ADDRESS: 99-101, 103-107, 109-117 & 119 and 124-126 Cornwall Road Cornwall Road London SE1 8UL

Pre-application Development Case Officer: Rozina Vrlic Presentation Ward: Bishop’s Date Received: February 2019 Proposal: Proposal is for demolition of existing low rise buildings and erection of an 18 storey building for an office (Use Class E part (g)(i)) led development at 99-101, 103-107 Waterloo Road and 124-126 Cornwall Road with the retention and refurbishment of 113-117 Waterloo Road (Mercury House) including new façade detailing. The new 18 storey building together with the refurbished 113-117 Waterloo Road (Mercury House) provides approximately 35,685 (GIA) of floorspace. Applicant: Bourne Capital Agent: DP9

NOTE FOR PAC MEMBERS:

1. No recommendation is made to the committee for Pre-application Development Presentations. Matters arising from discussions during the item will be minuted; any matters discussed will not be binding on the eventual decision-maker.

SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations: Article 4 Direction - Central Activities Zone - Article 4 B1a-C3 Lower Marsh CAZ Frontage Boundary - Lower Marsh Central Activities Zone Frontage Boundary Environment Agency Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2/3 Neighbourhood Planning Areas - Southbank And Waterloo Neighbours Forum (SOWN) Opportunity Area - London Plan Waterloo Opportunity Area Lower Marsh/ The Cut/ Leake Street Special Policy Area

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area (ha): 0.60

NON-RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (m2) (Gross Internal Area- GIA) Existing 99 Waterloo Road E (g)(i) Office 1,280 E(a) Retail 595 103-107 Waterloo E (g)(i) Office 435 Road E part(a) Retail 359 109-119 Waterloo E part (g)(i) Office 2,619 Road (Mercury House) E part (a) Retail 75 E part (b) Restaurant/Bar 1,510 Sui Generis Betting Shop 60

124 & 126 E part(g)(i) Office 1,210 Cornwall Rd

Proposed Main Tower E part (g)(i) Office 23,415 E part (b) Food and Beverage 1,638 E part (d) Gym 1,532

Mercury House E part (g)(i) Office 1,907 E part (a) Retail 1,900 E part(b) Restaurant/bar 345

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Spaces Car Parking Spaces % of Bike Motor- (General) (Disabled) EVCP Spaces cycle Spaces Existing TBC TBC TBC TBC - Proposed 0 2 TBC TBC -

LEGAL SERVICES CLEARANCE

AUDIT TRAIL Consultation Name/Position Lambeth Dte Sent Date Report Comments in department Received Cleared para: Peter Flockhart (or Legal Services 19/05/2021 20/05/2021 20/05/2021 other officer as appropriate) Senior Lawyer

OFFICER REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: This item is a Pre-application Development Presentation in accordance with the Planning Applications Committee’s terms of reference.

NOTE: A Pre-application Development Presentation is a presentation to the Committee by an applicant about a development proposal that has not yet been submitted for planning approval. The Committee’s terms of reference provide for the Committee to hear such presentations about strategic development schemes and for individual Members of the Committee to ask questions and highlight issues that may require further consideration by the applicant. Any pre-application proposal that is presented to the Committee will still require a planning application to be submitted and determined in due course. The Committee will not be making any determination of the planning merits of any matters that are presented to it in this Pre-application Development Presentation and accompanying officer report. Observations of the Committee in response to this item may be minuted but any such observations will not be binding on the eventual decision-maker. The purpose of this officer report is to provide a brief overview of the site and its planning history, the current development proposal, the pre-application process to date and relevant planning policies.

1 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The site (known as Waterloo Estate) covers 0.62Ha and comprises of 99-101, 103-107, 117 and 109- 119 Waterloo Road and 124-126 Cornwall Road. The northern part of the site between the tall buildings adjacent the site to the north and Mercury House is occupied by low rise 3-4 storey buildings. Mercury House is 4 storeys in height located to the southern part of the site. The Emma Cons Gardens public open space is located to the south of Mercury House.

1.2 The buildings on the site are not listed nor is the site located within a Conservation Area; it does sit within an area of Open Space Deficiency, Air Quality Focus Area (on Waterloo Road) and Environment Agency Flood Zone 2/3.

2 THE SURROUNDING AREA 2.1 The transport hub of Waterloo Station is located to the west of the site. Two existing tall buildings stand immediately north of this site – Capital Tower and Union Jack Club tower. Capital Tower is 82m AOD and the Union Jack Club tower one is 74m AOD. Beyond these two buildings is a railway viaduct on which Waterloo East Station is located.

2.2 To the east of the site is the OCCC Estate which comprises four 1940s residential blocks of flats, laid out in an ‘E’ shape. There is an extant planning permission (16/06172/FUL) on this site for a phased development comprising demolition of existing buildings and construction of a predominantly 7 to 12 storey mixed use scheme with 215 dwellings, theatre rehearsal space (sui generis), offices/cafe.

2.3 To the south of the OCCC Estate is the Bus Garage. The retail areas of The Cut and Lower Marsh lie to the west of the site and The Old Vic lies to the south.

2.4 There are a number of conservation areas locally. Waterloo Conservation Area and Roupell Street Conservation Area are located beyond to the north/northeast; south east is the Lower Marsh Conservation Area and immediately to the west of the site is the South Waterloo Conservation Area.

2.5 The site has a PTAL of 6b, which is the highest level of accessibility. Waterloo Road is a very busy thoroughfare, accommodating large numbers of buses and pedestrians accessing Waterloo and Waterloo East stations. Quietway 1 is a cycle route that runs along Cornwall Road, and Quietway 5 runs along Baylis Road meeting Cornwall Road at its southern end.

3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 3.1 Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph of site outlined in red.

Figure 2 showing buildings fronting Cornwall Road View from Waterloo Road

Figure 3 – Showing view of buildings fronting Cornwall Road looking north and from the south

Figure 4 View of Mercury House fronting Emma Cons Gardens from The Cut.

4 PROPOSAL

5 Summary of the Proposal 5.1 The proposal is for demolition of existing low-rise buildings and erection of an 18-storey building for an office (Use Class E(g)(i)) led development at 99-101, 103-107 Waterloo Road and 124-126 Cornwall Road with the retention and refurbishment of 113-117 Waterloo Road (Mercury House) including new façade detailing. The new 18 storey building together with the refurbished 113-117 Waterloo Road (Mercury House) would provide approximately 35,685m2 (GIA) of floorspace.

5.2 The proposal would also include the refurbishment of the existing Mercury House building at 109-117 & 119 Waterloo Road to include a new roof top extension to accommodate a restaurant/bar.

6 Planning Performance Agreement 6.1 Bourne Capital has entered into a Planning Performance Agreement with the Council. The PPA secures an enhanced pre-application process with a greater level of engagement. It consists of a number of key meetings:

• Meeting 1 – Developer meets Ward Councillors and planning officers to discuss the scheme and agree consultees and community representatives to invite to subsequent meeting • Meeting 2 – Ward Members and community representatives ask questions and provide comments on the scheme • Meeting 3 – Developer Presentation to PAC

6.2 The following meetings have taken place so far: • 26 June 2019 – Strategic Panel • 16 July 2019 – Design Review Panel • 14 April 2020 – Design Review Panel • 28 August 2020 – Meeting 1 • 01 December 2020 – Meeting 2

6.3 The feedback from the above meetings is provided in Section 8 Consultations.

7 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 7.1 The site has extensive planning history relating to various works. Below are some of the more notable applications: 99-101 Waterloo Road • 01/00737/FUL - Erection of a 3 storey building for use as A1 retail on ground floor and B1 office use on upper floors – Permitted 29/06/2001

7.2 109-117 Waterloo Road • 13/03178/FUL - Change of use from offices (Use Class B1) to a travel clinic (Use Class D1) to suite 109 (as amended) – Permitted 01/10/2013 • 14/00625/FUL - Change of use from Use Class B1 (Office) to a Class D1 (General Practise (medical) Clinic) use to suite 310 – Permitted 02/04/2014 • 16/01173/FUL - Change of use of suite 109 from D1 ( (Non-residential institutions) to B1 (office), and suite 102 from B1 to D1 – Permitted 20/04/2016 • 17/03175/FUL -Change the use of one room (Suite 212) from Office (Use Class B1) to Non- Residential Institution (Use Class D1) to allow for travel vaccinations – Permitted 05/09/2017

7.3 107-119 Waterloo Road • 17/00950/FUL - Change of use of existing roof area to operate as a roof top bar (Use Class A4), involving the erection of a brick bar, store areas, new toilet facilities, associated plant, and an obscured glass screen – Permitted 18/05/2017 • 17/05075/FUL - Retrospective application for external alteration works to the roof top bar (approved under ref. 17/00950/FUL), including erection of a timber framed canopy, installation of safety barrier and amendments to the building forms - Permitted 13/12/2017 • 17/05251/FUL -Erection of temporary extension to rooftop pergola – Permitted 21/12/2017

7.4 119 Waterloo Road • 04/03845/FUL - Change of use of the southern part of the basement and ground floor levels from a bank and ancillary storage (Class A2) and internet cafe and other retail floorspace (Class A1) to a restaurant (Class A3), including alterations to the ground floor southern and Cornwell Road elevations, alterations to the Waterloo Road shopfronts, installation of a ventilation flue, infilling of the central lightwell at basement and first floor level and relocation of the bank from the ground floor level to the southern part of the first floor level which currently provides office accommodation (Class B1) – Permitted 02/12/2005 • 12/03379/FUL - Retention of extensions at basement and ground floor levels to restaurant – Permitted 21/11/2012 • 12/03425/FUL - Erection of single storey infill extension within courtyard area together with a new shopfront including new awnings and menu display boxes alongside the installation of grills to existing openings to the basement area – Permitted 9/11/2012

7.5 124 Cornwall Road • 97/01746/FUL - Change of use from car repairs to gymnasium and associated facilities. Arch 124 Cornwall Road London – Permitted 12/08/1197 • 12/04493/FUL - Change of use of the ground floor of No. 124 Cornwall Road from Office (Use Class B1) to a Restaurant (Use Class A3) - Permitted 14/02/2013 7.6 126 Cornwall Road • 96/01403/PLANAP - Change of use of the 1st floor from offices (Use Class B1 - Business) to theatrical education (Class D1 - Non- residential institution), for a limited period until 31/ 12/99. Applicant's plan Nos.28627/96/1403. Applicant's plan nos.DM/ENG/96/E01). 221 Rev.1, 12/222, 223, lighting and banner specifications, Theatre Avenue and Cottesloe Avenue perspectives). PA01C,02C,03C,04C,05C, 327/01,07,08,09,10,11,12). new fenestration (10th floor level), alterations to ground floor entrance & the rebuilding of the basement car park and its roof (to the existing height), together with roof gardens & landscaping plus alterations to vehicular accesses to car park/forecourt & existing service areas. (Regd. plan nos.17711B/96/1387C. Applicant's plan Nos. 9621-01,02,03A,04-08,09A,10B,11A,12B,13- 16,21-32, PA01C,02C,03C,04C,05C,327/01,02,07,08,09,10,11,12). 228+229) – Permitted 28/01/1997 • 17/06212/FUL - Change of use of ground floor from office (Class B1) to gym (Class D2) and the basement floor from non-occupied storage to office (Class B1(a) with internal works at basement level – Permitted 16/02/2018 • 19/00864/FUL - Change of use of part of basement at 111 - 113 Waterloo Road from ancillary office/storage (Use Class B1) and ancillary storage (Use Class A3) to drinking establishment (Use Class A4) and change of use of ground floor and basement at 126a Cornwall Road from retail (Use Class A1) and Boiler Room (Sui Generis), to office (Use Class B1) – Permitted 23/05/2019

8 CONSULTATIONS 8.1 Pre-application consultation has been undertaken by the Council as part of the enhanced PPA service and separately by the applicant.

8.2 Strategic Panel 8.3 On 26 June 2019 the proposal was presented to Strategic Panel. Below is the summary of the Panel’s feedback: • Welcomed the overall vision for the redevelopment of the site, the potential for coherence across the sites and an increase in employment floospace with a focus on the tech industry linking to the Councils Creative & Digital Industries strategy. • Raised concern with the amount of affordable workspace proposed, noted this was a work in progress. • Queried how the affordable workspace membership would work in terms of access to rooftop/external terrace spaces and indicated that further thought needs to be given to ensure access to these areas. • Affordable workspace should provide space for longstanding organisations, charities, and social enterprises for some in perpetuity. • Were broadly comfortably with bulk and mass presented at the time, that a comprehensive narrative on the design approach and how it responds to the context be provided. • On views from The Cut they advised that this should also illustrate the cumulative effect beyond the proposed building. • Materials - the final colour choice of brick and other materials should be accompanied by a persuasive narrative by way of justification. They strongly encouraged that it be demonstrated clearly that the materials palette for the overall proposal ties into the context particularly at the street level datum. • They welcomed the new connectivity from Waterloo Road to Cornwall Road and the proposed artwork within the pedestrian colonnade. • The permeability/connectivity of the site be shown within the wider context and desire lines be demonstrated for example in relation to new Southwark tube station. • That clarity on what exactly is being proposed with respect to Emma Conns Garden is essential – not just in terms of design (robust, durable, practical) but also in terms of delivery (who, how, when) and maintenance (responsibilities, contributions) etc. That it be very clear at the application stage what are the aspirations and what the development will actually be able to deliver as part of the proposed scheme and/or as contributions. • The use of PV panels integrated within the façade was considered positively, aspirations on sustainability should be followed all the way through to detailed design stage. The planning application should make clear the aspirations and what the development will actually be able to achieve and deliver. • In terms of daylight and sunlight want to understand what the likely impacts were and what has been done to mitigate them, in particular the Union Jack Club (UJC) site and the Grainger Scheme (OCCC Estate). • The relationship between the proposed and the UJC building be carefully considered to minimise any impacts on amenity. • They would like a better understanding of the servicing implications from Cornwall Road, vehicle movements from the cut be further explored, particularly any conflicts that may arise on the green route/quiet way. Consolidation and timed deliveries may need to be considered and adequate disabled parking. • They raised concern regarding construction logistics and in particular cumulative impacts on the surrounding area. • They strongly stressed the importance of early engagement with key stakeholders, local residents and community groups. • Explore if there were any opportunities to forge better connection with Old/Young Vic, is there any potential for rehearsal space in the basement of the proposal.

8.4 Design Review Panel (DRP) 1 8.5 On 16 July 2019 the proposal was presented to the Design Review Panel. Below is the summary of the Panel’s feedback: • They supported the proposed land uses and welcome the applicant’s ambition to deliver Grade A, BREEAM Excellent commercial office space to cater for Waterloo’s growing demand for technology-led office space. • They encouraged the applicant to consider the potential impact on pedestrian movement and how the scheme can deliver sufficient public realm to serve the needs of its occupants and provide a positive addition to the public realm along Waterloo Road and Cornwall Road. • They encouraged the applicant to undertake further work on the potential to incorporate a ‘podium’ into the design both in terms of elevational treatment and the opportunity to provide a colonnade to Waterloo Road to provide additional public threshold. • Advised that the scheme should address Cornwall Road with well-designed entrances and elevational treatment that encourage natural surveillance. They encouraged the applicant to consider the placing and detailing of entrances to minimise the impact of servicing vehicles on the street and further thought in relation to the arrival and departure of cyclists and pedestrian activity. • They asked the applicant to consider ways in which the cycle store could be accessed directly via a ramp rather than lifts to serve the needs of the expected high volume of cyclists and reduce energy use. • They were not convinced of the rationale behind the decision to introduce a new connection through the site, along the northern boundary. They considered that the proposed route does not provide a direct connection between key destinations in the local area and given that the route would not be overlooked from the north it would be difficult to design successfully and could attract anti-social behaviour. • Recommended that a pedestrian comfort study is undertaken to inform design decisions on building footprint, elevation treatment and building entrances. • Encouraged the applicant to reconsider the retention of Mercury House and consider options to provide a replacement high quality building here which addresses the open space and the transition of height between the open space and the bulk of the scheme to the north. • Noted the existing central staircase at Mercury House is architecturally weak and, should Mercury House be retained, this may present an opportunity for an intervention in the façade that connects the proposed roof terrace restaurant to Emma Conns Gardens. • Noted that the orthogonal form of the proposed roof extension to Mercury House gives a boxy character and might benefit from a softer, more playful treatment. • Welcomed aspirations for improvements to Emma Conns Gardens. That the desirability of an active ground floor to Mercury House would bring much-needed activation to the space.

8.6 Design Review Panel (DRP) 2 8.7 On 14 April 2020 the proposal was put before the Design Review Panel a second time to allow the Panel to review the evolution of the scheme. Below is the summary of the Panel’s feedback: • Noted that there had been a significant change design through the provision of PV cells within a facade that wraps around the building as a single skin, This has resulted in a significant change to the massing, elevational treatment and materiality of the building, which appears more bulky than the previous iteration, raising questions as to whether this is the right approach given the nearby Conservation Area and listed buildings. • Flagged the risk that the PV technology on the facades become technically obsolete long before a conventional façade would and recommended further research of precedent buildings, product longevity and the benefits in terms of energy reduction before committing to the PV panel system. • If continue with the current approach the Panel recommended further refinement of façade treatment to tower to adopt a simpler, seamless detailing on the building skin. • Raised concern about the shadow gaps in the facade and the ability of green landscaping to thrive in such shaded locations. • Recommended that this detailing of the terrace on upper floors of Cornwall Road frontage be simplified taking into consideration the usability / amenity value of the space. • They recommended further work to be undertaken on balconies noting that currently in proportion to building these were not large enough to add visual benefit and or substantial amenity space for office users. • Supported the ground floor integration of Mercury House and tower with thoroughfare to Emma Cons Gardens. • Welcomed the curved form of the building and noted that it had the effect of softening the effect of massing. • Strongly supported the approach to the podium as a strong entrance, they were pleased to see the integration of references to the surrounding ‘railway style’ architectural detailing of semi-circular arches and corbelled brickwork and seeing further refinement of this approach. • Supported the architectural ‘transition zone’ between the podium and tower and recommended the integration of strong setback and further depth where possible. • Recommended that the design team explore more options for the crown of the building rather than simply duplicating the corbel arches of the podium. • Supported the refurbishment proposals for Mercury House however and recommended further refinement to ensure it is distinct and contextual to the building. • Welcomed the commitment to continue working with Lambeth Council to improve Emma Cons Gardens. • Appreciated the difficulty in achieving activity at street level on Cornwall Road. They recommended rationalisation of space at basement level and ground level to move cycling to basement and create opportunities for activation at street frontage. • Recommended further refinement to the architecture of service entrance, the tower and setback. • Stressed the need for the proposal to be achieve sustainability over the long term and strongly recommended the necessary materials research be undertaken and demonstrated.

8.8 Meeting 1 – Meeting with Ward Members 8.9 On 28 August 2020 the Council hosted a meeting between the applicant and ward councillors which Cllr Dogus attended. The applicant presented the emerging proposal in detail and invited comments. No initial concerns were raised; questions were asked regarding: • how tall the building was, how it aligns with Policy Q26, • if any opportunity for greening at street level and how proposal would link Cornwall Road, The Cut and Waterloo Road.

8.10 Recommendations were made on which local stakeholders to target for the next stage of engagement.

8.11 Meeting 2 – Meeting with local representatives 8.12 On 1 December 2020 the Council hosted a meeting to allow the applicant to present the emerging proposals to a number of key local stakeholders. The following groups attended the meeting: • Lambeth Estate Resident’s Association • Coin Street • Coin Street • Waterloo Estate Residents Association • Southbank and Waterloo Neighbours • Southbank London • Oasis UK • National Theatre • WeAreWaterloo

8.13 The following questions and comments were raised: • How would you manage the consultation process in respect of Emma Cons Gardens – the nature and length of that? • Concerns that people are not able to respond appropriately during consultations and there needs to be more than 21 days at application stage. • Would Bar Elba be the prospective tenant of the proposed rooftop restaurant? • Would the applicant reconsider and not include a rooftop restaurant as part of the proposal? • The proposed tower is going to overshadow the OCCC Estate • What consideration has been given to the future of the Union Jack Club and Capital Tower and the junction between these buildings and proposed • Cornwall Road is an important greenway from Elephant and Castle to National Theatre - how does rear end of proposed development impact on this and Cornwall Road? • That treatment of Mercury House looks fine, found main towers lumpy (not necessarily bulky), dark, and not responding to the area as you come out of Waterloo Station. • Emma Cons has been refurbished several times, the problem is that it has not really had a management regime. Understand attracting industries from tech and cultural sector would recommend that it isn't the building that attracts people but the facilities in the area such as green facilities and place you need to support is Millennium Green and not Emma Cons Gardens. Whatever is done to Emma Cons will not attract firms to that area. • Regarding future tenants and employment and skills – need to look at local people and have a joined-up approach to get them job ready. There are lots of local organisations that would be happy to work with you on this.

8.14 The following comments were directed to officers: • This is the first time they had an opportunity to review scheme but understand it has gone through process with LBL officers. What is expected of this consultation process? What could come out of this for local representatives? • Why are Lambeth Council considering this proposal where this is the only means of access to and from Cornwall Road for over 200 properties – how are people going to go get to and from their homes?

8.15 Further comments were received by LERA and Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Forum. The main topics raised are as follows: • Utilitarian elevation to Cornwall Road • The height and mass of the building and amenity impacts • Sustainability • Corporate social responsibility’ package – more detail. as part of their building services, with a particular focus on employment-related programme • Opportunity to make improvements to public realm • See more details on green infrastructure and how it would be integrated • Retail mix to be developed in conjunction with vision for neighbouring retail areas along Lower Marsh and the Cut. • see if opportunities for local artists and other local cultural and community organisations might be integrated creatively with the development.

8.16 Consultation undertaken by the applicant 8.17 In addition to the above meetings the applicant is undertaking their own public consultation. To date the following have been undertaken:

8.18 Formal commencement of wider public consultation at the beginning of February 2021: this ran until the end of March, although the project webpage is still open for comments: www.waterloocentral.com

8.19 Prior to formally launching their public consultation the applicant started presenting and consulting on the scheme to key local interested parties in October 2020. Key parties presented to include: • LERA • SoWN • We are Waterloo • WCDG • St Johns Waterloo • UJC • Waterloo Action Centre • SBEG

Continue to hold individual presentations to these key parties and are actively working on responses to comments and points from these parties. Through 2019 and 2020 presented emerging proposals to The Old Vic, UJC and Grainger.

They have co formed the Emma Cons Gardens Steering Group with certain key interested local parties including Lambeth representatives.

9 Key Planning Issues

9.1 Land Use:

9.2 Office 9.3 The site is located within the Waterloo Opportunity Area and CAZ.The principle of an office led scheme is acceptable in planning policy terms.

9.4 The applicant is proposing a gym use to be located within the tower. It is not clear at this stage if that would be ancillary to the office use or also available to visiting members of the public. The site is located within Central Activities Zone retail cluster, where supporting uses such as this may be appropriate. This would need to be discussed further with the applicant.

9.5 Affordable Workspace/Employment and Skills

9.6 The concept proposed by the applicant is of promoting the proposed office as a socially conscious hub, where tenants across the building would be encouraged and supported to participate in corporate social responsibility activities.

9.7 Officers have advised that the affordable workspace should be orientated towards (a) benefiting the unique supply chains of cultural and creative institutions such as the Old Vic, Young Vic, Southbank Centre and their unique supply chains; (b) the low-carbon and environmental goods and services sector; and (c) supporting the growth of the life science sector including medical technology. Whilst the applicant is a workspace provider, they would need to develop partnerships with specific organisations and businesses within these sectors..

9.8 The affordable workspace proposal is still under discussion with the applicant and further details are to be provided to officers for review.

9.9 An employment and skills training support package is to be discussed further with the applicant and draft details of a package to be provided to officers for review.

9.10 Relevant policies are Policies SD1, SD4, SD5, E1, E2, E3, E9 and E11 of the London Plan (2021); Policies ED2, ED3, ED14 and PN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policies ED1, ED2, ED8, and PN1 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020); P12 of the Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032).

9.11 Retail

9.12 This site is contained with the proposed Lower Marsh/The Cut/Leake Street Special Policy Area and inside the CAZ retail cluster (Waterloo) where retail facilities and the primary retail function of this area should be maintained. DRLLP PSV Policy PN1 stipulates that (c) 50% ‘original’ ground floor units to be in A1 use, but also as a major location for offices.

9.13 From information submitted by the applicant, within the buildings to be demolished there are three retail units in Use Class E (a) at 99, 103 and 103-107 Waterloo Road. There is one retail unit in Use Class E (a) within Mercury House. From the information provided it does not appear that there would be any reprovision of retail units within the tower building. However there would be retail units provided within Mercury House but how many and how they would be configured is not clear at present. Further details need to be provided by the applicant on this as discussions progress.

9.14 Relevant policies are: Policies SD4, E9, HC6 of the London Plan (2021); Policies ED6, ED7 and PN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policies ED7, ED8, and PN1 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020); P10 of the Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032).

9.15 Design and Conservation 9.16 This site has been identified as appropriate for tall building development (a general building height of 70m AOD) within Annex 11 of DRLLP PSV. At its tallest the building is proposed to be 73.93m AOD. The proposed tall building would step down and sit lower than the adjacent UJC and Capital towers buildings stepping down towards the south (Mercury House).

9.17 The applicant is in the process of refining the design following the consultation process. This has included moving the building slightly further away from the adjacent UJC boundary, shifting the building towards the south over Mercury House. Further details are required to be submitted for Officers to review elevational drawings and how the proposed revisions sit within key views. The key will be to ensure that the bulk, height, scale, and massing is not visible from Parliament Square (setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site) and the form modelled to respond to local context. The impact on the settings of the Lower Marsh, Roupell Street and Waterloo Conservation Areas are also to be considered as part of any revisions. This is still under review and discussion with officers.

9.18 The scheme proposes Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) technology within the façade as part of the building envelope to generate power from sunlight. The BIPV technology is integrated into the glass surface of the vertical façade elements and would be coloured black to maximise the power generated by the PV cells that they contain. Subject to further work being undertaken in relation to the sustainability of the building, a final position will be taken following this and a review of draft Townscape Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment and wind assessment reports.

9.19 Relevant policies are: Policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, HC1, HC2, HC3 and HC4 of the London Plan (2021); Policies Q1, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23, Q25, Q26 and PN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policies Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q25, Q26, Q27 and PN1 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020); P9 of the Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032).

9.20 Sustainability

9.21 The applicant’s aspirations are to deliver a building with exemplar sustainability credentials. They aspire to attain a BREEAM outstanding rating (a score of 85% or more). This has informed their design for the building. As indicated above this includes optimising the performance of the façade by integrating BIPV technology. Discussions are ongoing with the applicant on this aspect.

9.22 Relevant policies are: Policies SI 2, SI 3, SI 4 of the London Plan (2021); Policies EN3 and EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policies EN3 and EN4 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020).

9.23 Neighbouring Amenity

Daylight and Sunlight:

9.24 A daylight and sunlight assessment has been submitted on the scheme that presented the building closer to the boundary with the adjacent UJC building to the north. This is currently being reviewed by the Council’s daylight and sunlight consultant.

9.25 A further daylight and sunlight assessment is to be undertaken by the applicant in respect of the revised scheme being presented. This assessment would also need to be reviewed by the Council’s daylight and sunlight consultant.

9.26 Discussions on daylight and sunlight are ongoing with the applicant on this aspect.

9.27 Residential Amenity (outlook/privacy):

9.28 The Union Jack Club is located adjacent the boundary to the north. It has some windows that face onto the site. The Union Jack Club are a 115-year-old charity providing a ‘home from home’ for military enlisted personnel and their families, including those that have suffered both physically and mentally from their service.

9.29 The use of the UJC building is currently considered by officers to amount to hotel accommodation, however the maximum length of time a visitor can stay at the Union Jack Club is 28 days.

9.30 The applicant has made some revisions to the scheme from that presented during the enhanced engagement consultation process. This includes moving the building slightly further away from the boundary with the UJC club from the upper floors. From the drawings it appears to be set away from the closest point by approx. 14m to be confirmed.

9.31 The OCCC estate is located opposite the site across Cornwall Road and officers will need to consider if the relationship of the proposed building and the OCCC Estate would change as a result of the proposed revisions.

9.32 Discussions are still ongoing with the applicant on this aspect.

9.33 Relevant policies are: Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policy Q2 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020).

9.34 Wind and Microclimate 9.35 The applicant submitted a Wind Microclimate Assessment based on the scheme shown during the consultation process. This was reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Consultants. The modelling had been undertaken in relation to streets surrounding the development. No modelling had been undertaken for the specific design of the buildings i.e. proposed terraces.

9.36 The submitted assessment had not identified any significant impacts arising at the proposed development. However, proposed mitigation has included the positioning of six deciduous trees (6-8m tall) along Sandell Street. This would be outside the redline boundary and it is not clear on whose land this would be planted at this stage. This would need to be explored further with the applicant.

9.37 The report also notes that introducing porous screens, soft landscaping or other street-level interventions could be used to further improve the wind microclimate around the development. No details of this have been provided and would need to be explored further with the applicant.

9.38 Whilst it is considered that wind conditions in the streets immediately surrounding the Development and in Emma Cons Gardens considered to be acceptable. The modelling shows a slight increase in Emma Cons gardens. The baseline probe modelling showed the upper end of the sitting conditions changing to lower end of standing condition with the proposed development. The modelling diagram is labelled “worst case”. Typically, “worst case” would equate to the winter season so the modelling may not show significant impacts on the amenity value of Emma Con gardens at this time of year. Modelling for the summer period could be provided using further wind tunnel assessment or fluid dynamic modelling to confirm this. This would be explored further by the applicant.

9.39 The OCCC Estate development has been considered. This is a ground level assessment which usually represents the strongest effects due to the interaction of air movement with the ground. It does not appear the report has explicitly considered impacts on balconies and amenity spaces on the development. This would need to be explored further by the applicant.

9.40 The applicant would need to consider the comments from the Council’s environmental health officer and given revisions are being proposed they will need to undertake further wind assessment modelling the revised scheme.

9.41 Relevant policies are: Policy Q2 and Q26 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policy Q2 and Q26 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020).

9.42 Transport: 9.43 The proposal would be car-free with the exception of two disabled car parking spaces, and servicing is proposed on site, the proposed development has an internal ground level service area accessed and egressed from Cornwall Road. Given the sensitivities of the surrounding road network (Cornwall Road is a Quietway for example), it is likely that all deliveries and servicing activity would be restricted at peak times, to minimise cycle conflict on Cornwall Road.

9.44 The applicant has indicated that approximately 50% freight consolidation is proposed and that it would be the long-term aspiration that the vehicles operated within a consolidation centre would operate fleets of alternatively fuelled vehicles.

9.45 Cycle parking is proposed on the ground and first floor with access from Cornwall Road, although is subject to amendments following further design revisions being proposed by the applicant.

9.46 Relevant policies are: Policies T2, T4, T5, T6, T6.2, T6.3, T6.5, T7of the London Plan (2021); Policies T1, T2, T3, T4, T6, T7, T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policies T1, T2, T3, T4, T7, T8 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020); P12 of the Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032).

9.47 Public Realm - Emma Cons Gardens The proposed scheme seeks to reconfigure the ground floor of Mercury House fronting Emma Cons Gardens with proposed uses and entrances opening onto Emma Cons Gardens. The applicant also potentially proposes some work externally to the elevation fronting Emma Cons Gardens. This includes widening the path and removing the gate and fence to Emma Cons Gardens.

9.48 It is understood that Bourne Capital have been working with stakeholders in the area to establish a Steering Group looking at what a future relandscaped Emma Cons Gardens could look like.

9.49 Discussions are on-going with the applicant in respect of Emma Cons Gardens.

9.50 Relevant policies are: Policy EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policy EN1 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020); Policies P2, P4 of the Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032).

10 Next Steps

10.1 Officers will continue to work with the applicant to develop the scheme. The applicant is aiming to submit the application in July 2021.