ADDRESS: Land To The East Of Montford Place, Kennington, London, SE11 5DE Application Number: 20/01086/FUL Case Officer: Magdalena Kotyza Ward: Oval Date Received: 20.03.2020 Proposal: Redevelopment of the site including the demolition of all existing buildings and structures, and erection of 2 linked buildings ranging from 6 to 11 storeys to provide a mixed use scheme comprising light industrial employment floorspace (Class B1c) with ancillary co-working/café space and residential units (Class C3) together with hard and soft landscaping and other associated works.

This application is a DEPARTURE APPLICATION: The proposed development is a departure from Policy ED1 (Key Industrial and Business Areas (KIBAs) and Policy Q26(a)(ii) (Tall Buildings) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Applicant: Connected Living London Agent: Mr Nick Green, Savills (Montford Place) Limited

RECOMMENDATION

1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in this report and any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London.

2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:

a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

4. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within 6 months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations: Conservation Area Kennington (CA8) Statutory Listed Buildings (All Adjoining) Grade II 231-245 Kennington Lane Grade II 346 Kennington Road Grade II 348 Kennington Road Grade II 354 Kennington Road Grade II 356 Kennington Road Grade II Imperial Court Grade II Gasholder No.1 Kennington Lane Gasholder Station Grade II 3 & 7-25 Montford Place Non-Statutory Locally Listed Buildings Locally listed 1-5 Montford Place (All Adjoining) Locally listed Beefeater Gin Distillery Flood Risk Zone 3 Key Industrial and Business Area Montford Place Key Industrial And Business Area Neighbourhood Planning Area Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Protected Vistas Primrose Hill Summit To The Palace of Westminster (4A.2) Masterplan Area Oval and Kennington Development Area (OAKDA)

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area (ha): 0.4 hectares

NON-RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (m2) (Gross Internal Area) Existing B8 Storage (Temporary) No physical floorspace

Proposed C3 Residential 11,838 (B1c) Light industrial with 2,466 ancillary café/co-worker space

RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Residential No. of bedrooms per unit Total Type Habitable Rooms Studio 1 2 3 4 Total Existing Affordable n/a Private/Market n/a Total n/a

Proposed Intermediate 5 16 13 6 0 40(75.5%) 105 On-site Discount (28.5) Market Rent (DMR) (London Living Rent) Intermediate 0 0 10 3* 0 13(24.5%) 42 DMR (11.4%) (Lambeth Tenancy Strategy (2020) Equivalents ) Private/Market 6 31 49 0 0 86 221 (61.9%) (60.1)%) Total 11 47 72 9 0 139 368 (100%)

Proposed Affordable n/a Off-Site Rented Social Rented n/a Intermediate n/a Private/Market n/a Total n/a * The rents for 3-bedroom units set out in the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy (2020) are at target rent levels

Amount (£)

Payment in Lieu of n/a Affordable Housing Details/Trigger Review Mechanism 1. Pre implementation within 24 months if not implemented 2. Late Stage Review triggered at 75% of occupation of market units

ACCESSIBILITY

Number of C3 Units M4(2) Units 125 M4(3) Units 14

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Spaces Car Parking Spaces % of Bike Motor- (General) (Disabled) EVCP Spaces cycle Spaces Resi Commercial Visito Resi Commercial Visitor r Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 263 0

LEGAL SERVICES CLEARANCE

AUDIT TRAIL Consultation Name/Position Lambeth department Date Sent Date Report Comments Received Cleared in para: Peter Flockhard Legal Services 26/11/2020 Insert date Insert date Throughout Senior Lawyer 27/11/2020 27/11/2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is for a mix use re-development by Connected Living London (Montford Place) Ltd (a joint venture partnership between TfL and Grainger plc) of a Northern Line extension compound site, within the Oval and Kennington Development Area (OAKDA). The proposal includes the demolition of all existing buildings and structures, and the erection of 2 linked buildings ranging from 6 to 11 storeys to provide a mixed use scheme comprising 139 residential units (Use Class C3) and 2,715 sqm of light industrial floorspace (Use Class B1c) and ancillary facilities.

The site is located within a KIBA and the proposed light industrial use would provide much needed employment. While the application has been advertised as a departure from Lambeth Local Plan policy ED1 which does not support residential uses in KIBAs, the proposed co-location with residential use complies with the emerging London Plan policies E4 and E7 and the emerging polices of the Draft Lambeth Local Plan.

The development would provide much needed housing of an acceptable quality, including a high level of affordable housing, at a density that makes optimum use of the site. The level of affordable housing at 40 per cent exceeds the policy threshold for fast track, however the proposals were viability tested due to their reliance on grant funding and the tenure split of the residential units. An independent review confirmed that the affordable housing offer is the maximum viable. During the application process extensive discussions with the GLA took place and the applicant secured in principle additional, bespoke grant offer which enabled the scheme to reduce the originally offered rent levels. An early and a late stage review are recommended to ensure that the affordability of rents is further maximised should the viability improve.

The proposed development would provide acceptable standards of residential accommodation. It would meet relevant internal residential space standards and the quantum and quality of private and communal amenity space proposed is considered of high quality. The dwellings would have reasonable levels of daylight/sunlight, privacy and outlook.

The application has been advertised as a departure from policy Q26 part (ii) due to the scheme’s impact on heritage assets including their settings. Officers have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of statutorily and locally listed buildings as well as to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Kennington Conservation Area within which the site is located. Officers have identified that the development would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ and have had regard to the statutory presumption against granting planning permission for development which would harm a heritage asset. Mindful of this presumption and the considerable importance and weight that is given to any harm, officers consider that the cumulative ‘less than substantial harm’ would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

Notwithstanding that the proposal represents a departure from policy ED1 and Q26, the application scheme is considered not to conflict with policy in all other regards and as such, as a policy compliant scheme it would deliver social, economic, environmental and sustainable benefits to the community. However, as the proposal represents a departure from adopted local plan policy and has been identified as causing ‘less than substantial’

harm it is important to identify the public benefits that would outweigh these in line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF. These benefits are considered to be:  139 new homes of which 53 would be affordable  2715sqm of new light industrial floorspace providing flexible accommodation  Up to 88 new permanent jobs and a package of bespoke employment and training opportunities secured via s106;  Benefits to the local economy associated with new residents and workers supporting local businesses  Enhancements to public realm and creation of active frontages along Montford Place  Transport improvements including a financial contribution of £100,000 towards the implementation of the Healthy Routes Network and £10,000 towards improvements to signage  Increase the biodiversity and urban greening on the site.  Optimising use brownfield land

On the basis of the identified social, economic, environmental and sustainability value that the scheme would bring, with the addition of the benefits identified above, it is considered that the public benefits of the application scheme outweigh the departure from policy and ‘less than substantial’ harm identified to designated heritage assets.

The proposed scheme does result in some adverse and noticeable reductions in daylight and sunlight as identified above. However, consideration should be given to the particular characteristics of the properties reviewed and to the fairly minimal existing massing on the application site which is unusual in an urban context. It is also reasonable to consider the identified effects alongside the planning merits of the scheme overall. In conclusion officers consider that the many planning benefits that the scheme would deliver are sufficient to outweigh the identified impacts on residential amenity.

Due to appropriate separation distances, the urban context the proposed development and mitigation measures incorporated in the scheme, it would not result in any significant material impact in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring residential properties, nor would it amount to an unneighbourly relationship with regard to increased sense of enclosure or overbearing impact.

The development would have an acceptable impact on the highway and transport network. The development would be car free, with occupants of the commercial and residential units not eligible for parking permits. 5 on-site disabled parking spaces would be provided with a parking management plan secured by section 106 agreement to ensure that further on-street provision is delivered should the need arise in the future. The scheme would provide a total of 263 cycle storage spaces, in accordance with Draft London Plan standards. The development would also contribute to improvements to the Local Heathy Routes network.

The development would meet technical requirements in respect of sustainability, flood risk mitigation, wind conditions, waste and recycling, water infrastructure and land decontamination.

The proposed s106 Head of Terms will secure a range of planning obligations that would reasonably mitigate the otherwise unacceptable impacts of the development. The package of planning contributions has been negotiated having full regard to the nature of the development, to the normal expectations conferred upon developers by the various planning policy documents, and to the statutory tests for section 106 obligations set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the NPPF and the development plan. Officers consider that the scheme is acceptable and that the many planning benefits the development would deliver are sufficient to outweigh the identified impacts on heritage and residential amenity. In this instance, taking account of all the relevant material considerations, and notwithstanding the departure from the policy ED1 and Q26 of the Local Plan, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in all other respects. As such, the weight of the material considerations considered are sufficient to justify a departure from the development plan in this instance such that the Council is able to support the proposed development.

OFFICER REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: The application is reported to the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with 1(a)(i), (b) and 9 of the Committee’s Terms of Reference as it relates to a major application for the provision of more than 10 residential dwellings, the more than 1,000sqm of floor space and a proposal which is a departure from the policies of the Council’s Development Plan.

1. THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The site occupies an area of approximately 0.4 hectares and is located to the east of Montford Place and to the rear of 231-245 Kennington Lane. The Beefeater Gin Distillery is located to the immediate south with Imperial Court to the immediate east. The site is currently made up of hardstanding areas with temporary buildings located to its northern and southern perimeter boundaries. The site is relatively flat throughout with levels ranging approximately between 3.44 metres and 4.4 metres AOD.

Figure 1 – Site location.

Figure 2: Western edge of site location looking northeast.

Figure 3: Elevated view of site looking south.

1.2 The site was formerly owned and occupied by the Beefeater Distillery Works which once comprised associated distillery and office related buildings (see Figure 4 and 5 below). The use of the site and the associated distillery buildings have since been demolished and removed.

1.3 The site was then acquired in 2013 by TfL for use as a works compound in association with the on-going Northern Line Extension works that were granted in 2014 under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The permitted use as a storage/works compound is temporary only and will cease in 2021 (see Section 3 – planning history for further information).

Figure 4: Aerial image of former use and buildings at Montford Place

Figure 5: View from Montford Place of former use and buildings (Source: Google Streetview 2009)

1.4 The site lies within a designated KIBA (Key Industrial and Business Area) and also forms the eastern boundary of the Oval and Kennington Development Area (OAKDA) Masterplan area. In terms of heritage related designations, the site is located within the Kennington Conservation Area (CA08) and also within the Primrose Hill Summit to the Palace of Westminster protected viewing corridor (4A.2).

1.5 The site also falls within the Kennington Oval Vauxhall (KOV) designated neighbourhood planning area.

1.6 The site is located within Flood Zone 3 which indicates a high probability of river and sea flooding. However, the actual risk of flooding is reduced significantly due to the presence of Thames Tidal defences.

1.7 The site is gated to vehicle traffic at its southern end but its northern end connects with Kennington Lane, which is part of the TfL Strategic Road Network. It has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6a and 6b indicating a very good to excellent level of access to public transport. The site is located 580m to the east of Vauxhall Underground, National Rail and Bus Station; and 200m to the north of Oval and 500m to the south-west of Kennington London Underground Stations which both offer Northern Line underground services. In addition, there are many bus stops along Kennington Lane (with the closest stop 50m to the north of the site) and Kennington Road (with the closest stop 200m to the south of the site) which are conveniently accessible from the site which provide services to central London and surrounding district centres.

2. THE SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 The surrounding area comprises a mix of land uses including a range of residential and commercial/employment land uses. Therefor it is considered to have a mixed character.

2.2 To the north of the site is 231-245 Kennington Lane, a listed terrace of 4 storeys

(including basement and roof) which contains office uses with some residential use. To the east is the listed Imperial Court, a former 19th century school/college now residential apartments which are approximately 4, 5 and 6 storeys. The locally listed Beefeater Distillery works including its visitor centre is sited to the south and ranges from a height of 6 and 7 storeys. To the west of the site is the recently demolished Tesco Superstore and associated car park. There is permission for the redevelopment of this site (see Section 3) for a large-scale mixed-use scheme. In addition, the Oval and Kennington Gasholders site also has planning permission for a large-scale mixed- use scheme (see Section 3). Both these sites form a part of the aforementioned OAKDA Masterplan area.

2.3 There are other statutorily and locally listed buildings in the wider area which are located to the north, east and southeast of the site including Gasholder No1 (Grade II) to the southwest of the site; Nos. 3 & 7-25 Montford Place (Grade II) and locally listed Nos. 1-5 Montford Place to the south of the site.

2.4 A range of shops and amenities are also provided at the following locations: Kennington Cross Local Centre (100m to the east); Kennington Lane Local Centre (200m to the west); Kennington Park Road and Kennington Road Local Centre (200m to the southeast).

2.5 Oval ward is home to the internationally renowned Kia Oval Cricket Ground (southwest). Other significant cultural amenities within the immediate area of the site include Kennington Park, Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens (less than 400m away) and also the Thames Path, which provide access on foot to the cultural and tourist facilities on the South Bank and across the river to the many features of central London.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 The application proposes the redevelopment of the site to provide 139 build-to-rent residential units (Use Class C3) and 2,715sqm GEA of light industrial floorspace (Use Class B1(c)). Forty per cent of the residential element (by habitable rooms) will be provided as affordable intermediate housing. An ancillary co-worker/café space is proposed within the light industrial floorspace and a separate gym and/or flexible amenity area and a guest suite at podium level for the residential uses. An enclosed amenity area is proposed at level 7 within Block B. The proposals also include hard and soft landscaping including resident terraced/roof gardens and there would be disabled parking and cycle parking at ground floor level.

3.2 The proposed scheme forms part of TfL’s London-wide Build to Rent (BtR) portfolio which aims to deliver in excess of 3,000 new homes of which a minimum of 40 per cent will be affordable. The first phase of delivery includes eight sites in total including Montford Place (see below for the full list of first phase sites). Connected London Living (CLL) has been created as a joint venture between TfL and Grainger PLC (GPLC) to deliver and manage its BtR portfolio going forward. CLL will manage both private and affordable units on site noting that CLL is also a Registered Provider.

Other Phase 1 Build to Rent sites include:  Limmo Peninsula, Canning Town, Newham - with the potential for up to 1,500 homes  Southall Sidings , Ealing - with the potential for up to 400 homes  Nine Elms Tube station, Lambeth - with the potential for up to 400 homes  Armourers Court, Woolwich, Greenwich - with the potential for up to 400 homes  Hounslow West Tube station, Hounslow - with the potential for up to 350 homes  Cockfosters Tube station, Enfield - with the potential for up to 300 homes  Arnos Grove Tube station, Enfield - with the potential for up to 100 homes

4. DETAIL OF PROPOSALS

4.1 The proposed development provides two separate residential blocks which span the site in a north to south direction. These are referred to as Blocks A and B. The light industrial floorspace is located beneath the residential blocks (and comprises two floors) which span west to east across the site. Figures 7 and 8 below illustrate this arrangement respectively.

4.2 Block A to the east would range between 6 storeys (25.7m AOD) to the north rising to 8 storeys (31.9m AOD) to the south and will accommodate 54 residential dwellings (149 habitable rooms). Block B to the west would range between 7 storeys (28.7m AOD) to the north rising to 11 storeys (40.9m AOD) to the south and would accommodate 85 residential dwellings (219 habitable rooms). Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the scale and appearance of the development.

4.3 The affordable housing would comprise 53 units in total, all of which will be accommodated within Block A. The affordable housing is to be provided at discounted rent levels compared to open market rents as follows:

 40 units (71.4 per cent by habitable rooms) at London Living Rent  13 units (28.6per cent by habitable rooms) at Lambeth Tenancy Strategy (2020) levels.

4.4 The proposed residential unit size mix (based on combined tenures) is set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Residential unit mix (combined tenures).

Figure 6: West Elevation facing onto Montford Place.

Figure 7: North facing elevation

Figure 8: Typical block residential layout arrangement.

4.5 The proposed light industrial floorspace would be split in two parts between the north block (1,427sqm) and the south block (1,288sqm). The floorspace would be delivered to shell and core stage and is proposed to achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’.

4.6 The proposed light industrial floorspace is flexible and intended to ensure that a wide range of occupiers could be accommodated at the site through the lifetime of the proposed development. The proposals are aimed to attract creative, artistic and entrepreneurial individuals, start-ups, and established companies. The flexible workspace will be designed to accommodate various occupiers from individual start-up’s, Small-Medium Sized Enterprises (SME’s) to larger organisations.

Figure 9: Light industrial floorspace arrangement (north and south).

4.7 In terms of external building appearance and choice of materials the proposals seek to use brick throughout with textured brickwork for detail and definition. Fenestration on the broader sides of the development (west and east) would be generous in size to reference the industrial aesthetic of the area. In particular, the ground and first floors levels of the non-residential element proposes to use Crittal style glazed openings situated between brick piers (see Figure 10 below). Proportionately smaller openings would be used for the residential block ends (north facing) which face onto the Georgian terrace to provide a calmer architectural effect (see Figure 7).

Figure 10: Typical façade detail for light industrial elements

4.8 The central courtyard is designed to accommodate the majority of arrivals into the site. It is proposed to form the interface between the residential lobby and the

entrances into the industrial spaces. Landscape typologies include a mix of public realm, working mews, break out space and access & servicing (see Figures 11 and 12 below).

Figures 11 and 12: Images of courtyard mews and access point off Montford Place

4.9 The proposed development includes two elevated roof gardens that provide communal space and play space for residents. These shared amenity spaces are accessible for all residents of the site.

4.10 The proposed development includes biodiverse roofs which are spilt between the roof sections on the industrial buildings at Level 2 and the roofs of the residential buildings at Levels 8 and 11.

4.11 The landscape proposals would also include a series of landscaped spaces across the site which will include new trees, amenity grass areas and wildflower grass roofs.

4.12 Vehicular access would be retained from Montford Place to the west of the site. All vehicles entering and exiting the site would do so in forward gear, utilising turning areas within the site. Turning areas, which can also be utilised for loading / unloading, are to be provided within the site as well.

4.13 The proposed development would be car-free (except for the provision of 5 disabled persons parking spaces; 4 for the residential element and 1 for the commercial element). This equates to a 3 per cent active provision for the residential element.

4.14 In total 244 long stay cycle spaces are included for the residential element, with an additional 5 short-stay spaces. The long stay spaces are located reasonable distance to block entrances and will be secure and covered. The short stay spaces are located within the public realm of the application site, close to entrances and in areas benefiting from natural surveillance. 11 long stay spaces for the light industrial use are proposed within the internal commercial areas but the detailed location has not been provided at this stage.

4.15 Amendments

4.16 During the course of the application, the following amendments were made:  Revised affordable housing offer to incorporate rents at Lambeth Tenancy Strategy (2020) levels.  Incorporation of privacy mitigation measures in northern and eastern facing elevations  Revised provision of cycle parking  Revised Energy Strategy  Changes to the treatment of the main access point

4.17 Due to the minor nature of the amendments it was not considered necessary to re- consult

4.18 It is noted that the original description of development which was included in the consultation letters and site notices referenced the amount of commercial floorspace and unit numbers proposed. This has been removed from the description, however a condition (50) ensures that the quantum of each use is clearly defined. As such, this change is also considered to be non-material and does not prejudice the rights of interested third parties.

5. PLANNING PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT

5.1 The current proposals have been the subject of pre-application discussions (under a Planning Performance Agreement) which commenced in February 2019 and continued until the formal planning submission in May 2020. The consultation process has included at various stages councillors and officers from development management planning, transport, highways, heritage and design teams at Lambeth as well as the applicant and their consultant teams.

5.2 The applicant has also conducted two separate public consultations events with the local community. The full details including dates and nature of comments made at each event and the applicant’s response to concerns are contained in the Statement of Community Involvement prepared on behalf of the applicant by Cascade Communications Ltd and forms part of the formal submission information.

6. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 The planning history of the site which also includes schemes on adjoining or other nearby sites which are considered to be of particular relevance to the development is listed below:

12/04795/G31: Prior Approval for demolition under Part 31, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (1995) with regard to

the demolition of vacant six storey building with roof level plant room and associated structures and walls. Approved 11.01.13.

12/04709/CON: (associated conservation area consent) Demolition of vacant six storey building with roof level plant room and associated structures and walls. Approved 20.02.13.

13/05217/FUL: Temporary use of the land for a construction support site, including site offices, welfare facilities, storage of construction materials, visitor car parking. Along with the erection of site hoardings, site security, including CCTV and lighting and temporary access arrangements. Approved 27.03.14.

19/04384/EIASCR: Request for a Screening Opinion in respect of an Environmental Impact Assessment for a mixed use proposal that includes buildings up to 11 storeys in height which could comprise up to 145 residential units, 2,700sqm (GEA) of commercial floor space (B1 b-c) with associated indoor and outdoor amenity, public realm space and parking. Approved 13.12.19.

6.2 The two large-scale mixed use schemes granted planning permission to the west of the site are also relevant. Their respective details are as follows:

Tesco Stores, 275 Kennington Lane & 145-149 Vauxhall Street

18/02597/EIAFUL: Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development comprising the erection of 3 new buildings (Plot A,B,C) ranging from 4-17 storeys to provide 571 residential units (Class C3), a replacement Tesco store of 4,655sqm (including sales area/back of house and car parking), 2,638sqm of Class B1 office, 1,159sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Class A1-A3, B1), 62 retail and 24 disabled residential car parking spaces; with associated cycle parking and landscaping/public realm improvements along Cutlers Way and Phoenix Street. Approved 21.12.18.

18/02598/FUL: Erection of temporary Tesco store on the existing Tesco car park site, comprising 1,435sqm GEA (including 943sqm of net sales retail floorspace), 63 car parking spaces, service yard, associated cage marshalling and trolley shelter for a duration of 30 months. Approved 21.12.18.

20/02203/VOC: Variation of Conditions 2 (Approved Plans) and 70 (Quantum of Development) of planning permission 18/02597/EIAFUL (Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development comprising the erection of 3 new buildings (Plot A,B,C) ranging from 4-17 storeys to provide residential (Class C3), a replacement Tesco store (Class A1), office (Class B1) and flexible commercial floorspace (Classes A1, A2, A3 or B1)) granted on 21.12.2018 as amended by 19/03649/NMC and 20/00786/NMC. Resolution to grant permission by PAC on 24.11.2020

It is noted that under this application, the previously approved Block B has been re- named as Block G, however this report refers to its original name (Block B) for

consistency with the documents submitted as part of the application under consideration.

Oval and Kennington Gas Holder Site

17/05772/EIAFUL: Demolition of existing buildings and structures including temporary disassembly of listed gas holder no.1, demolition of locally-listed gas holders 4 and 5, redevelopment to provide a mixed-use development comprising re-erection of restored gas-holder no.1, erection of new buildings ranging from 4-18 storeys to provide 738 residential units (Class C3), 10,160sqm of Class B1 office and Class B1 shared working space incorporating ancillary cafe and space for community use, 800sqm for waste management use, 148sqm of D1 community space, the provision of a new publically accessible open space, new pedestrian and vehicle routes, accesses and amenity areas, basement level car park with integral servicing areas, provision of new gas governor and substation, and other associated works of de-contamination. Approved 23.08.18.

17/05773/LB: Temporary disassembly of listed gas holder no.1 and removal of gas holder structures from the site for restoration including cleaning and restoration of the guide frame components and hand rail, fabrication of replacement components where the original components are missing or degraded beyond repair, re-painting, subsequent, decontamination of the land, re-erection of restored gasholder no.1 with alterations to surround a 10-storey residential building within its circumference as part of wider redevelopment of Oval Gas Works site. Approved 23.08.18.

6.3 The Northern Line Extension works are relevant to this planning application insofar as they are connected to the temporary use of the application site as mentioned above. The details for this application are as follows:

TWA 3/1/415: A Transport and Works Act Order which authorises London Underground Limited ("LUL") to construct and operate a 3.2 kilometre extension of the Charing Cross Branch of the Northern Line from Kennington to a new station at the site of the disused Battersea Power Station, with an intermediate station at Nine Elms. The scheme (referred to as "the NLE") includes permanent ventilation shafts and head-houses at Kennington Park and Kennington Green and four new cross-passages at Kennington station. The Order also authorises the compulsory acquisition and temporary use of land for the purposes of the NLE.

7. CONSULTATIONS

7.1 Statutory and External Consultees

7.1.1 The following section of the report presents the responses received from statutory consultees. A list of all consultees have been provide in Appendix 2 of the report.

7.1.2 Greater London Authority (GLA) Stage 1 Report (Received 20th July 2020):

 Principle of development: Support given to the principle of development for co- location of light industrial floorspace with housing on this Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS). The provision of light industrial floorspace (B1c) on site is strongly supported. In order to ensure the efficient function of the industrial floorspace and meet the key operational requirements of the industrial end users, key design requirements and fit out specifications should be secured by condition by the council. This should include the provision of suitable goods lifts (Condition 11 and 51). Mitigations measures to mitigate any potential sources of disturbances for residents and users of the industrial floorspace should also be secured by condition (Condition 30, 31, 32 and 33).

 Affordable housing: Confirmed that the application site forms part of the TfL development portfolio which has agreement to deliver a total quantum of 50 per cent affordable housing across all of the development sites in the portfolio. Content with target rate of 40 per cent affordable housing by habitable room with 30 per cent of the Discount Market Rent (DMR) units set at levels equivalent to London Living Rent (LLR) and 70 per cent at rents at an average of 65 per cent of Open Market Rent (OMR). The scheme could be eligible to follow the Fast Track Route, subject to confirmation of the final tenure split. However, it is acknowledged that further discussions with Lambeth are required on matters relating to the acceptability of the tenure split, rent levels, and unit mix and that grant funding should be investigated by the applicant. Appropriate review mechanisms should be secured in the event planning permission is given.

 Residential quality and play space: Support general layouts (in terms of units per core and individual unit basis) although applicant should confirm that all units meet the relevant space standards and minimum floor to ceiling heights. The proposed play space provision exceeds the GLA calculator requirements and is supported.

 Urban design: Support general layout, massing and height of proposed development. Applicant should review the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at the entrance of the mews at the vehicular access points and potentially enforce their priority in the central mews space as well. Key construction and façade details should be secured by condition (Conditions 9 and 10).

 Heritage: Considers the harm to the significance of the heritage assets to be ‘less than substantial’ and should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, which are the provision of a scheme of exemplary design that delivers genuinely affordable homes and workspace designed to meet the operational requirements of industrial end users.

 Inclusive design: The council should secure M4(2) and M4(3) requirements with plans showing the location nd number of wheelchair accessible/adaptable fats. The provision of lifts for the commercial element of the scheme should be secured by condition (13).

 Climate change: Further information is required on energy efficiency measures; overheating; district heating, the heat pump strategy, PV potential and the carbon offset payment. The applicant should consider rainwater harvesting as a SuDS measure and water harvesting and reuse to reduce wholesome water consumption. Appropriate conditions in relation to flood risk and water usage should be secured by condition (43, 44, 46).

 Transport: Applicant is advised to bring forward measures that will address some of the issues raised in its Active Travel Zone assessment with regard to complying with the Mayor’s Healthy Streets principles. The applicant should provide measures to enforce pedestrian and cyclist priority in the central mews space, in particular around the entrance to site. Servicing arrangements for the southern portion of the commercial space, using the central mews, should be reconsidered. Further information is required on car park design and management plan (C25) and cycle parking. A financial contribution of £10k has been requested towards Legible London signage. A detailed Construction and Logistics plan is requested to be secured by condition (3).

7.1.3 Officer Comment: Following extended negotiations with the applicant officers confirm that the scheme would provide an acceptable affordable housing tenure split and rent levels in the 70 per cent DMR element. The tenure mix and DMR rent levels will be secured through the S106. The proposed affordable unit size mix provides an adequate mix of units for both single and family sized households. A package of public benefits is provided to off-set the harm caused to heritage assets. The applicant undertook further investigations in relation to energy strategy which has been revised and the GLA subsequently confirmed that there are no outstanding issues subject to conditions which are recommended. The applicant has also introduced changes to the main entrance to the mews to enforce pedestrian and cyclist priority and provided revised details for cycle parking. Appropriately worded conditions along with s106 Heads of Terms (HoTs) are recommended to address all issues raised. The amendments made will be considered by the GLA in their Stage II response.

7.1.4 Transport For London (Infrastructure Asset Protection) comments received 26.05.20. No comment.

7.1.5 Transport for London comments received 28.07.2020 – no objection. Interventions should be brought forward to address some of the issues raised in the ATZ assessment. The applicant should provide measures to enforce pedestrian and cyclist priority in the central mews space, in particular around the entrance to site. Servicing arrangements for the southern portion of the commercial space, using the central mews, should be reconsidered. The number of trips anticipated by public transport can be accommodated within existing and planned service capacities. Legible London contribution should be secured. A Car Park Design and Management Plan will be required to detail how the disabled persons parking will be monitored and should be secured as a condition or through the s106. Cycle parking level of provision is acceptable but information on detailed design is required. A detailed Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) should also be secured by condition and prepared in accordance with TfL’s guidance. An outline CLP has been provided by the applicant, which

highlights a commitment to use FORS silver vehicles on site, and off-peak hours for deliveries, which is welcomed.

7.1.6 Officer comment: The applicant revised cycle parking details and access arrangements to the central mews during the application process to address the issues raised. Further information relating to servicing has also been provided and improvement to highways would be secured through obligations. Appropriately worded conditions along with s106 HoTs are recommended to address the issues raised.

7.1.7 Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLASS) comments received 02.06.20 – conclude that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest.

7.1.8 Historic England comments received 28.05.20 – The proposed buildings appear as contrasting elements and are likely to cause some harm to the setting of the foreground buildings (231-245 Kennington Lane) and the Kennington Conservation Area by reason of their scale, proximity and removal of clear sky behind the clear horizontal rooflines of these buildings. HE has noted that the similar impacts the recent approved developments on the Kennington Gasworks and Tesco’s sites have on the same buildings. Accordingly, request the council to weigh up the harm against any public benefits arising from the proposals in accordance with policy 196 of the NPPF.

7.1.9 Officer comment: The resulting harm has been identified as ‘less than substantial’ by officers of the Council. In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, officers consider that the harm identified would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal as set out in ‘Assessment of harm versus benefits’ section – paras 9.4.50 – 9.4.54 of this report.

7.1.10 The Georgian Group comments received 12.06.20 – Object to the proposals in their current form. Considerable harm will be caused by the massing and height of the new development which would pose an incongruous and over scaled structure. Accordingly the significance of a number of heritage assets which includes 231-245 Kennington Lane, 346-356 Kennington Road, and Imperial Court along with the Kennington Conservation Area will be harmed significantly.

7.1.11 Officer comment: The resulting harm has been identified as ‘less than substantial’ by officers of the Council and the GLA. In line with paragraphs 194 and 196 of the NPPF, officers consider that clear and convincing justification has been provided and the harm identified would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal as set out in ‘Assessment of harm versus benefits’ section – paras 9.4.50 – 9.4.54 of this report.

7.1.12 Environment Agency comments received 08.06.20 – No objections subject to planning conditions relating to the mitigation of contamination risks; verification that remediation has been completed in accordance with an approved strategy; measures to prevent infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground and restrictions on piling or other penetrative measures.

7.1.13 Officer comment: Appropriately worded conditions (7, 8, 20 and 21) are recommended if the committee is minded to approve the application.

7.1.14 Thames Water comments received 08.06.20 – No objections subject to condition being imposed to secure details of water network upgrades.

7.1.15 Officer comment: Appropriately worded condition (45) is recommended if the committee is minded to approve the application.

7.1.16 London Fire Brigade comments received 11.06.20 – Does not object although expects formal consultation under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005; Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 and the Local Authority or the Health and Safety Executive. An undertaking should be given that access for fire appliances required for firefighting will be provided and that LFB are consulted when the process reaches the building consultation phase.

7.1.17 Officer comment: An informative (10) is recommended if the committee is minded to approve the application.

7.1.18 Design Officer (Metropolitan Police) comments received 27.07.20 – no objections subject to pre-commencement and pre-occupation conditions to secure end to end compliance with Secure By Design and relevant certification.

7.1.19 Officer comment: Appropriately worded conditions (57 and 58) are recommended if the committee is minded to approve the application.

7.2 Internal Consultees

7.2.1 The following section of the report presents the responses received from colleagues across the council.

7.2.2 Design and Conservation comments received 17.06.20 – Acknowledges that the main issues relate to bulk, scale and mass and the impacts it has on the listed buildings and significance of the Kennington Conservation Area although concludes that the harm caused is less than substantial. It is requested that there is clear and convincing justification for the harm caused before public benefits of the scheme are considered in accordance with paragraph 194 of the NPPF. Officers will need to consider the impacts on resident’s amenity. If officers are minded to recommend approval it is requested that conditions relating to external construction detail drawings; provision of sample panels for any obscured glazing screens; property name and numbers to be displayed clearly at all times and securing obscuring of lower parts of windows of south and west elevations Block B.

7.2.3 Officer comment: The applicant has provided the justification for the harm in the Planning Statement Addendum. In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, officers consider that the harm identified would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal as set out in ‘Assessment of harm versus benefits’ section – paras 9.4.50 –

9.4.54 of this report. Conditions relating to detailed design are recommended (9, 10, 12, 15).

7.2.4 Lambeth Building Control comments received 12.08.20 – Fire strategy demonstrates a reasonable and thorough approach to Fire Safety at this point in the design stage. Detailed design to be inspected prior to approval and certification under Building Regulations and would include consultation with London Fire Brigade in accordance with current guidelines.

7.2.5 Lead Local Flood Officer comments received 21.07.20 – No objection in principle to the development although recommends planning conditions to secure a detailed design of the surface water drainage system and a management/maintenance plan for the development.

7.2.6 Officer comment: Appropriately worded conditions (8, 17 and 18) are recommended if the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.7 Regulatory Support Services (Environmental Health) comments received 12.05.20 – No objections in principle to development although request conditions to include submission of a final Construction and Environmental Management Plan; a further site investigation plan; Pedestrian Wind Microclimate Assessment; details of flues and extraction plant and noise and ventilation plant and their maintenance; scheme to attenuate noise and vibration and ventilation to prevent overheating and regulate thermal comfort; operating hours for the café use and a customer management plan; delivery and servicing plan and details of all external lighting.

7.2.8 Officer comment: Appropriately worded conditions (3, 7, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 55) are recommended if the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.9 Transport comments received 26.06.20 – No objections to principle of development. Further information and clarifications were sought with regards to access and servicing arrangements, parking survey results to consider consented schemes, cycle provision, residential servicing information and management, cumulative construction impacts. The requested information was provided and cycle parking and access to the main mews were revised. The transport officer raised no objections subject to conditions relating to Car Parking Management Plan, Delivery and Servicing Plan, Cycle Parking, Refuse storage details, Travel Plan, Construction Environmental Management Plan being attached to any permission granted and a commitment being provided to enter into a s106 and S278 agreement for off-site highways works and improvements to Healthy Routes Network, car permit free, car club and cycle hire membership. This is set out in detail in the ‘Transport Section’ below.

7.2.10 Officer comment: Appropriately worded conditions (3, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 2) and s106 HoT are recommended if the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.11 Lambeth Highways comments received 04.08.20 – No objections although requires the Construction Logistics Plan to include detailed of measures to prevent deposit of mud and debris on the public highway. Advises that all relevant approvals to operate

on the highway are obtained prior to starting. Also the applicant should to enter into a S278 Agreement to improve the public highway adjacent to the development.

7.2.12 Officer comment: An appropriately worded condition (3) and s106 HoT are recommended if the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.13 Travel Plan Coordinator comments received 01.07.20 – No objections although recommends further updates and clarifications to be made to the Travel Plan and asks that it is secured by planning obligation (including relevant travel plan monitoring fees).

7.2.14 Officer comment: An appropriately worded condition (26) and s106 HoT are recommended if the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.15 Bioregional (consultant energy and sustainability advisors) comments received 15/06/20 – No objections in principle subject to conditions that will ensure that the scheme achieves a minimum 35 per cent reduction target for both residential and non- residential elements; updated energy statement that confirms the final cash-in-lieu payment; how improvements to energy efficiency in the Be Lean category will meet the minimum target of 10 per cent reduction; an updated Energy and Sustainability statement that confirms that very best standards for design, construction and operation stages have been incorporated; BREEAM design stage and post occupation certification for approval of the LPA; overheating analysis to demonstrate that the non- residential elements have been analysed for overheating and it has followed the London Plan cooling hierarchy; details of water efficiency measures and detailed specification of green roofs.

7.2.16 Officer comment: Appropriately worded conditions (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48 and 49) to secure the above matters including S106 planning obligations to secure connection to district heating and carbon off-set contributions is recommended if the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.17 Air Quality comments received 21.08.19 – No objections raised subject to conditions being included to secure details of measures that will mitigate impacts of construction and operational phases on air quality.

7.2.18 Officer comment: Appropriately worded conditions (3, 4, 5 and 6) are recommended if the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.19 Employment and Skills comments received 05.02.20- No objections subject to securing financial contributions amounting to a total of £105,526 which will be put towards supporting workplace training initiatives; and providing an Employment and Skills Plan that will outline commitments towards securing local labour targets of 25 per cent during construction and end-use occupation phases of development. The team subsequently engaged with the applicant and agreed an in-kind provision of workplace training initiatives instead of the financial contribution.

7.2.20 Officer comment: The recommended employment and skills plan and in-kind provision of training skills contribution is recommended to be secured as S106 planning obligations if the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.21 Waste Services (Veolia) comments received 04.08.20 – No objections subject to their being dropped kerbs at both collection points to allow for safe collection by operatives.

7.2.22 Officer comment: These works will be facilitated by a S.278 agreement secured under the S106 in the event the council is minded to approve the application.

7.2.23 Planning Policy comments received 17/07/20 – No objections in principle to the mixed use light industrial and residential given the emerging London Plan policy position as a material consideration. Build to Rent residential is also supported in principle subject to the criteria in London Plan being met. Affordable housing of 40 per cent proposed with grant should be confirmed. If officers are satisfied that the scheme is not feasible in design terms to provide low cost social rented affordable housing in a separate core and/or block, provision of DMR units managed as part of the Build to Rent scheme can be accepted. However, of these 30 per cent should be secured as LLR equivalent rents and the remaining 70 per cent at a range of genuinely affordable rents to meet local priority need and guided by the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy. Viability mechanisms and if possible longer covenant period that the minimum 15 years should be sought in accordance with the emerging revised Local Plan policy.

7.2.24 Officer comment: The development is unable to feasibly provide a separate core to facilitate low cost social rented units. Following the independent review of viability, it has been concluded that the originally proposed affordable housing offer is the maximum viable and the 70 per cent of DMR element would not be able to provide a range of rents that are fully aligned with the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy. However, as a result of extensive discussions with the applicant and the GLA, an additional grant has been secured in principle which allowed to reduce the future rent levels in closer alignment with the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy. The proposal delivers the best viable tenures and review mechanisms will be used to secure improved rent levels if viability improves. In terms of securing a longer covenant period of 25 years, while officers tried to secure a period longer than 15 years, given that Draft Review Lambeth Local Plan Proposed Submission Version (DRLLP PSV) H12 is still undergoing examination and is subject to as yet unresolved objections it can only be afforded limited weight at this point. As such, this would not warrant a reason for refusal in this case. S106 obligations are recommended to secure tenure, rent levels, covenant period and early and late review mechanisms in line with the Mayor’s Viability SPG.

7.2.14 LBL Housing comments received 22.05.20 - No objections, provision of DMR should be guided by the current Lambeth Tenancy Strategy and the provision of family sized units at Lambeth Tenancy Strategy levels maximised if viability review shows sufficient surplus or additional grant becomes available. TtR product details, rent levels, management arrangements and eligibility should be secured through 106 agreement.

7.2.15 Officer comment: S106 obligations are recommended to secure tenure, rent levels, covenant period and early and late review mechanisms in line with the Mayor’s Viability SPG, management arrangements and eligibility criteria.

7.3 Amenity/Residents Groups

7.3.1 Cleaver Square, Cleaver Street and Bowden Street Residents' Association: The development plans show complete disregard for the conservation status of the area and those who live near the site. The site lies within the Kennington Conservation Area, so any applications for developing the site must preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and meet the conditions of the most recent (2012) Conservation Area Statement. This planning application clearly does not meet those conditions. If this proposal were accepted, it would not only fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area but also set a troubling precedent for the area. Acknowledge the need for additional housing, but this needs to be appropriate for the site, which this proposal is not.

7.3.2 Officer comment: The height and design quality of the development has been fully considered as set out in the ‘Assessment’ section of this report. The resulting harm has been identified as ‘less than substantial’ by officers of the Council, the GLA and Historic England. In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, officers consider that the harm identified would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal as set out in ‘Assessment of harm versus benefits’ section – paras 9.4.50 – 9.4.54 of this report.

7.3.3 Heart of Kennington Residents' Association: The site lies within the Kennington Conservation Area, so any applications for developing the site must preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and meet the conditions of the most recent (2012) Conservation Area Statement. This planning application clearly does not meet those conditions. Both the adjacent listed four-storey Georgian terrace along Kennington Lane and the Georgian houses on Kennington Green will be overshadowed by the scale of the proposed development, which is also unacceptably close to the rear of the Kennington Lane terrace where the occupants would have much reduced light. The Conservation Area is described as representing 'one of the most intact and architecturally coherent areas of architecture and townscape within Lambeth dating from the late 18th to early 19th century. The conservation area is considered to have London-wide significance in this respect.' If this proposal were accepted, it would not only fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area but also set a troubling precedent for the area. There are no vacant sites in our immediate area but there are some with development potential, all currently surrounded by low-rise properties. If this application is approved, it would give a green light to developers to build upwards and overshadow adjacent properties, as well as challenging the very reasons for the designation of the Conservation Area.

7.3.4 Officer comment: The height and design quality of the development has been fully considered as set out in the ‘Assessment’ section of this report. The resulting harm has been identified as ‘less than substantial’ by officers of the Council, the GLA and Historic England. In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, officers consider that the

harm identified would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal as set out in ‘Assessment of harm versus benefits’ section – paras 9.4.50 – 9.4.54 of this report. The impact on sunlight and daylight received by neighbouring residential occupiers is considered to be acceptable. Refer to ‘Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers’ section 10.1 of the report.

7.3.5 Kennington Park Rd Residents Association: Object to the proposal not only because of the direct and substantial harm it will cause to local areas, i.e. right to light, traffic flow and parks but also because its height and location will result in substantial harm to the larger Kennington Conservation area and Grade 2 listed buildings.

7.3.6 Officer comment: The resulting harm has been identified as ‘less than substantial’ by officers of the Council, the GLA and Historic England. In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, officers consider that the harm identified would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal as set out in ‘Assessment of harm versus benefits’ section – paras 9.4.50 – 9.4.54 of this report. The impact on sunlight and daylight received by neighbouring residential occupiers is considered to be acceptable. Refer to ‘Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers’ section – para 10.1 of the report. The impact on the transport network and parking in the area is considered to be acceptable. Refer to ‘Transport’ section – para 13.7-13.14 of the report.

7.4 Adjoining owners/occupiers

7.4.1 The application was originally advertised on the 22.05.20 with 3 site notices displayed from 22.05.20 to 12.06.20 and the application including an advert in the local paper on the 21.05.20. The formal consultation period ended 14.08.20. The application was subsequently considered by officers to be a departure matter and accordingly carried out a second round of neighbour notification on the 21.07.20 for 21 days. The formal consultation period ended on the 14.08.20.

7.4.2 The Council has followed the procedural requirements relating to applications which are departures (i.e. do not comply with the development plan policies) and the application has been advertised as a departure on the basis that it is not in accordance with the following Lambeth Local Plan Policies:

 Policy ED1 ‘Development in KIBAs will be permitted only for business, industrial, storage and waste management uses, including green industries and other compatible industrial and commercial uses (excluding large scale retail) ancillary to, or providing for, the needs of the KIBA; and

 Policy Q26 (a)(ii) ‘there is no adverse impact on the significance of strategic or local views or heritage assets including their settings’. The outcome of the consultation is set out below.

7.4.3 In total, 209 local residents were consulted on the applications with 96 individual representations having been received during the consultation period of which one is in support, one neutral and 94 were in objection. The objections include a Heritage and

Design Critique by RMA Heritage and a Review of Daylight and Sunlight Report by BRE which were commissioned by local residents. Several objectors submitted multiple emails.

7.4.4 The one letter of support received has not given any reasons to substantiate its position.

7.4.5 The neutral comment raised concerns relating to the adjoining operations of the Beefeater Distillery and is included in Table 2 which summarises the key objections:

Summary of objections Response Land Use  The application does not adequately re- The proposals include sufficient provide for employment space. employment generating floorspace – refer to ‘Land Use’ section 9.1.2 – 9.1.11 of the report.  Build to Rent does not contribute to The emerging London Plan recognises that creating and contributing to sustainable Build to Rent developments can make a communities. positive contribution to the delivery of new homes and expects boroughs to take a positive approach to the Built to Rent sector.  Homes provided are not truly affordable The proposal includes 40 per cent to local people. Last thing needed is affordable housing and details of the more expensive flats that locals can’t proposed tenures are set out in section afford. 9.2.7 - 9.2.30 of the report.  Fails to meet emerging local policy The proposed 15 year covenant period requirements for Build to Rent covenant complies with the emerging London Plan period. Policy. DRLLP PSV policy PH12 is still undergoing examination and is subject to as yet unresolved objections so can only be afforded limited weight at this point.  Affordable housing should be much The proposal provides policy compliant higher than the 40 per cent being level of affordable housing. Refer to offered. ‘Quantum of affordable housing’ section 9.2.9 – 9.2.15 of the report.

 The development would be built close to The planning documents submitted with the the boundary with the Beefeater application for the tanker filler station refer Distillery and its tanker filler station. The to a 10m HSE exclusion zone around the location of the tanker station, with tanker and further 5m added by the respect to the boundary was made on operator required for insurance purposes. the basis that there was open ground to The HSE data confirmed that the proposed the north. Concerns regarding the development is not located within any HSE potential consequences of projectiles consultation zone. The applicant provided a and fireworks being thrown down into contextual drawing which demonstrates that the tanker station from the balconies the proposed building is located over 15m overlooking the site. Tanker filling from the closest edge of the tanker station. stations are points at which high With regards to the use of balconies, the strength new-make gin is loaded into applicant advised that the Assured circa 27,000 litre tankers. Shorthold Tenancies specifically and strictly forbid anti-social behaviour as well as using the apartment for anything immoral that could endanger life. Overall, officers are satisfied that the proposed development will not prejudice the existing use of the adjoining site.  The proposal is a departure application - It is acknowledged that the proposed it does not follow current policy. scheme is a departure from adopted Policy ED1 and Q26 and it has been advertised and assessed with due regard to the relevant legislation.

Amenity  Unacceptable loss of daylight and It is acknowledged that the proposal’s sunlight including major adverse impacts impact includes major adverse impacts and this is discussed in detail in the ‘Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers’ section 10.1 of the report. The impact on sunlight and daylight received by neighbouring residential occupiers is considered to be acceptable on balance.  Impact is worse even when compared It is acknowledged that with regards to with the previously existing building some properties the impact of the proposed scheme is greater that the historic scenario. However, the impact overall is considered to be acceptable on balance. Refer to ‘Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers’ section 10.1 of the report.  GIA daylight and sunlight report states As specified within the BRE guide, the that a value of 15 per cent VSC is guidance ‘is purely advisory and the acceptable for the locality but this is not numerical target values within it may be supported by the BRE guidance. varied to meet the needs of the development and its location.’ Officers

consider that retained VSC values of 15 per cent or above are more commonly being considered as reasonable in urban areas and this is confirmed by appeal decisions.  GIA daylight and sunlight report assessed GIA have assessed a large number of too many properties to make the results buildings, and perhaps they have been over appear better cautious in this approach, however those that are adversely affected are discussed in more detail and it is the impacts to these that should be focused upon.  The term ‘properties’ is incorrectly It is clear which buildings and which referred to instead of ‘building’. In many windows have been tested. Without cases assessed buildings include a knowing the exact layouts of buildings number of properties within them and which contain multiple properties, it may be referring to ‘properties’ may suggest the unclear which individual properties are impact is smaller affected. It is clear which buildings do experience impacts and officers do not consider that the terminology used impacts on the detailed assessment.  The submitted daylight and sunlight The GIA daylight and sunlight report used includes incorrect assumptions with reasonable assumptions but it is regards to use and layout of a number of acknowledged that a number of properties including: Nos. 233-235, 350 assumptions were incorrect. This was and 352 Kennington Road and Imperial corrected in the subsequent addendum. Court There appear to be no planning records  The revised daylight and sunlight report regularising changes to internal layout does not address earlier concerns within the Imperial Court which would be relevant to the assessed properties but it is acknowledged that rooms originally designated as bedrooms could be used as living rooms and vice versa.  No 354 Kennington Road should be The GIA daylight and sunlight report assessed with regards to daylight and includes an analysis of this property and the sunlight results show that the impact would be within the BRE guidelines and therefore this property is not discussed in the same level of detail as other affected buildings.

 Right to Light must be a reason to refuse The impact on sunlight and daylight these proposals. received by neighbouring residential occupiers is considered to be acceptable on balance. Refer to ‘Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers’ section 10.1 of the report. Matters relating to Right to Light legislation are a civil matter which falls beyond the scope of the assessment of this application.

 Impact of reduced light on personal The impact on sunlight and daylight circumstances of neighbouring residents received by neighbouring residential (for example depression) occupiers is considered to be acceptable on balance. Refer to ‘Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers’ section 10.1 of the report. Also refer to ‘Equality, Duty and Human rights’ section 20 of the report.  Concerns relating to the professional Officers are satisfied that the daylight and experience of the GIA daylight sunlight report was prepared by a suitable consultant professional and its findings were reviewed by the council’s independent advisor.

 Overlooking and loss of privacy from Overlooking and privacy issues can be windows, balconies and terraces mitigated through measures such as obscured glazing and privacy screens which will be secured by conditions. The impact on overlooking and privacy to neighbouring residential occupiers is considered to be acceptable. Refer to ‘Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers’ section – para 10.54 – 10.59 of the report.  Visually overbearing leading to a loss of The proposal would not be overbearing or outlook and impact on views; result in any undue loss of outlook to neighbouring residential properties. Refer to ‘Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers’ section – para 10.54 – 10.59 of the report. Assessment of views is provided in ‘Design and Conservation’ section - para 9.4.9 – 9.4.11.  Increased noise and disturbance The impact on noise and disturbance to including associated with plant, vehicles, neighbouring residential properties is servicing area considered to be acceptable. It is considered that the location of the servicing area is acceptable. Refer to ‘Noise and Vibration’ section – para 10.59 – 10.64 of the report.  The proposal will deteriorate local air The impact on local air quality is acceptable quality and increase pollution, including and would be controlled by condition. Refer cumulative impact with other approved to ‘Air quality’ section – para 15.10 - 15.16 schemes of the report. Residential quality

 Lack of open space/poor quality of The proposal includes provision of amenity amenity space. space including communal which exceeds the minimum standards. The scheme includes features which will enhance nature conservation and its biodiversity value. Refer to ‘Private and communal amenity provision section – para 9.3.28 – 9.3.41 and ‘Ecology’ section – para 12.4 – 12.8 of the report.  The GIA daylight and sunlight report There are a number of approaches for incorrectly assessed daylight provision to assessing LKDs. GIA have notionally cut off living/kitchen/dining (LKD) rooms. The the room where the kitchen is located to the rooms as a whole should be assessed rear of the room, effectively assessing the and the higher 2 per cent target value living room only using a 1.5 per cent target adopted, although it is acknowledged that value. Officers consider it is logical to do so some local authorities will accept the where the kitchen is located to the rear of a lower 1.5 per cent target value for this usually deep space and where room type. Using this approach a supplementary lighting would be used. compliance rate of only 56 – 63 percent would be achieved for ADF which is very poor.  Concern whether trees will grow in The landscaping scheme including choice shadow of plants has been designed to respond to site’s conditions and final details will be secured by conditions.

 The proposed privacy mitigation Detailed design of the privacy mitigation measures may reduce light available for measures are secured by a condition and future occupiers the assessment of the details will consider their impact on the quality of proposed accommodation. Heritage and Design  Scheme causes substantial harm to There would be less than substantial harm heritage assets. to heritage assets, which would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. Refer to ‘Impact on Heritage Assets’ section – para 9.4.12 - 9.4.54 of the report.  No justification for the heritage harm in The applicant submitted Planning the first instance. Statement Addendum which provides clear and convincing justification for the harm that would be caused to heritage assets.  Excessive height and massing The approved schemes within the OAKDA  Proposals are higher than the OAKDA include heights up to 18 storeys on the gas scheme. holder site and 17 storeys on the Tesco site. The height of Block B within the Tesco site which is nearest to the proposed

development would be up to 11 storeys as recently revised under ref: 20/02203/VOC) which matches the proposed scheme. The proposed scale and height of the building is considered to be justified. The development would not affect strategic or protected views. Refer to Design and Conservation section – para 9.4.9 – 9.4.11 of the report.  The layout of the transverse ground floor The layout of the proposed scheme allows wings and the opposing upper floors block to maximise the development of the site is alien to the typical footprint and layout and it is not considered to cause harm to of buildings in the conservation area surrounding area.  Block B sits forward of the building line The proposed building line is considered to which the demolished 19th century be acceptable and relates well to the housing formed existing development on the surrounding sites.  Modern building form is not sympathetic The proposal is of high design quality and to its existing surroundings, detailed the architectural expression responds to design fails to relate well to context and design requirements and local context. balconies appear cluttered, roof gardens Refer to ‘Design and Conservation’ section are alien, excessive use of brick. – paras 9.4.4 -  Impact on outlook from a number of listed The council’s Conservation Officer advised buildings would cause harm to their that the views from listed buildings do not setting constitute part of their setting. As such, impact on outlook would not cause harm to the setting of heritage assets.  Tall building will block views of prominent The development would not affect strategic sites such as London Eye and Palace of or protected views. Refer to para 9.4.8 of Westminster. the report.

• There is no justification on viability The proposal optimises the development of grounds for the harm that would be the application site and it is considered that inflicted by the development. The the less than substantial harm to heritage applicant's documents outline that the assets is outweighed by the public benefits site would have an increased value if which the scheme would deliver. Refer to developed in line with existing planning ‘Impact on Heritage Assets’ section – para policy, compared to the site value under 9.4.12 - 9.4.54 the proposed scheme. of the report.

 A large proposal might be  The site’s sensitive context has been understandable given the political considered by officers as discussed pressures to deliver housing, but it is not throughout the report. The application is appropriate on this site. The applicant’s considered on its merits. portfolio and approach to build in bulk is not acceptable on this site Transport

 Increased congestion and on-street It is expected that the development would parking demand reducing vehicle trips to the site. On-street parking would be controlled and residents and businesses would be restricted from obtaining parking permits. Refer to ‘Transport’ section – para 13.17 -13.14 of the report.  Failure to consider the impact of fast food The impact of expected deliveries including and ad hoc deliveries. grocery and take away deliveries has been assessed and it is considered and an on- street loading bay is proposed to accommodate them. Refer to Servicing section – para 13.8 – 13.13 of the report.  Proposals do not address refuse disposal The proposals include a refuse and or collection. recycling servicing strategy which is considered to be acceptable. Refer to ‘Refuse storage and collection’ section – para 13.18 – 13.19 of the report.  Cumulative impact with OAKDA The cumulative impact of the proposed development not considered. scheme together with other large sites in the OAKDA has been considered including on street parking pressure and construction impacts and is considered to be acceptable.

Other  Fire safety risk has not been considered The submission includes a Fire Statement properly. which demonstrates that the proposals have been designed with due consideration to fire safety which will be also scrutinised in greater detail at Building Control stage. Refer to ‘Fire Strategy’ section – para 15.23 – 15.24 of the report.  Consultation issues – developer While pre-application consultation with the consultation not comprehensive enough community is strongly encouraged, it is not  Neighbour notifications at Imperial Court compulsory. The submitted Statement of were received close to the deadline for Community Involvement provides details of comments. the consultations undertaken by the applicant.

The LPA undertook consultation in relation to the application in accordance with statutory requirements. All representations received, including any late submissions, have been considered by officers.  Site insignificant in what it will deliver in The provision of 139 residential units terms of housing for the Mayor. contributes towards meeting the borough’s hosing targets and is welcomed.

 Impact on social infrastructure - doctors The application is accompanied by surgeries and schools to accommodate Education and Health Needs Assessment housing growth. which shows that there is sufficient capacity in the area to accommodate demand for GP and educational services created by the proposed development.  Site land value provides justification that The application has to be considered on its there is no need for such a dense/tall merits. Viability and design related matters development. are discussed in the relevant sections of the report.  An application for an additional storey to Each application has to be considered on it Imperial Court was refused as so should own merits. It is considered that the refused be this application. scheme is materially different to the scheme under consideration.  The council tax income and similar from The public benefits associated with the the scheme should not persuade the proposals are discussed in para 9.4.54 of Council to approve the scheme. this report.

 Green space was promised on the The site is designated for industrial use application site rather than housing rather than open space. Refer to ‘Land Use’ section 9.1 of the report.

 This plan deviates from the OAKDA It is acknowledged that the proposals do Masterplan not strictly follow the OAKDA masterplan. Its status is further discussed in para 8.10 of this report.  The applicant’s Montford Place Contribution towards workplace training Employment & Skills Proposal would offer initiatives is a requirement of Policy ED14 of benefits to "Lambeth Residents", not the the LLP and this is used by the council to community local to the development site. support schemes across the borough. The This should not be treated as a material proposed in-kind provision is considered to consideration. be acceptable and is further discussed in section 16 of this report.

Table 2. Summary of objections

8. POLICIES

8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2016, consolidated with alterations since 2011), the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015). This application is also subject to the heritage statutory provisions as set out in the agenda pack and heritage analysis of the report.

8.2 In December 2019 the London Plan (Intend to Publish version) was published by the GLA. This followed the Examination in Public on the Draft London Plan (published in December 2017), which was held between January and May 2019. On 21 October 2019 the Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations. These recommendations (although not all) have been incorporated into the Intend to Publish version. The draft London Plan is given a significant amount of weight in planning decisions. It will not be given full weight until the final version of the London Plan is published.

8.3 On 13 March 2020 the Secretary of State formally directed the Mayor to make a number of detailed modifications to the wording of various policies in the Intend to Publish version released in December 2019. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, whilst such a direction remains in force, the Mayor must not proceed to publish the London Plan (in its final form) without modifying the Intend to Publish version so as to comply with the direction. From the Mayor’s reply to the Secretary of State on 24 April 2020 as published on the GLA website, it appears that there may be further dialogue between the Mayor and the Secretary of State about the modifications. However, the outcome of this process is not known at present. This report has taken into account the effect of the Secretary of State’s direction on emerging London Plan policies.

8.4 The Secretary of State’s modifications would affect emerging policies in the Intend to Publish version that are relevant to this application although the council does not consider that the effect of those changes is to introduce materially new emerging policy considerations to the assessment of the scheme. The degree of weight to be attached to the Intend to Publish London Plan (IPLP) as a whole is noted above.

8.5 The Lambeth Local Plan (LLP) is currently under partial review to ensure it complies with amendments to changes in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and London Plan. The Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan underwent public consultation from October to December 2018 under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Plans) (England) Regulations 2012. Pre-submission publication (Regulation 19) of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan Submission Version occurred between 31 January and 13 March 2020 and was submitted for examination on 22 May 2020. The examination hearing took place in October and November 2020.

8.6 The site falls within the Kennington Oval Vauxhall (KOV) designated Neighbourhood Planning Area. A draft Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall neighbourhood plan has undergone pre-submission consultation although no weight can be given to these policies at this stage in the neighbourhood planning process.

8.7 In terms of the weight to be given to the policies in the emerging Draft Review Lambeth Local Plan Proposed Submission Version (DRLLP PSV), paragraph 48 of the NPPF requires the local planning authority to have regard to: the stage of its preparation; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the NPPF. The council’s statement under Regulation 22(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 submitted with the draft plan identifies the extent and nature of unresolved objections to the emerging policies. Given this position, the council will attach some weight to the relevant policies.

8.8 The latest NPPF was published in 2018 and updated in 2019. This document sets out the Government’s planning policies for England including the presumption in favour of sustainable development and is a material consideration in the determination of all applications.

8.9 The current planning application has been considered against all relevant national, regional and local planning policies as well as any relevant guidance. A full list of relevant policies and guidance has been set out in Appendix 3 to this report.

8.10 The site falls within area covered by the Oval and Kennington Development Area (OAKDA) Masterplan (May 2016; November 2017). This establishes an overarching design and land use framework to guide the redevelopment of the area which has been developed jointly by the Berkeley Group working with Lambeth Council, in consultation with the GLA and has been subject to public consultation. Whilst the OAKDA masterplan will inform Lambeth’s Local Plan review, it does not have any adopted status as a Development Plan Document or Supplementary Planning Document. As such, as a contextual document the OAKDA masterplan can be taken into account as a material consideration when determining a planning application. It is for members to decide what weight to give to the masterplan. Figure 13 below illustrates an indicative scale and layout of proposals for the application site as included in the OAKDA Masterplan.

Figure 13. Application site (hatched red) within the OAKDA Masterplan Proposals (2017).

9. ASSESSMENT

9.1 Land Use

9.1.1 Industrial and residential co-location

9.1.2 The site is designated industrial land within a KIBA (LSIS in the London Plan). Local Plan 2015 policy ED1 only permits development in KIBAs for business, industrial, storage and waste management uses, including green industries and other compatible industrial and commercial uses (excluding large scale retail) ancillary to or providing for the needs of the KIBA. Under this policy, a mixed use scheme that includes residential would not be supported.

9.1.3 However, the emerging position in IPLP policies E4 and E7 and DRLLP PSV policy ED3 is a material consideration, along with the proposed identification of this site as appropriate for industrial intensification and co-location with residential and/or social infrastructure. In combination, these policies allow for a mixed-use approach on this site provided that there is no net loss of industrial floor-space capacity.

9.1.4 The Secretary of State’s direction to the Mayor (March 2020) affects IPLP policies on industrial land in that it:

 removes the categorisation of boroughs around retention of industrial floorspace capacity; and  removes the methodology about how to calculate no net loss of industrial floorspace capacity (65 per cent plot ratio or existing capacity, whichever is the greater).

9.1.5 However, the implications of this direction for Lambeth’s emerging revised Local Plan have been considered in a Statement of Common Ground (SCG) between Lambeth and the Mayor dated 21 May 2020 and submitted for examination alongside the DRLLP PSV. This SCG is a material consideration. It sets out proposed revised supporting text to DRLLP PSV policy ED3, which explains how to approach no net loss of industrial floorspace capacity on sites in KIBAs identified as appropriate for industrial intensification and co-location, as follows:

“For sites in KIBAs with potential for industrial intensification and co-location, the appropriate amount of industrial floor-space to be re-provided will be assessed as the existing quantum of floor-space and/or actively used yardspace, or 65 per cent plot ratio (defined as total proposed industrial floor-space divided by total proposed site area), whichever is greater for the site in question; unless a site specific policy in the Site Allocations DPD specifies an alternative approach. This is based on the methodology in the Mayor’s evidence on London Industrial Land Demand (CAG October 2017).”

9.1.6 In this instance, given that there is no existing floorspace on this site, the 65 per cent plot ratio approach is considered reasonable to adopt in confirming the minimum

quantum of industrial floorspace to be re-provided in order that it can satisfy the no net loss requirements in both the IPLP and DRLLP PSV.

9.1.7 The application site area is 0.4ha so the minimum quantum of industrial floorspace to be re-provided is calculated as follows:

65% x 4000 sqm (0.4ha) = 2,600 sqm

9.1.8 Industrial floorspace is defined in IPLP policy E4 (part A) and encompasses all B class uses apart from B1a office. The proposal includes 2,715 sqm GEA of B1c light industrial floorspace. On this basis, the requirement for no net loss if industrial floorspace capacity would be met by the proposals. Accordingly, the proposals comply with emerging policies E4 of the IPLP and ED3 of the DRLLP PSV.

9.1.9 The light industrial space has the potential to include an ancillary café on the ground floor. The location of the café has not been confirmed but there is possibility that it would serve both users of the office space and the general public. Although under LLP policy ED6, cafés should be located in town centres, a café adjacent to and small in size relative to the industrial element would be acceptable as it is considered to be a compatible commercial use ancillary to and providing for the needs of the light industrial use. Conditions (54 and 55) would be applied requiring details of the café floorplan prior to its implementation to ensure that it would be of a size and layout that is ancillary to the light industrial use.

9.1.10 In addition to re-providing an industrial use onsite, 139 self-contained residential units are proposed together with ancillary facilities including concierge, resident’s gym/flexible amenity space, guest suite and indoor amenity space. The residential use is supported in principle on this site (given the position explained above around co- location/industrial land use) and helps to achieve the objectives of Lambeth Local Plan policy H1 and DRLLP PSV policy H1 around maximising housing growth, as well as IPLP policy H1 around optimising the potential for housing delivery on suitable and available sites. While the upper floors are for residential use only, there are ancillary residential facilities proposed on the podium level and level seven.

9.1.11 The proposed mix of uses is also consistent with the objectives of LLP policy PN8 and DRLLP PSV policy PN8 relating to Kennington/Oval.

9.1.11 Build to Rent

9.1.12 The residential element of the scheme is proposed in the form of two blocks of Build to Rent units. For clarity, in terms of use class categorisation Build to Rent uses remain undistinguished from traditional residential uses and therefore also fall in C3 use.

9.1.13 There is no policy specific to Build to Rent in the current LLP. However, there is emerging policy H11 in the IPLP and emerging policy H12 in the DRLLP PSV, both of which are a material considerations. IPLP H11 has significant weight and is unaffected by the Secretary of State direction to the Mayor. DRLLP PSV H12 is still undergoing

examination and the Inspector’s report has not been published. As such, it is subject to as yet unresolved objections so can only be afforded limited weight at this point.

9.1.14 All proposals for BtR must meet the criteria set out in part B of policy H11 of the IPLP to qualify as BtR. The criteria and how the proposals comply is as follows:

(a) size of scheme – the proposed scheme provides 139 residential units in total which exceeds the minimum requirement of 50 units; (b) covenanted for at least 15 years - the proposed residential units would be covenanted for rental use for 15 years and will be secured by S106 planning obligation; (c) clawback mechanism – A clawback mechanism is included to ensure there is no financial incentive to break the covenant. The mechanism will follow the Formula set out in the GLA’s Affordable Housing SPG (2017) and will also be secured as a S106 planning obligation. (d) self-containment and separate letting of units – all the residential units will be self-contained and will be let separately. (e) unified ownership and management of all tenures – the residential units will be held in unified ownership and will be professionally managed by CLL with daily on-site presence. (f) longer tenancies (three years or more) with break clauses – all tenants will be offered a tenancy of up to 5 years with break clauses allowing a tenant to give 1 months notice after 6 months. Both will be secured as a S106 planning obligation. (g) rent and service charge certainty - all rents will be inclusive of service charges. Rent certainty will be provided to tenants for the period of their tenancy by clearly setting out how annual rent increases will be calculated (formula-linked) within the tenancy agreement. (h) on-site management and fees - the proposed development will have an on-site management presence from 8am to 8pm to assist future residents, manage deliveries and resolve any issues. The development will also have a 24 hour security presence. (i) providers have a complaints procedure in place and are a member of a recognised ombudsman scheme - CLL is committed to having these procedures in place in line with its existing current practices. (j) providers do not charge up-front fees other than deposits – the applicant advises that there will be no upfront letting fees and deposits will be held securely in an appropriate Deposit Protection Scheme.

9.1.15 In principle, Build to Rent on this site could therefore be supported by officers provided that appropriate planning obligations are secured to ensure compliance with the policy criteria above.

9.2 Affordable Housing & Financial Viability

9.2.1 Build to Rent and affordable housing

9.2.2 Part A of policy H11 of the IPLP allows for affordable housing to be provided entirely as Discount Market Rent (DMR) units managed by a Build to Rent provider and delivered without grant. In these circumstances a registered provider of affordable

housing does not need to be involved. The proposed DMR units are fully integrated within the development and will be designed to the same specification as the market units. DMR homes must be secured in perpetuity which will be secured through the s106 agreement.

9.2.3 DRLLP PSV policy H12 builds on the approach of the IPLP by adding a number of Lambeth-specific requirements which are as follows:

Part (A) of the policy states that, where a development proposal involving Build to Rent has potential to include more than one residential core and/or block, applicants should use this to provide low-cost rented housing to be managed independently by a registered provider of affordable housing.

Part (B) of the policy states that, where an applicant can demonstrate to the council’s satisfaction that it is not feasible in design terms to include a separate residential core and/or block, the council will accept the full affordable housing requirement for the scheme as DMR units managed alongside the market rent units in accordance with the requirements of London Plan policy.

9.2.4 Taking part A first, the applicant has demonstrated that although more than one residential core is being provided it is not feasible for one of these to be provided solely for low cost rent accommodation and that it is not possible for tenures to be mixed within this core.

9.2.5 The applicant’s architect has reviewed the design feasibility of accommodating additional cores in each Block as follows:

 Block A – second core to enable separation of low cost and intermediate unit tenures (in this scenario you would have a blend of low cost and intermediate in one building) ; and  Block B – a second core to enable separation of intermediate from private unit tenures (in this scenario Block A would become wholly low cost rented accommodation).

9.2.6 The exercise concludes that in either scenario significant building, management and cost inefficiencies would arise. These include:

 Separating services charges and management costs becomes complex;  Reduced provision of the employment floorspace at ground level below the level that is otherwise required by the London Plan and Local Plan employment policies;  Reduced flexibility of/ daylight to the commercial space;  Reduced opportunities for providing an active frontage at the most critical location, where the ground floor provides an active frontage onto the mews;  The loss of at least c.8 residential units due to displacement by the additional core;

 A reduced design efficiency with net to gross reducing from 82 per cent to 78 per cent;  Additional lift overrun at roof level and reduced green roof area;  Reduced opportunities for shared spaces and enhancing equality; and  Reduced management efficiency and increased service charges associated with multiple cores for 9 units per floor.

9.2.7 The potential of mixing tenures via a single core has also been discounted by the applicant due to the need to accommodate separate servicing and management arrangements for Registered Providers and the legal constraints concerning service charges and welfare payments to tenants.

9.2.8 Given the above scheme constraints officers are satisfied that providing an additional separate core (including mixing tenures via a single core) will not be practically feasible. On this basis, officers would support in principle the provision of affordable housing as DMR units managed alongside the market units in accordance with policy H11 of the IPLP and part B of policy H12 of the DRLLP PSV.

9.2.9 Quantum of affordable housing

9.2.10 LLP policy H2 states that it will seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing where sites that are over 0.1 hectares or capable of accommodating more than 10 units required to provide at least 50 per cent of units as affordable where public subsidy is available or 40 per cent without public subsidy.

9.2.11 The threshold approach to affordable housing in the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG 2017 and in the IPLP is a material consideration with considerable weight. The IPLP policy H5 sets the affordable housing threshold at 50 per cent on public sector land where there is no portfolio agreement with the Mayor. Where there is a portfolio agreement in place to deliver at least 50 per cent across the portfolio of site, then the 35 per cent threshold should apply to individual sites. In addition, IPLP policy H5 would set the threshold at 50 per cent on LSIS where the scheme would result in a net loss of industrial capacity; but where there is no net loss the threshold is 35 per cent.

9.2.12 To be eligible for the Fast Track route, a proposal must meet all four criteria set out in IPLP policy H2C:

1. Meet and exceed the relevant threshold level of affordable housing on site without public subsidy 2. Be consistent with the relevant tenure split 3. Meet other relevant policy requirements and obligations to the satisfaction of the borough and the Mayor where relevant 4. Demonstrate that grant has been sought to increase the level of affordable housing

9.2.13 This approach is also cross-referred to in IPLP policy H11 on Build to Rent.

9.2.14 In the case of Montford Place, the land is in public sector ownership (TfL) although TfL has a portfolio agreement with the Mayor. The BtR portfolio is required to deliver 40% affordable homes on each site to help meet the wider 50 per cent requirement. Four times a year TfL is required to report to the ‘Homes for Londoners Board’ to provide an update on the delivery of new homes on its land (including the delivery of affordable housing). Chaired by the Mayor, this Board provides an extra level of scrutiny and accountability to ensure that TfL is achieving its 50 per cent portfolio wide requirement. Examples of recent schemes offering 100 per cent affordable housing include three sites in Harrow (Canons Park, Stanmore and Rayners Lane) which are currently under consideration by Harrow Council and overall include 523 affordable units. Therefore, in principle the affordable threshold on this site could be 35 per cent. In addition, given no net loss of industrial floorspace capacity would occur the affordable housing threshold is also 35 per cent. The level of affordable housing proposed will be in excess of the minimum policy threshold, i.e. 40 per cent, and therefore is acceptable.

9.2.15 However, the proposed affordable housing would not qualify for the Mayor’s Fast Track Route as the proposed target rate of 40 per cent is only achieved with housing grant (see point 1 in paragraph 9.2.12) and the borough’s own affordable tenure split set out in policy H12(b) of the DRLLP PSV is also not met (see point 3 in paragraph 9.2.12). The proposed scheme is therefore subject to viability testing to ensure the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided. This is discussed further in the following section.

9.2.16 Affordable housing tenure and viability

9.2.17 IPLP policy H11 requires at least 30 per cent of the DMR homes in Build to Rent schemes to be provided at an equivalent to LLR with the remaining 70 per cent at a range of genuinely affordable discounts below market rent based on local need and to be agreed with the borough and Mayor where relevant (Section C of the policy and para 4.11.6). The rents are also subject to income and affordability caps regulated by the GLA.

9.2.18 In addition to policy H11, officers note that footnote 67 (page 211) indicates that boroughs are permitted to publish guidance setting out the proportion of DMR homes to be provided at different rental levels to benefit from the Fast Track Route.

9.2.19 DRLLP PSV policy H12 (b) confirms this position and adds that the range of genuinely affordable rents to meet priority housing need in Lambeth should be in accordance with the preferred approach set out in the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy (LTS).

9.2.20 The council’s latest LTS, agreed May 2020, states that larger units should be charged at target rent levels (current £163 per week for a 3 bed unit), or equivalent, excluding service charges, to help affordability with families affected by the Benefit Cap. Smaller units (1 and 2 beds) may be charged at up to £217 and £282 per week respectively inclusive of service charges (equivalent to LHA levels in 2019/20). These target levels are helpful particularly in guiding the range of rents that the council will normally seek in BtR schemes in accordance with IPLP policy H11 and DRLLP PSV policy H12.

9.2.21 The originally proposed affordable housing tenures included 30 per cent of units at LLR and 70 per cent at DMR set at no more than 65 per cent of open market rent. Based on the expected private market rent values calculated by the council’s viability

advisors, the approximate rents levels would range from £281per week for a 1 bedroom unit to £316 per week for a 3 bedroom unit which is higher than the levels stipulated in the LTS.

9.2.22 Overall, the original proposed tenure split included tenures which did not align with the specified requirements of policy H12(b) of the DRLLP PSV and therefore the scheme had to follow the Viability Tested Route.

9.2.23 Table 3 sets out the viability position at the submission, following independent review and the agreed position.

Input/Output At Submission Independent Final agreed Commentary Review position Cost of £42,791,000 £42,791,000 £42,791,000 Agreed construction (£276.54 per sq ft) (£276.54 per sq (£276.54 per between the ft) sq ft) respective QS’s Residential Not agreed, Rental Values: final LPA Private Market: £2,138,040pa £2,436,000pa calculations (£37.70/ps ft) (£42.64/ps ft) based on BPS advice LLR – annual £173,081pa £182,827pa £182,827pa Adjusted net rental value calculation using a multiplier of monthly rents DMR (at 65% £432,028pa £447,019pa £447,019pa Based on of market rent) BPS market – annual net rents rental value Commercial £8,366,727 £11,173,000 £9,273,665 Additional Values (£22.50) (£30.50) (blended evidence (based on ground and provided by annual rental first floor: applicant value ps ft) £24.90) Profit level Blended profit Blended profit Blended profit Overall (%GDV) target equating to target equating to target blended rate 12.5% on the BTR 12.5% on the equating to of 12.79% element and BTR element; 12.5% on the 14.89% on the 6% on the BTR element; commercial affordable 6% on the element element and affordable 15% on the element and commercial 15% on the element commercial element

PRS delivery £1,956,286 1,397,402 1,397,402 cost Purchaser’s 6.8%. 0% 6.8% Excluded in costs error by BPS

Marketing £600,000 £0 £250,200 Additional delivery costs information provided by the applicant Grant £28,000 per £28,000 per £28,000 per availability affordable unit affordable unit affordable unit Benchmark £5,600,000 £3,359, 000 5,316,000 Additional Land Value information provided by the applicant Deficit/Surplus -6,528,000 £6,241,355 -£254,000

Table 3: Summary of viability positions.

9.2.24 BPS reviewed the submitted Viability Appraisal and the costs were scrutinised by a quantity surveyor to inform this. Other development costs queried included PRS delivery cost and marketing delivery costs. More detailed information was provided by the applicant and subsequently agreement reached on inputs by both sides. Purchaser’s costs were originally excluded from the independent review in error by BPS and this was subsequently corrected.

9.2.25 With regards to private market residential values, there was disagreement on some comparables used as some were not BtR schemes and BPS also advised that the rental values on the agreed comparable schemes adopted by the applicant were lower than what would be expected. For example, while the applicant’s submission considered that the Keybridge scheme in Vauxhall would attract higher values as a more premium product, it appears that the facilities provided within both schemes are comparable and the application site benefits from access to more stations and a quieter location and therefore BPS advised that it is the application site that could achieve higher values. Other sites compared included Nine Elms Point and the Residence also close to Nine Elms where there were similar differences of opinion. With regards to DMR values, these are linked to private market values and therefore the above difference in valuations impacted on DMR values too. The differences in calculations of London Living Rents appear to be linked to a rounding error which was corrected by BPS.

9.2.26 The applicant’s original valuation of the proposed B1(c) space was considered to be too low in the initial review by BPS. Further information on comparables provided by the applicant together with a consideration of a reduced income generating floorspace (due to the provision of facilities such as lifts which were originally not clear) resulted in a compromise reached.

9.2.27 The Benchmark Land Value is based on the Alternative Use Value (AUV) approach including a revised scheme of approximately 9,000sqm of B1(c) floorspace which officers consider to be an appropriate scenario given the site’s location within a designated KIBA. BPS queried the originally assumed commercial values within the AUV scheme, build costs, developer profit and the assumed efficiency of the buildings floorspace but with the additional information provided a Benchmark Land Value of £5.316m was agreed.

9.2.27 Overall, the independent review concluded that the scheme with rent levels as originally submitted shows a small deficit of £254,000. While sensitivity analysis demonstrates the longer-term potential to be viable and deliverable, based on the current situation the development would be unable to provide improved rent levels unless additional grant is secured or the viability improves over the review period.

Grant availability 9.2.28 The original viability appraisal is based on a grant of £28,000 per affordable unit from the GLA. During the application process, the applicant was asked to investigate further whether additional grant could be secured. As a result of extensive discussions with officers and the GLA, the applicant has secured an in-principle agreement from the GLA that the following higher grant levels would be available for the scheme: £45,000 per DMR unit at LLR or the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy (2020) equivalents and £70,000 per unit per DMR unit at London Affordable Rent equivalents.

9.2.29 The applicant has undertaken scenario testing to identify financially viable options, with the objective of maximising the affordability of 3-bedroom units wherever possible. Two options were presented to officers, as shown in Table 4 below:

Table 4. Increased grant tenure options

9.2.30 Officers consider that the first option (Enhanced Scheme 1) which provides 13 DMR units at the LTS rent levels allows to maximise the number of units provided at genuinely affordable rents including three family sized units. This responds best to the feedback provided by the Lambeth Housing Officer and the emerging DRLLP PSV policy H12 which specifically refers to the LTS. The second option (Enhanced scheme 2) would allow to increase by two the number of family sized units at LAR levels (which is slightly higher than the social target rent included in the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy) but the remining 91% would be at LLR. As such, the applicant revised the proposals to incorporate the above ‘Enhanced Scheme 1’ and the application is considered on this basis.

Review mechanisms

9.2.31 In accordance with the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG 2017 and the Lambeth Development Viability SPD 2017, it is recommended that two review mechanisms are secured through the S106 agreement to be carried out at the following points: - If construction works (excluding demolition) have not commenced within 24 months of the date of the permission; and - At occupation of no more than 75 per cent of the market units.

9.2.32 Where a viability review demonstrates an improvement in the scheme’s viability, a percentage split of the increase in the scheme’s value would be split in accordance with the Lambeth Viability SPD (2017): 20% of the increase in the scheme’s value to be returned to the developer and 80% to the council. Any surplus arising from the reviews would be secured on the preference that the proportion of DMR units provided at the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy rent levels is increased up to the policy compliant level of 70% while the proportion of units at LLR reduced to 30%. Provision of 3- bedroom units at the Lambeth Tenancy Strategy should also be maximised if possible. If there are unlet affordable homes at the point where a late stage review has been conducted, the rent levels would be improved at first let. In the event that all affordable homes are let at that point, discount to be applied at second letting with a provision that should there be any unallocated surplus 3 years from the late review date, a payment in lieu would apply. Additional surplus profits would then be passed to the develop in their entirety. This will be secured the s106 agreement.

Nomination rights and management

9.2.33 The council also specifies how DMR units should be marketed to future tenants at paragraph 5.116 of the DRLLP PSV. It expects that the 30 per cent element that is secured at rents equivalent to LLR should be advertised via the GLA Homes for Londoners portal and allocated in accordance with the criteria for eligibility for intermediate affordable housing set out in the LTS. The proposal would meet this requirement. In the case of the remaining 70 per cent of DMR units, these must be advertised via the Lambeth Private Sector Solutions service. If in the case a landlord is unable to find a suitable tenant through this process within six months, they will be free

to market the properties more widely to other priority groups in the borough subject to income thresholds appropriate to the level of rent secured for the units (social tenants, local residents and those working in the borough).

9.2.34 The applicant has agreed to the principle of a bespoke nominations agreement, which would give letting priority to households who are on the Council’s housing waiting list subject to CLL’s standard tenancy requirements. The details would need to be worked up and agreed with Housing. The nominations agreement would be secured through a planning obligation. This approach was deemed acceptable on an earlier BTR scheme at OCCC Estate which was approved on appeal. As the development relies on a grant from the GLA it is expected that the DMR units will be managed by a Registered Provider. Operational, management and monitoring of tenancies are matters that will be secured via the S106 planning obligation in the event planning permission is given.

9.3 Residential Standards

9.3.1 Density

9.3.2 Policy 3.4 of the adopted London Plan (Optimising Housing Potential) seeks for all developments to optimise housing output for different types of locations within the relevant density range/matrix set out in Table 3.2.

9.3.3 The site is in an urban setting with a PTAL rating of 6a/6b. Table 3.2 of the current London Plan states that urban areas of a PTAL rating of 6a/6b should seek densities of between 140-405 units per hectare (650-1100 habitable rooms per hectare). However, the London Plan at paragraph 3.28 advises that it is not appropriate to apply the density matrix mechanistically and consideration of factors such as local context, design and transport capacity are particularly important, as well as social infrastructure, open space and play.

9.3.4 In light of the above, the IPLP proposes to replace the density matrix and instead policy D3 seeks to optimise the use of land through a design-led approach to determine the capacity of sites with regard to its context, its capacity for growth including existing and planned supporting infrastructure.

9.3.5 Policy H1 in the LLP states that the council will seek residential densities that are consistent with the adopted London Plan whilst policy H1 of the DRLLP PSV advocates the design-led approach of the IPLP.

9.3.6 The proposed development will provide 139 residential units (368 habitable rooms) on a site measuring 0.4 hectares. This equates to a residential density of 348 dwellings per hectare (920 habitable rooms per hectare). When using the GLA’s mixed-use calculation, this equates to a residential density of 419 dwellings per hectare (1,108 habitable rooms per hectare).

9.3.7 Whichever approach is used to calculate density it is clear that the proposed development would marginally exceed the upper range of the density matrix. Whilst

this may be an acceptable level of development, it would be logical to consider the holistic effect of this further on factors such as residential design quality, the impacts on heritage assets, residential amenity, transport and environment as advocated in both adopted and emerging London Plans. Overall, officers are satisfied that the proposal would optimise development on the site in a form which is appropriate and corresponds with the above requirements, which are assessed in further detail within the appropriate sections of this report which cover each of these specific aspects. The proposal complies with policy D3 of the IPLP and policy H1 of the DRLLP PSV.

9.3.8 Dwelling mix

9.3.9 Policy H4 of the LLP states that the council will support proposals that offer a range of dwelling sizes and types to meet current and future housing needs. It requires in part (a)(i) that the affordable housing elements of residential developments (including conversions) should reflect the preferred borough-wide housing mix for social/affordable rented and intermediate housing as follows:

1 bed units - not more than 20% 2 bed units - 20-50% 3 bed units - 40%

9.3.10 The policy position is not as prescriptive for private market housing in that it states that a ‘balanced mix of unit sizes including family accommodation’ should be provided.

9.3.11 Policy H10 of the IPLP requires, for low cost rent, boroughs to provide guidance on the size of units required (by number of bedrooms) to ensure affordable housing meets identified needs. The IPLP has significant weight as a material planning consideration. In accordance with policy H10, policy H4 of the DRLLP PSV requires the low cost rented element of residential developments to reflect the preferred borough-wide housing mix:

1-bed units Not more than 25% 2-bed units 25-60% 3-bed units Up to 30%

9.3.12 The preferred borough-wide size mix for affordable social rent has been amended in favour of a higher proportion of 2 bed units and there is no longer a specified mix for intermediate affordable housing. The DRLLP PSV states that for market and intermediate housing, a balanced mix of unit sizes including family-sized accommodation should be provided.

9.3.13 The supporting text to LP policy H4 states that to ensure mixed and balanced communities, a range of dwelling sizes including family-sized housing will be sought from all new developments. Family-sized accommodation is defined as having three or more bedrooms (at least one of which is a double-bedroom). The IPLP also defines family-sized units as 3 bed + units. In addition, the supporting text to the LP policy H4 also states that while developments are expected to reflect the preferred dwelling mix set out above, rigid application of these requirements may not be appropriate in all

cases. When considering the mix of dwelling sizes appropriate to a development, the council will have regard to individual site circumstances including location, site constraints, viability and the achievement of mixed and balanced communities. In all cases proposals will be expected to demonstrate that the provision of family-sized units has been maximised although it should be noted that the DRLLP PSV requires proposals to demonstrate that the provision of family-sized units has been considered.

9.3.14 Table 4 below provides a breakdown of the proposed housing unit mix by tenure:

Table 4: Unit size mix

9.3.15 With regard to the affordable unit size mix, the scheme will provide a marginally greater proportion of 1 bed sized units compared to the borough-wide affordable housing mix in policy H4(a)(i) of the LLP. Whist this does not strictly comply with the adopted policy position, the 2019 Lambeth local housing waiting list shows that the greatest need was for 1 and 2 bed sized units (respectively 61 per cent and 29 per cent of the total households registered). The LP SHMA 2017 data also supports the trend towards a need for smaller units (1 and 2 beds).

9.3.16 In the 2 bed sized category, the proposals are split into 2b3p and 2b4p sized units and as a proportion of the total affordable size mix would equate to 19 per cent (10 units) and 25 per cent (13 units) respectively. As a combined proportion of the total, the 2 bed unit type(s) would represent 44 per cent of the total units proposed and therefore would comply with the recommended unit size range in policy H4(a)(i) in this instance (i.e. 20 per cent - 50 per cent).

9.3.17 The provision for 3 bed units is lower than stated in adopted policy H4 (17 per cent or 9 units) although this is due to a combination of site specific factors including housing need; housing demand and design and viability. In terms of housing need, the LP SHMA 2017 is evidencing that 70 per cent of all newly forming households between 2011 and 2035 will be 1 and 2 person households without children. This is further reinforced by the 2019 Lambeth waiting list which identifies that only 9 per cent of households were seeking 3 bed sized properties. With regard to design and viability factors, smaller residential units create more value (relative to floorspace) which in turn has enabled the current scheme to support a 40 per cent target rate of affordable housing.

9.3.18 Under part (i) of policy H4 of the DRLLP PSV the preferred borough-wide mix refers only to the provision of low-cost rented housing. As the affordable housing in this case is entirely intermediate only part (ii) is relevant. Part (ii) of the policy states that for

market and intermediate housing, a balanced mix of unit sizes including family-sized accommodation should be provided.

9.3.19 In this respect the combined market and intermediate unit mix is as follows:

Studio (7.9%); 1-bed (33.8%); 2-beds (13.7% and 38.1%) and 3-bed (6.5%).

9.3.20 Broken down, it can be seen that proposals would provide a balanced mix of units sizes. Family sized units are also adequately provided for in the form of 2 bed 4 person units (53 units in total).

9.3.21 Overall, it is considered that the proposed unit size mix responds positively to the borough’s identified needs and the objective of achieving mixed and balanced communities. Accordingly, the proposed mix complies with the LP policy 3.8; IPLP policy H10; LLP policy H4 and DRLLP PSV policy H4.

9.3.22 Design and layout of accommodation

9.3.23 All units will meet or exceed the minimum space standards set out in the Technical Housing Standards - National Described Space Standards and the IPLP policy D6 and provide adequate room sizes, storage space and floor to ceiling height Standards. In terms of the internal layout design, each core will serve no more than 11 units per floor. 58 of these units (42 per cent of the total) would be dual aspect and the remaining 81 units (58 per cent of the total) would be single aspect with views to the south, east or west. Over half of the single aspect units (43) would have an enhanced aspect as a result of the angled design of the inset balconies (see Figures 14 and 15 below). No north facing single aspect units are proposed. Officers consider the design approach adopted in this highly constrained location ensures that the residential accommodation in terms of outlook, light and ventilation is of the highest possible quality to future occupiers.

Figure 14: Proposed enhanced aspect to living rooms

Figure15: Traditional corner balcony design.

9.3.24 With regards to privacy, the minimum distance between Block A and B is between 12.2m and 17.2m. The location of these two buildings is linked to the need to maintain sufficient separation distance to Imperial Court to the east and Block G (formerly Block B) at the Tesco site to the west. The use of angled windows within the balconies deflects the views to some degree. Imposition of privacy mitigation measures has been considered but it is considered that it is preferable to give future residents the choice of blinds, curtains or obscured glazed film rather than impose obscured glazing. The inset design of balconies helps to reduce overlooking.

9.3.25 It is noted that many north and some east facing windows will require obscured glazing to ensure there is no loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. However, sufficient outlook will be provided with directional glazing allowing for some angled views, which is acceptable given that the affected windows serve bedrooms or are secondary living room windows. Similarly, four balconies in Block A will require some directional screening and its final design will need to ensure that sufficient outlook is maintained. The detailed design of these mitigation measures will also need to consider the impact on internal light levels and will be secured by condition (9).

9.3.26 90 per cent of the proposed dwellings will be designed to comply with Building Regulations requirements Part M4(2) whilst the remaining 10 per cent will be designed to comply with part M4(3). This will be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition (13). The M4(3) units are spread throughout the development.

9.3.27 Overall, officers consider that the proposed internal layout design of the residential accommodation in terms of the units per floor, unit sizes and aspect is acceptable and therefore will comply with policy 3.5 of the LP; policy D6 of the IPLP; policy H5(a) of the LLP and policy H5(a) of the DRLLP PSV.

Private and communal amenity provision

9.3.28 The London Plan Housing SPG states that a minimum of 5 sqm of private outdoor space should be provided for 1-2 person residential units and an extra 1 sqm should be provided for each additional occupant. Policy H5 of the LLP similarly sets out requirements in respect of external amenity and children’s play space. For new flatted development, communal amenity space of at least 50 sqm per scheme should be provided, plus a further 10 sqm per individual flat provide either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated within the communal amenity space. Private amenity requirements under policy H5 of the DRLLP PSV are again similar to the above insofar that provision for communal amenity space will only apply to developments of 10 units or more.

9.3.29 The proposed development is therefore required to provide a minimum combined total of private and communal amenity space of 1,440 sqm.

9.3.30 The proposal provides direct access to private amenity space in the form of balconies for 1, 2 and 3 bed dwellings which will range from 6 sqm to 6.5 sqm in area. Studio units will be provided with Juliette balconies only although all of these have oversized floor areas to compensate for non-provision of a balcony. Overall, in total the scheme will provide approximately 795 sqm of private amenity space.

9.3.31 The proposal also provides internal and external communal areas and will be accessible to all future residents. Internal communal areas are typical of build to rent developments and normally cater for a range of recreational needs of occupiers in addition to traditional open spaces/terraces. The type and amount of external and internal spaces are summarised in the Table 5 below:

Table 5: Breakdown of external and internal communal spaces

9.3.32 Officers have omitted the ancillary café and guest suite from making any contribution towards communal space. Even so, the total combined provision of private and communal spaces will equate to 1,586 sqm which is in excess of the 1,440 sqm required by policy.

9.3.33 The communal spaces are designed to a high quality and will be accessible to all residents. Planning conditions are recommended to ensure the landscaping of the terraced spaces are provided to the high standards being proposed. The final landscaping scheme will also need to consider amenity issues for residential units closest to communal roof terrace in Block A to ensure sufficient defensible space and privacy is maintained. The appearance/finish of balconies will also be controlled under a materials condition. S106 obligations are also recommended to ensure the communal spaces are provided on an inclusive basis to all its residents.

9.3.34 Overall, the amount and quality of private, external and internal communal amenity is acceptable and complies with the aims and objectives of policy 3.5 of the LP; policy D6 of the IPLP; policy H5 of the LLP and policy H5 of the DRLLP PSV.

9.3.35 Play Space

9.3.36 Policy 3.6 of the current London Plan states that proposals that include housing should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs. The Mayor’s Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG (2012) sets out guidance to assist in this process and sets a minimum benchmark standard of 10sqm per child regardless of age. This minimum standard has been carried over within the IPLP in Policy S4.

9.3.37 Policy H5(d) of the LLP states that for developments of 10 or more units with at least one family-sized dwelling, children’s play space should be provided where appropriate to at least the levels set out in the London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation’ 2012. In exceptional circumstances off-site provision may be acceptable. Policy H5 has been amended within the draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan to state that the Council will follow the approach to play space set out in London Plan policy S4 and associated SPG.

9.3.38 Using the GLA’s Population Yield Calculator, it is anticipated that the proposed development would be occupied by 16.6 children based on an inner London location with a PTAL of 6a/6b. This is divided into three age ranges as follows:

Under 5 year olds: 88qm; 5-11 year olds: 58sqm; 12+ year olds: 20sqm. Total: 166sqm

9.3.39 The proposed development includes 217sqm of play space, broken down as follows:

Block A Roof Terrace : 0-4 year olds: 55sqm; 5-11 year olds: 35sqm Block B Roof Terrace: 0-4 year olds: 43sqm; 5-11 year olds: 38sqm Ground Floor Level: 12+ year olds: 46sqm

9.3.40 This space will be split between the two garden terraces on Blocks A and B respectively, and to the northeast of the new building at ground floor level. The space will include a mix of formal and informal play provision and exceeds the 10sqm per

child requirement of the development plan based on the GLA’s Population Yield Calculator.

9.3.41 Based on the above, the proposed development complies with the Mayor’s Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG (2012), policy 3.6 of the LP; policy S4 of the IPLP; and policies H5 of the LLP and the DRLLP PSV.

9.3.42 Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing of habitable and amenity spaces

9.3.43 The applicant has provided an assessment of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing on the proposed habitable and amenity spaces. For daylight assessment, three methodologies as recommended in the BRE guidance have been used. They are Average Daylight Factor (ADF), No Sky Line (NSL) and Room Depth Criterion (RDC). For sunlight and overshadowing assessment, Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) and Sun Hours On Ground (SHOG) methodologies have been used. An explanation of the different methodologies and their recommended target levels are set out in the glossary section found at the front of the Agenda Pack. With regards to RDC which is not covered at the front of the Agenda Pack, it is an additional test which can be used for new dwellings to ensure that rooms are designed to enable adequate light penetration. It is applicable where a room has access to daylight from windows in one wall only where the depth of a room can become a factor in determining the quantity of light within it. The BRE guidance provides a simple method for examining the ratio of room depth to window area. However, whilst it does take into account internal surface reflections, this method also has significant limitations in that it does not take into account any obstructions outside the window and therefore draws no input from the quantity of light entering the room.

9.3.44 Of the 363 habitable rooms assessed, 235 (65 per cent) would meet the recommended guidelines for ADF. Of the 128 that fall below, 31 (24 per cent) are LKDs, 48 (37.5 per cent) are living rooms, 43 (33.5 per cent) are bedrooms and 6 (5 per cent) are studios. These transgressions are examined further in paragraphs 9.3.47 and 9.3.51.

9.3.45 63 per cent of rooms would meet the recommended guidelines for NSL. All rooms would meet the recommended guidelines for RDC where applicable.

9.3.46 Where the recommended target values are not met, the rooms are generally located behind recessed balconies and/or daylight is limited by surrounding obstructions.

9.3.47 16 of the 31 LKDs achieve at least the 1.5 per cent ADF recommended for living areas and fall just short of the 2 per cent ADF suggested for rooms including a kitchen area. However, these rooms also offer excellent sky visibility and therefore can be considered acceptably daylit living areas.

9.3.48 The 63 living areas (15 LKDs and 48 living rooms) which achieve less than 1.5 per cent ADF do so due either to the rear of the room receiving lower levels of light, as is typical within urban environments, or to the presence of a balcony in the instances where it has not been possible to locate it in front of a bedroom. 48 of these 63 rooms

offer a view of the sky from at least half of their area, achieving 50 per cent NSL or more.

9.3.49 As explained above, living rooms have been located in the areas of the facade where there is greater potential for daylight and sunlight compared to bedrooms as living rooms are universally recognised as being more important as main living spaces. Nevertheless, 175 of the 218 bedrooms still achieve the recommended daylight quantum. Of the 43 bedrooms falling short of recommendation, 22 achieve at least 0.7 per cent ADF, where 1 per cent is suggested.

9.3.50 The six studio flats have been located in the areas of lower daylight availability to prioritise the daylight amenity within family accommodation. As a consequence, these units fall short of the daylight recommendations. However, all studio flats receive good levels of winter sunlight and three also exceed the recommended levels of annual sunlight.

9.3.51 All assessed kitchens would meet or exceed the recommended levels of both ADF and NSL.

9.3.52 All living areas with a southerly aspect for sunlight have been assessed by the applicant. The results demonstrate that 51 of the 123 rooms tested (41 per cent) would meet the total APSH for annual and winter sun. 45 per cent of rooms would meet the recommended levels for annual sunlight, whereas 61 per cent would meet the recommended levels for winter sunlight. The applicant’s consultant daylight expert has indicated that the design and orientation of the proposed blocks are limiting factors in the amount of sunlight that is achievable. Where rooms are predominantly east or west facing, they do generally have a secondary window facing south, but this is located behind a recessed balcony. The transgressions are considered acceptable given that private amenity areas would receive higher levels of sunlight.

9.3.53 Overall, the proposed design and layout is considered to have sought a balance between different requirements and will provide acceptable daylight and sunlight amenity for the enjoyment of future occupants.

9.3.54 An additional assessment was received during the application process and reviewed by the council’s daylight and sunlight advisor. It considers the impact of the current proposals (ref: 20/02203/VOC) to increase the height of the approved development on the Tesco site on the proposed scheme. The increased massing at the Tesco site will result in very minor alterations to the levels of daylight, with two additional rooms out of the 363 proposed falling marginally short of ADF recommendation and one room seeing levels of NSL below guidance. In relation to sunlight, only one additional room would see levels of APSH slightly lower than those recommended. Overall, the proposed scheme on the Tesco site would not cause any materially greater impacts on the internal daylight and sunlight of the proposed units.

9.3.54 The overshadowing assessment demonstrates that on 21st March amenity Area 1 would fully comply with the recommended 2 hours of sun to at least 50 per cent of its area at 55.1 per cent (see Figure 16 below). Amenity Area 2 would fall just below at 49

per cent, however the standard is met two days later on 23 March (see Figure 17). The applicant’s consultant daylight and sunlight expert has carried out an additional assessment on 21 June that demonstrates that both amenity areas would receive more than six hours of sunlight to most of their area on this date. Overall, it is considered that sunlight amenity to the proposed communal amenity terraces would be good and commensurate with this dense urban location and therefore is acceptable.

Figure 16: Sunlight hours on ground assessment for communal terraces on 21st March.

Figure 17: BRE sun on ground graph

9.3.55 Noise

9.3.56 LP policy 7.15 requires that noise sensitive development should be separated from major sources of noise wherever practicable. Policy D13 of the IPLP expects that planning decisions reflect the Agent of Change principle and take account of existing noise and other nuisance-generating uses in a sensitive manner when new development is proposed nearby.

9.3.57 LLP policy Q2(v) states that proposals should ensure that any adverse impact in terms of noise should be reduced and minimised as far as possible to ensure the amenity of existing and future occupants is protected. Policy Q2(v) of the DRLLP PSV repeats the same approach with reference to emerging DLP policy on noise.

9.3.58 To achieve an acceptable indoor ambient noise level in accordance with British Standard 8233:2014 (‘Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings’) the applicant has proposed to use Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery system for all residential dwellings. The applicant’s acoustic consultant has indicated that the façade system (including glazing, frames, seals, any insulated panels and ventilators/extracts) should be designed with sound insulation performance that would enable the recommended noise criteria to be met. The consultant anticipates that subject to the detailed design stage considering the above factors, the recommended noise level criteria within residential habitable rooms would be achievable. The council’s consultant acoustician has not objected to this approach and advises that a suitably worded planning condition (30) should be included to ensure that an acceptable noise environment for future occupiers is achieved while ensuring that the commercial use can operate.

9.3.59 In terms of external amenity areas, i.e., balconies and roof terraces, the acoustic model used by the applicant predicts that noise levels on all facades will not exceed the upper guideline noise value of 55 dB LAeq,16h with the exception of the north facing dwellings at Levels 5 and 9 of Block B which both have balconies and reach 56 dB LAeq,16h. The predicted noise levels do not exceed 55 dB LAeq,16h at any balcony area of Block A.

9.3.60 The abovementioned noise guidance states that…’appropriate levels may not be achievable in all circumstances where development is considered desirable and should instead be designed to achieve the lowest practicable levels and not be prohibited where other factors might be warranted.’ It also notes that for small balconies specifying noise limits for small balconies is not necessarily appropriate.

9.3.61 In accordance with the noise guidance advice, officers consider that the external predicted noise levels at Block B (Levels 5 and 9) would be acceptable given that the transgression is marginal in nature, i.e., the exceedance is predicted at 1dB over noise guidance levels in what is an existing high noise area. Furthermore, the proposed balcony areas are relatively small and should not be the subject of rigid application of noise limits. Overall, it is considered that the lowest practicable levels for noise in all the proposed external amenity spaces would be achieved and therefore is not objected to by officers.

9.3.62 With regard to minimising noise transfer between the proposed light industrial uses and residential dwellings, the applicant’s design and acoustic team recommend a floor build up specification that will mitigate noise impacts. The specification will need to comply with the recommendations of Approved Document E under the Building Regulations. In terms of potential noise and disturbance to residents from the operation of the light industrial space/units, officers would recommend an hours of

use condition (33) be included to mitigate any effects in the event planning permission is given.

9.3.63 Noise and vibration impacts from building plant equipment can also be controlled through an appropriately worded condition (35).

9.3.64 Subject to the above conditions that ensures suitable noise mitigation measures are incorporated (as recommended), it is considered that the proposed development would provide an acceptable noise environment for future residential occupiers having regard to its location. The proposals therefore comply with policy 7.15 of the LP; policy D14 of the IPLP; policy Q2 of the LLP and DRLLP PSV.

9.4 Design and Conservation

9.4.1 Good design is central to all objectives of the LP and LLP planning policies. Policy 7.1 of the LP sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Policies 7.2, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 require that all new development be of high quality that responds to the surrounding context and enhances the character, legibility, permeability and accessibility of the surrounding neighbourhood. Policy 7.7 relates to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings. The Mayor's London View Management Framework SPG (2012) identifies 27 strategic views in London for protection and management.

9.4.2 Policies Q5, Q6 and Q7 of the LLP seek to create high quality urban environments and state that proposals will be supported where the design of development is a response to positive aspects of the local context and historic character. Policies Q22 and Q23 of the LPP seek to protect the character and appearance of conservation areas and undesignated heritage assets on the local heritage list. LLP policy Q26 provides local level guidance on the location of tall buildings and their design, requiring them to: achieve design excellence; make a positive contribution to the townscape and skyline; be of the highest standard of architecture and design; and have no adverse impacts on the significance of strategic or local views or heritage assets including their settings.

9.4.3 The Council’s Design and Conservation Team’s comments and those of the GLA have been incorporated into this section of the report.

Layout

9.4.4 The ground and first floor of the proposed building have been designed to provide a central mews leading to an open public realm landscape. The proposed ground floor massing has been set back from site boundaries which provides access routes and servicing areas (in particular in the northern part) in addition to ground floor amenity space for residents and workers and the necessary car parking spaces which have been minimised. The elevations facing the central mews include ample active frontage which will activate this space and provide natural surveillance. Fig. 18 below shows the proposed site layout at ground floor level.

Figure 18. Proposed site layout.

9.4.5 The proposed central mews would be accessed through a double height undercroft from Montford Place. The central mews space is designed as a shared surface. The space will be used by residents of the development to access the main residential entrance but also by occupiers of commercial uses, occasional deliveries and provide access to car and cycle parking. The applicant worked closely with officers to ensure that the final design of the mews and its public realm quality provides a safe pedestrian route which is separated from the vehicular route by different coloured or types of materials. This approach is considered to be acceptable and is supported by the GLA. The upper floors have perpendicular arrangement and broadly follow the indicative layout shown in the OAKDA masterplan and maximises light and outlook.

Scale, bulk, massing

9.4.6 The heights and massing of the approved redevelopment proposals for the Kennington Oval Gas Holder and Tesco sites progressively step down towards Montford Place in recognition of the conservation area designation. The proposed development and its 11 storey high block B is higher than the indicative height (8 storeys) in the OAKDA masterplan. However, the proposed height and massing are generally consistent with the existing and emerging context and the massing in the OAKDA masterplan. The proposed scheme transitions sympathetically with the consented schemes to the west and existing period properties to the east and north

(see Fig. 19 below). The GLA noted that the positioning of the residential blocks has also been carefully considered to respond to the historic context and varied roofscapes by incorporating steps and set-backs to minimise impact on adjacent heritage assets.

Figure 19. Proposed building heights transition between the emerging developments and existing buildings

9.4.7 It is also worth noting that in purely townscape terms the casual viewer is not aware of where the conservation area boundary actually runs, they just experience it as a seamless townscape. Therefore in this regard officers consider that the proposed bulk and massing reads as a response to the Kennington Gas Holder and Tesco redevelopment schemes which accords with LLP policy Q7 (ii) (response to emerging context) rather than to a response to the character of the conservation area as required by policy Q22 (a) (character and appearance of conservation areas). The design excellence test of LLP policy Q26 is considered to have been met – the design also meets policy Q5 and policy Q23.The heritage related impacts of this approach are considered in the following section.

9.4.8 In terms of the appearance, officers worked closely with the applicant at pre- application stage to develop an architectural aesthetic that was understated and visually subordinate to the wider, historic context. The proposed industrial aesthetic chosen for the ground floor commercial units is welcomed by officers and is a good response to the immediate Montford Place context. The use of brick is also welcome as it is the prevailing local building material. The general arrangement of the facades with a base, middle and top and the use of textured brickwork for detail and definition is also considered successful (see Fig. 20 below). Officers therefore consider that the requirements of policy Q7 (i) design quality), (iii) (durability), (iv) (fenestration) have been met in this instance. Also the GLA welcomed the degree of care and attention

to detailing of facades, window openings and reveals and balconies to complement and respond to the area’s Georgian residential and industrial characters. Conditions (9 and 10) are recommended to secure key construction and façade details to achieve the highest design quality.

Figure 20: Section of façade arrangment.

Views

9.4.9 Strategic views are those identified in the LVMF designated by the Mayor of London. The application site is lies within the background or ‘wider setting consultation area’ of View 4A.2, Primrose Hill to the Palace of Westminster. Due to the distance the development, it would not be visible in this view. There would be no impact. The GLA confirmed that the testing of the strategic view was undertaken in accordance with the LVMF guidance and raised no objections

9.4.10 Strategic views are those identified in the LVMF designated by the Mayor of London. The application site is lies within the background or ‘wider setting consultation area’ of View 4A.2, Primrose Hill to the Palace of Westminster. Due to the distance the development, it would not be visible in this view. There would be no impact. The GLA confirmed that the testing of the strategic view was undertaken in accordance with the LVMF guidance and raised no objections

9.4.11 LLP policy Q25 identifies a number of protected local views. The application site is in the Brixton Panoramic View looking north from Brockwell Park (View (i) under policy Q25) and the view from Norwood Park to the City (View (ii)) however due to the distance from these viewpoints the development would not be discernible. The southern tip of the site also falls within the viewing cone of the landmark silhouette of the Vauxhall Cross Building (MI6) viewed from Millbank (View (xvii)) however it is not visible in this view and there would be no impact.

9.4.12 Overall, the proposed development would not affect any identified strategic or locally protected views and the impact on the townscape is considered acceptable.

Impact on heritage assets

9.4.13 The beginning of the Agenda Pack contains a summary of the legislative and national policy context for the assessment of the impact of a development proposal on the historic environment and its heritage assets. This is in addition to Lambeth Local Plan and London Plan policies.

9.4.14 Turning to consider the application of the legislative and policy requirements referred to above, the first step is for the decision-maker to consider each of the designated heritage assets (referred to hereafter simply as “heritage assets”) which would be affected by the proposed development in turn and assess whether the proposed development would result in any harm to the heritage asset.

9.4.15 The decision of the Court of Appeal in Barnwell Manor confirms that the assessment of the degree of harm to the heritage asset is a matter for the planning judgement of the decision-maker.

9.4.16 However, where the decision-maker concludes that there would be some harm to the heritage asset, in deciding whether that harm would be outweighed by the advantages of the proposed development (in the course of undertaking the analysis required by s.38(6) PCPA 2004) the decision-maker is not free to give the harm such weight as the decision-maker thinks appropriate. Rather, Barnwell Manor establishes that a finding of harm to a heritage asset is a consideration to which the decision- maker must give considerable importance and weight in carrying out the balancing exercise.

9.4.17 There is therefore a “strong presumption” against granting planning permission for development which would harm a heritage asset. In the Forge Field case the High Court explained that the presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrebuttable. It can be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so. But a local planning authority can only properly strike the balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation and if it demonstrably applies that presumption to the proposal it is considering.

9.4.18 The case-law also establishes that even where the harm identified is less than substantial (i.e. falls within paragraph 196 of the NPPF), that harm must still be given considerable importance and weight.

9.4.19 Where more than one heritage asset would be harmed by the proposed development, the decision-maker also needs to ensure that when the balancing exercise in undertaken, the cumulative effect of those several harms to individual assets is properly considered. Considerable importance and weight must be attached to each of the harms identified and to their cumulative effect.

9.4.20 What follows is an officer assessment of the extent of harm which would result from the proposed development to the scoped heritage assets provided by the applicant as part of its submission. This includes Conservation Areas, and neighbouring Listed Buildings. Both an individual assessment against each heritage asset as well a cumulative assessment is provided. This is then followed by an assessment of the heritage benefits of the proposals.

9.4.21 Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 impose a statutory duty on planning authorities to safeguard the special interest of listed buildings and their settings. Section 72 of the Act imposes a statutory duty on planning authorities to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas.

9.4.22 LP policy 7.8 and LLP policies Q20 and Q22 explain that development should identify, value, conserve, restore, reuse and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. Policy Q20 requires developments affecting a listed building to not diminish the building’s “ability to remain viable in use in the long term” and not harm the significance/setting (including views to and from) listed buildings.

9.4.23 LLP policy Q26, part (a), (ii) seeks to protect the significance and settings of heritage assets from tall building development in a similar way that policies Q20 (statutory listed buildings) Q21 (registered parks and gardens), Q22 (conservation areas) and Q23 (Undesignated heritage assets: local heritage list) do.

9.4.24 Paragraph 193 of the NPPF advises that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance”. Paragraph 194 further advises that “any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification”.

9.4.25 A detailed Heritage Statement and Views Assessment have been submitted with the application which provides a total of 11 views that have been assessed. The impact on heritage assets, including listed buildings in proximity of the site, conservation areas and locally listed buildings/structures is considered in detail below making reference to the views provided. Figure 21 below shows the location of the closest heritage assets.

Figure 21. Neighbouring listed buildings, positive contributors and Kennington Conservation Area boundary.

Impact on heritage assets: Listed buildings

231– 245 Kennington Lane (Grade II) 9.4.26 These impressive early 19th century properties adjoin the application site to the north and the terrace was grade II listed (including group value) in 1951. This terrace is formal and symmetrical and as a result it is best appreciated as a composition from opposite on Kennington Lane. When currently viewed from across Kennington Lane it is silhouetted against clear sky. Whilst the significant, mature foreground street trees bring within them significant screening when in leaf the absence of development in the backdrop allows the viewer to appreciate the historic buildings pretty much as built. Therefore, the current setting makes a positive contribution and the current absence of development visible in the backdrop contributes positively to their setting.

9.4.27 The proposed buildings would peek up from behind (one and a half storeys are visible of the tallest Block B) (see Fig. 22 below) in that regard the proposal disrupts the historic roofline silhouette. The applicant has worked hard to mitigate the impact of this by using a calm architectural treatment and a sympathetic brick palette. However, a degree of harm results to the setting. While a submission on behalf of objectors states this would be substantial harm, the council’s conservation officer, considers it to be less than substantial harm.

Figure 22. Visualisation of the winter view from Kennington Lane looking south

9.4.28 The setting of the terrace in views from the NE (within the CA) are of less concern because the Kennington Gas Holder scheme (currently under construction) will appear as a significant group of contemporary buildings stepping up in height. The addition of the comparatively modest proposal into this view will have no noticeable effect.

9.4.29 Overall, the negative effects to the setting of this Grade II listed terrace as identified above are considered to be contrary to the policy aspirations of policy Q26 (a) (ii) and policy Q20 (ii) (setting of statutory listed buildings). This view is shared by the GLA and Historic England. The Council considers this to be less than substantial harm.

Imperial Court, 225 Kennington Lane (Grade II)

9.4.30 To the immediate east of the application site stands Imperial Court, a 19th Century school now in residential use. It was statutorily listed in 1981. This formal building has an imposing, temple fronted façade which terminates the vista down Courtenay Street. In this view it is silhouetted against clear sky allowing the silhouette to be appreciated. Therefore, the absence of visible development positively contributes to the significance of this asset. The proposal will not affect this view.

9.4.31 In the view from the North East (at the Junction with Cardigan Street) the oblique view will show the proposal in the backdrop of the listed building. The applicant has identified harm resulting here and the GLA and the Georgian Group have too. The submission on behalf of objectors states this would be substantial harm. The conservation officer advised that, the appearance of the noticeably taller approved Tesco and gas holder developments (now under construction) in views from the east (see Fig. 23) means that the effect of this proposal on the setting of Imperial Court in the view from Cardigan Street will be negligible. The symmetrical view of Imperial Court down Courtenay Street will be unaffected by the proposal and its domes and roofline will still be appreciable in views form the west. As such, the Conservation Officer advised that there will be no harm to the setting of Imperial Court and officers agree.

Fig. 23 Visualisation of the winter view from Kennington Lane looking south-west.

346 – 354 Kennington Road (Grade II and II*)

9.4.32 The terrace at 346-354 Kennington Road is to the east of the application site fronting onto Kennington Green. Nos. 360 and 352 are Grade II* while the other properties are Grade II listed for their group value. They are an informal grouping of listed buildings, a harmonious jumble unified by the same brick palate, parapets, mansards and sash windows with similar properties peeling off around the corner onto Kennington Road proper. To the west, a London Underground head house is nearing completion (in pale brick of domestic scale but industrial character), the rear of the Montford Place distillery lies beyond and beyond again is the imposing skeleton of gas holder No.1. Therefore, the character here is already fragmented and varied. The application site does not really make a contribution to the setting of these buildings.

9.4.33 The gas holder redevelopment would be highly visible in views across Kennington Green with a tiering up in height (see Fig. 24). The gas holder itself will be infilled with development too. In this context the comparatively low proposals will have very little impact on the setting of the listed buildings in its broadest townscape sense. That said, an increase in bulk and mass on the application site would intrude into the eastern end of the setting. This creep of larger scale development introduces a degree of visual competition which will result in a negative impact on the setting of the group in particular the properties at the easter end. A submission on behalf of objectors states this would be substantial harm. The council’s Conservation Officer and the GLA consider it to be less than substantial harm and officers concur.

Figure 24: Visualisation of the view from Kennington Road looking west.

Other listed buildings 9.4.34 Grade II listed terrace houses are also present on Montford Place. The proposed development would be visible in the background to these properties but would form part of an already multi-layered backdrop. There would be no harm to their setting.

9.4.35 Gas holder 1 to the south-west is Grade II listed. There is planning consent to build within and adjacent to the gasholder and if that development is completed, the setting of the gasholder would be entirely defined by that development. However, until then, the proposed development would form part of its setting. Officers consider that the proposed buildings are sufficiently distant and distinct from the gasholder to not detract from its setting. There would be no harm.

9.4.36 Vauxhall Manor School (Grade II) which stands on Kennington Road is south-east of the site while No 200 and 202 Kennington Lane (Grade II) are located to the north east of the application site. It is noted that objectors identified less than substantial harm to the setting of the above buildings on the basis of harm to the outlook from within these buildings. The council’s Conservation Officer disagreed with this assessment as using the conventional assessment of effect on the setting there would be no harm. Overall, officers consider there would be no harm to the setting of these heritage assets.

Impact on heritage assets: Locally Listed Buildings

9.4.37 Locally Listed Buildings are ‘non-designated heritage assets’ under the NPPF. Para. 197 of the NPPF states that the effect of an application on the significance of non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In addition, LLP policy Q23 seeks to retain, preserve, protect, safeguard and where desirable, enhance non-designated heritage assets.

The Gin Distillery

9.4.38 To the south of the site is the Beefeater Gin distillery at 20 Montford Place. The main building, which is the surviving part of the Haywards pickling plant, is on Lambeth’s Local Heritage List. The listing is for both architectural and historic reasons. This structure is technically only half of the original building. In this instance the absence of a building on the application site is problematic as the gap leaves the distillery standing rather forlornly at present in a sea or tarmac. The proposal helps stitch together the Montford Place frontage and in this regard it benefits the setting of the Distillery. Furthermore, an advertisement consent for a large advertisement covering the majority of the flank wall has been recently granted on appeal (ref: APP/N5660/Z/20/3250755) and the proposal would help obscuring views towards it. This is a positive impact and a positive impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area here. These should be considered as public benefit. However, as the proposal would block an appreciation of the distillery’s dome in the view from Kennington Lane, this would be less than substantial harm to the building’s setting.

Impact on heritage assets: Conservation Areas

Kennington Conservation Area

9.4.39 The site was included within the Kennington Conservation Area (KCA) in 2012 and sits on its western boundary. The conservation area is extensive and largely residential in character. However, the north – south length of Montford Place is commercial / industrial in character due to the presence of the Beefeater gin distillery and prominence of the adjoining listed gas holder. The Kennington Conservation Area Statement (KCAS) makes no particular reference to the site but some of its general content is relevant. Extracts have been taken from the KCAS as follows:

Kennington Conservation Area was designated in 1968 and is characterised by smart terraced housing which developed from the late 18th Century and the impressive Duchy of Cornwall Estate which was laid out in the early 20th Century. (…) The area’s green open spaces such as Kennington Green and the garden squares, its street trees and the large front gardens fronting Kennington Road contribute significantly to its generous spatial qualities.(…) The over-all effect is of a well ordered urban environment.

Kennington Lane Imperial Court (1835-6) with its impressive forecourt boundary is an important marker here and something of a local landmark. Beyond this point the road returns to a more residential character with an imposing terrace of 19th Century houses which now share a communal front garden forecourt given over to parking. Refuse storage is also an issue here. At Montford Place there is a view of the gas holder and beyond stands The Pilgrim Pub, a neatly detailed Neo-Georgian public house, and a late 19th Century three storey terrace marred by uPVC windows (No. 251) and unsympathetic garden boundary treatments.

Montford Place

Only the south side of the street is included in the conservation area. It is relatively narrow and aligned west-east. The street is notable for its impressive and somewhat dramatic view to the west, terminated by a gas holder. The south side has a long late 18th Century three storey terrace.

9.4.40 It is worth noting that the large-scale development at Tesco and the gas holder redevelopments are outside this conservation area. Therefore, when they were assessed only the setting of the conservation area was considered. This site is within the conservation area and therefore the effect of development on the significance (the character or appearance) of the KCA has to be considered. This is a point that has been also raised by objectors.

9.4.41 The character of the KCA is summarised above and in detail within the KCA Statement (2012) to which officers have had regard in their assessment. The area is the sum of its multiple parts: the numerous positive contributors, the rich townscape and spaces, and the trees and listed buildings. It is an extensive, largely residential conservation area but the proposal is located in one corner in the only part of the KCA which exhibits a historic industrial character. In that regard the impact of the proposal on the significance of the conservation area as a whole is limited.

9.4.42 However, as outlined above, officers have identified harm to the settings of several listed buildings, the appearance of which are positive contributors to the significance of the conservation area. This localised harm logically also relates to this part of the conservation area but has very limited effect on the conservation area as a whole. There are also some positive aspects in relation to the conservation area: the removal of the gap site, the reinstatement of a building line, the ground floor activation of this part of Montford Place, the architectural character of the scheme responds well to the industrial character of Montford Place. Balancing the positives and the negatives, it is considered that the effect on the conservation area largely relate to the setting of the listed buildings. Given this is localised to one small corner of the KCA, the council’s Conservation Officer advised this is a low degree of less than substantial harm.

9.4.43 It is noted that the GLA considered that while the setting of the conservation area will be altered by the proposed development where currently none exists, overall, GLA officers considered that the proposal will not harm significance of the conservation area but maintain and reinforce the mixed industrial-residential character and appearance of this part of the Kennington conservation area, resulting in an improvement upon the existing environment.

Vauxhall Conservation Area

9.4.44 Vauxhall Conservation Area lies further to the west and the western end of Kennington Lane and identified in its conservation area statement, is a key historic route within the conservation area. Views eastward along Kennington Lane would terminate at the approved Tesco development which is higher than the proposed scheme. As such, there would be no harm to the setting of the Vauxhall Conservation Area.

Impact on other heritage assets

Impact on Kennington Green 9.4.45 Kennington Green is a Protected London Square which means it benefits from the London Squares Act 1931 banning building work on such squares. Protected squares are treated as non-designated heritage assets. While the development would be clearly seen from the Green, it would not harm its setting.

Impact on Archaeological Priority Area

9.4.46 Non-designated heritage assets also include archaeological assets and the same policy approach applies. LP policy 7.8 emphasises that the conservation of archaeological interest is a material consideration in the planning process. LLP policy Q23 requires proper investigation and recording of archaeological remains.

9.4.47 The application has been reviewed by the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS) who reviewed the archaeological desk-based assessment report and agreed with its conclusions that the archaeological potential associated with the site is negligible. As such, there are no further archaeological requirements.

Impact upon heritage assets: Summary

9.4.48 Overall, the negative effects to the setting of several listed buildings and harm to the appearance of the KCA as identified above, are considered to be contrary to the policy aspirations of policy Q26 (a) (ii), Q20 (ii) and Q22(a)(i). The adverse impacts are summarised in Table 6 below:

Table 6. Adverse heritage impacts identified

9.4.49 Individually, there are instances of less than substantial harm. Cumulatively, it is considered that the level of harm is still less than substantial. With regard heritage impact the NPPF states:

192. In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 193. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

194. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.

196. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

197. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’.

9.4.50 Paragraph 193 of the NPPF places great weight on the preservation of designated heritage assets and their settings. This applies to the numerous statutory and locally listed buildings and conservation areas in this case. The starting point is ‘no harm’. In accordance with paragraph 194 of the NPPF, the applicant provided clear justification for the identified harm.

Assessment of harm versus benefits

9.4.51 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF notes that, where the overall net balance of heritage considerations is that any harm is less-than-substantial, “this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”

9.4.52 An assessment of the current application has identified less than substantial harm would be caused by the proposed building which would be harmful to the appearance of the Kennington Conservation Area and the setting of Nos. 231 – 245 Kennington Lane; Nos. 346 – 354 Kennington Road and the Gin Distillery as set out in Table 6 above.

9.4.53 Notwithstanding that the proposal represents a departure from Q26 of the Local Plan, the application scheme is considered not to conflict with policy in all other regards and as such, as a policy compliant scheme it would deliver social, economic, environmental and sustainable benefits to the community.

9.4.54 However, as the proposal represents a departure from adopted local plan policy and has been identified as causing ‘less than substantial’ harm it is important to identify the public benefits that would outweigh these in line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF. These benefits are considered to be:

 139 new homes of which 53 would be affordable  2715sqm of new light industrial floorspace providing flexible accommodation

 Up to 88 new permanent jobs and a package of bespoke employment and training opportunities secured via s106  Benefits to local economy associated with new residents and workers supporting local businesses  Enhancements to public realm and creation of active frontages along Montford Place  Transport improvements including a contribution of £100,000 towards implementation of Healthy Route Networks and £10,000 towards improvements to signage  Improvements to biodiversity increase the biodiversity and urban greening on the site.  Optimising brownfield land

9.4.55 The identified social, economic, environmental and sustainability value that the scheme would bring, with the addition of the benefits identified above, it is considered that the public benefits of the application scheme outweigh the departure from policy and ‘less than substantial’ harm identified. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF and development plan policies.

10 Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers

10.1 Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

10.2 One of the core planning principles (paragraph 17) in the NPPF is that decisions should “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. LP policy 7.1 states that in their neighbourhoods, people should have a good quality environment.

10.3 The beginning of the Agenda Pack contains broad contextual overview of the assessment framework within which BRE compliant sunlight and daylight studies are undertaken. This includes an explanation of the key terms and targets contained within the BRE guidance. The following assessment has been made in the context of this information.

10.4 In accordance with the LLP policy Q2 (Amenity) the application is accompanied by a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment prepared by GIA. This provides an assessment of the potential impact of the development on sunlight, daylight and overshadowing to neighbouring residential properties based on the approach set out in the Building Research Establishment’s (BRE) ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Good Practice Guide’. GIA have considered the impacts on daylight and sunlight to existing neighbouring properties using four different scenarios:

 Existing v Proposed  Historic baseline v Proposed  Existing v Proposed cumulative

 Mirror massing v Proposed  A ‘no balcony assessment’ has also been undertaken for two properties

10.5 Three future sensitive receptors within the Tesco Kennington Lane and Oval Gas Works sites have also been tested. For these properties ADF, NSL and APSH have been assessed which is considered appropriate. Two scenarios have been tested:  Existing v Proposed  Mirror massing v Proposed

10.6 The council has sought an independent review of the report findings in respect of possible impacts of the new development on surrounding sites and within the development itself. This review was undertaken by Delva Patman Redler (DPR) who considered that the assessments of impact on existing properties have been assessed correctly. The application of mirror massing study for future sensitive receptors was considered to be carried out incorrectly and as a result, revised mirror massing scenario was submitted and DPR was satisfied with the updated methodology. The extent of neighbouring properties reviewed is appropriate.

10.7 It is noted that objections received during the application process raised concerns in relation to the accuracy of assumptions made with regards to the layout and use of several properties. As a result of the information provided by objectors and further research into the planning records available for some properties, the Daylight and Sunlight report was updated through an addendum dated 23/10/2020. The assessment below takes into consideration the updated information provided where relevant.

Daylight

10.8 The main consideration for neighbouring daylight review is in reference to the vertical sky component (VSC) and daylight distribution (where room layouts are known) as per the BRE Guide. There is fairly limited existing massing on site and therefore some of the surrounding neighbouring properties will have higher levels of daylight than could be anticipated for an urban location. Whilst reductions in daylight require due consideration, it is also considered appropriate that some consideration is also given to retained values of daylight in the proposed scenario i.e. retained values with the proposed development in situ.

10.9 The review has focused upon the conventional BRE Guide analysis of VSC and daylight distribution review. However, given that there are some properties with analysis results not meeting BRE Guide target criteria (especially, given limited existing massing on site), the extent of any ‘adverse impact’ has been categorised on the basis of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consideration for reductions that exceed 20 per cent / not meeting BRE Guide target criteria (i.e. adverse / noticeable effect). Consideration on some aspects of seeking to classify adversity is presented within Appendix I of the BRE Guide. However, it is common for sunlight and daylight industry professionals to consider initial adversity with reference to the numerical loss only, albeit a subsequent interpretation of the findings and an appropriate judgement needs to be made for any reductions not meeting the BRE target criteria.

10.10 Appendix I of the BRE Guide sets out the following adverse definitions:

 Minor Adverse: Reductions in VSC or NSL of >20% to 29.9%;  Moderate Adverse: Reductions in VSC or NSL of 30% to 39.9%; and  Major Adverse: Reductions in VSC or NSL of equal / greater than 40%.

10.11 The daylight results can be summarised as follows: 39 neighbouring properties have been tested, of which 31 would meet the BRE guidelines for VCS, NSL and APSH in the primary ‘Existing v Proposed’ scenario and therefore are not discussed in more detail here.

10.12 It is noted that the original GIA report stated that 30 properties would meet the BRE guidelines, however this was increased to 31 in the addendum. This is due to a re- assessment of the impact on No 350 Kennington Road (based on floorplans from planning archives rather than assumptions) which shows full compliance with BRE guidelines. The addendum also considers the property to be in residential use rather than mixed. The original GIA report considered the impact on this property to be minor adverse.

10.13 Of the eight properties which would not fully meet the BRE guidance, the following five are considered to experience a minor adverse impact:  1-49 Sherwin House  1-60 Kilner House  257 Kennington Lane  352 Kennington Road  356 Kennington Road

1-49 Sherwin House 10.14 Sherwin House is to the south east of the application site separated from the site by the houses along Montford Place. Of the 170 windows assessed for VSC, 82.9 per cent will comply with the BRE guidelines. Of the 29 windows which experience VSC

transgressions, all have values less than 4 per cent which is due to existing walkways. A no balcony assessment showed that all 170 windows would meet the BRE guidelines and therefore the breaches can be largely attributed to the existing architectural features. Based on assumed layouts, all assessed rooms comply with NSL guidance. When assessed against the cumulative impact scenario, there is a minor increase in daylight impacts. However, with balconies removed the property is compliant and the increase is mainly due to the other schemes.

1-60 Kilner House 10.15 Kilner House is to the south of the application suite separated from the site by the Beefeater distillery houses along Montford Place. Of the 125 windows assessed for VSC, 96 per cent will comply with the BRE guidelines. Similarly to Sherwin House, where there would be reductions below BRE guidance, these are largely due to the existing balconies. Based on assumed layouts, all assessed rooms comply with NSL guidance. When assessed against the cumulative impact scenario, there is an increase in daylight impacts with the proportion of windows meeting the BRE guidelines reduced to 32.8 per cent. However, with balconies removed the property is compliant.

257 Kennington Lane

10.16 This property is to the north west of the application site and has been converted into flats. All 20 windows will comply with BRE guidelines while 2 of 11 rooms would experience NSL reductions below 30 per cent. The affected rooms are bedrooms where daylight is considered less important. All rooms would comply with the BRE guidelines for sunlight. The historical baseline results show a reduction in the impact with just one NSL breach. When assessed against the cumulative impact scenario, there is an increase in daylight impacts with the proportion of windows meeting the BRE VSC guidelines reduced to 75 per cent per cent. The affected 5 windows directly face the Tesco Kennington site and the impact is largely due to that development. In terms of NSL, the same 2 rooms would be affected as in the existing v proposed scenario, with the impact on one room raising to above 40 per cent. Again, this is largely due to the proximity to the Tesco site.

352 Kennington Road

10.17 This property is to the south east of the application site. The GIA report assumed that it is in mixed use, however, representations received from residents, state that it is used as single family dwellinghouse by a visual artist who also works from home. The residential use of the site is confirmed by planning records and ground floor plans from planning archives informed the GIA addendum.

10.18 Of the 24 windows assessed for VSC, 75 per cent will comply with the BRE guidelines. The affected 6 windows will see alterations just above 20 per cent with retained values of over 20 per cent for 4 windows and 15 per cent for one which is acceptable in an inner city environment. Assumed NSL assessment suggest that all rooms would meet the BRE guidelines. For sunlight, 1 out of 5 relevant rooms would see a reduction marginally above the suggested BRE guidelines.

10.19 The historical baseline results show 100 per cent compliance for daylight and sunlight which demonstrates that it is the unusual vacant nature of the existing plot that creates an unrealistic target. When assessed against the cumulative impact scenario, there is an increase in daylight impacts with the VSC compliance rate reduced to 68.8 per cent. However, the affected windows would see reductions that are below 30 percent and retained values of over 20 per cent for 6 windows and mid- teens for other 3 which is considered to be acceptable in an urban location. There are also increased impacts for sunlight, with 2 out of 5 rooms experiencing loses below the BRE guidelines, however the retained values are considered reasonable in this urban environment.

356 Kennington Road

10.20 This mixed use property is to the south east of the application site. Of the 38 windows assessed for VSC, 86.6 per cent will comply with the BRE guidelines. 4 of the 5 affected windows will see retained values in excess of 20 per cent and 1 would be reduced to 11.7 per cent, however, the VSC for the room is compliant. Based on assumed layouts, 1 of 19 rooms would see a reduction in NSL in excess of the BRE guidance however this is a basement room which appears to serve a non-residential use.

10.21 The historical baseline results show 100 per cent compliance for daylight and sunlight which demonstrates that it is the unusual vacant nature of the existing plot that creates an unrealistic target. In the cumulative assessment there is a minor additional impact to the rooms however these are not considered significant. Overall, the impact on this property is considered to be minor to moderate adverse depending on room uses and layouts.

10.22 Properties where more significant changes in daylight and sunlight will occur are discussed in more detail below.

Imperial Court 10.23 Imperial Court (see Fig. 25 below) is located to the east of the site and was converted into flats.

Figure 25: Site photo of Imperial Court and property location

10.24 Daylight VSC: For VSC, 52 (43 per cent) of the 120 windows within the 86 rooms would experience BRE transgressions. Of these, 7 would experience minor adverse impacts, 19 would experience moderate adverse impacts and 26 would experience major adverse impacts between 40.3 per cent and 59.4 per cent. 46 of the 52 windows would retain VSC levels above 15.9 per cent, with 27 of these being in excess of 20 per cent. The remaining 6 windows would experience retained VSC values above 14 per cent. Based upon recent appeal cases, some VSCs levels at these retained levels have been accepted and in this instance is also considered acceptable.

10.25 Daylight NSL: 24 (28 per cent) of the 86 rooms assessed would experience BRE transgressions. Of these, 7 would experience minor adverse impacts and 17 would experience major adverse impacts between 41.5 per cent and 66.9 per cent. Of the 24 rooms, 18 are understood to serve bedrooms where there is a lower expectation for daylight.

10.26 Sunlight - APSH, only 1 of the 86 rooms assessed would not meet the guidelines. This room would however exceed the annual sunlight at 42 per cent and only fall short on the winter sunlight, receiving 2 per cent of the recommended 5 per cent.

10.27 The ‘historic baseline v proposed’ assessment demonstrates that an additional 6 rooms would comply with both VSC and NSL in this scenario. For VSC, an additional 13 rooms would comply, and the transgressions would reduce in magnitude. The compliance rate for NSL is the same, but the scale of impacts are slightly reduced. All rooms would meet the criteria for APSH.

10.28 The ‘existing v proposed cumulative’ assessment demonstrates that an additional 2 windows would not meet the guidelines for VSC and there will be a slight increase in the scale of impact.

10.29 A ‘mirror massing v proposed’ assessment has also been undertaken, however whilst this shows improvements in VSC to 46 windows, the impact to 29 windows would not change and there would be losses to 45 windows.

10.30 Overall, the impact to this building as a whole is considered moderate adverse while the properties on the lower floors which would be most impacted would be classed as major adverse. Some of the affected windows are located within flats which benefit from windows facing in other directions which are unaffected by the proposed scheme. While there are instances of flats which wholly face the application site, the retained daylight values are considered to be acceptable in this urban location.

233- 235 Kennington Lane

10.31 This property is directly to the north of the site (see Fig. 26 below). While the GIA original report assumed it contains 5 flats, one at each level, representations received during the application process indicate that the property contains 6 flats, including 2 at basement level and one on each of the upper floors. It appears that the basement windows within projecting bays which face the application site serve the main living areas of these flats with bedrooms facing to the front. At upper ground floor level one of the projecting windows is understood to serve kitchen/dining room.

Figure 26: Site photo of 233- 235 Kennington Lane and property location

10.32 Daylight VSC: For the 10 rooms assessed, 2 rooms would experience ‘moderate adverse’ impacts at 37.8 per cent and 38.7 per cent, whilst the remaining 8 rooms would experience ‘major adverse’ impacts to their windows between 51.7 per cent and 60.5 per cent. The worse affected rooms are located at basement level where the retained values are 6.2 per cent, 9.3 per cent and 9.6 per cent while at first floor the retained values are 11.3 per cent and 11.5 per cent. At first floor the retained values are just under 14 per cent.

10.33 Daylight NSL: For the 11 rooms assessed, 1 room would experience a ‘minor adverse’ impact at 29.5 per cent, 1 would experience a ‘moderate adverse’ impact at 35.4 per cent, and the remaining rooms would experience ‘major adverse’ impacts between 43.7 per cent and 78.6 per cent.

10.34 APSH: 2 rooms would comply with the recommended guidelines. 6 of the 8 remaining rooms would comply with annual APSH but not in winter.

10.35 Due to the low-rise nature of the historic site building which faced 233-235 Kennington Lane (circa two storeys), the daylight and sunlight results in the ‘historic v proposed’ assessment are reasonably similar to the existing v proposed assessment. The ‘existing v proposed cumulative’ assessment is also broadly comparable to the existing v proposed given the location of the consented scheme in relation to No 233- 235 but it is acknowledged that there would be one further minor reduction to the retained VSC levels, one to NSL and for sunlight there is an additional impact of 1 per cent APSH to the winter sunlight to five rooms and additional impact of 1-2 per cent APSH to the same five rooms for annual sunlight

10.36 Overall, the reductions to this property would be noticeable and the impact to the building as a whole is considered major adverse. The two flats in the basement would be affected worse than other units which is due to their location and layout involving the main living accommodation facing the application site. However, all flats would still receive adequate amenity from their other rooms facing in the other direction which would be unaffected by the proposal. Although the development would result in material impacts to the rear of the building, officers consider that on balance the impact is acceptable given the need to optimise development of the application site and the benefits that the development would bring.

231 Kennington Lane

10.37 This property is to the north of the site (see Fig 27 below) and contains a single dwellinghouse. GIA have tested 3 rooms within this property: a basement and ground floor windows which serve living room and dining room and a bedroom window on the top floor. Representations received during the application process suggest that there is a bedroom located at first floor level, the impact on which has not been analysed in the GIA original report however this was subsequently updated in the addendum.

Figure 27: Site photo of 231-Kennington Lane and property location

10.38 Daylight VSC: 1 room would experience a moderate adverse impact of 32.3 per cent whilst the remaining 3 rooms would experience major adverse impacts between 51 per cent and 54.5 per cent. The retained values at basement and ground floor level will be 11.8 and 13.8 while at first floor it would be 16.3 per cent.

10.39 Daylight NSL: all 4 rooms would experience major adverse impacts between 44 per cent and 62.5 per cent with retained levels below 50 per cent.

10.40 Sunlight – APSH: all rooms would comply with the recommended guidelines.

10.41 The ‘historic baseline v proposed’ has also been discussed but it has little bearing on the conclusions. It is noted that in the cumulative impact two windows would no longer meet the BRE guidelines for sunlight. However, the retained values of 33 per cent and 24 per cent against the BRE target of 25 per cent are considered to be acceptable.

10.42 Overall, the reductions to this property would be noticeable and the impact to the building as a whole is considered major adverse. However, this substantial dwellinghouse will still receive adequate amenity from the rooms facing in the other direction which would be unaffected by the proposal. Although development would result in material impacts to the rear of the building, officers consider that on balance the impact is acceptable given the need to optimise development of the application site and the benefits that the development would bring. It is noted that the impacts on No. 231 Kennington Lane are comparable to those associated with the redevelopment of Tesco Kennington and its impact on other properties facing Kennington Lane which were approved by the Planning Committee.

Updated cumulative impact assessment

10.43 An additional assessment was received during the application process which considers the cumulative impact of the proposed scheme and the current proposals (ref: 20/02203/VOC) to increase the height of the approved development on the Tesco site on the neighbouring properties. It shows that the revised scheme on the Tesco site will result in no additional or very minor alterations to the majority of neighbouring properties. Properties which do experience a change (No.s 247, 251, 253, 255, 257, 259 and 261 Kennington Lane) are located immediately to the north of the Tesco site development. These properties experience no impact, or a minor impact in the case of No. 257 Kennington Lane against the Montford Place scheme in isolation and therefore it can be concluded that the impacts are a result of the increased massing and close proximity to the Tesco site.

Overshadowing to amenity spaces

10.44 An overshadowing analysis has been carried out for the neighbouring amenity spaces within 231 and 233-235 Kennington Lane and Imperial Court.

10.45 The results demonstrate that the amenity area within Imperial Court will not see any reduction in sunlight levels on 21 March as a result of the development and therefore the impact is considered negligible.

10.46 The amenity area at 233-235 Kennington Lane currently sees 2 hours of sun to just 6.3 per cent of its area in the existing condition, which is well below the recommended area of 50 per cent. The small area that sees the recommended 2 hours is located between the two projecting bays, with the main garden area already achieving less than 2 hours of sunlight in the existing condition. This area reduces further to 0 per cent in the proposed scenario. It is noted that the objection by BRE classifies this impact as major adverse. However, the small area that sees the recommended 2 hours is located between the two projecting bays, with the main garden area already achieving less than 2 hours of sunlight in the existing condition. However, the Council’s advisors noted that in reality the impact is unlikely to be noticeable and the recommended 2 hours of sunlight should still be met in the summer. The impact is therefore considered negligible.

10.47 The amenity area at 231 Kennington Lane currently meets the recommended guidelines in the existing condition and sees 2 hours of sun to 52.6 per cent of its area. However, this area would be reduced to 0 per cent in the proposed scenario. GIA have carried out an additional sun exposure assessment on 21 June which demonstrates that most of the amenity area would receive more than 4 hours of sun on this date, which is not unreasonable for an urban location. Whilst this is useful to note, the overall impact in overshadowing would be noticeable and is considered to be major adverse.

Future Sensitive Receptors Results

10.48 Three future sensitive receptors within the Tesco Kennington Lane and Oval Gas Works developments have been assessed – Plots B (recently renamed as Block G under ref: 20/02203/VOC) and C at Tesco Kennington Lane and Plot 4 at Oval Gas Works. The results of the existing v proposed analysis is described further below. It is noted that the objection by BRE classifies impacts on the Tesco site as major adverse.

Plot B Tesco Kennington Lane 10.49 Of the 178 rooms assessed, 127 (71 per cent) would either meet the recommended BRE target value for ADF or experience no change from the existing figure if already falling below. 46 rooms (26 per cent) would meet the recommended guidelines for NSL. For APSH, of the 40 rooms tested, 26 (65 per cent) would meet the recommended guidelines. Overall, the impact to this property is considered moderate adverse.

Plot C Tesco Kennington Lane 10.50 Of the 109 rooms assessed, 90 (83 per cent) would either meet the recommended BRE target value for ADF or experience no change from the existing figure if already falling below. All rooms would meet the recommended guidelines for NSL and APSH. Overall, the impact to this property is considered minor adverse.

10.51 When comparing the results of the updated Mirror Masing scenario to those of the proposed, only six additional rooms would fall short of recommended ADF, whilst four additional rooms would fall short of NSL recommendation.

Plot 4 Oval Gas Works 10.52 Of the 121 rooms assessed, 101 (83 per cent) would either meet the recommended BRE target value for ADF or experience no change from the existing figure if already falling below. 119 rooms (98 per cent) would meet the recommended guidelines for NSL. All 19 rooms tested would meet the target values for APSH. Overall, the impact to this property is considered minor adverse.

Daylight and Sunlight conclusion

10.53 The proposed development would result in material impacts on a number of residential properties. Reductions would be noticeable, particularly given that much of the site is currently undeveloped, a situation generally uncommon in central London. However, retained values of VSC, NSL and ADF are acceptable in the majority of cases. Where the impact is greater, the dwellings that those affected rooms are a part of would continue to benefit from daylight reaching other parts of the dwelling. The impact on daylight and sunlight must be weighed against the planning benefits of the scheme, which are material considerations. Officers consider that on balance the impact on daylight and sunlight is acceptable.

10.54 Privacy and outlook

10.55 The nearest residential properties are those to the north along Kennington Lane where distances between the existing and proposed windows are at between 12 and 16.6m. The number of windows facing towards Kennington Lane has been minimised and a number of solid panels have been introduced instead wherever possible. Where overlooking opportunities are presented, room arrangements have been configured such that any visibility is not within the activity space of a room. However, officers considered that additional mitigation measures are required to ensure there is no unacceptable overlooking to residential properties.

10.56 The proposals incorporate the use of directional glazing and restricted openings in all north facing windows within Block A up to 5th floor level and windows facing properties in residential use in block B up to 6th floor level (see Fig. 28 and 29 below). Directional glazing can be designed to prevent views in a particular direction while allowing for some outlook to be retained, for example at oblique angles only (see Fig 30 below). At ground floor level a boundary wall would provide privacy while fenestration at first floor would also include directional glazing up to a level of 1.7m from finished floor level. Full details will be secured by condition (9).

Figure 28. Overlooking mitigation measures – location of windows with directional glazing (shown in red) and balcony screens (shown in green).

Figure 29. Overlooking mitigation measures in north facing elevation – location of windows with directional glazing (shown in red and blue).

Fig 30. Example of directional glazing principles

10.57 The closest relationship with Imperial Court to the east includes separation distances between habitable room windows at 14.6m which increase to over 20m in the southern part of Block A. Mitigation measures in the form of directional glazing and restricted opening to one living room window (per floor) will be required to ensure adequate privacy. Privacy fins are also considered necessary to balconies of the proposed corner flats as the distance to living room windows within Imperial Court is 15.5m (see Fig 28 above).

10.58 Roof terraces within both blocks have similar relationships with properties facing Kennington Lane and Imperial Court as those described above. The terraces will be enclosed by 1.6m high balustrades which on the north and eastern facing elevations will be designed to reduce visual permeability and full details will be secured by a condition (9). This combined with a set back from the roof edge and given the terraces’ higher position than neighbouring properties ensures that there would be no undue overlooking or perceived overlooking.

10.59 With regards to the relationship between the proposed scheme and that approved on the Tesco site, the separation distances between windows are generally between 16m to 18m with a pinch point of 14.5m between secondary living room windows. This is considered to be acceptable, noting that these are street facing elevations and it can be expected that future occupiers will be aware of the close relationships between the schemes.

10.60 Noise and Vibration

10.61 LP policy 7.15 states that development proposals should avoid significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development. LLP policy Q2 requires development to reduce the adverse the impact of noise.

10.62 A Site Suitability Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Mott MacDonald Limited has been submitted. The noise impact assessment concludes that the proposed site is suitable for mixed use development including residential and light industrial/commercial uses subject to detailed design and provision of relevant mitigation measures. This includes limits on the noise from fixed building services plant which will be secured by condition (35).

10.63 The proposals include an ancillary caffe for which limited detail has been submitted. Condition (54) is recommended to ensure that details relating to operating hours, flues and extraction and associated maintenance details and a customer management plan are provided and assessed in compliance with LLP policy Q2 and ED7.

10.64 It is noted that concerns have been raised with regards to noise and disturbance that may be caused by the proposed use of roof terraces. In line with the recommendation of the environmental health officer, a condition (29) is recommended to prevent the use of terraces between the hours of 11pm and 6am and this will ensure that the use of terraces does not create unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. It is noted that the future occupiers of the flats would still benefit from access to ground floor amenity spaces at those times.

10.65 It is acknowledged that the dismantling and construction works are likely to cause temporary noise and vibration nuisance to some residential properties. An Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan has been provided. However, further detail is required to ensure measures are taken to minimise impacts on the locality in accordance with the relevant GLA supplementary planning guidance and statutory code of practice. A condition (3) is recommended to ensure a more comprehensive management plan is provided.

11 Designing Out Crime

11.1 The layout and design of the scheme maximises passive surveillance and active frontages to contribute to the perception of safety. The scheme incorporates a number of measures at the recommendation of the Designing Out Crime Officer including gates to the northern and southern yards, controlled bollards to the main access and landscaping strategy to minimise opportunities for hiding.

11.2 The Metropolitan Police are satisfied with the proposal subject to conditions requiring a Secured by Design application with certification achieved prior to occupation. Subject to the above conditions (57 and 58), the proposed development would be in compliance with LP policies 7.3 and 7.13 and LLP policy Q3.

12 Ecology, Trees and Landscaping

12.1 LLP policy Q10 states that new development should be designed positively to protect existing trees and as part of a wider soft landscaping scheme to include new trees where appropriate. LLP policy Q9 requires developments to provide landscaping that is fit for purpose, maximises opportunities for greening and makes use of appropriate plant species.

12.2 Areas of hard and soft landscaping are proposed across the site with landscaped roof terrace areas in both blocks. The landscape and public realm strategy provided in the DAS illustrates the intention to provide a mix of planting in the ground and containers including trees, vertical greening and edible planting offering a substantial improvement for a site that currently has no formal landscaping. The landscaping would incorporate high quality public realm including flexible seating areas and spill out space for commercial and residential uses. Figure 31 below shows the proposed areas of soft landscaping including at roof level.

Figure 31: Proposed landscaping and green roof /terrace plans

12.3 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has reviewed the proposals and raised no objections subject to appropriate conditions relating to the final landscaping scheme details and associated maintenance being secured by conditions (15 and 16). This will also need consider amenity issues as discussed earlier in the report. As such the proposal complies with the requirements of policy Q9 and Q10 of the LLP.

Ecology

12.4 IPLP policy G5 and LLP policy Q9 reflects the aims of policy EN1, promoting opportunities for greening as well as protection and enhancement of existing biodiversity. The site is located in an identified area of open space deficiency. Policy Q9 also supports the use of landscaping to provide strong boundary treatments, together with access routes and parking areas compliant with safety standards and minimum parking standards. LLP policy Q10 states that new development should be designed positively to protect existing trees and as part of a wider soft landscaping scheme to include new trees where appropriate.

12.5 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site has been provided with the application. The report confirms that there are 28 sites of Importance for Nature conservation (SINCS) within 2km of the site boundary with the closest (within 0.5km) being St Marks Church of England Primary School grounds, Vauxhall City Farm, Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, Kennington Park and Harleyford Road Community Garden. All SINCS were determined not to be directly impacted by the proposed development. Buildings within and adjacent to the survey boundary were identified as having the potential to contain roosting features suitable for bats.

12.6 A preliminary roost assessment was carried out in July 2019 and no bat roosts were recorded. No further surveys are therefore required. Suitable habitat for black redstart was also identified within the survey boundary. However, further surveys showed no evidence of breeding black redstart and therefore no mitigation is required.

12.7 It is possible for the proposed development to result in a net positive impact on biodiversity. In order to achieve this, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey identifies, in accordance with the strategy of LP policy 7.19 and IPLP policy G6 that a range of measures should be undertaken to satisfy the requirement for the ecological enhancement of the site.

12.8 The landscape design will include biodiversity enhancement measures such as tree planting, species selection to provide year-round foliage, ecologically diverse green and brown roofs and incorporation of bird and bat boxes. The council’s biodiversity officer reviewed the submitted information and is satisfied subject to biodiversity measures set out in the reports being integrated in the final detailed design. This is secured by conditions (15, 47). Subject to these conditions, the development would contribute positively to the biodiversity objectives of the above policies.

Urban Greening Factor

12.9 IPLP policy G5 requires proposals within boroughs to develop an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) to identify the appropriate amount of urban greening required within developments. For residential development this is an UGF of 0.4 and for non- residential schemes it is 0.3. The aforementioned green infrastructure and landscape design achieves UGF of 0.38 which is marginally below the recommended UGF of 0.4. However, the measures proposed were considered to be acceptable by the council’s sustainability advisors, open space officer and the GLA. To validate the measures at the as built stage a condition (49) is recommended that evidence is provided to demonstrate to illustrate the development has achieved an UGF 0.38 or more.

13 Transport

13.1 LP policies 6.1 and 6.3 and IPLP Policies T1, T3 and T4 seek to ensure that the impacts of development in transport capacity and the transport network are fully assessed.

13.2 Policies T3, T6, T7 and T8 of the LLP and Policies T3, T7 and T8 of the DRLLP PSV both seek to ensure that proposals for development will have a limited impact on the performance and safety of the highway network and that sufficient and appropriate car parking and cycle storage is provided whilst meeting objectives to encourage sustainable transport and to reduce dependence on the private car. If development will have an unacceptable transport impact, it should be refused in the absence of mitigation measures to make the development acceptable.

Site context

13.3 The quality of the pedestrian environment on Montford Place is low. The submitted Pedestrian Environment Review (PERs) audit highlight issues around poor surface quality, obstructions on the footway, and poor lighting. The presence of temporary footway closures and constructions accesses also reduces the quality of the pedestrian environment, but it is acknowledged that once construction of this scheme and the neighbouring Oval Gas Works scheme is complete, that many of these issues will be addressed. Furthermore the southern end of Montford Place is expected to change as a result of S106 contributions and works associated with the neighbouring scheme. The PERs and Cycling Level of Service audits also highlight deficiencies on the route to Oval, which form part of Lambeth’s proposed Healthy Routes Network (HRN). The Transport Team identified a section of Kennington Road (between Kennington Green and Kennington Park) which represents a ‘missing link’ in the TfL’s Central London Grid for which a scheme of improvements is thought to be forthcoming. A contribution of £100,000 towards improvements for conditions for pedestrians and cyclists through the delivery of the HRN will therefore be sought. The transport officers identified that this should contribute to improvements to Kennington Lane ‘missing link’ of TfL’s Central London Grid.

Access

13.4 It is proposed to rationalise the access to the site, by reducing the number of vehicular access points from three to two and this will be delivered through S278 agreement. The northern access designed to be used for servicing will be gated but opened during the operational times to prevent vehicles waiting on the highway. The central access would feature retractable bollards and is designed primarily for access to disabled parking and occasional pre-booked residential deliveries.

13.5 The applicant has revised the detailed design of the access to the mews during the application process to address concerns raised by transport officers. The revised scheme incorporates raised kerbs outside the bollards to ensure protected space for pedestrians. Shared space within the mews is considered to be acceptable as vehicle movements there would be fewer and controlled.

Trip Generation and Impacts

13.6 The Transport Assessment includes a trip generation analysis which shows that the proposed development will reduce the number of vehicle trips and there will be increase in trips by walking, cycling and public transport. TFL confirmed that the number of trips anticipated by public transport can be accommodated within existing and planned service capacities.

Servicing

13.7 Servicing for the commercial element is proposed via an off-street loading service bay to the north of the site. The Transport Assessment includes swept paths showing the maximum sized vehicle (8m length 7.5t box van) entering and exiting the site in forward gear, and demonstrates that up to two vehicles can be accommodated on site at any one time. This access would also provide occasional access to a UKPN substation and a suitable swept path is provided demonstrating the relevant vehicle can access the site.

13.8 A secondary servicing access is proposed via droppable bollards to reach the central mews. It is anticipated that this will be utilised for scheduled residential deliveries and any remaining commercial servicing activity associated with the southern commercial units. The management company will be present on-site 8am-8pm to manage deliveries. The TA includes swept paths of the maximum sized vehicle (5.8m length 4.6t light van) entering and exiting the site in forward gear.

13.9 As an alternative for vehicles larger than 5.8m, and for ad-hoc residential deliveries, it is proposed to create a new loading bay on Montford Place. Given that the majority of residential deliveries are expected to be ad-hoc (e.g. online shopping and food deliveries), it is anticipated that the loading bay on Montford Place will accommodate a large number of deliveries for the residential element and the southern commercial units, while the mews is not expected to accommodate many servicing trips. This will ensure the quality of the public realm within the mews is not compromised by servicing movements. It is proposed that clear delineation is made through the use of materiality and texture to denote where infrequent vehicle use will take place.

13.10 The proposed loading bay on Montford Place could require the removal of up to four existing parking bays on the opposite side of the road, to enable vehicles to perform a three-point turn within Montford Place. The applicant has demonstrated that there is sufficient on street parking capacity to accommodate this. The precise details of the suspension would be confirmed as part of the off-site highway works detailed design process associated with S278 agreement.

13.11 The proposed loading bay on Montford Place could require the removal of up to four existing parking bays on the opposite side of the road, to enable vehicles to perform a three-point turn within Montford Place. The applicant has demonstrated that there is sufficient on street parking capacity to accommodate this. The precise details of the suspension would be confirmed as part of the off-site highway works detailed design process associated with S278 agreement.

13.12 A commercial servicing trip generation assessment provided in the TA includes the worst case scenario with 10 small occupiers on site rather than a smaller number of larger occupiers which would generate fewer deliveries. The commercial floorspace is therefore considered to have the potential to generate a maximum of 30 deliveries per day, with the majority of these made by small to medium-sized vehicles. The residential element is estimated to generate 41 deliveries per day with very few of these trips likely to occur at peak AM or PM times. The proposed draft servicing strategy is considered to be acceptable and the final Deliveries and Servicing Plan will be secured by a condition (22).

Car Parking

13.13 The development would be secured as car permit free through a S106 agreement. It would provide five on site disabled parking spaces including one for the commercial element and four for residential units. This equates to three percent active provision for the residential use. Further 10 spaces (7percent) would be provided on-street should demand arise. The applicant has demonstrated that this can be accommodated on Montford Place and the assessment considered possible additional demand for disabled bays from other approved schemes in the area.

13.14 A Car Park Design and Management Plan (condition 25) is required to detail how the disabled persons parking will be monitored and to ensure that car parking spaces are leased rather than sold and will be secured through the s106. The provision of one EV charging point and the remainder passive provision meets the IPLP requirements and will be secured through a condition (27).

Cycle parking

13.15 Long stay residential cycle parking is proposed within an outdoor bike store subdivided into three separate stores and a bike store within the southern block. The outdoor store is to the back of the site and some 60m from the residential lobby, it would benefit from natural surveillance from the ground floor use, and residential units above and is considered to be acceptable.

13.16 The provision includes 244 spaces including 13 spaces (five per cent) suitable for larger or adapted cycles. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed layout meets the manufacturers specifications to ensure usability. Five short stay residential spaces and three commercial spaces are proposed within the courtyard. This is shown in Figure 32 in green below. 11 long stay commercial spaces will be provided within the commercial units and their detailed location will depend on the final layout of the commercial space. This level of provision complies with the IPLP standards and will be secured through a condition (24).

13.17 The emerging DRLLP policy seeks provision of charging points for 1 in 10 cycles. The applicant committed to provision of charging facilities for commercial units and this will be secured by a condition (24). This is considered to be acceptable given the early stage of adoption of the emerging policy.

Figure 32: Location of cycle parking

Refuse storage and collection

13.18 Two refuse stores are proposed for the residential element, each located close to the entrance lobby for each block and providing a total of 13 Eurobins for waste and 8 Eurobins for recycling. A separate commercial waste store for 4 Eurobins for waste and 2 Eurobins for recycling would be located in the northern part of the site accessed from the servicing yard. On collection day, the on-site management would transfer refuse from these stores to a collection points located along the southern and northern boundary. They collection pints would benefit from dropped kerbs of the northern access point and also an existing dripped kerb immediately to the south of the site in front of the Beefeater Distillery.

13.19 The proposed waste and recycling scheme has been assessed by Veolia and found acceptable. Details of refuse store design and a management strategy would be secured by a condition (23). The development would be in compliance with LP policy 5.17 and LLP policy Q12.

Construction

13.20 An Outline Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) has been submitted with the application. It sets out measures which seek to minimise the impact of construction on the transport network. The CLP includes commitment to use FORC silver vehicles on site and off-peak hours for deliveries which was welcomed by TfL. The main site access is proposed via the existing access Montford Place with vehicles heading north from the A3, turning left onto A203 South Lambeth Road, through the Vauxhall gyratory system and onto Kennington Lane, turning right into Montford Place. Egressing from the site, vehicles would egress from Montford Place to the north, turning left onto Kennington Lane, then Durham Street and Harleyford Road onto the A3 at Oval Station.

13.21 It is acknowledged that Montford Place is also used in association with the Oval Gasholders scheme which is expected to peak for 12 months after 2023. The CLP for the application under consideration sets out the expected construction programme, which is expected to last from Jan 2021 to December 2022, with the last approximately 6 months relating only to fit-out where typically smaller vehicles are used. Up to when the proposed development’s construction activity is due to end, the Oval Gas Works construction activity is due to have only increased, gradually, to generate between approximately 17-20 vehicle movements per day or up 2 vehicles per hour on Montford Place over a 10-hour day. This is considered manageable with the expected additional construction activity on the application site. It is noted that both developments are committed to use the use of banksmen and traffic marshals to manage the ingress/egress of construction vehicles and to ensure the safe separation of pedestrians and cycles from vehicles movements, including on Montford Place.

13.22 The council’s highway engineers have reviewed the draft CLP and consider it acceptable however a condition (3) would be applied requiring the submission of a further detailed CLP.

Travel Plan

13.23 A Framework Travel Plan for the residential use has been submitted with the application and additional information was provided during the application process to take on board comments received from Lambeth’s Travel Plan Monitoring Officer. A full Travel Plan for both the residential and commercial elements will be secured via a condition (26) and monitoring via s106.

Sustainable travel and mitigation

13.24 The development would secure the following sustainable travel measures:

 The development would be parking permit-free for all uses;  A Travel Plan would cover all uses proposed on site and Travel Plan monitoring fee to be secured through s106  A financial contribution of £10,000 towards the installation of Legible London signage;  A financial contribution of £100,000 to fund the delivery of improvements to Kennington Lane ‘missing link’ of TfL’s Central London Grid  S278 works to cover changes to vehicular access, renewal of western footway and carriageway on Montford Place  Car club membership for all residential residents will be provided for a minimum of three years  A minimum of three years free membership of the Cycle Hire scheme should be secured for each dwelling.  A minimum of three years free membership of the Cycle Hire scheme should be provided for a minimum of 10 per cent of the workspace employees.  The provision of 20 per cent active electric charging points and remaining passive provision

13.25 No objection has been raised by the Council’s Transport and Highways Sections to the proposal. Subject to the above mitigation measures, the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the network and would encourage travel by sustainable means of transport be in accordance with LP Policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.10 and 6.13 and LLP Policies T1, T2, T3, T6, T7 and T8.

14 Sustainable Design and Construction

14.1 LP policies 5.2 and 5.3 state that development proposals should minimise carbon dioxide emissions and exhibit the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, whilst policy 5.7 states that they should provide on-site renewable energy generation. Policy 5.5 states that boroughs should seek to create decentralised energy networks, whilst policy 5.6 requires development proposals to connect to an existing heating network as a first preference if one is available.

14.2 Policy 5.3 provides a list of the sustainability criteria against which planning applications will be assessed. The LP policy seeks to ensure the following sustainable design principles:

 Minimizing carbon dioxide emissions across the site, including buildings and services  Avoid internal overheating and contributions to the urban heat island effect  Efficient use of natural resources including water  Minimising pollution (including noise and air)  Minimising the generation of waste and maximizing reuse or recycling  Ensuring developments are comfortable and secure for users  Securing sustainable procurement of materials  Promoting and protecting biodiversity and green infrastructure

14.3 The LP also requires that the development follows an energy hierarchy when considering reducing CO2 emissions. The energy hierarchy must consider incorporation of energy efficiency measures including passive design, supplying energy efficiently (with a particular emphasis on de-centralised energy generation including CHP) and using renewable energy technologies.

14.4 Policy EN3 of the LLP and DRLLP PSV requires development to utilise decentralized heating, cooling or power networks in the vicinity of the site, or future proof for planned energy networks.

14.5 In accordance with the principles of policy 5.2 and policy SI2 of the IPLP, the applicant has submitted an Energy Statement which is generally compliant with the draft London Plan policies and Energy Assessment Guidance (2018) Energy Hierarchy.

14.6 There are no existing decentralized networks in the vicinity of the site. Connection to an existing heat network was explored but the nearest existing network is the VNEB heat network, the operator of which could not commit to securing a connection. Notwithstanding this, space provision has been made for future connection. A communal system with ASHPs to provide heating and hot water for the dwellings is proposed, and the proposed non-residential spaces will have capacity to connect to the centralised heat source, which is compliant with IPLP policy SI3.

14.7 The applicant has demonstrated that improved energy efficiency measures for the non-residential areas result in an improvement against the Part L 2013 Baseline for the Be Lean stage of 17 per cent, exceeding the recommendation of 15 per cent stated in the IPLP. The residential carbon emissions achieved against the Part L 2013 baseline does not meet the target of 10 per cent. Through revised submissions the applicant demonstrated that the maximum feasible improvement is 7 per cent as opposed to 3 per cent in the original submission. This is considered acceptable given the site’s constraints.

14.8 The residential energy efficiency measures for the Be Lean stage include improved fabric performance, solar control glazing, use of Accredited Construction Details for psi junctions to minimise cold bridging, efficient lighting, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and highly efficient mechanical cooling provision. For the Be Clean stage communal heating system is proposed for the residential use. For the Be Green stage the proposals include Air Source Heat Pumps for space heating and domestic hot water and PV panels. A detailed roof layout has been provided showing that PV panels would be installed on all suitable roof spaces.

14.9 Overall, it is noted that the 35 per cent reduction target for the light industrial space has not been met. However, an overall 50% reduction in carbon emissions beyond the Part L 2013 Building Regulations baseline is achieved for the site using SAP 10 factors, including both residential and non-domestic elements. It is recommended that a Finalised Energy Assessment is secured by a condition (37) and this should include reference to the ‘Be Seen’ stage which is included as a consideration in the IPLP. A financial contribution relating to the shortfall in carbon reductions would also be secured. An indicative figure of £131,464 is given based on the revised Energy Statement. The final Carbon offsetting will be calculated and paid in accordance with the updated Energy Statement to be secured by s106 legal agreement.

14.10 With regards to overheating and cooling, the application demonstrates that Mayor’s cooling hierarchy has been applied. The GLA requested that a revised overheating report in order to reduce the risk of overheating as far as possible through passive measures. Despite a range of measures incorporated into the residential fabric, mechanical ventilation is required to residential units and corridors but limited to maintaining acceptable conditions only. It has been demonstrated that the overall approach is compliant with LLP policy EN4 and IPLP policy S14. Conditions (41 and 42) are recommended to ensure that the overheating analysis and details of the control strategy for the cooling system are also provided in line with the GLA requests.

14.11 The submitted Sustainability Statement is compliant with the IPLP policies relating to sustainable design and construction, however further details relating to construction waste management will be secured by a condition (4) to ensure it aligns with the Mayor’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. Conditions (43 and 44) will also be required to secure further information relating to water efficiency measures.

14.12 In order to comply with LLP policy EN4, pre-assessments have been conducted which confirm that it is feasible for anon-residential elements of the development to achieve BREEAM Excellent rating and conditions (39 and 40) are recommended to ensure compliance.

14.13 Policy SI2 F of the IPLP introduces a requirement to calculate the whole life-cycle emissions of the development through a nationally recognised Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment. Whole Life-Cycle carbon assessment includes not only the regulated emissions considered under current energy assessments but also the following:  Unregulated emissions, i.e. those associated with cooking and small appliances  Embodied emissions, i.e. those associated with raw material extraction, manufacture and transport of building materials and construction  Emissions associated with maintenance, repair and replacement as well as dismantling, demolition and eventual material disposal

14.14 The Mayor intends to publish guidance on the approach to whole life-cycle carbon emissions assessments, including when they should take place, what they should contain and how information should be reported. The application pre-dated this policy requirement so a whole life-cycle assessment has not been undertaken and the GLA confirmed that it is not required in this case.

14.15 Notwithstanding the evolving Energy Strategy, the proposed development has been designed to be highly sustainable and maximise the potential carbon savings that can be achieved in accordance with the relevant policy and guidance. Therefore, the proposed scheme complies with policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 of the LP, polices SI2, SI3, SI4 of the IPLP and policy EN3 and EN4 of the LLP and DRLLP PSV.

15 Other Environmental Matters

Flood Risk

15.1 The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk but, where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. LP policy 5.12 states that development proposals must meet flood risk assessment and management requirements. The London Plan SPG states new development should incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and green roofs where practical with the aim of maximising all opportunities to achieve a Greenfield run-off rate, increasing biodiversity and improving water quality. Greenfield runoff rates are defined as the runoff rates from a site, in its natural state, prior to any development. Typically this is between 2 and 8 litres per second per hectare. Surface water run-off is to be managed as close to source as possible.

15.2 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated without worsening flood risk for the area and without placing the development itself at risk of flooding, as per National guidance provided within the NPPF and in accordance with LLP policy EN5.

15.3 The site is within Flood Risk Zone 3a (high) which means that there is a 1 per cent or greater annual probability of river flooding or 0.5 per cent annual probability of sea flooding. However, the actual risk is lowered significantly due to the presence of the Thames Tidal Defences. In this risk zone, all development must satisfy the sequential test for development set out in the NPPF and ‘more vulnerable’ uses, such as residential, must meet the Exception Test. For the Exception Test to be passed:  it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and  a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing food risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce food risk overall.

15.4 In respect of the first point, the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community. It would redevelop a site that will soon become vacant to provide 139 new homes of which 40 per cent would be affordable and new employment space. Officers consider these benefits outweigh the flood risk.

15.5 For the second point, the submitted flood risk assessment demonstrates that development would be safe for its lifetime. The submission of a Flood Evacuation Plan would be secured by a condition (17) including a requirement to subscribe to the Environment Agency’s Flood Warning Service. The risk of flooding from drainage infrastructure and surface water is low. The risk of increasing flood risk elsewhere would be mitigated with an appropriate drainage strategy, discussed below.

15.6 The proposed development meets the above exception test and thereby complies with the NPPF, LP policy 5.12 and LLP policy EN5.

Sustainable Drainage

15.7 LP policy 5.13 and LLP policy EN6 require development to utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so and should aim to achieve greenfield run-off rates and adequately manage surface water run-off. Policy 5.13 sets out a drainage hierarchy which should be followed.

15.8 The submitted Flood Risk and Drainage report identifies a number of measures to attenuate the rate of surface water run-off and thereby reduce the risk of flooding elsewhere. These include green and brown roofs, permeable paving and storage crates. The applicant has calculated the greenfield runoff rate to be 0.52l/s and has proposed discharge of 0.5l/s which represents a considerable improvement on the existing surface water discharge rate. The LLFA confirmed that the Drainage Strategy and accompanied preliminary drainage calculations demonstrate the principle of the drainage system adheres to the required standards. A detailed drainage plan would be secured by a condition (18) to achieve the London Plan’s policy objectives. A condition (45) requested by Thames Water the necessary network upgrades is also recommended.

15.9 The proposed development is therefore not considered to increase the risk of flooding in accordance with the policies stated at 15.7.

Air Quality

15.10 The whole borough is within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in relation to a breach of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matters objectives as specified in the Air Quality Regulations 2000.

15.11 Both the LP policy 7.14 and the IPLP policy SI2 recognise the need to reduce contributory factors to air pollution and improve the public’s exposure to pollution. IPLP policy SI2 in particular expects developments to at least be Air Quality Neutral and demonstrate how design solutions can address/minimise exposure of those most vulnerable, i.e. children and the elderly.

15.12 The applicant has provided a detailed air quality report which assesses both the construction and operational impacts of the proposed development.

15.13 The assessment concludes that the site is suitable for the introduction of residential use as concentrations of air pollutants at the proposed receptors in the opening year of the development will be below the respective air quality objective. The estimated transport and buildings emissions for this developed would be below the benchmark levels set by the GLA. As such, it could be considered to be ‘air quality neutral’. The report also notes that the proposed inclusion of a MVHR system for noise and urban heat related requirements indirectly assists in minimising exposure levels of residents to air pollution.

15.14 With regards to construction phase, the qualitative assessment of dust effects predicts that there will be up to a medium risk of dust creating nuisance and /or loss of amenity and of PM10 leading to adverse health effects without mitigation. Following the implementation of mitigation measures the impacts are predicted to be not significant.

15.15 As the development consists of demolition, earthworks and construction and the sensitivity of nearby receptors (residential and non-residential buildings), the development has a Medium Risk of impacting on air quality without appropriate mitigation. Accordingly, a full Air Quality and Dust Management Plan (AQDMP) would be required by condition (6) and it would need to follow the guidance for medium risk sites set out in the Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction and Demolition SPG (2014). In addition, automatic continuous PM10 monitoring and compliance of non-road mobile machinery with emissions regulations would be required by conditions (5 and 6).

15.16 Overall, the proposed development is considered to comply with LP policy 7.14 and policy SI2 of the IPLP.

15.17 Wind microclimate

15.18 A model of the proposed development was wind-tunnel tested in order to assess the resulting wind conditions and the impact on pedestrian comfort. The study assessed both ground level vicinity and amenity terrace comfort. The study found that across the site, wind conditions would be suitable for sitting and standing without the need for mitigation measures. The council’s consultant wind expert has recommended to include a planning condition (36) to ensure that any future amendment to the current external configuration is assessed from wind -tunnel perspective.

15.19 The development would be in compliance with LP polices 7.7 and LLP policy Q26.

Solar glare

15.20 Due to the dominance of non-reflective materials on the exterior of the development there would be little risk of harmful solar glare.

Contaminated Land and Unexploded Ordnance

15.21 The applicant carried out a preliminary risk assessment for ground contamination. It has identified a former engineering works on the premises as well as other potential hydrocarbon sources and has made recommendations that a broad suite of chemical contamination be assessed including volatile organic compounds which indicates that the site has the potential for ground contamination to be present. The council’s environmental health consultant recommended that the scheme of investigation should be agreed through a condition (7). A condition (19) would be also imposed to deal with any eventuality that contamination is found which has not been anticipated. Subject to these conditions, the risk of contamination arising from this development is low and the development would be in compliance with the LP policy 5.21.

15.22 A detailed UXO risk assessment has been carried out for future ground investigation, excavation and piling activity classifying the risk level for the site as High and identifying a number of bomb strikes in the vicinity of the site. The report makes recommendations for risk mitigation in the form of an operational UXO emergency response plan and UXO safety and awareness briefings for all groundworks on site; a non-intrusive UXO survey and/or presence of an EOD Engineer in a watching brief role for trial pits and excavations into previously undisturbed ground; and an intrusive UXO survey by down-hole magnetometry for piling and boreholes into previously undisturbed ground. A condition (7) recommended by the council’s environmental health officer relating to mitigation measures is included.

Fire strategy

15.23 IPLP policy D3 (Inclusive design) requires proposals to set out how access and inclusion will be maintained and managed, including fire evacuation procedures. IPLP policy D12 (Fire safety) states that all development proposals must achieve the highest standards of fire safety. Whilst fire safety is currently dealt with under Building Control legislation, the planning process acts as a ‘gateway’ to the consideration of the issue and we seek to ensure that appropriate consideration has been given.

15.24 The fire statement submitted with the application includes details of construction methods, products and materials; the means of escape; access for fire service personnel, equipment and fire appliances and incorporates features which reduce the risk to life such as sprinklers. The Council’s Building Control officer has reviewed the submitted fire strategy and access and consider the approach to be reasonable and achievable. That the proposal would be subject to a final assessment of compliance would be completed when the Building Regulations application is submitted to the nominated Building Control body. This would entail the submission of the final version fire strategy and any amended plans and specifications etc and subject to further consultation with London Fire Brigade. The scheme thereby complies with IPLP policy D12.

16 Employment and Training

16.1 Policy ED14 of the LLP and policy ED15 of DRLLP PSV state that planning obligations should be used to secure employment opportunities and apprenticeships arising from major developments, so that local residents are given access to the right skills training so that they can take advantage of opportunities created by new development.

16.2 The development is estimated to support up to 82 permanent full time jobs through the light industrial use, and further 6 on-site roles associated with BtR management and maintenance roles. The demolition and construction phase could also generate up to 92 full time equivalent jobs directly and 60 off site jobs annually indirectly.

16.3 The SPD on Employment and Skills (2018) sets out a ‘headline’ target of 25 per cent of jobs generated by developments as being for local residents. The SPD envisages

that an applicant will be asked to work towards delivery of that target through the carrying out of an approved employment and skills plan, which would be designed so as to include the intended target numbers and types of job opportunities. The SPD envisages an element of flexibility in how an applicant may agree to work towards delivery of employment and skills obligations, for example as regards the target mix of jobs, apprenticeships and/or bespoke employment training and support arrangements. The employment and skills plan should also set out how an applicant will aim to deliver young people’s training and careers initiatives.

16.4 Lambeth seeks to maximise local employment opportunities and help address skills deficits in the local population. Accordingly, the s106 legal agreement would secure an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) developed in accordance with the Employment and Skills SPD (Feb 2018) with the following key requirements:  Reasonable endeavours to secure 25 per cent of jobs created by the development during construction and first 2 years of end-use occupation for local residents  Engagement with local school and colleges to promote the skills and qualifications needed for employment in the commercial sectors of the end-use occupiers in place during the first two years of the development

16.5 The Employment and Skills SPD also seeks a monetary contribution to help support those sections of the Lambeth workforce that are furthest from employment, having been out of work for a long period of time and/or having low levels of skills. The financial contributions are used by the council to fund training and support to enable access to newly created employment opportunities arising from development. For this development the financial contribution would be £105,526 based on the formula set out in the SPD.

16.6 During the application process, the applicant offered an in-kind delivery of training and support instead of the financial contribution. TfL have a track record of delivering construction training and job brokerage activity in Lambeth, including through the Brixton Skills Centre which was funded through the Construction Skills Fund. The current programme ends in March 2021 and it is proposed to invest the Montford Place contribution into this centre to enable it to continue to train and sustain Lambeth residents. This will include a range of courses which are delivered by the Skills Centre Ltd who work in partnership with London Southbank University and Lambeth College.

16.7 The proposed construction training activity will be linked to opportunities arising from the development, providing accessible routeways for residents into a range of construction roles at Montford Place. The training proposed as in-kind delivery will also provide access to opportunities for residents on other Lambeth developments with similar skills requirements, further supported by TfL’s existing relationships with contactors and construction employers on their wider development sites, including those in Lambeth.

16.8 The proposed employment and skills delivery plan includes:

 Level 2-6 accredited route apprenticeships for 20 residents including pre- apprenticeship bootcamp  Work placements and pre-employment training placements for 40 residents  Training and up-skilling to secure local jobs for 40 residents  Minimum of 12 educational engagement events with minimum 40 learners engaged

16.9 The direct cost of this provision is estimated to be between £105,000 and £140,000 and in addition the TfL will provide other resources including 1.25 full time employee equivalent to oversee the programme.

16.10 The applicant liaised closely with the council’s Employment and Skills Officers who confirmed that the proposed in-kind provision would bring demonstrable benefits over what could be delivered by the financial contribution. The Employment and Skills Team would be involved in overseeing and monitoring of the delivery of the programme and skills outcomes and this will be secured through the s106 agreement. Overall, it is considered that the proposed in-kind delivery meets and exceeds the requirements of LLP policy ED14, DRLLP PSV policy ED15 and the SPD on Employment and Skills.

17 Planning Obligations and CIL

17.1 The LLP policy D4 and Annex 10 sets out the council’s policy in relation to seeking planning obligations and the charging approaches for various types of obligation. For contributions that are not covered by Annex 10, the council’s approach to calculating contributions is guided by the Development Viability SPD (adopted 2017) and the Employment and Skills SPD (adopted 2018).

17.2 The planning obligations that are proposed are considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in kind and in scale to the development. They are therefore compliant with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

17.3 The proposed obligations to be secured through the S106 Agreement are as follows:

Item Details Built to rent  Covenant clause (15 years) and claw back mechanism following the Formula set out in the GLA’s Affordable Housing SPG (2017).  Unified ownership and management of tenures/ Residential management plan

Affordable housing  40% of units by habitable rooms to be affordable in - on site provision perpetuity and to include: - 40 units at LLR (including 6 x 3 bedroom units) - 13 units at LTS (including 3 x 3 bedroom units)  Rent levels, eligibility criteria and bespoke nominations agreement  Early Stage Viability Review will be triggered if the scheme is not implemented within two years.  Late stage review at the occupation of 75% the market units  If surplus is identified at any review stage it shall be used to further increase the number of units provided at rent levels set out in the LTS up to a policy compliant level. The rent reductions are to be applied at first or second let if possible or a PIL to be paid if the rent reduction is not feasible with 3 years of the date of the Late Review  Where a viability review demonstrates an improvement in a scheme’s viability, a percentage split of the increase in the scheme’s value between the developer (20%) and the council (80%) up to level of policy compliant scheme.

Communal/Children  Secure in perpetuity and access rights to all residents Play Space Transport  Car parking permit free designation for all residential units  Car parking permit free for all non-residential uses  Car club membership (3 years) for each flat  Car Park Design and Management Plan and car spaces to be leased not sold  TFL Cycle Hire Memberships: - 1x fob to be provided for each flat for a min. 3 years - a minimum 3years membership for business occupiers (calculated at 10% of workspace employees)  Lambeth Healthy Routes contribution of £100,000  Travel Plan – 5 year monitoring contribution of £5,300  Legible London Signage contribution of £10,000  Considerate Constructors Scheme  Enter into a s278 agreement for highways works agreement with regards to works that will affect the highway including improvements to access points, pedestrian footways and carriageway on Montford Place, reinstatement works and provision of a loading bay

Employment and  Employment and Skills Plan to cover reasonable endeavours Skills to secure 25 per cent of jobs created by the development during construction and end-use phases

 In-kind provision of employment and contribution as set out in ‘Monford Place Employment and Skills Proposal October 2020’ Carbon Offset  Final Energy Strategy for future energy network connection, monitoring and to identify the value of final carbon off-setting contribution Other  Monitoring fee of up to 5% of total financial obligations.

17.4 If the application is approved and the development is implemented, a liability to pay the Lambeth Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will arise.

17.5 Expenditure of the majority of a future CIL receipt will be applied towards Borough infrastructure needs in accordance with the applicable policies and procedures relating to expenditure decisions.

17.6 Allocation of CIL monies to particular infrastructure projects is not a matter for consideration in the determination of planning applications. Separate governance arrangements are being put in place for Borough Infrastructure needs.

18 CONCLUSION

18.1 The application proposes to redevelop the site to provide a mixed use scheme comprising 139 residential units (Use Class C3) and 2,715 sqm (GEA) of light industrial floorspace (Use Class B1c) together with ancillary facilities.

18.2 The site is located within a KIBA and the proposed light industrial use would provide much needed employment. While the application has been advertised as a departure from LP policy ED1 which does not support residential uses in KIBAs, the proposed co-location with residential use complies with the IPLP policies E4 and E7 and the emerging polices of the DRLLP PSV. The development would provide much needed housing of an acceptable quality, including a high level of affordable housing, at a density that makes optimum use of the site. The level of affordable housing at 40 per cent exceeds the policy threshold for fast track, however the proposals were viability tested due to reliance on a grant and tenure split. An independent review confirmed that the affordable housing offer is the maximum viable. During the application process extensive discussions with the GLA took place and the applicant secured in principle additional, bespoke grant offer which allowed to reduce the originally offered rent levels. Early and late stage reviews are recommended to ensure that the affordability of rents is further maximised should the viability improve.

18.3 The layout and design of the development is logical and of high quality. It responds positively to its context while also securing the optimum development potential of the site. The heights of the buildings are acceptable and would not harm strategic or protected local views.

18.4 The application has been advertised as a departure from policy Q26 part (ii) due to the scheme’s impact on heritage assets including their settings’. Officers have had special

regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of statutorily and locally listed buildings as well as to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Officers have identified that the development would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ and have had regard to the statutory presumption against granting planning permission for development which would harm a heritage asset. Mindful of this presumption and the considerable importance and weight that is given to any harm, officers consider that the cumulative ‘less than substantial harm’ would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

18.5 Notwithstanding that the proposal represents a departure from LLP policy ED1 and Q26, the application scheme is considered not to conflict with policy in all other regards and as such, as a policy compliant scheme it would deliver social, economic, environmental and sustainable benefits to the community. However, as the proposal represents a departure from adopted local plan policy and has been identified as causing ‘less than substantial’ harm it is important to identify the public benefits that would outweigh these in line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF. These benefits are considered to be:  139 new homes of which 53 would be affordable  2715sqm of new light industrial floorspace providing flexible accommodation  Up to 88 new permanent jobs and a package of bespoke employment and training opportunities secured via s106  Benefits to local economy associated with new residents and workers supporting local businesses  Enhancements to public realm and creation of active frontages along Montford Place  Transport improvements including a contribution of £100,000 towards implementation of Healthy Route Networks and £10,000 towards improvements to signage  Improvements to biodiversity increase the biodiversity and urban greening on the site.  Optimising brownfield land

18.6 To the extent that development plan policies are material to an application for planning permission the decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise (see section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The identified social, economic, environmental and sustainability value that the scheme would bring, with the addition of the benefits identified above, it is considered that the public benefits of the application scheme represent material considerations which outweigh the departure from policy and ‘less than substantial’ harm identified.

18.7 The proposed scheme does result in some adverse and noticeable reductions in daylight and sunlight as identified above. However, consideration should be given to the particular characteristics of the properties reviewed and to the fairly minimal existing massing on the application site which is unusual in an urban context. It is also reasonable to consider the identified effects alongside the planning merits of the

scheme overall. In conclusion officers consider that the many planning benefits that the scheme would deliver are sufficient to outweigh the identified impacts on residential amenity.

18.8 The development would have an acceptable impact on the highway and transport network. The development would be car free, with occupants of the commercial and residential units not eligible for parking permits. 5 on site disabled parking spaces would be provided on site with a parking management plan secured by section 106 agreement to ensure that further on street provision is delivered should the need arise in the future. The scheme would provide a total of 263 cycle storage spaces, in accordance with the IPLP standards. The development would also contribute to improvements to the Local Heathy Routes network.

18.9 The development would meet technical requirements in respect of sustainability, flood risk mitigation, wind conditions, waste and recycling, water infrastructure and land decontamination.

18.10 The proposed development has been assessed against the Development Plan and all other material considerations, including national planning policy. Officers consider that subject to appropriate conditions and s106 legal agreement the planning application should be approved.

19 PROCEDURAL MATTERS

19.1 The application is referrable to the Mayor under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The application has been referred to the Mayor at ‘Stage 1’. Before Lambeth can issue a decision on this application it will need to refer the application again to the Mayor at Stage 2; at which point the Mayor will have the opportunity to elect to become determining authority, direct refusal, or allow Lambeth to proceed and issue the decision in line with its resolution.

20 EQUALITY DUTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

20.1 In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty the council must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity, as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In making this recommendation, regard has been given to the Public Sector Equality Duty and the relevant protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation).

20.2 In line with the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right, as per the European Convention on Human Rights. The human rights impact has been considered, with particular reference to Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of property), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.

20.3 The Human Rights Act 1998 does not impair the right of the state to make decisions and enforce laws as deemed necessary in the public interest. The recommendation is considered appropriate in upholding the council's adopted and emerging policies and is not outweighed by any engaged rights.

21 RECOMMENDATION

1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in this report and any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London.

2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:  Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and  Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

4. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within 6 months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Draft Decision Notice

Your Ref: Our Ref: 20/01086/FUL

Connected Living London (Montford Place) Limited c/o Mr Nick Green 33 Margaret Street London W1G 0JD

Draft DECISION NOTICE

Dear Connected Living London (Montford Place) Limited

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990.

PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT

The London Borough of Lambeth hereby permits under the above mentioned Acts and associated orders the development referred to in the schedule set out below subject to any conditions imposed therein and in accordance with the plans submitted, save in so far as may otherwise be required by the said conditions.

In accordance with the statutory provisions your attention is drawn to the statement of Applicant’s Rights and General Information attached.

Application Number: 20/01086/FUL Date of Application: 20.03.2020Date of Decision:

Proposed Development At: Land To The East Of Montford Place, Kennington London SE11 5DE

For: Redevelopment of the site including the demolition of all existing buildings and structures, and erection of 2 linked buildings ranging from 6 to 11 storeys to provide a mixed use scheme comprising light industrial employment floorspace (Class B1c) with ancillary co-working/café space and residential units (Class C3) together with hard and soft landscaping and other associated works.

This application is a DEPARTURE APPLICATION: The proposed development is a departure from Policy ED1 (Key Industrial and Business Areas (KIBAs) and Policy Q26(a)(ii) (Tall Buildings) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Approved Plans

MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0101 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0200 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08- 0202 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0203 P0; MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0000;MPC-HBA-00-03-DR- A-08-0153 P0;MPC-HBA-00-00-DR-A-08-0150;MPC-HBA-00-01-DR-A-08-0151 P0;MPC-HBA-00-02- DR-A-08-0152 P0;MPC-HBA-00-04-DR-A-08-0154 P0;MPC-HBA-00-05-DR-A-08-0155 P0;MPC- HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0050;MPC-HBA-00-06-DR-A-08-0156 P0;MPC-HBA-00-07-DR-A-08-0157

P0;MPC-HBA-00-08-DR-A-08-0158 P0;MPC-HBA-00-09-DR-A-08-0159 P0;MPC-HBA-00-10-DR-A- 08-0160 P0;MPC-HBA-00-11-DR-A-08-0161 P1;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0250 P1;MPC-HBA-00- XX-DR-A-08-0251 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0252 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0253 P0;MPC- HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0254 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0255 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0300 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0350 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0351 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A- 08-0352 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0371 P0;MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-08-0372 P0;MPC-HBA-00- XX-DR-A-08-0500;19071-EXA-00-GF-DR-L-100 A;19071-EXA-00-RF-DR-L-101 A;19071-EXA-00-ZZ- DR-L-102 A;19071-EXA-00-ZZ-DR-L-103 A;19071-EXA-00-ZZ-DR-L-104 A;102509-T-012 Rev D Access, Parking and Servicing Proposed Alternative Arrangement; Response to LBL Highways and TfL spatial Planning comments by Pell Frischmann (including revised cycling)MPC-HBA-00-XX-DR-A- 08-0050 P0; Design & Access Statement prepared by Hawkins Brown & Exterior Architecture; Planning Statement prepared by Savills and Planning Statement Addendum dated July 2020;Housing Delivery Statement prepared by Quod; Statement of Community Involvement prepared by Cascade; Heritage Statement prepared by Alan Baxter Ltd; Views Assessment prepared by Alan Baxter Ltd; Transport Assessment prepared by Pell Frischmann; Draft Delivery and Servicing Plan prepared by Pell Frischman; Outline Construction Logistics Plan prepared by Pell Frischmann; Internal Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report prepared by GIA; Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by Mott MacDonald; Geo-Environmental Desk Study prepared by Mott MacDonald; Ecology Appraisal prepared by Mott MacDonald; Black Redstart Survey by Mott MacDonald; Archaeological Desk Based Assessment prepared by MottMacDonald; Wind Tunnel Tests: Pedestrian Comfort Study prepared by Wacker; Air Quality Assessment prepared by Mott MacDonald; Fire Statement prepared by Hoare Lea; Site Suitability Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Mott MacDonald; Socio- Economic Statement prepared by Savills; Commercial Strategy prepared by CF Commercial; Financial Viability Assessment prepared by Avison Young; Proximities Review received 02/11/2020; Residential Overheating Risk Assessment dated 09.10.2020prepared by Mott MacDonald; Energy Statement dated 09.10.2020 prepared by Mott MacDonald; General LTHW-CHW Schematic drawing nr406055-MMD-XX-ZZ-DR-M-560010 rev P02Sustainability Statement prepared by Mott MacDonald; BREEAM Pre-Assessment prepared by Mott MacDonald; Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing: Impact on Neighbouring Properties Addendum Report prepared by GIA; Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Impacts of 275Kennington Lane Block G S73 upon the proposed and surrounding sensitive receptors by GIA; Montford Place Briefing Note (Rev 2- 02.11.2020); Letter dated 25.11.2020 regarding Affordable Housing Grant Review Mechanism Proposal by Savills; Restricted Windows Review.

Conditions

Standard Conditions

Time Limit

1. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended).

Approved Drawings

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans listed in this decision notice, other than where those details are altered pursuant to the requirements of the conditions of this planning permission.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Pre-commencement conditions

Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

3. No demolition or development hereby approved shall commence until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include details of the following relevant measures:

a) An introduction consisting of construction phase environmental management plan, definitions and abbreviations and project description and location; b) A description of management responsibilities; c) A description of the construction and demolition programme which identifies activities likely to cause high levels of noise or dust; d) Site working hours and a named person for residents to contact; e) Detailed Site logistics arrangements; f) Details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; g) Details regarding dust and noise mitigation measures to be deployed including identification of sensitive receptors, together with arrangements for ongoing continuous monitoring and provision of monitoring results to the Local Planning Authority; h) Details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway; i) Any measures to mitigate the impact of demolition and construction upon the function and safety of the surrounding area for cyclists; j) Any other measures to mitigate the impact of demolition and construction upon the amenity of the area and the function and safety of the highway network. k) Details of a temporary lighting strategy, including details of temporary lighting of all public areas and buildings showing acceptable positioning and levels of glare l) Details of other measures to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area and safety of the highway network; and m) Communication procedures with the LBL and local community regarding key construction issues – newsletters, fliers etc.

The demolition and construction shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details and measures approved in the CEMP for the related phase, unless the written consent of the Local Planning Authority is received for any variation.

Reason: This is required prior to construction to avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and to safeguard residential amenity during the whole of the construction period. (Policies T6 and Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Construction Waste Management Plan

4. No demolition or development shall commence until, a Site Waste Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority demonstrating fully how construction waste will be minimised and recycling of materials will be prioritised. The demolition and construction shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details and measures approved.

Reason: In order to minimise waste and disposal to landfill in the interest of sustainable development (Policy EN7 Lambeth Local Plan Lambeth Local Plan 2015). These details are required prior to commencement as they have implications for the demolition and construction phases of the development

Non-road mobile machinery (NRMM)

5. No demolition or development shall commence until all non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) to be used at the demolition and construction phases on site has been registered at ‘https://nrmm.london/user-nrmm/register’ and that all registered NRMM is compliant with the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements.

Reason: To ensure that air quality is not adversely affected by the development (Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (2016)).

Air quality impacts (construction stage) 6. No demolition or development shall commence until full details of the proposed mitigation measures for impact on air quality and dust emissions, in the form of an Air Quality and Dust Management Plan (AQDMP), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In preparing the AQMDP the applicant should follow the guidance on mitigation measures for Medium Risk sites set out in Appendix 7 of the Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition SPG 2014 for earthworks, construction, trackout and demolition. Both ‘highly recommended’ and ‘desirable’ measures should be included. The AQDMP can form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).The AQDMP shall include the following for each relevant phase of work (demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout):

 A summary of work to be carried out;  Proposed haul routes, location of site equipment including supply of water for damping down, source of water, drainage and enclosed areas to prevent contaminated water leaving the site;  Inventory and timetable of all dust and NOx air pollutant generating activities;  List of all dust and emission control methods to be employed and how they relate to the Air Quality (Dust) Risk Assessment;  Details of any fuel stored on-site;  Details of a trained and responsible person on-site for air quality (with knowledge of pollution monitoring and control methods, and vehicle emissions);  Summary of monitoring protocols and agreed procedure of notification to the local authority; and  A log book for action taken in response to incidents or dust-causing episodes and the mitigation measure taken to remedy any harm caused, and measures employed to prevent a similar incident reoccurring.

Automatic continuous PM10 monitoring should be carried out on site. Baseline monitoring should commence at least three months before the commencement of the demolition phase and continue throughout all construction phases. Monitors should be used at locations in use by sensitive receptors and construction traffic for the duration of the development. Details of the equipment to be used and its exact positioning should be submitted to the Council as part of the Air Quality Dust Management Plan and approved prior to use. Data should be available for download by the local authority on request. An annual summary report of continuous monitoring data should be provided to the council for the duration of the development.

No demolition or development shall commence until all necessary pre-commencement measures described in the AQDMP have been put in place and set out on site. The demolition and development shall thereafter be carried out and monitored in accordance with the details and measures approved in the AQDMP.

Reason: Development must not commence before this condition is discharged to manage and mitigate the impact of the development on the air quality and dust emissions in the area and London as a whole, and to avoid irreversible and unacceptable damage to the environment (London Plan policies 5.3 and 7.14, and the London Plan SPGs for Sustainable Design and Construction and Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition).

Contamination Risk 7. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

i) A site investigation scheme, based on the 'Geoenvironmental Desk Study' by Mott Macdonald (reference 406055-MM-MP-GE-01 Rev A dated 06 March 2020) and

including suitable consideration of volatile organic compounds, asbestos and unexploded ordnance (UXO)to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. ii) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (i) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. iii) An options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken and also including site specific assessment of the UXO risks and mitigation measures required during construction; iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details and measures approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution (National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 170 and Policy 5.21 of the London Plan and EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

SuDS

8. No development shall commence on site until the detail design for the surface water drainage system and associated pipework presented in the Montford Place Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy:6th March 2020 (Document reference: 406055 | MM-MP | FL01) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme for the surface water drainage shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the development is first put in to use/occupied and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage and in the interests of securing a more sustainable development and to reduce the impact of flooding both to and from the development and third parties (Policy 5.13 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015).

Design and Appearance

Detailed drawings

9. Notwithstanding any indication on the drawings hereby approved, prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted drawings showing all external construction detailing of all development has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The drawings shall include details of: a) the façade of the building including details of ground and first floor. b) main entrances (including service entrances) and how they will be named and numbered permanently including canopies c) balconies and terraces including balustrades d) boundary treatments e) soffits, screens, vents and copings f) roof treatments, cills and parapets including detailed design of plant g) windows doors (including technical details, elevations, reveal depths, plans and cross sections) h) overlooking mitigation measures to relevant windows, balconies and terraces (in accordance with the indicative measures set out in the Proximites Review and the Restricted Windows Review) i) signage strategy

The details set out above shall be provided at 1:10 scale (including sections) or 1:20 elevational studies whichever is most suitable for the detail in question. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details and drawings thus approved and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory, does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area and that it protects or enhances the character and appearance of the Kennington Conservation Area and that the amenities of neighbouring occupiers are protected. (Policies Q2, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q15, Q22 and Q26 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

Materials

10. Notwithstanding any indication on the drawings hereby approved, prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, the following details of all materials to be used in the external elevations of the development shall be provided to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

a. a technical specification schedule of the materials

b. a sample panel to be provided on site

c. a photographic record of the sample panels, taken on site at midday

The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the samples thus approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory, does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area and that it protects or enhances the character and appearance of the Kennington Conservation Area (Policies Q2, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q22 and Q26 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

Lift details 11. Prior to the occupation of any uses hereby approved, details of internal lift and accesses (e.g. type and location) for the loading and unloading of goods in relation to the operation of the light industrial space hereby permitted shall be provided for the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved prior to occupation of any of the uses hereby approved and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure adequate access facilities are made available for end users (Policy ED1 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 and Policy E7 of the Intend to Publish London Plan 2019).

Plumbing

12. No vents, plumbing or pipes, other than those approved, shall be fixed to the external faces of the building for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of design (Policies Q6, Q8 and Q26 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

Adaptable and adapted housing

13. Units A.02.07WCA; A.03.07WCA; A.04.07WCA; A.05.07WCA; A.06.01WCA; A.07.01WCA; B.02.04WCA, B.03.04WCA, B.04.04WCA, B.05.04WCA, B.06.04WCA, B.08.01WCA, B.09.01WCA, B.10.01WCA as shown on drawings MPC-HBA-00-02-DR-A-08-0152 Rev P0; MPC-HBA-00-03-DR-A-08-0153 Rev P0; MPC-HBA-00-04-DR-A-08-0154 Rev P0; MPC-HBA-

00-05-DR-A-08-0155 Rev P0; MPC-HBA-00-06-DR-A-08-0156 Rev P0; MPC-HBA-00-07-DR-A- 08-0158 Rev P0; MPC-HBA-00-09-DR-A-08-0159 Rev P0; MPC-HBA-00-10-DR-A-08-0160 Rev P0 shall be constructed to comply with Part M4 (3) of the Building Regulations. Any communal areas and accesses serving the M4 (3) compliant Wheelchair User Dwellings should also comply with Part M4 (3). All other residential units, communal areas and accesses hereby permitted shall be constructed to comply with Part M4 (2) of the Building Regulations.

Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, older people and others with mobility constraints (Policies 3.8 of the London Plan (2015) and Q1 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the guidance in the London Plan Housing SPG (2012)).

Landscaping and playspace

Playspace

14. Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans, no occupation of the residential parts of the development shall commence until full details of the children's play space provisions (including layout, equipment specification) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the development has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. The children's play areas shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for children's play on site. (Policy 3.6 of the London Plan 2015, Policy S4 of the Intend to Publish London Plan 2019 and Policy H5 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Landscaping details (hard and soft)

15. Notwithstanding the details on the drawings and documents hereby approved, prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, a hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above scheme shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 (or subsequent superseding equivalent) and current Arboricultural best practice. The details shall include: a) The treatment of all parts of the site not covered by buildings including walls and boundary features b) The treatment of the communal residential roof terraces c) The quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted including details of appropriate infrastructure to support long- term survival d) An indication of how all trees and shrubs will integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection; e) All shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified; f) All hard landscaping including all ground surfaces, planters, seating, refuse disposal points, cycle parking facilities, bollards, vehicle crossovers/access points; g) Biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures as set out in the herby approved Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

The development hereby permitted shall be thereafter carried out in accordance with the approved details within 6 months of the date of occupation of any part of the site.

Reason: In order to introduce high quality landscaping in and around the site in the interests of the ecological value of the site and to ensure a satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure high quality of housing. (Policy EN1, Q9, H5, Q2 and

Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015)).

Landscaping – First Planting

16. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reasons: In order to introduce high quality soft landscaping in and around the site in the interests of the ecological value of the site and to ensure a satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity (Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q9).

Environmental Management

Flood emergency and evacuation

17. No demolition or development shall commence until the applicant has submitted to and had approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan (FEP). This Plan shall include the following information:

During Demolition/Construction Process - command & control (decision making process and communications to ensure activation of FEP); - training and exercising of personnel on site (H& S records of to whom and when); - flood warning procedures (in terms of receipt and transmission of information and to whom); - site evacuation procedures and routes; and, - provision for identified safe refuges (who goes there and resources to sustain them).

During Occupation of Development - occupant awareness of the likely frequency and duration of flood events; - safe access to and from the development; - subscription details to Environment Agency flood warning system, 'Flood Warning Direct'.

The flood evacuation plan shall be implemented during the use of the development hereby approved and maintained in operation for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In order to mitigate the impact of a flood event on users of the development (London Plan Policy 5.12 and Lambeth Local Plan Policy 2015 EN5).

SuDS Maintenance

18. No development shall be brought in to use/occupied until a management and maintenance plan of the final surface water management system and associated pipework has been provided for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The plan must consider the management and maintenance for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements made to secure the operation of the scheme. The approved plan shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions.

Reason: To manage the water environment of the development and mitigate the impact on flood risk, water quality, habitat and amenity value. (Policies EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy 5.13 of the London Plan (2016)).

Contamination Verification Report 19. Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a ‘long-term monitoring and maintenance plan’) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, if appropriate, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority. Any long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved, verified and reported to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons: Development must not be occupied before relevant parts of this condition are discharged to safeguard future users or occupiers of this site and the wider environment from irreversible risks associated with the contaminants which are present by ensuring that the contaminated land is properly treated and made safe before development. (Policies 5.21 of the London Plan (2015) and EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Piling method statement

20. No piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not harm groundwater resources in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Paragraph 170).

No infiltration of surface water drainage

21. No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water drainage in to the ground are permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. Where approval is given, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: Infiltrating water has the potential to cause remobilisation of contaminants present in shallow soil or made ground which could ultimately cause pollution of groundwater. To ensure that the development does not impact unacceptably upon existing ground conditions, geology, hydrology and hydrogeology of the site and surrounding area (Policies 5.14 and 5.21 of the London Plan).

Transport & Highways . Delivery and Servicing Management Plan

22. The residential and light industrial uses hereby permitted shall not commence until a servicing management plan for the relevant use has been submitted and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The uses hereby permitted shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved details. The submitted details must include the following:

a) frequency of deliveries to the site; b) frequency of other servicing vehicles such as refuse collections; c) dimensions of delivery and servicing vehicles; d) proposed loading and delivery locations; and e) a strategy to manage vehicles servicing the site.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (Policy Q2 and T8 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)

Waste management 23. The residential and light industrial uses hereby permitted shall not commence until a Waste Management Strategy and design and construction details of waste and recycling stores for the relevant use have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development hereby permitted shall be built in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use. The uses hereby permitted shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved Waste Management Strategy. The waste and recycling storage areas/facilities should comply with the Lambeth’s Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide (2013), unless it is demonstrated in the submissions that such provision is inappropriate for this specific development.

Reason: To ensure suitable provision for the occupiers of the development, to encourage the sustainable management of waste and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area (policies Q2 and Q12 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Cycle Parking Details

24. Prior to commencement of the residential and light industrial uses hereby permitted, full details of the short and long term cycle parking provision for the relevant use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include: - Floor plans and detailed construction drawings (where relevant) - Specification of cycle stands including manufacturer’s details - Details of provision of electric charging points for 10% of the non-residential cycle parking - Details of lockers/showers facilities for non-residential uses

The cycle parking shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details before the relevant use hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.

Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport (policies T1, T3 and Q13 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy T5 of the Intend to Publish London Plan 2019).

Car Parking Management Plan

25. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Parking Management Plan for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details of the monitoring of demand for and implementation of additional disabled parking spaces. Access and use of parking spaces shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent the parking areas becoming obstructed, to ensure that pedestrian and vehicular safety is not prejudiced and that sufficient Disabled parking spaces are provided

(policies T1, T6 and T7 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy T6 of the Intend to Publish London Plan 2019).

Travel Plan

26. The residential and light industrial uses hereby permitted shall not commence until a Full Travel Pan for the relevant use has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures approved in the Full Travel Plan to be implemented before occupation shall so be implemented prior to the relevant use commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation. Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the site are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (Policy 6.3 of the Intend to Publish London Plan 2019 and Policies T1 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Electric Vehicle Charging Points 27. At least 20% of the vehicular parking spaces to be provided within the development hereby permitted shall be provided with electrical charging points for electric vehicles and the remaining 80% of spaces to be fitted with passive electric vehicle charging points. Reason: To encourage the uptake of electric vehicles (London Plan Policy 6.13).

Amenity

Overlooking mitigation 28. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, all overlooking mitigation measures (refer to condition 9(h)) shall be fully implemented and retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers (Policy Q2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Use of roofs and roof terraces 29. No roof on the development shall be used as a roof terrace, sitting out area or other amenity space unless shown on the herby approved drawings. The communal roof terraces hereby approved shall not be used between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00 the following day Monday to Sunday.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the area (Policies Q2 and Q11 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Environmental Noise – Residential units and agent of change

30. Prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, a scheme of noise and vibration attenuation and ventilation sufficient to prevent overheating and maintain thermal comfort shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall achieve the habitable room standards as detailed in BS8233:2014 with no relaxation for exceptional circumstances and must include details of post construction validation. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and a separate validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of first occupation. All work must be carried out by a suitably qualified person and the approved noise, vibration attenuation and ventilation measures shall thereafter be retained and maintained in working order for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and ensure that the development complies with the Agent of Change principles (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy D13 of the of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019)).

Noise Control & Management – Non residential use

31. Prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, a scheme of noise and vibration attenuation to the commercial areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall ensure noise breakout from the proposed commercial uses to is properly controlled and as a minimum shall achieve NR25 in adjoining residential rooms. A post installation validation report confirming full installation of the approved scheme and demonstrating compliance with the standards approved shall be submitted by a suitably qualified person and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved noise and vibration attenuation measures shall thereafter be retained and maintained in working order for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area and ensure that the development complies with the Agent of Change principles (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy D13 of the of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019)).

Flues and extraction plant

32. The uses hereby permitted shall not commence until details and full specifications of flues extraction and filtration equipment, and ongoing maintenance plan (including elevational drawings) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The uses hereby permitted shall not commence until the approved details are fully implemented. The approved flues, extraction and filtration equipment shall thereafter be retained and maintained in working order for the duration of the use in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area (policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Operating Hours (Light Industrial Use)

33. The light industrial uses shall not operate other than within the following times:

07:00 Hours to 21:00 Hours – Monday through to Friday 07:00 Hours to 18:00 Hours Saturdays No opening on Sundays and/or Bank or Statutory Holidays

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers or users of the area generally (policies Q2 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

External Lighting Scheme

34. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved a lighting scheme must be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the Institute of Lighting Professional’s Guidance notes for the reduction of obstructive light. The scheme must be designed by a suitably qualified person in accordance with the recommendations for environmental zone E3 in the ILP document “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011. Before commencement of operation of the approved lighting scheme the applicant shall appoint a suitably qualified member of the institute of lighting professionals (ILP) to validate that the lighting scheme as installed conforms to the recommendations for

environmental zone E3 in the ILP document “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011.

Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015))

Noise and vibration attenuation of plant (to be submitted)

35. The uses hereby permitted, or the operation of any building services plant, shall not commence until an assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of all internally and externally located plant has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The assessment of the acoustic impact shall be undertaken in accordance with BS 4142: 2014 (or subsequent superseding equivalent) and current best practice and shall include a scheme of attenuation measures to ensure the rating level of noise emitted from the proposed building services plant is 5dB less than background.

The use hereby permitted, or the operation of any building services plant, shall not commence until a post-installation noise assessment has been carried out to confirm compliance with the noise criteria. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and attenuation measures, and they shall be permanently retained and maintained in working order for the duration of the use and their operation.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Pedestrian wind microclimate

36. Any variation to the external envelope of the development shall be accompanied by a revised Wind Microclimate Assessment which details any additional identified adverse wind microclimate impacts. Any additional steps required to mitigate these impacts shall be detailed and implemented, as necessary. The revised assessment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the details as approved shall thereafter be permanently retained.

Reason: To avoid unacceptable detriment of the amenities of future occupiers or of the area generally (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2016)).

Sustainability and energy

Final Energy Statement

37. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, a Final Energy Assessment (including ‘Be Seen’ stage) confirming that a minimum 35% reduction in carbon emissions over that required by Part L of the Buildings Regulations 2013 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions (Policy S12 of the IPLP, Policy 5.2 of the London Plan and Policy EN3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Reduction in carbon emissions

38. Prior to first occupation of the development As Built SAP/SBEM calculations with a Block Compliance worksheet as an output of the National Calculation Method should be submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the development has achieved a 35% reduction in carbon emissions over that required by Part L of the Building Regulations 2013, in line with the approved Energy Statement.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions (Policy S12 of the IPLP, Policy 5.2 of the London Plan and Policy EN3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

BREEAM – non residential (design stage)

39. Within six months of work starting onsite, a BREEAM Design Stage certificate and summary score sheet shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that a rating of ‘Excellent’ has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan September 2015).

BREEAM – non residential (post occupation)

40. Within six months of first occupation, a BREEAM Post Construction certificate and summary score sheet should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that a rating of ‘Excellent’ has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan September (2015)).

Overheating and cooling - residential

41. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, an Overheating Control Strategy for the proposed residential spaces (including examples of the overheating guidance that is to be provided to future occupants) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The revised Overheating Control Strategy should outline all measures introduced for the minimisation of overheating (including the investigation of an optimal g-value glazing performance) and should demonstrate that the overheating risk and that the cooling demand have both been minimised. The development shall be thereafter implemented and operated in accordance with the approved strategy (including its carbon performance) for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the design of the development reduces the potential for overheating and reliance on air conditioning systems (Policy 5.9 of the London Plan (2016)).

Overheating and cooling – commercial

42. Prior to occupation of the non-residential spaces, an Overheating Analysis should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that: the commercial spaces have been analysed for overheating; that the cooling hierarchy has been followed and that reliance on cooling in has been reduced; that CIBSE TM49 has been considered; and that CIBSE TM52 compliance has been achieved. The mitigation measures shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the design of the development reduces (as far as is possible) the potential for overheating and reliance on air conditioning systems (Policy 5.9 of the London Plan (2016)).

Water efficiency

43. Prior to prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted , manufacturers’ datasheets with a corresponding water efficiency calculator for the proposed fixtures and fittings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the internal water consumption will not exceed 105 litres/person/day in line with The Water Efficiency Calculator for New Dwellings from the Department of Communities and Local Government.

Reason: Occupation must not commence prior to these details being discharged in order to ensure the development would achieve an acceptable standard of water efficiency (Policy 5.9 of the London Plan (2016)).

Water efficiency – post-occupation

44. Prior to first occupation of the development, manufacturers’ datasheets with a corresponding water efficiency calculator for the installed fixtures and fittings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the internal water consumption will not exceed 105 litres/person/day in line with The Water Efficiency Calculator for new dwellings from the Department of Communities and Local Government. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: Occupation must not commence prior to these details being discharged in order to ensure the development would achieve an acceptable standard of water efficiency (Policy 5.9 of the London Plan (2016)).

Water network connection

45. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, a Water Network Upgrade Confirmation Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Thames Water), providing either:

a) Confirmation that all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed; or b) A Housing and Infrastructure Phasing Plan, as agreed with Thames Water, detailing an agreed phasing plan for occupation of the development.

Where a Housing and Infrastructure Phasing Plan is agreed, no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed Housing and Infrastructure Phasing Plan.

Reason: The development may lead to no / low water pressure and network reinforcement works are anticipated to be necessary to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to accommodate additional demand anticipated from the new development (Policy EN6 (vii) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Water Supply Measures

46. Prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, evidence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that water metering, water saving and leak detection measures have been incorporated into the design for the residential spaces (and justification provided where these measures are deemed inappropriate). The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: Occupation must not commence prior to these details being discharged in order to ensure the development would achieve an acceptable standard of water efficiency (Policy 5.3 of the London Plan (2016)).

Green Roofs

47. Prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, a detailed specification of the green roofs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all elements of the green roofs, together with details of their anticipated routine maintenance and protection. The green roofs shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development, as per Lambeth Local Plan Policy EN4 and Draft London Plan Policy G1.

Reason: In order to promote biodiversity and rainwater attenuation on the site. (Policy 5.11 of the London Plan (2016) and Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Green roof maintenance

48. If within 5 years of the installation of the green roof any planting forming part of the green roof shall die, be removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, then this planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with planting of a similar size and species.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability and biodiversity and to mitigate the impact on flood risk (Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.10 and 5.11 of the London Plan (2016), policies G1, G5 and SI 13 of the of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) and Policies EN1, EN4, EN5, EN6, Q2, Q8 and Q9 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Urban Greening Factor 49. Prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, evidence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to validate the measures at the as built stage to demonstrate that an Urban Greening Factor of 0.38 or more has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the urban greening factor has been achieved on site (Policy G5 and G6 of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019)).

Control of uses

Quantum of development 50. The development hereby approved shall provide 2,715sqm GEA of light industrial employment floorspace (Class B1c) and 139 residential units (Class C3) as shown on the hereby approved plans.

Reason: To ensure the development is built in accordance with the approved plans and to ensure satisfactory delivery of commercial floorspace and residential units on the site. (Lambeth Local Plan 2015 Policy ED1 and H3 and Policy E7 of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019)).

Ensuring Provision of Light Industrial Use

51. Prior to occupation of the residential units hereby permitted, or in accordance with an alternative timetable that has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the light industrial element of the development shall be completed including the external facades and fitted out to shell and core standard. This shall include minimum floor to ceiling height of 3.5m, minimum floor loading, communal facilities and safeguarded commercial zones and external servicing areas as described in the Design and Access Statement.

Reason: In order to ensure satisfactory delivery of commercial floorspace on the site (Lambeth Local Plan 2015 Policy ED1 and Policy E7 of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019)).

Removal of PD rights

52. The floorspace shown on the approved plans to be used as light industrial spaces within Class B1(c) (for the avoidance of doubt this relates to the ground and first floor floor) shall be used as such and for no other purpose in Class B1 of the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) the light industrial floorspace within Class B1(c) shall not change use to residential use (Class C3) under Schedule 2,Part 2,Class PA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order.

Reason: To retain and maintain the supply of light industrial space within a designated KIBA (Policy ED1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Residents Gym/Guest Suite/Amenity Area (Ancillary to Residential)

53. The residents gym/amenity area and guest suite space shown on plan number MPC-HBA- 00-01-DR-A-08-0151shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the hereby approved residential use. The gym use shall at no time be occupied and or operated independently of the residential use including any purpose in Class D2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: To enable the local planning authority to retain control over the use permitted. Reason: In order to ensure that the use remains ancillary to the C3 use and in the interest of amenity and protection of residential floorspace (Lambeth Local Plan (2015) Policies S2, Q2, H3 and H5).

Details of ancillary café/co-working space

54. Prior to the commencement of any ancillary café/co-working use, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a) a floorplan of the café/co-working space b) details of any necessary fume extraction and filtration equipment and an ongoing maintenance plan (if relevant) c) details of waste management plan including the disposal of cooking oils (if relevant) d) a Customer Management Plan which shall include but not be limited to: - hours of operation, - management responsibilities during all operating hours, - measures to control noise from live and amplified music (including the screening of sporting events and public address systems) and minimising the effects of patrons coming and going from site and demonstrating how customers leaving the building will be prevented from causing nuisance for people in the area The café/co-working space shall be implemented and operated in accordance with the approved details which shall be retained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In order to ensure that the café/co-working space use remains ancillary to the B1(c) use and in the interest of amenity and protection of employment floorspace (Policy Q2 and ED1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy E7 of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019)).

Café/Co-working Use(s)

55. The café/co-working use shall be used for ancillary purposes related to the occupation and operation of the light industrial use hereby permitted. The café/co-working use shall at no

time be occupied and or operated independently of these spaces including any purpose in Class A3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: In order to ensure that the café/co-working space use remains ancillary to the B1(c) use and in the interest of amenity and protection of employment floorspace (Lambeth Local Plan 2015 Policies Q2, ED1 and Policy E7 of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019)).

Other

Fire Statement

56. The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Fire Statement by Hoare Lea prior to the first occupation of any part of the development.

Reason: In the interests of public safety (Policy D12 of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019)).

Secured by design – construction

57. Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, an application for Secured by Design Certification shall be made for the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Secured by design – certification

58. Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development, evidence of the development having achieved Secure by Design certification shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the measures required to achieve certification for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Informatives

1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.

3. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of The Party Wall Act 1996 in relation to the rights of adjoining owners regarding party walls etc. These rights are a matter for civil enforcement and you may wish to consult a surveyor or architect.

4. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to

contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

5. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Principal Highways Engineer of the Highways team in order to obtain necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffold, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections and Repairs on the Highways, Hoarding, Excavations, Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licenses etc. Please to go to http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/business-services-rates-and- licensing/licence-applications/highways-licences-guide.

6. The proposed development is located within 15m of our underground water assets and as such we would like the following informative attached to any approval granted. The proposed development is located within 15m of Thames Waters underground assets, as such the development could cause the assets to fail if appropriate measures are not taken. Please read our guide ‘working near our assets’ to ensure your workings are in line with the necessary processes you need to follow if you’re considering working above or near our pipes or other structures.

https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Planning-your development/Working-near-ordiverting-our-pipes. Should you require further information please contact Thames Water. Email:[email protected]

7. For information on the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements please visit ‘http://nrmm.london/nrmm’’.

8. This permission does not grant consent for any advertising boards. Any advertising would be subject to a separate application for advertising consent.

9. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

10. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005; Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 and the Local Authority or the Health and Safety Executive and in this respect you are advised to contact the relevant Fire Authority in the first instance.

11. With regards to condition 6, you are advised that the AQDMP shall include provisions that in the event of an exceedance of the trigger threshold of 190 µg/m3 recorded by an automatic PM10 monitor, works should stop until the dust-emitting activity is identified and suitable mitigation measures are put in place. Reports of the event, mitigation measures implemented and measures taken to prevent re-occurrence, should be submitted to the LPA by the next following day.

Yours sincerely

Appendix 2: List of consultees (statutory and Other Consultees)

Statutory

Environment Agency Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Greater London Authority Historic England L.F.C.D Authority London Underground Infrastructure London Ecology Unit Transport for London Network Thames Water

Internal

LBL Arboricultural LBL Building Control LBL Enterprise, Employment & Skills LBL Lead Local Flood Authority (Flooding/SUDS) LBL Heritage and Design LBL Highways LBL Housing LBL Parks & Open Spaces LBL Planning Policy LBL Regeneration LBL Sustainability Team On Air Quality LBL Transport LBL Ward Councillors LBL Waste Services (Veoila) Regulatory Support Services (Consultant Environmental Health Advisors) Bioregional (Consultant Sustainability Advisors) Design Out Crime Officer (Metropolitan Police) Devla Patman Redler (Daylight & Sunlight Advisors)

Other

Cleaver Square Commission For Architecture & The Built Friends of Lambeth High Street Recreation Ground Friends of The Oval Friends of Kennington Park Friends of Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens Heart of Kennington Residents' Association Kennington Association Planning Forum Kennington Oval & Vauxhall Forum Kennington Park Road Residents' Association Kennington Park Estate Tenants Association Landscape Architects

Oval & Kennington Residents Association Oval Mansions Regents Bridge Gardens Ltd Transdescant Area Residents Association Vauxhall Church Leaders Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum Vauxhall One Business Improvement District Vauxhall 5 Chair of the TRA Vauxhall St Peters Heritage Centre

Appendix 3: List of relevant policies in London Plan (and IPLP), Lambeth Local Plan. Reference to SPGs, SPD and other relevant guidance

The London Plan (2016)

Provided below is a list of the key London Plan policies which are considered relevant in the determination of these applications:

 Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London  Policy 2.9 Inner London  Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all  Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply  Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential  Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments  Policy 3.6 Children & young people’s play and informal recreation facilities  Policy 3.8 Housing choice  Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities  Policy 3.10 Definition of affordable housing  Policy 3.11 Affordable housing targets  Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential & mixed use  schemes  Policy 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds  Policy 4.1 Developing London’s economy  Policy 4.4 Managing industrial land and premises  Policy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all  Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation  Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions  Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction  Policy 5.4 A Electricity and gas supply  Policy 5.5 Decentralised energy networks  Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals  Policy 5.7 Renewable energy  Policy 5.8 Innovative energy technologies  Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling  Policy 5.10 Urban greening  Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs  Policy 5.12 Flood risk management  Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage  Policy 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure  Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies  Policy 5.16 Waste net self-sufficiency  Policy 5.17 Waste capacity  Policy 5.18 Construction, excavation and demolition waste  Policy 5.21 Contaminated land  Policy 6.1 Strategic approach  Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity

 Policy 6.4 Enhancing London’s transport connectivity  Policy 6.5 Funding crossrial and other strategically important transport infrastructure  Policy 6.7 Better streets and surface transport  Policy 6.9 Cycling  Policy 6.10 Walking  Policy 6.12 Road network capacity  Policy 6.13 Parking  Policy 7.1 Lifetime neighbourhoods  Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment  Policy 7.3 Designing out crime  Policy 7.4 Local character  Policy 7.5 Public realm  Policy 7.6 Architecture  Policy 7.7 Location and design of tall and large buildings  Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology  Policy 7.11 London View Management Framework  Policy 7.12 Implementing the London View Management Framework  Policy 7.13 Safety, security and resilience to emergency  Policy 7.14 Improving air quality  Policy 7.15 Reducing and managing noise  Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature  Policy 7.20 Geological conservation  Policy 7.21 Trees and woodlands  Policy 8.1 Implementation  Policy 8.2 Planning obligations  Policy 8.3 Community infrastructure levy

Intend to Publish London Plan (December 2019)

 GG1 Building strong and inclusive communities  GG2 Making the best use of land  GG3 Creating a healthy city  GG4 Delivering the homes Londoners need  GG6 Increasing efficiency and resilience  Policy D1 London’s form, character and capacity for growth  Policy D2 Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities  Policy D3 Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach  Policy D4 Delivering good design  Policy D5 Inclusive design  Policy D6 Housing quality and standards  Policy D7 Accessible housing  Policy D8 Public realm  Policy D9 Tall buildings  Policy D11 Safety, security and resilience to emergency

 Policy D12 Fire safety  Policy D13 Agent of Change  Policy D14 Noise  Policy H1 Increasing housing supply  Policy H4 Delivering affordable housing  Policy H5 Threshold approach to applications  Policy H6 Affordable housing tenure  Policy H7 Monitoring of affordable housing  Policy H10 Housing size mix  Policy H11 Build to Rent  Policy S4 Play and informal recreation  Policy E3 Affordable workspace  Policy E4 Land for industry, logistics and services to support London’s economic function  Policy E6 Locally significant industrial sites  Policy E7 Industrial intensification, co-location and substitution  Policy HC1 Heritage conservation and growth  Policy HC3 Strategic and Local Views  Policy HC4 London View Management Framework  Policy HC5 Supporting London’s culture and creative industries  Policy G1 Green infrastructure  Policy G5 Urban greening  Policy G6 Biodiversity and access to nature  Policy G7 Trees and woodlands  Policy SI 1 Improving air quality  Policy SI 2 Minimising greenhouse gas emissions  Policy SI 3 Energy infrastructure  Policy SI 4 Managing heat risk  Policy SI 5 Water infrastructure  Policy SI 6 Digital connectivity infrastructure  Policy SI 7 Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy  Policy SI 8 Waste capacity and net waste self-sufficiency  Policy SI 12 Flood risk management  Policy SI 13 Sustainable drainage  Policy T1 Strategic approach to transport  Policy T2 Healthy Streets  Policy T3 Transport capacity, connectivity and safeguarding  Policy T4 Assessing and mitigating transport impacts  Policy T5 Cycling  Policy T6 Car parking  Policy T6.1 Residential parking  Policy T7 Deliveries, servicing and construction  Policy T9 Funding transport infrastructure through planning  Policy DF1 Delivery of the Plan and Planning Obligations

Regional Guidance

Relevant publications from the GLA include:

 Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (August 2017);  Housing SPG (March 2016);  Social Infrastructure (May 2015)  Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (October 2014)  The control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition (July 2014)  Character and Context (June 2014)  Sustainable Design and Construction (April 2014)  Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy SPG (2013)  Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG (Sep 2012)  London View Management Framework (March 2012)  London Cycle Design Guide (2014)

Lambeth Local Plan (2015) policies

Provided below is a list of the key Local Plan policies which are considered relevant in the determination of these applications:

 D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development  D3 Infrastructure  D4 Planning obligations  H1 Maximising housing growth  H2 Delivering affordable housing  H4 Housing mix in new developments  H5 Housing standards  H8 Housing to meet specific community needs  ED1 Key industrial and business areas (KIBAs)  ED7 Evening economy and food and drink uses  ED14 Employment and training  T1 Sustainable travel  T2 Walking  T3 Cycling  T4 Public transport infrastructure  T6 Assessing impacts of development on transport capacity  T7 Parking  T8 Servicing  EN1 Open space and biodiversity  EN3 Decentralised energy  EN4 Sustainable design and construction  EN5 Flood risk  EN6 Sustainable drainage systems and water management  EN7 Sustainable waste management

 Q1 Inclusive environments  Q2 Amenity  Q3 Community safety  Q5 Local distinctiveness  Q6 Urban design: public realm  Q7 Urban design: new development  Q8 Design quality: construction detailing  Q9 Landscaping  Q10 Trees  Q11 Building alterations and extensions  Q12 Refuse/recycling storage  Q13 Cycle storage  Q15 Boundary treatments  Q18 Historic environment strategy  Q20 Statutory listed buildings  Q22 Conservation areas  Q23 Undesignated heritage assets: local heritage list  Q25 Views  Q26 Tall and large buildings  S1 Safeguarding existing community premises  S2 New or improved community premises  PN8 Kennington/Oval

Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan Proposed Submission Version (January 2020)

 D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development  D3 Infrastructure  D4 Planning obligations  H1 Maximising housing growth  H2 Delivering affordable housing  H4 Housing size mix in new developments  H5 Housing standards  H12 Build to rent  ED2 Affordable workspace  ED3 Key Industrial and Business Areas (KIBAs)  ED8 Evening economy and food and drink uses  ED15 Employment and training  T1 Sustainable travel  T2 Walking  T3 Cycling  T4 Public transport infrastructure  T7 Parking  T8 Servicing  T10 Digital connectivity infrastructure  EN1 Open space, green infrastructure and biodiversity  EN3 Decentralised energy  EN4 Sustainable design and construction  EN5 Flood risk

 EN6 Sustainable drainage systems and water management  EN7 Sustainable waste management  Q1 Inclusive environments  Q2 Amenity  Q3 Safety, crime prevention and counter terrorism  Q4 Public art  Q5 Local distinctiveness  Q6 Urban design: public realm  Q7 Urban design: new development  Q8 Design quality: construction detailing  Q9 Landscaping  Q10 Trees  Q12 Refuse and recycling  Q13 Cycle storage  Q14 Development in gardens and amenity spaces  Q15 Boundary treatments  Q18 Historic environment strategy  Q20 Statutory listed buildings  Q22 Conservation areas  Q23 Non-designated heritage assets: local heritage list  Q25 Views  Q26 Tall and large buildings  PN8 Kennington/Oval

Local Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents

Relevant local guidance and SPDs for Lambeth include:

 Development Viability SPD (2017)  Employment and Skills SPD (2018)  Waste Storage and Collection Requirements - Technical Specification (2013)  Air Quality Planning Guidance Notes  Oval and Kennington Development Area (OAKDA) Masterplan (May 2016; November 2017)