Transcript

Good evening, I'm Councillor Malcolm Clark, Vice Chair of the Lambeth Planning Applications Committee and chairing this evening's Planning Applications Committee meeting. In line with the legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers visiting ward members and members of the public have joined us either virtually or physically. This meeting is being recorded and broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. While we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient if we hit some challenges in this virtual environment. In the event that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the council's democracy account which is at LBL democracy. A couple of housekeeping notes, fire exits exit the room from either door and up the stairs to the street level. Toilets, there's an accessible toilet just outside the right hand side of the room. That's from public's point of view, that's your right hand side and there will be a comfort break if we need it around 9pm. Apologies, we've received apologies this evening from Councillor Joanne Simpson. I will now introduce members of the committee, starting on my left and we will go round and just reminder, this is just to introduce yourself, we'll be doing it pecuniary and other interests in a separate item. Councillor Costa. Councillor de Koster, Overmoor. Councillor Mennai, Knights Hill ward. Councillor Sally Hajafah, St Leon's Ward. Councillor Malcolm Clark, Stratton Wells ward and vice chair of the planning committee. Councillor Martin Bailey, Vauxhall ward. Councillor Scott Haynes, Stratton's and Leonard's ward. Thank you very much, I'll now turn to introducing the senior officers at this evening's meeting. The presiding officer. Good evening, my name is Rob O'Sullivan, I'm an assistant director in the council's planning service and I'll be presiding officer. And the backup presiding officer. Good evening, I'm Kiri Shuttworth, I'm head of development management and the backup presiding officer and also the manager for all three items this evening. The democratic services officer. Good evening, my name is Raj Anish Tulsi, democratic services officer and a part of the committee. Legal officer. Good evening, Rachel Lee from Sharp Prichard, solicitors and the council's external legal advisor for this evening's meeting. Thank you. Conservation officer. Good evening, I'm Doug Black, I lead the conservation and design team. Our transport officer. Hello I'm Alison Hayes, the transport officer for this evening. Thank you. Presenting officer for Minnikid House. Good evening, my name is Jennifer Walsh, I'm the area team leader for Brookside Clapham and presenting. And the presenting officer for St Mary's Gardens. Good evening, I'm Stephanie Malec, I'm the principal planning officer for the Waterloo and Streatham team and I'm presenting St Mary's Gardens. To say you're having to reintroduce yourself, you're also presenting the Southbank Centre item, is that right? Correct, thank you. So the order of business this evening, there are six items on the agenda and they'll be considered in the order they appear. All the paperwork is available on the council's website. The applications will be considered in the same way. Officer presentations, there will be reports which are to be debated, which will be presented by an officer who will highlight the main issues. Then, if there are any speakers who've registered to speak for the items, for an item, they will be able to speak and I believe there are two members of the public who've registered to speak on one of today's items. Then the committee will, members of the committee may ask questions of the officers and debate the application. Members will have read the reports and may wish to amend the recommended conditions or place informatives on the decisions subject to officer advice. Each application will be decided this evening and formal notification of the committee's decision will be sent to the applicant and any interested parties who have made written representations. The minutes from tonight's meeting will be published after the meeting. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, one clear working day before the meeting. So that was yesterday, the Monday before the meeting. That's the admin and housekeeping. We will get on with the first item. Item one, declarations of pecuniary interest. Do any members have any declarations of pecuniary interest they wish to share? No members do. We will now move on to agenda item two, declarations of other interest. Do any members have other declarations of interest they wish to share at this point? Nope, that's no from all members of the committee. Thank you. We will now move on to agenda item three, the minutes. Are the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday the 30th of July 2024? Agreed. Thank you, they are agreed. We will now move on to agenda item four, Mini Kidhouse. I invite the officers to now present the report. Good evening. This first scheme being presented this evening is the application of Mini Kidhouse for the retrospective change of use of the existing building for use as a care home, use class C2 to use as an outpatient medical clinic with an ancillary office space, use class EE. Members have advised that there has been an agenda missed this scheme. The agenda report clarifies on the revised car parking layout of change to the date for the two compliance conditions with details of cycle parking and waste and recycling information. The correct blue badge provision is at which is reported in the addendum pack with three blue badge spaces and eight spaces for staff. I'd also like to verbally report that condition five on page 25 should refer to the health care use in the reason and not nursery to the title. So the application is Mini Kidhouse 51C Hazelbourne Road located in the Captain Common and Abigail Ward. The site is accessed on Hazelbourne Road which is accessed off the A24 close to Clapham South tube station. This is a retrospective application since November 2022. The building has been in use as a medical centre operating as an eye outpatient clinic. The site is accessed via double gates which are controlled by the reception of clinic. Please provide access to the parking and the reception. The building is a two storey building with the entrance towards the end of the car park to the rear of the site is the new development being built out. This is on the land to the rear of the Cooper building. The revisions have been made to the parking on site and the parking area now accommodates the three blue power spaces and the eight spaces available for staff parking. The proposal seeks retrospective planning permission for a change of use of the building with a former care home to an outpatient medical clinic with ancillary office space and has since been in place since November

1. Specialists from St Thomas's Hospital eye clinic are now based in Mini Kidhouse Community eye clinic to assess and monitor people with glycoma and retinal conditions. It's added that this is not a major application. It's being brought to committee due to the size of the whole site, which includes parking and the site, the gardens. So the site was purpose built. It was 28 beds of continuing care home unit managed by guys in St Thomas's NHS Trust. Unit did by 24 hours nursing care for elderly and physically disabled adults. In October 2020, following detailed review and quality impact assessment, the trust made the decision to cease the provision of care in the unit and move the residents to alternative facilities. The decision to close the site was discussed over a period of two years, which included many reports presented to scrutiny committee and was considered alongside Lambas demand for care home provision. So officers have considered all the evidence which has been put forward from the applicant and the NHS and supported the proposal and the loss of the care homes accepted in this instance is detailed in the report. The proposal is considered compliant with local plan policy H8B as conditions 1 and 2 have been met. Moving to the proposed site, the existing Medical Centre would retain the function of the site and is in line with planning policy which seeks support and encourage the effective use of the community premises to assess different, to address different and changing priorities. It would remain in use as an NHS facility and would retain the community use. There are no external changes to the proposed building in any way and the loss of the existing care home is justified and there would be no loss of social infrastructure floor space. The building is considered appropriate for a healthcare use as it was purpose built and has been recently refurbished. The refurbishment included internal works in line with the fire report carried out in 2020. The recommendations were actioned, the relevant fire doors changed plus works to improve the fire stopping, bringing the building up to the codes of operation. The proposal has been assessed in terms of its potential impacts on the amenity of the nearest and most likely affected neighbours. Notice that the previous use had a capacity of 24 beds that operated 24 hours a day and therefore people were using the buildings at all times which resulted in the car part being used and lights being on in the building. The proposed outpatient medical centre, operating as an eye clinic, operates on an appointment basis which will ensure there's a steady flow of patients rather than peaks at different times and vehicle and pedestrian access will be provided via Hazelbourne Road as existing. The clinic is in use from 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 4pm Monday, Saturday and Sunday. As such, the change of use to an outpatient clinic is not expected to generate nuisance levels of noise nor disturbances that would have a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties. The site currently contains 11 parking spaces with three blue badge spaces and a dropout facility close to reception. As the site is located within an existing Lambeth control parking zone, it will be designated as par 3 through the section 106 restricting future staff members from obtaining a parking permit. There is sufficient space within the site to accommodate the required cycle parking and a planning condition is imposed to secure further details. There's a turning area which is welcome and all delivery and servicing is on the site and does not impact Hazelbourne Road. However, to ensure these are in line with Lambeth's requirements, a condition is added to request further repairs. Therefore, officers do not consider the proposal would result in any adverse highways or transport impacts subject to conditions set in section 106. Therefore, in conclusion, officers conclude that the proposal can apply for the development of the park as a whole and recommend approval subject to section 106. I note that there have been, there was nobody who applied to speak in the public in the form of an item and no ward members either put themselves forward, which is fine because then we can go straight to members questions. Do members have any questions they'd like to ask at this stage? Councillor Costa. Thank you, Chair. My question is on the car parking and cycle parking. I know the report of staff parking, but nothing about patient cars. Thanks, I'll pass this to the officer, but we also can pass it to the transport officer if you want. So the free blue badge parking spaces are not for everyone, so you can just go to the gates, buzz in and request for parking, or you can also phone up for your appointment and make a request for a parking space. And there are the other spaces available to staff, but again, if there is a requirement for a patient to use one of those spaces, they can phone up in advance. I have a follow up around patient, but do you have something on patient parking? So my follow up on patient parking then is just to understand the, I guess what the level of drop off is. So if your patients are coming by taxi or Uber or whatever, would they be going straight through and to the drop off, and is there presumably sufficient turning and space for that? Yeah, so they could either go through the gates if they needed to right up to the reception door, or they could be just dropped off in the entrance just off Hazelbourne Road off the street and then buzz through for the pedestrian access and walk around the site themselves. Councillor Jaffa? Yeah, I mean, it used to be Care Home yesterday, and now it has changed into ancillary services. So what happened to the Care Home facilities in that area? I said just to pass that on, but just to say that the officer may want to just come back to clarify, this isn't ancillary services. This is similar medical use. But simply just want to clarify that and then just give a reminder of the process that's happened. I know it is currently covered in our pack, but just give a quick summary for us, please. Yeah, so it's now an eye clinic. So it is a separate healthcare facility. So there were the Care Home facility closed in February 2021. And there were 13 remaining residents at the time when of its closure, and they were transferred over a period from October 2020 to February 2021. And then following from that period up until November 2022, many papers were discussed about the future of the site, including the requirement for the previous service to be reinstated. The building, whilst was purpose built back in the 1990s, didn't actually provide modern long term care for the frail and physically disabled older adults. So the bedrooms didn't have an en suite bathroom, and the access to the first floor was fairly limited due to the size of the corridor and the doorways. So the first floor was was unusable by many of the patients. So the decision in 2020 was the trust that was made by the trust to close that, but obviously accommodating those patients within the borough. Thank you. Councillor Ainslie. If I may, it's only occurred to me to ask this question. It is quite a large space and it's not really a material consideration, but I wonder if you could just let us know how much of that building will be occupied. Is there any sense of that? Yeah, so you're right, it is quite a large site, hence why it's here because of the site area and the gardens. So now it is in this new use as the eye clinic, the whole building is used. Previously, the first floor was only partially used and it was the majority of the ground floor due to the access requirements. But now the building will be used in its entirety. Can I have a follow up? Yes. So will that be for the trust ancillary staff or rooms to treat patients 'cause that would be quite a lot of people would manage to get through all of those rooms. So as I understand the internal layout, it will be some rooms for patients but also ancillary office accommodation for all those uses to be carried out. But the majority of the ground floor will be for patients to come in and book rebookable appointments to come in and get the service they require. But the remainder of the accommodation will be for office space, so it won't all be in clinical use as such. And just to clarify on that, when we're talking about ancillary office space, this is ancillary to the eye clinic use. This isn't trust taking office space from somewhere else and bringing it in there unrelated to the eye clinic. Yeah, I'm aware it would all be in the same use class. Councillor Nighy. Yeah, can I just ask where the patients are coming from? Obviously it's St Thomas's Trust, but are they coming nationwide or are they? As far as I understand it, it's from within the borough and anyone who serves, but the majority are from the borough, but anyone who serves the St Thomas's Hospital can be referred to this for further. So they may be coming from outside the borough as well, but they can be referred via the St Thomas's Hospital. Just because obviously that would link in to coming by bus by 2, that's good to know. Councillor Nighy, did you have a question? Are there any other questions that people wish to ask? OK, thank you. Would any members like to outline their views on the application of them? You do not need to all outline views, but if anybody does wish to say how they're feeling on this and how they're minded to vote, that would be useful for somebody to outline that. Yeah, minded to vote in favour. I think it's a community service and yeah, it sounds like a sensible result. Thank you, Councillor Nighy. And just to say that kind of accords with my views of things I have been kind of weighing up that any impact on residential immunity of the change of use and there's both positives and negatives of the change of hours of use, hours of operation I should make clear. And there's both positives and negatives, but I can see in the conditions that have been put, there are sufficient mitigations as well. So you know, it's certainly accords with my views in which case I'm going to propose officers recommendations here and do I see a seconder for that? I'm going to go with Councillor Costa as he was first. It was a close run though. All those in favour of officers recommendations. And there are benefits of those who can't see that is unanimously carried. I confirm that the item has been unanimously carried. Thank you very much. Thank you. We now move on to agenda item five, St Mary's gardens. Can I have the presenting officer for that please? Hello, I'm just presenting here. Can people see the screen? It should be just loading. It is just loading and we can see it. Thank you. Thank you. So this, firstly I draw members' attention to the first and only addendum circulated yesterday, which I hope everyone has seen. There's been just one further letter of support in respect to the application since that addendum was published. The application is for a site at St Mary's gardens in Lambeth. It's for the erection of a single storey horticultural pavilion. The removal of a section of the wall to the north of the boundary to create access to the garden museum with the installation of an entrance gate and new railing together with alterations to the boundary wall to Lambeth Palace and Lambeth Palace roads and a new landscaping treatment. The application site is St Mary's gardens, a small public park owned by the London Borough of Lambeth located at the corner of Lambeth Palace road and Lambeth road. And it lies just south of the garden museum here, which is within the great listed St Mary's church. Sorry, your slides haven't gone forward. So we're only seeing the first one, the top slide, which just talks about the item and the plan. And you see this one now. We're now on aerial view of site. Brilliant. Excuse me. Right. So to repeat the application site St Mary's gardens, it's a small public park owned by the London Borough of Lambeth located at the corner of Lambeth Palace road and Lambeth road. The site lies just south of the garden museum within the grade two star listed St Mary's church, the site situated within the Lambeth Palace conservation area near the Westminster World Heritage site and within two archeological priority areas. The gardens also form part of a borough designated sink or site of importance for nature conservation and are located in an area of open space deficiency. This is the existing site plan and the proposals are for a new garden with a redesigned boundary wall with this sort of undulating form fronting Lambeth road. It will be terrazzo with niches and apertures for plants and insects. The proposed landscaping would include a new pedestrian access route across from Lambeth road and to the garden museum here. The proposed pavilion would provide a tool shed, space for volunteers, a kitchen and a space for horticultural apprentices to study. The pavilion design would recycle old demolished London buildings from architectural salvage, first crushing them before forming new elevations to match the proposed boundary walls. Further details are secured by recommended conditions three and four. The proposed 84 square metre pavilion would occupy less than 10% of the overall site. And it would be single storey and surrounded by greenery ensuring no harm to the setting of the designated heritage assets which are the Westminster world heritage site, Lambeth palace conservation area, the grade two star St Mary's church and the grade one Morton's tower which is part of Lambeth palace. The proposed 2.7 metre gateway in the grade two listed wall here would result in a low degree of less than substantial harm. This is balanced against the benefits of the proposal. This matter was assessed within the parallel listed building consent application reference 1292 LB granted on the 23rd of July
2. The existing site is not fully accessible. It has uneven ground levels preventing the appreciation or use of much of the planting and use of the seating within the gardens. The proposals would increase accessibility with level ground and new ramps incorporated within the landscaping. This is a view of the proposals showing the level access. The low degree of less than substantial harm is considered to be offset by the proposals public benefits in accordance with the MPPF paragraph 208. These include the improved accessibility as demonstrated by this image as well as the provision of horticultural apprenticeships to Lambeth residents for a period of 10 years, the provision of a space devoted to horticultural education, volunteering and community workshops, an increase in the cultural, economic and educational benefits provided to the borough and its visitor economy by the existing garden museum and the provision of improved high quality landscaping to a well used small public park. The proposed ancillary horticultural use coupled with improvements to the quality and accessibility of public open space also offset small loss of public open space in compliance with Lambeth local plan policy EN1 and the South Bank and Waterloo neighbourhood plan policy P1. The impact on the sink is compensated for by the pavilion's modest footprint and location at the site's edge, ensuring that native ground flora of ecological significance remains unaffected. The proposals also form part of a wider scheme aimed at enhancing the quality and management of the site, the garden museum and wider surroundings. Finally, biodiversity net gain is secured by recommended condition eight. The proposals also meet the required urban greening factor of 0.3. The proposals would result in the loss of one category B Robinha tree, which is here, because it's right under the footprint of the proposed pavilion. The tree officer has advised that this is acceptable subject to compensation, either through offsite tree planting secured through legal agreement using the Cavat method, or in agreement with Lambeth Parks to plant and establish additional trees on site secured by landscaping condition eight. Officers recommend that the committee resolves to grant planning permission, subject conditions and a section 106 agreement to secure the Cavat or a replacement tree and the horticultural apprenticeships for Lambeth residents for a period of 10 years. That concludes the presentation. Thank you very much. We will now hear from we have one supporter who has said they wish to speak. I have Christopher Woodward, if you'd like to come up to the chair and I'll just explain what will happen. You'll get two minutes, which will commence once you've introduced yourself and just set your relationship with the application. And then you have two minutes to speak. And the buzzer will go off 25 seconds before your time is up. Just as a reminder, and then it will go off again at the two minutes time. And I will pass it over to you now. Thank you, I'm Christopher Woodward, I'm the director of the garden museum and I've been working on that for about 15 years. I mean, the paper is great, so I didn't have that much time to be honest. So I just wanted to say that the project began seven years ago when with the museum built with your support, we met the leader then to talk about aspirations for learning, cleaning and greening, which extended beyond site and the subsequent master plan we call Lambeth Green. Plus two catalysts. First, the museum itself is accessible, but the public approach is which either through St Mary's or across Lambeth Palace for quarter much too steep. And with close to 100,000 visitors this year, it will be some thousands who will benefit from the new design. Second, TfL said we're taking away the roundabout and what would have been seven trees and 1000 square metres of York stone paving is now 15 trees with 300 square metres of garden. Add that to St Mary's and we're planting and maintaining an area nine times the size of our current back garden, which is described by the National Paper as the most beautiful courtyard in London. This garden too will be designed by Dan Pearson, one of the most in demand designers in the world. We're here designing for everyone. And one highlight of the years of consultation is a day out with our community neighbours to look at parks across London. And the favourite was the Rookery that will garden on Streatham Common. And people wanted something of that quality and we want to make a garden which gives you a hug. The building is here to deliver and maintain those gardens for training. This will be the only horticultural apprentice scheme in this part of Lambeth to make horticulture accessible and to trip our volunteers. Jerome's team is a club under the rain at present. The architect Mary Duggan won an open competition and we were excited about starting fundraising. And on Monday I began a 100km swim, which has just raised so far raised just over £115,000 in sponsorship for Lambeth Green. Finally, we like the idea that crossing the bridge from Hard, formal Westminster, will welcome you to a green, healthy, human friendly Lambeth and a space to refresh about how you feel about the city, to imagine a city here. As one of my heroes Colin Ward once quoted, The world is a difficult place and we all need a balcony to go out onto sometimes. Thanks very much. Perfectly on time. Thank you. I say you're welcome to kind of take a seat back. But I say I draw members attention to the fact that, as well as Christopher Woodward, we have three technical specialists in, I believe here in person, Peter Holloway, who's an arbor culture specialist, George Hudson, who's the training coordinator at the garden museum and Mary Duggan, the architect. So I say if members do require technical specialists then the officer can pass on questions to them. So do members have any questions they would wish to raise on this application? Councillor Ainslie. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for your presentation, both the officer and your presentation. I'm a great fan of this Lambeth Palace and I go there quite a lot. I'm also a great fan of cross laminated timber, and I know that the church and the museum cafe used cross laminated timber. The whole idea behind that is to absorb and sequester carbon rather than emit any. Whilst I welcome the sourcing of concrete, sorry, stone, etc, from other London based sites and the recycling and repurposing of that, I'm a wee bit concerned about crushing it, releasing the embroidered copy. That's your question. My question is, my question is. You can repeat all of that again. Why go for a carbon intensive materials such as, can I remind you you should be addressing it in a point. The officer, hello. The concrete and concrete, officer is on the screen actually sorry she's not. Cross laminated timber. Stephanie, sorry, can you unshare your presentation so that we can see you and have it easier to direct questions towards you? Certainly, can you see me now? And we can see you in the corner. I'm just coming, here we go. OK, so as far as I understand, the use of materials is sustained with some circular economy use, but cross laminated timber specifically, I would refer to the technical specialist, the architect Mary Duggan, who is present. I don't know if she has anything to say on that particular material. Would it be possible for Mary to speak? Yes, in which case I'd invite you to come to the table. Just introduce yourself again just for the, or introduce yourself and then yeah, you can answer the question. I'm Mary Duggan. To answer the first question, the stone, the reclaimed stone, has very much come from our observations of the palace and the materials more widely within the palace site. So we're very keen to sort of emulate the texture that already exists within the palace grounds. Cross laminated timber hasn't been considered for a couple of reasons. One is it isn't very economic at this scale. It tends to be used for buildings of multiple stories. We will be using timber internally for the superstructure, but the building itself will then be clad in stone and copper on the other side. So not cross laminated timber per se, but more possibly timber for the series. Thank you for that explanation. Do you have a follow up or just a quick one if I may? I'm not going to die in a digit for this, but you have used it, I think in the church and in the museum. How much consideration was it given? Reasonable amount of consideration, I would say, but the aim for the structure itself is to connect the two sides of the building plot. The stone is really the material externally that creates that connection, creates some sort of fortifies. The cross laminated timber internally could only really be used for such a small part of the project itself, which would be a pavilion, which would then need external padding. To be completely honest, the superstructure could potentially be made out of some sort of timber, but at the moment it's a fairly economic timber frame. Thank you for that. Just want to check. The officer, did you have anything that you wanted to add at the end to that or is that answered from your perspective as well? Certainly. That's fine. Thank you. Are there any other questions relating to this application that people wanted to ask? Councillor Jaffa. OK, in the presentation you said something about human friendly. So I just want to know whether it was any impact assessment has been done before all this started. The other one can ask as well. Just want to check that the officer had got that question. Did you hear that Stephanie or do you want to repeat it? I appreciate it being repeated, please. You said your human friendly application. On that follow up on that, I want to ask you whether you have done an equality assessment impact assessment before all this started. That is my first question. And Councillor, is that specifically around accessibility and the design for the accessibility and any hurdles overcoming all the hurdles? This is about physical accessibility, is it? OK, we'll take that one first and then I'll come back to you for the second question, OK, Stephanie. Certainly having been to the site, the existing site is not level and it's not fully accessible. I know the applicants have improved accessibility. It's a lot more level, whether they've done any formal qualities impact assessment or not. That I will leave for the technical specialist from the applicant's team to respond to. Please, possibly again, Mary Duggan, the architect. Mike, I'm just going to check. Is that something that is material consideration that we should be sharing? In more general terms, my advice would be the local plan, which is your starting position. So as you know, and you see this with all applications at Section 38(6) of the Planning Compulsive purchase Act requires that you make your decision in accordance with our local plan, with the development plan. That was subject to an environmental impact, sorry, qualities impact assessment at the point it was considered and assessed. So all policies in that document are being subject to qualities impact assessment. So I think we can assure you that our policies around qualities, around design being subject to inequalities assessment. I think what you're asking about very specific issues around protective characteristics. We do, with all decision-making have to consider the sector of quality duty. And that is noted in the officer report. So yes, as an officer group in assessing this and putting it for committee for decision, we have looked at all the mine protected characteristics and have taken them on board in proposing this recommendation around the planning commission. So yes, as an officer group, sector of quality duty has been considered. Yes. And they just follow up small requests. If you could have it in our reports to mention something, I don't have to worry about it. Here's reference to the quality duty in paragraph 4.5 in the officer's report. And that's where it concludes that, yeah, but then we have no operation for the characteristics. We as officers have made, and then, especially might need to come back in. But the presentation did set out at the moment. And under the proposals, there'll be regrading of the site, but it would be more accessible as a result of the result. That's okay. As long as you're considering it. Thank you. And I know you had a second question. Second question. Councillor Jaffa. When I went in training, you did say that it's local people, but I still come back to equality issues, women, girls, young people, BME groups. I'll be willing to give consideration to that as well. When you are giving employment and training. So an officer response, I guess, on the implementation of that section 106 condition. I can certainly answer to that. And I've spoken with our employment and skills team, and they will be working with the applicants to ensure that the training and the apprenticeships are given on an equal equalities basis. One issue which came up was the use of the term young people. Our employment and skills team said we don't want to use that word because it could discriminate against, for example, mothers returning to work. That is an example of the type of equal equalities approach that our employment and skills team take. And the applicants will be required to comply with as part of the legal agreement when working on these apprenticeship schemes with Lambeth, with our employment and skills training team. I had one question, which was just on, I guess, securing the community use and community benefits of the scheme. So I understand we've got something around the ten years of the apprenticeships, but is there anything else? I guess it's with the event, is there anything about the events or the activities being there, being open to the public or free versus kind of, is this about members, are they only accessible to paid members of the garden museum? I guess how the management of that site might be done to ensure that that community use is encouraged. Well, the volunteers for the gardening, the St Mary's Gardens is already, all the planting is managed by volunteers and they will have access to the facilities within this new pavilion. They won't be required to pay for that, they're volunteering their services. So that will be open, free of charge to these volunteers and it will provide them with a much needed resource. At the moment, there's nowhere for them to shelter, to store tools, such like. What you're saying is that those volunteers are members of the local community, is that right? Correct. And I should also draw your attention to the operational management plan, which is secured by condition six, which is all about how the site is managed, who has access, the council, it's part of our parks team, it is Lambeth owned, Lambeth land. So that will ensure that the use of the site complies with all of the council's requirements in terms of equality of access and free of charge. Thank you. I'd seen the operational management plan because there is a similar visitor or user management plan. That's why I was looking for the extra details of the community usage of the site, and I think you mentioned it in the presentation, but I was just recognising that it's not tied into that. Is there something, and I'm looking at the presiding officers as well as the officers, is there something that is an informative, would be helpful or do you feel that it's sufficiently covered already in the uses? I guess it's about just that encouragement of the community uses, not just the apprenticeships, very good, but are there any ways that we could encourage that? So, I mean, the community building is secured by condition four, the very specific purpose, which is the horticultural communication and tools. In terms of the planning position, we have secured what is outside of planning, as Stephanie stated, it is the council's land, and so the council has control over the use of this land and how it is operated outside of the planning system, as well as within the planning system, because it is our land. And so the council would have agreements on the use of that building separate to the conditions which we have also secured. So we have two different hats and therefore there are two different ways in which to secure. And also it will remain in the council's ownership, that land is council land and so it will remain in interest as a result of that. Thank you. No, I don't need to take that further. I was just aware that there were a number of objections that specifically flagged that up, so I wanted to reassure myself or ask questions of that at this stage, I should say. I do see a question, Councillor Ainslie. Can I just get a bit of clarity on, I mean it's always sad to lose a tree and the remover of the Rubina tree is regrettable. There's quite a lot of detail in here about, so section 1.1 N says the replacement will be equal or greater value tree planning secured through a legal agreement. And at this step we've got condition number 9, trees could be retained. We've got condition number 8 that there's a biodiversity gain. What quite difficult to one pick the detail, I mean is there more to come in a legal agreement or is everything in there? I know the officer referenced quite a bit of this in the presentation but is there anything that you would just wish to flag, Stephanie, to give further comfort around that? Is it specifically the replacement, are you worried about the, is it the replacement of the tree or is it about the taking the tree in the first place? No, I understand that a tree has to be replaced. It's the legal arrangements through which we secure, to secure what we've lost or gain more. What is the legal agreement? Is it already in the conditions or is it a separate thing? It's both. So we, our parks team, the tree officers in our parts team will work with the applicants to get the best possible outcome, either replacement tree planting which works really well at the site, which will be under condition 8 or CAVAT which stands for, let me see if I've got the terms for that, it's a means of payment for a tree close to or certainly within the London Borough of Lambeth to compensate for the loss of one category B tree. Obviously we'd like to go for a replacement tree of equal canopy width within the site of equal horticultural value. And that will be the first point of call and the trees team and I believe the applicants who are obviously horticultural body will work to replace the tree first of all. I know they do have plans for a lot of tree planting in and around the site. So there's a strong potential that CAVAT will not be needed at all. But first point of call is this rabbinia is right under the footprint of the proposed pavilion so it has to go. Its replacement is something which will be worked out as part of the 106 and if replacement trees are used to fill that 106 requirement that their detail will be secured under part of condition 8. Thank you for that flow by blow account of what's happening, it's much appreciated. Does that answer the question or is there anything? Well it answers one half of it, thank you Stephanie. So you also said that there may additionally also be some sort of legal requirement or legal something legal to be worked out? That's because within planning we have to have a legal agreement if money is involved. So for councils to take money for the replacement of a tree, it has to be secured by a legal agreement outside of the planning application process. But that would be the worst case scenario as it were, it's a fallback but it's there secured in the legal agreement if necessary. Any other questions related to this councilor? I'm also interested in securing community use and benefits and just really wanted to ask if you will know who the horticultural skills practitioners are likely to be delivering things at the pavilion and whether they'll also be involved in the apprenticeships and what sort of qualifications might be given. I understand that they're quite high powered and I believe that one of the technical specialists present could speak to that. Who would be the best person? Step forward and introduce yourself, thank you. Hi my name is George Hudson, I've been working for Greenland and Curator and part of that role is involved in creating an education strategy and before that I was working at Walworth Garden as their training manager. I'm a trustee of a horticultural training charity as well. So in answer to the question, there are two parts, who are the people delivering the training? We'd recruit a trained assessor to a level 3 qualification. They would deliver the informal workshops and courses but they'd also be the main point of contact for the apprentices. We'd look for someone from ideally Lambeth if possible but ideally within central London. Was there a second part to your question? Who would deliver them? So you've covered that and what qualifications would the apprentices be working towards? So the main qualification we deliver would be the apprenticeship. There's a level 2 and a level 3 so there's an operative and a supervisor and so depending on the kind of background of the individuals that we take on, we tailor the course to them and we work with Cape Commander as an education partner potentially. Did you consider, it says you're going to have two apprentices, including Lambeth residents, so does that mean that's likely to be one person? We ideally would like to focus solely on Lambeth but we are keen to fulfil the two each year and so if we can't fulfil that through a Lambeth intake, we'd look further afield. Great, thank you. I'll make it clear whether it's to the officer or to George which is a bit of a cheeky question really but do the volunteers go to other areas to help out, do skill sharing and things? Are there areas in London or in Lambeth? They at the moment are predominantly based at the garden museum. I'm probably not the best person to answer this because I don't manage the volunteers. With the apprenticeship scheme there is our intention to use other gardens and other facilities across London as part of their training. We currently have a garden trainee which is a year-long programme that's been running for about 10 years and during that year-long period they're sent to four or five other gardens both in and outside of London to build their network of gardening people and we would do something similar with the apprenticeship too and potentially with volunteers. I can think of lots of sites in my ward that would be... I'm sure you're very happy to have the conversation. Always good Kate. Ward interests but we will draw it back into this. Thank you very much for that. Are there any other questions that haven't been asked? In which case I will move us on to discussing the merits of the application and I say does anybody wish to discuss it? I know I said Councillor Ainslie I interrupted you before when you were starting a discussion on it. It's only fair that you get a first impression. I'm a great fan of this site. I'm sad to be losing a tree. I think that there's a cyclist as well that regularly comes across that section. I kind of see the trees as a bit of a barrier so a kind of green wall would indeed be a welcome arrival into Lambeth from across the water. So I really would love for the cab not to be used for all the biodiversity in the tree that we lose or any trees that we do lose and please make sure you don't lose any more. They are more than compensated for on site and I know that that's at everyone's heart at Lambeth Palace so that's all well and good but I just really would wish that you do work together with Lambeth officers to ensure that we get as much of a green wall as we possibly can. On reflection I would tease one of my colleagues about being a great fan of cross laminated timber and it's under use in this country compared to places like Paris and Amsterdam and we're way behind. It would have been good given that it's already established in the venue to continue that but as I said I do welcome the use of recycling stone across London and may that continue. Having said all that I like the proposal. I think it's a good proposal and I think I'm very much mindful to devote and failure. Thank you for that, Councillor Bailey. Thank you I'm very much minded to vote in favour. The benefits of the improvement of accessibility, the provision of multicultural education and education benefits across the borough I think far outweigh the loss of a single tree in a ward where only 27% of residents have access to it by regard. So actually our ability to be educated in London, have some children is far beyond that. Thank you very much. Anybody else? I'm minded to support this application. I'm satisfied that they have taken into consideration about the quality impact assessment and results of that. I'm very happy for it and I'm glad that accessibility issues have been dealt with. I'm happy to recommend it. Thank you. Anybody else? You don't have to in which case I will just say I agree with what's been said, particularly Councillor Bailey, Councillor Ainslie around reassuring on the public benefits and the positives and in terms of, yeah, I think Councillor Ainslie makes the point well that as a committee we don't wish to see kind of trees go if they can help it and if they can be kind of replaced on site all the better. So I think that is a fair reflection. I believe that's any of my view of that. I'll leave Councillor Ainslie's laminated timber to say your specialism. I know less on it. But yeah, I'm happy to put this forward to a vote. I propose the Office of Recommendations on this and do I have a seconder? Councillor Ainslie? No doubt on that, winning that battle. Thank you. All those in favour of the application. Unanimous. Everybody, all the members voted for it. Therefore, that item has been carried. Office of Recommendations. Thank you very much. And thank you to those who came with the item. You are free to go. You're welcome to stay for the last item. Thank you. I invite the officer presenting agenda item six, the South Bank Centre to get ready with their slides. Just give us a couple of secs just to ensure that the room is silent. Yep, people have gone from that last application and we only have we have those who wish to stay. So I will, Stephanie, the floor is yours again. Thank you. Can you see this, the front slide for the South Bank Centre application? The application is, there are three applications before you. There's the full application for the planning, the advertisement consent application and the listed building consent application. Planning permission, advertising and listed building consent are sought for the erection and installation of temporary structures and artworks for up to 20 winter and summer programmes in connection with the South Bank Centre. These would run from October 2024 to September
3. There are two associated applications for listed building and advertisement consent. Can you see the next slide, the aerial view of the site? All is working well. Great. The site is the South Bank Centre complex on the southern side of the Thames, which includes the Grade 1 Royal Festival Hall, the locally listed Queen Elizabeth Hall and the locally listed Haywood Gallery and the surrounding publicly accessible pedestrian areas, including the Queen's Walk. The site lies within the South Bank conservation area and includes 30 square metres of metropolitan open land. The programmes will be almost entirely consistent with summer and winter events held at the South Bank Centre and approved on an individual basis since 2008. These include art installations and pop up commercial food and beverage stands, as well as a level two stage for the summer event. The proposed duration of each programme would match that of previous events. That is the third Monday in October to the 30th of January the following year for the winter programme and the third Monday in April until 30th of September for the summer programme. This would leave a minimum 13 weeks fallow period in total each calendar year. The proposals are supported by officers as they continue to support the site's role as a major cultural hub within Lambeth Central Activity Zone and the strategic cultural area. The artistic installations will be mainly free to the public while revenue generated from the commercial stalls would be reinvested into cultural programming and the South Bank Centre's cultural assets. The layout and parameters of stalls and artistic installations within the site would match that of previous events. Condition 18 secures the submission of a schedule of the proposed structures and associated equipment for local planning authority approval before the commencement of each winter or summer programme. Here are some of the artistic exhibits from the past. Here are some of the proposed commercial structures and the level two terrace stage. Here is details of some of the metropolitan open land. The site includes a 30 square metre area of metropolitan open land which is on this map. It's just a tiny little area here which you can see is bisected by a road. Condition 17 prevents the erection of any structures on the area of open land which is part of the site, which is essentially this little triangular space here to ensure that the metropolitan open land remains unobstructed. Officers have identified a low degree of less than substantial harm to the Westminster World Heritage site arising from the most western cafe or bar. This is mitigated by the 13 week fallow period but also by the public benefits arising from the proposal which are economic consisting of encouraging tourism within the internationally recognised South Bank location and indirect financial benefits to the surrounding cultural and commercial buildings. Stephanie, we had a technical issue and we lost you. For the benefit of anybody listening or playing this back, we've just had about 20 seconds, 30 seconds where we lost the connection. You just got to putting up on the slide the Queen's Wall West Westminster World Heritage views. So if you just talk us through from the beginning of that slide, that would be useful. This slide is here because officers have identified a low degree of less than substantial harm to the Westminster World Heritage site. This arises from the westernmost commercial stand. This is mitigated by the 13 week fallow period but also by public benefits arising from the proposal which are economic, the encouragement of tourism within the internationally recognised South Bank location and indirect financial benefits to the surrounding cultural and commercial buildings from the influx of patrons. The 20 event permission would increase certainty regarding the presence of seasonal outdoor programmes at the site, the long term employment opportunities for Lambeth residents with commercial operators able to plan for long term staffing, increased revenue and financial security for the applicant resulting in more funds to invest in the site, the upkeep of the heritage assets, sustainability improvements, urban greening and biodiversity as well as the range and quality of the cultural offer. There would also be social benefits, improvements to the cultural and artistic content to benefit members of the public, to enable the applicants to commission higher quality artwork and work on longer term themed projects, often in consultation with Lambeth's culture team to directly benefit Lambeth residents and environmental benefits. The sustainability benefits would increase with the applicants required to demonstrate year on year reductions in energy usage and operational waste, with increased recycling and reuse of materials for the commercial stands and artistic exhibits. Apart from the low degree of less than substantial harm to the Westminster World Heritage site, no harm is identified to the setting of designated or non-designated heritage assets or those within the site. Recommended conditions will continue to control the impact of the largely outdoor programmes on neighbouring amenity and the transport network through the submission of annual or twice yearly updated reports relating to noise, the highway and visual amenity. The 20 event permission would enable the local planning authority to secure and monitor sustainability improvements. Condition 3 secures a full review after five years, which would assess the use of ongoing acceptability in terms of the effectiveness of the mitigation, secured by the conditions previously mentioned, heritage impacts, the benefits being achieved and a review of relevant planning policies and guidance. In summary, officers recommend that the committee resolves to approve the three applications subject to recommended conditions. That concludes the presentation. Thank you very much and thank you for bearing with us for that technical hitch our side. I believe that we have one member of the public, one supporter, one supporter who has asked to speak, and they are online. Is that Warren Forsythe? We have Warren. Would you like to put yourself on camera so that we can see you? Can you hear us? Can you speak, Warren? Can I check with officers whether they've had, obviously I can see Warren is online, whether somebody's had contact with him, just making sure that his tech is OK. OK, so in a wonderful blue teeter moment of his one we've got earlier, we do have, we don't need the second, we don't need the back up because we've got the man himself. Thank you, Warren. I say you hopefully you can hear us and hopefully we will be able to hear you and you have two minutes. First of all, just introduce yourself, how you're related to this application, and then you can have two minutes to speak. Wait, we can't hold on, we can't hear you, we can see you, but we can't hear you. If you give you a few more seconds just to say. Unfortunately, I can't go to another speaker because you're the only one lined up, but I will. Warren, if you can't make your thing work, then what I'll do is I'll go over to presiding officer who has your contributions and then she'll read that out. And then if you get your mic working, we can always ask, we can always, if there are any questions that are related to you, we can always put that to you. So I'll get Kiri to read it out. Yes, so this is on behalf of Warren Forsythe, who is the estate's director at Southbank Centre, and that's who you can see on screen. And this is on behalf of him. We are a charity and multifunctional arts centre on an 11 acre site along the Southbank attracting 4 million visitors per year. Our purpose in Remit is to harness the power of the arts social change and to ensure that it is truly accessible to all. As part of our year round diverse programme of events across the site, we are proud to offer 45% of these as free to the public. Within this public programme, we hold bi-annual summer and winter programmes. These comprise a range of temporary art work after which include proper food and craft stores across the outboard areas with approximately 1.3 million people visiting each year. We currently submit six planning list building consent and advertisement applications for the summer and winter programmes each year and have done so successfully for the last 12 years. The scale and nature of the programmes do not change much, but due to the area involved, the applications are determined at planning committee each time. It is time consuming and an administrative and cost burden for both Southbank Centre and Lambeth. It also hinders long term strategic cultural planning. For us, this 10 year permission is not only a financially sustainable decision for us, potentially saving around 100,000 pounds, which can be better spent on improving the heritage assets, cultural programming and sustainability credentials of the site, including biodiversity. It will allow us to source the necessary funding for the artwork in time for artists to create the artworks, which can have a lead in time of multiple years. In previous years, we could only either reuse art we store or have artists who can produce work quickly. We will be better able to plan and source funding opportunities from trusts and foundations, which can have a long funding cycle and often there will also be wider public benefits. These include that are not guaranteed, not limited to guaranteeing that an estimated 1200 regular jobs will be created over 10 years, including supporting small and local food and craft businesses. You can finish, don't worry. Better integrating and aligning with Lambeth's longer term cultural strategy and wider London programme through advanced planning, providing further opportunities for collaborations and communities in Lambeth, as well as international artists and trialling new techniques to make the running of the programmes more environmentally efficient and sustainable with the next 10 years. Thank you very much. And thank you, Warren, if you can hear us for providing that. It's so we have for members benefits. We also have a number of technical specialists online, both somebody Georgia Barrett from the planning and licensing of South Bank Centre, Melanie Gurney from the planning lab, planning consultants and obviously Warren as well. So if there are any questions that need the officer best to direct to them, they can be. Do we have any questions? Say Warren, you can switch your camera off for the moment and then if we need you, we can come back to you. Thanks. And again, Martin and then Scott, Councillor Bailey. Sorry, it's just a technical one. The conditions I'm reading. I'm reading the time that mission correctly that immediately overseas for 10 years. So the. This commission would grant them up to 20 programmes within up to 10 year period. And but there it's condition three requires them to submit more information to us in five years time. And it will then be a decision. I follow up clarification. So that's for the chair of planning planning committee. Can I is it? I guess it is. It could be for us if we follow up to that. It is up to up to members to decide if that was a satisfactory arrangement or if there was something else they wanted to suggest as well. I'm not directing in any way, just outlining possibilities. Councillor Ainslie. How will the sustainability report be? How will we be notified on this committee? Sustainability. And how it's performing against. Did you hear that Stephanie? I did. So if there isn't any, if there if there's non compliance, obviously that would be of great concern. There's the South Bank is working towards sustainability improvements over its entire site. The main issue with disentangling them for these particular programmes has been that they haven't had a means of measuring them or assessing them in the past because each event was granted planning permission on a separate temporary basis. One of the benefits of this rolling permission for up to 20 events will be that we could see cumulative improvements and measure them against the South Bank's overall enhancements. During the fallow period, when the programmes are not in operation, the South Bank will be able to detract, to look at the reduced energy emissions and do an assessment on how much the actual programmes are using. And that way they'll be able to provide us with this information. So we've worked with the South Bank's overall ambitions for reducing energy usage on the site. And in a way, we're sort of ensuring that there will be compliance throughout a wider site, really, so that these programmes, which is the only matter coming before planning for planning control, do reduce emissions. And if there's any reason that they don't comply, it will be the same as with any other ongoing planning condition. If there's a breach, we will deal with it in the standard fashion, enforcement and discussion. Thank you. My question was, how will we, as members being asked to sign on on this for the next 10 years, be kept up to date with the traction of that progress, given that this goes beyond five years beyond where the council has agreed it will be a carbon neutral by 2030? I'm going to, I will ask to pick that up. I wanted to widen that out. Just, we have the example of the London Eye, where we grant, permissions were granted. And then every year, and I don't know whether it was a planning, it was a planning consider, it was a planning matter or just a communications. But every year, for instance, we, as councillors, we get a report of how the section 106 money has been spent of that. And are you accountancy, are you kind of suggesting that, is there a forum that councillors, whether of this committee or more widely, that there is a summary report doesn't have to be a plan, either in a planning way or on a non-planning way that we are informed of the progress of the site. And I say, I know I'm speaking be potentially beyond planning considerations here, but I just wanted to get kind of an understanding of, I guess, how was there, has there been any consideration of the way that councillors, whether on planning committee or as Lambeth council would be communicated around this between permission being granted and years? So there's, there's two parts that obviously there are conditions that we've recommended, which require the applicant to submit information to us. So that information will be probably filmed about your issues, how will you as a committee be reported back? We could commit as officers on an annual basis to bring a briefing report back once a year at the end of an addendum to show you what that performance has been. Thank you. And how would we, is that a minute and informative? What would that be in this meeting as it were, or how we have to take that forwards if we get that as what was wanted? It would take the form of something similar to how we used to report appeals in form. It isn't something reported to you for a decision. It is a note to say, okay, here's a report that has been submitted. It is policy compliant. It's for your information. So yes, it would be, it would be a briefing of sorts at the end. So as you know, most reports presented to this committee are for the committee to make a decision on. On occasion, you might get a reapplication presented to you, but you're not asked to make any formal decision on it. So it would be something where we're not asking you to make a decision. It's just for your information and for a note. In terms of taking that forward in this meeting, if that is something that Councillors want us to take forward, it will be noted in the minutes and we, as presenters, will note it and take it forward for us. There's a notice if required, but obviously it's a note for officers to inform us what we need to do. Okay, that's great. I may come back to that. In the summing up, is there anything else on that specifically? Does anybody else have any questions relating to this? So it's about the placing of the concessions. What assurances can officers give that the river view will be uninterrupted and that the food concessions or whatever are kept to away from the panoramic views of the river walk? In response to that question, we have part and parcel of the conservation area and the use of the Southbank Centre is to have this sort of lively enactment, but lively use of the Queen's Walk. For the protected views of the Westminster World Heritage site, which we've addressed in the officer report and in the presentation, we've identified that there are public benefits and that there are fallow periods, a minimum of 13 weeks, that's a quarter of the year, when there will be no stalls at all on the Queen's Walk or interrupting any views of the Westminster World Heritage site. I would remind members it's only one of these stalls, the most western stall, which interrupts the protected Westminster World Heritage site. Otherwise, we have no policies, no designations which protect views of the river. Specifically, the Southbank Conservation Area statement refers to the built form on the land rather than the views of the river and there's not been any harm identified in that respect for all of the previous events which have occurred in a very similar fashion since 2008 in respect of river views. I must also remind members that there are gaps between the stalls, so the parameters require gaps between the stalls. Our transport team require a gap of at least six metres from the river frontage itself. There are site trees which line the river frontage which must also be a significant distance from the stalls, so it's not as if there's a continuous presence of stalls interrupting views of the river. Can I just get clarity? You're saying that there is one stall that blocks the river and that's it? It's not the river, it's the Westminster World Heritage site which is the protected view and there's one stall which partially interrupts that. I'll put the slide up again. Only partially and the head of conservation has identified a low degree of less than substantial harm because of that. That has been considered to be offset by the public benefits and the fallot period which is a quarter of the year. Let me find the right slide. We haven't yet seen the slide but here it is. It's essentially where this ice cream van is. You can see the Westminster World Heritage site in the background. It's a partial view. The expert on this is Doug Black, head of conservation and design, who I believe is on call. I don't know if Doug is able to help out on this one? I'm less concerned about the ice cream van. I'm more concerned about any creep over a 10-year period to fill and interrupt the river walk. What reassurances can we be given? Every single programme will have to have the parameters and the layout of all the stalls approved prior to them being erected. The actual parameters, the overarching parameters, are already part of an approved document. They require separation between the stalls, they limit the height of the stalls and the artistic exhibits and our transport team require a six metre distance from the river frontage as well for the free passage of pedestrians. Thanks, that's really helpful. I've got one more follow up from Councillor Ainslie. So what impact is the development of Upper Ground 72 going to have on that whole area? I don't believe that's a material planning consideration for this one. I'm going to just see the knots on the head. That is correct, sure. We're not going to take that because it's not a material planning consideration on this. Just ask one quick question around late night events. So we've mentioned ESE and FIDE. If they wanted to do otherwise over that 10 years period, what would they need to do to get that in place? Is that like it then goes as a 10? Licensing presumably? Licensing would be in addition to planning but this planning permission allows only two late night events, New Year's Eve and Pride or something else in the summer which is equivalent to Pride. So they'd actually have to go through a variation of the current planning application. I'm not sure if it would go through committee or not but it would have to be certainly scrutinised by the council. It's very unlikely there would be a creep of additional late night events. In your previous response to Councillor Ainslie you were saying that the location of the distals would need to be approved but who would they approve by the council? Yes, the local planning authority. Any other questions? No, in which case I can see Councillor Ainslie. I didn't want to stop you if it's be accused of preventing a question if it was a late one but it's fine. We will move through to discussing the merits of the application and I'm going to kick off by saying wow it's been a long time. I've been on committee many many years and I remember several presentations from quite a number of years ago saying that this was coming and this was the plan. I don't quite know why it's taken this long but I think that it is an excellent use of people's time to not use our time, not use the resources of the Southbank Centre or Lambeth Council's planning team and everybody else to see things twice a year when there is such a good tried and tested framework that we have in place. I do appreciate that giving over what is in effect almost 10 years or 20 event cycles to without it coming back to committee is potentially quite a big thing so it's a big thing therefore kind of scrutinise that list that you brought up of the different conditions and paperwork that would need to be filled in on an annual basis and I think that Councillor Ainslie's idea is a very good one that we at least have an officer report for note on an annual basis. That means that we and so I definitely would like that to be minuted, it's up to anybody else if they want to go further than that but certainly for it to be minuted that is what we would like to see and I think that again one of the reasons for doing that as well is that when it comes up to the five-year review those who are on the committee or and or any other Councillor because these will be public papers will then be able to have discussions with the chair as to obviously while it is the chair's decision whether it comes before committee at least there's a full set of paperwork in discussions in the meantime so from my point of view I am very supportive of this. If there's anybody else who wishes to add anything let me know Councillor Ainslie. Yeah I'm sure we all do, we walk along the south bank an awful lot. The reason I asked about the impact of other things well I get that it's not to this planning application but I have been concerned on occasions that even the current work that's going on at the south bank has made that space really really congested so I'm worried about creep encroaching on the space. I don't underestimate the absolute cultural value of this I totally get that the south bank centre needs that assurance to get the funding in place all the points that were made so eloquently and you know by getting solar panels perhaps on the south bank centre you can then begin to track your way down to that feeling of the impact of the event so this makes sense to do this. I think we've spoken in previous planning applications to say that this is what should happen so well done officers for making sure that we get this. I didn't expect it to be a 10-year thing but as long as we've got that kind of feedback annually or within five years I'm reassured by that. So just a word of caution around the sense of congestion as we continue to go through the years that I've noticed on the west bank. I'd hate to lose the uninterrupted walk from an ad alone course front with any creep of concessions, any creep of infringement of other developments so but having said all my doubts I am very much in favour of this. Thank you can I seek officer clarification just in terms of I can't remember which condition or otherwise it comes in but I know in the past have tracked kind of what's the comfort level of the number of pedestrians, I forget what that term planning term is in terms of how crowded or not something is and I don't know is that included in one of the I guess conditions that is being reported on that type of figure. There's a visitor management plan which is an approved document which ensures that there's no overcrowding. That's fine that's all I needed I just wanted to confirm and hopefully give the additional reassurance to Councillor Ainslie on that. Anybody else wish to say anything in which case we will move to I say a vote there just to remind there are three different applications here the full planning application the it's just gone in terms of their building consent and the advertising consent so I'll start with the first one proposed the planning application seconder and I'll go for Diogo, Councillor Costa, seconder all those in favour of the planning application sorry I forgot to put my hand up there slow that's a unanimous vote by the committee in favour of the first of these items that under consideration the planning application then for the listed building consent do I have a I propose that to have a seconder I'm going to go for Councillor Bailey all those in favour of the listed building consent and that is unanimous officer's recommendations there are carried and then finally for the advertising consent do I have a seconder if I propose that I go for Councillor Ainslie and do I have all those in favour of advertising consent and that is a unanimous vote in favour that motion is carried and all three parts to reiterate are carried unanimously thank you very much for officers for the work put in on that last item over many years so generally for the whole of the items tonight thank you committee for the efficient but conscientious way of carrying this meeting out and that closes tonight's planning applications committee evening good night [BLANK_AUDIO]