Transcript

Good evening everybody and welcome to this evening's Plan and Applications Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Joanne Simpson and I am Chair of the meeting. In line with legislation, committee members are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. Officers, visiting ward members, and members of the public have joined us either virtually or in person. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. Whilst we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient with some challenges in this live broadcast. In the event that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the Council's Democracy Twitter account, which is at LBL Democracy. Some housekeeping, the fire exits, you exit the room from either door and up the stairs to street level. There's an accessible toilet just outside that door door on the right hand side. There'll be a comfort break around 9pm. We've received apologies from councillors Malcolm Clarke and councillor Salia Jaffa. I'll now introduce members of the committee. We start with councillor Ainsley and work our way this way. Good evening, I'm councillor Ainsley representing Streatham St Leonard's ward. I'm councillor Dirk Costa Oval ward. I'm councillor Martin Bailey for Vauxhall ward. And I'm councillor Joanne Simpson. I represent at Stockwell West and Larkhall ward. I'll now introduce the council officers at this evening's meeting, starting with our presiding officer. Good evening, Kiri Shetworth, Head of Development Management and presiding officer this evening. Thank you. Our democratic services officer. Hi, I'm Vanesha Mishtui. I am the democratic services officer at this meeting. Thank you. And our legal officer. Good evening, Chris Allingham, legal officer. Thank you. And our conservation officer. Hello, Jack Bennett, principal urban designer. Conservation. Sorry, thank you. Our transport officer. The transport officer. And the presenting officer for Myatts Fields Park application. Felicia Labanjo, senior planning officer. Thank you and the manager for that application. Jennifer Walsh, area team manager of Britain. Thank you. And the presenting officer for the Liam Court Road application. Michael Clawson, senior planning officer. Thank you. And the manager. And the manager for that application. I've got two officers here for that. I have to just be your principal planning officer. Thank you. On mute Ben. Ben Lemaire, area team manager for Waterloo and Streatham. Okay, thank you. And for members benefit. We have two external consultants for the Liam Court Road application. We have Juliet Farrow from Averson Young, whose expertise is viability. If you could just say hello. Hello. Thank you. And Robert Armitage, Thompson environmental consultants. I'm here for our, I can never say that word trees. If you want to say hello, please. Hello. You could show your face just so that if we do call upon you, we know who you are. Yes. Thanks for that. Great. Okay. The order of business. There are four items on the agenda. And they will, they'll be considered when they appear on the agenda. All the paperwork is available on the council's website. The applications will be considered in the same way. We first have an officer presentation reports, which should be considered by the committee will be presented by an officer who will highlight the main issues unless the committee members decide that presentation is not required. And we're having presentations this evening speakers. There are five members of the public and one ward councillor who registered to speak for the items on today's agenda. We then consider the application and members of the committee may ask questions of the officers and then we'll consider the application. We then reach a decision. Formal notification of the committee's decision on applications decided this evening will be sent to the applicants and any interested parties who made written representations. The minutes from tonight's meeting will be published on the council's website. The deadline for final written submissions was 12 noon, one clear working day before the meeting. So we start with item one, which is declarations of pecuniary interest. Do any members have any declarations of pecuniary interest they wish to share? Thank you. Item two, do any members have any other declarations of interest they wish to declare? OK, so on to item three, which is Myfield Park. So I now invite the officer to present the report. Thank you so much for joining us today, and I'm going to go to the next slide. The development is the partial definition of the epithubic and erectile system. The site expands the installation of the window. Sorry, Felicia, do you mind speaking up a bit? Just the big screen acts as a sound barrier, so I struggle to. Thanks. The parking demolition of the depot drill bin and erection of a single storey engine extension to provide a community centre, together with the provisions of bins, circumstance, the installation of new gates, and pedestrians retention of the carpet road, entrance from vehicle, car park, and associated works. The application site is located within Myfield Park, a registered listed park, and all within the state conservation area. Existing building is in the middle of the town street or the property, the property, the property, and the property. The building is occupied by Myfield Park, and its projects, building, enterprise, and activities. The existing building has a U-shaped layout. The part of the installation of the building, outlined in red, shows which part of the building it will need to be in its environment. Both of the brands, building this neighborhood, inner courtyard, and innovation. The brand floor plans show the extent of the destination, outlining the road that will be in the front of the site. The wall will be at the front of the blaze link extension of the wall link, such as the land floor, boundary wall, rain, and sweeping the link, as well as creating a new road trip, from an eastern side of the street. In a limited area, shown on the existing wall plans, dimensionally carefully carefully situation, as we are able to ensure the layout of the entrance station is delimited, and does not open on the site. Close-ground floor plans, in the front of the window, show the scope of the works. The load has made better use of the options, and is about compositing the development of the existing park. In a large part, with a new story of extensions, and once you hold back, as well as the new entrance gate, with the income visibility of the building, creating all the new issues into the building, so it really is extreme conflict. The development of the building, due to the location, shown in front of the building, as well as the extension, will not be done across the openness of the park, your home and the house, and that's the same suspension areas. Therefore, officers are recommending this application to prove subject to condition for talent. So we now turn to our registered speakers, and we have two people who are in support of the application. I'll take them in the order that they are on my list, starting with Eliza Infante. Are they here or online? Okay, next Victoria Sherwood. I've got the scripts printed out. Yeah, could you? Yeah, we'll start with Eliza Infante. So all I have for the information is that it's on behalf of Myatt's Fields Park Project. The officer's going to read it out for us. So the proposal to develop the depot buildings comprising approximately 100 square meters of existing building refurbishment and infills, to create a single conglomerate even whole that will be better served the needs and community engagement aims of the Myatt's Fields Park Project. The existing park building... Sorry, I haven't got time, I think. The existing park building currently serves a variety of purposes, including a base for various community projects and offices for the park management team employed by Myatt's Fields Park Project. The depot buildings and adjoining greenhouse and planting areas were originally used to incubate shrubs and plant out for the park. Now the depot buildings act more like an incubator for small scale community enterprises and activities, including food production, food health and safety and horticultural training. By tailoring the depot facilities to better suit Myatt's Fields Park Project needs, they aim to make these opportunities more visible and more accessible to local people. The existing buildings offer a number of small spaces, but none large enough to host larger events such as plant swaps, community celebrations or family days, which currently at the mercy of the weather and risk of last minute cancellations. There has been a substantial progress made already in relation to this project. This includes work done over the last 10 years in preparation for a project brief and concept design, local consultation and approved planning applications. In public consultations for previous schemes, it was found a larger number of respondents didn't know that the building was open for community and public use, perhaps due to the inward looking elevations and lack of obvious entrance from the parking or the road. The proposed alterations and extensions include creation of public access directly from the street, as well as a new entryway to the enclosed courtyard multi-use space from the car parking area. Access to the greenhouse is made accessible by introducing a 1 to 21 slope to the raised floor level. The three main uses of the building, office-based training and events, all coexist simultaneously without negatively impacting on one another. Over the next few months, the park project aims to develop plans to use the newly redeveloped building that builds on their experience of running events, facilitating building hire and nurturing enterprises to create new sources of income for the park from different rental opportunities, facilities, including an essential foyer capable of following 40 people, 60 people standing in the training rooms. Thank you. What I should have said at the beginning of that, this is for everybody who's registered to speak, is that you have two minutes and Venetia will start the timer. It beeps when you have 20 seconds to go and then the final beep is when the two minutes is up and I'll ask you to finish your sentence. OK, so we're now going to hear Victoria Sherwin's representation in support. I'm currently the lead for Myatsfield Forum, part of the Lambeth Forum's network, plus the coordinator of the Lambeth Food Partnerships, Food 5 Ways, a local partnership that aims to improve access to healthy, affordable food around Myatsfield Park Park. I'm also a local resident living near the park. There is an acute need to improve access to food in our neighbourhood, which is a localised environment with very poor access to healthy food. Thousands of people live in flats with high levels of poverty, ill-housing isolation, particularly among the people from the local majority and amongst older people. Myatsfield Park project has transformed the park and the neighbourhood over the past 20 years, raising more than £4 million to create a place that everyone feels safe and secure. The park offers a home to six local businesses that provide employment opportunities, improve health and wellbeing and support a circular economy. The park leads on climate action and biodiversity, supporting food growing from its community greenhouse and developing 30% of the park for biodiversity. The depot's potential to support climate action, community engagement, empowerment and enterprise is severely limited by the design of the depot building with its range of small ground roofs. By creating one large eating and meeting space with a community kitchen, local residents will benefit the local enterprise and a space for informal and accredited training, particularly around horticulture, food growing and food enterprise. The depot will be able to host regular events to improve access to food and combat isolation. It will enable an increase in income generation from the space hire and events to make the park maintenance more sustainable over the long term. I fully support the proposed development of the project. OK, thank you. So that's all our registered speakers, but for members benefits and there's also technical specialist online, David Johnson from Dannet Johnson Architects, who's the architect for the scheme. OK, so open up to questions. Any questions from members? Yes. Given the credentials, the biodiversity requirements and all that, I was wondering why, maybe it's the architect that can answer, cross laminated timber in the construction wasn't considered instead of wooden cladding. OK, if we go to the case officer, first of all. So it was Heathcliff Johnson, wasn't it? Are you online, Mr Johnson? Yes, I'm here. Hi, did you hear Councillor Ainsley's question? I did, yes. Thank you very much. Yeah, the principal reason for the selected design, this is quite a technical question, is that what we've actually got are laminated timber beams with conventional timber joists spanning between them to create the roof. We have used cross laminated timbers previously, but in this case, the scale of the project, for one reason, we didn't feel it justified cross laminated timber. And we also actually feel that it's a slightly more sustainable solution, given the cross laminated timber is an engineered product rather than a crafted product. I mean, we could look at it as an alternative, but in this case, we followed what we were working with our structural engineer we've considered to be the most economic and the most sustainable solution. Well, thank you. Councillor Ainsley. Yeah, thanks. Thank you for that. I'm a bit confused though. Was it more to do with sustainability or more to do with cost savings? Well, with sustainability because cross laminated timber does involve using glues to actually glue the various laminations together to create the slab that you're making. And in that sense, it's a product which is using glues which aren't necessarily more sustainable than using a timber with a nail. Okay, thank you. I think we've had our panel. Okay. Any other questions for members? Councillor Nye. Can I just ask if a toilet's known to be accessible to the public from the outside? I think there's a public toilet right into the side, which is the house known to be toilets within the building are not accessible and it's the building that's open for functions. I think it's nearby. I can't read this, is it? Any other questions? Okay, I'm going to move us on to debating the application. Does anybody want to comment on the merits of the scheme and perhaps indicate how they're minded to vote this evening and why? Have our vice chair with us this evening? Thank you, Councillor Ainslie. Yes, I mean, this sounds like a good use of the space and I'm very mindful to approve it. I do wish that we would consider materials that do absorb carbon rather than emit it. I've heard that apply. It's always something that I try and press on, cross laminated timber as a good sustainable, genuinely sustainable solution. Having said that, I think this is a project and I might need to be forced in favour of it. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any other hands. It's not a complex application. It's obviously compliant with the development plan and I'm very happy with the public benefits that this is going to bring. So yes, I'm going to propose that we accept officer's recommendation and grant plan of permission. Do I see a seconder? Councillor Ainslie, all those in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you. Okay, right. We're going to move straight on to our final item, which is land rear or steam court road. So I invite the case officer to give the presentation, please. Thank you all. I'm just about to present the scheme for land rear 148 land court road. So planning permission is sought for the erection of three five storey buildings, which include roof space and semi basements to provide a total of 34 residential units together with provisioned car parking spaces at low ground for a level of wash pain, bicycle parking, refuge storage, landscaping, boundary treatments and a new access via Curtisfield Road. So the application site is located just south west of 148 land court road and is indicated in the red outline shown here. The site boundaries show the site in relation to its wider context, with the site sitting along the southern side of land court road and then on the northern side of Curtisfield road. Access points to the site are shown here with Lane Court road access shown under number one and Curtisfield road access shown under number two, respectively. Neighbouring properties adjacent to the site are shown on the left hand side image with a number of residential properties ranging from between two to seven storeys and storeys in height and these generally decrease in height as you slope downwards from north to south across the site's to property. The majority of the neighbouring properties are in private ownership, with the exception of the Valley Road estate, which is just south of the site, just along Curtisfield road connecting to Samuel Johnston and close. This is opposite the southern end of the site as mentioned and this is under the ownership of the Lambeth housing estate team. There is also, as indicated in number two on the left hand image, a small triangular parcel of land which separates Curtisfield road from the site itself. This is owned by the Lambeth's asset management team. Easement over this parcel of land is necessary to facilitate the development and a separate agreement to grant this has been reached between the council and the developer. So the current site and the surroundings are shown in these various images are present. The location of the proposed northern access route from Lane Court Road alongside the side elevation and rear communal meeting space of 148 Lane Court Road are shown in the top left and bottom left images. The top left image also shows two windows for the ground floor level, a flat one for 148 Lane Court Road and these are habitable windows that serve a bedroom. Current views from within the site are illustrated in the top middle and top right images. You will see that the site is largely overgrown and unkept and currently vacant. The top middle image shows a view from inside the southern part of the site facing north towards Fuller House and Highview Port and the top right image shows a view from 148 Lane Court Road facing southwest across the site. The bottom middle and bottom right images show views across the site from outside the site boundaries with the bottom middle image showing views from Fairbridge close facing west and the bottom right image showing the view from forward depth close facing south. In this screen here we can see the existing proposed site plans. The existing site plan is shown in the top image and it's a little hard to see on this screen that the top image also indicates the general topography of the site with a sloping topography from north to south running from approximately 73 square meters, 73 meters in the northern corner down to approximately 60 inches towards the southern corner. Below the proposed site plan shown in the bottom image demonstrates the general array of blocks A, B and C across the side, the block C being close to the north of the most southern part of the site. Here we see the proposed elevations for block A, B and C. These demonstrate the proposed fenestration adorning each building including entrances, balcony, high level windows, where they face towards an acreage building. And then the proposed section shown in this next image show how the buildings will sit in respect of the wider site and the site topography. The current ground floor level of the site topography is shown in the blue line which runs across each of the images. A particular note of the proposed park basements which is shown for each of the buildings in relation to expected ground levels across the site and stepping down the building heights assuming it's from north to south. Also shown is the proposed lower ground floor car park located from the block A. So there are a number of groups to be removed on site and this table just outlines the those trees that are to be removed. A total of 14 trees are to be removed including tree 18 which includes five sycamore trees within it. Of these the trees that are subject to tree preservation orders are tree number one, tree number three, tree number four. Tree number one is currently in poor condition it's a category used sycamore and T4 whilst it's a category B slash C meaning to value from the last survey that was undertaken this year. That tree has found to have snapped in half and is currently in poor condition. Both those trees are recommended for felling regardless of whether development continues or not. Those that are not in poor condition only the common line T3 is to be felled to facilitate the development. It's noted that whilst this tree is recorded as a category of being of honour of quality category B slash C this is principally due to it being part of a more valuable wider collective of trees along the south eastern boundary. The site will provide next screening as opposed to any individual specimen value that it possesses. This screening function is largely maintained with the retention of other trees along that south boundary supplemented with the proposed planting and the proposed part of development. The reasoning and the resulting proposed loss of this tree was agreed with the previous lab of CREPS a number of years ago. Of the trees that are designated for removal which aren't protected the majority of these are category C trees which there are seven that are due to be removed alongside two category U trees. There are also two category B non-TPO trees which will be removed to facilitate development a T2 lime located towards the southern boundary of the site and a T20 oak tree located towards the north western boundary. The removal of these trees are required to facilitate the developments of blocks A and C respectively. Further details the species placement and long-term survival of the placement trees are secured under conditions 23, 24 and 26. Compliance and crew protection measures for those to be retained are skewed under conditions 27 to 29. The slide 9 shows the landscaping layout, proposed landscaping layout. The image shown here outlines the majority of the space between the buildings due to feature a variety of planting, planting measures including lawns, herbaceous planting and designated wildlife in the area to the bottom left which will be fenced off from public accessibility. There's also the green roofs which are they only indicated in this image on the top of each of the blocks but they are included as part of the proposed landscaping as well as the green roofs that can be shown on the lower section of the grooves as well as the sidewall parping and refuge storage. communal gardens and children play spaces are also proposed and these are located between the buildings and these are to a policy compliant amount for use by the future of the cars. other landscaping including pedestrian paving to provide permeability throughout the site as well as the loading bays and vehicle entrance from Kurtisfield Road are also shown in the image and further landscaping details are secured under conditions 23, 6. In conclusion officers are satisfied the proposal is acceptable recommend that the application is granted subject to conditions section 6 obligations as set out in the officer report and later addendums. Thank you and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you and before we go to questions we have some registered speakers we have two objectors here this evening starting with Steve Mannion who is here in person I believe. Hi there if you just want to make your way to the table. So if you could let us know your name introduce yourself and your relationship to the application and then your two minutes will begin. I'm Steve Mannion I'm the resident of 148 in Port Road, have been since 2021. We object to the current plans in our view unreasonable amount of occupation and development of the strip of land between building 148 in Port Road and the railings between our garden grounds and the neighbouring hydro court. In the submitted plan documents the question of whether there would be loss of garden land to nearby residents was answered as no. This to us seemed clearly incorrect. The information strip of land has the affiliated formation railings of brick walls surely formed part of 148 Leonport Road's garden grounds since the building's own construction. We note that the executive summary refers to the applicant as having provided land registry documents confirming a right of way over this strip of land. However we also have land registry documents including the title plan for our property indicating that this strip of land is within the grounds or boundaries of 148 Leonport Road. Our understanding is that a shared right to access has existed for some time between the owners of 148 and the owner of the land directly in the south west property. Surely we're severely concerned over specifically how we may continue to access our own back garden from the front of the building and indeed allow for reasonable passage of large equipment, for example scaffolding small vehicles even if needed for any construction work or emergency situations within our buildings grounds. We had in fact been having to install our own bicycle storage facility on the strip of land which this plan would unfairly we feel deny us the prospect of. The gate indicated on only one of the most recent plans as granting us access to our own garden from the proposed path appears very small and quickly scaled to a degree we feel is unreasonable with no details on the gate slide design specific means of operation. There could be inconsistency in the plans regarding exact shape and position of the path from block C to Leonport Road with some still representing the path that's running right alongside our buildings lower ground floor flat windows really affecting the inhabitants of privacy there. Okay thank you very much. Okay um we now have Florence Fairweather Hello hello so again yes if you just let us know your name and your relationship to the application and then your two minutes will begin. Sure Florence Fairweather owner and resident at 148 Leonport Road. Whilst I agree with development of the site it must be recognised that regardless of what light reports state block C is extremely detrimental detrimental to our communal outdoor space to the rear of 148 Leonport Road along with the ground and first floor flats. No consideration has been taken in the design to mitigate the effects of this. Placement of block C tied to the boundary and due south of us maximises the overshadowing of our garden area and lower flats. This arrangement only benefits the developers profit margin. No efforts have been made by the applicants during this long process to reconsider the design of block C and how it will negatively affect our homes. It should also be emphasised that figure three in the report is a section of site facing northwest showing topography and building heights still falsely shows 148 Leonport Road as having a pitched roof which is not representative. Okay thank you very much. Okay we have one more um speaker um before the board council and that's Richard Evans who's here in person I believe to support the application. Hi there so if you introduce yourself and your relationship to the application then your two minutes will begin. Hello uh thank you chair members I'm Richard Evans at Carnie Sweeney planning consultants here representing the applicants. I don't intend to repeat the officer's report um simply refer members to the recommendation to approve subject to conditions and section 106. I'd like to thank the officers for their time and efforts to reach this position to help bring forward this Wimple site to deliver much needed housing within Lambeth. Should members have any questions um we'd be happy to respond to them. Thank you chair. Okay thank you if you want to make your way back and then our final speaker is the world councillor who is online I'm hoping. Yes that's right uh councillor Malcolm Clarke Streatham Wells. Thank you so if you just just want to um let us know and we'll start the timer. Okay thank you uh I welcome the application finally coming to committee offering productive use of this backland site. I understand resident anxiety about development here for many years I lived at the bottom of Liam Close a literal stone's throw from red line site and engaged with planning applications for the backland area of neighbouring Karoo House which eventually became the block of flats and houses of Broad Ash Close and Fuller House. Just like that scheme here I can see the benefits that more housing brings to an area and I'm pleased that the development will include some flats and amenities suitable for families. The design looks to me to sensitively reflect the changing land levels and the relationship with most of the neighbouring buildings but it is right that 148 Liam Court Road residents concerns on protecting their own access to private amenity space is recognised. I think it has been somewhat by the developers but more could still be done. Equally I recognise there's still an impact on that amenity space and some of the lower flats there. This is one of the things that committee members will need to weigh up tonight and I also hope that if approved the developer will be encouraged to improve its communication with neighbouring properties. Pre-2022 I worked with Valley Road Estate residents, Lambeth Housing and Lambeth Parks to see how development on this site could bring wider benefits. Opening up direct pedestrian access from the middle of Curtis Field Road to Liam Court Road and the 417 bus stops will be a game changer for an estate with really poor petal. I hope that securing this public pedestrian access can be clarified and ensured. I would have also expected there to be some section 106 contributions towards Valley Road playing fields especially considering the development backs onto the field and you'd expect significant use of it by residents including families using the play equipment which would be better than that provided on site and 12 to 17 year olds who are less well catered for with on-site provision as the report states. Finally, a note of caution for delivery and servicing plans and for parking permits. These differ significantly for Liam Court Road and Curtis Field Road, the latter being a Lambeth Housing Road not a public highway. Officers should be cognisant of this when signing off to section 106 in any conditions. Thank you. Okay, thank you Councillor Clarke. Right, so we'll open up to questions. Any questions from members? Councillor Ainslie. Yeah, let's stick with the first major consideration that I'd like. This is an open space and I don't see any consideration given to that. As set out in the London plan. There's a London plan glossary that says that all land in London that is predominantly undeveloped other than by buildings or structure that are ancillary to open space use. The definition covers the broad range of types of open space within London whether in public or private ownership and whether public access is unrestricted, limited or restricted. There's no consideration of open space as I've understood it in this report. So what can be done about that? The site itself is not outlined as designated open space. It's a garden land that was previously severed off from 148 Liam Court Road. Given that its last use was as garden land. Policy Q14 14 is relevant and assessment based on policy Q14. It's been up to take. Thank you. So it's not designated open space. It is existing open space. So what why is there? I don't see any difference in the national planning policy framework wording, the London plan wording or even our own local Lambeth Plan policy EN1 that says that we would protect and maintain open space. So not it's not designated open space. It's it's back garden land. Okay, any more questions? That's a nine. Can I ask about the management plan for greenery on site? So how long is that going to be in place for and then what who will maintain the green needs for the other landscaping bits that you mentioned in your report? So the condition that relates to green groups under 25 is support with the invitation groups in terms of the management and maintenance of the green groups that be down to the owners of the site. And this is likely to be covered by certain strategies to occupiers. Can I ask a question about land ownership matters? I mean, my understanding is that's not a planning matter for us this evening, but can you clarify that for members? Because obviously it was brought to our attention by one of the residents. Yes. So we, when the application was submitted, we got the red line boundary, which included that section of land alongside 148 Lane Court Road. That was then raised in representations that there were some concerns about that being under the ownership of, for instance, 148 Lane Court Road. We put that to the applicant and they provide us with a copy of the land registry, which outland that they had right of access across that strip of land and therefore are able to undertake development of that. Okay. So it's not something we can consider land ownership issues. It's not within our remit this evening. And I'm sorry, I'd like to ask another question about the other point that was raised by a resident about the loss of sunlight to the communal space. In the report, I can see the assessment pertains to properties, but I could, I might have missed it, but I couldn't see anything about the outdoor space. Could you just clarify what, what is the percentage of sunlight loss, et cetera? You know, what's happening there? Yeah, so we received a daylight sunlight and overshadowing assessment, which included overshadowing assessments for all the neighbouring properties that are going on the site. That outlined the, I don't have the specific figure to hand, but that included a figure that was acceptable in the concept of policy. We also went out to an independent advisor to review the daylight sunlight assessment, and they found that both the methodology and the resulting figures to be acceptable. And therefore, the overshadowing impact on all the main space of labour properties were considered to be successfully acceptable. Okay, thank you. I think I would like a bit more information about that particular plot. So I understand what you're saying, that the figure is acceptable in policy terms, but I'd still like to understand, you know, what, what time of day and what, what is the, the amount of overshadowing? I don't know if somebody wants to look into that and we'll be asking another question. I think Astra's busy looking at the report. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions in the meantime? Councillor Ainslie. It became clearer during that presentation. Thank you for the extra photographs in it. That is a very long, narrow strip of access space. It, of course, is a very busy road. That look, the buildings through which the narrow access point just, it looks worryingly very, very close. There's no other access point, presumably. That's, but what, what consideration has been given to to take care of, um, residents, um, uh, the noise, the dust, the, um, accessibility of, of heavy, uh, chunery and traffic, it, from those pictures, it looked virtually impossible. Um, obviously there was site visits, but there were many years ago before I was even on this committee, so I've not, I've, I've passed that quite a lot, that area, and it does look worryingly small. Yes, some, uh, response to that, please. Yes, so the, um, just on the matter of construction, uh, and the movement of construction access, the, um, there was a construction management plan that was submitted, um, which outlined that there would be no, uh, construction access from the Lancore Road entrance, um, into the site. It would all be through the Kurtzville Road entrance, uh, during construction. Um, additionally, in terms of the, uh, immunity impacts, um, through discussions with, um, uh, raising concerns with, with the applicant, there were some redesigns to reduce the overall footfall, um, along that access path, um, as well as the incorporation of a 1.8m high, uh, boarded privacy screen or fencing, um, to ensure that, uh, especially that the lower ground floor, uh, the ground floor flat, flat one, that I've pointed out during these site visit photos, uh, that there will be, uh, an acceptable loss of privacy, uh, into that habitable window, um, and the, these measures were, were taken on board and then redesigned and accommodated, um, to, in order to reduce, uh, immense impacts on the residents of 1.4.8. Uh, alongside this, um, the developer has sought to include, uh, an access gate alongside, uh, uh, that, uh, torture fence to provide it, continue to provide access, uh, for residents of 1.4.8 Lane Court Road into that community space, um, at the, uh, ground floor to the grid. Okay, thank you. Councillor Ainslie. Yeah, thank you. Um, could you just pull up a photograph of the, so are you talking about access, not from the Umcourt Road, from the other road? I've, sorry, I forgot the name of it. Could you just show us that access again, please? I think this, the proposed site plan helps demonstrate it. So there's the, the Kurtzfoot Road, uh, access and entrance, uh, towards the southern part of the site is going to be the, the predominant access into, uh, and throughout the site, uh, for, uh, residents. Can I just add to, there'd be no vehicle access from the Umcourt Road, that would just be for pedestrian zone late. Thank you. That's helpful. So if I may, Chair, can I just, um, have, uh, what concerns have been raised from, I had to say in reading the report, I wasn't sure that, that, was going to be used as an access point. Um, sorry, my eyes are really bad at, what's the name of the road again? That's, what's called? Kurtzfield Road. Kurtzfield Road. Um, are, are there any, have there been any concerns from neighbours about access on that point? Uh, as in what, from the, uh, the southern point, uh, the vehicle of access? Yeah, I know, yeah. Um, there's been, as, as far as I remember, there's been no, uh, concerns raised with regards to, to that matter from the rest of the field. And finally, because I know this area quite well, um, does that road lead directly onto the, the, the playing fields? The, uh, yes. So just, yes, just north of, uh, where, where you see to the left of Block A, where Kurtzfield Road is, um, actually it might be better if I go back to, so just beyond, uh, the Valley Road estate at the bottom left of that image, um, not too far up from there is the entrance to, uh, the Valley Road playing field. It's about 50 metres, give or take, distance from the southern access point, uh, of the site. Thank you. Whilst we're on, um, the Valley Road playing fields, can I ask, um, what Councillor Clark raised? So it's, it's been relied on, um, for, to provide play space, off, offsite play space for older children living in the development. Um, so, um, what was the reason for, for not seeking a financial contribution towards that space? So the, the proposed development would meet, uh, all policy requirements in respect of the amount of provision of children's play space, uh, for all age groups, uh, together, um, as a result of meeting that policy requirement, there's no requirement, uh, for a section 106 contribution towards the, uh, the, uh, plan of bills. Um, these are covered off in the GLA Yield Calculator, which is shown, I believe, in Table 2, uh, in the report. If yes, Table 2, on page 73. Okay, right, thank you. Um, is it related? Please come on playground equipment, please. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, disappointing that we can see that equipment in the plans, um, the documents that you gave us. Will the new families be able to talk to or give their views on what they might see? So we have secured, uh, condition seven, which is secures the, uh, details, full details of the, uh, playground equipment. Um, obviously that, that information will then be submitted to us, uh, for review. Um, and whilst, uh, this is, we can't control that those conversations take place, um, and it's a matter that can be, um, advised by an informative or something. Okay. Um, we touched briefly on this about place, though. Yeah. Yes. A quick question. Will that be available to non-residents? Uh, no, it won't be available for the residents of, uh, the, uh, for the, the size itself. You want them to go? Yeah. Not really. Um, I have a question on transport. Again, it's just what, um, Councillor Clarke raised about parking permits and, um, um, and also with the CPZ, some, uh, being consulted on and some are within housing estates, um, uh, councils. So is all that taken into consideration and reflected in the section 106? Um, yeah. So in section 106, we're securing a contribution towards, um, CPZ consultations. We, um, the parking team recently completed a consultation on, um, I think it's the West Norwood area CPZ. So the streets to the north and east of the site, including the site itself. And this is going through the results of, of that consultation exercise. And they're hoping it's on the programme for this year to consult on the, um, Valley Road estate, the housing estate as well on whether they want a CPZ as well. Um, and in the section 106, the, um, the standard clause will prevent, uh, will prohibit the, um, residents of this development getting, uh, CPZ permits to either CPZ or any CPZ in the future. Okay. Um, Councillor Clarke, if you're still on the call, um, does that answer your, um, point that you raised in your representation about the parking permits? Uh, yes, it does. It was ensuring that, um, it included the wording was suitable for both the housing and the, uh, and the highways land. So yes, I am reassured. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Um, any other questions? Councillor Bailey. Yeah, to the, um, EPZ. So because PTAL won't be permissible to have 16 parking spaces, but how does that, what, what consideration of office was given to a wider kind of, uh, hard reduction, car dependency and try to shift, you know, motor shift residents away from their cars and actually how much offers to explore just giving the size for allocation because it's permissible, but actually what, what you could do otherwise. Um, yeah, there is a travel plan, um, obligation as well and, uh, contribution to monitoring the, the travel plan secured and that we, through that we hope to, um, secure a motor shift and there'll be parking design and management plan as well so that, um, we can ensure that there is no more than 16 spaces being used because often with these, um, you could have people parking outside the designated bays and things like that. So it will be limited to, to what's approved. Yeah. Um, and otherwise it, it is a, a PTAL of one. We need this once the worst, um, PTAL, um, going. So, and that local plan policy, like you mentioned, does, it does allow for this, this level of, of parking. So we have to assess it on, on, on that basis. Do officers feel it was truly necessary to have that full allocation given to the site? Uh, not necessary, but it's what's before us and that's what reactor says. Auxler Nye. I just want to move on transport, cycle storage. It mentions in, uh, the second addendum that short stay visitor spaces will be outside. For residents, is it going to be, there's going to be cycle storage inside? Yeah. Yeah, so blocks A and B will have a quite a large, um, dedicated store within the, the basement as well. And block A will have an external store beside their building. Oh, block C will have an external store outside their building and A and B will have it in the basement. It will have it, an enclave. Yeah. I know there's a big theft problem in the area of bikes, so they'll be able to lock them away. Yes. Yeah. I do also have, uh, enemies as well that might not demonstrate this later on. Just a reminder for follow-up questions by the chair, please. Okay, all right. So everyone's done it. So the, uh, yeah, the cycle storage, um, the long-term storage for visitors, uh, within block A, um, uh, is shown in the left image. Um, the visitor bikes, um, for, uh, also some of the visitor bikes are shown in the middle, uh, right by the entrance that will be, uh, covered as well. Um, and then, yeah, for block C, that's the remainder of the long stay inside the gate, uh, also under, uh, cover, uh, and the same for the visitor spaces, which are just on the other side of that gate. Thank you. Um, just before I come to cut to A, have we got that information yet on the overshadowing of the communal space? Yeah, I believe we do. We have it for, yeah, so we have, um, as included for, uh, within the daylight summer system, uh, that the, uh, the analysis, uh, of the overshadowing, uh, to the relevant neighbouring immunity areas, uh, adjacent to the site, uh, are with and without, uh, trees, uh, they prefer to home and overshadowing. Um, uh, within the, uh, development results and controls confirmed, including and excluding the trees, uh, all but one immunity area that's by BRU's criteria. The area in question would be at five border close, uh, which passes just seven days later, including the next three of the trees, uh, therefore, uh, your outcome has been achieved in perspective. Um, I also appreciate you wanting, um, figures as well. Um, I believe we have the figures for, um, assessment, uh, without consideration of the trees, um, and figures for that for 148 Lane Corridor specifically, um, has a, uh, lit area as existing for, uh, 86.12, um, and then the lit area closed is 86.11, um, so it maintains, uh, almost 100% of the, uh, uh, available lot that it gets, um, direct sunlight, um, and therefore need to be our E criteria. Okay, thank you. So that has been independently assessed as well by a third party. Okay, thank you. Okay, Councillor Ainslie. Um, I heard Councillor Clarke mentioning that, um, it would give access to the people that are living around the playing field at the bottom, um, to Liamcote Road and the bus route. Um, it's quite a steep incline, um, would, would it actually give accessibility for people to walk through from the football pitch at the bottom of Valley Field, uh, up through these blocks to get to Liamcote Road? So the, uh, site itself is not a public footpath throughout the site, um, as, uh, mentioned earlier, with regards to the concerns raised by residents from Hawaii and Laneport Road regarding that site access and the potential of meeting to concerns that would be solved, they were going to be used for a public footpath, um, must have sought to, uh, undertake the experience of the action to address those concerns, and the resultant outcome of that would be, um, of itself would be for all of us certainly, and would be gated at the top, um, um, outside of Block C, uh, to reduce the other protocols. So his noise to servants, um, uh, and particular antisocial behaviour, uh, directly adjacent to the properties of Blackway. Thank you. Yes, it helps have an input on. What's that? So you have an image? Right. So, yeah, if you can, the, the proposed site plan here, um, as you can see, obviously, there's the access from Courtsville Road to Blocks A and B, um, Block C has the access from Laneport Road, and then there's a gate, um, separating the, uh, the availability of, uh, general members of the public to walk down that road, but not access, uh, the remainder of the site, um, again, as mentioned, to reduce the overall footfall, uh, and immunity impacts on, uh, neighbouring, uh, occupiers 148, um, Block C, uh, to further also reduce the footfall, uh, Block C, um, the access was split, so only Block C has access to the Laneport Road, uh, access point, uh, and then Blocks A and B, uh, access via Percival Road, but do not have access via, uh, Laneport Road. Yeah, so the ward councillor did raise, sorry, the ward councillor did raise that as a kind of, uh, a potential benefit that, um, people that live, um, down the right place would be able to access the bus to be taken to Bristol Palace or to Stratham Hill, to, um, Victoria, et cetera. So, um, that, that's not going to apply here at all. There's no there's no win-win there, is there at all. It's kind of, um, yeah, I'm just seeking clarity on that. It's not going to, it's not going to improve any paytile rating or anything like that, so I'll just take it in. So, um, predominantly due to the current availability of land, not so much the layout of, of the blocks themselves. It's that small sliver of land adjacent to Watford Laneport Road that, uh, when the, uh, application first came in, there was a path throughout the site, um, but the privacy concerns that were raised by neighbouring residents, uh, were reviewed and assessed against the possibility of this being used as a, as a public access across the site. Um, and the privacy, or the immunity concerns that were raised, uh, were not considered to be able to be overcome whilst retaining the, uh, public footpath. Um, alongside that, there's also the consideration not just with, uh, outside, uh, neighbouring properties, uh, and residents, but also within the future occupiers within the blocks themselves. Um, for example, the, the path that, uh, adorned the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, effectively the western side of block B, uh, given the topography of the site, which is fairly steep compared to the surrounding area, would mean that, um, if this were the public footpath, um, that, um, users would have to then walk up beyond, um, uh, the occupiers of the ground, uh, and lower ground floors, uh, perhaps for block B, that's an example, uh, and the potential privacy concerns that that would then be in place, uh, as well as other. You have habitual windows that serve, um, kitchen diners and bedrooms. Okay. Um, I have an access question, um, but it's about hedgehogs. Um, I see the, um, recommendations in the, uh, preliminary, um, ecological assessment, um, but no mention of, um, holes in the boundary treatment for hedgehogs. Um, is that, that, uh, that elsewhere or? I know these details have been secured by a condition. So condition 23, obviously, uh, um, outlines the, um, uh, details have to be, uh, confirmed with regards to, um, improvements, um, and that includes any kind of aid, um, the amount of features which include the position of hedgehogs. Ah, great. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Perhaps not Ainsley. Yeah, I've got a question on the financial viability assessment. Um, so, uh, I wonder if officers could just walk us through the, um, financial viability assessment. So 34 units have been proposed to be built. Now that would require, is it 25% or 35%?

1. Okay. So what, how many units would that equate to? Six or not? Yeah, this might be a question that we refer to, uh, our viability consultant. Okay. We have, um, Paminda Dessange here in person from Aspinall Verdi who undertook the viability assessment, I believe. Are they? Yeah. Hi there. If you, if you could make your way to the speakers table, um, if members have some questions about this. Oh, I'm sorry. Wrong story. I'm sorry. Juliet Farrow from Aberston Young. Apologies. Here online. Oh yes. She said hello earlier. Thank you. Hello. Um, so I think members are going to have some questions about viability. Do you have sort of an overview to start with that might answer some questions? Yes, of course. Um, so the viability has, has been assessed against a benchmark land value, which in this case is nominal given the existing use value of the site as amenity land. Um, due to significant build costs, it was decided that, um, providing units on site was not possible and so therefore a payment in lieu has been agreed. Instead. Okay. Could you perhaps talk us through the figures as well? Yes. Oh, one thing. So. A benchmark land value of, um, £90,000 was agreed to reflect the existing use value. We then valued the 34 private residential units that are proposed along with the car parking spaces, which gave us a gross development value in the region of £17 million. From that we then deducted, um, the various construction costs, still section 106 to come up with a payment in lieu figure. Um, and then from that, I understand there was an additional deduction relating to an additional section 106 requirement relating to the trees on site. So, um, if, if our target is 35% affordable housing and we got 34, uh, units, um, that we should have, um, should be about 11 affordable units that we should have. Um, no, but you've charged the developer 445,000. You divide 445,000 by 11, that's 40,000 pounds per unit. Now that's really quite low. Um, I can't see us being able to build any affordable housing for 40,000 pounds. Um, so how, how come the figure's been so far revised down? Um, yeah, cause we can't get anything for that. No, so we tested it, um, following the various viability guidance and we tested firstly a policy compliant quantum of affordable housing on site and it generated a negative land value, which would indicate that no developer would undertake that scheme. So therefore we had to, um, look at it a different way. We couldn't, um, get any affordable housing on site to create a viable figure that, that would be, that, uh, that provided a profit margin that a developer would, would pursue. And so that's why we then had to go to the, to the payment in lieu figure instead, which it, it doesn't reflect a policy compliant amount of affordable housing. It reflects a lesser sum, um, through the viability testing. Okay, we're going to hear from the presiding officer, then I'll come back to see if we've got a follow up. Yeah, I, I think it's just that last point that Juliet was making. It's that the 445,000 pounds doesn't get us 11 residential units. Once you, so you start off from saying, yes, we want 35% for this to be a fast track scheme. However, in this case, because of viability, it's not possible to get any affordable units on site. So we then work out what is the maximum reasonable figure that we can get. It doesn't, you don't then equate that back to how many units that provides. Once you've gone down the financial viability testing and there's no on site delivery, we are just seeking the maximum reasonable amount which we get in the payment in lieu. And that payment in lieu is then fed back into us as the council using it to get affordable housing on other sites. So it's not a 445 divided by 11 because it's, it's not equivalent to 11 residential units at that point. It is. We have essentially sweated the developer to make sure we get the most amount of money that is maximum reasonable from this development that we can put into affordable housing elsewhere. So it's not, it's not that simple division. That's clear. Okay. Councillor Ainslie. Do you have a follow up question? So I, yeah, I, I kind of understood all that and I kind of understood that we, you know, there wasn't a chance to create affordable units on site. However, how many affordable units will we get for 445,000 elsewhere and where will they be and how will that happen? So, uh, the same way that we secure PIL on any, uh, development, we get the money through the section 106. Um, it then goes into our pot, um, us being, being the council. Um, and there is then a process where we allocate it to appropriate developments that could be developments that we as the council are delivering, um, through our new homes programme. Um, you know, often we have to pull different section 106 contributions together to get us the affordable. Um, so there isn't when we're securing this section 106, we can't say we will use this money for X because we need to work out where it is, but effectively it comes into the council and we then with our housing colleagues work out where the best place to put that money is to get maximum value and achieve affordable housing units for us as the council. Okay. Is it related to this particular development because we're straining to like general policy now, which, and it's not really relevant to us making a decision this evening? Isn't it? Um, I mean, I just, I, I, um, did you give us a sense of how many units we might get for that somewhere? Could it be one or two? No, I can't because it will depend on the scheme. So for instance, if we, as the council were developing one of our sites under our new homes programme, um, it will depend on where that site is, what the bill costs are, um, as to how much we get. So, so I can't look at that exact figure, but I can assure you that the council will be using that figure to provide affordable housing somewhere else in the borough for our residents. Thank you. I'm going to move us on from it's specific to the application. I did flag this question earlier on in the pre-meet. So, um, uh, one of the questions that AY, uh, said that they were following an independent cost plan review from the quantity surveyor that equates to the build cost of £301 per square metre. That seems low. Could someone justify that figure? Explain it. So I believe that that £301 was actually put into square feet, which equals approximately £3,239 per square metre. So that is an error. Sorry, just repeat that please. Thank you. Any other questions? I'm going to move us on to debating the application. Okay, um, sorry, sorry. One more question. Sorry, sorry. I'm so lost in that, that I forgot the questions that I had was about the, um, uh, the tree canopy. Now, um, uh, Streatham Wells and Streatham Sunlanders are the most nature depleted wards in the borough. Uh, they, the tree canopy is extremely low. Um, I understand that there's going to be more planting, but obviously you're destroying trees that are absorbing so much carbon, creating lots of shelter, lots of shade, lots of biodiversity. Um, this is what I'd like to try. Um, how would you calculate kind of, uh, biodiversity net gain when clearly what have you used to calculate what a mature tree, what that value is? Other specialists have valued what it would be and replacing it with satellites. That's not the equivalent. You'd have to add a forest surely to, to, to, to keep what has been lost. What, what's the, uh, thinking around that? Um, so a caveat valuation was, uh, submitted to us by the, the developer. Uh, this was independently reviewed, um, by our, um, tree consultant, um, to weigh up the, uh, costs, um, the, the value that's associated with that, um, and then from that to be announced. And these are going in page three, um, page 84 of the report. Um, and the replacement planting that's to be reinstated, uh, to mitigate the loss, uh, of the planting that's to be removed, um, equals, it was found to be, uh, a value that was, uh, suitable in terms of, of that replacement. Um, that also, that kind of valuation runs over the, estimates the time over a number of years, um, to factor in the growth and maturity of the replacement trees, uh, over time. And it might be worth referring to our tree consultant. Yeah, we have Robert Armitage online, um, who is the tree consultant. And you, hello, are you able to, um, offer some more narrative about how the trees have been assessed? Yeah, well, just to mirror what Michael said, really, we'll just, um, the CAVAT assessment is basically, uh, evaluation of the amenity, uh, the functional benefits and the environmental benefits of the trees that are proposed to be lost. And then we, um, we assess that against the, the proposed landscaping scheme, um, in accordance with, um, over a certain timeframe. So, so you, you get evaluation of, uh, trees, uh, at the planted and then after 10 years and 20 years, et cetera. Um, but, but yeah, it, it takes a measure of a lot more things, uh, you know, so the, the amenity value of the functional and the environmental benefits of the trees, um, and the, the estimation of the report was that it would be probably sort of 12 to 15 years for, for the, for the newly planted trees to, to reach the valuation of the ones that we're, uh, proposing to remove. Thank you. Right. I'm gonna, um, open up to, um, debating the application then. And if members could let me know, um, how they're minded to vote and why, who would like to go first? Ansel and I. Um, so I appreciate the time, effort, including the application forward. Um, there were lots of policy goals that were considered, um, doing this, whether that's been around use or whether it would be viable. Um, it does seem to be policy compliant and I welcome new family homes. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Uh, what I'd say is, um, I think this is one of those applications where there has been a planning balance in play. Um, I'm always sad to see, uh, loss of trees. Um, and whilst I did really appreciate the going through, um, one by one and that some, uh, not in a good condition would be failed anyway, um, regardless of the application, there were some category B trees, um, who are, who do have a high amenity value. So that's a planning balance. So I understand, um, that it's necessary to facilitate the application and the public benefits are the delivery of much needed housing, including family housing. Um, and I also note that financial contribution has been secured for replacement trees. So that is welcome. And whilst there will be a time lapse between, you know, when they're, um, they'll be giving as much as the current ones. Um, I think officers have done all that they can in, in that regards to, with regards to mitigation, um, I welcome the ecological enhancements, um, on site. Um, and I think there are other benefits as well, including, um, um, with the access. However, it's a bit disappointing that, um, more wasn't done to, um, to, um, facilitate that access via the site, you know, what Councillor Clark, um, referred to and for users of that bus stop. I can't remember which one, but again, you know, I heard the officers commentary on that and that, um, again, it's that balance of, um, improved access with the amenity impacts that would have on existing residents. So, um, perhaps the right judgment has been, has been made there. So, um, you know, applying that planning balance, I think the application does comply with the development plan. Um, the provision of the homes is welcome. Um, I'm going to propose that we accept officer's recommendation and grant planning permission, um, with an informative that, um, the applicants when they come to, um, submitting the information for the play space condition that they do have, uh, dialogue with, um, I don't know if they'll know future residents by that point, but perhaps if that's possible, if they, they could bear that in mind. Um, okay. So subject to that, do I see a seconder? Um, Councillor Nye, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Um, that is four people, all those against, please raise your hand. And any abstentions? Okay. Um, right. So for the benefit of those at home, those in favour, it was councillors Nye, Costa, Bailey and Simpson, and we had an abstention from councillor Ainsley. Thank you everybody. That concludes, um, planning committee this evening. Um, thank you, um, as always everyone for your time.