spaces provided. This was in line with the council's policies of encouraging sustainable transport.

The council's Design and Conservation Team, Transport Policy Team, Ecology Team, Urban Forester, Environmental Protection Team and Flood Risk Management Team were all consulted on the application, which is standard practice.

A Section 106 legal agreement would be entered into to secure the following:

• A contribution of 35% of habitable rooms multiplied by £30,000 in the event that the property is disposed of within three years of completion and therefore no longer a self-build. This would secure a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in the borough.
• A financial contribution of £7,667 towards the provision of outdoor amenity space in the borough.

This is a relatively common type of Section 106 agreement. The council often seeks to secure financial contributions towards affordable housing and open space through these agreements.

9-29 Eastlands Crescent

A planning application (reference 23/AP/2919) was submitted by Mr Tony Mckinlay, seeking permission to demolish the existing two-storey detached dwelling at 29 Eastlands Crescent, and to construct a new dwelling house and an ancillary 2-bedroom annex, with a basement, single storey side extension and dormers within the rear roof slope. This is a fairly standard type of application for a householder development. Householder applications are those which relate to a single dwellinghouse. They are distinct from applications for flats or other types of residential development.

The report submitted to the committee recommended that planning permission be granted for the development, subject to conditions.

Twenty-five objections were received from neighbours, and two letters of support.

The main issues that the report said were to be considered by the committee were very similar to the list that was considered for 67 Plough Way.

The site is within the Dulwich Village Conservation Area. This means that the council will need to be satisfied that the proposed development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the conservation area. Conservation areas are areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. The council has a duty to designate conservation areas under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The council's Design and Conservation Team advised that the proposal was appropriate in terms of height, scale and massing.

The council's Ecology Team advised that the proposal was acceptable subject to conditions and recommended that conditions be added to the planning permission for the provision of a bat box. This is a common condition to be attached to planning permissions in order to protect bats, which are a protected species.

The council's Transport Planning Policy Team advised that the proposed development was acceptable in terms of car parking, as it would involve the re-provision of two existing car parking spaces. The team also advised that no parking permits should be issued to future occupiers of the development and that a Section 278 agreement should be entered into to manage any footway resurfacing or replacement works required once works for the proposed development are complete. ⁴

The council's Urban Forester advised that the proposed development was acceptable subject to conditions and recommended conditions for compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement, the submission of details of landscaping and details of foundation depths.

Thames Water requested a condition requiring the submission of a piling method statement if piling is to take place.

A condition would be added to the planning permission to restrict future occupiers of the development from obtaining on-street parking permits. A condition would also be added to the planning permission to ensure that the annex remains ancillary to the main dwellinghouse. The applicant would be required to enter into a Section 278 agreement to manage any footway resurfacing or replacement required once works for the proposed development are complete.

This summary describes what was scheduled to be discussed during the meeting. It does not describe what was actually discussed or any decisions that may have been made.

This week in Southwary:

• The [Audit, Governance and Standards Committee](http://opencouncil.network/meetings/32095] discussed the financial management, governance and accountability of Southwark Council, including an update on the financial position of the council's Housing Revenue Account.
• The Education and Local Economy Scrutiny Commission discussed early intervention for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Audit, Governance and Standards Committee - Thursday 05 September 2024

This meeting provided an opportunity for the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee to be briefed on a range of issues concerning the financial management, governance and accountability of Southwark Council. The committee received an update on the financial position of the council's Housing Revenue Account (HRA).¹ The report described the actions the council had taken to recover the account, which is currently in deficit, including a reduction in the planned revenue contribution to the council's Housing Investment Programme, which funds the delivery of new homes. Regular readers may recall that the HRA was also reported to be in deficit at the last meeting of this committee on 4 July 2024. You may also recall that in the local elections in May 2022, the Liberal Democrat opposition group criticised the Labour administration's record on council housing, pointing to the state of the HRA as evidence of Labour's poor management. This is therefore likely to be a politically sensitive issue for the council.

The committee also received a report on the activities of the council's Corporate Anti-Fraud Team (CAFT) and Special Investigations Team (SIT) for the first quarter of 2024-25. This report is always of interest as it provides an insight into the types of fraud that are being committed against the council, as well as the council's efforts to combat fraud.

The committee was also asked to approve the Annual Governance Statement for 2023-24, a mandatory document that summarises the council's governance arrangements.

Education and Local Economy Scrutiny Commission - Wednesday 04 September 2024

This meeting was due to include a presentation on early intervention services for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). This is a topic that is likely to be of interest to many residents, as it affects a significant number of children in the borough. The meeting was also to consider its draft work programme for the coming year.

The Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) met on Tuesday 30 July 2024 to discuss a range of planning applications, including proposals for a co-living development on Rye Lane, an extension to a hostel on Belvedere Place, and the replacement of a sports pavilion on Dulwich Common. The Planning Committee (Major Applications) A met on Wednesday 31 July 2024 and were scheduled to discuss a range of planning applications, including one for the redevelopment of Friars Close and several proposals to release Section 106 funding for projects across the borough. The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Thursday 1 August 2024 to consider a licensing application for The Kernel Taproom at 132 Spa Road.

Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) - Tuesday 30 July 2024

The Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) meeting discussed three planning applications: a proposal for the construction of an 11-room co-living development on land adjacent to Warwick Court, an application for the construction of an upward extension to Friendship House on Belvedere Place, and an application for the demolition of the existing pavilion at Marlborough Cricket Club on Dulwich Common and the erection of a new single storey cricket pavilion. Unfortunately, no transcript of the meeting is available, so it is not possible to report on the outcome of the applications or the discussions that took place.

Planning Committee (Major Applications) A - Wednesday 31 July 2024

Southwark Council’s Planning Committee (Major Applications) A met on Wednesday 31 July 2024. The most significant item on the agenda was an application to demolish the existing four-storey residential building at Friars Close and replace it with a part 9, part 22-storey building containing 149 residential units and two community use units located on the ground floor. The existing building at Friars Close comprises 28 social rented flats. As well as addressing a number of issues with the existing building, the proposed development would increase the number of social rented units on the site to 54, an uplift of 93%. The application was submitted by Leathermarket JMB, who currently manage the site, in partnership with Southwark Council and Optivo. Optivo is one of the largest housing providers in London, managing around 45,000 homes across the capital.

The site is located within the Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Opportunity Area, designated by the London Plan as an area suitable for intensification. The site is also within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ),¹ which the London Plan identifies as London’s geographic, economic, and administrative core. The application pack included a number of technical documents assessing the impact of the proposed development. These concluded that, subject to conditions and obligations, the impact would be acceptable. However, concerns have been raised by the London Fire Brigade about various aspects of the development. The applicant responded to these concerns and the matter was included on the agenda for discussion.

The application pack also contains details of the proposed Section 106 agreement, which would be used to secure planning obligations from the applicant. These would include a requirement for the applicant to provide £66,681.60 towards playspace provision in the local area, £28,000 towards tree planting, and £11,171 towards archaeological works. It would also require the applicant to secure 36 sustained jobs for unemployed Southwark residents during construction, as well as provide 36 short courses and take on nine apprenticeships. No transcript of this meeting is available so we can't know the committee's decision.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Thursday 01 August 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Thursday 1 August 2024. The meeting was scheduled to include the consideration of an application for a new premises licence by The Kernel Taproom Ltd, at 132 Spa Road, London SE16 3AE. The applicant had originally sought permission for the sale of alcohol on and off the premises from 09:00 to 23:00, Monday to Sunday, and for the premises to be open to the public during the same hours.

Representations were received from a range of bodies, including the Metropolitan Police Service, Trading Standards and Southwark Council's Licensing Authority, as well as 15 residents. The concerns raised related to the potential for crime and disorder, public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm. These concerns appear to have been prompted, at least in part, by the premises' location on the so-called Bermondsey Beer Mile.²

The applicant subsequently agreed to a number of conditions and all of the representations were withdrawn. The conditions included the implementation of the Challenge 25 scheme, the keeping of CCTV records, the implementation of a dispersal policy and staff training, as well as the imposition of a 22:30 closing time for the sale of alcohol. No transcript of the meeting is available, so we cannot be sure whether the committee granted the licence. However, given that all of the representations were withdrawn, it seems likely that they did.

The Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting was due to be held on Monday 22 July 2024. The Southwark Maternity Commission meeting was due to be held on Wednesday 24 July 2024. The Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission meeting was due to be held on Thursday 25 July 2024. The Cabinet meeting was held on Monday 22 July 2024 and approved plans to submit a Compulsory Purchase Order to acquire the remaining properties at the Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre. The Housing, Community Safety and Community Engagement Scrutiny Commission meeting was due to be held on Tuesday 23 July 2024.

Environment Scrutiny Commission - Monday 22 July 2024

The Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting scheduled for Monday 22 July 2024 appears to have been postponed, as no transcript is available. The Environment Scrutiny Commission has a role that is very similar to that of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It scrutinises the decisions of the Cabinet, but it is specifically focussed on matters relating to the environment. These can range from very local issues like the number of litter bins in the borough, to global issues, like the council's policies to reach Net Zero.

Southwark Maternity Commission - Wednesday 24 July 2024

The Southwark Maternity Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday 24 July 2024 appears to have been postponed, as no transcript is available. The Southwark Maternity Commission is a relatively new commission. It was only formed on 18 July 2023, to respond to a number of high profile failings in maternity services in the UK. This commission does not have decision making powers. It can only make recommendations to the council's Cabinet.

Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission - Thursday 25 July 2024

The Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday 25 July 2024 appears to have been postponed, as no transcript is available. The Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission has a very similar role to the Environment Scrutiny Commission, but its focus is on health and social care.

Cabinet - Monday 22 July 2024

Southwark Council’s Cabinet met on Monday 22 July 2024 to make a number of decisions. The Cabinet is Southwark Council's principal decision-making body. It is responsible for implementing the council's policy objectives and for making decisions on the allocation of resources. The Cabinet is made up of the Leader of the Council and up to nine other councillors, who are appointed by the Leader. In this case, no video recording of the meeting appears to have been made, so we have to rely on the printed minutes of the meeting. This week, they approved plans to submit a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to acquire the remaining properties at the Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre. The council wants to redevelop the shopping centre as part of its wider regeneration plans for the area, but has been unable to reach an agreement with all of the leaseholders, despite extensive negotiations. A CPO is a legal process that allows a public body, such as a local council, to acquire land or property without the consent of the owner. It is typically used as a last resort, when all other attempts to acquire the land or property have failed. In this case the council decided to progress to a CPO after protracted negotiations to buy out the remaining leaseholders had failed. This is similar to the CPO that the council used in 2010 to acquire land for the first phase of the Elephant and Castle regeneration.

Housing, Community Safety and Community Engagement Scrutiny Commission - Tuesday 23 July 2024

The Housing, Community Safety and Community Engagement Scrutiny Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday 23 July 2024 appears to have been postponed, as no transcript is available. This commission has a very similar role to the Environment and Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commissions. It is responsible for scrutinising the council's policies relating to housing, community safety, and community engagement, and making recommendations to the Cabinet where appropriate.

In the last 7 days, the council scheduled 34 meetings of which 32 were actually held. One meeting, the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting scheduled for Monday 8 July 2024 was postponed.

The Licensing Sub-Committee of Southwark Council met on the morning of Tuesday 9th July 2024 and made two decisions: the licence of The Nag's Head public house was reviewed and amended; and the application for a new licence for Delicias Colombianas was refused. You can read the minutes of the meeting here.

Review of The Nag's Head Public House Licence

The sub-committee reviewed the licence of The Nag's Head, 231-235 Rye Lane, London SE15 4TP. The review had been called following a number of alleged breaches of the pub's licence, including the sale of alcohol to minors and exceeding the maximum authorised capacity.

The Licensing Authority received an application for review from Trading Standards on 20 May 2024 on the grounds of:

• The prevention of crime and disorder objective.
• The protection of children from harm objective.

This followed a joint operation with the Police on 11 May 2024 when an underage operative purchased alcohol from the premises. During this operation a number of other licensing offences were identified.

The meeting heard representations from various parties, including the police, Trading Standards and the pub's licence holder.

I would also note the premises appears to trade beyond its capacity frequently, a review of social media shows a large number of patrons within the public house and the outside area.

The sub-committee considered all the evidence and concluded that there had been breaches of the pub's licence.

The Sub-Committee noted that the CCTV footage showed that although there was a member of staff on the door, customers had been able to enter the premises without being asked for identification and without any checks as to their age.

The Sub-Committee decided to modify the conditions of The Nag's Head's licence and add new conditions.

The sub-committee determined to grant the application and to modify the conditions of the licence and add new conditions to promote the licensing objectives.

The new conditions were:

• No entry to the premises after 11:00pm
• CCTV to be installed and maintained at the premises to a standard agreed in writing by the Metropolitan Police
• A personal licence holder to be on duty at the pub at all times when alcohol is being sold.

Application for a new licence for Delicias Colombianas

The sub-committee considered an application for a new premises licence for Delicias Colombianas, 720-722 Old Kent Road, London SE15 1NG.

This application for a new Premises Licence was received from Delicias Colombianas. They are seeking permission for the sale by retail of alcohol off the premises (late night refreshment) Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00.

This application had been objected to by the Council's Pollution Team who were concerned about the impact of noise from customers at the premises late at night on nearby residents.

I object to this application as it has the potential to undermine the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance.

The sub-committee heard representations from the applicant and the Pollution Team. The applicant argued that they would be a responsible operator and that they would take steps to minimise noise nuisance.

I would like to highlight the fact that as part of our business we are committed to supporting the local community.

The sub-committee decided to refuse the application.

Having had regard to the Council's Licensing Policy, the guidance issued under s.182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and to all the other matters brought before it, the Sub-Committee refused the application.

The key reason for their decision was the potential for public nuisance due to the premises' location in a cumulative impact zone.¹

The Sub-Committee were concerned about the location of the premises in a Cumulative Impact Zone and the potential for customers congregating outside the premises late at night, which could give rise to noise and disturbance to residents in the area.

This decision appears to be consistent with the council's Statement of Licensing Policy, which states that Applications for new premises licences or club premises certificates will normally be refused if the premises are situated in a cumulative impact zone...

The other 31 meetings of unknown committees that were scheduled for this week have no publicly available minutes, and so we cannot report on the content of them.

This week, the Southwark Council had scheduled two meetings, both of which were either postponed or cancelled. Here are the details:

Environment Scrutiny Commission

Date: Tuesday 25 June 2024
Status: Postponed
Meeting Link

The Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting was postponed. This commission is responsible for reviewing and scrutinising the council's environmental policies, including waste management, air quality, and green spaces. The postponement means that any discussions or decisions on these topics will be delayed until the meeting is rescheduled.

Licensing Sub-Committee

Date: Thursday 27 June 2024
Status: Cancelled
Meeting Link

The Licensing Sub-Committee meeting was cancelled. This sub-committee oversees the licensing of various activities within the borough, such as alcohol sales, entertainment venues, and late-night refreshments. The cancellation means that any pending licensing applications or reviews will be deferred to a future date.

While no significant decisions were made this week due to the postponement and cancellation of these meetings, it's essential to understand the roles these committees play in local governance. The Environment Scrutiny Commission ensures that the council's environmental initiatives are effective and sustainable, aligning with broader goals such as reducing carbon emissions and improving public health. The Licensing Sub-Committee, on the other hand, is crucial for maintaining public safety and order by regulating businesses and activities that require licenses.

Stay tuned for updates on when these meetings will be rescheduled and for more information on other council activities in the coming weeks.