representation hearing report PDU/1100a/03
19 November 2013 Eileen House, Elephant & Castle in the London Borough of Southwark
planning application no. 09/AP/0343
Planning application Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (“the Order”).
The Proposal This comprises a planning application (hereafter “the Application”) for full planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a 41 storey (128.7m AOD) building and separate 8 storey (35.60m AOD) building incorporating 270 private flats (16 x studio, 126 x 1- bed, 92 x 2-bed and 36 x 3-bed), 65 intermediate flats (17 x 1-bed, 44 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed), 4,785 sq.m. of office (Use Class B1) and 287 sq.m. of retail (Use Class A1-A5), together with 34 disabled car parking spaces, 44 motorcycle spaces and 411 cycle spaces within 2 basement levels, plus associated servicing facilities (4,626 sq.m.) and public realm improvements including creation of a resident’s garden (458 sq.m.) and University Square (2,768sq.m.).
The applicant The applicant is Englewood Limited, and the architect is Allies and Morrison.
Recommendation summary The Mayor acting as Local Planning Authority for the purpose of determining this application: I. Grants conditional planning permission in respect of 09/AP/0343, for the reasons set out in the reasons for approval section below as required by Article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended), subject to the prior completion of a section 106 legal agreement. II. Delegates authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and the Director of Development, Enterprise and Environment to issue the planning permission and agree, add, delete or vary, the final detailed wording of the conditions and any additional informatives as required. III. Delegates authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Director of Development and Environment to negotiate, agree the final wording, and sign and execute the section 106 agreement and to refuse planning permission if the section 106 agreement has not been completed by 18 March 2014. IV. Notes that approval of details pursuant to conditions imposed on the planning permission will be submitted to, and determined by, Southwark Council. V. Notes that Southwark Council be responsible for the enforcement of the conditions attached to the respective permissions.
Drawing numbers and documents for approval Existing plans 519 - 07 - 001 site location plan - as existing 1:1250 P1 519 - 07 - 009 basement plan - as existing/demolitions 1:125 P1 519 - 07 - 010 ground floor plan - as existing/demolitions 1:125 P1 519 - 07 - 011 roof plan - as existing/demolitions 1:125 P1 519 - 07 - 012 north elevation - as existing/demolitions 1:125 P1 519 - 07 - 013 east elevation - as existing/demolitions 1:125 P1 519 - 07 - 014 south elevation - as existing/demolitions 1:125 P1 519 - 07 - 015 west elevation - as existing/demolitions 1:125 P1 Proposed basement, ground and lower floor plans 519 - 07 - 102 Phase One Site Plan 1:250 P3 519 - 07 - 103 Phase Two Site Plan 1:250 P3 519 - 07 - 107 second basement plan 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 108 first basement plan 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 109 ground floor plan 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 110 mezzanine floor plan 1:125 P2 519 - 07 - 111 first floor plan 1:125 P3 519 - 07 - 112 second floor plan 1:125 P3 Proposed typical residential floor plans 519 - 07 - 120 A1 floor plan - level 03 - plan type 1000 D-am 1:125 P5 519 - 07 - 121 A1 floor plan - levels 04 - 07 - plan type 1000 D 1:125 P5 519 - 07 - 122 A1 floor plan - level 08 - plan type 1000 A 1:125 P5 519 - 07 - 123 A1 floor plan - levels 9 - 11 - plan type 950 A, 950 A-s 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 124 A1 floor plan - levels 12 - 14 - plan type 950 C 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 125 A1 floor plan - levels 15 - 17 - plan type 850 A 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 126 A1 floor plan - levels 18 - 21 - plan type 850 A-pl 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 127 A1 floor plan - levels 22 - 28 - plan type 700 B 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 128 A1 floor plan - level 29 - plan type 600 B 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 129 A1 floor plan - levels 30 plan type 600 E 1:125 P5 Proposed upper floors 519 - 07 - 131 A1 floor plan - level 31- plan type upper 01 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 132 A1 floor plan - level 32 - plan type upper 02 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 133 A1 floor plan - level 33 - plan type upper 03 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 134 A1 floor plan - level 34 - plan type upper 04 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 135 A1 floor plan - level 35 - plan type upper 05 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 136 A1 floor plan - level 36 - plan type upper 06 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 137 A1 floor plan - level 37 - plan type upper 07 1:125 P4 519 - 07 - 138 A1 floor plan - level 38 - plan type upper 08 1:125 P5 519 - 07 - 139 A1 floor plan - level 39 - plan type upper 09 1:125 P2 519 - 07 - 140 A1 roof plan 1:125 P2 Proposed sections and elevations 519 - 07 - 150 A1 section AA 1:250 P5 519 - 07 - 151 A1 south-east elevation Newington Causeway 1:250 P3 519 - 07 - 152 A1 south-west elevation Southwark Bridge Road 1:250 P3 519 - 07 - 153 A1 north-west elevation Southwark Bridge Road 1:250 P3 519 - 07 - 154 A1 north-east elevation Gaunt Street 1:250 P3 519 - 07 - 155 A1 west elevation 1:125 P3 519 - 07 - 156 A1 section - resident's garden 1:250 P2 Proposed facade bay studies 519 - 07 - 160 A1 tower baystudy - nw - tower base 1:50 P2
page 2 519 - 07 - 161 A1 tower baystudy - nw - top 1:50 P2 519 - 07 - 162 A1 tower baystudy - sw - typical floor 1:50 P2 519 - 07 - 163 A1 tower baystudy - sw - base 1:50 P2 519 - 07 - 164 A1 tower baystudy - nw - top 1:50 P2 519 - 07 - 165 A1 office baystudy - north 1:50 P1 519 - 07 - 166 A1 office baystudy - west 1:50 P1 Proposed public Realm TOWN377 (08) 1001R02 TOWN377 (08) 1004R02 TOWN377 (08) 1005R01 79241/B/12 Rev E (Phase 1) 79241/B/14 Rev F (Phase 2) Masterplan - Phase 1 Masterplan - Phase 2 Masterplan - Phase 2 (Phase 1 overlay)
Submitted documents February 2009: Planning Statement; Design & Access Statement; Statement of Community Involvement; Environmental Assessment Volume 1; Environmental Assessment Volume 2 – Townscape & Visual Assessment; Environmental Assessment Volume 3 – Technical Appendices; Environmental Assessment – Non Technical Summary. March 2009: Sustainability Assessment Checklist; Internal Room Daylight & Ventilation Schedule; Waste Management Plan; Preliminary BREEAM Assessment (Office); Preliminary BREEAM Assessment (Retail); Code for Sustainable Homes (Preliminary Assessment). July 2009: Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 1 Addendum; Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 2 Townscape & Views Assessment; Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 3 Technical Appendices; Environmental Statement Addendum Non-Technical Summary; Design and Access Statement Addendum. January 2010: Regulation 19 Response by URS (including enclosures). May 2011: Regulation 19 Response by URS (including enclosures). August 2011: Letter from URS; Sandy Brown Report - Summary of position at August 2011. January 2013: Design & Access Statement Addendum; Planning Statement Addendum; Environmental Assessment Update; Planning Obligations Statement. April 2013: Design & Access Statement Addendum 4; Environmental Statement Addendum 3 (Volume 1 and Volume 2 Townscape Assessment). July 2013: Environmental Statement Addendum 4– Metro Central Heights Noise Survey & Assessment and Environmental Statement Addendum 5– Volume 2 Townscape Assessment.
Reasons for approval
1 The Mayor, acting as the local planning authority, has considered the details of this application against national, regional and local planning policy, relevant supplementary planning guidance and any material planning considerations. He has also had regard to the Southwark Council Planning Committee report of 11 October 2009 and the draft reasons for refusal that the Committee subsequently resolved to issue. The reasons set out below are why this application is acceptable in planning policy terms:
Planning application 09/AP/0343 The proposal would make effective use of this previously developed site by introducing and realising the benefits of a mix of uses appropriate to the town centre location of the site as
page 3 sought by the NPPF. The principle of introducing mixed use development onto the site is fully supported by the London Plan, Southwark Core Strategy, Southwark Plan, and the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF.
The scheme would see the redevelopment of a currently vacant building, providing 335 new homes in a high density, quality mixed-use scheme making a significant contribution to the provision of housing, including affordable housing, in the Opportunity Area whilst maximising the opportunity to enhance the public realm on the site through the creation of University Square. This, combined with a retail element at ground floor, will enliven the street frontage to Newington Causeway and Southwark Bridge Road, as sought in the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF guidance for the Enterprise Quarter Character Area.
The proposal would provide 335 new homes, of which 65 would be affordable, and would make a significant contribution to housing delivery targets in this area. The proposal would be consistent with London Plan policies 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12, Southwark Core Strategy Strategic policies 5, 6, and 7 and Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 3.2, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.
The proposal would provide play and amenity space through a combination of generous private wintergardens, indoor and outdoor communal space and outdoor public space, together with some reliance on existing open spaces in the vicinity. Such reliance on existing open space is common for high density residential towers on central London sites such as this. The overall play and amenity space provision, taking account of the contributions for public realm and open space improvements in the immediate and wider area, is considered generous for a central London development and is in accordance with London Plan policies 3.5, 3.6 and 7.5 and Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 3.2, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 and 4.2.
Overall, the proposed architecture is of the very high standard demanded by the relevant strategic and local policy and policy guidance, will make a beneficial contribution to local views and skyline, and will assist with local legibility and recognition of the significance of local Heritage Assets. The public realm proposals are considered to be in line with the vision for the area as set out within the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF. The proposal responds positively to the challenges of the site and its context and therefore accords with the NPPF, London Plan policies 4.12, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11 and 7.12; Core Strategy Strategic Policy 12,; saved UDP policies 3.2, 3.11 – 3.13, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20-3.22, 4.2, 4.5 and 5.7 ; the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF.
The proposed development would be of a high standard of sustainable design and construction and would successfully minimise carbon dioxide emissions through energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies. The development would also deliver significant urban greening, biodiversity and urban drainage benefits, over the existing situation at the site. The development is, therefore, acceptable with respect to the NPPF; London Plan policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 7.19 and 7.21; Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 13.
The Environmental Statement (ES) provides an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposal during the construction and operational phases. The documents comply with the relevant regulations in terms of their scope and methodology for assessment and reporting. They also appropriately respond to Development Plan policy, supplementary planning guidance and the representations made. As is usual for a major development of this nature there are potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, mitigation has been identified to address adverse impacts. The general residual impact of the development is considered to range from negligible to minor beneficial throughout most of the site. There are
page 4 some adverse residual effects as a result of the development and these have been identified in the assessments and taken into account in the consideration of the application together with the representations made by third parties. Given the urban context of the site, the environmental impact of the development is acceptable given the general compliance with relevant British Standards and local policy standards. The development is therefore acceptable with respect to the NPPF, London Plan Policies 4.1, 4.3, 5.3, 5.5, 5.10, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 5.18, 5.21, 6.3, 6.12, 7.6, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15, Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.9, and the Southwark Core Strategy.
The proposed development would contribute towards transport improvements in the Opportunity Area under the Strategic Transport Tariff, significantly improve the public realm in the vicinity of the site, and contribute to the relocation of bus standing to allow these improvements (subject to agreement with Transport for London (TfL)), help promote non-car modes of transport through its Travel Plan and other measures, provide an acceptable level of and arrangements for car parking and bicycle storage, have appropriate controls on transport impacts during demolition and construction and employ suitable delivery, refuse and servicing arrangements. The development is therefore consistent with the NPPF, London Plan policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.7, 6.7, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13 and 6.14, 8.2 and 8.3, Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 2, and Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6 and 5.7.
To appropriately mitigate the impact of this development planning obligations have been secured towards: local employment and training; local enterprise; affordable housing; community facilities; public realm, open space and heritage; sustainable transport and Crossrail. The development is therefore acceptable with respect to the NPPF, London Plan policies 6.5, 8.2 and 8.3, Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 14, Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policy 2.5, the Council’s Section 106 SPD and the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF.
There are no, or insufficient, grounds to withhold planning consent on the basis of the policies considered and other material planning considerations.
Recommendation
2 That the Mayor, acting as Local Planning Authority, grant planning permission in respect of application 09/AP/0343, subject to a section 106 agreement in the following terms and conditions as summarised below.
Legal agreement
3 The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:
Local financial obligations Education: £222,756. Employment in development: £27,000. Employment during construction: £309,086 - value of workplace co-ordinator to be provided in kind by the developer. Employment during construction management fee: £23,828. Transport - site specific: £2,750 - Amended Traffic Management Order. TfL contribution: £386,000 for bus contributions for additional bus running costs associated with phase I and phase II public realm works comprising (i) Phase I- £136,000 and (ii) Phase II-£250,000.
page 5 Public Realm: £2,393,000 - creation of a residents garden, a linear park along Southwark Bridge Road and a University Square at the junction of Southwark Bridge Road and Keyworth Street comprising (i) Phase I = £1,456,000 (ii) Phase II = £937,800 Archaeology: £10,199. Health: £343,507. Community Facilities: £116,000 comprising (i) Newington Gardens = £25,000 (ii) Dickens Square Park = £50,00 (iii) Rockingham Estate = £20,000 (iv) Scovell Estate Improvements = £21,000. Air Quality Monitoring: £60,000. St. George’s Circus Conservation Area Improvements: £25,000. Administration cost, including TfL administration cost: £79,032. Cycle Hire docking station: £189,000.
Regional financial obligations Strategic Transport Tariff: £3,188,212. Mayoral CIL: £1,382,780 (final sum to be calculated on implementation).
Other local obligations Affordable Housing: the proposal provides a maximum of 324 affordable habitable rooms, constituting 197 habitable rooms as the Initial Affordable Housing Units and a maximum of 136 habitable rooms as Deferred Affordable Housing Units (or a Deferred Affordable Housing Payment to be made in lieu). Workplace Co-ordinator: commitment to appoint a Workplace Co-ordinator to facilitate access to construction jobs during the construction phase (or payment of the Workplace Co- ordinator Contribution in lieu). Local procurement: commitment to seek to procure construction contracts and goods and services from small and medium size enterprises (SME) companies and organisations based in the Borough. Parking Permit restrictions: commitment to inform potential occupiers of Council policy that no residential or business Parking Permits available other than for Blue Badge holders. Deliveries and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan: commitment to developing, implementing and monitoring a deliveries and servicing plan and travel plan, including the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. Public realm and highway improvements: section 278 highways agreement required. Energy service company (ESCO): commitment to future connection to ESCO or to ensuring development is able to connect to a future district heating network.
4 The Mayor delegates authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and the Director of Development and Environment to negotiate, sign and execute the section 106 agreement referred to above, the principles of which have been agreed with the applicant, and which includes the heads of terms as detailed above.
Conditions
5 The Mayor delegates authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and the Director of Development and Environment to issue the planning permission and agree, add, delete or vary, the final wording of the conditions and informatives to secure the following matters:
Permission to be valid for three years; Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans;
page 6 Implementation of a programme of archaeological evaluation and if necessary mitigation works; Submission and approval of an assessment report detailing the proposals for post- excavation works, publication of the site and preparation of the archive; Design and method statements of all foundations, basement, below ground and ground floor structures and piling, in consultation with London Underground and to ensure no risks to groundwater; Tree protection measures; Measures to investigate and remediate any contamination found on site including if necessary the submission and approval of a an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application and a detailed remediation scheme; Submission and approval of a Drainage Strategy and impact study of the existing water supply infrastructure; Submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme; Submission and approval of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (incorporating a construction logistics plan, produced in accordance with the London Freight Plan) and Code of Practice; Submission and approval of a Car Park Management Plan; Submission and approval of a Delivery and Servicing Plan/Service Management Plan; Submission and approval of a Travel Plan; Retention/relocation of Cycle Superhighway; Electric vehicle charging facilities; Blue badge car parking spaces; Details of the facilities to be provided for the secure storage of cycles for commercial and residential occupiers and for visitors to the development; Details of showering, changing and locker facilities for cyclists for all commercial units over 250sq.m of B1, A1, A2, A3, A4 and/or A5 floorspace; Details of the following matters to be submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority (in consultation with TfL where relevant): i. Any external lighting [including design, power and position of luminaires] and security surveillance equipment of external areas surrounding the building; ii. detailed drawings (1:5 scale) through all principal elements/details of the Gaunt Street office building to be used (including all openings, edges, soffits, corners, parapets and louvres); iii. detailed drawings (1:5 scale) through all principal elements/details of the Newington Causeway tower (including a window-bay module, balconies, soffits, corners, parapets, exposed structural elements and louvres); iv. detailed drawings (1:5 scale) of car and cycle parking including Blue Badge parking spaces and electric vehicle charging points; v. detailed drawings (1:50, 1:10 and 1:5 scale) of a hard and soft landscaping scheme including proposals for the Linear Park and University Square (including but not limited to any public art, children's play equipment, Phase II pavilion structure, seating, bus stands, Cycle Superhighway, and local cycle route); vi. detailed landscaping plans (1:20 / 5 scale) of all planting, structural framing and watering systems (including a specification and maintenance plan) of the proposed planted living wall/ vertical garden to be used; vii. proposals for planting, seeding and turfing; viii. the designs of the wheelchair units; ix. the window glazing of any non-residential ground floor unit to any public space x. of waste receptacles and refuse storage arrangements for use by the occupiers;
page 7 Samples of all external materials and a full scale mockup of the window bays and external cladding for the tower; Submission and approval of details of glazing and noise insulation to demonstrate internal noise levels from environmental (transport) noise sources do not exceed set levels; Submission and approval of a report to demonstrate internal noise levels from entertainment (music) noise sources do not exceed agreed levels within bedrooms with windows and doors closed; Submission and approval of report to demonstrate sound insulation to flats with party element to commercial units is sufficient to limit noise from commercial premises to an agreed level; Design of flats to ensure agreed maximum vibration levels from road, rail or industry are not exceeded; Submission of acoustic report to demonstrate levels of rated noise from plant do not exceed set levels at sensitive receptors and on public realm; Provision and retention of mechanical ventilation system with background sound to contribute to masking of external noise break-in; An independently verified Code for Sustainable Homes interim certification that seeks to achieve a minimum Level 3 and final certification that it has been achieved; Details of security measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the development; Submission and approval of a façade cleaning and maintenance strategy; Submission and approval of a scheme detailing a method to control odour from the kitchen exhaust system; Submission and approval of a report detailing steps to minimise the development’s future occupiers’ exposure to air pollution; Submission and approval of an independently verified BREEAM report to achieve a minimum 'very good' rating including a certified Post Construction Review; Requirement to carry out the development in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment dated February 2009 Submission and approval of an Environmental Action Plan detailing proposed ecological mitigation measures, including proposals for bat and bird boxes; Restrictions on deliveries, unloading and loading of goods and waste materials; Submission and approval of details regarding a communal satellite system; and Removal of permitted development rights for external telecommunications equipment or structures.
Informatives Approval required for the numbering and naming of buildings/new streets created by the development; Contact for highways works; Notice of intended demolition to be submitted to Building Control; Procedure for discharging conditions; Restrictions on uses allowed in Use Class B1; Demolition and construction provisions; Role of Archaeology Officer; Contaminated soil provisions; Engagement with London Underground and London Buses will be necessary. Engagement with Thames Water will be necessary; SUDS information; and Engagement with London City Airport will be necessary.
page 8
6 The detailed wording of the above conditions and informatives is set out in the draft decision notice appended to this report.
7 That the Mayor notes that approval of details pursuant to conditions imposed on the planning permission will be submitted to and determined by Southwark Council.
8 That the Mayor notes that Southwark Council will be responsible for the enforcement of the conditions attached to the respective permissions.
9 That the Mayor confirms that his reasons for granting planning permission are as set out in this report in the reasons for approval section, as required by Article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended). Site description
10 The application site (‘the site’) is situated at 80-94 Newington Causeway and covers 0.64 hectares of land bounded by Newington Causeway (A3), Gaunt Street and Southwark Bridge Road. The application boundary extends beyond these boundaries to include those areas of the surrounding streets, including part of Keyworth Street where public realm improvements are proposed. The site is located in the north of the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area, as designated within the London Plan and the Southwark Core Strategy.
11 The site is currently occupied by Eileen House. This is a part seven, part eight storey concrete frame and panel office building which was completed in 1964. The building rises from a ground level podium and also includes a basement below containing parking for twenty cars. The building is now vacant having been most recently occupied in summer 2012 as office accommodation by London Southbank University. It has previously accommodated a bank at ground level. The building is not considered to be of any particular architectural or historical value. The site also encompasses a number of mature London Plane trees around its perimeter, principally along the Southwark Bridge Road frontage.
12 The site is prominent in the locality, and its context and townscape character is mixed. It lies on the main approach to the London South Bank University (LSBU) campus, at a confluence of local routes and on the outside of a gentle curve in Newington Causeway as it approaches the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout.
13 The immediate context is one of medium to high-rise development, typically in office buildings dating from the 1960s onwards. To the east of the Site, on the opposite side of Newington Causeway, is the Territorial Headquarters of the Salvation Army which occupies a bronze mirror glass and brown brick building of circa ten storeys. To the north of this building a recently consented proposal at 89- 93 Newington Causeway is currently under construction. When complete this will rise to twenty-two storeys and contain a cafe on the ground and mezzanine floors, office floorspace from ground to second floor level and 38 residential units on the nineteen floors above. To the north of this is the railway viaduct, beyond which the built scale typically drops to buildings of three and four storeys. These include the primarily residential Stephenson House and Telford House beyond Tiverton Street.
14 To the southeast of the Site, on the opposite side of Newington Causeway, is Metro Central Heights and the recently completed Metro Central Vantage. These are in residential use and range from seven to eighteen storeys at the uppermost point which is nearest the site.
15 To the south of the Site is the LSBU Perry Library which is housed in a four storey brick building. To the west of this, at the end of Keyworth Street, is a four storey hostel. Beyond these buildings to the south is Skipton House, a seven storey office building currently occupied by the
page 9 Department of Health. To the west of the Site, on the opposite side of Southwark Bridge Road, is the Faraday building. This is a five storey concrete framed building which houses LSBU teaching accommodation. The LSBU campus extends behind this and north along Southwark Bridge Road.
16 To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Gaunt Street is Newington House, a seven storey brick and concrete commercial building occupied by UK Power Networks. To the east of this is the entrance and courtyard of the Ministry of Sound (MoS) nightclub and offices. The MoS facilities extend back towards the railway viaduct in a series of low rise buildings which were used as a bus depot prior to the nightclub opening in 1991. To the east of this is Lancaster House, a seven storey concrete frame office building running parallel to Gaunt Street.
17 The site is not located in a Conservation Area. It is close to the Trinity Church Conservation Area to the northeast and to the St George’s Circus Conservation Area to the west, whilst West Square, Renfrew Road and Walcot Conservation Areas are situated to the southwest of the site, the latter two in LB Lambeth. The site is in the background of a number of Strategic Views from Central London, in particular in the background of the Townscape View of the Palace of Westminster from the Serpentine Bridge.
18 The site does not contain any listed buildings or structures. Nearby listed buildings (all Grade II) include the neighbouring Metro Central Heights (see below), the Inner London Crown Court 250m to the northeast, numbers 47, 49-60 and 62 Borough Road, approximately 270m north of the application site, the Faraday Memorial (Elephant and Castle northern roundabout) 128m to the south and the Metropolitan Tabernacle, some 260m south. Equidistant at around 280m are also the listed building groups around West Square and St George’s Circus/ London Road. There is a Grade II* listed obelisk at the centre of St George’s Circus.
19 In terms of highways Gaunt Street and Southwark Bridge Road operate as a one way system (clockwise) for traffic around the Site. Both these roads serve as a sub-regionally important bus turning point and bus standing area. Cycle Superhighway 7 runs through the site along Keyworth Street and Southwark Bridge Road, passing along the western frontage of Eileen House, and a local signed cycle route runs along the portion of Southwark Bridge Road which bounds the site to the south. The nearest part of the Transport for London Route Network (TLRN) is the part of Newington Causeway (A3) south of the the site which runs to the northern Elephant and Castle roundabout. The site lies within the Congestion Charging Zone.
20 The site is highly accessible, with a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 6b. PTAL is measured on a scale of 1 to 6 of which 6 is the highest. The site is within 180m walking distance of the Elephant and Castle stations providing access to the London Underground (LU) Bakerloo and Northern lines, as well as access to National Rail services. Borough station (LU Northern Line) is 620m north of the site. A number of bus routes have stops located just north and south of the site on Newington Causeway with many other routes serving the local vicinity
Details of the proposal
21 Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing Eileen House building for the redevelopment of the Site for a mixed use scheme. The proposal will include two buildings, one predominantly residential and the second for offices, both with a mixture of uses at the ground floor. The scheme is made up of the following elements:
i. A 41 storey (128.7m AOD) building incorporating 270 flats (16 x studio, 126 x 1-bed, 92 x 2- bed and 36 x 3-bed) and 65 intermediate flats (17 x 1-bed, 44 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed), over floors three to thirty-eight, with half the third floor dedicated to residential amenity space in the form of meeting rooms, balcony space and a gym room. The ground floor contains double height residential and commercial entrances plus retail (Use Class A1-A5). A mezzanine
page 10 contains plant areas and management facilities. Floors one and two contain office floorspace (Use Class B1). The main retail frontage and commercial entrance face Newington Causeway with the residential lobby on the opposite side, facing onto a residents garden. The building is a tower with a parallelogram plan, with diagonal slices chamfered off the top to reveal two inclined triangular faces which descend from the top of the tower to the thirty-first floor;
ii. An 8 storey (35.60m AOD) triangular building incorporating office floorspace (Use Class B1) and plant space over upper floors and retail (Use Class A1-A5) at ground floor level. This building has a main frontage towards Southwark Bridge Road and a proposed linear park spanning that frontage;
iii. Across both buildings the office floorspace totals 4,785 sq.m. gross external area (GEA) (or 4,488 sq.m. gross internal area (GIA)) and the retail floorspace totals 287 sq.m. (GEA) (Use Class A1-A5);
iv. A basement of 4,626 sq.m. (GEA) split over two levels to include 34 blue badge car parking spaces, 44 motorcycle spaces and 411 cycle spaces, plus associated servicing facilities;
v. Public realm improvements including the creation of a residents garden (458 sq.m.) between the two proposed buildings, a linear park along Southwark Bridge Road adjacent to the office building and creation of a University Square (2,768 sq.m.) to the west where Keyworth Street meets Southwark Bridge Road at the entrance to the LSBU campus.
vi. The public realm improvement works will be implemented over two phases. Phase I will deliver the majority of the works outlined above, but will allow the southern section of Southwark Bridge Road to continue to operate as a through route and stand for some buses (the others on this section of Southwark Bridge Road would be relocated at this stage) , as cycle routes and as a vehicular access to Keyworth Street. Phase II will close the southern portion of Southwark Bridge Road to through traffic, allowing for the removal of all bus movements and stands and creation of a fully pedestrian oriented University Square Area except for access by service vehicles and cycles. The traffic direction on Gaunt Street would be reversed at this point to run north from Newington Causeway to Southwark Bridge Road. Implementation of Phase II relies on the relocation of bus stands and re-routing of buses, which is subject to TfL securing a suitable alternative location(s) to stand and turn buses.
22 Since the application was validated by Southwark Council on 23 February 2009 a number of key amendments have been made: plans and documents have been accordingly revised and submitted to reflect the following:
Reduction in height of the tower from 44 storeys (137.5m AOD) to 41 storeys (128.7m AOD) to address concerns raised by the Mayor of London regarding the impact of the proposed tower on Designated View 23, a townscape view from the Serpentine Bridge in Hyde Park to the Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site;
Reduction in unit numbers from 284 private flats and (18 x studio, 140 x 1-bed, 90 x 2-bed and 36 x 3-bed), and 85 intermediate flats (25x 1-bed, 52 x 2-bed and 8 x 3-bed) to 270 private flats (16 x studio, 126 x 1-bed, 92 x 2-bed and 36 x 3-bed), and 65 intermediate flats (17 x 1-bed, 44 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed;
Internal alterations to the layout of some units to reflect the Mayor’s Housing SPG;
Commercial floorspace in both buildings amended from 4,764 sq.m. office/educational/health uses (Use Class B1/D1) and 307 sq.m. retail use (Use Class A1-A5) to 4,785 sq.m. of office use
page 11 (Use Class B1) and 287 sq.m. retail use (Use Class A1-A5), with removal of the optional D1 health/educational use;
Cycle parking reduced from 429 to 411 cycle spaces to reflect the reduction in residential units.
Window and balcony design amended to incorporate full height fixed glazing to all balconies to create enclosed wintergardens (sealed to the north and with openable panels in the south), as well as the specification of sealed high acoustic performance windows for residential units on the west elevation and part of the east elevation.
23 The application for planning permission is supported by the documents listed for approval above. These include an ES submitted for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (1999 Regulations). As a result it is Environmental Impact Assesment (EIA) development for the purposes of those Regulations: see Regulations 4(1) and (2) of the 1999 Regulations. The EIA regulations 1999 have been replaced by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 however the 1999 Regulations continue to apply to applications received prior to 24 August 2011.
24 Since the submission of the application and original ES (February 2009) the following updates and addenda have been submitted and consulted on to clarify and extend the ES: Environmental Statement Addendum 1 (submitted July 2009); Environmental Statement Addendum 2 (submitted May 2011); Environmental Statement Update (submitted January 2013); Environmental Statement Addendum 3 (submitted April 2013); Environmental Statement Addendum 4 (Submitted July 2013); and Environmental Statement Addendum 5 (submitted 17 July 2013). All references to the ES throughout this report refer to the full ES, which includes all addenda and updates submitted since 2009. Relevant case history
Previous proposals
25 On 2 June 2005 Southwark Council (the Council) refused an application (ref. 05/AP/0295) for the erection of a part 11, part 18 (66.8m high) and part 24 (87.57m high) storey building to provide retail, restaurant and leisure uses on the ground and part first floors and 329 flats on the upper floors, with a basement floor to provide 20 car parking spaces, 319 bicycle spaces and refuse storage with vehicular access from Gaunt Street for the following reasons:
i. The proposed building by reason of its height and scale responds poorly to its immediate context and would result in an overly dominant development in both local and longer range views of the area.
ii. The architectural quality of the proposed building is not considered acceptable given the scale and prominence of the site and the proposed scheme. The scheme fails to relate well to the local context particularly in relation to its detailed design which emphasises the bulky nature of the building (south tower) and accentuates its unsympathetic relationship with the street scene and surrounding area.
iii. The proposed development would provide less than 10% of flats with 3 or more bedrooms and overall fails to provide a majority of two bedroom flats or more and therefore would not provide an appropriate mix of dwellings to adequately address housing needs within the borough.
page 12 iv. The proposed development by reason of the service arrangements, lack of disabled off street car parking, the proposed new pedestrianised area, changes to existing bicycle routes and the proposal to signalise Newington Causeway would give rise to unacceptable vehicular movement around the site, prohibit proper access and servicing to the adjacent Southbank University and the application site, would generally impact on the existing road network up to the Elephant and Castle Northern Roundabout, which in turn would be detrimental to the safety of both vehicles and pedestrian movement in the area.
26 This application was referred to the Mayor at that time under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 but he did not comment as Southwark Council refused planning permission prior to his consideration of the application.
27 On 17 March 2008, Southwark Council received a request for a ‘Scoping Opinion’ (ref. 08/AP/0687) for the redevelopment of the site in order to provide a building of approximately 147 metres in height incorporating residential, educational and retail uses together with a separate building of approximately 35 metres in height incorporating office/educational and retail uses. Southwark Council issued a formal Scoping Opinion on 9 May 2008, which confirmed the scope of the EIA.
Current proposal
28 On 23 February 2009 Southwark Council validated the application in question (ref. 09/AP/0343). On 10 March 2009, the Mayor of London received documents from Southwark Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order:
1A “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”.
1B “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings…in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres”.
1C ”Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions…the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.
29 On 16 April 2009, the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1100a/01, and subsequently advised Southwark Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 104 of the above-mentioned report, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 106 of that report could address these deficiencies:
Housing: the affordable housing offer falls significantly short of policy targets and the financial appraisal to support the approach requires further testing. The GLA wish to commission the review of various parts of the submission to ensure that the proposed approach represents the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in accordance with London Plan Policy 3A.10.
Climate change mitigation: further work is required on all aspects of the energy strategy as set out in the main body of the report in order to meet with London Plan policy 4A.1.
page 13 Climate change adaptation: the applicant should commit to the provision of electric car changing points in line with the London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG and London Plan Policy 4A.3. Further work is also required regarding drainage and flooding to ensure consistency with London Plan policy 4A.12, 4A.13 and 4A.14.
Transport: In order to ensure consistency with London Plan policies 3C.2, 3C.17, 3C.22 and 3C.25 the applicant must provide further details/information on trip generation cumulative impacts and capacity analysis, cycle parking and integration of the site with the Mayor’s Cycle Highway plans, construction management and travel plans and appropriate mitigation. In respect of London Plan Policies 3C.1, 3C.4, 3C.20 appropriate planning conditions must be agreed with TfL and the Council.
30 In addition to these comments the Mayor raised concern in his covering letter of the same date about the impact on the strategic view from Serpentine Bridge. The Mayor requested that the proposed tower should sit below the tree line. The Mayor also requested this view be provided in winter.
31 On 11 October 2011, Southwark Council resolved to refuse planning permission for the application. This was against the advice of its officers, whose report to the Planning Committee recommended approval. The following reasons for refusal were subsequently drafted and included in the Council’s draft decision notice:
i. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of business space contrary to strategic Policy 10 – Jobs and Businesses of the Southwark Core Strategy, saved policy 1.4 of the Southwark Plan.
ii. The proposal fails to provide sufficient affordable housing and in particular any social rented housing to meet the local housing needs of the borough contrary to saved policy 4.4 of the Southwark plan and strategic policy 6 of the Southwark Core Strategy, and Policies 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan.
iii. The proposal would fail to provide a satisfactory standard of amenity in terms of noise owing to the provision of openable windows which is likely to result in noise disturbance from the adjacent nightclub and potentially impact negatively on the operation of that business. The provision of sealed windows would be required to avoid this impact which itself would be contrary to the Council's Sustainable Design and Construction SPD and Residential Design Standards SPD. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy 4.2 Quality of Residential accommodation of the Southwark Plan.
iv. The proposed development is not of sufficiently high quality design given the scale and prominence of the development and fails to provide a sufficiently high standard of living accommodation to justify the very high density and the height of the building This results in a building which fails to meet internal space standards and provides insufficient family sized (i.e. two beds or larger) accommodation. As such the proposal fails to comply with saved policies 3.20, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 of the Southwark Plan and the design standards as set out in policy 3.5 of the London Plan.
32 On 18 November 2011 Southwark Council advised the Mayor of London that it was minded to refuse planning permission for this application. On 1 December 2011, the Mayor considered GLA planning report reference PDU/11008a/02. The Mayor concluded, having had regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee report and the Council’s draft decision notice, that the development would have a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan and that there were sound planning reasons for him to intervene in this particular case.
page 14 33 The Mayor therefore issued a direction to Southwark Council that he would act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining this planning application (under article 7 of the Order and the powers conferred on him by Section 2A of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act).
34 This report and the Mayor of London’s decision on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.
Demolition proposal
35 The Applicant has advised that it may choose to demolish Eileen House in advance of the determination of the application in question (ref. 09/AP/0343), which includes demolition works. The applicant did not consider that the demolition works required an EIA but submitted a screening request (ref. 12/AP/1397) to Southwark Council for the demolition of Eileen House. The Council responded with a negative screening opinion. MoS subsequently sought a screening direction from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has since issued his view (ref.NPCU/EIAScrn/A5840/71400) that an EIA for the demolition works is not required. It is understood that MoS has applied for a Judicial Review to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision. Unless and until any such challenge is successful the applicant is not required to submit an Environmental Statement for the demolition of Eileen House. This challenge does not affect the Mayor’s determination of the application before him, which has been the subject of an EIA.
36 The Applicant has submitted prior notification to Southwark Council (ref. 13/PA/0018) of its intent to demolish Eileen House. The Council responded on 5 June 2013 and sought submission of further information prior to demolition. The Applicant is understood to be responding but has not yet furnished the Council with any further information.
Relevant legislation, policies and guidance
37 In determining this application, the Mayor must give consideration to planning policy at the national, regional and local levels. The relevant material planning considerations relate to: land use principle (mixed use development, public realm, Use Class B floorspace); housing (tenure, mix, density, quality); design (including urban design, public realm, play space, views, heritage); inclusive design; sustainable development; environmental issues; transport; and, mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations. The relevant planning policies and guidance at the national, regional and local levels are as follows:
National planning policy and guidance
38 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the Government’s overarching planning policy, key to which, is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF defines three dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy; a social role supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and, an environmental role contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. For decision-taking this presumption in favour of sustainable development means:
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
page 15 39 The relevant components of the NPPF are:
1. Building a strong, competitive economy; 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres; 4. Promoting sustainable transport; 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; 7. Requiring good design; 8. Promoting healthy communities; 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; and 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. 40 The Government and the Inspectorate accepted the Mayor’s view that the London Plan is the London expression of the NPPF. This is now reflected in the London Plan through the Revised Early Minor Alterations, published 11 October 2013.
41 Also relevant material considerations are the following:
Draft National Planning Practice Guidance (beta version) Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE, March 2010)
Regional planning policy and guidance
42 The London Plan (2011) is the Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. The relevant policies within the London Plan are:
Policy 2.1 - London in its global, European and United Kingdom context. Policy 2.10 - Central Activities Zone – strategic priorities; Policy 2.11 - Central Activities Zone – strategic functions; Policy 2.12 - Central Activities Zone – predominantly local activities; Policy 2.13 - Opportunity areas and intensification areas; 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 and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities ; Policy 3.7 - Large residential developments; Policy 3.8 - Housing choice; Policy 3.10 - Mixed and balanced communities; Policy 3.11 - Definition of affordable housing; Policy 3.12 - Affordable housing targets; Policy 3.13 - Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes; Policy 3.14 - Affordable housing thresholds; Policy 4.1 - Developing London’s economy;; Policy 4.2 - Offices; Policy 4.3 - Mixed use development and offices; Policy 4.7 - Retail and town centre development; Policy 4.11 - Encouraging a connected economy; Policy 4.12 - Improving opportunities for all; Policy 5.1 - Climate change mitigation;
page 16 Policy 5.2 - Minimising carbon dioxide emissions; Policy 5.3 - Sustainable design and construction; Policy 5.5 - Decentralised energy networks; Policy 5.6 - Decentralised energy in development proposals; Policy 5.7 - Renewable energy; 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 5.21 - Contaminated land; Policy 6.1 - Strategic approach; Policy 6.2 - Providing Public Transport Capacity and Safeguarding Land for Transport; Policy 6.3 - Assessing the effects of development on transport capacity; Policy 6.5 - Funding Crossrail 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 6.14 - Freight; Policy 7.1 - Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities; 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 7.9 - Heritage-led regeneration; 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 noise and enhancing soundscapes; Policy 8.2 - Planning obligations; and, Policy 8.3 - Community Infrastructure Levy. 43 Also relevant material considerations are the following alterations, schedules, supplementary planning guidance (SPG), and best practice guidance (BPG):
London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations (published 11 October 2013) London Planning Statement - Draft (December 2012); Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule, (effective from 1 April 2012); Housing SPG (November 2012); London View Management Framework SPG (March 2012); London World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings SPG (March 2012); Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (May 2006); Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG (September 2012);
page 17 Planning for Equality and Diversity in London SPG (October 2007); Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment SPG (April 2004); Town centres SPG (January 2013); Land for Industry and Transport SPG (September 2012); Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG (September 2007) ; Managing the Night Time Economy BPG (March 2007); The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition BPG (November 2006); and Sounder City: The Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy (March 2004).
Local planning policy and guidance
44 The Southwark Core Strategy was adopted on 6 April 2011 and its strategic policies, together with the 'saved' policies of the Southwark Plan (2007) are now Development Plan policies. The relevant policies of the Southwark Core Strategy are:
Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area Vision Central Activity Zone Vision Strategic Targets Policy 2 Improving Places Strategic Policy 1 Sustainable Development. Strategic Policy 2 Sustainable Transport. Strategic Policy 5 Providing new homes. Strategic Policy 6 Homes for people on different incomes. Strategic Policy 7 Family homes. Strategic Policy 10 Jobs and Businesses. Strategic Policy 12 Design and Conservation. Strategic Policy 13 High Environmental Standards. Strategic Policy 14 Implementation and delivery.
45 The Southwark Plan (Unitary Development Plan (UDP)) was published in July 2007 and is progressively being replaced by the Southwark LDF. The following policies and designations have been ‘saved’ and are, therefore, still in effect as part of the Development Plan. 46 The relevant Southwark Plan (UDP) saved polices are:
Policy 1.1: Access to Employment Opportunities. Policy 1.4: Employment Sites. Policy 1.7: Development within Town and Local Centres. Policy 1.8: Location of Developments for Retail and other Town Centre Uses. Policy 2.2 Provision of new Community Facilities. Policy 2.5: Planning Obligations. Policy 3.1: Environmental Effects. Policy 3.2: Protection of Amenity. Policy 3.3: Sustainability Assessment. Policy 3.4: Energy Efficiency. Policy 3.5: Renewable Energy. Policy 3.6: Air Quality. Policy 3.7: Waste Reduction. Policy 3.9: Water. Policy 3.11: Efficient use of Land.
page 18 Policy 3.12: Quality in Design. Policy 3.13: Urban Design. Policy 3.14: Designing out Crime. Policy 3.15: Conservation of the Historic Environment. Policy 3.18: Setting of listed buildings, conservation areas and world heritage sites. Policy 3.19: Archaeology. Policy 3.28: Biodiversity. Policy 3.31: Flood Defences. Policy 4.1: Density of Residential Development. Policy 4.2: Quality of Residential Development. Policy 4.3: Mix of Dwellings. Policy 4.4: Affordable Housing. Policy 4.5: Wheelchair Affordable Housing. Policy 5.1: Locating Developments. Policy 5.2: Transport Impacts. Policy 5.3: Walking and Cycling. Policy 5.4: Public transport improvements. Policy 5.6: Car Parking. Policy 5.7: Parking Standards for Disabled People and the mobility impaired. Policy 6.1: Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area. Policy SP9: Meeting Community Needs. Policy SP14: Sustainable Buildings. Policy SP15: Open Space and Biodiversity.
47 The relevant saved UDP designations covering the site are:
Central Activities Zone (CAZ). Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area. Major Town Centre. Air Quality Management Zone. Archaeological Priority Zone. Transport Development Area.
48 The following local supplementary planning guidance documents are also relevant material considerations:
The Elephant and Castle Supplementary Planning Document and Opportunity Area Planning Framework (March 2012) which covers the Opportunity Area. This was published by Southwark Council as SPD to its core strategy and endorsed by the Mayor as the OAPF for the area on 28 May 2012. Sustainable Transport SPD (March 2010) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (February 2009) Sustainability Assessment SPD (February 2009) Residential Design Standards SPD (October 2011) Affordable Housing SPD (September 2008) Draft Affordable Housing SPD (September 2011) Section 106 Planning Obligations SPD (July 2007)
page 19 Response to consultation
49 As part of the planning process Southwark Council has carried out consultation in respect of the application, consulting all statutory bodies, and the local public. This included consultation on the original application and four subsequent re-consultations arising from revisions to the proposal and/or supporting documents.
50 The GLA has conducted four further re-consultations since the Mayor resolved to take over the application for his own consideration. The reasons for re-consultation were as follows:
GLA re-consultation 1(January 2013): update to the planning statement and ES to consider changes to policy and legislation since original submission (2009); change in housing mix (reduction of shared ownership units to 15 to reflect revised viability assessment in light of CIL contribution and Elephant & Castle Strategic Transport Contribution); revision to the Design and Access statement to illustrate change in residential layouts as a result of the change in tenure and to meet the requirements of the Mayor’s Housing SPG; GLA re-consultation 2: (May 2013) revisions to façade design to incorporate sealed wintergardens and windows; revision to landscape design to incorporate a gate at the southern end of the residents garden; ES Addendum 3 – supplement to Wind Assessment to address concerns raised by MoS, and revised Townscape Assessment to reflect façade design change, changes to baseline conditions of views, inclusion of two new views to Trinity Church Square, and response to representations raised in previous consultation. GLA re-consultation 3: (July 2013) ES Addendum 4 – Metro Central Heights Noise Survey & Assessment to review noise impacts on Metro Central Heights during demolition phase GLA re-consultation 4: (August 2013) ES Addendum 5 – update to the ES Townscape Assessment to consider impact on Metro Central Heights as a listed building
51 The means of consultation are set out below:
Site notice dates: six notices erected on 10 March 2009, 16 July 2009 (re-consultation), 15 January 2013 (GLA re-consultation 1), 2 May 2013 (GLA re-consultation 2), 4 July 2013 (GLA re-consultation 3) and 1 August 2013 (GLA re-consultation 4).
Press notice dates: 12 March 2009, 16 July 2009, February 2010, June 2011, 11 August 2011, 17 January 2013 (GLA re-consultation), 2 May 2013 (GLA re-consultation 2), 4 July 2013 (GLA re-consultation 3) and 1 August 2013 (GLA re-consultation 4).
Neighbour consultation letters: over 5000 letters sent from 7 -18 March 2009 with re- consultation letters sent on 16 July 2009, 16 February 2010, 6 June 2011 and 16 August 2011 (LB Southwark consultations); and 17 January 2013, 2 May 2013, 3 July 2013 and 30 July 2013 (GLA re-consultations). The consultation area extended south to Walworth Road, Hampton Street and Churchyard Row, east to Falmouth Road, north to Trinity Street, Great Suffolk Street, Webber Street, and west to Brook Drive, the Imperial War Museum and Blackfriars Road. All properties within this area were consulted on the application and a full list of addresses can be provided.
Statutory and Non-statutory Consultees: Government Office for London (GoL) (now DCLG); Greater London Authority (GLA); Transport for London (TfL); Southwark Design Review Panel; Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (now Design Council CABE); Design for London (now part of the GLA); London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA); Environment Agency (EA); Thames Water; London Underground; BBC; BAA (now Heathrow Airport Holdings); London City Airport; Metropolitan Police; Lambeth Council; City
page 20 of Westminster; Corporation of London, Natural England, English Heritage; Royal Parks, Southwark Cyclists.
A Statement of Community Involvement was submitted, which set out the pre-application consultations that were carried out in relation to the application. The consultation was undertaken by a specialist communications agency, and included newsletters (sent January 2008 and October 2008), exhibitions (held January 2008 and October 2008), meetings with some local Ward Members, and meetings with neighbouring occupiers at MoS, Skipton House (Housing the Department of Health) and LSBU. In additional, the scheme was presented to the Southwark Design Review Panel prior to submission (details below). A presentation to Council Members was held at the Town Hall on 11 March 2009.
52 The Council and Mayor have also received representations outside of these consultation periods. All consultations responses, and other representations, are summarised below. All responses and representations received to date, both by Southwark Council, and the Mayor of London, have been made available to the Mayor.
Statutory consultees and local organisations
Government Office for London (GOL) (now DCLG):
53 No response received.
Greater London Authority (including Transport for London)
54 The Mayor’s consultation stage comments (GLA report ref: PDU/1100a/01) and the Mayor’s stage II decision (GLA report ref: PDU/1100a/02) are set out in those reports and summarised in the ‘Relevant case history ’section above.
Southwark Design Review Panel
55 Pre-application (March 2008): The Panel welcomes the opportunity to comment on such a significant Elephant and Castle proposal. At 47 storeys, the scheme poses a series of interesting and challenging urban design questions for London’s skyline and the Elephant and Castle masterplan. In many urban regeneration areas of such importance it is common that planning policies are in place to give guidance on the appropriate heights for tall buildings. As no such policies are currently in place, the panel feel that the proposal should be assessed on its own merits of architectural quality and site specific design issues. In broad terms, the architecture is thorough and well considered providing a design coherence that is evidenced by a unity of concept, proportion and approach to detailed design. The result is a strong design language that will guide further design development. The bold grid strategy for the building’s primary elevations is supported by highly resolved detailed design; the result is a promising geometry that creates the potential for a high degree of interest as the building’s deep cuts respond to light and shade. The facade implications of the internal plan may require further consideration. As party walls divide glazed sections within individual grid units a more fragmented façade pattern is likely to emerge. The Panel is keen to see the scheme’s high architectural standard achieved in relation to other important design quality measures, most notably the internal accommodation...which will be needed to achieve an exemplary design standard that goes beyond building envelope. In this regard there appears to be a lack of generosity in relation to room sizes. The two building plan with the lower 8 storey building to the north west creating a central open space is welcomed. In spite of the many demands on ground level space for storage, servicing and circulation greater spatial generosity is a desirable and reasonable expectation for a building of such significant height. The responsibility of tall buildings to deliver dynamic and welcoming public realms at ground level is a strong design tradition and thus the scheme should be more ambitious in this regard. Many of the ideas for public realm treatments for Southwark Bridge Road are welcomed and if achieved
page 21 would go some distance in integrating the scheme within its local environment. The scheme’s strong design language will undoubtedly offer a strong basis for further design development.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment – CABE (now Design Council CABE)
56 Initial consultation: Broadly supportive of the scheme. Consider a cluster of tall buildings at E &C is appropriate, and principle of a tall building on the site is justified. Do not believe impact on views is harmful. Architecture is intelligent and high quality, and we support the well considered form, massing and facade treatment. We have reservations about the public realm treatment and management. Endorse the removal of bus stands and co-ordination of a wider landscape strategy with LSBU and creation of a campus gateway space, and the increased permeability. However, the public spaces feel uncomfortable. Central space works as a public route but not a resident’s garden. There is a lack of definition between the spaces. University Square should be a place to linger, do not support a circus type space. Prow by southern apex of lower block creates uncomfortable space to the south, which could be improved by undercutting at ground floor like the northern apex. No management strategy in place is a concern. Sceptical about green wall as will require weekly maintenance. Support the design of the buildings but need more work on landscaping and a management strategy.
57 Re-consultation: We do not wish to review the additional information, which does not appear to fall under any of the categories recommended by the Department for Communities and Local Government for consulting CABE.
58 Further re-consultation: No further comments to make.
Design for London (now part of GLA)
59 No response received however Design for London were involved at both pre-application and early in the application process in relation to the design of the public realm and TfL concerns.
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA)
60 Development should comply with requirements of Approved Document B. A full building consultation will take place when the application is received.
61 GLA re-consultation: The Brigade is satisfied with the proposals, subject to the requirements of the Building Regulations being met and Brigade access being maintained at all times.
Environment Agency
62 Initial consultation: Key issues for the Environment Agency at this site area flood risk including the management of surface water. A Sequential Test has been agreed for this development. No objection subject to conditions.
63 Re-consultation: Following the submission of all additional information the Environment Agency has no further comments to make.
64 GLA re-consultation: No objection subject to conditions. Conditions regarding site contamination, remediation, construction methods and groundwater protection added to draft decision notice.
Thames Water
65 Initial consultation: Condition regarding waste water infrastructure requested. Surface water drainage is the responsibility of the developer. Condition regarding water supply infrastructure requested. Informatives sought.
page 22 66 Re-consultation: response unchanged.
London Underground
67 Initial consultation: In principle no objection. A number of potential constraints exist due to proximity of tunnels and infrastructure, and it will need to be demonstrated that there will be no detrimental effect. When available, developer is to send details to engineers to assess impact.
68 Re-consultation: Comments unchanged. Seek conditions requiring developer to contact London Underground prior to commencement of works.
69 GLA re-consultation: Comments unchanged. Conditions and informatives added to draft decision notice.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
70 No response received.
British Airports Authority (BAA) (Now Heathrow Airport Holdings)
71 The development has been examined from an aerodrome safety perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. No objection.
72 GLA re-consultation: no response received.
London City Airport
73 No response received.
74 GLA re-consultation: no objection, however note requirement of applicant to consult with the airport in the event that cranage or construction equipment is required at a higher elevation than that of proposed development. Applicant should consider landscaping and waste management plans to ensure site is unattractive to birds to avoid risk of bird strike threat to aircraft.
Metropolitan Police
75 Initial consultation: No mention of Secured by Design but will have to make the application if social rented. Note: Phase II landscaping may need further consultation with Anti-terror Police unit.
76 Re-consultation: No issues.
77 GLA re-consultation: no response received.
Natural England
78 Initial consultation: No specific comment to make in relation to this application because we do not feel that the proposals are likely to significantly affect the natural environment. Although we do not have specific comments to make, we recommend that should you be minded to grant permission that you secure, as appropriate, measures to enhance the natural environment in accordance with the planning guidance in relation to Biodiversity (PPS9), Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG17) and Climate Change Adaptation.
79 Re-consultation: The application does not impact on any priority interest areas for Natural England, therefore do not object, in line with previous response.
page 23 80 GLA re-consultation: no response received.
English Heritage
81 Pre-application response to a 46 storey tower (January 2008): Site is not within a designated Conservation Area, and there are no listed buildings on the site or immediately adjacent to it. Visual impact will be felt over quite a wide area. Recognise the redevelopment is part of a wider masterplan- led regeneration of the E & C. The scheme would have a modest impact on the strategic view from the Serpentine Bridge in Hyde Park, and EH considers the impact would be slight. Of greater concern is the impact on the setting of the fly towers of the Grade II listed Royal National Theatre when viewed from Waterloo Bridge, which would compromise this setting and cause modest harm to this view. Similar concern is the impact on the view from Walcot Square, where the impact of the tower would be a modestly harmful intrusion upon the view. Of greatest concern is the impact on the view looking south across St George’s Circus, where the proposal rises dominantly over the roofline of the group causing significant harm to the setting. Application should be refused unless the harm is outweighed by other planning considerations. If planning permission is granted, we urge that the s.106 agreement secures significant funding towards bringing the listed London Road/ Borough Road terrace buildings back into beneficial use.
82 Initial consultation (44 storey building in March 2009): The submitted application is generally the same. It remains EH view that the proposal would cause harm to the historic environment of this part of London. Advice remains that the application should be refused unless the harm is outweighed by other planning considerations. If planning permission is granted, we urge that the s.106 agreement secures significant funding towards bringing the listed London Road/Borough Road terrace buildings back into beneficial use.
83 Re-consultation (41 storey building in August 2009): Latest proposal represents a modest reduction in height. It remains EH view that the proposal will still harm to the historic environment of this part of London. Advice remains that , despite the harm, should permission be granted, the s.106 agreement should secure significant funding towards bringing the listed London Road/Borough Road terrace buildings back into beneficial use.
84 Further re-consultation (July 2011): Remains as previously submitted i.e. consider proposal will harm the historic environment but that if planning permission is granted a s.106 contribution towards bringing the listed London Road/Borough Road terrace buildings back into beneficial use should be secured.
85 GLA re-consultation: Remains as previously submitted i.e. consider proposal will cause some harm to the historic environment, including Trinity Church and Trinity Church Square; not convinced that potential harm is necessary to achieve public benefits of the scheme.
Royal Parks
86 Re-consultation: Note and welcome reduction in height by 3 storeys. Still has reservations with regards to negative impact on the sky space around the Royal Parks of Hyde and St James’s during autumn and winter when tree canopies will not be in place, leader to a clearer, more intrusive view of Eileen House.
87 Further re-consultation: Still have reservations with regards to the negative impact on the skyspace around the Royal Parks of Hyde and St James's during Autumn and Winter.
88 GLA re-consultation: Still have reservations with regards to the negative impact on the skyspace around the Royal Parks of Hyde and St James's during Autumn and Winter.
page 24 Southwark Cyclists
89 Add a condition to ensure secure, covered bike parking spaces are provided for 130% of residents and 30% of employees, with 100 visitor spaces provided within 20m of the site. S106 to provide £500,000 for local walking/cycling.
Adjoining local authorities
Lambeth Council
90 Initial consultation: No objection to the potential effects of the application.
91 Re-consultation: Objection, given the height and location, the development would likely harm the setting of the Walcot Conservation Area and would harm views into it.
92 GLA re-consultation: no comments received.
City of Westminster
93 Initial consultation (44 storeys): Objection. The extent of the building mass appearing above the tree canopy from Serpentine Bridge in Hyde Park would be intrusive and compromise unacceptably the view. Need comparative images when trees are not in leaf and at night, to understand full visual impact of the development.
94 Re-consultation (41 storeys): Welcome reduction in height but submitted images fail to show the view will not be compromised and further images are required.
95 GLA re-consultation: Maintains objections set out in initial consultation.
City of London
96 Initial consultation: Proposal will not have a detrimental impact on City of London.
Neighbour consultation responses to Southwark Council
97 In response to the Council’s consultation process, the Council received 57 objection letters from local residents, businesses, employees and organisations. MoS presented the Council with a petition of objection, which had approximately 26,000 signatures at the time the Council considered the scheme. The Council also received two letters seeking further information and one setting out concern but no objection.
98 The Council received 15 letters of support for the application.
99 The responses are summarised below, and all of the material considerations raised by the community representations are set out in paragraphs 100-108 below.
Representations made to the Mayor of London
100 At the time of writing this report the Mayor has received 41 objections from local residents, local groups, employees and business owners, of which 8 are repeated representations. The Mayor also received one petition of 18 names from the Southwark Chamber of Commerce, and one of 269 names from MoS objecting to the proposals. MoS’s online petition has increased by 19,550 signatures (to a total of over 45,000) since the Mayor notified the Council that he was to be the Local Planning Authority.
page 25 101 The Mayor has received 14 representations of support from local residents, local groups, employees, and business owners, of which two are re-submissions, and one petition of 13 names.
102 The principal objections from neighbours and key local parties are summarised below, and all of the material considerations raised by the community representations are set out in paragraphs 100- 108 below.
Overview of all local community representations
103 Table [1] below provides an overview of the number and nature of the local representations on the case received by Southwark Council and the Mayor of London.
Objection Support Petition Petition Individual Reiteration signatories Individual Reiteration signatories LB Southwark Consultation 58 n/a 26,000 15 n/a -
Mayoral Consultation 1 26 - 287 6 0 13
Mayoral Consultation 2 13 7 - 5 2 -
Mayoral Consultation 3 1 1 - 1 0
Mayoral Consultation 4 - - 20,651 2 1
Totals LB Southwark Consultations 58 n/a 26,000 15 n/a -
Mayoral Consultations 40 8 20,938 14 3 13
All representations 98 8 46,938 29 3 13 Individual Reiteration Petition Individual Reiteration Petition signatories signatories Objection Support Table 1: Overview table of community representations. (Figures accurate at time of report publication).
104 The issues raised within the representations are grouped by theme and summarised below.
Representations of objection
105 The objections raised by neighbours give grounds including:
Land use principle
potential as a terrorist target; failure to comply with planning policy or any integrated plan for the area; threatens the on-going operation of the MoS nightclub; threatens unique quality of Elephant and Castle; potential loss of nightclub threatens other local businesses; loss of employment floorspace; impact on the night-time economy; current building should be converted to residential use; too much employment floorspace; and
page 26 lack of consideration of cumulative impact of local developments.
Housing
inadequate quantum of affordable housing; absence of social rented affordable housing; the flatted nature of proposed residential accommodation; density and overcrowding in the area; lack of family sized housing; contributes to an oversupply of housing in the area; insufficient children’s amenity space; and fails to meet minimum size standards.
Design, Views and Heritage
unattractive design and architecture; inappropriate building height; poor urban design; overdevelopment of the site; inflexible building design; and impact on views affecting heritage assets.
Transport
lack of parking; contribution to congestion; increased risk of pedestrian and cyclist accidents; and impact of relocated bus stands on residents near the relocated stands.
Sustainable development
impact on public services including schools and surgeries; socio-economic impacts especially on children, young people and old people; lack of amenity space, parks and insufficient trees in the vicinity; and failure to provide for local needs including community space and affordable business premises.
Environmental issues
proposal is not carbon neutral; microclimatic impact – wind; inadequate climate change mitigation measures; loss of sunlight, daylight and overshadowing to properties and surrounding spaces; loss of aspect; and noise and air quality impacts from increased traffic.
Mitigating impact through planning conditions
protracted disturbance during construction doubts over the applicant’s ability to deliver the proposal
page 27 Objections from Ministry of Sound
106 Ministry of Sound (MoS), which is acknowledged to be a global brand of notable cultural importance, is long established in the area. In addition to a nightclub on its site, its premises are also used as the head office for other elements of its business. The land surrounding the premises is at present predominantly in commercial use though local planning policy envisages a greater mix of land uses, including residential, will be introduced to this area as sites are redeveloped.
107 MoS has raised and maintained objections to the proposal, making multiple representations to both the Council and the Mayor. It has hosted an online petition on its website objecting to the proposal which has in excess of 45,000 signatories at the time this report was published. The Mayor has also received direct correspondence in support of MoS’s position.
108 The objections, though covering a broad range of planning policy matters including many of those summarised above, centre on the inclusion of residential accommodation in the proposal as a potentially sensitive receptor of noise emanating from its nightclub premises on Gaunt Street, opposite the application site. MoS is concerned that should its operations give rise to any noise disturbance of future residents then those residents would have legitimate grounds for complaint to the Council which could in turn curtail or revoke its entertainment license.
109 The applicant has responded to the objections from MoS relating to the risk of noise disturbing future residential occupiers by amending the design to incorporate acoustic glazing, sealed windows and wintergardens to the elevations identified as potentially most vulnerable to such noise, and openable windows and wintergarden doors, also fitted with acoustic glazing, on the remaining elevations. MoS welcomed the changes but contends that without detailed specifications of all elements, adequate assessment of the new measures would not be possible, and therefore has maintained their objection to the proposal.
110 MoS has also objected on the basis of potential wind impacts along Gaunt Street from the development, and has raised security concerns relating to the residents garden and the absence of an assessment on ‘Secure by Design’ measures. Concerns were also raised relating to specific views which include listed buildings that were not considered in the townscape assessment, and noted that the proposal’s impact on a recently listed neighbouring building, Metro Central Heights, had not been considered in the submitted materials.
111 The applicant has introduced gates and fencing to the southern part of the residents garden to address security concerns, has undertaken a further wind assessment to address the request for further testing, and has undertaken and submitted a further assessment of impact of the proposal on the recently listed building and additional views identified by MoS. MoS has maintained their objections, finding that the mitigation and further testing proposed for the wind, noise and security issues is not sufficient to satisfy the concerns they have raised, and that the impact of the development on heritage assets is greater than any benefits proposed.
112 In a further representation MoS has suggested that the GLA, the owner, the developer and MoS should enter into a section 106 agreement to deal with wind and noise mitigation measures and to provide for a Deed of Easement of noise to be granted to MoS to deal with what MoS claims will be adverse impacts arising from the proposal. Officers, however, do not consider that there is any need for such an agreement or for an easement to be granted because taking into account the mitigation measures which have been introduced into the design of the proposal and conditions proposed, the likely effects on the nightclub’s operation will not be such as to give rise to any adverse impacts. In any event, securing such an agreement and grant of rights will depend on obtaining the landowner’s agreement and as far as GLA officers are aware, this is not likely to be forthcoming. The proposal made by MoS has no further relevance in the determination of this application.
page 28 Representations of support
113 The letters of support raised by neighbours give grounds including:
Land use principle
positive effect of redevelopment and regeneration; new retail; use that is complementary to other residential buildings in the area; development will help the university ; and economic benefits including job creation.
Housing
provision of much-needed housing.
Design, Views and Heritage
the sustainability of the buildings; new public space; architecture; quality of design; suitability for a tall building; the poor quality and appearance of the current building and need to replace it; making the site more attractive; and demolition of existing building will improve the appearance and safety of the area.
114 The letters of support include one from LSBU, which notes the benefits of the improved public realm, especially in terms of enhancing this approach to the university and supporting public realm improvements in the Enterprise Quarter.
Representations summary
115 The issues raised by the consultation responses, and the various other representations received, are appropriately addressed within the material planning considerations section of this report, and, where appropriate, through the proposed planning conditions, planning obligations and informatives outlined in the recommendation section of this report.
Material planning considerations
116 Having regard to the facts of the case; relevant planning policy at the local, regional and national levels and the consultation responses and representations received, the principal planning issues raised by these applications that the Mayor must consider are:
Land use principle (mixed use development, public realm, Use Class B floorspace); Housing (tenure, mix, density, quality, play and amenity space); Design (including urban design, public realm, views, heritage); Inclusive design; Transport; Sustainable development; Environmental issues; and Mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations.
page 29
Land use principle
General policy
117 The NPPF identifies a set of core land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. Those of particular relevance to the site are that planning should:
proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs;
encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;
promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas;
actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.
118 The NPPF also recognises at paragraph 23 that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres.
119 The London Plan identifies that the site lies in the Central Activity Zone (CAZ) (policies 2.10 – 2.12), in Inner London (Policy 2.9), in an Area for Regeneration (Policy 2.15) and in Elephant and Castle town centre (Policy 2.15). The site also lies in the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area (Policy 2.13). Annex One of the London Plan sets out a minimum guideline for new housing of 4,000 homes and an indicative estimate of employment capacity of 5,000 jobs over the plan period 2011 – 2031. The strategic policy direction for the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area states that:
“The Area is undergoing major transformation with significant investment in housing and potential for new retail provision integrated with a more efficient and attractive transport interchange. There is scope to create a series of connected public open spaces complemented by environmental and traffic management improvements. Resolution of these and rail related issues are crucial to the successful redevelopment of this southern gateway to central London.”
120 The Southwark Core Strategy and Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF set out a vision for the Opportunity Area which reflects these figures and expounds the strategic policy direction above. Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 1 advocates more intense development for a mix of uses in growth areas such as that in question and making the most of a site’s potential. It also highlights the need to regenerate Elephant and Castle.
Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF
121 The Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF identifies the site as an Opportunity Site in the Enterprise Quarter Character Area. The strategy for the Enterprise Quarter is to:
Continue to support the economic and business function of the Enterprise Quarter, in particular, but not only, London South Bank University. Ensure that development opportunities provide opportunities for existing and future SME businesses.
page 30 Promote provision of active uses at ground floor, particularly on Newington Causeway and London Road. Promote the redevelopment or refurbishment of underused land and buildings, such as Newington Triangle and Eileen House through development which demonstrates high quality architecture and which helps create a more consistent townscape Promote a community campus in the heart of the Enterprise Quarter. Require active frontages at ground floor wherever possible. Transform the environment around Keyworth Street, Ontario Street and Thomas Doyle Street creating traffic free public spaces. Improve the public realm at key gateways into the university, including at the junctions of Borough Road/Southwark Bridge Road, Southwark Bridge Road/Newington Causeway and London Road/Ontario Street. Reinforce the character of main roads through tree planting and public realm improvements. Improve linkages into neighbouring areas and join up with existing programmes such as the Bankside Urban Forest. Create new links, including green routes, through the area which integrate with existing public spaces. Reinforce the heritage of the area, particularly around St George’s Circus. Enable a cluster of tall buildings on Newington Causeway. Heights should diminish moving northwards along Newington Causeway. Elsewhere ensure that building heights relate to the context of the area.
122 This strategy is reflected in the guidance at SPD 49: Land Uses:
Business space (B1) use should be retained unless replaced by an alternative town centre use. Provision of new town centre uses will be supported to increase activity in the area and complement the university use. Residential use will be supported; the distribution of land uses, orientation and design of buildings must be considered carefully to ensure that future residential occupiers have a high standard of residential amenity and to ensure that residential use does not harm the reasonable operation of surrounding businesses. Development should provide active ground floor uses along the main roads and around the key gateway spaces into the Enterprise Quarter.
123 The supporting text at paragraph 5.8.9 states that: “There is scope to introduce more residential use into the area. Mixed use developments which include residential use on sites such as Eileen House, the Newington Triangle and 89-93 Newington Causeway will help generate more activity on the street, help the area feel more outward looking and give it more of an urban character which integrates better into surrounding neighbourhoods.”
124 The following paragraph 5.8.10 states that: “The introduction of residential or other noise sensitive developments close to existing significant noise sources e.g. (road or rail and commercial premises) in the area will need to include design measures which will help reduce and mitigate the impacts of the noise. The measures and standards set out in policy SPD 5 will help enable residential use to coexist with other noise generating uses.”
page 31 125 The Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF guidance at SPD 51 (Built Environment) reflects the strategy for the Enterprise Quarter and identifies that public realm improvements should focus on, inter alia, enhancing the pedestrian environment at gateways into the LSBU campus including that at Southwark Bridge Road, where it meets Newington Causeway.
Mixed use development
126 The proposal accords with the land use policy guidance set out in the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF and would be consistent with the strategy and specific guidance for the Enterprise Quarter Character Area. It would realise the scope to introduce residential development above town centre uses and include active ground floor retail and office uses on the principal frontages to Newington Causeway and Southwark Bridge Road.
Public realm
127 The proposed University Square and associated linear park running along Southwark Bridge Road would, subject to detailed design which is addressed in the design section of this report, accord with the guidance at SPD 51 seeking enhancement of the pedestrian environment at the intersection of Southwark Bridge Road and Newington Causeway gateways. It would also accord with other guidance in the SPD, notably that at SPD 11 which seeks the pedestrianisation of Keyworth Street. It is accepted that completion of the full scheme is reliant upon TfL being able to relocate the bus standing that will remain within the public realm area after the completion of phase 1. Nevertheless it is considered that even without full completion of the public realm scheme, the proposal would deliver the objectives of the SPD.
Use Class B floorspace
128 London Plan Policy 4.2 sets out strategic policy on office provision. Core Strategy Strategic Policy 10 and Southwark Plan saved Policy 1.4 require that on sites within the Central Activities Zone there should be no net loss of Class B floorspace. The policy allows for the replacement of Class B uses with suitable town centre uses. Southwark Plan saved Policy 1.7 states that within town centres, developments will be permitted where they provide a range of uses, including retail, leisure, entertainment, community, civic, cultural and tourism, residential and employment. Therefore the inclusion of Class A and other town centre uses is considered to be acceptable, and in compliance with criterion iii) of saved Policy 1.4. In the context of a new build development, adequate evidence is therefore required to justify any loss of employment floorspace given the desire to maintain a broad range of uses in the Opportunity Area. This approach is reflected in the guidance for the Enterprise Quarter Character Area in Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF and set out above.
129 The site currently has 6,124 sq.m. of gross internal office floorspace (Use Class B1) and 152 sq.m. Use Class A floorspace, or 6,276 sq.m. employment floorspace. The applicant has advised that only 2,541 sq.m. or 41% of the total floorspace was used as offices, with the last tenant (LSBU) having left in June 2012 and the remainder of the building having been now vacant for more than 5 years. The application proposes 285 sq.m. of gross internal floorspace in a Class A1-A5 retail use (287 sq.m. GEA) and 4,488 sq.m. in a Class B1 use (4,785 sq.m. GEA). The proposed commercial and retail floorspace will total 4,773 sq.m. resulting in an overall loss of 1,351 sq.m. (or 22%) of the existing Class B floorspace, contrary to Policy 1.4 of the Southwark Plan. As originally submitted, the application included an option for the Class B floorspace to be used for a D1 education or healthcare use. However, Southwark Council officers were concerned that if the applicant filled all the proposed commercial space with a Use Class D1 use, the entire loss of B1 floorspace would occur. Therefore, following negotiation, it was agreed that the application would no longer include an option for a D1 use.
page 32 130 The Southwark Employment Land Study (2009) identifies additional demand for 625,742 sq.m. of B1 floorspace up to 2026. While the majority of this demand is in the SE1 area, the report recognises that Elephant and Castle can help to meet local demand for smaller and medium sized office premises. It is likely that the reason the existing building is not fully let is due to the space being inappropriate for modern office use. The applicant submitted a Southwark Office Market report, (DTZ, 2009) which also identified a rising demand for office space, which is held back by lack of modern, purpose built accommodation and current market deterioration. There have been no significant modern office developments in the area in the past 10 years. Further, the report states that due to competition from the City and pipeline office schemes in Southwark, there is limited demand for office uses in the Elephant and Castle area.
131 The intent of saved Policy 1.4 is to encourage a range of uses in the Central Activities Zone and to protect employment opportunities for local people. In support of the loss of floorspace within the proposed application, the applicant provided a direct comparison of employment provision between the existing and proposed buildings in what they consider to be a more appropriate means of assessing compliance with the intent of the policy.
132 The employment capacity of the existing building was considered using a number of different scenarios. By applying the Average Employment Density Figures from the Southwark section 106 SPD, the applicant demonstrated that the existing building could potentially provide employment for up to 368 people. Based on the age and condition of the existing building together with the requirement to comply with current building standards such as existing lift capacity, the building could accommodate a maximum of 314 people, or based on existing toilet capacity, 235 people. At the time of submission, the management company for the building noted that 70 people were employed on the site.
133 The applicant suggests that the non-residential floorspace within the proposal is likely to provide employment for 208 people based on employment densities in the Council’s section 106 SPD. Council officers previously advised that calculating re-provision in terms of numbers of employment spaces could not be accepted as there is no guarantee how many people will be employed in each area or how the offices will be laid out or occupied. This position and the difficulties of using average employment densities to estimate future employment yield from the proposed floorspace are acknowledged. Notwithstanding this GLA officers note that due to the limitations of the existing building, the proposal is readily capable of maintaining or providing an increase in the existing employment capacity of the site.
134 Whilst the loss of approximately 1,351 sq.m. of Class B1 floorspace would not generally be considered acceptable, a strong case has been presented by the applicant for the reduced re- provision. Its argument centres around the lack of demand within the area under the current economic climate, the poor quality of the existing building that would preclude its full occupation, and the likelihood that only a very limited amount of commercial B1 floorspace will be built within the Elephant and Castle area until the more significant regeneration of the core area is undertaken. A modernised building is more likely to provide increased employment opportunities to local people, which is broadly in accordance with the intent of saved Policy 1.4 of the Southwark Plan.
135 Despite this, Council policy officers maintained the view that the scheme should re-provide the Class B1 floorspace in accordance with saved Policy 1.4. The only real justification for the proposed shortfall would be the impact of the provision of additional commercial floorspace on the overall viability of the scheme. A full financial viability assessment was submitted at that time for consideration by Council valuers, which clearly showed that the scheme was unviable.
136 The scope to increase the building envelope to accommodate more floorspace was considered but rejected. The tower had already been reduced by three storeys and therefore any increase in office floorspace within the tower would have resulted in a reduction in the housing provision, most
page 33 likely the affordable housing, and/or would have further harmed the viability of the scheme. The smaller office building was designed to a maximum height given the localised impacts such as rights to light to surrounding properties, so an additional floor could not have been added to that building.
137 Council officers accepted the shortfall in replacement floorspace on this basis and recommended this be accepted by the Council’s Planning Committee, but the Committee did not agree and identified this as a reason for refusal, specifically: “The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of business space contrary to strategic Policy 10 – Jobs and Businesses of the Southwark Core Strategy, Saved Policy 1.4 of the Southwark Plan.
138 An updated viability assessment has since been carried out in August 2012 (as discussed under the affordable housing section of this report) and the conclusion remains that the scheme is unviable. GLA officers concur with the analysis and conclusions of Council Officers on this matter and note in particular that the proposal is readily capable of maintaining or providing an increase in the existing employment capacity of the site and that the provision of further office floorspace is physically and financially prohibitive. Moreover the proposal would accord with London Plan Policy 4.2 which states that the Mayor will “support the management and mixed use development and redevelopment of office provision to improve London’s competitiveness and to address the wider objectives of this Plan…”. Policy 4.2 also states that the Mayor will, and boroughs should, “encourage renewal and modernisation of the existing office stock in viable locations to improve its quality and flexibility.” The above being the case the proposed quantum of B1 floorspace is accepted.
Land use principle summary
139 The proposal would make effective use of this previously developed site by introducing and realising the benefits of a mix of uses appropriate to the town centre location of the site as sought by the NPPF. The principle of introducing mixed use development onto the site is fully supported by the London Plan, Southwark Core Strategy, Southwark Plan, and the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF.
140 The scheme will see the redevelopment of a currently vacant building, providing 335 new homes in a high density, quality mixed-use scheme making a significant contribution to the provision of housing, including affordable housing, in the Opportunity Area whilst maximising the opportunity to enhance the public realm on the site through creation of University Square. This, combined with a retail element at ground floor, will enliven the street frontage to Newington Causeway and Southwark Bridge Road, as sought in Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF guidance for the Enterprise Quarter Character Area. Housing
141 The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The proposal includes 335 residential units which is a welcome contribution to the 4,000 new homes sought by the London Plan, Southwark Core Strategy and the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF for this Opportunity Area and to the borough and strategic targets in those plans.
Housing tenure
142 London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. In doing so each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. This target should take account of the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.11, which include the strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale.
page 34 143 The Mayor has published a revised early minor alteration to the London Plan which addresses the introduction of affordable rent. With regard to tenure split the Revised Minor Early Alterations make it clear that that both social rent and affordable rent should be included within the 60% strategic target for social rent set out in London Plan Policy 3.11.
144 While the Mayor has set a strategic investment benchmark that across the affordable rent programme as a whole rents should average 65% of market rents, this is an average investment output benchmark across this spending round and not a planning policy target to be applied to negotiations on individual schemes.
145 Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 6 establishes a target for the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area and Elephant and Castle housing sites of a minimum of 1,400 affordable housing units over the plan period. This target is set out in the Vision for the area. It also requires that a minimum of 35% of new housing is affordable and a minimum of 35% is private. Policy 4.4 of the Southwark UDP (2007) requires that 50% of affordable housing be social rented and 50% intermediate affordable housing. These local targets, which pre-date the introduction of the affordable rent tenure, are intended to redress the tenure imbalance that exists in the area and are duly reflected in the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF.
146 The scheme provides 270 private flats (16 x studio, 126 x 1-bed, 92 x 2-bed and 36 x 3-bed or 692 habitable rooms) and 65 intermediate flats (17 x 1-bed, 44 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed or 182 habitable rooms). The intermediate flats are located over level three (fourth storey) (a half floor with the other half given over to residential amenity) to level nine (fifth storey).
147 The Southwark Residential Design Guide SPD advises that for the purposes of affordable housing calculations, habitable rooms over 27.5 sq.m. should be counted as two rooms. The existence of some larger flats, including duplexes and penthouses at the top of the tower, must be taken into account. There are an additional 15 affordable habitable rooms and 76 private habitable rooms over 27.5 sq.m., resulting in a total of 965 habitable rooms across the scheme (768 private and 197 affordable). A 35% affordable housing provision would equate to 338 affordable habitable rooms. Saved Policy 4.5 allows for a "discount" of 1 affordable habitable room for every affordable wheelchair unit provided (in this case a reduction of 4 affordable habitable rooms). Therefore, the affordable wheelchair discount means that a policy compliant scheme would need to provide 334 (or 34%) affordable habitable rooms. As the scheme only provides 197 affordable habitable rooms (or 20.41%), (19.4% by unit) the scheme is contrary to saved policy 4.4 of the Southwark Plan and represents a shortfall of 137 affordable habitable rooms (or 14.2%).
148 The Southwark Core Strategy requires a minimum provision of 35% private housing and the scheme is in compliance with this requirement. The affordable housing will all be intermediate tenure housing and would comply with the Mayor’s affordability requirements in line with London Plan Policy 3.10. This will be secured in the section 106 agreement. No social or affordable rented tenure housing is proposed.
149 The design of the tower, whilst incorporating a large floor plate, only allows for a single residential (four lifts and stair) core, as the remainder of the ground floor is used for retail floorspace, commercial entrances and core, plus plant and waste facilities. Housing Associations typically require a separate lift core for social or affordable rented accommodation to maintain separate control and managed service charges. Consequently it is unlikely a Housing Association or Registered Provider would take on any social or affordable accommodation in this proposal given the single residential core, all residential lifts proposed are required to service the 27 storeys of residential above the retail and office. Whilst this does not strictly conform to the Southwark Plan (UDP) requirements, when considering this case the Council was mindful of precedent from an appeal on a nearby site at 44-46 Borough Road, in which the Inspector supported the inability to provide social rented housing where a separate core was not possible.
page 35 150 Provision of a separate entrance and core for social or affordable rented accommodation was also not considered appropriate because it would have resulted in a reduction or complete removal of the ground floor retail floorspace, which was considered a priority for the scheme and would be contrary to the vision for the area, which aims to create strong retail frontages and activity at the base of buildings. It would also have resulted in a further reduction in office floorspace beyond that existing on the site.
151 In addition to these physical constraints, the proposal would help to address the current imbalance of affordable housing tenure evident in the area. As noted above this imbalance and the need to address it is acknowledged in the Core Strategy (Strategic Policy 6) and in the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF and is consistent with London Plan Policy 3.9.
152 Over and above the physical constraints and need to ensure mixed and balanced communities outlined above, the provision of social or affordable rented accommodation or indeed any additional intermediate affordable accommodation is not financially viable at present.
153 Prior to determination by the Council, the applicant submitted two viability appraisals which were assessed by the Council and the District Valuation Service (DVS) on behalf of the GLA. The first of these was assessed by the DVS in August 2009, and the financial viability appraisal was updated and further assessed by the DVS in August 2011. The assessments verified the conclusion of both appraisals that the proposal was unviable. Council officers therefore concluded that, having regard to policy requirements and planning obligations bearing on the scheme, the 25% affordable housing proposed was the maximum reasonable amount.
154 Council members, however, disagreed with this analysis and regarded the failure of the proposal to provide sufficient affordable housing and in particular any social rented housing to meet the local housing needs of the borough contrary to saved policy 4.4 of the Southwark Plan and strategic policy 6 of the Southwark Core Strategy, and Policies 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan.
155 Since the Mayor resolved to take over the application for his own determination the financial viability appraisal has been updated by the applicant to take account of the introduction of Mayoral CIL and the Strategic Transport Tariff contribution required by SPD 20 of the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF. All other contributions remained the same and will be indexed from 2009 to account for inflation (the Strategic Transport Tariff was only introduced in 2012 so it will be indexed from that date). As a result of the contributions, which together account for circa £4.57m, the affordable housing provision was reduced by fifteen units or 47 habitable rooms.
156 The updated financial viability appraisal was further assessed by the DVS in November 2012. The assessment confirms that having regard to policy requirements and planning obligations bearing on the scheme, the 19.4% by unit or 20.41% by habitable rooms of affordable housing proposed is the maximum reasonable amount the proposal can provide.
157 The DVS assessment considered reasonable variations in the inputs to the financial viability appraisal. All scenarios and variations tested showed the proposal would have a significant deficit against the existing use value of the site, which itself was assessed. This being the case it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant is proceeding with the current proposal with the expectation of an improvement in the housing market, or that the current planning stage cost estimates may be reduced at tender stage, or a combination of both.
158 On the recommendation of the DVS, GLA officers have included provisions in the section 106 agreement for a financial viability review mechanism. The section 106 agreement provides that if the applicant implements the approval more than 12 months after permission has been granted, at the point of implementation the applicant will submit a revised viability assessment and the Local Planning Authority will be entitled to carry out another full financial appraisal. If either the submitted revised
page 36 viability assessment or appraisal show that more affordable housing is viable, then the additional quantum shown in the appraisal up to an agreed level will be provided either on site or by way of a financial contribution to off-site provision of additional affordable housing via the Local Planning Authority. The section 106 agreement for the scheme provides that any additional affordable housing will be provided on-site where this is equivalent to one or two whole residential floors. Where the contribution is equivalent to part floors, or more than two floors, this would be made as an in lieu contribution. If the appraisal shows less affordable housing than is currently proposed then the current affordable housing provision will remain in place.
159 On this basis the nature and quantum of the affordable housing provision proposal is acceptable in accordance with London Plan policies 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12, Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 6 and Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policy 4.4.
Housing mix
160 London Plan Policy 3.8 and the associated supplementary planning guidance promote housing choice and seek a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments. The London Housing Strategy and the draft revised London Housing Strategy set out strategic housing requirements and the associated targets.
161 Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 7 and Southwark Plan (UDP) saved Policy 4.3 seeks: a maximum of 5% of units as studio flats; a minimum of 60% of units with two or more bedroom; and a minimum of 10% of units with 3 or more bedrooms with directly accessible amenity space.
162 The scheme, having been designed well in advance of the publication of the Core Strategy to meet the previous standards does not fully comply with those detailed above. Specifically it would provide 16 studios (5%), 143 one bed (43%), 136 two bed (40%) and 40 three bed (12%) units. On this basis the proportion of 2 bed units and above is 52% instead of 60%. The proposed mix is otherwise consistent with the policy expectations. In terms of wheelchair accessible units, 4 affordable (4 three bed) and 30 private (14 two bed, 16 three bed) accessible units, (or 10.1%) are included which is in compliance with the standards. Dual lift access is available to all the accessible flats and all flats incorporate design features to meet Lifetime Homes standards.
163 Whilst there would be a shortfall against the current borough-wide target for 2 bed or more flats, the proposal would otherwise be consistent with local and strategic policy, and represents a balanced and sustainable mix of accommodation appropriate to this location, and is therefore acceptable.
Housing density
164 London Plan Policy 3.4 requires development to optimise housing output for different locations taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity. Table 3.2 provides net residential density ranges in support of this. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of the site is 6b, the highest possible on a scale where 6 is high and 1 is low. The site lies in a ‘Central’ setting, as defined by the London Plan. Table 3.2 of the London Plan sets out a range of 650 – 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha) which, depending on the number of habitable rooms per dwelling equates to a range of 215-405 units per hectare. Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 5 imports this density range into the Core Strategy.
165 The application proposes 335 residential dwellings (965 habitable rooms) on a 0.64 ha site. The density calculation set out under Appendix 2 of the Southwark Plan (UDP) requires that a percentage of the non-residential area be included in the calculation, which in this instance is equivalent to 174 habitable rooms meaning the total number of habitable rooms within the scheme is
page 37 1,139 which, with a site area of 0.64 ha (including the public realm area at the base of the tower), results in a density calculation of 1,779 habitable rooms per hectare.
166 This is above the upper end of the range identified in Table 3.2. The optimum housing density for this site should be determined taking into account local context and character, design and public transport capacity. Its location within an emerging major town centre in an Opportunity Area and Area for Regeneration in the CAZ, close to a transport interchange and a new public space weigh in favour of a high density scheme being the optimum solution for the site. The design quality of the proposal and its impact on public transport capacity, together with other environmental and social impacts, need to be considered and are assessed elsewhere in this report. Subject to these matters being considered acceptable the proposal would be consistent with London Plan Policy 3.4 and Core Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 5.
Housing quality
167 London Plan Policy 3.5 promotes quality in new housing provision and sets out minimum space standards at Table 3.3. The Mayor has published a Housing SPG on the implementation of Policy 3.5 which sets out baseline and good practice standards for housing design. Southwark Council Core Strategy Strategic Policy 7, Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policy 4.2 and Residential Design Standards SPD set out local level policy and guidance on this matter.
168 The entrance and approach, car parking, cycle storage and refuse facilities, which are discussed in more detail in other sections of the report, all meet the baseline standards set out in the Housing SPG for communal facilities and approach to the building. The building features between four and twelve flats per floor around a single core; in the latter cases, these would all be 1-bedroom flats and therefore meet the principles of the good practice standards with regards to shared circulation.
169 In terms of space standards, all flats in the proposal will meet the overall, baseline minimum space standards for internal floor area set out in Standard 4.1.1, although in 23 flats (6%), some of the bedrooms will fall just short of the minimum areas for bedrooms recommended as good practice. All flats will meet the baseline standards for internal circulation space and will be able accommodate the furniture, access and activity space relating to the proposed occupancy. All but 6 of the proposed flats will incorporate the recommended minimum amount of storage space. Over 60% of the flats will have their own private amenity space in the form of wintergardens. All residents will also have access to communal amenity space and wintergardens on the third floor. Ten percent of the housing will be built to wheelchair accessible standards, or will be easily adaptable, in line with Standard 4.9.1. The environmental performance is discussed in more detail below, as is the provision of private and shared amenity space.
170 Baseline standard 5.2.1 seeks to avoid the provision of north facing, single aspect flats on the basis that these will be difficult to ventilate naturally, provide poor daylight, preclude access to a potentially quieter side of the building, and limit flexibility and adaptability in the use of the rooms. The standard also seeks to limit single aspect dwellings which are exposed to high noise levels, although this is based on the assumption that the dwellings are naturally ventilated and have openable windows. Although approximately half the flats in the proposal will be single aspect, all flats will have full height glazing to both bedrooms and living rooms, and the flats have a shallow plan, ensuring generous natural daylight. Furthermore, the orientation of the building is such that there are no north- facing single aspect flats, and those flats which are in the more sensitive locations will have sealed windows and doors, and all flats will have mechanical ventilation.
171 The Mayor is advised that the Council identified the failure to provide a satisfactory standard of amenity in terms of noise owing to the provision of openable windows as a reason for refusal, stating that the provision of sealed windows would be contrary to the Council’s own supplementary
page 38 planning documents on design and construction and residential quality, but that openable windows would be likely to result in noise disturbance from the nightclub.
172 This decision was taken in consideration of the Council officer’s report, which concluded “…that provided that sound insulation measures and alternative means of ventilation are required by condition, the likely effects of MoS will have been appropriately minimised and are not likely to give rise to unacceptable disturbance to future occupiers. Future occupiers would have the ability to close their windows and obtain a quiet internal environment with fresh air provided by means of alternative mechanical ventilation. It is considered that the activities of MoS would not give rise to unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers and that the relevant policy standards are attained.” Members, however took a contrary view and concluded that openable windows do not provide an acceptable level of amenity, which could not be remedied in a way which would be consistent with policy through the imposition of a condition requiring sealed windows.
173 Due to the assessment of noise impacts on the proposal from external sources discussed later in this report, the proposal has been revised to incorporate sealed windows and wintergardens on the northeastern and northwestern facades specifically to mitigate noise from MoS and the surrounding environment. The proposal incorporates mechanical ventilation to those flats with sealed windows to ensure adequate ventilation. Although openable windows are preferable to allow natural ventilation as discussed above, the Housing SPG acknowledges in its discussion of the baseline standards for private open space that there are exceptional circumstances where dwellings are exposed to NEC noise category C or D1 (as is the case for this scheme, and many other sites in Central London) and recommends in such cases that “enclosing balconies as glazed, ventilated winter gardens will be considered acceptable alternative to open balconies for all flats.” In the case of this proposal, in flats with sealed windows the wintergardens themselves will not be ventilated, although the interiors of the flats will be fully mechanically ventilated.
174 The incorporation of mechanical ventilation and sealed windows to reduce the impact of noise from the nightclub are specifically beneficial to achieving the Mayor’s SPG baseline standard for noise (5.3.1) and London Plan policy 7.15, which requires development proposals to reduce noise and manage the effect of noise, and for all dwellings to be built with acoustic insulation.
175 Taking into account the inner London location of the site, officers consider that the proposal would be consistent with London Plan policy 3.5 relating to housing quality, and meets a very high proportion of the recommended baseline standards set out in the Housing SPG, which was published several years after the proposal was designed. On balance the proposal provides a very good standard of accommodation in a challenging context.
Play and amenity space
176 London Plan Policy 3.6 requires developments that include housing to make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs. Guidance on the application of this policy is set out in the ‘Shaping Neighbourhoods: Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG’.
177 Based on the child yield formula in the guidance, there will be approximately 29 children in the development, comprising: under 5 years – 17 children; 5-11 years – 7 children; and 12+ years – 4 children. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of play space to be provided per child, with
1 NEC refers to Noise Exposure Categories, which were noise categories applied to new housing exposed to transport noise sources, which were included in the previous national planning policy guidance on Noise, Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG24). PPG24 was superseded by the NPPF, which does not include Noise Exposure Categories. However, reference is made to NEC categories in the Housing SPG which was published prior to the deletion of PPG24; PPG24 was also current when the Proposal was submitted. The Eileen House site was categorised as being exposed to NEC C by day and NEC D by night.
page 39 under-5 child play space provided on site. The proposal should accordingly make provision for up to 290 sq.m. of play space, with at least 170 sq.m. provided on site.
178 The proposal includes a 458 sq.m. garden between the two buildings. This is proposed as a residents garden but would be publicly accessible and open as route between Gaunt Street and the new public square to the south in the daytime (8am to 8pm). In the evening, gates at the northern and southern ends of the garden will be closed to restrict the movement of people, such as those leaving the MoS nightclub from moving through the space at nighttime.
179 The design details of this space will be sought via condition, but the illustrative work submitted is sufficient to demonstrate that this space would satisfy the requirement for a playable space for children, providing an extended lawn area incorporating a large tactile sculpture, level changes and climbable elements, plus seating and landscaping. A green wall is proposed on the south-eastern facade of the office building facing onto the residents garden, which will provide additional greenery whilst enhancing biodiversity and assisting in climate control. The space will receive a reasonable amount of sunlight given its widest open aspect is to the south. All large trees along the site boundary to the south on Southwark Bridge Road will be retained to benefit both the residents garden and the proposed University Square public space to the south.
180 The proposed residents garden and adjacent University Square (even at Phase 1) are more than sufficient to satisfy the immediate on site play and amenity space requirements arising from the site. Older children and adult residents may use other open spaces in the area such as Newington Gardens and Dickens Park, which both provide open space and children’s play areas and are located a few hundred metres walk from the site. For this reason the proposal will make financial contributions to improvement and maintenance of these spaces, consistent with strategic guidance on this matter.
181 The Southwark Council Residential Design Standards SPD sets out amenity space standards and advises it is particularly important for family housing in order to provide a safe outdoor area for children to play in. It can take the form of private gardens, balconies, terraces and roof gardens. It seeks 50 sq.m. of communal amenity space per development, plus 10 sq.m. per unit, though for smaller flats a reduced amount (minimum 3 sq.m. balconies) is acceptable where the shortfall is added to the overall communal provision.
182 Over levels 3-30, 10.5 sq.m. wintergardens are provided for 6 flats on each floor, equating to 1,701 sq.m. of private wintergarden amenity space. Three wintergardens on Level 3 (totalling 31.5 sq.m.) are for communal use being attached to the communal residents rooms on that level. These rooms are a suggested as three linked rooms, one of which is notionally designated as a residents gym, and which provide a total indoor community amenity space of 256 sq.m.
183 Above level 30 the wintergardens are much larger as the building starts to cut back and unit numbers are reduced. The wintergarden space across the upper floors totals approximately 631 sq.m. and typically takes the form of large, enclosed terraces.
184 The total private amenity space is therefore 2,300 sq.m. from wintergardens, and of the total 335 units, 203 (over 60%) have direct access to a wintergarden of over 10.5 sq.m. Provision of play and amenity space through a combination of generous private wintergardens, indoor and outdoor communal space, outdoor public space, together with some reliance on existing open spaces in the vicinity is common for high density residential towers in central London such as this. The overall play and amenity space provision, taking account of the contributions for public realm and open space improvements in the immediate and wider area, is considered generous for a central London development and is in accordance with London Plan policies 3.5, 3.6 and 7.5 and Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 3.2, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 and 4.2.
Housing summary
page 40 185 The proposal would provide 335 new homes, of which 65 would be affordable, and would make a significant contribution to housing delivery targets in this area. The proposal would be consistent with London Plan policies 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12, Southwark Core Strategy Strategic policies 5, 6, and 7 and Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 3.2, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. Design
Urban design
186 Chapter 7 of the NPPF states that “Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”
187 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan, and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within chapter seven, which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 7.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other relevant design polices in this chapter include specific design requirements relating to: optimising the development potential of sites (Policy 7.6); tall and large scale buildings (Policy 7.7); heritage assets (Policy 7.8); heritage-led regeneration (Policy 7.9); local character (Policy 7.4); public realm (Policy 7.5); architecture (Policy 7.6); designing out crime (Policy 7.3); World Heritage Sites (Policy 7.10); and strategic views (policies 7.11 and 7.12).
188 Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 12 seeks the highest possible standards of design for buildings and public spaces. Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policy 3.11 seeks to maximise the efficient use of land where a positive impact on local character and good design are achieved and saved policy 3.12 seeks to ensure that a high standard of architecture and design are achieved in order to create high amenity environments. Saved policy 3.13 requires that the principles of good urban design are considered, in terms of context, height, scale, massing, layout, streetscape, landscaping and inclusive design and saved policy 4.2 requires that residential development achieve good quality living conditions within the development. Saved policy 3.20 sets out specific requirements for tall buildings.
189 The Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF set out specific policy guidance, including design guidance, for the area.
190 Descriptions of the proposed built form and public realm works are provided within the proposals section of this report. In considering the urban design merits of the proposed development, officers have had regard to the requirements of all of other relevant policies including those relating to the protection of heritage assets and strategic views. These matters are specifically addressed below.
191 The proposal has also benefited from a presentation to the Southwark Design Review Panel, whose comments are set out earlier in this report.
192 The Mayor is advised that the Council identified design as a reason for refusal, stating that the proposal was not of sufficiently high quality design given the scale and prominence of the development and failed to provide a sufficiently high standard of living accommodation to justify the very high density and the height of the building.
193 This decision was against the advice of its officers who regarded the proposal as being consistent with strategic and local policy and commented that: “Overall, this design is considered to have the potential to display ‘architecturally iconic’ qualities and we consider that the proposal achieves a high standard in design. This location is appropriate for a building of this scale and height, and the architectural design is considered to be of sufficient quality to justify a building of this scale which will relate well in terms of height and design to its context.”
page 41 Proposed layout and ground floor uses
194 The site is prominent in the locality, having a significant frontage to Newington Causeway which slightly curves to the southeast along the site boundary. This results in the site being prominent in views along this route, to those approaching or departing from the heart of Elephant and Castle to the south. The site also marks an important approach to the LSBU campus for those travelling north from the town centre. The current building on site does not reflect the local street geometry, having an irregular form and asymmetrically positioned tower element. In contrast, the two blocks of the proposal have been designed to fit naturally within the street pattern surrounding the site, strengthening the streetscapes along Newington Causeway and Gaunt Street whilst also allowing all existing trees to be retained and their setting enhanced with new landscaping.
195 The proposed site layout, ground floor uses and the overall geometry of the proposed buildings successfully acknowledge the prominence of the site in the locality and is founded on a robust analysis of the existing and emerging context of the site and the wider setting. The design concept uses the geometry of the site and the wider area to generate a layout and built form that is both contextually responsive and engaging. The main tower building would be appropriately located on Newington Causeway, with a parallelogram plan featuring retail and office lobbies on the principal commercial frontage to Newington Causeway to the east and a residential entrance lobby to the west. The residential entrance lobby faces a new garden space, and allows for the retention of an existing mature tree to the south.
196 On the other side of the garden space an office building, triangular in plan, would fill the remainder of the plot. This building would be set back from Southwark Bridge Road to the west to allow the retention of the mature trees along that frontage, which would have retail use and an office entrance at ground level. To the east the building would face onto the new garden space with windows to the retail use at ground floor and a seven storey green wall on the upper levels.
197 The ground floor elevations to Gaunt Street of both buildings are less successful in terms of their relationship with the surrounding streets as these would accommodate the majority of the servicing access. This is largely the result of the constrained nature of the site and the nature of Gaunt Street which is more commercial, and also incorporates permanently retained bus standing locations. There are, however, secondary residential entrances and access to the park along this frontage, which provide some animation to the street. The park entrance would be open during the day, to provide a through route to Southwark Bridge Road and LSBU, but closed at night to deter antisocial behaviour.
198 It is noted that MoS has raised concerns regarding the design of the proposal in relation to the residential amenity issues that may arise as a result of its commercial activity, notably the coming, going and queuing of patrons along Gaunt Street and music noise emanating from the premises. These matters are considered in detail in the relevant sections of this report. The overall configuration of the buildings on the site, the treatment of the Gaunt Street elevation at the lower levels and the management of the northern access to the amenity space has been designed to respond to this context. The office building would be positioned directly opposite the entrance and courtyard of the nightclub. The mixed use tower would present its narrow gable end, rather than broad flank, to Gaunt Street which would minimise the number of residential units within a typical floor along this elevation.
199 Overall the proposed ground floor plan of the buildings would successfully define the surrounding streets and create a well proportioned new public space, which is discussed further below. The proposed site layout and positioning of ground floor uses and entrances are well resolved in response to the immediate and wider context.
Height and massing
page 42 200 The London Plan, Southwark Core Strategy, saved policies of the Southwark Plan (UDP) and the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF support the site as a suitable location for a tall building, subject to the proposal being of an acceptable design. Core Strategy policy 12 and Southwark Plan saved policy 3.20 state that tall buildings (defined as those that exceed 30m in height) may be suitable on sites which have excellent accessibility to public transport and are located in the Central Activities Zone (particularly in Opportunity Areas) outside landmark viewing corridors, where the building should:
make a positive contribution to the landscape; and
be located at a point of landmark significance; and
be of the highest architectural standard; and
relate well to its surroundings, particularly at street level; and
contribute positively to the London skyline as a whole, consolidating a cluster within that skyline or providing key focus within views.
201 The Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF sets out specific guidance for built form (SPD 16) and building heights (SPD 17) in the area, informed by a tall building study. On the basis of the tall building study, the SPD identifies a series of ‘gateway locations’ to the town centre that can be reinforced with tall buildings and will generally contain the tallest elements of development proposals. The tall building study was informed by a character appraisal of the Opportunity Area and took full account of strategic and local views and heritage assets applicable to the consideration of tall buildings in the Opportunity Area.
202 The application site is located in one such ‘gateway location’ to the town centre, and has the potential to support a prominent landmark building that will signify and reinforce the transition between existing and new development, forming part of a new cluster to the north of the Elephant and Castle which will potentially balance the cluster of towers already approved to the south in terms of form, scale and activity (Strata Tower and the former London Park Hotel London 360 development). There is also potential for a successful townscape relationship between this scheme and the tall building currently under construction at 89-93 Newington Causeway. The ‘gateway location’ indicated in the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF takes in the latter site and also the southern part of the ‘Newington Triangle’ site to the north of the railway viaduct. The proposal would therefore contribute to a planned localised cluster, itself part of the wider emerging cluster in the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area.
203 The tower would fit well within both the existing and emerging context. The height and massing of the office building is appropriately consistent with the scale and mass of the commercial buildings in the vicinity. In this way the development makes a positive contribution to the landscape and to the London skyline as a whole, consolidating an emerging cluster within that skyline and providing key focus within views, in line with Southwark Plan saved policy 3.20 and London Plan Policy 7.7.
Architectural appearance and materials
204 The tower’s plan is that of a parallelogram , taking its angles from the street pattern created by Newington Causeway and Gaunt Street. This plan form is extruded upwards to the 31st floor, where it starts to taper at diagonally opposing corners to appear as though the corners have been chamfered down from the top to create two triangular facades.
page 43 205 This design gives the top of the building a crystalline form which changes the appearance of the tower depending on the viewpoint, and provides a distinctive top imbuing a sense of dynamism in the form. This design, and the position and orientation of the building within the area, will mean that those viewing the tower in near and middle distance views will perceive different aspects of the facades at the upper levels, which provides the building with a distinct character and identity and assists with orientation.
206 The form of the building results in a significant variation in the proportions of the respective elevations. The full width view with two sides visible is proportionately 1:2.4 (width: height) which could be considered bulky and squat. When purely viewing the tower on its long-side, the proportion is approximately 1:2.9, which represents an improvement but is still rather low. The end-on proportions are narrower and more elegant as would be expected, being 1:5.25. The effect of this variation is regarded as a positive characteristic that would create visual interest and reinforce the geometry of Newington Causeway, and would contrast with the other existing and emerging towers in the area which are typically more square or round in plan.
207 The form of the tower is modulated by the various treatments of bays and balconies that create rhythm and depth on the elevations. The projection of the balconies on the diagonally opposite outer-corners gives a lightness and transparency to the building's form and outline, helping to alleviate concerns of how the solid bulk is perceived and proportioned. The balcony support structure which wraps up and over the top of the tower also adds a degree of lightness and transparency to the silhouette's outline, softening the edges of the perceived bulk and adding interest to its skyline
208 The two longer facades are a dense pattern of identical window bays, splayed to give depth, with a basic grid that gives strong emphasis to both horizontal and vertical rhythms. The narrower end elevations counter their strong vertical proportions with expressed wintergardens, providing a strong horizontal rhythm. The end elevations are subdivided into 3 vertical bays, corresponding to the flats within; the righthand bay is expressed most strongly with a structural frame that wraps up and over the top of the tower, alluding to a continuity of form and a dynamic structural movement. The two chamfered corners on the tower's top are characterised by the horizontal louvers which shield the glazed roofscapes and incorporate photovoltaic cells on their upper surface.
209 The design of the top of the building is of particular importance when considering the effect on the skyline of a tall tower, to ensure a positive contribution to the city roofscape as well as establishing an identity and character for the building. The form and detailing of the proposal creates an interesting and varied termination to the top of the tower; its crystalline nature will relate and contrast well to the top of the Strata Tower, which has a more curved form and windturbine features.
210 The base of the tower is also very important, as such a large building must have a strong grounding on the streetscape where it is experienced close-up by pedestrians and passers-by. The proposal successfully creates an active frontage around its base with a retail unit and commercial lobby to the harsher environment of Newington Causeway, and residential lobby and entrances to the north- west courtyard garden. The height of the ground floor retail and entrance level is approximately 8.5m, more than double height, above which is the second floor office level with enlarged windows, all of which give a reasonably strong and prominent base.
211 Colour and surface finishes will be extremely important for all materials, given the scale of this proposal and the visual impact it will have on its surrounding townscape. The two long sides of the tower are characterised by the strong structural grid of reconstituted stone cladding within which sit repeating window bays. The reconstituted stone cladding gives an impression of quality, interest and masonry-solidity to the structure. These cladding sections incorporate a considerable splayed edge which give depth to the window openings and a rich texture to the elevations. Within the window bays there is a hinged glass door/ balustrade and a fixed full-height window, separated by a metal panel, above which is a ventilation strip. While this window bay already exhibits interest and some
page 44 complexity in the submitted drawings, 1:5 details and a mock-up sample would be conditioned to ensure the finished quality of the built element.
212 On the narrower end elevations, a metal-clad framework defines the expressed outer third, which wraps up and over the tower's top, while the remaining two-thirds have reconstituted stone cladding sections to the glazed wintergardens. As noted above, the chamfered top triangles are clad with metal framed glazing and screened by metal louvers which incorporate PV cells on their upper edge.
213 The material language for the office is suitably more corporate and simply detailed than the tower, with glazed walls, metal cladding and louvers, and an exposed concrete frame. Conditioned details will be just as important for this building to ensure that its treatment does not feel any less considered next to the tower.
214 Overall, the proposed architecture is of the very high standard demanded by the relevant strategic and local policy and policy guidance, and the proposal is therefore consistent with London Plan policies 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7, Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 12, Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 3.20 and 3.21 and the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF.
Public realm
215 A two-phase public realm strategy is proposed. Phase I will include the implementation of the majority of the public realm works, with the completion of a residents garden, linear park and University Square, but with bus movements and some bus standing maintained on Southwark Bridge Road. Phase II will be delivered/funded by the developer and would see the removal of all bus movements from the southern end of Southwark Bridge Road and the erection of a pavilion structure in the centre of this space to symbolise the convergence of five key routes from the north (Bankside), south and east (Elephant and Castle), and west (LSBU Campus).
216 Contributions to TfL to enable the delivery of both phases through rerouting of buses and relocation of stands form part of the applicant’s proposed section 106 contribution. TfL has identified suitable on highway standing for the buses to be relocated for Phase I. Options for the relocation of the remainder of the stands from the site as part of Phase II are being considered by TfL in the context of other development proposals coming forward, strategic transport improvement schemes, operational requirements and amenity impacts. Should relocation not prove possible, the applicant has agreed that instead a section 106 contribution equivalent to the cost of the applicant implementing Phase II public realm will be paid to the Council to be used towards University Square and public realm improvements in the vicinity of the site.
217 In addition to the residents garden, the focal point of the scheme will be the creation of University Square in the area between Newington Causeway and Keyworth Street, which is currently dissected by Southwark Bridge Road. The Square will be landscaped and paved, with the southern section of Southwark Bridge Road to be closed up to the point where it meets Gaunt Street (apart from servicing and access to Keyworth Street, retention of the cycle lane and at Phase I, the bus stand and bus access).
218 To the immediate north of University Square, a linear park lined with existing mature trees will extend north from the square to Gaunt Street, bounded at Phase 1 by the retained section of Southwark Bridge Road and by the western facade of the proposed office building. This is proposed to be a sunny, landscaped green space that will benefit both local residents and students. The public realm will enliven Keyworth Street and Southwark Bridge Road, establishing a sense of place, reinforced by new landscaping including planting, paving, and the retention of all existing mature trees. It will also incorporate the Cycle Super Highway within its design. The new buildings will incorporate active frontages to all edges, animating the new public realm around the site.
page 45 219 The detailing and material finishes of the landscaping will be carefully controlled by condition and must be considered as an integral part of this development. It will take account of the use of parts of the area by buses and maintenance vehicles and by cyclists.
220 Overall, the public realm proposals are considered to be in line with the vision for the area as set out within the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF, and with London Plan policy 7.5 and Southwark Plan saved policies 3.2, 3.11, 3.12 and 3.13.
Townscape views and heritage
221 Chapter 12 of the NPPF sets out key principles for conserving and enhancing the historic environment and states that “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal… taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.” This chapter also sets out key principles for the assessment of heritage impact when determining planning applications. The assessment criteria in this case is summarised in the assessment of heritage impact section below.
222 London Plan Policy 7.11 sets out the Mayor’s approach to the managed protection of strategic views. London Plan Policy 7.12 builds on this and states that new development should not harm, and where possible should make a positive contribution to, the characteristics and composition of the strategic views and their landmark elements. Supplementary guidance on the impact of proposals on strategically designated views is set out in the London View Management Framework SPG(LVMF). London Plan Policy 7.8 states that “Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.” London Plan Policy 7.9 builds on this approach and states that “The significance of heritage assets should be assessed when development is proposed and schemes designed so that the heritage significance is recognised both in their own right and as catalysts for regeneration.”
223 Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy highlights that development should conserve or enhance the significance of Southwark’s heritage assets and make sure that the height and design of development conserves and enhances strategic and important local views. Southwark Plan saved policies 3.21 and 3.22 seek to protect and enhance local and strategic views. Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF Policy SPD17 states that tall buildings should have due regard to the LVMF and should conserve and enhance heritage assets as well as strategic and local views. Saved policies 3.15 and 3.18 of the Southwark Plan require that permission will not be granted for developments that would not preserve or enhance the setting or views of a listed building or the setting and views into or out of a Conservation Area. The Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF requires that tall buildings contribute positively and add interest to London’s skyline, help reinforce way-finding and the legibility of the area, act as focal points in views towards the Elephant and Castle along main roads and strengthen gateways into the central area.
224 The Proposal was accompanied by a townscape assessment which forms part of the ES, and is discussed in more detail in the review of the ES below. The townscape assessment has been updated several times since it was originally submitted in February 2009, to take account of and incorporate the proposed changes to the height, design, and to illustrate the cumulative impact of schemes consented or completed since the original ES was undertaken.
Strategic views and World Heritage Sites
225 The application is supported by a townscape assessment which is part of the ES, covering near, middle distance and far views to the proposal, including strategically designated views. The ES considers the impact of the proposal on the strategic views in terms of significance of any potential impact; this is discussed in more detail below.
page 46 226 The proposal would impact on the strategically designated views from Primrose Hill (4), Waterloo Bridge (15B), Serpentine Bridge (23), and Parliament Square (27B). The proposal would also appear in the setting of the Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site.
227 The significance of the impact on the view from Primrose Hill (View 4) would be negligible as the building will sit low in the background of the view, to the right of the Euston Tower and behind the consented Doon Street Tower, in a section dominated by prominent tall buildings in the foreground, namely the Euston Tower, Centrepoint and the BT Tower. Similarly, the impact on the view from Parliament Square would be negligible as the proposal would be either entirely obscured by buildings in front of it, or so far in the background that buildings closer to the viewer would draw any attention away from the visible very top of the building. The building would be of an equally low profile to existing buildings, and would not detract from the vertical emphasis of the Clock Tower or the ability to fully appreciate the buildings forming the World Heritage Site and its setting.
228 The foci of the views downstream from Waterloo Bridge (15B) are the City and St Paul’s Cathedral to the east and the river banks on either side. The proposal would appear almost out of the field of view when looking downstream in the distance beyond the National Theatre and the consented Doon Street Tower. Given its distance from the Theatre, and the fact that the nearer Doon Street Tower would draw attention away from the proposal in the distance, the proposal would have a minor effect on this view.
229 The LVMF sets out that a development proposal in the backdrop of the view from the assessment point on the Serpentine Bridge to the Palace of Westminster (view 23) should not undermine the relationship between the predominantly parkland landscape composition in the foreground and the landmark buildings at the focus of the view in the middle ground (including the Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site and Westminster Abbey). New buildings in the background of the view must be subordinate to the World Heritage Site. However, the LVMF also recognises that clusters of tall buildings may emerge within the Elephant and Castle Opportunity area, and highlights that the visual management guidance relating to development in the background of designated views will apply to such building clusters.
230 The visual assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken using accurate visual representations as would be seen with the naked eye and with telephoto magnification, in summer and winter. As noted above, following the original submission and townscape assessment, the applicant reduced the height of the tower by 3 storeys. An addendum to the townscape assessment was submitted in June 2009 to take account of this change, with revised visual assessments. The revised assessments determined that the upper edges of the proposed tower would just be visible in clear conditions behind the treeline and existing buildings on Whitehall, some way to the left of the strategic landmark and clear of the Protected Vista associated with the view, but that the majority of the tower would be concealed behind the existing tree line. The proposed tower would be virtually indistinguishable to the naked eye owing to the length of the view to the landmark and the additional kilometre to the proposal beyond the landmark. The building will therefore be less distinct than the historic buildings of Westminster in the foreground of the view, which are the most prominent element the part of the view affected by the proposal; the prominence of these also diminishes the impact of the proposal on the view.
231 Royal Parks and the City of Westminster have maintained concerns over the impact of the proposal in this view during autumn and winter when tree canopies will not be in place and the top of the tower may be seen where it emerges marginally above the tree line. However, the ES identifies the impact as being of a negligible significance, and Officers concur on the basis of the material submitted; the proposal would preserve the ability of the viewer to recognise and appreciate the Palace of Westminster and is therefore acceptable in this regard.
Local heritage and views
page 47 232 The application site is prominent in terms of providing a focal point for views from several directions, primarily looking south from Borough High Street and north from the Elephant and Castle roundabout. Submitted verified views as part of the ES indicate that the tower will be seen in immediate, local and distant views, affecting the setting of Conservation Areas and listed buildings within them. The proposal will be visible in the Trinity Church, St George’s Circus, West Square, Renfrew Road and Walcot Square Conservation Areas.
233 The impact in the Renfrew Road CA was judged to be negligible, with other consented schemes being much more prominent in the view. The impact on the West Square Conservation area will also be limited to the upper part glimpsed through the summer foliage, as part of the visual interest surrounding the urban space already surrounded by buildings; consequently the scheme has been judged in the ES to have a minor beneficial impact.
234 English Heritage raised concern at the initial consideration of the scheme over the impact of the proposal on the view from Walcot Square, where the tower was judged to have a modestly harmful intrusion upon the view owing to its visibility above the rooflines of the Square. Since 2009, however, the most recent addendum to the ES demonstrates that other developments which have since been consented or completed, including the Heygate Estate masterplan, will have a similar or greater impact on the Conservation Area; in the context of the revised cumulative view, the ES considers impact of the current proposal will remain as minor to moderate beneficial.
St George’s Circus
235 In the view from St George’s Circus, the upper two thirds of the proposal rises over the roofline of a terrace along Borough Road, but from some positions around the Circus, it will be screened by mature trees during the summer. Other buildings visible above the rooflines include the Strata Tower, the consented St Mary’s tower, and the top of the Newington tower, although these will be more distant than the current proposal. A Grade II* listed Obelisk sits at the centre of the Circus, and will remain the focal point at the end of terminating views into the Circus; this proposal does not affect the ability to appreciate this feature of the Conservation Area. The impact of the proposal is judged to be of a major beneficial significance in the ES, although English Heritage has raised concern on the impact, which they believe will cause significant harm to the setting. Whilst the distance of the proposal from the Circus does mitigate the impacts to some degree, Council officers considered that the impact would more likely be minor adverse, and GLA officers concur.
236 As proposed mitigation English Heritage sought funding in 2009 towards bringing the listed London Road/Borough Road terrace buildings in the Conservation Area back into beneficial use. Those works were subsequently undertaken by LSBU (the owners of the terrace), so the applicant has proposed instead to make a financial contribution to the improvement of the public realm in St George’s Circus, which is a component of a wider TfL proposal for improvements between Blackfriars Bridge and Elephant and Castle. This much needed improvement to the public realm would significantly improve the setting of the Conservation Area.
237 Although the proposal will still be seen in views into and out of the Conservation Area, taking into account the proposed public realm improvements, the other existing and consented tall buildings visible around the Circus, it is not considered that the impact on the Conservation Area will be so significant as to outweigh the benefits offered by the proposal.
Trinity Church Square
238 Trinity Church Square is a largely intact Georgian Square surrounded by Grade II listed terraces, dominated by a Grade II listed former church in the centre of the square’s gardens surrounded by mature trees. The trees obscure views of the terraces and sky beyond, particularly when in full leaf. Although there are runs of unbroken rooflines around the square, several examples of the post-war
page 48 development which surrounds the square are visible above the rooflines including the Strata Tower, Tabard Square Tower, and the Shard.
239 The original submitted Townscape Assessment included a view from the northwest corner of the square, demonstrating that the proposal would be hidden behind the terraces from that particular vantage point, resulting in a neutral impact. Following concerns raised at consultation, the applicant submitted views taken from two other points around the square. From the northern edge of the square, the top of the proposal would be visible behind the roofline of the terrace at 1-15 Trinity Church Square, particularly through the bare trees in winter, as a distant recessive element, but would disappear behind the terrace when moving through the square. From the north-east corner of the square, the proposal would appear behind the cornice of the tower of the Grade II listed former church, but disappear below the roofline as one moves through the square.
240 In both view points, the ES considers that the proposal would been seen as part of a more distant, recessive, urban backdrop to the square, similar to the other visible modern tall buildings noted above, and would therefore have a limited impact on the reading of the distinctive form of the heritage assets. GLA officers concur with this assessment. The conclusion is that the significance of the potential impact would be neutral to minor beneficial.
Metro Central Heights
241 In July 2013 Metro Central Heights (MCH), which is located opposite the site to the southeast across Newington Causeway, was listed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as Grade II. As the building was not listed at the time the townscape assessment or subsequent addenda were compiled, the applicant has prepared an additional addendum which considers the potential impacts of the proposal on the setting and significance of the newly listed building.
242 The building was designed by Ernö Goldfinger and constructed over two phases from 1959-66; it was originally built as offices and converted to residential use in 1997. The listing sets out several aspects of interest and significance, including the plan and form of the building, the external design and modelling of the facades, and its relationship to the wider post-war redevelopment of Elephant and Castle. The assessment notes that the existing setting of the listed building is of poor quality in terms of townscape, and that building is best appreciated in views across the highway from the western side of the Elephant and Castle junction. From these views, the listed building can be appreciated in the context of the post-war buildings and highway infrastructure; its plan, composition and variations in heights can be clearly distinguished; and external design and modelling best observed.
243 In the noted views of the listed building, the proposal would be visible but as a distinct, separate and much taller structure than the listed building, with a clear separation between the two, allowing the listed building to be seen against a background of open sky. The proposal which would have a limited impact on the appreciation of the aspects the listed building which have been identified as being of special interest, including the relationship of the building to the surrounding area. The townscape assessment also notes that the proposal itself would enhance the setting of the listed building, in that its deeply modelled facade would be complementary to the composition and articulation of the listed building, and would in fact reflect the architect’s unimplemented masterplan for the area, which envisaged that the listed building would be seen in relation to a much taller building marking the northern end of the junction.
Conclusion
244 Officers are satisfied that the impact of the proposal on Heritage Assets has been adequately assessed. In cases where the tower will be visible in the submitted townscape views, it will be of sufficient architectural quality to stand as a landmark building, and will form part of an emerging
page 49 cluster of tall buildings. As noted above, it is well articulated at the top which means it can stand in its own right as a building of merit, and is considered to make a beneficial contribution to local views and skyline, assist with local legibility as well as respond positively to the context of the area. There will be some impact to the wider settings of the listed buildings and to views into and out of the Conservation Areas, by reason of the proposal’s height. However it is not considered that this impact will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Areas and listed buildings, owing to the quality of the design of the proposal and the distance to the proposal from these areas.
245 The proposal therefore accords with the policies and guidance set out in Chapter 12 of the NPPF, London Plan Policies 7.8, 7.9, 7.11, 7.12, the LVMF SPG, Southwark Core Strategy policy CS12 and saved policies 3.15, 3.18, 3.21and 3.22, along with the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF Policy SPD17.
Inclusive design
246 Chapter 6 of the NPPF states that “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.” London Plan Policy 7.2 requires that all future development meets the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, and that the design process has considered how everyone, including disabled and Deaf people, older people, children and young people, will be able to use the places and spaces that are proposed. London Plan Policy 4.12 seeks to improve employment opportunities for Londoners by removing barriers to employment. Also relevant are Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 4.5 and 5.7.
247 The applicant has set out its approach to access and inclusion within the design and access statement, and has provided drawings demonstrating dwelling layouts and circulation spaces including internal and external wheelchair accessible routes, Blue Badge parking, wheelchair accessible WCs, refuge spaces and fire lifts. The applicant has demonstrated that disabled people could readily access each of the retail and the office accommodation units safely. The public realm improvements would also, subject to detailed design, greatly improve the accessibility of the surrounding locality. Conditions will be attached seeking details of all these measures, including ensuring that the car lift serving the Blue Badge parking bays is suitable for oversize vehicles, and that the layout, management and access to the car park meets the needs of disabled people.
248 In summary the proposal is wholly consistent with the NPPF, London Plan polices 4.12 and 7.2 and saved Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 4.5 and 5.7.
Design conclusion
249 The design of the proposal is well resolved, responds positively to the challenges of the site and its context, and accords with the NPPF, London Plan policies 4.12, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11 and 7.12; Core Strategy Strategic Policy 12; saved UDP policies 3.2, 3.11 – 3.13, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20-3.22, 4.2, 4.5 and 5.7; the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF. Transport
250 The NPPF states that “Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives… The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel.”
251 London Plan Policy 6.1 applies these principles within the strategic approach for transport in London. Other relevant strategic transport policies in this case include: assessing effects of development on transport capacity (Policy 6.3); funding Crossrail and other strategically important
page 50 transport infrastructure (Policy 6.5); cycling (Policy 6.9); walking (Policy 6.10); road network capacity (Policy 6.12); parking (Policy 6.13); freight (Policy 6.14); the Mayor’s priorities for planning obligations (Policy 8.2); and, Mayoral Community infrastructure levy (Policy 8.3).
252 Southwark Council, having considered the transport matters associated with the proposal, did not identify any of these in the reasons for refusal. The pertinent transport matters are assessed below.
Transport Assessment
253 A Transport Assessment was submitted with the planning application. At consultation stage TfL raised a number of issues with the Transport Assessment, including trip generation methodology, assessment of development impacts, impacts on bus services and infrastructure and the level of transport mitigation required.
254 During 2009 further detailed discussions were held with the applicant, their consultants and the Council prior to reporting at Stage 2. Additional detailed information was provided by the applicant in relation to all the points raised. At that time the majority of the outstanding issues were resolved to the satisfaction of TfL. Features of the proposal which include limits on car parking with only blue badge spaces proposed, the high PTAL location with a wide range of transport options and significant financial contribution to capacity enhancements at Elephant and Castle by way of the strategic transport tariff mean that the development accords with London Plan policy 6.2 and will not cause congestion.
Highways and access
255 None of the roads immediately adjacent to Eileen House form part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and thus Southwark Council is the Highway Authority. However the nearest part of the TLRN is Newington Causeway, from the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout to the junction with Southwark Bridge Road/Keyworth Street and thus a s278 agreement for highway works with TfL as well as the Council may be required.
256 Gaunt Street provides the vehicular access to the basement parking area and this is not a traffic sensitive route. The proposal and in particular the location and design of the access would take account of the nearby retained bus standing. Furthermore, the low volume of additional traffic from the development is not expected to have a negative impact on the existing road network.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
257 In response to the planning application consultation MoS highlighted that there is an informal taxi/private hire vehicle waiting area on MoS club nights on Gaunt Street. At present drivers enter Gaunt Street from the north looping around from the southern section of Southwark Bridge Road which is to be closed by the proposal. Consequently they considered that the proposed arrangements do not take account of off peak traffic movements associated with the club, but concluded that an informal off peak taxi waiting area should be able to operate. As there is no formal taxi rank in the vicinity of MoS, TfL do not consider that there are any issues to address. Private hire vehicles can in any case only operate on a pre-booked basis.
Strategic Transport
258 A significant constraint in the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area is the limited capacity of the London Underground (LU) Northern Line ticket hall, the poor urban realm in the vicinity of the Elephant and Castle Northern roundabout, and the sub-standard facilities for cyclists and pedestrians at the Northern roundabout. The location and design of an expanded Northern Line ticket hall is
page 51 being progressed by LU in tandem with the Northern roundabout improvement designs in particular for sustainable modes, on which public consultation is due to commence shortly. A funding package for these projects has been identified comprising a combination of developer contributions via the Elephant and Castle Strategic Transport Tariff, TfL and Southwark Council contributions. The allocation of funding reflects the importance of the project in mitigating the cumulative impact of development and thereby unlocking the growth potential of the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area.
259 The development will contribute £3,188,212 (indexed from 2012) under the Elephant and Castle Strategic Transport Tariff, with 25% payable on implementation, 50% on the first anniversary of implementation and 25% on the second anniversary of implementation. This will be secured in the section 106 agreement.
London Underground
260 The Northern Line tunnels run under Newington Causeway in close proximity to the site. The applicant therefore will be required to submit detailed construction drawings and method to LU for approval prior to commencement, to ensure that tunnel integrity is not compromised. This will be secured via planning condition and reinforced with an informative.
Buses
261 Although there will be no significant impact on bus service capacity from the development, the proposed public realm works will require significant changes to bus operations.
262 Each phase of the public realm works will have differing levels of impact on bus service operations. Phase I will include the implementation of the majority of the public realm works but with bus movements and some bus standing maintained on Southwark Bridge Road and on Gaunt Street. The other bus standing would be relocated north of the site further up Southwark Bridge Road.
263 Phase II would see the removal of all bus movements from the southern end of Southwark Bridge Road and the completion of the University Square, which will result in the closure of the southern section of Southwark Bridge Road up to the point where it meets Gaunt Street (apart from servicing and access to Keyworth Street and retention of the cycle lane/Cycle Superhighway 7).
264 With Phase II, the northern section of Southwark Bridge Road will become one way in a northerly direction, with Gaunt Street connecting to this with existing one-way traffic flow reversed to a northerly direction. Traffic going in a southerly direction would instead use Borough Road and London Road/Newington Causeway. Bus stands on the closed section of Southwark Bridge Road will be relocated. The Gaunt Street bus stands would remain. The proposed servicing bay, on-street blue badge parking and access to the basement car park have been designed to take account of bus operations. The timescale for the implementation of Phase II is dependent upon TfL identifying alternative bus standing in the Elephant and Castle area. Phase II is however fully funded by the developer such that implementation can occur as soon as possible following relocation of the stands by TfL.
265 The section 106 agreement secures funding towards the costs associated with relocation of bus stands in both phases (£386,000 in total indexed from 2009).
Parking
266 In line with national, London Plan and local policies, new developments should encourage reduced car dependence in areas with good accessibility to public transport and thus encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes. The proposal is situated in close proximity to Elephant and
page 52 Castle with its National Rail and LU lines and the area is well served by buses. Accordingly, the site has a very high public transport accessibility rating (PTAL) of 6b.
267 The site falls within the Congestion Charging Zone and all roads in the immediate vicinity of the site are within a Controlled Parking Zone.
268 The development provides 34 blue badge car parking spaces and 44 motorcycle spaces within two basement floors, accessed via a car lift from Gaunt Street, so the development is effectively ‘car free’. A car lift waiting bay and an on-street blue badge bay will be sited along Gaunt Street adjacent to the development. Access to electric vehicle charging points will be possible from all spaces. A condition requiring the submission and approval (in consultation with TfL) of a parking management plan prior to commencement, detailing how the basement car and cycle parking spaces will be laid out, accessed and managed will be a condition of any planning permission. .
269 Given the very high accessibility of the site the parking levels (for blue badge users only) are strongly supported and in line with London Plan Policy 6.13 (Parking). Further to this, existing traffic orders would be amended to prevent future occupiers (excluding disabled occupiers) from obtaining parking permits. This would prevent overspill car parking in the surrounding street by occupiers of the development. The costs of the amendment to the orders would be paid by the developer who would also be required in the section 106 agreement to ensure that occupiers of the development are made aware of this prohibition.
270 A car club scheme operates within the Borough. The section 106 agreement will obligate the developer to promote and support occupiers’ membership and the use of the car club via the Travel Plan.
Pedestrians and urban realm
271 The extensive public realm works associated with the proposals have been described in detail elsewhere in this report. Both phases will have significant benefits for the pedestrian environment and safety in the vicinity of the site. Beyond this, the Elephant and Castle Strategic Transport Tariff contribution of over £3m under the referred to above will contribute towards the Northern Line Ticket Hall and/or improvements to the Northern roundabout. Both will have benefits for the public realm at Elephant and Castle, with the Northern roundabout scheme being particularly beneficial for pedestrians and cyclists
272 The section 106 agreement also secures £25,000 (indexed from time of negotiation in 2009) towards urban realm improvements at St Georges Circus to mitigate the heritage impacts of the proposal. The TfL urban realm scheme for this area will have inherent benefits for pedestrians and cyclists.
Cycling and cycle routes
273 Cycle Superhighway 7 (CS7) passes the site, running along Keyworth Street and Southwark Bridge Road. The public realm works secured by condition will maintain CS7, with the design agreed by TfL.
274 A local cycle route runs along Keyworth Street/Southwark Bridge Road and this will also be provided for within the public realm works. Cyclist using both CS7 and the local cycle route will benefit from reduced interaction with general traffic especially in Phase II of the public realm works.
page 53 275 The Mayor’s previous report raised the need for expansion of the Cycle Hire Scheme (CHS) in the vicinity of the site (CHS was not in operation when the planning application was submitted). The closest CHS docking station in Ontario Street is very well used and only has 13 docking points, with no room for expansion. The section 106 agreement secures £189,000 towards a new cycle hire docking station in the vicinity of the site which TfL will progress.
276 The scheme provides four separate lockable cycle parking rooms within the second basement of the development which contain Sheffield Stands and some cycle stackers. These will contain 335 residential cycle spaces and nine commercial cycle spaces with a cycle lift allowing for easy transportation between levels. 34 resident visitor spaces will be provided at street level adjacent to the residential entrance lobby with a further twenty spaces provided at street level for other general visitor cycle parking. Within the office building, thirteen cycle spaces are provided for commercial and retail users in a secure cycle room at ground floor level.
277 The proposed cycle parking is in accordance with the Southwark Plan and in excess of the recently published revised early minor alterations to the London Plan. The comments from Southwark Cyclists concerning cycle parking (requesting more) are noted; however in the absence of a local or London-wide policy to support their suggested level and the practicality of provision, it would not be reasonable to refuse planning permission on this basis. Southwark Cyclists also requested a specific sum of money for cycle improvements, however given the benefits of the public realm works to cyclists, contribution towards a new cycle hire docking station, contribution towards the Elephant and Castle Strategic Transport tariff for improvements (which will include substantial improvements for cyclists at the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout), and contribution towards St George’s Circus improvements (which also improves the conditions for cyclists), a further specific sum for cycling is not considered appropriate.
Travel plan
278 A draft Travel Plan was submitted with the application which suggests a number of practical measures and travel initiatives to reduce car dependency of future occupiers and visitors to the site. The plan seeks to actively promote the use of non-car modes of transport, including walking, cycling and the use of public transport and would also support a car club, allowing residents and businesses to have access to a car in their neighbourhood without having to purchase and subsequently store one. A full Travel Plan, and monitoring of this by the Council, will be required by the section 106 agreement.
Deliveries and servicing
279 Gaunt Street provides the vehicular access to the basement parking area, and provides a loading bay for service and refuse vehicles. Domestic deliveries are made to service bays on Gaunt Street and Newington Causeway. A deliveries storage room opening off the entrance lobby gallery will allow for efficient and rapid drop-off of items. Resident mailboxes are arrayed across the wall to the rear of the lift core and stair core and will be easily accessible from the entrance lobby.
280 Servicing from the on-street loading bay, located on Gaunt Street, has been agreed by Council transport officers and by TfL (in respect of bus operations). Further, full details of servicing operations will be sought though the submission of a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan, to be prepared in accordance with the London Freight Plan (or successor document).
281 The tower has an interim waste room (residents refuse drop off) at ground floor which will be transferred by the building management service to a central waste storage area in the basement of the tower prior to collection. Adequate refuse storage space has been incorporated for the commercial and retail floorspace within the basement. The waste strategy for handling residential waste is considered satisfactory.
page 54 282 Within the office building, a dedicated refuse store is provided at ground floor with direct access to Gaunt Street for collection. Whilst the proposals for waste storage are considered generally acceptable, final details will be sought via condition of any approval to ensure adequate provision is made.
Demolition and construction
283 The ES sets out a construction methodology, which is discussed in detail below. A Demolition and Construction Method Statement (DCMS), in line with the London Freight Plan (or successor document), is proposed to be developed by the Principal Contractor and will be secured by condition. It would include measures to protect cyclists’ safety during construction, particularly given the relatively high cycle flows on CS7 and other routes in the vicinity of the site, and will be subject to consultation with London Underground and London City Airport on matters of interest to these bodies.
Mitigation
284 This is as set out in relevant section below.
Mayoral CIL
285 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide community infrastructure levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater London that is granted planning permission on or after that date. The Mayor's CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail. London borough Councils may also introduce local CIL charges, which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Southwark Council has yet to introduce a local CIL but has consulted on a draft charging schedule.
286 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three groups for the purposes of CIL charging. The rate for Southwark is £35 per square metre. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and the Council once the components of the development have themselves been finalised with reference to the 2010 regulations. The contribution in respect of Mayoral CIL is estimated to be around £1,382,780.
Transport summary
287 Overall, the proposal is consistent with London Plan policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.7, 6.7, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13 and 6.14, 8.2 and 8.3, Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 2, and Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6 and 5.7. It would contribute under the Strategic Transport Tariff towards transport improvements in the Opportunity Area, significantly improve the public realm in the vicinity of the site, fund the relocation of bus standing to allow these improvements (subject to agreement with TfL), help promote non-car modes of transport including via a Travel Plan, provide an acceptable level of and arrangements for car parking and bicycle storage, have appropriate controls on transport impacts during demolition and construction and employ suitable delivery, refuse and servicing arrangements. Environmental Impact Assessment
Scope and methodology
288 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) submitted for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, hereafter the ‘Regulations’. As a result the proposal constitutes EIA development
page 55 for the purposes of those Regulations pursuant to Regulations 4(1) and (2). The EIA regulations 1999 have been replaced by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 however the 1999 Regulations continue to apply to applications received prior to 24 August 2011.
289 Regulation 3 of the Regulations precludes the granting of planning permission unless the local planning authority has first taken the ‘environmental information’ into consideration. The ‘environmental information’ means the Environmental Statement, including any further information, any representations made by consultation bodies, and any other person, about the environmental effects of the development.
290 The applicant received pre-application advice from statutory consultees and a ‘Scoping Opinion’ from Southwark Council, issued on 9 May 2008 under Regulation 10 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999. The application was duly accompanied by an Environmental Statement (February 2009) comprising: a Non-Technical Summary; Main Report (Volume 1); Townscape Assessment (Volume 2); and Technical Appendices (Volume 3).
291 Since the submission of the application and original Environmental Statement (February 2009) a series of amendments have been made to the proposal, as detailed elsewhere in this report. There have also been various regulatory changes and representations made regarding the application, including the Environmental Impact Assessment. The Environmental Statement (February 2009) has therefore been duly updated by: Environmental Statement Addendum 1 (submitted July 2009); Environmental Statement Addendum 2 (submitted May 2011); Environmental Statement Update (January 2013); Environmental Statement Addendum 3 (April 2013); Environmental Statement Addendum 4 (July 2013); and Environmental Statement Addendum 5 (17 July 2013). These have been subject to public consultation under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.
292 The Environmental Statement Update (January 2013) was submitted to the GLA in acknowledgement of the passage of time since the application had been submitted, to review the ES in light of any changes to policy, legislation and/or baseline conditions at and around the site to determine whether the conclusions of the 2009 ES remain valid. The update also took into account additional schemes which had been consented and/or completed in undertaking the cumulative impact assessment.
293 The Environmental Statement (ES) details the results of the EIA and provides an assessment of the likely significant Beneficial and adverse environmental impacts in relation to the Proposal. The ES includes the following areas of impact (in the order they appear in the ES):
Demolition and construction; Sustainability; Socio-economics; Traffic and transportation; Ground conditions and contamination; Water resources and flood risk; Noise and vibration; Air quality; Archaeology; Wind;
page 56 Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing; Ecology; Electronic interference; Cumulative impacts; Residual impacts; and Townscape assessment (Volume 2).
294 In assessing the likely significant environmental impacts of a scheme the ES identifies the existing (baseline) environmental conditions prevailing at the site and the likely environmental impacts (including magnitude, duration, and significance) taking account of potential sensitive receptors. It further identifies measures to mitigate any adverse impacts and summarises the potential positive and negative residual effects after these have been applied in order to assess their significance and acceptability.
295 Reference to cumulative effects includes the combined effects of different types of impact, for example noise, dust and visual impacts, impact interactions and impacts from other known developments which individually may be insignificant but when considered together could amount to a cumulative impact.
296 The potential and residual impacts have been classified as being ‘negligible’, ‘adverse’ (detrimental or negative impacts to an environmental source or receptor) or ‘beneficial’ (advantageous or positive impact to an environmental resource or receptor). Where impacts are adverse or beneficial their magnitudes are categorised as ‘minor’, ‘moderate’ or ‘major’ as set described below:
Minor Slight, very short, or highly-localised impact of no significance.
Moderate Limited impact (by extent, duration or magnitude) which may be considered significant.
Major Considerable impact (by extent, duration or magnitude) of more than local significance or, in the case of adverse impacts only, in breach of recognised acceptability, legislation, policy or standards
297 The individual areas of impact listed above and addressed within the ES are considered below and more generally elsewhere in this report. Where mitigation of effects through the design process alone have not been possible, mitigation will be achieved by one of the following means:
though controls on demolition and construction activities;
through on-going management and monitoring once development commences; and
through use of conditions and section 106 provisions.
298 The scope and methodology of the ES is in accordance with the Regulations and appropriately responds to Development Plan policy and supplementary planning guidance.
Alternatives assessment
299 The Regulations require an assessment of the ‘main alternatives’ and accordingly the ES sets out the various alternatives that have informed the proposal. These include a ‘no development’ scenario in which the site would be left in its current state. This is assessed to have a negative impact,
page 57 by reason of the under-utilisation of the site, the loss of opportunity to deliver housing across London and to enliven the area through the development of retail uses within the development, and the general loss of public realm benefits offered by the scheme. The development opportunity is a direct result of the location of the site within the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area covered by the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area SPD and OAPF. The site is identified as being suitable for redevelopment and therefore consideration of an alternative site was not considered necessary.
300 The ES describes the design evolution following a series of consultations and design briefs. The design has factored in key issues such as Rights of Light and the need to provide a form of development that would fall within an acceptable range of environmental effects. The applicant has adequately addressed this aspect of the Regulations.
Demolition and construction
301 The ES outlines the anticipated demolition and construction methodology activities which are programmed to last for around 51 months: six months for demolition; sixteen months for substructure; and 31 months for the superstructure. The ES includes details of the foundation strategy, hours of work, potential impacts and mitigation. A Demolition and Construction Method Statement (DCMS) including a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) will be developed by the Principal Contractor appointed by the developer. This will include measures such as registration with the UK Considerate Contractors Scheme, management of trade contractors, traffic management, access and egress, temporary road closures, road cleanliness, management of noise, vibration, and dust.
302 The DCMS will form part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will also include a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP). The approval of the CEMP prior to commencement of works will be a condition of planning consent.
Sustainability
303 The ES outlines the findings of the Sustainability Assessment, which reflects the structure of the Mayor’s SPG on Sustainable Design and Construction. With regards to climate change mitigation and adaptation, the London Plan promotes mitigation and adaptation principles in the policies in Chapter 5. In terms of mitigation, the applicant proposes a range of measures to minimise carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in accordance with the energy hierarchy set out in London Plan policy 5.2. The scheme incorporates low energy lighting, high efficiency boilers, optimised facade and enhanced thermal insulation, building energy management system, whole house ventilation, and roof mounted photovoltaic panels.
304 The proposal as submitted in 2009 proposed a connection to a local district energy network as part of the energy strategy, however the likelihood of delivery of a district energy system in Elephant & Castle is less certain than at the time the proposal was submitted, as the Council is no longer proposing to procure a Multi-Utility Service Company (MUSCO). It is, however, likely that a district energy network will be brought forward in the area in the medium to long term and proposals in the area are accordingly expected to be designed to be capable of connection to any future network and to facilitate its development where feasible. The proposal also includes a centralised plant which will allow for future connection to district heating scheme if it comes forward, and the section 106 agreement includes a clause requiring the applicant to connect to a future Energy Services Company (ESCO) if the opportunity arises.
305 Excluding the connection to a district heating network, the other measures incorporated in the proposal as set out above would allow the proposal to exceed the baseline CO2 emission savings required by the Building Regulations in force at the time the planning application was made (Part L 2006) by 20%. However, Building Regulations have since been updated to Part L 2010 and these constitute the point of reference for the current London Plan policies. Although without connection
page 58 to a district heating network the proposals would not achieve the target level of carbon savings in line with the London Plan 2011 targets, a higher level of CO2 emission savings in line with the targets in the London Plan 2011 could be achieved if the scheme were to connect to a district heating network.
306 With regards to climate change adaptation, the proposal will provide non-potable ‘green’ water services for use in the WC’s, washing machines and dishwashers, In addition, water efficiency measures are proposed which will limit consumption to 105 litres per day. The proposed green wall, linear park and residents garden will promote biodiversity and assist in localised climate control. The proposed landscaped areas will also assist with surface water drainage. The implementation of the green wall, provision of electric car charging points, surface water storage tanks and installation of photovoltaic panels are secured by planning condition.
307 The applicant has demonstrated that the submitted scheme will achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 rating on the basis of the current stage of design; the development will be able to incorporate additional measures as scheme detail is developed further and therefore a condition requiring the development to achieve Level 4 has been agreed.
308 A preliminary BREEAM assessment was submitted in relation to the commercial element, which indicated that the scheme should achieve a ‘Very Good’ rating, however the applicant is confident that a rating of ‘Excellent’ can be achieved and has agreed a condition to that effect. The required standards will be secured by condition and will be in compliance with sustainability policies of the London Plan, Core Strategy and Southwark Plan.
309 On the basis of the findings of the Sustainability Assessment, the ES concludes that the Sustainability Assessment incorporates many of the impacts and mitigation methods identified by the ES as a whole and summarises a series of beneficial impacts. Amongst these it is concluded that the proposal will: make the best use of this previously developed land by providing a carefully designed mix of public space, amenity, office and residential dwellings; employ an energy strategy that will minimise energy consumption; promote sustainable waste behaviour; have positive socio-economic impacts and contribute to the regeneration of the area; and promote sustainable transport. Officers concur with these conclusions.
Socio-economics
310 The ES assesses the socio-economic impacts of the proposed development during construction and when in operation. It is estimated that the construction of the proposed development will create a total net employment of 1,180 jobs over the 51 month construction period. These short-term construction sector jobs are assessed as having a minor beneficial impact on the Greater London economy.
311 It is estimated that during operation the proposed development will create a total net employment of 208 jobs, principally arising from the office use. This permanent employment is assessed as having a residual long-term minor beneficial impact on the Greater London economy.
312 Other operational residual effects of the proposal development are assessed as follows: local economic impact – long-term, minor beneficial; housing – long-term, minor beneficial; affordable housing – long-term, negligible; education – long-term, negligible; health – long-term, negligible; open space – long-term, negligible; and play space – long-term, minor beneficial.
313 In considering the socio-economic impact at the initial submission, the original ES took into account a proposed section 106 financial contribution towards a library in the area, which was a policy requirement at the time, as well as contributions towards school places, and concluded the Proposal would have a long-term, negligible impact on socio-economics. Since the initial ES, the Council’s Core Strategy has been adopted and no longer requires a library, although the need for school places
page 59 remains. The section 106 therefore provides for school places as originally proposed, along with contributions to the improvement of community facilities in Newington, Dickens Square Park, Rockingham Estate and Scovell Estate, thereby maintaining the long-term, negligible effect anticipated for socio-economics.
314 The assessment considers the cumulative socio-economic effects and concludes that the impacts of the other schemes coming forward in the area will be assessed and addressed where necessary through mitigating planning obligations.
Socio-economic impact on the Ministry of Sound
315 It is noted, as set out in the relevant section of this report, that representations have been made asserting that the ES assessment of socio-economic impact is inadequate as it fails to assess the likely significant socio-economic effects of the proposal on the MoS nightclub. This view is premised on the belief that future occupants of the proposal will have cause to take action that will ultimately result in the cessation of the operation of the MoS nightclub with consequent socio-economic effects. Such action may comprise action in nuisance law and/or representations to the local authority licensing committee arising from a perception of noise or other forms of disturbance from the MoS nightclub. MoS has submitted a socio-economic assessment dated September 2010 in support of this position.
316 The Applicant has reviewed the MoS socio economic assessment and provided a response in ES Addendum 2 (May 2011). This response concluded that the ES socio-economic assessment provides a robust assessment of the likely significant impacts of the proposal and the conclusions of the original ES remain valid. This response was subject to consultation under Regulation 19, in response to which MoS maintained its view that the ES is deficient.
317 The likely significant noise and vibration impacts on the Proposal from external sources, including the MoS nightclub, are considered in a separate discussion on noise and vibration below. The conclusion of GLA officer’s consideration of noise and vibration impacts is that, subject to the approval of conditions and the submitted modifications to the proposal, the residual noise and vibration impacts on the proposal would not be significant. On this basis a consequent socio- economic impact on the MoS nightclub due to action from future occupiers cannot be reasonably viewed as a likely significant effect of the proposal. Officers are satisfied that the socio-economic impacts of the proposal have therefore been adequately assessed in the ES.
Traffic and transportation
318 The ES summarises the findings of the Transport Assessment included in the EIA, which is considered further in the ‘Transport’ section of this report. A full assessment of the impact of the scheme on the surrounding road network and public transport facilities, including consideration of impacts during demolition and construction, has been made using acceptable methodologies and baseline data.
319 The proposal would be consistent with national, regional and local transport policies. Its location in a highly accessible area means that it is anticipated that more than 95% of peak hour trips would be non-car based and sustainable transport modes would be further encouraged through a travel plan.
320 The ES identifies minor adverse impacts associated with vehicle movements during the demolition and construction stage but these would be temporary and reversible, as long as mitigation measures encompassed in the Demolition and Construction Method Statement are followed.
page 60 321 The impacts on public transport services arising from the scheme in isolation are negligible, but minor adverse when considered as part of the cumulative development in the area. The largest residual impact on the local area would be on London Underground services, in particular at the capacity-constrained Elephant and Castle Northern Line station, however this will be mitigated by the payment of the Strategic Transport tariff.
322 The ES concludes that proposal will have a residual minor adverse effect on the local road network, partly as a result of the proposal closure of the lower half of Southwark Bridge Road to create the new public square. The new square would, however, result in a moderate beneficial impact on the pedestrian and cycle environment.
Ground conditions and contamination
323 The ES assesses the impacts associated with potentially contaminated soils and groundwater in and around the site during construction and following completion of the development. The anticipated impact on groundwater flow would be negligible if appropriate design measures and a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) are correctly implemented during excavations. The CEMP would include a Demolition and Construction Method Statement.
324 Disturbance of contaminated soils during construction may adversely impact on groundwater quality, as the historical use of the site suggests that some contamination may exist. Areas of the site not affected by excavation will have appropriate remediation, and earthworks will have due regard to a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) which forms part of the CEMP. Any hazardous waste will be pre-treated prior to disposal in accordance with the relevant waste disposal legislation. If any significant contamination were identified, its removal would result in a Moderate Beneficial impact to ground resources in the area. The storage of any fuels and plant in the basement of the completed development will be designed to meet the relevant statutory requirements and consequential the potential impact is assessed as negligible.
325 The submission of the CEMP prior to commencement of works would be a condition of any planning consent. Subject to these measures the impacts would be negligible and potentially moderate beneficial. Officers concur with this assessment.
Water resources and flood risk
326 The ES considers the impact of the proposal on surface water, hydrology and hydrogeology of the surrounding area and potential for flood risk. The application site is located in Flood Zone 3 on the Environment Agency Flood Map and is assessed to be at high risk from fluvial and tidal flooding, although it benefits from established flood defences.
327 The ES identifies that the demolition and construction phase of the building could give rise to disturbance of contaminated ground which may in turn contaminate surface water and shallow groundwater. It does, however, conclude that given the underlying geology and subject to mitigation measures such as waterproofing and pumping any impacts will be negligible. These matters would be covered in the Construction Environmental Management Plan. The operational impacts on these matters would be negligible.
328 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted as part of the EIA. The landscaped areas and on-site rainwater storage will are expected to attenuate peak flows to 50% of the existing runoff. These mitigation measures would result in the proposal having a negligible impact on flood risk. Implementation of the proposed development in accordance with the FRA would be a condition of planning consent.
page 61 329 Basement units will be used for parking areas, storage and some plant areas. In the unlikely event of a breach of the defences and the site being inundated by floodwater, several measures are proposed in the FRA to mitigate the potential impacts:
- Provision of a safe access to a refuge on the first floor accessed by internal stairs; - Designated Flood Warden to ensure evacuation of basement levels in the event of a Flood Warning; and - Provision of a pump to remove any floodwaters that inundate the basement levels.
330 In terms of water supply, the construction and operation of the building will generate an increase in demand for water resources, which is likely to give rise to a minor adverse impact in the short-term. Likewise with wastewater generation the proposal will result in an increase in foul water in the downstream sewerage system. This increase will, however, be offset by the decrease in surface water drainage, with the residual impact being negligible. The ES notes, however, that in both cases the statutory undertaker, Thames Water, has a duty to meet demand and therefore any impact from the proposal, and any cumulative impact, will be mitigated over the long term. The approval of a drainage strategy and a water supply infrastructure impact study in consultation with Thames Water will be a condition of planning consent.
Noise and vibration
331 The likely significant noise and vibration impacts of the proposal have been assessed in the ES (incorporating all addenda which have been issued to clarify and extend the ES). The ES considers the noise and vibration impacts during demolition and construction, noise emitted from the proposal in operation; and changes in road traffic noise as a result of the proposed development. The noise and vibration impacts from external sources on the development have also been assessed to ensure the proposal incorporates sufficient protection for future residents against external noise, and to ensure the proposed internal level of transport noise will be able to achieve a rating of ‘Good’ according to the British Standard BS:8233 guidelines.
332 The NPPF states (paragraph 123) that “planning policies and decisions should aim to: (i) avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; (ii) mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.” These aims also broadly align with the aims of the Government’s policy on noise as set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE, March 2010). The underpinning aims in paragraph 123 of the NPPF, published since the original consideration of the Proposal, have guided the assessment of noise issues.
333 London Plan policies 3.5, 4.6 and 7.15, London Plan Housing SPG policy 3.5, Southwark Core Strategy Policy SP13, Southwark Plan Saved Policies 2.5, 3.2 and 4.2, Southwark Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, and the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF are also pertinent to the consideration of these matters. The latter SPD includes area specific internal and external noise standards that have been taken into account in the assessment of noise issues. Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policy 3.2 Protection of Amenity states that “Planning permission for development will not be granted where it would cause loss of amenity, including disturbance from noise, to present and future occupiers in the surrounding area or on the application site”(their emphasis).
Noise and vibration impacts during demolition and construction
334 The ES assessment of potential noise and vibration impacts during the demolition and construction phase indicates that without mitigation, there is potential for moderate adverse noise and vibration impacts on the surrounding area as a result of the demolition and construction activities. This is a worst case assessment and it is expected to be mitigated to a minor adverse and negligible (in some cases) impact by using the best practicable means of demolition and construction. To ensure
page 62 that these will be applied and monitored the approval of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) including a Demolition and Construction Method Statement (DCMS) will be secured by condition.
335 The ES also separately assesses the potential impact of demolition and construction traffic on noise and vibration, and considers that this traffic will have a negligible impact on the local area given the existing high traffic flows in the area and the controls to be exercised by the DCMS. Officers concur with the assessment.
336 Further to the above noise assessment, concerns were raised at consultation that the ES did not sufficiently consider whether residents of nearby Metro Central Heights would be adversely impacted by noise from MoS nightclub once Eileen House was demolished and prior to construction of the new development, as the current building on the site provides acoustic screening to the nearby residents and that demolition would remove the screen and result in an adverse impact on residents.
337 An addendum to the ES dated 3 July 2013 has assessed the impact of all local noise and vibration, including noise generated by the MoS nightclub, on residents of Metro Central Heights (MCH) with both an empty site at Eileen House and with a 5m/3m hoarding around the empty site. The ES addendum states that “whilst demolishing Eileen House and constructing a 5m/3m hoarding around the perimeter of the site will result in an increase in noise from the MoS, this will not materially increase the impact on residents of MCH” in the context of the existing ambient noise levels at the facades of MCH. Consultants commissioned by MoS reviewed the first and subsequent revised drafts of the ES Addendum and argued that the applicant’s assessment was inadequate to allow anyone to properly draw the above conclusions about the potential impact on residents at MCH of the construction and demolition phase of development.
338 In light of the differing assessments from the applicant and the objectors, GLA officers sought advice from independent acoustic advisors, who considered the evidence presented by both the applicant and the consultants to MoS, and also took into account the view issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the ES screening for the proposed demolition of Eileen House.
339 The GLA advisors examined the information submitted on likely levels of music noise and background noise at different frequencies at the façade of MCH that had been provided by the consultants to MoS, and came to the view that there was likely to be a relatively minor impact on some MCH residents, but that this particular impact, which would likely be of limited duration, would be mitigated to some extent by the provision of the hoarding around the perimeter of the site during the demolition and construction phase. The impact would also be reduced because of the pre-existing high background noise levels in the affected area, and may also be further reduced if MCH residents choose to close their windows at night, which would be a reasonable expectation in an area that already has high levels of background noise. The GLA advisors noted that in some cases the flats at MCH appear to have been fitted with secondary glazing and that closing such windows would provide additional sound insulation at all frequencies. This would likely result in a further reduction of impact on residents in MCH than had been predicted in the various noise assessments.
340 GLA advisors noted that the MoS concerns have centred on the question of audibility of music noise, however music noise from MoS may be already be audible from time to time at night (with Eileen House in place) depending on the extent of masking from other noise sources; the GLA advisors noted this, and that any increases in the highest music noise levels at the façade of MCH following demolition of Eileen House will be relatively small in amplitude. The GLA advisors concluded that music noise may be audible at MCH at some frequencies and at some times following the demolition of Eileen House and the erection of the proposed hoarding, but that this is not likely to result in a significant impact on residents.
page 63 341 Concerns were also raised relating to the potential socio-economic effects on the MoS nightclub arising from the removal of the existing building on site and potential subsequent noise complaints from residents of MCH. In light of the advice above, there would not appear to be any likelihood that such a complaint would result in cessation of MoS business.
342 Officers are therefore satisfied that the impacts of noise and vibration during demolition and construction works, both socio-economic and acoustic, have been adequately assessed.
Noise and vibration impacts arising from the operation of the proposed development
343 The ES assesses the impacts from the proposed development arising from building services plant and road traffic.
344 The ES proposes noise limits for new building services plant associated with the development that would mitigate the residual impact of noise from building services plant to a negligible level. The specification and ongoing maintenance of building services plant in accordance with these noise limits would be a condition of planning consent.
345 The ES assesses that the completion of the proposal and the associated Phase I changes to the highways arrangement are expected to result in noise level increases of around 1-2 dB(A) on some roads in the area(although reductions on Southwark Bridge Road are dependent upon the implementation of the public realm scheme), with the impact after Phase I implementation assessed as being minor adverse. These increases, however, are partly attributable to assumed background growth, including cumulative schemes, of traffic in the area.
346 The Phase II works are expected to reduce road traffic noise levels by up to 6 dB(A) on Southwark Bridge Road to the south of Gaunt Street which will result a moderate to major beneficial impact on this area, however the re-routing required to achieve Phase II will also result in minor adverse impact on the other immediate surrounding streets. Again, part of that impact can be attributed to background growth and cumulative schemes. Officers concur with these assessments.
Vibration impacts on the proposed development from external sources
347 Measurements have also been made in the basement of the existing building to quantify the potential vibration impact on the Proposal. The potential impact of vibration on the proposal has been assessed as negligible.
Noise impacts on the proposed development from external sources
348 The ES assessment of noise impact on the proposed development has been informed by a series of acoustic surveys variously conducted and attended by the applicant, Southwark Council and advisors, MoS and the applicants for the now consented proposals at 89-93 Newington Causeway. The acoustic surveys of the site have established that it is exposed to high levels of noise emanating from:
Environmental noise sources comprising transport (road traffic and the railway) and all other environmental noise sources; and
The MoS Nightclub (comprising ‘music breakout’ and ‘crowd’ noise).
349 These likely significant impacts are addressed in turn below.
‘Environmental’ noise sources
page 64 350 A high level of noise from environmental sources, especially transport, is not unusual in an inner London context such as this and it is common practice to require specialist acoustic designs to overcome this so that satisfactory acoustic conditions can be provided within buildings. In this case the greatest impact is from transport (road traffic and railway) noise.
351 The sensitive receptors are the residential dwellings located in the tower. The design of the proposal seeks to mitigate the impact of the noise arising from road traffic at ground level by raising the proposed dwellings to the fourth storey and above. In addition, the building facade including the glazing systems, has been specified to ensure an acceptable internal acoustic environment is achieved. The ES includes detailed modelling of the mitigation afforded by proposed facade which demonstrates that the internal acoustic environment would readily attain the standard set out in the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF.
352 Officers are confident that the ES demonstrates that the internal acoustic environment would readily attain the standards set out in the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF for transport noise affecting living spaces and bedrooms. The daytime noise standards for transport noise affecting external amenity spaces are complied with as far as reasonably practicable. Officers concur with this assessment. The approval of the detailed design of the facade and its ongoing compliance with the relevant acoustic performance criteria secured by condition.
Ministry of Sound Nightclub noise sources
353 MoS has a 24 hour licence to operate a nightclub on its site seven days a week. It has a small outdoor courtyard, and patrons queue along Gaunt Street and Newington Causeway to gain entry to the nightclub. The terms of the licence allow for ‘late-night refreshment’ in the outdoor courtyard, but do not allow any other licensable activities (including the playing of music or live performance) outside after 22:30.
354 The noise emanating from the MoS nightclub comprises ‘music breakout’ noise and ‘crowd’ noise. The ‘music breakout’ noise is attributable to music noise escaping from the club through the building fabric, notably the roof and doors when open. The ‘crowd’ noise is principally attributable to the noise generated by patrons queuing to enter the club on the north side of Gaunt Street, patrons in the external courtyard area of the club, and operational activities associated with the management of patrons outside of the club, such as positioning of crowd barriers and the informal taxi rank operated in association with the nightclub. Further to the above sources of noise, the nightclub also generates noise in their external courtyard by playing music via external speakers. It is important to note, however, that loudspeakers within the courtyard are not authorised under the club's license for public entertainment, and that therefore music played through these speakers must be at background level only.
355 Noise emanating from the nightclub is typically at its greatest at night when environmental noise sources are significantly reduced. The surveys undertaken as part of the ES demonstrated that music noise breakout would typically reach its maximum between 02:00 – 04:00 hours. Moreover the variable nature of noise, be it from crowds or music breakout, is of a character that may make it particularly distinguishable and potentially disturbing to future occupiers of the proposal.
356 The original proposed design response and site layout took account of the potential for noise and nuisance arising from the nightclub by positioning the office building directly opposite the nightclub courtyard and raising the proposed dwellings in the tower to the fourth storey and above. Further to this, the building facade and glazing system were specified to ensure an acceptable internal acoustic environment would be achieved.
357 Concerns were raised by MoS at initial consultation stage that the noise surveys submitted with the ES and which informed the façade and acoustic mitigation strategy were deficient on the basis
page 65 that they had not taken adequate account of the presence of MoS and the likely noise implications arising from the normal operation of their business. A number of subsequent noise surveys were carried out by the Council, MoS and the applicant, as well as a review of the noise assessments for the scheme which had been consented at 89-93 Newington Causeway. Submitted noise surveys indicated "noise from the courtyard and other activities in the street would significantly exceed the internal noise spectrum with windows open but the spectrum (a design criteria that was being discussed at that time) would be achievable with dual glazing and closed windows." With windows closed, the applicant’s surveys suggested that noise would not have a significant impact on the internal acoustic environment experienced by future occupiers of the proposed development.
358 Prior to consideration by the Council’s planning committee, the applicant proposed a revised building facade incorporating sound insulation, acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation which would minimise the need to open the windows to ensure a suitable internal acoustic environment could be achieved and to mitigate the noise impacts as far as possible. The Council’s planning committee, however, in refusing to grant permission, found that the provision of openable windows would be likely to result in noise disturbance from the nightclub and would therefore fail to provide a satisfactory standard of amenity in terms of noise, contributing to one of their reasons for refusal.
359 Following the Mayor’s decision to act as the Local Planning Authority, MoS reiterated their objection to the proposal on various noise related grounds. The GLA’s independent advisors had previously reviewed the planning application and several of the noise surveys. The advice provided to the GLA was that good acoustic conditions could not be met on the open balconies or inside certain rooms with windows/doors open and that very high performance acoustic glazing and sealed windows would be necessary to achieve acceptable internal noise levels, thereby reducing the risk of complaints about noise arising.
360 Further discussion with the applicant, including the examination of specially produced 3D acoustic models, resulted in revisions to the external building design to incorporate enhanced acoustic glazing, sealed wintergardens to the units on the north elevation of the building fronting Gaunt Street (i.e. nearest the nightclub), and sealed windows with acoustic glazing on the west elevation and the section of the east elevation of the building nearest the nightclub. The remainder of the east elevation and south elevation was similarly designed, except with openable windows and wintergardens where appropriate. Where dwellings were proposed to be sealed it was agreed that they would be served by ‘whole house’ ventilation systems to ensure adequate ventilation. It is important to note that mechanical ventilation would have been required in some dwellings in any case to mitigate air quality impacts.
361 The applicant submitted revised plans illustrating the sealed wintergardens and windows, and a revised addendum to the ES which described the predicted internal noise levels on all elevations that would result from the modified building design, both with windows (and any doors) closed and with windows partially open, and included detailed modelling of the mitigation afforded by proposed facade. In order to meet the proposed music noise criteria in the case of the worst affected units on the north elevation it was found necessary to assume that the internal windows and doors from the flats into the winter gardens were closed. Keeping the doors and windows to the wintergardens shut at night would be a decision for occupiers to make but it is not unreasonable to assume that they would do so if they felt it necessary. Moreover, given the provision of mechanical ventilation, opening a window would not be necessary for natural ventilation.
362 The Mayor’s Housing SPG advocates the use of winter gardens as a form of acoustic mitigation in noise environments such as this. A discussion of overall residential design quality of the proposed dwellings is considered elsewhere in this report, however with regards to acoustic and air quality measures, the proposal is consistent with emerging and current planning policy and would attain a good standard of residential design consistent with the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.5 and the Mayor’s Housing SPG.
page 66
363 GLA’s independent acoustic advisors considered the revised design and addendum to the ES, and stated that the risk that certain future residents might choose to open their windows at night and complain about noise from MoS operations has been greatly reduced because those bedrooms potentially most exposed to noise from nightclub operations would now be protected by sealed wintergardens and sealed high performance windows. In addition, the GLA’s advisors have suggested that the whole house ventilation system which is to be provided to each dwelling should be designed as far as reasonably practicable to contribute to the masking of any residual noise break-in from outside.
364 The acoustic assessment submitted with the application confirms that regardless of the presence of the MoS nightclub, the site would experience high levels of background noise given its inner London location in close proximity to a busy road and railway. The MoS continues to assert that its nightclub would nevertheless be the focus of nuisance complaints from future residents because of the nature of the noise emitted and inadequacy of the mitigation proposed. GLA advisors have reviewed the ES and noted that it separately considers environmental noise (from transport), music noise from the MoS nightclub and crowd noise from nightclub patrons in its courtyard and on Gaunt Street, and predictions of internal noise levels that are expected to result from the proposed building design are technically robust. The GLA advisors note that relevant acoustic criteria were applied to each source of noise in the ES, and appropriate high performance acoustic glazing has been specified along with other special acoustic design measures to reduce noise from all sources (including noise from activities in the street) both on balconies and inside living rooms and bedrooms.
365 The mitigation proposed through special acoustic design measures shall be controlled via planning conditions which will require:
approval of detailed design, including specific agreed glazing systems, and pre-completion testing to demonstrate the maximum level of environmental (transport-related) noise achieved within rooms with windows closed does not exceed agreed maxima as set out in the planning conditions;
approval of a report demonstrating that certain internal noise levels are not exceeded within bedrooms (with windows and doors closed) as a result of entertainment (music) noise sources from the MoS nightclub. The report shall include details of laboratory tests confirming the assumed sound insulation performance of the relevant elements of the building facade. The development to be implemented in accordance with the approved construction details; and
provision of mechanical ventilation, which shall contribute as far as practicable to the masking of residual noise break-in from outside, and retention thereafter in an operable state;
to ensure that occupiers and users of the proposed development do not suffer a loss of amenity from noise or vibration and that occupiers of neighbouring premises and users of the surrounding area do not suffer a loss of amenity by reason of noise.
366 The measures proposed ensure that residual impact on residents is acceptable in planning policy terms, and subject to compliance with licence conditions and noise nuisance legislation the likelihood of a complaint that might result in cessation of activities at the nightclub has been substantially diminished.
367 The Proposal is consistent with national planning policy guidance concerning residential development in noisy locations such as this, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the aims set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE). The NPPF was introduced following the submission of the original application and ES and its consideration by Southwark Council, and supersedes previous national planning policy guidance on noise in Planning
page 67 Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG24). Officers are also satisfied that the requirements of Southwark Plan (UDP) saved policy 3.2 with regards to the protection of amenity and quality of life have been adequately addressed.
368 The NPPF, together with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and supplementary guidance issued thereunder constitute the current planning policy framework regarding noise matters. The Government has also published draft National Planning Practice Guidance on Noise (NPPG), however, as it still in draft form little material weight can be applied to it. The draft NPPG currently states that the potential effect on an existing business of a new residential development being located close to it should be “carefully considered”. As it currently stands, the NPPF emphasises that development should be allowed to proceed provided that noise does not cause significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life, and that other such adverse impacts from noise are reduced to a minimum. On the basis of the information contained in the ES the revised design of the proposed Eileen House development should meet these objectives and is therefore consistent with current and emerging policy.
369 Officers therefore accept that the original conclusions of the ES with regards to noise remain valid; taking into account the design mitigation proposed to address the acoustic conditions in the environment, noise levels within the proposed residential units will remain within the Council’s required standard, and there will not be a significant residual adverse impact from noise which would be likely to give rise to complaints which could lead to the cessation of the MoS business.
Air quality
370 This part of the Borough is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) where concentrations of nitrogen dioxide NO2 and fine particulate matter PM10 are already high, exceeding the Air Quality Standard objectives. The ES assesses the impact of the proposed development during demolition, construction and operational phases.
371 The ES predicts that dust emissions during construction, if unmitigated, would have a short- term Moderate adverse impact at the site boundary. Mitigation measures are, therefore, proposed and will be required as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The submission and approval of the CEMP prior to commencement of works would be a condition of planning consent. The ES predicts that following mitigation, the impacts from construction plant emissions will be of a minor adverse significance and construction road traffic of negligible significance. These matters will be covered in the CEMP.
372 The ES notes that, irrespective of any impact from the proposal, the area is likely to exceed the Air Quality Standard objective for annual mean NO2 concentrations. The redirection of traffic flows around the site associated with the phased implementation of the public realm scheme is likely to result in an improvement in air quality in the areas where the public realm is created and traffic is displaced from and deterioration in air quality on roads to which traffic has been displaced.
373 The potential residual impacts arising from road traffic associated with the development on completion of Phase I are anticipated to have a minor adverse impact at five of the eight modelled receptor points, and a major adverse impact at Receptor 6 (a commercial building on Borough Road). The latter would, however, represent a 'small' magnitude of change due to concentrations already exceeding the Air Quality Strategy objectives. Moreover this receptor is not in a residential environment meaning people will not reside there 24 hours a day. The impact on the other modelled receptors is anticipated to be negligible or minor beneficial. The cumulative impact in terms of NO2 is assessed as being marginally greater than above, ranging from negligible adverse to minor adverse significance; for PM10 the significance of the cumulative impact will be negligible adverse.
page 68 374 The potential residual impacts arising from road traffic associated with the development on completion of Phase II are anticipated to have a major adverse impact at the eastern boundary of the site (Receptors 1, 5, 6, and 7 which include Borough Road, Newington Causeway, Gaunt Street) since traffic flows will increase in this area as a result of the displacement of traffic following the closure of the southern end of Southwark Bridge Road to create the new public square. The implementation would result in a minor adverse impact on Receptors 4 and 8, a negligible impact at Receptor 2 and a minor beneficial impact at Receptor 3. The mitigation measures proposed in relation to traffic and transportation are covered elsewhere in this report but will seek to ensure that traffic generation from the site is minimised and controlled. The cumulative impact in terms of NO2 is assessed as being marginally greater than above , with major adverse significance at four receptors (primarily due to the concentrations being above the standard prior to the scheme being implemented) and minor adverse significance for three receptors; for PM10 the significance of the cumulative impact will be negligible.
375 The ES indicates that the heating plant is predicted to have, at worst, a minor adverse impact on local air quality at ground level. In terms of the dwellings themselves the applicant has, given the potential exposure to high levels of PM10 and NO2 in the vicinity, considered the need for passive and active on-site air quality mitigation measures. The design incorporates some passive measures such as raising units above street level and including winter gardens and sealed windows to some dwellings. Further to these measures a filtered ‘whole house’ ventilation system is proposed to fully mitigate these impacts. The submission of a report setting out details of active air quality mitigation measures will be a condition of consent.
376 In summary it is noted that the proposal will result in deterioration in air quality at some receptors, and negligible or minor beneficial impact at other receptors, within an area that is likely to exceed the Air Quality Standard objective for annual mean Nitrous Oxide (NO2).
Archaeology
377 The site is located within the Borough, Bermondsey and River Archaeological Priority Zone, against the boundary of the Kennington Road and Elephant and Castle Archaeological Priority Zone. A desk-based archaeological assessment of the likely effects of the development on the archaeology and built heritage of the area has been undertaken. A review of the baseline conditions and potential for further discovery of archaeological remains is provided in the ES which is based on relevant literature and documentary sources. The building occupying the site has an existing basement which will have had an impact upon archaeological remains.
378 The ES indicates that there is a low potential for archaeological remains from the pre-historic period, but with a high potential for remains dating from the Roman period, as the line of a major Roman road is likely to have run through the centre of the site. There is again low potential for remains during the Medieval period, with some evidence of agricultural features. There is high potential for remains from the Post-Medieval period in the form of forts or defensive ditches from the Civil War. There are also below ground remains of the mid-19th century terraced housing along the perimeter of the site. The ES proposes that a programme of archaeological investigation is be undertaken, with the aim of achieving preservation by record (trenched evaluation), and that on this basis the proposal would result in an overall negligible residual impact. Southwark Council officers considered that subject to the findings of this investigation further archaeological evaluation and reporting may be required and proposed conditions to this effect be attached to any consent. These conditions would be attached to any planning consent issued by the Mayor.
Wind
379 The ES sets out the results of an assessment of the potential wind effects of the proposed development, including wind tunnel testing to provide a quantitative assessment of the effects. Baseline wind conditions were established through wind tunnel tests, which found the site conditions
page 69 to be relatively calm. The ES included two scenarios for assessment- a worst case in windy conditions and summertime. Under worst case conditions, nine locations were identified as suitable for sitting in the immediate area (the majority within the residents garden close to the tower residential entrance), 29 locations were suitable for standing/ entrance use within the immediate surroundings (mainly in the public realm areas of the scheme and close to building entrances) and ten locations were suitable for leisure walking (mainly Gaunt Street). The ES sets out mitigation methods that will reduce the impacts to negligible significance, including the use of recessed entrances, removal of the entrance in the south-west corner of the tower, recessing the entrance at the north corner of the office block and use of landscaping to enhance the micro-climate.
380 Following the Mayor’s decision to become the Local Planning Authority, the MoS submitted objections to the proposal on the basis that the ES did not account for wind microclimate impacts beyond the site boundaries and that the mitigation schemes proposed would have limited effect on the conditions beyond the site. The objection focused on the impact on patrons queuing in worst case conditions, and suggested that the ES had over-simplified and incorrectly assumed the factors in the worst case conditions.
381 In response the applicant provided a supplementary assessment, which was consulted on as ES Addendum 3 in May 2013, wherein further modelling of wind microclimate in the vicinity of the MoS was assessed. The assessment concluded that although there would be an increase in wind at the tested locations, the wind environment where patrons were most likely to queue would still remain suitable for a combination of sitting and standing in the windiest season, and the impact would be classified as negligible or minor beneficial. MoS has maintained their objection on the basis that the proposed mitigation would not be as effective as claimed by the applicant, and that the comfort standards on which the assessment are based was not the appropriate measure for the anticipated behaviour of MoS patrons.
382 GLA officers have considered the assessments submitted by both the applicant and MoS, and concur with the conclusions in the ES.
Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing
383 The ES considers the impact of the proposed development on the daylight and sunlight of existing properties and amenity areas surrounding the site. The impact arising during construction is assessed as negligible. The assessment notes that there are no public open or private amenity spaces located within ninety degrees of north so no sensitive receptors in terms of overshadowing exist. In terms of daylighting impacts on other sensitive receptors, the ES identifies that regarding Metro Central Heights the impact is negligible, and regarding the Ontario Street Hostel, Stephenson House and Telford House, minor adverse impacts are predicted. The impact on the sunlight received by windows in the relevant properties is assessed as being negligible. All associated residual and cumulative impacts are assessed as negligible. GLA officers concur with this assessment.
Ecology
384 There are no statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations encompassing or adjacent to the site. The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries, a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, is within 1.2km of the site. The existing site is entirely built up with associated hardstanding and is of negligible ecological value. It is within a ‘Known Key Area’ for Black Redstarts and although the ES indicates that the site is unlikely to be used for foraging and nesting at present the birds are known to inhabit building sites. That being the case the ES advises that were demolition and construction, and the allied disturbance, to cease for more than two weeks during the breeding season then the site should be surveyed and Natural England contacted if nests are found. This matter will be covered in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), the approval of which will be a condition of any consent. During demolition, the impact on ecology in terms of dust
page 70 and noise will be of negligible significance due to the lack of sensitive receptors of ecological value near the site. The impact arising from construction is assessed as negligible.
385 The proposed public realm improvements and overall landscaping strategy, which would include native species, are assessed as having a positive impact on local ecology, assessed to be of minor beneficial significance. The approval of an Ecological Action Plan detailing the implementation and ongoing maintenance of measures to promote biodiversity on the site will be a condition of any planning consent. The cumulative ecological impacts are assessed as negligible. GLA officers concur with the ES assessment.
Electronic interference
386 The ES includes an assessment on the effects of the tower on broadcast radio, terrestrial television and satellite television signals which can be affected by tall buildings and other large structures. The ES originally indicated that there was likely to be some impact on analogue terrestrial television signal coverage immediately to the north of the site. The likely shadow area was assessed to be similar to the width of the proposal, diminishing in width for more northerly receiver locations, but with mitigation the impact was assessed as negligible. The ES now notes, however, that analogue terrestrial television signals have been turned off in London and replaced by digital television transmissions of greater power. Therefore any impact that might have occurred will have been further reduced. The impact is therefore assessed as being negligible, as would be any residual and cumulative impact. Officers concur with this assessment.
Townscape, conservation and visual Impacts
387 A separate ES Volume has been dedicated to the Townscape, Conservation and Visual Impacts. The size and scale of the proposed development will mean that there will be a varied and, in certain locations, significant visual impact on local views and the townscape. A visual assessment was carried out to establish the existing townscape and visual baseline conditions, including 30 views (some the same location but summer/ winter provided) taken at selected points in the vicinity of the site (Conservation Areas, key viewing corridors) as well as views taken from various designated views as set out within the Mayor’s LVMF. A series of photomontages showing existing views from sensitive receptors looking towards the site have been included alongside photomontages depicting the cumulative view (i.e. a view incorporating the proposed scheme and other consented schemes within the vicinity).
388 The townscape assessment has been updated several times since it was originally submitted in February 2009, to take account of and incorporate the reduction in height, changes to the façade design, and to add the cumulative impact of schemes which had been consented or completed since the original ES was undertaken. English Heritage, Royal Parks and the City of Westminster have raised concern regarding a number of views along with other respondents to consultation. In response, the applicant has undertaken further photography and issued two additional verified views of Trinity Church Square in an addendum to the ES.
389 Each of the views has been assessed in terms of the significance of the potential impact, which in the majority of cases is considered to be of a neutral, negligible or minor-major beneficial significance. The views identified as having an impact of major beneficial significance are the daytime and dusk views from the southern end of Borough High Street, daytime and dusk views of the Tabernacle from the Southern Roundabout, and the view from St George’s Circus.
390 The most recent assessment is generally satisfactory with potential impacts on the townscape and local views towards the site identified. Where an impact is anticipated, it is considered to be beneficial owing to the high quality of the design, the contribution of the proposal to the local townscape, and the contribution of the proposal to the emerging cluster of towers at Elephant and
page 71 Castle. Where the cumulative views have changed owing to additional local developments, the impact ranges from none for strategic views, to moderate beneficial owing to a moderate increase in cumulative impact for Renfrew Road and Walcot Square Conservation Areas, to significant beneficial impact owing to significant cumulative increases in views from the Pullens Estate and of the Tabernacle. The conclusions and impacts set out in the ES remain as originally identified.
391 A separate addendum to the Townscape Assessment was submitted to assess the potential impacts of the proposal on Metro Central Heights following its Grade II listing by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in July 2013. As discussed above, the proposal was judged to have a positive impact on the setting of the listed building, and would not harm the significance of the building.
Cumulative Impacts
392 The ES considers the cumulative impacts of the development, including those impacts that result from incremental changes that are caused by past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions combined with the proposed scheme. Two types of impacts have been considered, the combined effect of individual impacts, such as noise, dust, or traffic, on receptors, and the likely impacts combined with those of several development schemes. The assessment includes a summary of other developments that are proposed (focussing on those with extant planning permissions or those under construction) within the surrounding area in relation to the demolition, construction and operational phases of the proposed development.
393 The ES identifies that most of the cumulative impacts are negligible, with those Adverse impacts being primarily of minor significance, short-term and of a localised nature. The following is a summary of the likely adverse cumulative impacts:
Foul Drainage- when combined with consented development in the area, there could be a temporary minor adverse impact on downstream sewage treatment works if capacity is limited and assuming all foul drainage is directed to the same treatment plant;
Air quality impacts during Phase I are of a minor adverse significance in most receptor locations, with improvement (or a minor beneficial impact) in air quality in one location (corner of Gaunt Street and Southwark Bridge Road). Dust impacts are assessed to be negligible. During Phase II the air quality impacts on N02 are assessed to be of a major adverse impact (due to the concentrations being above the standard without the Proposal to start with) in most receptor locations, with one indicating a minor beneficial impact. The applicant has proposed a means of mitigation with respect to air quality, which is subject to conditions of approval;
The removal of potentially contaminated soil from the site and the immediate area would have a minor-moderate beneficial significance
Residual impact assessment
394 The ES outlines residual impacts, i.e. those that remain following the implementation of any mitigation measures. In the construction (including demolition) phase, the ES identifies minor adverse impacts from noise and vibration during superstructure construction and fit-out and some temporary adverse impacts of minor-moderate significance on air quality and electrical interference. In terms of operational impacts the ES identifies that a number of beneficial impacts will occur. The key positive benefits offered by the scheme include socio-economic impact, noise and vibration (road traffic removal in the new public square), and ecology. Permanent adverse impacts are seen in terms of air quality, noise and vibration (road traffic elsewhere), traffic and transport (highways impact following
page 72 closure of the lower part of Southwark Bridge Road to create the new public square). Officers are satisfied that the residual impacts of the scheme have been fully assessed in the ES.
Environmental statement - conclusion
395 The ES provides an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposal during the construction and operational phases. The documents comply with the relevant Regulations in terms of their scope and methodology for assessment and reporting. They also appropriately respond to Development Plan policy, supplementary planning guidance and the representations made. As is usual for a major development of this nature there are potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, mitigation has been identified to address adverse impacts. The general residual impact of the development is considered to range from negligible to minor beneficial throughout most of the site. There are some adverse residual effects as a result of the development and these have been identified in the assessments and taken into account in the consideration of the application together with the representations made by third parties. Mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations
396 The NPPF states that “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.”
397 At the regional level, London Plan Policy 8.2 sets out the Mayor’s priorities for planning obligations, and states: “Affordable housing; supporting the funding of Crossrail where this is appropriate (see Policy 6.5); and other public transport improvements should be given the highest importance.”
398 Southwark Core Strategy Strategic Policy 14; Southwark Plan (UDP) saved Policy 2.5, the Council’s Section 106 SPD and the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF sets out the Council’s priorities for planning obligations. The SPD provides charging mechanisms in some cases, but also allows a degree of flexibility in negotiating obligations to take account of development viability, the particular circumstances of the case, and any benefits that may be provided in kind.
399 Pursuant to the consideration within the previous sections of this report, and in line with the policy context set out above, the planning obligations required to appropriately mitigate the impact of this development, are set out below.
400 All planning obligations, except the Strategic Transport Tariff, will be indexed from 2009, as this is when the original planning obligations including those used in the viability assessment and for consultation were calculated. The Strategic Transport Tariff will be indexed from 2012 as this Tariff only came into effect in that year.
Air Quality Monitoring Contribution
401 The Southwark Plan (UDP) July 2007 Saved Policy 3.6: Air Quality: This part of the Borough is an Air Quality Management Area. As a large number of people within the final development will be exposed to high levels of pollution from the quality of the air in the vicinity, the applicant has agreed to make a £60,000 towards air quality monitoring in the area.
Affordable housing
402 London Plan Policy 3.3 provides that the Mayor will seek to ensure that the identified housing need is met through a provision consistent with at least an annual average of 32,210 net additional
page 73 homes across London. London Plan Policy 3.10 provides strategic definitions of affordable housing which will apply to the scheme. London Plan Policy 3.11 states that the Mayor will, and boroughs and other relevant agencies and partners should, seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in London over the term of the Plan. The proposal includes 335 new homes, including 65 intermediate affordable homes, which would make a significant contribution to these strategic targets. The affordable housing offer initially could not be considered to represent the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in accordance with (now) London Plan Policy 3.12. Third party financial assessments of the applicant’s appraisals in August 2009, updated in August 2011 and most recently in November 2012 concluded that, having regard to the relevant policy considerations, the affordable housing proposed represented the maximum reasonable amount. Furthermore, in light of the current economic conditions, the section 106 agreement will include a review mechanism to ensure that the viability of the scheme will be reviewed on implementation and any uplift go towards additional affordable housing on site or by way of a financial contribution to off-site provision. This approach is consistent with London Plan Policy 3.12.
Archaeology
403 The Southwark Plan (UDP) July 2007 Saved Policy 3.19: Archaeology: The site is located within the Borough, Bermondsey and River Archaeological Priority Zone, against the boundary of the Kennington Road and Elephant and Castle Archaeological Priority Zone. The building occupying the site has a basement and this will have had an impact upon buried archaeological remains. Any site investigation works should be archaeologically monitored to help reveal the remaining potential on the site. Depending upon the results of such an investigation, an archaeological evaluation may be required and further works. These works will be secured by condition, in line with Southwark Plan policies 3.15 and 3.19, and the applicant has agreed to make a £10,199 contribution towards this.
Community facilities
404 The Southwark Plan (UDP) July 2007 Saved Policy 2.2 Provision of new Community Facilities and The Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area SPD and OAPF (March 2012) support the payment of the contributions identified to mitigate the effect of the scheme on the locality. The applicant has agreed to make a £116,000 contribution towards the improvement of facilities and Public Realm as deemed as appropriate by the Council.
Education
405 The contribution of £222,756 accords with Southwark Council’s section 106 toolkit.
Employment skills training and enterprise
406 London Plan Policy 4.2 states that the Mayor will support mixed use development and redevelopment of office provision to improve London’s competitiveness. The proposal will deliver a sustainable mixed-use scheme. The applicant is providing their own Workplace Coordinator (WPC) during construction. The WPC’s role will be regulated through the proposed section 106 Agreement by, for example, providing that the WPC will establish links with all site contractors, employers and sub-contractors to identify their recruitment requirements and to market the services of the WPC etc. In default (ie: if the developer does not employ a WPC or there is under performance on behalf of the WPC) a contribution of £309,086 would be required to provide a WPC, or £23,828 if the WPC appointed by the developer is deemed to have underperformed.
Energy service company
page 74 407 In line with London Plan policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.5 and 5.6, the s106 agreement requires commitment to connect as soon as possible to an ESCO or decentralised energy system, or in the absence of an ESCO, to design and implement the proposal so that it can easily connect to a future decentralised energy system.
Health Contribution
408 The contribution of £343,507 towards the Princess Street clinic or other local facility accords with Southwark Council’s section 106 toolkit.
Local procurement
409 The London Plan requires that 4,200 jobs are identified within this Opportunity Area between 2001 and 2026, and that opportunities within the CAZ for local communities, businesses and London as a whole shall be identified as a strategic priority. The proposed section 106 obligations accord with that aim; for example, the applicant will work with Southwark Council’s Economic Development Team to seek to procure contracts with Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the Borough, and to endeavour that the value of such contracts shall be at least 10% of the total value of the construction contract.
Parking restrictions
410 The Southwark Plan (UDP) July 2007 Saved Policy 5.6 Car Parking: the proposal is in a high PTAL area (level 6), within a CPZ and the CAZ and the development is therefore required to be car free. Given the very high accessibility of the site the parking levels (for disabled users only) are appropriate and traffic orders will be amended to prevent future occupiers (excluding disabled occupiers) from obtaining parking permits. The applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £2,750 in respect of necessary amendments to existing traffic management order arrangements and to make occupiers aware of the prohibition.
Public realm
411 Various public realm and highway improvements are required and these will be governed by a section 278 highways agreement. The applicant has agreed to contribute works of a minimum value of £1,456,000 towards Phase I public realm improvements, and works of a minimum value of £937,800 for Phase II public realm (or payment of an equivalent sum to the Council for public realm improvements). The applicant has also agreed to a maintenance scheme for public realm works which will include payment of commuted sums towards the maintenance scheme.
Cycling
412 The applicant has agreed to a financial contribution towards provision of a Cycle Hire Scheme docking station in the vicinity of the site; and that the Cycle Super Highway and local cycle routes will remain open during and after all the construction works.
Travel Plan
413 The proposed s106 Agreement includes obligations to develop, implement and monitor a travel plan, including the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator, in accordance with local and strategic policy.
St George’s Conservation Area Contribution
414 The proposed section 106 agreement includes obligations to contribute to a TfL public realm improvement scheme at St George’s Circus, and which will improve the setting of the St George’s
page 75 Circus Conservation Area. This will mitigate the concern raised by English Heritage over potential harm to the Conservation Area owing to the visibility of the proposal in the background of St George’s Circus. This improvement is part of a wider TfL scheme for the entire link between Blackfriars Bridge and the Elephant & Castle.
Strategic Transport Tariff
415 In line with the Elephant and Castle SPD and OAPF the section 106 agreement includes a £3,188,212 contribution, calculated in line with the Strategic Transport tariff, towards strategic transport improvements which would both improve sustainable transport and the public realm in the wider area.
Sustainable Transport
416 In line with national and London Plan policies, the GLA seeks to encourage reduced car dependence particularly in areas such as this with good accessibility to public transport and thus encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes. This supports the payment of the transport contributions identified to both mitigate impact of the scheme and enhance sustainable transport provision, including bus contributions, cycle hire docking station contribution, public realm improvements, strategic transport tariff and CIL payment.
Mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations – conclusion
417 The planning obligations proposed are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Localism Act (amendment to S70(2) of the TCPA 1990)
418 Section 70(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) entitles the local planning authority (and on appeal by the Secretary of State) to grant planning permission on application to it. From 15th January 2012, Parliament has enacted an amended section 70(2) as follows:
419 In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to:
a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; b) Any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application; and c) Any other material consideration.
420 Section 70(4) defines “local finance consideration” as:
a) A grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or b) Sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy.
421 In this context “grants” might include the new homes bonus and payment of the community infrastructure levy.
422 These issues now need to be treated as material planning considerations when determining planning applications or planning appeals.
page 76 423 Regarding Community Infrastructure Levy considerations, following the publication of the London Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy, the London Mayoral CIL is now operational, as of 1 April 2012. The Mayoral CIL applicable to a scheme of this size is £1,382,780 which is based on the gross internal area of the proposed development. The scheme is proposed to provide 20.8% affordable housing (intermediate shared ownership, on a habitable room basis) and will therefore qualify for social housing relief on a proportion of this sum.
424 The New Homes Bonus was introduced by the Coalition Government during 2010 as an incentive to local authorities to encourage housing development. The initiative provides un-ringfenced finance to support local infrastructure development. The New Homes Bonus is based on actual Council tax data which is ratified by the CLG, with additional information from empty homes and additional social housing included as part of the final calculation. It is calculated as a proportion of the Council tax that each unit would generate over a rolling six year period.
425 Using the DCLG’s New Homes Bonus Calculator, and assuming that the scheme is implemented/occupied without any variations or amendments, this development is likely to generate approximately £500,000 within the first year and a total of £3.4m over a rolling six year period. There is no policy or legislative requirement to discount the new homes bonus against the s.106 contributions, and therefore this initiative does not affect the financial viability of the scheme. Legal considerations
426 Under the arrangements set out in Article 7 of the Order and the powers conferred by Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Mayor is acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the purposes of determining this planning application.
427 Section 35 of the Greater London Authority Act 2007 inserts section 2F into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a requirement that for applications the Mayor takes over, the Mayor must give the applicant and the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to make oral representations at a hearing. He is also required to publish a document setting out:
Who else may make oral representations; The procedures to be followed at the hearing; and, Arrangements for identifying information, which must be agreed by persons making representations
428 The details of the above are set out in the Mayor’s Procedure for Representation Hearings which reflects, as far as is practicable, current best practice for speaking at planning committee amongst borough councils.
429 In carrying out his duties in relation to the determination of this application, the Mayor must have regard to a number of statutory provisions. Listed below are some of the most important provisions for this application.
Statutory duties in relation to the Development Plan
430 In determining any planning application and connected application, the Mayor is required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan (which in London consists of the Borough LDF, the London Plan and Neighbourhood Plans as appropriate) so far as is material to the application and to any other material considerations. The Mayor must determine the application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a very significant material consideration.
page 77 431 Other guidance, which has been formally adopted by Southwark Council and the GLA (e.g. Supplementary Planning Guidance and Conservation Area Appraisals), will all be material considerations of some weight (where relevant). Those that are relevant to this application are detailed in this Representation Hearing report.
432 Where the Mayor takes over an application, he becomes responsible for the section 106 legal agreement, although he is required to consult the Local Planning Authority. Both the Mayor and the Local Planning Authority are given powers to enforce planning obligations.
433 When determining this planning application, the Mayor is under a duty to take account of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 as they relate to the development proposal and the conflicting interests of the applicant and any third party affected by, or opposing, the application, in reaching his decision. Planning decisions on the use of land can only be taken in line with the Town and Country Planning Acts and decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
434 The key Articles to be aware of include the following:
(a) Article 6 - Right to a fair trial: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
(b) Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
(c) Article 1 of the First Protocol - Protection of property: Every person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
435 It should be noted, however, that most Convention rights are not absolute and set out circumstances when an interference with a person's rights is permitted i.e. necessary to do so to give effect to the Town and Country Planning Acts and in the interests of such matters as public safety, national economic well-being and protection of health, amenity of the community etc. In this case this Representation Hearing report sets out how this application accords with the Development Plan.
436 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (“the CIL Regs”) states that a section 106 planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. These are now statutory tests.
Equalities legislation and The Equality Act 2010 (EA)
437The Mayor and GLA have “general public body duties” under equality legislation. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA) includes a single public sector quality duty (“the Duty”) which brings together the previous race, disability and gender duties and extends coverage to include age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity and gender reassignment. These are the grounds upon which discrimination is unlawful and are referred to as ‘protected characteristics.’ The Duty requires the Mayor when exercising his functions to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the EA, advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
page 78 438Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low. The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities. Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to tackle prejudice, and promote understanding. Compliance with these duties may involve treating some persons more favourably than others.
439In practice this means that where likely adverse impacts on any protected group have been identified in relation to the development proposals, the Mayor should give serious and proper consideration as to whether and how those impacts might be mitigated; if mitigation is not to be pursued, then cogent reasons should be given for adopting this course of action. This report identifies whether any adverse impacts on protected groups have been identified.
440 Whilst these duties are relevant to the Mayor when considering all planning applications, in this particular case, there are no evident equality issues nor have any been raised as part of the consultation.
Conclusion
441 As detailed above Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 requires the decision to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
442 When assessing the planning application the Mayor is required to give full consideration to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations. He is also required to consider the likely significant environmental effects of the development and be satisfied that the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them, are perfectly understood.
443 In preparing this report, officers have taken into account the likely environmental impacts and effects of the development and identified appropriate mitigation action to be taken to reduce any adverse effects. In particular, careful consideration has been given to the proposed conditions and planning obligations which will have the effect of mitigating the impact of the development.
444 This report has considered the material planning issues associated with the proposed development in conjunction with all relevant national, regional and local planning policy, and has found that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of land use principle (mixed use development, public realm, Use Class B floorspace); housing (tenure, mix, density, quality, play and amenity space); design (including urban design, public realm, views, heritage); inclusive design; sustainable development; environmental issues; transport; and, mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations.
445 Accordingly, the recommendations set out at the beginning of this report are proposed.
page 79
for further information, contact Development & Projects: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Alexandra Reitman, Case Officer 020 7983 4804 email [email protected]
page 80