Agenda item

Shopping Centre Site, Elephant And Castle, 26, 28, 30 And 32 New Kent Road, Arches 6 And 7 Elephant Road, And London College Of Communications site, London SE1

Circulated electronically

 

Web links (please cut and paste into your browser): 

 

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5717/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2016-Jan-2018%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=10

 

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50009037/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.%201%20Tuesday%2016-Jan-2018%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=9

 

Minutes:

Planning application reference: 16/AP/4458

 

Report: see pages 44 – 291 of the agenda pack and the addendum report (16 Jan 2018), as well as supplemental agenda No.1 (30 January 2018), and pages 1 to 3 of supplemental agenda No.2 (30 January 2018).

 

PROPOSAL

 

Phased, mixed-use redevelopment of the existing Elephant and  Castle shopping centre and London College of Communication sites comprising the demolition of all existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to comprise buildings ranging in  eight from single storey to 35 storeys (with a maximum building height of 124.5m AOD) above multilevel and single basements, to provide a range of uses including 979 residential units (use class C3), retail (use Class A1-A4), office (Use Class B1), Education (use class D1), assembly and leisure (use class D2) and a new station entrance and station box for use as a London underground operational railway station; means of access, public realm and landscaping works, parking and cycle storage provision, plant and servicing areas, and a range of other associated and ancillary works and structures.

 

The meeting went on to consider this item deferred from the meeting on 16 January 2018.

 

The chair reminded the meeting that a motion to refuse had been proposed, before the items had been deferred on 16 January, which was yet to be seconded. He went on to say that he understood from social media and from an email from the applicant, which had been received, that both ward councillors and the applicant had expressed an interest in further discussion to be had and both wished for a deferral to allow for these discussion to go ahead. The chair said in light of this he suggested that:

 

·  If Councillor Morris did not withdraw her motion and the motion succeeded, a recommendation to refuse would stand and officers would take the appropriate action.

 

·  If Councillor Morris agreed to withdraw her motion, the meeting should agree to defer the items.

 

·  If the motion to refuse failed, the meeting should take a motion to defer the items. Officers would then make arrangements for the application to come back to a future meeting.

 

The chair then asked the legal officer to come in and explain the process.

 

The legal officer informed the meeting that:

 

·  at the meeting on 16 January 2018, a motion to approve planning application 16/AP/4458 had been moved, seconded, put to the vote and failed

 

·  a motion to refuse planning permission had subsequently been started, but the meeting had deferred the two items under discussion to this meeting

 

·  possible reasons for refusal had been published in supplemental agenda No.1

 

·  That afternoon an email by the developer had been forwarded to members of the committee and broadcast on social media making proposals for further discussions. This constituted new material considerations, both in planning terms and in terms of the equalities duty, which councillors had to take into account. This submission was not a formal amendment, but did address the key concerns discussed at the meeting on 16 January 2018, namely: the amount of social rented units, situation of the traders and leisure provision for groups with protected characteristics. Officers had not had sufficient time to review these proposals, which also did not constitute a formal revision of the application. Members of the public were unlikely to have seen the proposals. 

 

The legal officer went on to sum up that a motion to refuse had been proposed, and that the meeting would return to this motion now.

 

Councillor Morris stated that she did not wish to withdraw her motion to refuse.

 

The chair asked for the motion to be seconded. There was no seconder and the motion fell.

 

A motion to defer this item was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and declared carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That this item be deferred to a future meeting of the planning committee.

 

In accordance with paragraph 1.8.4 of the council’s committee procedure rules, Councillor Adele Morris asked for her vote against the motion to defer to be recorded. 

Supporting documents: