planning report PDU/ 2708/01 30 November 2010 54 Road, Denmark Hill

in the Borough of Lambeth planning application no. 10/02586/OUT

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Outline permission for a mixed use scheme provided within a series of buildings ranging from two to five storeys in height comprising 71 residential units, approximately 108sqm of retail (Class A1) space, approximately 7,340sqm of office (Class B1) space, and 33 parking spaces together with communal amenity space. Appearance and landscaping are reserved matters.

The applicant The applicant is EDF Energy PLC and the architect is Adrian Salt and Pang Limited.

Strategic issues The principle of the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use residential-led development is accepted. In broad terms the application complies with London Plan policy but in some circumstances further information is required to ensure compliance. Further information is required on affordable housing, climate change mitigation and transport.

Recommendation

That Lambeth Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 70 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 71 of this report could address these deficiencies. Should Lambeth Council decide to refuse planning permission, the application will not need to be referred back to the Mayor and may proceed to determine the application without further reference to the GLA.

Context

1 On 28 October 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Lambeth Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 8 December 2010 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for

page 1 taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 1c of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

”Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of house, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15 000 sq.m.”

3 Should Lambeth Council resolve to grant permission, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself. In this instance if Lambeth Council resolves to refuse permission it need not refer the application back to the Mayor.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The 1.195ha application site forms approximately one half of an existing and operational EDF depot and substation close to the eastern boundary of Lambeth. The eastern part of the depot is occupied by the electrical substation and ancillary buildings whilst the western part is mostly hard stand parking areas and two ancillary buildings.

6 Access to the site is currently from Cambria Road on the western edge of the site with egress onto Coldharbour Lane in the north east corner of the site. There is terraced housing and B8 (industrial and warehouse) uses on the northern boundary that fronts onto Southwell Road whilst there is an overland rail viaduct running along the southern boundary. King’s College hospital is located further to the east beyond the substation whilst Ruskin Park is to the south east over the viaduct.

7 To the north of the site is the Coldharbour Industrial Site whilst there are individual industrial units in Southwell Road and within the railway viaduct arches. The remainder of the area is generally residential in nature.

8 The nearest Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is the A23 Brixton Road around 1km to the west of the site. The nearest Strategic Road Network (SRN) is the A215 Denmark Hill to the east of the site.

9 There are two railway stations within walking distance of the site. Loughborough Junction and Denmark Hill are within 400m and 700m respectively. Denmark Hill will be served by London Overground Services from 2012. In addition a range of bus routes operate close to the site.

10 The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 3 on a scale of 1 to 6, where 6 is most accessible. This represents a ‘moderate’ level of accessibility to public transport.

Details of the proposal

11 Outline planning permission is being sought for a mixed use scheme comprising employment and residential uses with a small element of retail. The gross floor area is 16,240sqm and includes:

page 2  7,792sqm office Class B1 Use

 108sqm retail Class A1 Use

 7,690sqm residential Class C3 Use

12 There are 71 residential units proposed that comprise:

Private tenure: 8 x 1-bed flats 22 x 2-bed flats 3 x 3-bed houses 14 x 4-bed houses

47 units (66%)

Affordable Tenure: Intermediate; Social Rented; total 4 x 1-bed flats; 4 x 1-bed flats; 8 4 x 2-bed flats; 4 x 2-bed flats; 8 1 x 4-bed house; 7 x 4-bed houses; 8

9 units; 15 units; 24 units (34%)

13 The above uses are contained within a series of buildings across the triangular site ranging from two to five storeys. Existing EDF underground cables and foul water sewers dictate the layout of the buildings which results in:

 A building running the length of the southern boundary adjacent to the railway viaduct

 A building running the length of the northern boundary

 In fill buildings on Cambria Road and adjacent to the substation two storey car park

 Two terrace buildings in the centre of the site. Case history

14 There is no relevant history to this proposal. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

15 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Principle of development London Plan; PPS1

page 3  Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Urban Design London Plan; PPS1  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13  Employment London Plan; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

16 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2007 Lambeth Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

17 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation.  The Lambeth Core Strategy (Submission version)

Principle of development

18 The application site is not identified as Strategic Industrial Land within the London Plan, however, the adopted Lambeth 2007 UDP designates the site as a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA) with Policy 22 safeguarding such areas for B Class Uses unless the site is also identified on the Proposals Map as being a Major Development Opportunity (MDO). The site is currently listed as an MDO, which allows mixed uses including residential, however, the Lambeth Core Strategy (submission version) has removed the MDO designation from the application site which would require future developments to retain the B Class Use. The Inspector’s report on the Core Strategy is due at the end of November, hence the applicant seeking to gain planning permission for a mixed use scheme in advance of the Inspector’s report.

19 Whilst there is no strategic policy objection to the proposal, it is questioned as to whether the site is suitable for residential uses given the proximity to the railway viaduct and the EDF substation and the emerging local policy that is seeking to protect existing industrial land on the site. Urban design

20 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained in Chapter 4B. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other polices in Chapter 4B and elsewhere in the London Plan set out design requirements relating to specific issues. Chapter 7 of the draft replacement London Plan sets out design related policies.

page 4 21 The proposed configuration of the site is heavily driven by the constraints bearing on the site, notably those relating to the easements for the underground cables and sewers as well the railway and existing pattern of development. The result is a triangular layout that closely resembles that which historically existed on the site prior to the development of the modern depot but with the benefit of a central public green. This is an inherently logical approach to the planning of the site and would be legible as well as capable of expansion should the adjacent depot cease to operate as such in the future.

22 The introduction of commercial uses at the ground floor of the buildings at the junction of ‘Bengeworth Road’ and Cambria Road is well considered and these, together with the residential uses, will promote increased activity and in turn passive surveillance. Whilst increased activity and passive surveillance is welcomed in terms of urban design, there is concern over the viability of office use in this location.

23 In conjunction with the improvements to this area the applicant should also provide for lighting and environmental improvements to the adjacent section of Cambria Road under the railway bridge. Residents will rely on this as the principal link from the site to Ruskin Park and it is currently in poor condition.

24 The weakest element of the proposed layout is the boundary with the multi-story car park to the east, which is to be retained in the adjacent depot. This unattractive structure, and the electricity infrastructure beyond, will be prominent in views from proposed dwellings opposite on ‘ Road’ and along ‘ Road’. The applicant should commit to screening the western side of this car park with green walling (preferably a low maintenance climber based system) to obscure this. Alternatively this car park could be redeveloped for commercial uses and brought into the site. The inclusion of allotment space in this area is welcomed, as is the inclusion of street trees throughout, though details are reserved.

25 The remainder of the boundary with the retained depot, to the south of the multi-story car park, is well resolved and introduces an office building to mediate between the proposed housing and the depot beyond. A similar approach is adopted on the boundary with the railway where the lower two floors each block would be for office use with residential use above. As highlighted above, there are concerns over the viability of this office space given the location; there is a risk the units will not be marketable and will be converted to residential.

page 5 26 The location of office space on the lower two floors will go some way to addressing the residential amenity issues associated with the railway but there remains significant scope for improvement in the design of these blocks. In particular, the office accommodation at first floor level could be extended out over the proposed cycle stores that link each building at ground floor. The residential levels above this could also be extended and the space used for additional accommodation or winter gardens to the railway and potential balconies or terraces to the green and at the upper levels. This would have the benefit of providing an effective visual and acoustic screen to the railway. These elements between the buildings should be slightly recessed and treated differently to the main blocks, possibly in glass, at all levels so as to avoid the buildings on this boundary appearing as a continuous mass in oblique views along ‘Bengeworth Road’.

27 The broad approach to scale and massing, that being lower three-storey housing to the north and centre of the site with taller, and bulkier buildings positioned against the depot and the railway is appropriately contextual. The scale relationship between the three-storey houses on ‘Bredon Road’ and the proposed office building opposite is potentially overbearing and incongruous and the latter should, therefore, be reduced in height by one storey whilst retaining the upper storey setback.

28 The application is submitted in outline with the details of appearance and landscaping reserved. The indicative information provided on the appearance of the buildings, particularly the blocks against the railway does not offer comfort that the proposed architecture will be of the high standard required by the London Plan. The Council should ensure that proposed buildings would attain the necessary standard of design.

29 Similarly the indicative information provided by the applicant suggests the proposed residential units would be consistent with the emerging policies and guidance on residential space standards and design quality, including Lifetime Homes and wheelchair accessible housing. This cannot, however, be confirmed given the indicative nature of the information and the Council should apply appropriate conditions to any planning consent to ensure that the proposed residential accommodation would meet the appropriate standards.

30 In summary the proposal is not consistent with the design policies of the London Plan, specifically London Plan Policy 4B.1. This could be addressed though the identified design changes and planning conditions and obligations. Children’s play space

31 Policy 3D .13 of the London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 41 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 408 sq.m. of playspace.

32 This development proposes a 452sqm communal village green that is to include a children’s play area. Play space is required to be provided in addition to communal amenity space and further clarification and detail is sought on how the development proposes to meet policy 3D.13.

page 6 Affordable housing

33 London Plan Policy 3A.10 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. Policy 3A.9 states that such targets should be based on an assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should take account of the London Plan strategic target that 35% of housing should be social and 15% intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. In addition, Policy 3A.10 encourages councils to have regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development, and to the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements.

34 Policy 3A.10 is supported by paragraph 3.52, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified.

35 Policy 3.13 of the London Plan Draft Replacement Plan also seeks the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing.

36 Where borough councils have not yet set overall targets as required by Policy 3A.9, they should have regard to the overall London Plan targets. It may be appropriate to consider emerging policies, but the weight that can be attached to these will depend on the extent to which they have been consulted on or tested by public examination.

37 The Lambeth UDP sets an affordable target of 50% for publicly subsidised developments and 40% for developments brought forward without subsidy on sites of at least 0.1ha or on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes.

38 The development proposes 71 residential units of which 24 are to be affordable with the ratio equating to 68/32 Social Rented/Intermediate. This results in a provision of 34% affordable housing which is below the London Plan and UDP minimum. The applicant has submitted an EAT financial appraisal in support of the level of affordable housing provided, however, it is unclear as to whether this has been verified by the local planning authority. Should Lambeth Council refer the application back to the Mayor it should advise as to whether the inputs and assumptions of the appraisal are accepted.

39 The applicant has assumed a public subsidy from the Homes and Communities Agency of £1.668m. Should this grant not be provided, the level of affordable housing provided on the site would be considerably less which would be a strategic concern to the Mayor.

40 The Mayor’s Housing SPG provides a London wide target for the mix of unit sizes within developments. The table below compares the proposed mix of units against the targets within the SPG.

Overall Social rented Intermediate Market SPG Scheme SPG Scheme SPG Scheme SPG Scheme 1 bed 32% 22% 19% 26.6% 66% 44.4% 25% 17% 2/3 bed 38% 46% 39% 26.6% 0% 44.4% 75% 53.2% 4 bed + 30% 31% 42% 46.6% 34% 11% 0 29.8%

page 7

41 Overall the proposal provides 22 (31%) 4-bed units and 3 (4%) 3-bed units, of which only 8 units are provided as affordable housing. As shown in the table above the proposal generally meets the London wide mix of units. The Mayor’s draft London Housing Strategy seeks 42% of all social rented and 16% of intermediate housing to have 3-beds or more. This proposal provides no affordable 3-bed units and 46% of social rented and 11% of intermediate as 4-bed units.

42 The proposal is considered to be in general conformity with the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing SPG with respect to mix of unit sizes.

Quality of accommodation

43 Policy 3.5 of the draft replacement London Plan introduces a new policy on the quality and design of housing developments. Part A of the draft policy states that housing developments should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to the wider environment. Part C of the draft policy states that new dwellings should meet the dwelling space standards set out in Table 3.3, have adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts. Part E of the draft policy states that the Mayor will provide guidance on implementation of this policy including on housing design for all tenures.

44 Whilst the Mayor’s interim London Housing Design Guide applies to grant funded housing and London Development Agency development, its guidelines are considered by the Mayor to be best practice in residential design. Additionally, the principles of the Guide have been written into the newly released draft Housing SPG (EiP consultation version), in support of policy 3.5, and which will gain increasing weight through to its expected adoption at the end of 2011. This will apply to all development, including market housing.

45 The application is in outline form and so detailed internal layouts will not be provided until reserved matters stage. Given the applicant is assuming social housing grant, evidence should be provided to demonstrate that the proposed accommodation will meet the Mayor’s emerging standards and that the quantum proposed can be contained within the parameters set by the outline application. Comments from Transport for London

46 A total of 40 car parking spaces are proposed, 34 in respect of the residential element of the proposal (0.47spaces per unit) and 6 in relation to the commercial aspects of the development. TfL expects all new residents to be excluded from eligibility for on-street parking permits. Subject to this measure being secured by use of a planning condition or legal obligation, TfL is satisfied that the proposals are in general conformity with draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 Parking and London Plan policy 3C.23 Parking strategy.

47 It is the view of TfL that the impact of this development on the existing bus network will be negligible. Therefore no further measures are required in order to comply with London Plan policy 3C.20 Improving conditions for buses, and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.7 Buses, bus transits, trams.

48 TfL does not consider that the additional vehicular trips generated would result in a significant impact to TLRN and local borough roads. The proposal is in general conformity with London Plan policy 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic and draft replacement London Plan policy and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.12 Road network capacity.

page 8 49 Further confirmation is required in relation to the proposed level of cycle parking and how this relates to the standards set out by London Plan policy 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling. In addition further information concerning how these spaces will be provided is required, to ensure they are covered, well lit and accessible.

50 TfL expects both a delivery and servicing plan and a construction logistics plan to be secured via planning condition. This will ensure general conformity with London Plan policies 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic and 3C.25 Freight strategy and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.14 Freight.

51 The travel plan has failed the ATTrBuTE assessment. Further details are required regarding how the travel plan will be secured, monitored, enforced and funded, which should be secured through the Section 106 agreement. The travel plan should expand on the transport assessment and inclusion of an iTRACE pro forma within the travel plan would also be beneficial.

52 In summary, a number of issues need to be addressed including parking controls, cycle parking and travel plan, before the proposals can be considered to be in general conformity with the London Plan and acceptable in transport terms.

Climate Change

54 The applicant has broadly followed the Mayor’s energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole however further revisions and information is required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and the carbon dioxide savings verified.

BE LEAN

Energy efficiency standards

55 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include energy efficient lighting and variable speed pumps and fans.

56 The development is estimated to emit 448 tonnes of regulated carbon dioxide emissions per annum after the application of passive design and energy efficiency measures. Based on the information provided, the proposed development does not appear to achieve any carbon savings from energy efficiency alone compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

57 The applicant should also commit to exceeding 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency measures.

BE CLEAN

District heating

58 The applicant should investigate whether the development is within the vicinity of any existing or planned district heating networks. Where no network currently exists or development timescales are incompatible, the applicant should commit to making provision for future connection to an external district heating network.

page 9

59 A site heat network will provide the heating for the flats, the commercial and employment units. The applicant should provide further details regarding the size and location of the central energy centre. A drawing showing the proposed route of the heat network should also be provided.

60 The private terraced housing will not be connected to the heat network. This is accepted due to the higher heat distribution losses associated with supplying individual houses.

Combined Heat and Power

61 The applicant is proposing gas fired combined heat and power (CHP) as the lead heat source for the site heat network. Further information on the proposed CHP installation should be provided, including the electrical capacity and monthly heat profiles showing the proportion of the heat demand supplied by the CHP.

62 The development is estimated to emit 385 tonnes of regulated carbon dioxide emissions per annum after the application of CHP. A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 63 tonnes per annum (14%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

Cooling

63 Solar shading devices and other design features are being used to avoid the requirement for active cooling. Where active cooling is required, for example the commercial building, air source heat pumps will provide the cooling.

BE GREEN

Renewable energy technologies

64 The energy statement proposes the use of solar water heating and air source heat pumps for the private terraced houses. This, together with the air source heat pumps providing the cooling in the commercial elements, will provide a reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 38 tonnes per annum (10%) through the third element of the energy hierarchy. On a whole energy basis, a reduction of 9% from renewable energy is proposed.

65 Given the London Plan requirement of achieving 20% carbon reduction through renewable energy sources, the applicant should provide further information on the potential for photovoltaic panels (PV) on the development. The amount of electricity that could be generated and carbon saved through PV should also be calculated and provided.

Overall

66 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 347 tonnes of CO2 per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account. Taking into account the comments above, the applicant should provide an estimate of the overall carbon savings, expressed both in tonnes CO2 per annum and percentages, compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

page 10 Local planning authority’s position

67 The application is being presented to the December Planning Committee with a recommendation for refusal. Legal considerations

68 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

69 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

70 London Plan policies on affordable housing, children’s play space, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Principle of development: the site is not identified as Strategic Industrial Land, however the principle of residential use being provided on a site that is bounded by railway, B Use Class, and an electricity substation is questionable in terms of the quality of accommodation provided and policy 3A.6 of the London Plan.

 Affordable housing: the proposed level of affordable housing is below the minimum required by policy 3A.10 of the London Plan and the Lambeth UDP.

 Urban design: the layout and general massing is mostly acceptable in accordance with chapter 4B of the London Plan although there is concern over the quality of design given the outline nature of the scheme.

 Transport: TfL has concerns regarding a number of elements of the proposal which will need to be addressed to ensure the proposal complies with the policies contained in chapter 3C of the London Plan.

 Child play space: the applicant is proposing a sufficient level of children’s play space but it is unclear as to how this impacts the quantum and usability of the communal amenity space in accordance with policy 3D.13 of the London Plan.

 Climate change: further information is required to ensure the proposal complies with policy 4A.1, 4A.4, 4A.5, 4A.6 and 4A.7 of the London Plan.

page 11 71 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Affordable housing: verification should be provided regarding the financial appraisal that clearly demonstrates that the proposed development provides the maximum level of affordable housing in terms of London Plan and local policies.  Urban design: Lambeth Council should ensure high quality design is achieved with the submission of reserved matters.  Transport: a delivery and servicing plan and a construction logistics plan should be secured via planning condition. Further details are required regarding how the travel plan will be secured, monitored, enforced and funded.  Child play space: clarification on the amount of child play space provided in relation to the communal amenity space proposed.

 Climate change: the applicant should model, and commit to, additional measures that can be adopted to enable the development to exceed 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone; investigate whether the development is within the vicinity of any existing or planned district heating networks and commit to connecting to any future networks; and provide further information on the potential for PV within the development.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Gordon Adams, Case Officer 020 7983 4520 email [email protected]

page 12