Agenda item

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which made minor changes to the report.

 

At the start of the meeting, the Vice-Chair explained that due to the high level of public interest in the application, he had used his discretion and rather than the 10-minute maximum (5 minutes for, 5 minutes against), he had decided to allow members of the public to address the committee for a total of 18  minutes. Based on the number of representations received, the Chair allocated 9 minutes to those in favour of the application and 9 minutes to those opposed to it.

 

Two planning  applications and one listed building consent application for The Olympia Exhibition Centre were listed on the agenda. For ease of presentation, the Vice-Chair confirmed that one combined officer presentation would be provided to Committee and following debate, three separate and distinct votes would be taken on applications: 2018/03100/FUL, 2018/03101/LBC and 2018/03102/OUT.

 

The Legal officer confirmed that the resolutions would (in addition to being conditional on no contrary direction being received from the Mayor of London) be conditional on no decision to call in the application being received from the Secretary of State. This is because the Secretary had received a request to call in the applicatons which it needed  time to consider.

 

 

The Committee heard representations against the application from three residents.

Councillor Adam Connell attended and spoke on behalf of the Sinclair Road Residents Association. A number of concerns were raised which included:

 

·         The Proposed development was not in accordance with policy E1a and E1b and was not within an opportunity area or atown centre.

·         The proposed development was a speculative gamble and skills could be updated elsewhere.

·         The s106 benefits of the scheme were negligible.

·         The proposal would result in a change of use and it was not located within a designated regeneration site.

·         No additional transport infrastructure had been provided and the original proposal had envisaged the re-opening of the District Line.

·         Olympia Central – was too high, bulky/sprawling.

·         The proposed development would encroach on the listed building.

·         The proposed development building was not served by public space at ground level.

·         The scale, material and form of the proposed building were not appropriate for the site.

·         The consultation phase with residents had been flawed.

·         Residents had not been provided with proper information about what the proposal entailed.

·         The artists impressions of the proposal were creative and did not provide a clear impression of the height, bulk and size of the proposal.

·         The Sinclair Road Residents were not aware of the proposed office block with the context of the proposal.

·         The Design Review Panel had expressed concerns about the proposal.

·         The proposal would overload the transport network and result in more traffic and congestion on local streets.

·         The proposal only incorporated 1,500 additional cycle spaces which was insufficient given the scale of the development.

·         The proposal would result in increased noise and light pollution, as well as, have an adverse impact on air quality.

·          The proposal would result in the closure of Olympia Way and there would be no easy access for residents.

·         The cooling chimney was visible, prominent and out of character.

·         The proposal did not incorporate sufficient green space.

 

 

The Committee heard representations in support of the application by the Applicant/Agent and two further residents. A number of points were raised and included:

 

• The consultation phase undertaken by the applicant had been extensive and should be commended.
• The proposal incorporated some very good ideas and would create some world class spaces.
• The proposal to open up the roof level was exciting and would help make Olympia a future cultural venue in London.
• Increased pedestrianisation of the site would be beneficial to residents.
• The proposal would result in the creation of thousands of new jobs and employment opportunities.
• The proposal would provide a significant s106 contribution.
• If the proposal was refused, the Olympia site might become mothballed and in future, possibly be developed into luxury flats or a further shopping centre.
• The proposal would provide a fantastic amenity and have positive economic and cultural impacts.
• The proposal would revitalise the area.
• The proposal would create spaces which all residents could enjoy.
• The proposal would result in the creation of a new retail space and there would be fresh opportunities for independent retailers.
• The proposal would result in the removal of freight traffic.
• The proposal would create an additional 5000 jobs locally.
• The proposal would create a world class destination.
• The proposal would result in improvements and enhancements to the quality of the surrounding townscape, including the Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area.
• The proposal would create a business hub, a national and international cultural centre and a leisure hub.

 

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Rebecca Harvey, Ward Councillor for Avonmore and Brook Green in objection to the proposal. The Committee also heard a representation from Councillor David Morton, Ward Councillor for Avonmore and Brook Green in support of the proposal.

 

During the course of discussions, the committee raised a number of points. These included:

• The heritage aspects of the application and whether the potential harm was outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
• The Grade 2 listed carpark and the intended change of use.
• The number of hotel rooms within the proposal and if this had been limited by the Council.
• The transport implications and in particular bus usage – noting that a journey matrix would be provided by the applicant.
• TfL’s stance and its opinion that no extra highway or District Line works were required.
• The number of persons employed within the site and balancing this with consideration of a possible over intensification of the use of the site.
• The potential to cause harm to surrounding conservation areas.
• The frequency of Tube trains per week to the site and whether there was adequate disabled access.
• Deliveries to the site and the likely impact these would have on residents.
• CS9 and the implications this might have on bus routes and route planning.
• The daylight, sunlight and overshadowing implications of the application.
• Employment opportunities for local residents arising from the proposal.
• The importance of liaison groups, consultation and ongoing engagement with local residents, should the application be approved.
• The importance that a robust consultation process is undertaken by a developer with local residents.
• The views of English Heritage, noting that in its view, the proposal caused less than substantial harm.
• Confirmation from officers that the owner of the site could not flip the use from B1 to C3 post approval.

 

 

 

The Committee voted on application 2018/03100/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendations of approval and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

 

Officer Recommendation 1:

 

For:

4

Against:

2

Not Voting:

0                          

 

Officer Recommendation 2:

 

For:

6

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

 

            RESOLVED THAT:

 

Planning Application 2018/03100/FUL be approved, subject to the addendum.

 

1)            Subject to there being no contrary direction from the Mayor for London and no request for call in from the Secretary of State that the Committee resolve that the Strategic Director for Growth and Place be authorised to determine the application and grant permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions listed below;

 

2)         To authorise the Strategic Director for Growth and Place, in consultation with the Director of Law and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee, to make any minor changes to the proposed conditions or heads of terms of the legal agreement. Any such changes shall be within their discretion.

 

The Committee voted on application 2018/03101/LBC and whether to agree the officer recommendations of approval and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

 

Officer Recommendation 1:

 

For:

4

Against:

2

Not Voting:

0                          

 

Officer Recommendation 2:

 

For:

6

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

 

            RESOLVED THAT:

 

Planning Application 2018/03101/LBC be approved, subject to the addendum.

 

1)        1) Subject to there being no contrary direction from the Mayor for London and no request for call in from the Secretary of State that the Committee resolve that the Strategic Director for Growth and Place be authorised to determine the application and grant listed building consent subject to the conditions listed below

 

2)         To authorise the Strategic Director for Growth and Place, in consultation with the Director of Law and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee, to make any minor changes to the proposed conditions. Any such changes shall be within their discretion.

 

 

The Committee voted on application 2018/03102/OUT and whether to agree the officer recommendations of approval and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

 

Officer Recommendation 1:

 

For:

4

Against:

2

Not Voting:

0                          

 

Officer Recommendation 2:

 

For:

6

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

 

            RESOLVED THAT:

 

Planning Application 2018/03102/OUT be approved, subject to the addendum.

 

1)           Subject to there being no contrary direction from the Mayor for London or request for call in from the Secretary of State that the Committee resolve that the Strategic Director for Growth and Place be authorised to determine the application and grant permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions listed below;

 

2)         To authorise the Strategic Director for Growth and Place, in consultation with the Director of Law and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee, to make any minor changes to the proposed conditions or heads of terms of the legal agreement. Any such changes shall be within their discretion.