PACA b
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE A
Date and Time: Wednesday, 2 February 2011 at 7.00 pm
Venue : Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Democratic Services Officer : Antoinette Duhaney Governance and Democracy Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 3133 Democratic Services Fax: 020 7926 2361 Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, Email: [email protected] London, SW2 1RW Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
Despatched: Monday, 24 January 2011
MEMBERS: Councillors BRATHWAITE, EDBROOKE, LING (Vice-Chair), MORRIS (Chair) and PALMER
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors AMINU, CLYNE, GIESS and WELLBELOVE
AGENDA
Appendices to reports- bulky appendices are published on the Website www.lambeth.gov.uk and can be obtained from report authors or at the meeting. They are not circulated with the agenda.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
Page Nos. 1. Declarations of Interest
2. Minutes (05.01.11) 1 - 8
To agree the minutes of the meeting of 05.01.11 as an accurate record of the meeting.
Town & Country Planning Act (1990), The Planning & Compensations Act (1991), The Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations (1992), The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990), The Town & Country Planning General Regulations (1990), The Rush Common Act 1806 and related legislation: Applications
For information on documents used in the preparation of the reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.
3. 382, 386, 388 & 390 Streatham High Road, SW16 (St 9 - 46 Leonards ward) (10/04049/S106/JFU/43001)
Recommendation: Grant variations to Section 106 Agreement
4. Multi Storey Car Park, Popes Road, SW9 (Coldharbour 47 - 136 ward) (10/03425/FUL/JFU/23665)
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
5. 17 Porden Road, SW2 (Brixton Hill ward) 137 - 170 (10/04174/FUL/JFU/41734)
Recommendation: Grant temporary permission for 3 years subject to conditions
6. Arches 228-232 Waterloo Station Approach,SE1 (Bishops 171 - 188 ward) (10/03873/FUL/RSM/43749)
Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions
7. Dunraven Lower School Mount Nod Road and Dunraven 189 - 194 Upper School 82 -100 Leigham Court Road, SW16 ( Streatham Wells ward) (10/03979/DET/DSM/20511)
Recommendation: Grant approval of details
8. Planning Appeal Decisions (01.09.10 - 30.09.10 & 01.10.10 - 195 - 204 31.10.10)
9. Planning Enforcement Appeal Decisions (01.09.10 - 205 - 208 30.09.10 & 01.10.10 - 31.10.10)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS 1
Report deadline Agenda Deadline for Deadline to Meeting (Tues) Decision Published [5pm Published submission of register to speak 7pm by 8 clear days before [6 clear days additional [12 noon on day [5 clear days after meeting] before meeting] materials before meeting] meeting] [12 noon Thursday before meeting] 22.03.10 24.03.10 01.04.10 05.04.10 06.04.10 14.04.10 07.04.10 09.04.10 15.04.10 19.04.10 20.04.10 28.04.10 18.05.10 20.05.10 27.04.10 28.05.10 01.06.10 09.06.10 16.06.10 18.06.10 24.05.10 28.06.10 29.06.10 07.07.10 07.07.10 09.07.10 15.07.10 19.07.10 20.07.10 28.07.10 04.08.10 06.08.10 12.08.10 16.08.10 17.08.10 25.08.10 01.09.10 03.09.10 09.09.10 13.09.10 14.09.10 22.09.10 29.09.10 01.10.10 07.10.10 11.10.10 12.10.10 20.10.10 03.11.10 05.11.10 11.11.10 15.11.10 16.11.10 24.11.10 01.12.10 03.12.10 09.12.10 13.12.10 14.12.10 22.12.10 05.01.11 07.01.11 13.01.11 17.01.11 18.01.11 26.01.11 12.01.11 14.01.11 20.01.11 24.01.11 25.01.11 02.02.11 02.02.11 04.02.11 10.02.11 14.02.11 15.02.11 23.02.11 02.03.11 04.03.11 10.03.11 14.03.11 15.03.11 23.03.11 16.03.11 18.03.11 24.03.11 28.03.11 29.03.11 06.04.11 27.04.11 29.04.11 05.05.11 09.05.11 10.05.11 18.05.11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS A
Report deadline Agenda Deadline Deadline to Meeting (Wed) Decision Published [5pm Published submission of Register to speak 7pm by 8 clear days before [6 clear days additional [12 noon on day [5 clear days after meeting ] before meeting] materials before meeting) meeting] [12 noon Friday before meeting] 11.03.10 15.03.10 19.03.10 23.03.10 24.03.10 01.04.10 03.06.10 07.06.10 11.06.10 15.06.10 16.06.10 24.06.10 24.06.10 28.06.10 02.07.10 06.07.10 07.07.10 15.07.10 22.07.10 26.07.10 30.07.10 03.09.10 04.08.10 12.08.10 18.08.10 20.08.10 27.08.10 31.08.10 01.09.10 09.09.10 16.09.10 20.09.10 24.09.10 28.09.10 29.09.10 07.10.10 07.10.10 11.10.10 15.10.10 19.10.10 20.10.10 28.10.10 14.10.10 18.10.10 22.10.10 26.10.10 27.10.10 04.11.10 21.10.10 25.10.10 29.10.10 02.11.10 03.11.10 11.11.10 18.11.10 22.11.10 26.11.10 30.11.10 01.12.10 09.12.10 21.12.10 23.12.10 31.12.10 04.01.11 05.01.11 13.01.11 20.01.11 24.01.11 28.01.11 01.02.11 02.02.11 10.02.11 17.02.11 21.02.11 25.03.11 01.03.11 02.03.11 10.03.11 31.03.11 04.04.11 04.04.11 12.04.11 13.04.11 21.04.11 14.04.11 18.04.11 22.04.11 26.04.11 27.04.11 05.05.11 12.05.11 16.05.11 20.05.11 24.05.11 25.05.11 02.06.11
ACCESS INFORMATION
Location: • Lambeth Town Hall is on the corner of Acre Lane and Brixton Hill, 200 metres south of Brixton tube station (Victoria Line) – turn left on leaving the station and look for the clock tower.
Facilities for disabled people: • Access for people with mobility difficulties, please ring the bell (marked with the disabled access symbol) on the right-hand side of the Acre Lane entrance. • Mobility buses – telephone/minicom 020 7918 3312. • Induction loop facilities are available in Room 8 and the Council Chamber. • For further assistance please contact the officer listed on the front page
Queries on reports: Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The name and telephone number of the report author is shown on the front page of each report.
Other enquiries: Please contact the officer shown on the front page to obtain any other information concerning the agenda or meeting.
Accessing Agendas, Reports and Minutes All public committee papers are available for inspection at Minet Library and also on the internet from the day of publication in the following manner: • Log on to www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy • On the Council and Democracy Home Page click on the Calendar of meetings link on the right of the page. • Click on the Committees link then search the list of committees for meetings you are interested in. • Click on the Browse meetings and agendas for this committee link to access committee papers.
If you are unable to locate the information you require, please contact the officer shown on the front page above.
Representation:
Ward Councillors (details via the website www.lambeth.gov.uk or phone 020 7926 2170) may be contacted at their surgeries or through Party Group offices to represent your views to the Council: (Liberal Democrats 020 7926 2028) (Conservatives 020 7926 2213) (Labour 020 7926 1166).
b PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE (PAC)
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
1 Who sits on the PAC?
The Council has established 2 Planning Applications Committees (PAC 1 and PAC A). Each Committee consists of 5 Councillors (elected members) and both Committees have the same powers.
2 Where and when do PAC meetings take place?
Meetings are usually held in Room 8 at Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW. PAC 1 normally meets on a Tuesday evening and PAC A normally meets on a Wednesday evening. Meetings are held 2 or 3 times a month and are listed on the Council’s calendar of meetings at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgCalendarMonthView.asp?GL= 1&bcr=1
3 Can I attend PAC meetings?
Yes. All PAC meetings are open to the press and public although on rare occasions the Committee may discuss a matter in private.
4 How can I get a copy of any reports to be considered by PAC?
The officer reports on applications to be considered is circulated to PAC Members and published on the Council’s website a week before the meeting. Papers for meetings can be viewed at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/uuCoverPage.asp?bcr=1 . Hard copies are also available from Democratic Services at the meeting.
5 Can I make written representations to the PAC meeting?
Yes. Written representations, including any letters, petitions or photos should be: • Sent to the relevant case officer listed on the front page of the officer report preferably by email. • Sent by 12 noon 2½ working days before the meeting.
For PAC 1 meetings, the deadline for written representations is 12 noon on the Thursday before the meeting. For PAC A meetings, the deadline for written representations is 12 noon on the Friday before the meeting.
6 Can I speak at PAC meetings?
Yes. Applicants, supporters, objectors or Ward Members can address the meeting at the Committee’s discretion for a maximum of 3 minutes. In instances where the applicant, supporters, objectors or Ward Members have more than one person registered to speak, the 3 minutes will be shared among those wishing to address the Committee. You must register your wish to speak on any application by telephoning Legal and Democratic Services on 020 7926 2170 or emailing [email protected] by 12 noon on the day before the meeting .
Any request to speak received after this deadline will be considered at the Committee’s discretion subject to speakers being able to demonstrate that there are new issues which have not previously been considered and / or there were extenuating circumstances which prevented the request to speak from being made earlier.
7 Does the PAC consider applications in the order listed on the agenda?
No. The order of business is determined at the meeting taking into consideration:
(a) Whether an application has been withdrawn or officers are recommending deferral (b) Whether an application has been deferred from a previous meeting or has been the subject of a site visit; (c) The level of interest in an application (d) Whether applicants/supporters/objectors/Ward Members have any special requirements;
8 What is the process for considering an application at the meeting?
Officers will introduce each application with a brief Powerpoint presentation which will usually include drawings and photographs of the application site. The Committee will then hear from and question all interested parties. The merits of the application are considered taking into account the views of the interested parties and planning officers before the committee reaches a decision.
9 What are site visits?
Site visits are arranged by Planning Officers to allow the Committee and Ward Members to view the site and its surroundings and to seek clarification. However, the merits of the application are not discussed.
10 When do site visits take place?
Site visits usually take place on the Saturday morning immediately preceding the committee at which the application is to be considered. If you have already made written representations to the Planning Service about the application, you will be notified of the date and time of the site visit. The site visit is a good opportunity for any interested parties to explain the impact of the development.
11 If I am unable to attend the PAC meeting, how can I find out the decision?
You can find out the decision by contacting Legal and Democratic Services the day after the meeting. The minutes from the meeting will also be available on the Council’s website 5 working days after the meeting. Planning officers will send the applicant and any interested parties who have made written representations formal notification of the Committee decision.
12 Where can I get further information or advice?
If you would like further information or advice, please contact: (a) Town Planning Advice Desk: Tel: 020 7926 1180, Email: [email protected] (b) Town Planning Webpage: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/HousingPlanning/Planning/ (c) Legal & Democratic Services: Tel: 020 7926 2170, Email: [email protected]
This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 2 QG6IIDIB6QQGD86UDPIT8PHHDUU@@6 Xrqrqh$uEhh ! h& HDIVU@T !"# $ % & # ' ( ()* ( + ' %)
9@8G6S6UDPITPADIU@S@TU , ! HDIVU@T ! S@TPGW@9 ' & -. &' / & $' 0112 -- . & 3& - &, " '& ( 8G6QC6HSP69GPI9PITX(R@TUP8FX@GGX6S9 "$ %AVG6I9 "$#8PI * - & ' - &- &.& & /14 ' 5 , + '&& '' &-3&6 &'& '- .' -. &-- ,7 . & & M&&&&' 3 && & &'-3 .91: & ,7 . 3;<: & &- - & && & & ' -&& & & ' , M&'& &3 3 3 ' &&- & & & 3& &, &- Page 2
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age 3
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age 4
-' & & '.& + - &'' &-. && .3 .,,*& & - &&&&' 3 & & &- & & 3 - , ( ''&' -- .&'& 5 C' & 3 & -& &3 && .3'& - .& & .3' ' - & /14 %(!$ 3 $ % & ($$ 3 -- -- .& 5 && - C' && /14 ' , ! MB ! &M/ *$, ( !$ -- -- .& 5 && - C' && & /#' & -- R&& & & +- 02& ;1 & " & & .& '& & - & & - & % 3 3 .&& - /1 11& 3& & /9 11& /? 11& 3&, & -&.& ' 3 -& -& - - &. -' # 0#' /B $.3' ' - # +-3& & '- ' &'& & & .3.& 3 & & .3.&R & ,
;# /14 ' ' & & # & & '+ ' ;+/ /+0 ;+; #* & & &&- - .& & .' &-& . . 3 - , # - & - &-& & &- &- . & 3 & 6 %' , Page 5
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age 6
* &- &-- &'+ &E*& & && 3& '&& -- 3&' - E*& - ,&3 '+ &&'& 3& ' & '- .' & & & E*, &&' & 3. 3&&&&' && '-- , * &- & &&E*& &' & & && '- 3' & . 3- & ' -- - 3., ( %' & 3 & '' &-- & & ' 3&-- .& & $& &, %(!$ 3 $ % & ($$ 3 ' -- & & && - & & > 3 & ' 3 &-&& $ &, ! "; ! &"/ & &M/ *$ ( !$ -- & & && - & & > 3 & ' 3 &-&& $ &, $ "'#W6VYC6GGTUS@@UGPI9PIT@ $GBQSDI8@TX6S9 "AVG ''&.&- +'3 & &- & & && &-'3& && & &- -&' 3 '& &, %(!$($$ ' &3 ( !$ -- -- .& 5 && - 4 ' > & & 3 & -- ., 2 & & Page 7
& & - -& .-'&& 3 '&, % !&TUS@6UC6HW6G@GPI9PITX %$T@TUS@6UC6HTPVUC X6S9 !'!%AVG ''& . //-' & 3& 7 3&&-- -, %(!$ 3 $ % & ($$ 3 '- - &. - & +- 3& 7 3&&' ' /1 ;1'"// 11-' /1 ;1'M/1 11-', ! "B ! &"/ ( !$ - - &. - & +- 3& 7 3&&' ' /1 ;1'"// 11-' /1 ;1'M /1 11-', ((D% *) ' /1,B9-' 7* *) * *( (%%* $ $&- &3/; 301// > & $ 3 101<204;/;; D+ 101<2040;4/ "' 3F' , ., 6 ,' , ., Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank Page 9 Agenda Item 3
Application Summary
Page 10
Location Land At Numbers 382 386 388 And 390 Streatham High Road London
Ward St Leonards
Proposal Application to vary the Section 106 (legal) Agreement dated 4 Application December 2008 in respect of planning permission 08/03477/FUL to allow for the: Removal of the clauses requiring continuity of ice provision on site; Provision of a temporary ice facility in Pope's Road, Brixton whilst the Existing ice rink is demolished and the Hub scheme is built out in one phase; and the Temporary ice facility would remain open until the new permanent leisure centre (including the replacement ice rink) is built out and handed over to the Council.
Applicant Tesco Stores Limited
Agent Mr Adam Gostling
100 Pall MallLondonSW1Y 5NQ
Date valid 12 November 2010
Case Officer Mr Jonathon Fullelove
Application 10/04049/S106 Reference
Recommendation(s) Approve the variations to the s106 Agreement
Constraints Conservation Area
Within 100m of Trunk Road
Major Town Centre - Edge
Advert Publication 3rd December 2010 Date
Site Notice posted 3rd December 2010 on
2 Page 11
10/04049/S106
Executive Summary
In September 2002, the Council’s Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of what is now known as the “Streatham Hub” site in Streatham High Road for a mixed use scheme comprising a leisure complex (ice rink, swimming pool, health and fitness facilities and community uses), 250 residential units, including affordable housing, a retail store, bus lay-over, public square together with associated car parking and servicing (ref: 02/02557/FUL). Due to lengthy negotiations between the developer and the Council over the associated Section 106 and Development Agreements, the decision was not formally issued until 30 November 2007.
In brief, and specific to this agenda, it was anticipated and subsequently secured by the s106 Agreement that there would be continuous on site ice provision. The existing ice rink had therefore to be kept operational and open to the public for the duration of the construction of the new ice facility that forms part of the Streatham Hub scheme.
However, having reviewed the Hub scheme, the applicant is now seeking to build out the development in a single phase. This would deliver both time and cost savings but would necessitate the demolition of the existing ice rink from the outset.
In order to speed up the delivery of the scheme and taking into account the requirement for the continuity of ice facilities, it is now proposed to provide a temporary ice rink off site during the construction of the approved scheme which includes a permanent ice rink on the Hub site.
This re-consideration raises a number of issues which Members will assess as part of their consideration of this and the other related applications on this agenda. Firstly, there is the issue of the acceptability of the principle of allowing a temporary off site facility. This then raises the question as to whether the original s106 Agreement may be varied to remove the clauses requiring continuous on site ice provision and redraft it to facilitate a temporary ice rink elsewhere in the borough whilst the existing rink in Streatham is demolished and the Hub scheme built out in one phase.
After much investigation, the site of the former multi-storey car park in Porden Road, Brixton has been identified as the most appropriate site for the temporary ice rink. The redevelopment of the Pope’s Road site then raises the question as to the acceptability of replacing the displaced car parking provision with a temporary car park elsewhere in Brixton town centre.
There are therefore 3 linked applications before Members on this agenda. Firstly, there is the application to vary the original s106 Agreement for the Hub scheme to remove the clauses requiring the continuity of ice facilities on site and to facilitate a temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road whilst the new ice rink in Streatham is built out and handed over to the Council. Secondly, there is the planning application for the temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road and thirdly there is the planning application to relocate additional town centre parking spaces to the vacant site in Porden Road, Brixton as a replacement for the parking spaces that would have been provided at Pope’s Road once the existing closed multi-storey car park on the site is demolished.
3 Page 12
1.0 Background and Summary
1.1 In 2002 applications for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent were submitted for a mixed use development on the site now known as the “Streatham Hub”. The scheme included a retail store, 250 residential units of mixed tenure and crucially for the consideration of this application a new leisure centre which is to include a new ice rink to replace that presently on site.
1.2 Due to lengthy negotiations between the developer (also the applicant for this application) and the Council over the associated s106 (legal) Agreement and Development Agreement the decision was not issued until 30 November 2007. A subsequent applicant which sought to vary a number of the conditions imposed on this decision was approved in November 2008.
1.3 The signed s106 Agreement obligates the applicant to preserve a continuous ice facility on the Streatham Hub site at all times before, during and after the construction of the Hub development. In effect, this requires the new leisure centre to be completed before the existing rink can be demolished.
1.4 However, for reasons set out in the body of this report, the applicants are seeking to demolish the existing ice rink needs to be demolished in advance of the new replacement on-site rink being made available to the public.
1.5 This application to vary the s106 Agreement, therefore, is required to allow for the possibility that, instead of requiring continuity of ice provision on the Hub site, a temporary ice rink could be located elsewhere within the borough during the construction period.
1.6 Following extensive investigation, an appropriate site has been identified which is the former multi storey car park site in Pope’s Road, Brixton. The agreement of the Council to remove the clauses requiring on site provision and replace them with clauses to allow this temporary re-provision would neither remove the legally binding commitment to providing an ice facility at all times, nor would it remove the obligation then to provide a new state-of- the-art leisure centre, including an ice rink, at the Streatham Hub site.
2.0 Application Site
2.1 The “Hub” scheme would front Streatham High Road. The overall site is 2.4 hectares and extends from the railway line running through Streatham Station in the north to Natal Road in the south and extends to the rear of the residential properties in Ellora Road to the west. The “Hub” site excludes the United Reform Church and the properties at 374-380 and 392-394 Streatham High Road but includes the commercial premises to the north of the site at 360 – 374 Streatham High Road, the Streatham Leisure centre (currently closed to the public), the existing ice rink and the former bus garage to the south of the site (currently used as a go-kart track and turnaround facility for London Buses)
2.2 The whole of the “Hub” site and therefore the existing and proposed leisure centre and ice rinks are located within the southern end of the designated Streatham Major Town Centre. The hinterland of the “Hub” site is predominantly residential in character.
4 Page 13
2.3 Streatham High Road is part of the A23. The application site has excellent access to public transport with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 6a (Exceptional) given the proximity of Streatham Station which operates Thameslink and mainline rail services. The site is also well served by a number of bus routes running along Streatham High Road.
2.4 The site excluding the former bus garage is also located within the Streatham High Road and Streatham Hill conservation area. The United Reform Church is a Grade II listed building.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 On 16 September 2002, applications for planning permission, conservation area consent and listed building consent were submitted for the redevelopment of the existing buildings on the site comprising 382, 386, 388 and 390 Streatham High Road to provide a leisure complex (ice rink, swimming pool, health and fitness facilities and community uses), 250 residential units, including affordable housing, a retail store (the subject of this present application), bus lay-over, public square together with associated car parking and servicing ref: 02/02557/FUL.
3.2 Due to lengthy negotiations between the developer and the Council over the associated Section 106 and Development Agreements, the decision was not formally granted until 30 November 2007.
3.3 On 29 August 2008 an application was made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary a number of the conditions attached the above extant planning permission. The application was made to facilitate a number of physical alterations to the scheme. Changes were also proposed to the phasing of development.
3.4 Although not directly related to this application, the subject of this report, there would be four phases of development introduced affecting the i) bus station, ii) leisure centre, iii) the retail store and iv) residential units above and the linked block of residential units. The application was approved on 28 November 2008 although the revised plans pursuant to the altered conditions have not as yet been submitted for approval.
3.5 On 16 July.2010 a planning permission was submitted for the erection of a mezzanine floor to provide additional retail floorspace (Use Class A1) including ancillary café, storage and associated internal access arrangements in connection with the provision of a retail store forming part of the wider development on the site known as the Streatham Hub site permitted by planning permission ref. 08/03477/FUL including a leisure complex (ice rink, swimming pool, health and fitness facilities and community uses), 250 residential units including affordable housing, a bus lay over, public square together with associated car parking and servicing. The application was reported to PAC on 12 October 2010 and the decision was issued on 01 November 2010 upon the successful completion of the associated s106 Agreement.
3.6 Related Applications
3.7 This application to vary the Section 106 Agreement has to be assessed not only on its own planning merits but also in its wider context of delivering the
5 Page 14
Streatham Hub scheme as a whole and with it the regeneration benefits that would be delivered including the provision of a new state-of-the-art ice rink on the Hub site.
3.8 With this in mind, this application has therefore also to be considered having regard to 2 related planning applications, primarily that for a proposed temporary off site ice rink in Pope’s Road, Brixton but also the application linked to it for replacement Brixton town centre car parking in Porden Road / Bucknor Road.
3.9 Both these applications are on this agenda and the reports specific to them discuss these applications in greater detail.
4.0 Proposed variation to the original s106 Agreement
4.1 In the original s106 Agreement (dated 4 December 2008 in respect of planning permission 08/03477/FUL), the Council covenanted with the applicant that it pays a total of £1,284,000 towards various environmental and highways measures, including improved street lighting around the site and security in Streatham Station, improvements in the immediate area, a payment for the promotion and marketing of Streatham Town Centre and a payment of £300,000 towards the leisure centre on site.
4.2 The original s106 Agreement also included a raft of non-contributory obligations which include the securing of the approved affordable housing provision on the Hub site and the leisure centre obligations. In brief, these leisure centre obligations stipulate that “there shall be no works of demolition or construction or excavation on the ice rink land and the ice rink shall not be used otherwise than as an ice rink unless and until completion of the leisure centre” Also, “there shall be no works of demolition, construction or excavation on the swimming pool land or the swimming pool strip and until the freehold of the leisure centre Phase 1 (land) has been transferred to the council in accordance with transaction 1 and the option over the leisure centre phase 2 (land) has been exercised”. The Agreement continues on this point by requiring that “there shall be no works of demolition or excavation on the swimming pool land or the swimming pool strip until the leisure centre building contract has been let by the developer”.
4.3 It is now proposed to vary these obligations. The applicant has applied to allow for the:
Removal of the clauses requiring continuity of ice provision on site;
Provision of a temporary ice facility in Pope’s Road whilst the existing ice rink is demolished and the Hub scheme is built out in one phase; and the
Temporary ice facility would remain open to the public until the new permanent leisure centre (including the replacement ice rink) is built out and handed over to the Council.
6 Page 15
5.0 Consultations
5.1 The application to vary the s106 Agreement has been the subject of extensive local neighbourhood consultation as well as involving the relevant external agencies and Council services.
5.2 In excess of 330 consultation letters were sent to occupiers of properties in Streatham High Road and its residential hinterland. In addition to these local occupiers, the Friends of Brixton Market and Brixton Market Traders Federation were also specifically consulted.
5.3 The application was also advertised by way of an advertisement in the local press and 5 site notices posted outside and adjacent to the site.
5.4 Following the neighbourhood consultations, at the time of writing 15 responses have been received from local residents specific to the proposed variations. These may be summarised as being 7 objections, 4 observations expressing concerns and 3 letters in support. The reasons for objection may be summarised in the table below. The expressions of concern centre on the need to ensure that the temporary ice rink (in Pope’s Road) is opened before the old rink (in Streatham) is closed and that the new Streatham rink is opened before Tesco are allowed to open their new retail store. The supporters of the proposed variations are keen to see the hub development proceed.
5.5 Local interest groups in both Streatham and Brixton were also notified. These groups represent the Streatham Hill, Streatham Wells, Streatham South and St. Leonards wards in Streatham and Coldharbour, Ferndale, Tulse Hill and Brixton Hill wards in Brixton. In Streatham, these groups are:
The Streatham Society
Planning Application Ref. DC/l0/04049/S106/DC-.JFU to vary the Section 106 (legal) Agreement dated 4th December 2008 in respect of planning permission 08/03477/FUL
The Streatham Society is the Local Amenity Society recognised as the body to be consulted regarding planning applications in the Streatham Wards of the London Borough of Lambeth and adjoining areas.
The Society would like to comment on the above numbered application concerning the site described as the Streatham Hub
• The Streatham Society rejects the reasons given by the developer for this variation. • None of these reasons are evidence that there is a need to vary this Section 106 agreement, signed off and agreed by the developer in December 2008. • The Streatham Society asks that the developer honours the existing agreement and Conditions set by the Mayor and his GLA Planning department to protect the Leisure facilities in Streatham as endorsed by the Government office for London in March 2005
7 Page 16
• The Society still feels that the site of the Temporary Ice rink should be in the locality of Streatham. It is suggest that the vacant Power League site just in Merton could be rented at an economical cost.
We ask that you reject this deed of variation and instead enforce the original Section 106 Agreement conditions on the applicant to build the Leisure Centre First before the housing or store is completed as originally agreed.
Please present our comments to the appropriate Planning Committee or take them into consideration when making a decision on this application.
Please confirm that these comments have been received.
Streatham Conservation Association; No response received to date.
Streatham Vale Property Occupiers Association; No response received to date.
Albert Carr Gardens Tenants Association; No response received to date.
Streatham Association; No response received to date
Stonehill Mansions Residents Association; No response received to date.
Stanthorpe Road Proprietors and Residents Association; No response received to date.
Stanthorpe Triangle Residents Association; No response received to date.
Streatham Village Community Association; No response received to date.
Becmead Avenue Residents Association; No response received to date.
Barrow Estreham Lewin Residents Association; No response received to date.
Conyers Road residents association: No response received to date.
Gleneagle Road residents Association; No response received to date.
Magdalen Estate Tenants and residents Association; No response received to date.
Stanthorpe Triangle Residents Association. No response received to date.
In Brixton, these groups are:
Brixton Society:
I write to oppose the above planning application for the following reasons:
1. It is not open to the LB of Lambeth to vary the section 106 agreement. The section 106 agreement was determined by the Mayor of London. How can the Borough vary a decision made by the Mayor? Any variation of the agreement must therefore be a matter for the Mayor.
8 Page 17
2. The variation is not necessary
The only purpose of the variation is to save Tesco plc money. It claims that the recession makes the Streatham redevelopment uneconomic as planned. However, the company's half year financial results for the 26 weeks ended 28 August 2010 show that the group's sales increased by 8.3% to £32,914 million. To be fair, the Tesco group is a global operation and the UK sector did less well with sales increasing by "only" 5.9% to £21,870 million'. To put these figures of £32.9 and £21.8 billion for 6 months into perspective, in the 2010 UK Government Spending Review, the total expenditure limit for Defence for 201011 1 is £36.9 billion for the yea?.
So with annual UK sales exceeding the national defence budget, Tesco plc cannot afford to honour the agreement it reached on how to build a new supermarket in south London.
3. The variation opens the way to an inadequate replacement ice rink
The immediate, practical effect of Tesco plc being granted such an application is to open the possibility of building the temporary (for three years) ice rink on the Pope's Road site. For the many reasons set out in my letter of 28 October 2010 to you about that planning application (10/03425/FUL), the replacement rink would be totally inadequate and not fit for purpose.
4. The variation is perverse in the light of planning application 10/02434/FUL
The granted planning application 10/02434/FUL allows Tesco plc to increase the floorspace of its proposed supermarket by some 56%. As a general rule of thumb, the larger a development, the larger the community contribution by the developer through the section 106 agreement. In this instance, having secured a huge increase in the size of its development, Tesco plc wishes to reduce its section 106 contribution by reducing its construction costs to the detriment and annoyance of the two local communities of Streatham and Brixton.
Brixton Business Forum: No response received to date.
Herne Hill Society: No response received to date.
Central Brixton Housing Forum: No response received to date.
Guinness Trust Loughborough Park Tenants Association: No response received to date.
Herne Hill and Park View Tenants Association: No response received to date
Herne Hill Traders Association: No response received to date
9 Page 18
Moorlands Estate Management Steering Group: No response received to date
Milkwood Residents Association: No response received to date
Southwyk Hose Tenants Association: No response received to date
Southwyk House Tenants and Residents Association: No response received to date
Clapham Society: No response received to date
Bedford Acre Hetherington Action Group: No response received to date
Brighton Terrace Tenants Association: No response received to date
Central Brixton Housing Forum: No response received to date
Ferndale Residents Association: No response received to date
Notre Dame Tenants Association: No response received to date
Pulross Area Playground Association: No response received to date
Robsart Estate Tenants Association: No response received to date
Ruskin on the Hill Residents Association: No response received to date
St Lukes Avenue residents Association: No response received to date
The Friendly Almshouses: No response received to date
Trinity Gardens Residents Association: No response received to date
Cressington Gardens Tenants Association: No response received to date
Friends of Rush Common: No response received to date
Herne Hill and Park View tenants Association: No response received to date
Josephine Avenue Group: No response received to date
Rushcroft Road and Clifton Mansions Residents Association: No response received to date
Renton Close Tenants Association: No response received to date
Tulse Hill Estate Tenants and Residents Association: No response received to date
Water Lane Residents Association: No response received to date
Water Lane Society: No response received to date
10 Page 19
Arlington Lodge Residents Association: No response received to date
Blenheim Gardens TMO: No response received to date
Holmewood Neighbourhood Association: No response received to date
Renton Close Tenants Association: No response received to date
Sulina/Morrish/Brixton Residents Association: No response received to date
5.6 In addition to these representative groups, the Councillors for the Streatham and Brixton wards were consulted together with Kate Hoey MP, and Chuka Umunna MP. Val Shawcross the GLA Assembly Member for Streatham/Brixton has also been consulted.
5.7 Response
No. of letters sent No. of No. in support No. of to residents Objections comments
337 8 3 4
5.5 Assessment
Objections Response
Concern has been expressed regarding These concerns are fully acknowledged the loss of the existing (Streatham) ice and the council is fully committed to the rink and the need therefore for robust continuity of ice. conditions to ensure continuity of ice provision. Continuity of ice on site would require that the new ice facility be constructed on site in advance of the existing ice rink being demolished.
Officers do consider that beyond the proposed amended clauses in the s106 Agreement, an additional clause should be added to require the permanent leisure centre on the Hub site to be delivered prior to the opening of the retail store.
On this basis, the variation to the agreement would allow for:
the removal of the clauses requiring continuity of ice provision on site;
11 Page 20
the provision of a temporary ice facility in Pope’s Road whilst the existing ice rink is demolished and the Hub scheme is built out in one phase; and
the temporary ice facility would remain open to the public until the new permanent leisure centre (including the replacement ice rink) is built out and handed over to the Council
together with an additional obligation requiring the handing over of the completed leisure centre on the Hub site before the retail store may open to the public.
The need to ensure that Tesco is Similarly, it is acknowledged that this is prevented from opening its retail store a fundamental requirement if the until the new leisure centre and ice rink proposed variation and related planning are opened to the public. applications are to be considered to be acceptable. Officers again stress that the proposed additional clause referred to above should be imposed on the variation to the Agreement if it is to be considered acceptable
The proposed ice rink in Pope’s Road is Officers are of the opinion that the not fit for purpose and as such it is not proposed Pope’s road ice facility is of an appropriate replacement. The only sufficient size and specification to driving force behind the application is provide an acceptable ice facility to that the financial concerns of the applicant. which exists in Streatham. The reasons for these conclusions are set out in detail in the report addressing that application which is also on this agenda.
Brixton is considered to be a highly accessible location for the temporary alternative facility (both the Hub site and Pope’s Road have the same “exceptional” PTAL rating).
Whilst what is proposed both for the variation to the s106 Agreement and the wider context would result in cost savings for the applicant, there would also be a much reduced construction
12 Page 21
period to build out the hub scheme as whole which in turn means that there is the improved likelihood of a viable bid for the development will be received. Without such a bid no part of the development would proceed which would seriously jeopardise the continuation of ice facilities In Streatham in the future.
Insufficient detail in the proposed The applicant has not submitted a variation to ensure a satisfactory completed revised s106 Agreement. variation of the s106 Agreement. Essentially it is not required at this stage as it may lead to unnecessary and abortive work if the revised obligations are not agreed.
The proposed variations are clear and precise and meet the legal tests for inclusion in a s106 Agreement. Should Members resolve to grant the variations, officers, the applicant and their legal representatives would then continue to draft the detailed wording in the normal procedural manner.
Furthermore, the recommendation before members is that “Officers are instructed to report the draft deed of variation, or revised S106 as appropriate, back to Planning Applications Committee for agreement”
5.5 Councillor Clyne has submitted on objection to this application and the Pope’s Road planning application which has been endorsed by Councillors Judy Best, Streatham Wells Ward, Clive Bennett, St Leonard’s Ward, Jeremy Clyne, Streatham Hill Ward, Alex Davies, Streatham Wells Ward, Roger Giess, St Leonard’s Ward, Ashley Lumsden, Streatham Hill Ward, Daphne Marchant, Streatham Wells Ward.
“I am submitting the following on behalf of Liberal Democrat councillors representing Streatham wards – please note that this excludes Cllr Palmer who is unable to make any submission because of his membership of the Planning Applications Committee and Cllr Ogden who has a personal interest because of her employment.
13 Page 22
Planning Applications 10/04049/S106 and 10/03425 (Streatham Hub S106 revision and Temporary ice rink, Pope’s Rd)
We the undersigned Streatham Liberal Democrat councillors object to the revision of the Streatham Hub Section 106 agreement which was designed to safeguard the provision of ice skating in Streatham and to secure its continuity on the existing site.
The consultation process is prejudiced by the paucity of information regarding the changes. The simple description on the planning notice is inadequate and the sole supporting document gives a 16-line “summary of principal variations” with a schedule of clauses which would be varied but no detail as to what the variation would be.
At present there is a clause in the S106 (Schedule 6 para 10.2) stating that “no part of the Store…shall be occupied and no part of the Store shall open for trade or continue to trade unless and until…….the Developer has achieved Completion of the Leisure Centre.” We have been informed that this clause will be removed from a revised S106.
Even if the clause were to remain it would be no guarantee of a replacement facility in the circumstances where the existing rink is demolished. The applicant Tesco proposes to demolish all buildings on site, including the ice rink and council-owned leisure centre but the applicant could simply leave the site in an undeveloped state until such time as it thought fit or convenient regardless of the interests or needs of the Streatham population.
Given the length of this process, without a single thing to show for it, and given that it is almost eight years since planning permission was granted, it is unreasonable to expect Streatham residents and ice rink and leisure centre users to put their unconditional trust in Tesco to complete, or even begin, construction of this development.
Demolition of the ice rink, the swimming pool/leisure centre, together with the Go-Kart track, will leave Streatham devoid of any active leisure facilities for young people and families for a substantial period, and without any guarantee of their eventual replacement. This is unacceptable and unsustainable and would have a damaging effect on community cohesion.
We therefore express extreme concern over demolition of the existing facility and replacing it with a temporary facility. The applicant claims that the current S106 makes the scheme unviable and that by demolishing the whole site it will become profitable but the Council has failed to scrutinise the financial justification for reneging on the existing agreement.
We further object to Brixton Pope’s Road as the location of a temporary rink. The proposed facility fails on a number of counts:
• It is inadequate in size, lacks basic facilities and is technically unfit for purpose
• It will not be financially viable
• It fails to replace facilities currently available at the existing Streatham rink
• It is not easily accessible
14 Page 23
• There is grossly inadequate parking provision
The proposal is opposed by local residents and the business community in Brixton.
Cllr Judy Best, Streatham Wells Ward Cllr Clive Bennett, St Leonard’s Ward Cllr Jeremy Clyne, Streatham Hill Ward Cllr Alex Davies, Streatham Wells Ward Cllr Roger Giess, St Leonard’s Ward Cllr Ashley Lumsden, Streatham Hill Ward Cllr Daphne Marchant, Streatham Wells Ward
Councillor Clyne has subsequently augmented his concerns regarding this application and has submitted additional comments which are set out below:
“I wish to raise a serious question about the validity of the statutory consultation process for the Streatham Hub S106 revision application.
The only information available on the planning database is a brief summary description with the sole supporting documentation being a timechart and a 16-line “summary of principal variations” with a schedule of clauses which would be varied but no detail as to what the variation would be.
Is this just a rubber-stamping process to approve a decision in line with the Administration’s priorities and is that why it is not thought necessary to provide information on the proposal for public and member consultation?”
The following external consultees were consulted:
The Greater London Authority:
The GLA has been consulted on the variation of the s106 Agreement as the original Hub scheme was formally referred to it when the application was considered. At the time of writing no formal comments have been submitted but it is understood that GLA officers are due to meet with both the applicant and objectors regarding this application and the wider hub scheme and related applications in Brixton. Any subsequent comments will be appended to an Addendum Report or reported verbally.
Sport England
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010
Location: Land at nos. 382,386,388 and 390 Streatham High Road, London, SW16 6HT
Proposals: Application to vary the S106 legal agreement dated 4 December 2008 in respect of planning permission 08/03477/FUL to allow for the:
15 Page 24
Removal of the clauses requiring continuity of ice provision on site;
Provision of a temporary ice facility in Pope's Road, Brixton, whilst (sic) the existing ice rink is demolished and the Hub scheme is built out in one phase; and
The temporary ice facility would remain open until the new permanent leisure (sic) centre (including the replacement ice rink) is built out and handed over to the Council.
Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above application by Tesco Stores Limited. As the proposals do not affect a playing field, Sport England has considered the application as a non-statutory consultee.
In our letter dated 12 November 2010, Sport England lodged an objection to the proposals for a temporary ice facility on the site of the former multi-storey car park in Pope's Road. We raised a number of concerns, including the adequacy of the site to accommodate the required internal and external facilities and the suitability of the location for existing users.
It is clear that for many users, the preference is to build the replacement ice facility on the Streatham Hub site before the existing one is closed and demolished. Indeed, this provides the surest guarantee of the new facility being built and has the considerable advantage of securing continuity of ice provision in this well-established location. The applicant's case is that substantial cost savings can be made by implementing the Streatham Hub redevelopment in two phases: demolition across the entire site, followed by construction of the Tesco store, leisure facilities and residential accommodation. As a substitute for continuity of ice provision in Streatham, the proposal for a temporary ice rink in Pope's Road is designed to 'bridge the gap' until the replacement ice rink on the Streatham Hub site is opened.
Sport England is awaiting an assessment of the design of the Pope's Road proposed facilities from an independent architect to inform further consideration of their acceptability as a temporary replacement facility. Without satisfactory assurances that a temporary ice rink in Brixton can serve as an acceptable substitute for the Streatham Ice Arena for three years, we consider it would be premature and unsafe to endorse the proposed variations to the existing S106 agreement set out in the application. In particular, the removal of the requirement for, continuity of ice provision at the Streatham Hub site would be a serious step.
We are also concerned by a number of other references in the submitted document entitled: "Streatham Hub - Schedule of Variations Required to Section 106 Agreement". In particular:
Sch 6 para 1 -reference made to the balance of risk in the' funding for the scheme to shift (sic) away from Tesco;
16 Page 25
Sch 6 para 4 - reference to Tesco expecting the obtaining of permission for a temporary facility to be at the Council's risk;
Sch 10 - reference to the leisure centre brief "which may be changed".
We would welcome clarification of this submitted document and an explanatory justification for the further changes outlined.
We note the importance, and welcome the Council's intention, to retain the paragraph 10.2 of the 2008 Sl06 agreement stipulating that no part of the Store and none of the Market Housing Units shall be occupied and no part of the Store shall open for trade or continue to trade unless and until the freehold of the Leisure land has been transferred to the Council and the Developer has achieved Completion of the Leisure Centre.
Nevertheless, in view of the particular concerns previously raised, Sport England considers it necessary to lodge an objection to this application to vary the S106 agreement.
I would be grateful if you would inform me of the outcome of this application in due course by forwarding a copy of the decision notice. This is needed to update our database on planning application consultations.
5.6 The following consultees within the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:
Policy team
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008) and the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 , with material considerations including planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.
It should be noted, however, that the Lambeth Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 26 March 2010. The Inspector’s report is about to be published and in the period between publication and adoption the policies in the Core Strategy have considerable weight and where there is a conflict Core Strategy policies will be given more weight than saved UDP policies. Full adoption of the Core Strategy is expected on 19 th January 2011.
This application seeks to vary the s106 accompanying the permission for the development of the site which secured continuity of use of ice skating facilities on site as required by MDO 71 part b which requires the development of Streatham Station and areas around should continue to provide ice skating facilities on site and secure the continuity of ice skating provision on site during redevelopment.
17 Page 26
Lambeth’s Core Strategy is currently under examination and scheduled for adoption in late 2010. The Core Strategy policies will supersede some of the policies in the UDP. This is set out in Annex 10 of the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy policy particularly relevant to the principle this development is Policy PN3-Streatham. This policy also seeks provision of an ice rink in any redevelopment of the site but does not seek continuity of provision during redevelopment.
MDO 71 is not superseded by any of the policies in the Core Strategy and will continue as a saved policy until such time as it is superseded by other DPDs in the LDF.
Therefore a strict interpretation of policy would require continuity of provision on site. However material considerations also apply. In this case the applicant has put forward a case as to why the continuity of provision on site inhibits the success of the redevelopment and has carried out an extensive site search for a suitable alternative location. An application has been submitted to secure continuity of ice skating provision in a temporary location off the site. In this circumstance it is considered that the aim of the policy has been achieved even though the replacement facility is off site.
Therefore there is no in principle policy objection
Physical Regeneration section:
This letter provides a response to the Planning consultation letter dated November 2010 with regards to the development of a temporary ice rink at Popes Road. It provides the reasons for the Council's approach; and its aims and objectives of the development including the subsequent amendment to the S106 and Development Agreement. The Physical Regeneration Division would like to provide you with a brief Overview of the background to this application and clarification of the physical requirements of ice skating facilities.
Background
In late 2009 the developer made clear that, in light of the current economic downturn, they had a preference to deliver a much reduced Streatham Hub scheme. In response the Council argued that the proposed reduced scheme represented an underdevelopment of the site and that this proposal was not acceptable. Over a period of time the Council was successful in negotiating with the developer (Tesco) to deliver all elements of the original scheme. Tesco however made clear that, in order for the development to remain financially viable, they would only proceed with the original scheme if a solution could be found to site the temporary ice skating facilities off site to enable them to construct the entire Hub site in a single construction phase.
18 Page 27
Review of temporary sites
The Council agreed to carryout a review of suitable alternative sites for the provision of a temporary ice rink. While, it was agreed that the first preference should be for the temporary ice rink to remain within Streatham, this has proven very difficult to achieve.
A list of up to13 potential sites was identified radiating out from Streatham, both within the borough boundary and in neighbouring areas. These were assessed on the basis of a number of key criteria, associated impacts and risks. Criteria included suitability of land use; area I size of site; planning constraints; and accessibility. A shortlist of 3 sites emerged: Streatham Common, 512/522 Streatham High Road and the former multi-storey car park at Pope's Road in Brixton. The site of the former Pope's Road Car Park was considered the best option. It is an available site owned by the Council; well connected by road with a range of easily accessible public transport modes; it is relatively close to Streatham; and matches well with the acceptability criteria.
Current Status
There are several advantages to proceeding with the development of a temporary off-site ice rink. The main one being that it enables the delivery of the Streatham Hub scheme in its entirety and in one phase; thereby reducing the construction time and any adverse impacts on local residents, businesses, the environment and delivering the benefits sooner. The condensed build programme will provide new leisure facilities by 2013 which is 2 years earlier than planned.
The delivery of the Streatham Hub scheme will provide many local benefits supporting the sustainable regeneration of the wider area. Specifically these include an all new 1000 seat ice rink; a modem wet and dry sports centre; 250 new homes; up to 600 jobs and new retail provision.
Officers in the Physical Regeneration team have met continuously with the Streatham Hub Ice User Group to discuss their requirements in terms of ice use, along with the associated ice skating facilities and have negotiated with Tesco for their comments to be incorporated into the design and layout of the temporary facilities. Whilst it is unlikely that everyone's preferences will be met or satisfied, Council Officers in Physical Regeneration and Cultural Services have tried to ensure that the temporary facility continues to meet existing demand in respect of competitive ice hockey matches and training as well as providing opportunities for training and recreational ice dance. We accept that there will be limitations in respect of the highest levels of ice dance competitions, but for gifted and talented skaters the Council will support access to alternative provision. The size of the proposed temporary ice rink will allow for regional ice hockey competition.
19 Page 28
Parking
Car parking for the temporary ice rink has been noted as a matter of some concern. To address this issue Tesco has agreed to provide up to 23 spaces for ice users on the proposed temporary ice rink site; this is more than would usually be recommended for a town centre location with an excellent Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) rating. In addition, temporary car parking for market traders is being provided to the rear of the site -with access from Canterbury Crescent.
Additional town centre parking is also being developed at Buckner Road, behind the Town Hall, and only a short walk away from the proposed temporary ice facilities. This will help to compensate for the loss of spaces at Popes Road, had the site been developed as a surface road car park. An additional 33 Pay and Display (PBD) spaces are proposed for Buckner Road between 7am-1pm with a 4 hour maximum stay. This provision is in addition to 36 free short-stay spaces provided in May 2010 in the vicinity of the Popes Road car park
Deed of Variation to DA and S106
A Deed of Variation to the existing Development Agreement will be considered alongside the application for the temporary ice rink. Legal amendments to both the DA and S106 will cover a wide range of issues but, in principle, will allow for the continuity of ice provision to be provided at a temporary Location. Specific obligations will be placed on Tesco to keep open and operate the Streatham Ice Rink until the development of the temporary scheme is completed; and thereafter to ensure that Tesco are legally bound not to open the new Tesco Store until the permanent leisure centre has been constructed. At this time the DA will detail the deconstruction of the temporary facilities at the Popes Road site.
The attached Appendix A provides a spreadsheet of the current ice rink facilities alongside those of the proposed temporary ice rink and that of the permanent ice rink to be re-built in Streatham. The spreadsheet lists the key specification criteria required to support the ice user groups and shows the comparative facilities across all 3 ice rinks, i.e. existing; proposed temporary and new I proposed permanent facility. The temporary ice facilities can be seen as a stepping stone on the way to the provision of the new, improved and permanent ice rink and compare fairly well with those currently existing in Streatham. We are assured that the temporary facilities will meet with the needs of users while the permanent leisure centre is being built and LBL are committed to working with sporting bodies to ensure the amenities meet with user requirements.
The table attached to these comments at appendix A is incorporated into the report addressing the planning application for the temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road, Brixton
20 Page 29
Corporate Asset Strategy : No response received to date.
Implementation team : No response received to date
Brixton Town Centre Manager – No response to date.
5.7 In addition, other crucial organisations, in both Streatham and Brixton have been consulted and commented on the application.
Save Skating in Streatham
There is no legal reason why this should be allowed. Nothing has changed within the original agreement, except that with the closure of the existing Leisure Centre in Nov 2009 it has become more urgent to replace these facilities on the Streatham Hub site, not elsewhere! The Developer has failed to meet review dates and to progress the completion of the scheme as agreed in the Section 106 (legal) Agreement signed off in December 2008, the Developer has only argued that they cannot afford to build the scheme to its original phasing programme. They argue that the Streatham Hub project has to finance itself, and that the recession has impacted this scheme and their own position. Their argument is that they can only make this scheme viable by:-
1. Gaining an extra 56% of retail space by adding a mezzanine floor within their store footprint increasing it from 3562m2 to 5574m2,
2. By building an offsite "UNFIT FOR PURPOSE" temporary Ice Rink in an attempt to vary the continuity of ice Provision required on site by the Mayor of London's conditions set out in 2004. See Appendix 2.
3. Being able to demolish the existing Leisure Centre and Ice Rink immediately and removing the phasing conditions set by the Mayor of London and his GLA Planners in 2004 so that they can build the Streatham Hub all in one phase, reducing their overall costs considerably and being able to build the housing and their enlarged store at least 2 and half years earlier.
We Disagree! None of these reasons are evidence that there is a need to vary this Section 106 agreement, signed off and agreed by the developer in December 2008. They have only put forward financial reasons why they cannot honour the existing agreement and are trying to avoid the conditions set by the Mayor and his GLA Planning department to protect the Leisure facilities in Streatham as endorsed by the Government office for London in March 2005.They have not explained how they will overcome the Section 278 requirements set out by TfL or What guarantee they will not open their Store will prior to the completion of the Leisure Centre on site and opened to the public.
The Developers have not met the minimum requirements of PPG17 to provide an equivalent alternative facility elsewhere. i.e. "Development may provide
21 Page 30
the opportunity to exchange the use of one site for another to substitute for any loss of open space, or sports or recreational facility. The new land and facility should be at least as accessible to current and potential new users and at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality. Wherever possible, the aim should be to achieve qualitative improvements to open spaces, sports and recreational facilities". It is clear from this opposition letter, there are considerable issues with the accessibility, equivalence of size, usefulness and quality of the proposed new sports facility in Popes Road, The proposed temporary facility in Brixton at Popes Road does not meet these important criteria and therefore PPG17 is not met in this application and the section 106 (Legal Agreement should not be allowed to be varied. We have explained to both Lambeth council officers and councillors on numerous occasions how this facility does not meet this equivalence need. We strongly request that the original Section 106 (Legal) Agreement is upheld and not allowed to be varied just to meet political aims of Lambeth council and the financial ambitions of the developers.
We list below our concerns about this temporary ice rink being UNFIT FOR PURPOSE it does not meet equivalence in terms of size, facilities, usefulness and does not in any way provide "Continuity of Ice" as stipulated by the Mayor of London's conditions. I have not included the concerns of the Brixton residents or businesses, both are against this temporary rink, but this development is not wanted in Brixton
1. At Streatham we have an Ice Pad of 59m * 28m. In Brixton we will only have an ice pad of 56m *26m. This will cause timing differences in ice dance and figure skating routines and will disadvantage our skaters in competitions.
2. The minimum requirement laid down by the IIHF (International ice Hockey Federation) and EIHA (English Ice Hockey federation) is for a 1.5metre minimum space outside of the dasher boards. The space left by the demolition of the Popes Road Car Park is S8m832m falling short by l metre i.e. 56m + 1.5m + 1.5m = 59m this will mean that unless extra space can be created using the footpath this will breach minimum required rules for a 56m pad and potentially prevent Ice hockey being played at the rink. See plan of recommended layout of an Ice Rink for ice hockey matches in Appendix 2.
3. Streatham’s lce Rink is allowed to have up to 1200 spectators/visitors however the proposed rink in Brixton will only have capacity for 380; this is because the Ice Pad cannot be counted as free space as all users have to leave the Ice Pad when the Zamboni Resurfacing Machine is in use. Not only does this have financial viability issues it also has the likely problem of having to turn away hundreds of visitors during the winter skating season when for example in Streatham we regularly have over 1000 visitors. This will mean turning away over 600 visitors or £4800 per day in revenue based on current prices. In order for this rink to breakeven, prices will have to rise considerably and the pressure to have much shorter session times will cause problems for our clubs and teams and with the danger that many will fold as it will be become unaffordable for them to continue hiring ice time.
22 Page 31
4. The temporary rink will only have 84 seats compared to the 200 plus that we have at Streatham. In the original briefing document from Alison Young Head of Physical Regeneration at Lambeth council in March 2010 the following was stated with regard to the scale of proposed facilities for a temporary rink: - "The size of the site should accommodate a temporary structure which will be approximately 85m*40m with an approximate height of 14m. This will incorporate 60*30 ice pad, up to 250 spectator seats, team changing areas, skate hire desk, reception and boot changing areas as well as toilets and back offices and storage areas" This commitment by Lambeth officers has been reneged upon in every area.
5. Streatham can accommodate Ice Hockey fans on two levels and occasionally matches attract over 500 fans. This will mean that the proposed Popes Road temporary Ice rink will have to turn away home and away fans, a very importantloss of revenue to the clubs. In turn these fans will be upset and may not return leading to a permanent loss of revenue and a threat to the clubs viability.
6. At Streatham we have a large heated cafe area and a separate heated party room, Children and their parents holding parties are given a free skating lesson as part of the party package, which is a prime incentive for parents to enrol their children in the NlSA (National Ice Skating association) Learn to Skate program which is the biggest way of attracting longer term users. At the proposed site in Brixton there would only ne a very small refreshment/vending area and no party room. This would have a major impact on the future of the ice rink in Streatham as continuity is about keeping regular users and attracting new ones.
7. The Skate Shop has been placed outside the rink, behind the temporary ice rink, many new users will not have the benefit of seeing the window display of skates they can purchase, this again psychologically locks them in to the sport with the desire to own their own equipment is reinforced, many existing users purchase kit from the shop and have their blades sharpened, if this is outside the main building many users will not see it, especially if coming by Public transport or parking in the local streets or behind the town hall, it will not visible even for the lucky users who will get a dedicated car space at the rink as they will not pass by it. The incentive to take up the sport will be damaged by having this shop offsite
8. The reception office is too small, there are only turnstiles to obtain entrance and no meeting room and more importantly no Staff Rest Room. The limited space will make it very difficult to manage the rink.
9. There will only be 22 dedicated parking bays at the temporary rink, whereas in Streatham we have over 100 and these are frequently too few. In Streatham there are free spaces nearby, whereas in Brixton there are too few external street parking bays that are free, most are pay and display 1 hr no return, within two hours which are totally unsuitable for ice rink users who may stay for much longer periods at the rink; Table 6 of the Lambeth UDP states
23 Page 32
that for Leisure One car space should be provided for every 40m2 i.e. with a footprint of 2429m2, approx. 60 spaces should be provided; Lambeth have offered 60 potential parking spaces behind the Town Hall which at a distance of over half a mile would be too far away. his is unacceptable as ice hockey players have large kitbags and hockey sticks, they will not to carry this heavy equipment over this distance. Visitors and fans will also be put off from coming to the rink.
10. The ElHA rules'state that goal judge's benches shall be located behind the board and glass in the area of the goal, but in the proposed Brixton Rink these don't exist. The ElHA also state that the penalty benches with the scorekeepers desk should be located opposite to the players benches. The proposed Brixton plans wrongly place these on the same side as the players benches. Rule 42 requires that players entering or leaving the ice surface or their dressing rooms must have a 'clear passageway' to do so without interference from members of the general public. The dressing rooms being on the same corridor further compromises the separation of teams and compromises the safety of players. In a similar way, so too would the referees and linesmen be put at risk by not having a 'clear passageway' to their rooms. The shared toilet facility for the coach's rooms is not acceptable. See plan guideline Appendix 2 for how the rink should be set up according to EIHA rules..
11. With the rink open from 6am till 2am there is potential for conflict with residents over parking and noise, no noise assessment has yet been carried out regarding the refrigeration plant which will operate 2417, and is likely to disturb neighbours at night.
12. Of the 20 bus routes identified only 6 go to Streatham. The journey time is in excess of 30 minutes and large kit bags will not be able to be carried on public transport easily. The Tube ends at Brixton and there is no direct rail route from Streatham to Brixton station, most of our regular 600 plus users will experience difficulties getting to and from their fixed time sessions and many clubs, teams will be forced to fold. One club the Werewolves of London special needs team which has 65 members will be impacted immediately. Without adequate close proximity dedicated parking they will fold. These children cannot be dropped off and left alone for any time, whilst parents, carers or volunteers try to find car parking nearby.
13. Storage rooms at Brixton are far too small. This will result in the need for most kit to be transported to and from the ice rink for every match or training session.
14. The proposed location was identified as a no go area at night by the Brixton Master Plan in 2009. We are concerned for our youth coming to Brixton at night, as they need to be going to a safe environment. We are aware there have been a few incidents at Streatham but it is regarded as a safe area for youth, unaccompanied at night, which is not the case with Popes Road.
24 Page 33
15. There is no judges rostrum overlooking the ice rink for competition purposes provided.
16. The comparative summary of key dates project plan phasing spreadsheet set out by the Developer to show that they can build the Streatham Hub Leisure Centre faster if they have an offsite temporary rink does not make sense. The build times are exaggerated and clearly designed to support their case. Their original estimate given at the exhibition to modify the Section 106 agreement to the current Dec 08 version to build the Leisure Centre was for it be completed in under two years. They are now trying to say they got that estimate wrong and it is now over 3 years? We dispute this spreadsheet as justification to build a temporary rink. It is too simplistic and we cannot see the individual project plan timings that support the overall critical path analysis.
This temporary rink is not of EQUIVALENT SIZE, USEFULNESS, ATRACTIVENESS AND QUALIN, it is UNFIT FOR PURPOSE. Please REJECT this APPLICATION TO VARY THE Section 106 (Legal) Agreement signed by the Developer on 4th Dec 2008
Taking the conditions from the original signed off Section 106 (Legal) Agreement dated 4'h December 2008 as per attached appendix we also make the following comments
The Mayor of London rightly did not trust the Developer to build the replacement facilities, without putting very stringent legal obligations in place to build the leisure centre first: These were put forward in his conditions in December 2004, which are reflected in the section 106 (legal) agreement which after four years of delays, was finally signed off in December 2008. However without access to the confidential development agreement it is difficult to see how these legal conditions have been re-enforced but there is great danger in removing these conditions especially as 'there is no reason in law to do so. It is clear that paragraphs 16.4, 16.8 and 16.9 of the development agreement must be reviewed in detail. The Method Statement also has to be reviewed and particularly Schedule 6 of the Section 106, where it refers to safeguarding the physical integrity, fabric and operation of the Existing Ice Rink. See page 1 of Appendix.
Page 2 and 3 of the Appendix refer to the Building Contract and Phasing elements of the leisure Centre, both for land and lease, referring again to the Development Agreement which must be reviewed in detail.
Page 4 of the Appendix. Refers to the "Longstop Date" and to the need to build the bus turnaround area first followed by the Leisure Centre before any other building work takes place, it furthermore refers to the need to secure the implementation of a programme of recording and historic analysis, to show adequate archaeological investigation before any archaeological remains may be affected. This confirms the maximum agreed build time Leisure Centre at 123 weeks.
25 Page 34
Page 5 of the Appendix refers to the Sunday school not being allowed to be demolished before a contract for the carrying out of the works for the leisure centre redevelopment has been made. The Developer has indicated that if this and the existing Leisure Centre, works yard, carpet shop and car cleaning areas were allowed to be demolished and the excavation could start immediately then the existing ice rink could be retained whilst works to reroute the drains and build the permanent bus turnaround could take place, without having the cost of shoring up any building this could speed up the build time considerably. Page 6 of the Appendix section 9 refers to the existing phasing program:- Planning Permission shall not be implemented until the Phasing Program has been approved. There are great risks in removing this phasing program and allowing the Developer to build in any phased sequence they wish.
Pages 7,8 and 9 of the Appendix - Demolition and construction on Ice Rink land protects that this land shall not be used otherwise than as an -Ice Rink unless and until Completion of the Leisure Centre, 30 weeks after the Feasibility Review Satisfaction Date, has expired!. 3.1.1.1 Requires the swap of the Bus garage Freehold Land from the Developer to Lambeth and the Existing leisure centre and Building yard land from Lambeth to the Developer. 4.1.1.1.requires that the Existing ice rink is kept open for business throughout normal trading hours in the locality, it refers to Schedule 9 operating specification which needs to be revised up to date to reflect changes since this contract was drawn up. 4.1.1.2 the developer accepts that actual performance of the obligation to keep the ice Rink operating is of the essence and 4.2 reinforces that whether or not it is economically or commercially viable to keep open and continue to operate the existing ice rink and if structural or physical conditions demand the developer will need to expend money in order to comply with this obligation. This is being flouted by the Developer complaining that they need to build a temporary ice rink elsewhere to make the scheme financially viable for them, it is unclear why Lambeth officers are capitulating?
Page 10 of the Appendix refer to the dates and timings after the Feasibility Review Satisfaction date all of which have expired. There are questions about the bidders unsuitability and whether the tenders were unsatisfactory. No formal explanation has been published by the Developer, just a statement that the scheme is financially unviable which is not in itself an acceptable reason to vary the Section 106.
Page 11 of the Appendix section 10.2 reaffirms that No Part of the Store and none of the Market housing Units shall be occupied and no part of the store shall open for trade or continue to trade unless and until the freehold of the leisure land has been transferred to the Council and goes on to say that the Developer has achieved Completion of the Leisure Centre.
Pages 11, 12and 13 of the Appendix - Item 51 confirms that the New Permanent Ice Rink on the Hub Site will be A Regional Ice Arena and that it will meet all relevant standards and legislation, particularly NISA and the
26 Page 35
EIHA's requirements. It is clear that those concerns we have for the temporary rink have been clearly addressed for the permanent rink
Pages 14 and 15 of the Appendix- Schedule 9 -The Ice Rink Operating Specification showing the current rinks facilities, Public times, clubs and teams and coaches is out of date, in order to protect the clubs, teams and coaches this needs to be updated to show correctly all teams, clubs and coaches together with the allocated times for each, not just the public session times but the paid for patch ice times. It is imperative that in the event a temporary ice rink is approved that these times and possibly prices are agreed and fixed so that a new management cannot come in and throw baby out with the bathwater and change these times or prices without permission first
Page 16 of the Appendix-The Leisure Centre Brief is lacking in details, there are too many omissions e.g. Reception, office, back office, staff rest room, Skate hire and repair area, skate shop. There are many NISA and EIHA/IIHF minimum requirements that will need to be included if the rink is to become the London Regional Centre of Excellence for skating, which it rightly deserves, need to be legally detailed so they can be enforced.
We ask that you reject this deed of variation and instead enforce the Mayor of London's original Section 106 Agreement conditions on Tesco's to build the Leisure Centre First before the housing or store, as originally agreed.
Streatham Ice Dance Club:
This response to the consultation letter is being submitted by Streatham Ice Dance Club whose members attend the weekly club sessions, many of whom have been skating at the rink for in excess of 20 years.
Further to my earlier letter of 1lth November in relation to the planning application for the temporary rink, I have now had the opportunity to peruse this latest application to revise the Section 106 agreement.
Some of the wording seems somewhat ambiguous for what I had expected to be a very tightly worded legal document. As an example in one section when talking of continuity of ice the following appears "...explore Council's and Tesco's expectations ... ". There are other similar instances.
When attending the many User Group meetings two pivotal issues have always been central to this development. .
There must be continuity of ice. It is now envisaged that there will be a temporary rink in Brixton The existing ice rink must therefore remain open until the temporary ice facility is open, thus complying with that requirement.
The Tesco store will only be allowed to open once the new permanent leisure centre is open. This was also stated in our earlier letter regarding the planning
27 Page 36
application for the Pope's Road site. Whilst there have been many verbal assurances it. needs to be in the formal Section 106 agreement.
Subject to the inclusion of these requirements we are in support of the application.
Streatham Ice Skating Action Group;
This response to the consultation letter is from Streatham Ice Skating Action Group, which is a local interest group whose main aim is to preserve ice- skating in Streatham and ensure continuity of ice provision.
The original planning consent guaranteed continuity of ice by keeping the existing rink open until the new permanent rink was open. This application seeks to remove the clauses requiring continuity of ice provision on site. It is crucial that the changes retain the full commitment to continuity, despite it occurring off-site. As stated in our response to the Pope’s Road application (10/03425/FUL), we are prepared to accept the temporary rink, but only if there are robust conditions in the revised Section 106 agreement to ensure
1 Continuity of ice provision between the existing rink, the temporary rink and the new permanent rink 2 Under no circumstances will the Tesco store be allowed to open until the new permanent leisure centre and ice rink in Streatham are open.
We were told that this application could not be submitted until some weeks after the application for the temporary ice rink to allow for negotiations as to the drafting, and so were expecting the application to include the actual wording of the agreement, at least in key areas such as continuity of ice provision.
This was not available, and the associated document “Schedule of Variations Required to Section 106 Agreement” appears to have been written much earlier in the process. It contains phrasing such as (Sch 6 para
4) “Query whether Council still expects continuity of ice even though temporary facility may be off site. Need to explore Council's and Tesco's expectations in this regard especially if Tesco expects the obtaining of permission for a temporary facility to be at the Council's risk ”.
It is very alarming to see this uncertainty in the documents attached to the application. Surely the Council needs to have confirmed the commitment to, and definition of, continuity of ice with Tesco, before considering this substantial change in the original permission. The current wording does not reaffirm the general commitment in full, nor does it contain sufficiently detailed and explicit clauses setting out how continuity of ice will be provided in these new circumstances.
The description of the application does state explicitly that
The temporary ice facility would remain open until the new permanent leisure centre (including the replacement ice rink) is built out and handed over to the Council
28 Page 37
and this is essential.
However, there is no similar explicit statement of two other essential points:
The existing ice rink must remain open until the temporary ice facility is open The Tesco store will not be allowed to open until the permanent leisure centre (including the replacement ice rink) is open.
We ask the Committee to make the granting of permission subject to these two conditions being included.
Werewolves of London:
I am writing on behalf of the www.werewolvesoflondon.orq.uk to oppose the above planning application for the following reasons:
Continuity of ice provision on site is crucial to ensure that the permanent ice rink is actually built. The proposed temporary ice facility in Pope's Road is not fit for purpose. The site it too small for an ice rink suitable for ice hockey. There is inadequate interior space to ensure that teams are separated when moving from locker rooms to the ice surface and also kept separate from supporters of the opposing teams. There is inadequate space for supporters which will impact on the viability of some of the ice hockey clubs who are dependent on regular attendance by large numbers of supporters. There is inadequate storage space for equipment. The ice rink itself is also too small for ice hockey.
Of greater importance to the Werewolves of London Special Ice Hockey Club [for children and young people with learning disabilities] is the lack of exterior space for dedicated parking at the proposed ice rink. It is not practicable for parents of children with disabilities to carry bulky ice hockey equipment on public transport while looking after children with learning disabilities - many of whom exhibit challenging behaviour - along with their siblings. I is crucial for parents to be able to set off from home secure in the knowledge that there will be no difficulty in parking at or close by the ice rink for periods of up to 3 hours. It has been suggested that additional on-street parking will meet our parking needs but this will not provide an effective substitute for designated parking for rink users. The point about a designated car park for ice rink users is that people will drive to it with the reasonable expectation that there will be spaces available. Some of our players travel from as far as
Friends of Brixton Market:
I am writing on behalf of Friends of Brixton Market to oppose the application by Tesco PLC to vary their Section 106 agreement for the Streatham Hub development. The existing Section 106 agreement requires the Streatham Hub to be built in phases, ensuring the leisure centre (containing both swimming pool and ice rink) is built prior to the new store, on its permanent site, and prior to the
29 Page 38
demolition of the existing ice rink - ensuring 'continuity of ice' in situ, in Streatham.
Our reasons for opposing the application are as follows:
1. We can see no reason in planning terms for this variation. Tesco's argument for seeking to vary this agreement have been financial. They have argued that the recession has made the phased development "economically unviable", and have therefore required a location elsewhere in the Borough to locate a temporary rink during the development of the site.
2. In fact, the planning implications of this variation are negative. Streatham will lose the ice rink for three years, and the proposed replacement rink has been deemed not fit for purpose by Sport England as well as Streatham skate groups.
3. Aside from these planning issues, we are appalled by Tesco's argument regarding financial unviability. As is well known, Tesco's profits have continuously increased through the recession. In 2009, they posted profits of £3.6bn. Their "financial unviablity" assessment is presumably within the requirements of Tesco's own tight internal accounting -in effect pushing the cost onto the community.
4. We are particularly unconvinced by the financial argument in the light of the other variation Tesco has already successfully made. In November, their application to increase the floor space of the new store by 56% was approved. However, we understand the only increase in Section 106 requirement from them has been a payment of £50,000. Surely this vast increase in shop floor space, which will allow the store to greatly expand its profitability through the sale of domestic appliances, will more than make up for the cost of developing the hub according to the original agreement.
5. This proposed variation would open the way for the use of the Pope's Road car park as the site of the ice rink. Therefore - unless the council finds another site for the ice rink - all the objections leveled at the Pope's Road application fall equally on this application.
6. Finally, we would like to note to Lambeth Council that it is not in a position to vary the Section 106 agreement as its terms were determined by the Mayor of London.
These are compelling reasons against allowing the variation of the existing Section 106 agreement; the only reason for the variation is to save one of the country's biggest companies money.
Brixton Market Traders Federation:
This organisation has submitted detailed comments primarily in response to the Pope’s Road application which are attached in full in that report.
30 Page 39
6 RELEVANT POLICIES
6.1 National Guidance
6.1.1 Central Government advice is contained in a range of Government Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These are essentially general policies which aim to guide the local planning authority to securing good policies based on real and sound objectives and the need to provide high quality, well thought out developments which make a positive contribution to the locality and which help to protect or enhance the environment. Those which are relevant to the consideration of this application are set out below.
Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development:
6.1.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) attempts to ensure that development and growth are sustainable. The guidance note outlines the positive role for the planning system in guiding appropriate development to the right place.
6.1.3 The policy statement underlines the need to promote urban (and rural) regeneration to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those communities. Policies should promote mixed use developments for locations that allow the creation of linkages between different uses and can thereby create more vibrant places.
6.1.4 PPS1 also seeks to ensure the provision of improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space, sport and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car.
6.1.5 The Statement requires local authorities to focus developments that attract a large number of people, especially retail, leisure and office development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability, social inclusion and more sustainable patters of development.
Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
6.1.6 Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) sets out the Government's comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable economic development in urban (and rural) areas. This replaces Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms (PPG4), Planning Policy Guidance 5: Simplified Planning Zones (PPG5), Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (PPS6) and the economic development sections of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7).
6.1.7 Economic development includes development within the B Use Classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses.
31 Page 40
6.1.8 The main uses to which the town centre policies in this PPS apply are:
Retail development (including warehouse and factory outlet centres) Leisure, entertainment facilities and the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres, and bingo halls) Offices, and Arts, Culture and Tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities)
6.1.9 PPS4 advises that Local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.
6.1.10 All planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations:
whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change; the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured; whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions; the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives; the impact upon local employment
6.1.11 PPS4 applies separate tests for determining planning applications for economic development for town centre uses not in town centres, for economic development in rural areas, for economic development affecting local centres and villages, and for economic development other than town centre uses.
Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport:
6.1.12 PPG13 (Transport) deals with transport and particularly the way in which it integrates with the proper planning of the environment. It seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices and accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and discourages the need to travel by car. Paragraph 17 states that parking standards should not be expressed as minimums and requires planning authorities to revise parking standards to allow for lower levels of off-street parking especially in locations which are served by good public transport.
32 Page 41
Planning Policy Guidance 17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation
6.1.13 PPG 17 states that open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin people's quality of life. Well designed and implemented planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are therefore fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives. These include: supporting an urban renaissance - local networks of high quality and well managed and maintained open spaces, sports and recreational facilities help create urban environments that are attractive, clean and safe. Green spaces in urban areas perform vital functions as areas for nature conservation and biodiversity and by acting as 'green lungs' can assist in meeting objectives to improve air quality.
supporting a rural renewal - the countryside can provide opportunities for recreation and visitors can play an important role in the regeneration of the economies of rural areas. Open spaces within rural settlements and accessibility to local sports and recreational facilities contribute to the quality of life and well being of people who live in rural areas.
promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion - well planned and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities can play a major part in improving people's sense of well being in the place they live. As a focal point for community activities, they can bring together members of deprived communities and provide opportunities for people for social interaction.
health and well being - open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness, and in the social development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others.
promoting more sustainable development - by ensuring that open space, sports and recreational facilities (particularly in urban areas) are easily accessible by walking and cycling and that more heavily used or intensive sports and recreational facilities are planned for locations well served by public transport.
Planning Policy Guidance 24 (Planning and Noise)
6.1.14 This Guidance relates to acoustic issues and provides guidance with respect to minimising adverse noise impact, for both noise-sensitive and noise generating developments. The focus is on the suitability of development sites for new housing, but it also advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise from various types of development. 6.1.15 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
These recently enacted regulations explicitly set out that planning permission should only be granted subject to completion of a planning obligation where the obligation meets all of the following tests. A planning obligation should be: (i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (ii) directly related to the development; and (iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
33 Page 42
7.2 London Plan (as amended 2008)
7.2.1 The London Plan is the Mayor's development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.
7.2.2 It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and, proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport.
7.2.3 All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
7.2.4 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:
2A.1 Sustainability criteria 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic 3D.1 Supporting Town Centres 3D.6 The Olympic and Paralympic Games and sports facilities 4A.1 Tackling climate change 4A.2 Mitigating climate change 4A.4 Energy assessment 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 4A.21 Waste strategic policy and targets 4B.8 Respect local context and communities
7.3 Unitary Development Plan (Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010)
7.3.1 The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010) are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 1 The Vision for Lambeth; Policy 4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration; Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime; Policy 34 Renewable Energy in Development; Policy 50 Open Space and Sports Facilities, Policy 56 Waste; Policy 57 Planning Obligations; and Policy 73 Regeneration of Streatham Town Centre
MDO 71 Destination Streatham (Ice Rink/Streatham Station)
34 Page 43
7.4 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
7.4.1 The following adopted SPD is relevant:
SPD: S106 Planning Obligations
7.4.2 The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is also considered relevant.
7.5 Lambeth’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy
7.5.1 The Policies of Lambeth’s Core Strategy have been declared sound by a government inspector, in the Inspector’s Report dated 6 December 2010 and, at the time of writing, it is anticipated that the Core Strategy will have been adopted by the Council on 19 January 2011.
7.5.2 The following Policies of the Council’s Core Strategy are relevant to the current planning application:
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives
Policy S3 – Economic Development
Policy S4 – Transport
Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction
Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment
8. Assessment
8.1 Under the terms of the original signed s106 Agreement no part of the permitted scheme may take place until an acceptable bid for the construction contract is received and accepted by the parties involved (the applicant and the Council). The applicant alleges that by reducing the cost of undertaking the development as much as reasonably possible is therefore in the interests of both parties as it would maximise the prospects of the development proceeding. This would then deliver the package of regeneration benefits to Streatham which have long since been identified and sought after by the Council.
8.2 The applicant has agreed with the Council to the provision of a new leisure centre comprising a swimming pool and a state-of-the-art ice facility at the Streatham Hub site. Terms for the procurement of this leisure centre have been agreed with the Council and these are set out in the obligations within the S106 and Development Agreements. The applicant stresses that it is not the purpose of this application to renege on this commitment.
8.3 The existing s106 Agreement as originally drafted requires the applicant to preserve a continuous ice facility on the Hub site at all times. However, for the development to proceed the applicant stresses that the existing ice rink needs to be demolished in advance of the new ice rink being built and made available to the public. Continuity of ice on site would require that the new ice
35 Page 44
facility be constructed on site in advance of the existing ice rink being demolished. In this scenario, the earliest opening time of the new ice facility would be March 2014. Construction works on the site would continue for a further 2 years and the entire development would not be completed until June 2016. Moreover, it is alleged that the inability to demolish the existing ice rink until the new leisure centre has been provided, and the consequent extension of the construction programme, means that the cost of the scheme increases significantly. Regardless of the applicant’s market standing, this does jeopardise the likelihood of attracting a bid from any contractor at a price that allows the scheme to proceed.
8.4 The purpose of this application is therefore to establish an alternative option which does not carry this risk. The identified alternative option is to allow for the temporary ice facility at Pope’s Road, Brixton to be constructed and opened to the public whilst the new state-of-the-art ice facility is built at the Streatham Hub site. The existing ice facility could then be demolished and continuity of ice provision may then be secured throughout this process by the Pope’s Road temporary facility.
8.5 This proposed option would substantially reduce the overall development programme by over two years and would result in the completed development, including the new ice facility and the other approved leisure facilities being opened to the public in January 2014, some 29 months earlier than originally scheduled. It therefore would significantly reduce the cost of undertaking the development and thereby maximises the chances of the development being able to proceed at all.
8.6 Based on the assessed programme implications of the original and alternative, proposed options, the indicative additional preliminary costs and increased costs of materials and labour over an extended 93 week build results in an increased cost of £2.1m to the development over and above the cost of the temporary ice facility. The applicant asserts that in the current economic climate and the pressures to the development industry, this is a significant cost to the development.
8.7 Officers are mindful of the regeneration benefits that would be delivered for Streatham, its residents and businesses if the Hub scheme were to be implemented. Whilst what is now proposed is clearly a departure from the obligations in the original s106 Agreement, it is considered that the proposed variation would facilitate the implementation of the Hub scheme as a whole, and a new state of the art ice rink in particular. As such the application to vary the s106 Agreement in such terms is supported in principle.
8.8 Officers are also mindful of MDO 71 “Destination Streatham” (Ice Rink / Streatham Station of the Saved UDP which requires the continuity of ice on site. Part b of MDO 71 that development should “continue to provide ice skating facilities on the site. Any development must include ice skating facilities of regional importance, including a full size (60m x 30m) ice surface”. However, officers consider that the temporary ice rink at Pope’s road would provide an acceptable level of alternative provision in the Borough and that on site ice provision on the Hub site would only be absent for a maximum of 3 years. Officers also consider that the Pope’s Road site is accessible (it also enjoys a PTAL rating of 6a which is “exceptional” as defined by TfL). Officers therefore consider that the proposal is acceptable when assessed against MDO 71 and would not constitute a departure from the Development Plan.
36 Page 45
6.9 That said, there has been much understandable concern raised by local residents and specific ice user groups that the driving force behind this application is to build out a profitable retail store as quickly as possible, potentially at the expense of the other uses within the Hub development. Notwithstanding the proposed variations to the s106 Agreement, officers are of the opinion that to allay these concerns a further clause should be imposed in the new varied Agreement. It is proposed to obligate the applicant to handing over the leisure centre, including its new ice rink, completed to the satisfaction of the Council, before the retail store may open to the public.
6.10 objections have been raised that the proposed temporary ice rink in Brixton is not a fit alternative to the existing rink in Streatham and that it is not in a convenient and accessible location for current users of the Streatham rink. These issues are discussed in detail in the report on the temporary ice facility in Pope’s Road, elsewhere on this agenda. In summary, officers are of the opinion that the temporary is a fit alternative to the existing ice facility and that it would be located in a highly accessible location as close to Streatham as possible.
7.0 Conclusions
7.1 The application seeks to vary the Section 106 Agreement dated 4 December 2008 to remove the clauses within it requiring the continuity of ice provision on site to allow for an off-site ice facility to be constructed and opened to the public for the duration of the construction period of the new state-of-the-art facility on site.
7.2 The proposal would not remove the obligation to provide an ice facility in the Borough at all times nor does it seek to remove or detract from the obligations to provide a new permanent leisure centre on the Streatham hub site as part of its comprehensive redevelopment.
7.3 Brixton is an appropriate and highly accessible location for the alternative provision. The proposed facility is considered to be of a sufficient size and specification to provide an alternative ice facility to that existing in Streatham.
7.4 The application to vary the S106 Agreement has been driven by the significant economic pressures on the development and the benefits of the development programme. These benefits would allow for the entire Streatham Hub development to be completed in excess of two years in advance of the current anticipated end date. The cost savings consequent upon a shortened construction programme mean that it more likely that a viable bid for the development will be received. Without such a bid no part of the development would proceed.
7.5 However, officers do consider that an additional clause should be added to require the permanent leisure centre on the Hub site to be delivered prior to the opening of the retail store.
37 Page 46
8. Recommendation
8.1 Grant the variation to the section 106 Agreement dated 4 December 2008 in respect of planning permission 08/03477/FUL (see details above) to allow for the amendment of the clauses requiring continuity of ice provision on site and the addition of new clauses requiring the following:
1) The provision of a temporary ice facility in Pope’s Road whilst the existing ice rink is demolished and the Hub scheme is built out in one phase;
2) The temporary ice facility to remain open to the public until the new permanent leisure centre (including the replacement ice rink) is built out and handed over to the Council;
3) The handing over of the completed leisure centre on the Hub site before the retail store may open to the public and
4) Officers are instructed to report the draft deed of variation, or revised S106 as appropriate, back to Planning Applications Committee for agreement.
38 Page 47 Agenda Item 4
Application Summary
Page 48
Location Multi Storey Car Park Pope's Road London
Ward Coldharbour
Proposal Redevelopment of the site to provide a temporary ice facility for a Application period of three years including changing rooms, cafe, spectator seating and associated works.
Applicant Tesco Stores Limited
Agent Mr Hugh Sowerby
100 Pall MallLondonSW1Y 5NQ
Date valid 12 October 2010
Case Officer Mr Jonathon Fullelove
Application 10/03425/FUL Reference
Recommendation(s) Grant conditional planning permission
Constraints Cross River Transit
East London Rail Extension
Major Town Centre - Edge
Advert Publication 1st November 2010 Date
Site Notice posted 1st November 2010 on
2 Page 49
10/03425/FUL
Executive Summary
In September 2002, the Council’s Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of what is now known as the “Streatham Hub” site in Streatham High Road for a mixed use scheme comprising a leisure complex (ice rink, swimming pool, health and fitness facilities and community uses), 250 residential units, including affordable housing, a retail store, bus lay-over, public square together with associated car parking and servicing (ref: 02/02557/FUL). Due to lengthy negotiations between the developer and the Council over the associated Section 106 and Development Agreements, the decision was not formally issued until 30 November 2007.
In brief, and specific to this agenda, it was anticipated and subsequently secured by the s106 Agreement that there would be continuous on site ice provision. The existing ice rink had therefore to be kept operational and open to the public for the duration of the construction of the new ice facility that forms part of the Streatham Hub scheme.
However, having reviewed the Hub scheme, the applicant is now seeking to build out the development in a single phase. This would deliver both time and cost savings but would necessitate the demolition of the existing ice rink from the outset.
In order to speed up the delivery of the scheme and taking into account the requirement for the continuity of ice facilities, it is now proposed to provide a temporary ice rink off site during the construction of the approved scheme which includes a permanent ice rink on the Hub site.
This re-consideration raises a number of issues which Members will assess as part of their consideration of this and the other related applications on this agenda. Firstly, there is the issue of the acceptability of the principle of allowing a temporary off site facility. This then raises the question as to whether the original s106 Agreement may be varied to remove the clauses requiring continuous on site ice provision and redraft it to facilitate a temporary ice rink elsewhere in the borough whilst the existing rink in Streatham is demolished and the Hub scheme built out in one phase.
After much investigation, the site of the former multi-storey car park in Porden Road, Brixton has been identified as the most appropriate site for the temporary ice rink. The redevelopment of the Pope’s Road site then raises the question as to the acceptability of replacing the displaced car parking provision with a temporary car park elsewhere in Brixton town centre.
There are therefore 3 linked applications before Members on this agenda. Firstly, there is the application to vary the original s106 Agreement for the Hub scheme to remove the clauses requiring the continuity of ice facilities on site and to facilitate a temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road whilst the new ice rink in Streatham is built out and handed over to the Council. Secondly, there is the planning application for the temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road and thirdly there is the planning application to relocate additional town centre parking spaces to the vacant site in /Buckner Road/Porden Road, Brixton as a replacement for the parking spaces that would have been provided at Pope’s Road once the existing closed multi-storey car park on the site is demolished.
3 Page 50
1.0 Main Issues
1.1 The main issues relating to this application are:
• The principle of redevelopment of the former car park;
• The principle of an ice rink facility within the Brixton town centre;
• The acceptability of this proposed ice rink and whether it is fit for purpose for ice users;
• The impact on the viability and vitality of Brixton market and the wider town centre;
• The loss of town centre car parking;
• Impact on the amenity of adjacent residents and wider community safety;
2.0 Application Site
2.1 The application site is located on the east side of Pope’s Road and within Brixton town centre.
2.2 It is opposite the leisure centre which fronts Brixton Station Road. The Brixton Market which is acknowledged to be an important part of the vitality and character of Brixton town centre is in close proximity to the site. To the north is the Canterbury Hotel public house and to the east is residential accommodation within a cluster of post-war blocks, including Wincheap Court and Westgate Court, being the closest to the application site.
2.3 The site comprised a multi storey town centre car park which used to provide an original total of approximately 480 car parking spaces. This number has for many years been much reduced to approximately 360 due to the closure of the upper storeys. It has been however in a state of disrepair and closed to the public since November 2009. At the time of writing the car park is being demolished with completion expected in April 2011. The site also includes an area used by the market traders for storage and parking of vehicles.
2.4 The site is not within a conservation area nor are there any listed buildings in immediate vicinity of the application site. The Brixton and Loughborough Park conservations areas, however, are in close proximity to the south and east of the site.
2.5 The site is within the defined town centre and has an “excellent” Public Transport Accessibility Level rating of 6b. The site is also approximately 50m from the Brixton Railway Station with lines to Victoria and Beckenham Junction, 250m from Brixton Underground Station and the Victoria Line, within 300m of 20 bus routes providing services to all areas in the borough and beyond and 950m to Loughborough Junction.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 The car park was constructed in the 1970’s and has remained largely unchanged since that time. The car park was however closed in November
4 Page 51
2009 due to health and safety considerations and demolition has recently commenced.
3.2 This application is to provide a temporary ice rink during the construction of the Streatham Hub site. The planning history of that site is described in the related application on this agenda.
3.3 Related Applications
3.4 This planning application, the subject of this report, has to be assessed not only on its own planning merits but also it has to be considered in the wider context of delivering the Streatham Hub scheme and thus the other linked applications to facilitate the delivery of that development.
3.5 Members’ attention is drawn to 2 further linked applications. Firstly, there is the linked application to vary the original S106 Agreement for the Streatham Hub to facilitate the off site temporary ice facilities in order to deliver the Hub scheme. Secondly, a planning application has been submitted for a temporary (3 year) town centre car park on the vacant site in Porden Road / Buckner Road, Brixton (behind the town hall). This would provide 33 off street town centre car parking spaces to help offset the loss of the former multi-storey car park in Pope’s Road for the duration of the temporary ice rink on that site.
3.6 Both these applications are on this agenda and the reports specific to them discuss these applications in greater detail.
4.0 Background to this Application
4.1 The applicant asserts that it has always been the intention for the existing ice rink at Streatham to remain open. However, having reviewed the feasibility of building out the Streatham Hub scheme, the applicant is saying that the scheme is more easily delivered in terms of construction and financial feasibility if the existing ice rink is demolished as part of the first phase of construction. Therefore, in order to speed up the delivery of the Hub scheme, the Council has sought to identify a site within the borough on which the applicant may construct a temporary ice rink. As part of this process, the Council examined a number of sites for their suitability. This work commenced in January 2010. Since March 2010 a number of other sites were suggested by the community and other interested parties in seeking a resolution for the temporary ice rink location. These sites included those in current sports use and sites beyond the borough boundary and elsewhere
4.2 This search identified 3 possible locations for a temporary ice rink as none of the other sites met the necessary criteria. These were Streatham Common, 512-522 Streatham High Road and this Pope’s Road site.
4.3 The first choice, given its proximity to the existing ice rink, was Streatham Common. However, this site proved undeliverable given planning legislation and Common Act impediments, together with technical issues (power supply) and the well founded concerns raised by local residents regarding the loss of public open space.
4.4 512-522 Streatham High Road was not a large enough site to accommodate a full size ice rink and associated infrastructure. It was also rejected by the
5 Page 52
Council on the grounds of prohibitive costs of securing and leasing the site from the private sector.
4.5 The Pope’s Road site was considered by the Council to be the most suitable in terms of deliverability, timing and planning acceptability. Also the scheme may be achieved within the finance available and the timescale that the applicant would wish to work towards. The decision to put the Pope’s Road site forward for a temporary ice rink was approved at the Council’s Cabinet meeting on 26 July 2010.
5.0 Proposal
5.1 Planning permission is therefore now sought to redevelop the Pope’s Road car park site and erect of a stand alone temporary ice rink facility for a period of three years in order to ensure the continuity of an ice rink within the borough during the construction of the Streatham Hub scheme - including its approved leisure centre inclusive of its new state-of-the-art ice rink.
5.2 The proposed development would provide a 56m x 26m ice rink for both recreational and professional ice users and would include male and female changing areas and independent accommodation for coaches/trainers and referees.
5.3 The temporary facility would also include a reception area, spectator seating and standing areas, an ancillary café to serve visitors, a skate hire counter together with ancillary administrative office accommodation.
5.4 The application also proposes the provision of 22 public car parking spaces, 2 of which are dedicated for disabled users, 4 motor cycle spaces and 14 cycle storage racks. An area would also be available for off-street servicing and refuse collection.
5.5 The remaining rear (northern) part of the site would be given over to the market traders’ parking and storage. The applicant asserts that this arrangement has been agreed following discussions with the Brixton Town Centre Manager and the Brixton Market Traders’ Association.
6.0 Consultations
6.1 The application has been the subject of extensive local neighbourhood consultation as well as involving the relevant external agencies and Council services.
6.2 Consultation letters were sent to 1567 occupiers of properties in proximity of the application site. In addition to these local occupiers, the Friends of Brixton Market and Brixton Market Traders Federation were also specifically consulted as have been ice user groups.
6.3 The application was also advertised by way of an advertisement in the local press and site notices posted outside and adjacent to the site.
6.4 Following the neighbourhood consultations, at the time of writing a total of 284 responses have been received from local residents objecting to the application (of which 30 are a standard circulated letter - see below). There
6 Page 53
have been 12 letters of support and 1 comment received. The reasons for objection may be summarised in the table below.
6.5 Local interest groups in both Streatham and Brixton were also notified. These groups represent the Streatham Hill, Streatham Wells, Streatham South and St. Leonards wards in Streatham and Coldharbour, Ferndale, Tulse Hill and Brixton Hill wards in Brixton. In Streatham, these groups are:
The Streatham Society
The Streatham society has specifically commented on the application to vary the s106 Agreement. However, the Society’s concerns also relate directly to the consideration of this application. As such, they are set out below.
The Streatham Society is the Local Amenity Society recognised as the body to be consulted regarding planning applications in the Streatham Wards of the London Borough of Lambeth and adjoining areas.
The Society would like to comment on the above numbered application concerning the site described as the Streatham Hub
• The Streatham Society rejects the reasons given by the developer for this variation. • None of these reasons are evidence that there is a need to vary this Section 106 agreement, signed off and agreed by the developer in December 2008. • The Streatham Society asks that the developer honours the existing agreement and Conditions set by the Mayor and his GLA Planning department to protect the Leisure facilities in Streatham as endorsed by the Government office for London in March 2005 • The Society still feels that the site of the Temporary Ice rink should be in the locality of Streatham. It is suggest that the vacant Power League site just in Merton could be rented at an economical cost.
We ask that you reject this deed of variation and instead enforce the original Section 106 Agreement conditions on the applicant to build the Leisure Centre First before the housing or store is completed as originally agreed.
Please present our comments to the appropriate Planning Committee or take them into consideration when making a decision on this application.
Streatham Conservation Association; No response received to date.
Streatham Vale Property Occupiers Association; No response received to date.
Albert Carr Gardens Tenants Association; No response received to date.
Streatham Association; No response received to date
Stonehill Mansions Residents Association; No response received to date.
Stanthorpe Road Proprietors and Residents Association; No response received to date.
7 Page 54
Stanthorpe Triangle Residents Association; No response received to date.
Streatham Village Community Association; No response received to date.
Becmead Avenue Residents Association; No response received to date.
Barrow Estreham Lewin Residents Association; No response received to date.
Conyers Road residents association: No response received to date.
Gleneagle Road residents Association; No response received to date.
Magdalen Estate Tenants and residents Association; No response received to date.
Stanthorpe Triangle Residents Association. No response received to date.
In Brixton, these groups are:
Brixton Society:
I write to oppose the above planning application for the following reasons:
1, It breaches the following planning polices:
1.1. The retained UDP which, among other things, requires any redevelopment of the site to include car parking. The details of the policies being breached are set out in Appendix A.
1.2. The Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Details are set out in Appendix B.
1.3. The Brixton Master Plan, which requires any redevelopment of the site to include car parking. Details are set out in Appendix C.
1.4. General Council policy: at a meeting of the full Council held on 15 December 2003, Motion 25 was passed which included the following: “This multi-storey car park is essential to the sustainability of Brixton’s economy and any plans to dispose of it must be preceded by a replacement car park at least of equal capacity.”
15. The London Plan which requires support for street markets. Details are in Appendix D.
2. It breaches an existing section 106 Agreement
2.1. The existing section 106 legal agreement determined by the Mayor of London in relation to Planning Application 08/03477/FUL (land at numbers 382 386 388 and 390 Streatham High Road, London) requires that the Streatham Ice Rink must be retained at the Streatham site throughout Its development. This application proposes instead to site a
temporary rink on the Pope’s Road site in breach of this agreement.
8 Page 55
2.2. A recent planning application to vary the proposed Tesco development on the Streatham site (101024341FUL) drew comment from the GLA in a letter dated 6 October 2010. This letter included the following statement:
“The Deputy Mayor is concerned however to re-iterate the GLA’s position that the provision of an ice rink on the site is safeguarded throughout the development on this site and that the foodstore and residential elements can only come forward once the proposed leisure facilities are in place. The Mayor should be consulted on any attempt the applicant may make to vary the existing section 106 legal agreement and planning permission on this strategically important site.” (Underline added.)
This makes it clear that the Mayors position remains the same. The London Borough of Lambeth has no power to vary a decision by the Mayor. Granting this planning application would effectively do so and therefore it must be rejected.
3. Its impact on car parking in the Brixton Town Centre.
3.1. Pope’s Road car park is an essential resource for the Brixton Town Centre. No modern retail offering can survive for long without adequate parking. Because of structural problems arising from neglect of maintenance, the car park has been closed for some time; it is about to be demolished. It may be that, in the current economic climate, a developer cannot be found to redevelop the site including substantial public car parking as envisaged in the Brixton Master Plan. If this is the case, it is our contention that, following demolition of the existing car park, the site should be used for ground level parking until such time as a suitable redevelopment proposal emerges.
It has been suggested that as an alternative an equivalent (or thereabouts) amount of on- street car parking can be an effective substitute for the parking that could be provided on the Pope’s Road site. This is simply not true. The point about a designated car park is that people will drive to it with the reasonable expectation that there will be spaces available. People will not drive to an area in the hope that they may find a free on-street car parking space even if they know there is supposed to be adequate overall provision. Driving around Brixton Town Centre in the sort of traffic found there, hoping to find a spare space is a nightmare. It becomes a lottery. There may be space in the next street - but who knows. Of course, if a single area could be found big enough to take all the parking that would fit onto the Pope’s Road site that would be another matter. But then, such a space — by definition — would be big enough to take the ice rink which could go there, leaving Pope’s Road for parking.
3.2. The proposed ice rink would, itself, bring much more traffic to Brixton Town Centre, adding to the demand on the depleted car parking facilities. Although Brixton does have good public transport links, it is clear that many users of the rink will still travel by car because of the equipment they will wish to carry. This will be especially so in the case of ice hockey
9 Page 56
teams who travel in mini-buses or coaches. It should be borne in mind that, to accommodate the existing usage at the Streatham, the rink will have to operate from 6:00am until 2:00am, a twenty-hour day. It will be being fully used at times of existing peak traffic and peak parking demand in the Brixton Town Centre.
3.3. The proposed ice rink will not only take the space that should be used for parking following the demolition of the Pope’s Road car park, it will take a substantial amount of the adjacent car parking area allocated to Brixton Market street traders. This is not only unreasonable in itself; it will also put further pressure on depleted local car parking facilities.
4. It will have a negative impact on local business.
4.1. The Brixton Town Centre is a vibrant retail area containing street traders, traders in the three listed market arcades, and shop keepers fronting the busy streets, Unfortunately, they have already noted a down- turn in trade as a result of the closure of the Pope’s Road car park, some by as much as 50%. It is essential for the future of the central market area that parking facilities are re-provided in Pope’s Road as soon as possible. No other car park serves this area. It has been asserted that Pope’s Road is the only suitable place to put the temporary ice rink. Not so: as this ice rink is for the benefit of the Tesco redevelopment in Streatham, why do they not propose to put the ice rink on the car park at their supermarket in Acre Lane? Could it be that they feel that a modern retail operation cannot survive without adequate car parking facilities for shoppers? Does this not apply equally to the Brixton Town Centre retail operation?
4.2. The loss of car parking in the centre of Brixton will impact on businesses even outside the central area itself. For example, when there is a concert or other event at the 02 Academy in Stockwell Road, there is an enormous extra demand for local car parking. With the Pope’s Road car park no longer being able to meet some of that demand, problems for concert-goers will increase.
5. It will have a negative impact on local residents.
5.1. As has already been noted, the rink will operate from 6:00am until 2:00am. This is longer than the opening hours of town centre pubs. Are residents to have only 4 hours per day without the noise and disruption?
5.2. The impact on parking has already been noted. This is bound to have a very negative impact on residents who rely on on-street parking. This impact will not be limited to the immediate central area. For example, when the Pope’s Road car park was open, it was able to take up some of the extra demand for parking created by concerts at the 02 Academy (see 4.2). There is now extra stress on the roads off Stockwell Road.
5.3. The impact on local traffic — particularly the effect of mini-buses and coaches manoeuvring in the narrow streets around the Pope’s Road area — will be very much felt by local residents.
10 Page 57
6. It will place extra demand on local services.
6.1. The most obvious impact will be on the already over-stretched local police. They will have to be able to respond to the impacts of the ice rink from 6:00am to 2:00am every day. Evidence from the existing rink in Streatham is that it does create a demand on police time. Paragraph 7.3 is relevant here.
6.2. There is also a concern that the increase in local traffic will have a negative impact on police traffic coming from their car park behind the police station and on fire brigade traffic from their station in Gresham Road.
7. The site is inappropriate for its intended purpose.
7.1. The site is too small. The ice pad at the current Streatham rink is 28m x 59m. As such it does not meet modern (and Olympic) standards which are 30m x 60m. Because of the shortage of rinks, Streatham operates on a legacy basis but any replacement rink should be built to the current standards. Because of the shortage of space, the ice pad at the temporary rink would be only 26m x 5Gm, smaller than the Streatham rink and very far short of the current standard — a huge step backwards.
7.2. Other impacts of too little space include the inability to separate teams’ supporters at hockey matches, and inadequate facilities for the referee and teams’ coaches.
7.3. Any large-scale leisure facility raises concerns over possible crime and disorder, even more so when it involves competitive sport and supporters of competing teams. The openness and visibility on the high street of the existing rink at Streatham aids policing. The exact opposite applies to the Pope’s Road site which is relatively hidden, confined and with many escape routes.
8. It will have adverse environmental impacts.
8.1. The plans for the Streatham site include the co-location of the ice rink with a swimming pool. The surplus heat generated in freezing the ice would be used to heat the swimming pool. In the alternative plan with the location of the ice rink at Pope’s Road, the heat generated would be discharged into the atmosphere.
8.2. The Streatham ice rink attracts users from a very wide area but the majority are from the south of Streatham. Moving the rink north to Brixton will increase the average journey time substantially and therefore increase the environmental impact of those journeys.
8.3. The local traffic congestion and parking problems in Brixton, detailed above, will significantly increase air pollution in a location which already suffers from bad air quality.
I note that the application is for a temporary permission. However, “temporary” in this case Is for three years. This is such a length of time as
11 Page 58
to make the “temporary” nature of the application no answer to any of the points of opposition. In particular, three years is a very long time for local businesses and residents to suffer its impacts.
Any one of the above arguments constitutes a compelling reason not to build a temporary ice rink on the Pope’s road site. Taken together, they constitute an overwhelming case against this proposal which should be rejected.
APPENDIX A UDP 2007 EXTRACTS with comments in italics
Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint
(c) Town Centre Parking - Parking for uses open to the public in town centres should be in the form of shared public parking, with maximum stay restrictions, not reserved for customers of that development. The loss of such parking will be acceptable only if it is demonstrated to be surplus.
This development would involve the loss of shared public parking which is not surplus to requirements.
(f) .... Where a scheme will generate an increase in demand for on-street parking, then the applicant would be required to pay for or contribute towards appropriate new or amended parking and waiting controls and traffic management measures, subject to public consultation. Adequate on-street disabled and essential users bays will be secured.
This development would generate an increase in demand for on-street parking. Therefore there should have been public consultation on the measures to be paid for by the developer, which has not happened.
(k) Coach and Taxi Parking - Development likely to attract significant coach traffic (e.g. larger hotels and tourist facilities) should include adequate coach stopping and parking facilities, or contribute towards coach management measures and/or coach parking elsewhere in areas where coaches are restricted (e.g. the South Bank).
This development would attract significant coach traffic from visiting ice hockey teams for which adequate provision has not been made.
Policy 29 The Evening and Late Night Economy, Food and Drink and Amusement Centre Uses
As this centre would be open until 2:00am, we believe that it should be considered as being covered by the policy.
(iii) Vehicular movements (including those of customers) should not cause a noise nuisance to local residents or cause traffic problems
The increased traffic would certainly cause nuisance and traffic problems in the narrow streets around the site.
Policy 61 Mixed-Use Development In Brixton Town Centre
12 Page 59
Development within Brixton town centre should be for a mix of uses, as well as active frontage uses. Development should include space for small businesses and community/voluntary groups where feasible and practical, Use of under-used upper floors for this use is promoted.
Very far from being mixed use, this proposed development is for a single use.
MDO 5 - East Brixton Regeneration Arc - Area: 7.4 Ha
(e) The development of Popes Road car park is permitted provided an appropriate level of short- stay shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council;
This proposed development does not include an appropriate level of parking on-site. Paragraph 3.1 in the body of this letter deals with the question of alternative parking elsewhere.
APPENDIX B
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY EXTRACTS with comments in italics
Policy PN3 — Brixton
Brixton’s role as a distinctive major multicultural and diverse town centre will be safeguarded and promoted through careful and sensitive regeneration, recognising its local heritage and historic built environment with a specific focus on different character areas, and supporting the ‘One Planet Livings framework to inspire sustainable development.
Brixton’s markets are central to the multicultural diversity of the town centre. The disappearance of parking from the Pope’s Road site is a major blow to the markets. This proposed development will not just damage the markets generally; it will hit hardest those very traders who are vital to the multicultural nature of the centre as they tend to be food retailers operating on narrow margins.
This will be achieved by:
(f) Brixton Exchange — creation of a new Exchange Square linked to a new station entrance, a Creative and Cultural Industries Hub, a Market Support Centre and associated facilities, revitalised railway arches, mixed use retail and residential, new workspace, retail, food and drink, community, leisure and recreation uses and residential development, development on Popes Road car parking and neighbouring land for mixed use residential, retail, food and drink, town centre car parking, cycle storage/parking and community uses and public realm improvements.
The proposed development on the Pope’s Road site could not be further from the description of an acceptable development set out above.
APPENDIX C BRIXTON MASTER PLAN 2009 with comments in italics
13 Page 60
3.2.4 Parking
Brixton has two main car parks, the partially closed Popes Road and the Tesco surface car park which provides informal free parking for many visiting the town centre. The Popes Road car park’s lack of use, particularly at night, has also impacted negatively on the night-time environment of the town centre and the general streetscape quality and environment of Brixton Station Road and Popes Road.
Market traders’ parking is located on Brixton Station Road within a contained service yard, with stall storage also largely housed within the rail arches off Brixton Station Road. Key factors which affect the market traders are the availability of service and van parking, access and proximity to dry and secure storage and the ease of movement from store to pitch.
The proposed development will reduce the availability of service and van parking to the detriment of market traders.
The masterplan is committed to reproviding all of the used car parking spaces for the town centre. The proposed development, far from reproviding all of the used car paring spaces, will do the exact opposite.
4.3.1 Retail
The masterplan seeks to enhance and extend retail trading floor space across the town centre. New retail frontages along Electric Avenue, Popes Road and Brixton Station Road will be installed with the development of key sites for mixed-use schemes.
In contrast to the above policy, this proposal is for a single-use development.
4.4.5 Parking Facilities
Car parking is to be located in a new multi-storey facility at Popes Road, on-street and at the rear of proposed developments on Somerleyton Road and in the ground level Tesco car park adjacent to the Town Hall area, as a means to reinforce footfall in the centre and help to market Brixton as a major retail destination.
Again, the proposal completely contradicts this policy.
4.8.1 Massing
The masterplan sees the intensification of specific areas of the town centre as part of a wider strategy to reinforce the status and vitality of Brixton. It also sees intensification of massing as a means of regenerating and re-energising areas which are currently marginalised, ... The primary area for intensification is Brixton East Central: an area around Brixton Station Road, Popes Road, Electric Lane (north only) and Coldharbour Lane (eastern section at the junction with Railton Road).
14 Page 61
The proposed development, far from increasing massing, proposes replacing a multi-storey building with a single-storey one.
5.1.7 Town Centre Interchange Private Hire vehicles
A key car club location is proposed as part of new managed car park at Popes Road.
Another policy being totally contradicted.
5.1.11 Canterbury Gardens Community Cluster
The masterplan proposes the development of a new town centre car park at Popes Road / Brixton Station Road, with retail provision providing an active frontage at ground level. This building will further house residential uses at upper levels. This mixed use development will provide overlook from residential uses at upper floors, increasing safety and activity along Brixton Station Road. An innovative lighting scheme will further animate this area at night.
Apart from the (vital) lack of parking, the proposed development fails to achieve all of the other benefits envisaged from a redevelopment in accordance with the above policy
APPENDIX D
MAYOR OF LONDON
LONDON PLAN 2004 with comments in italics
Policy 3D.3 Maintaining and improving retail facilities
Boroughs should:
work with retailers and others to prevent the loss of retail facilities, including street and farmers’ markets, that provide essential convenience and specialist shopping and to encourage mixed use development
For many reasons set out in this letter, this proposed development constitutes a direct threat to the genera! Brixton market retail offering and especially to the street market and the specialist (multicultural) shopping in the area.
3.278 The Mayor’s Food Strategy shows how the soda! and ethnic composition of London make street and farmers’ markets important in meeting dietary requirements, as well as enhancing choice in, and vitality of, town centres.
This statement emphasises the importance of the social and ethnic mix of the Brixton market which this development puts at risk
15 Page 62
Brixton Business Forum: No response received to date.
Herne Hill Society: No response received to date.
Central Brixton Housing Forum: No response received to date.
Guinness Trust Loughborough Park Tenants Association: No response received to date.
Herne Hill and Park View Tenants Association: No response received to date
Herne Hill Traders Association: No response received to date
Moorlands Estate Management Steering Group: No response received to date
Milkwood Residents Association: No response received to date
Southwyk Hose Tenants Association: No response received to date
Southwyk House Tenants and Residents Association: No response received to date
Clapham Society: No response received to date
Bedford Acre Hetherington Action Group: No response received to date
Brighton Terrace Tenants Association: No response received to date
Central Brixton Housing Forum: No response received to date
Ferndale Residents Association: No response received to date
Notre Dame Tenants Association: No response received to date
Pulross Area Playground Association: No response received to date
Robsart Estate Tenants Association: No response received to date
Ruskin on the Hill Residents Association: No response received to date
St Lukes Avenue residents Association: No response received to date
The Friendly Almshouses: No response received to date
Trinity Gardens Residents Association: No response received to date
Cressington Gardens Tenants Association: No response received to date
Friends of Rush Common: No response received to date
Herne Hill and Park View tenants Association: No response received to date
16 Page 63
Josephine Avenue Group: No response received to date
Rushcroft Road and Clifton Mansions Residents Association: No response received to date
Renton Close Tenants Association: No response received to date
Tulse Hill Estate Tenants and Residents Association: No response received to date
Water Lane Residents Association: No response received to date
Water Lane Society: No response received to date
Arlington Lodge Residents Association: No response received to date
Blenheim Gardens TMO: No response received to date
Holmewood Neighbourhood Association: No response received to date
Renton Close Tenants Association: No response received to date
Sulina/Morrish/Brixton Residents Association: No response received to date
6.6 In addition to these representative groups, the Councillors for the Streatham and Brixton wards were consulted together with Kate Hoey MP, Tessa Jowell MP and Chuka Umunna MP. Val Shawcross the GLA Assembly Member for Streatham/Brixton has also been consulted.
6.7 Response
No. of letters sent No. of No. in support No. of to residents Objections comments
1567 284 12 1
6.8 Assessment
Objections Response
The majority of the objections received Whilst it is acknowledged that the have been submitted by local residents, application would redevelop the Pope’s visitors to Brixton together with market Road site, the former multi-storey car traders and shop keepers who consider park has in fact been closed to the that the proposal would seriously affect public since November 2009 on health the provision of town centre car parking and safety related grounds. Its closure which in turn would detrimentally impact and subsequent demolition would have on the local economy of Brixton town taken place regardless of the
17 Page 64
centre. submission of this application.
Notwithstanding this, the Council has identified the Porden Road site as a suitable location for a temporary car park within the town centre. It would provide an additional 33 car park spaces for visitors and shoppers in Brixton. This provision would be supplemented following the identification of additional on site car parking spaces within the town centre.
The temporary nature of the ice rink would not jeopardise the MDO designation of site in the long term which stipulates that town centre car parking should be incorporated into any redevelopment proposal.
It is considered therefore that as the existing car parking would have been demolished in any event and that it is proposed to provide a car park to provide additional town centre car parking for shoppers and visitors to Brixton for the duration of the ice rink being open in Brixton, the application is acceptable in terms of adequate town centre car parking.
There would be insufficient car parking The application does propose off street facilities for the proposed ice rink. car parking facilities for ice users. There would be up to 23 spaces for ice users. Additionally the proposed temporary car park in Porden Road is only a short walk from the application site and there would be on street car parking available for ice users.
Whilst is acknowledged that there would be less than the level of provision on the Streatham Hub site, by reason of the size of the Hub site, it is acknowledged that this site is highly accessible. It has an “exceptional” PTAL rating which is
18 Page 65
same as the Hub site.
There would also be an off street coach drop-off / pick-up point dedicated to icer users and their supporters which would be available when the ice facility is in operation.
It is considered therefore that there would be sufficient car parking on site and on street locally to accommodate car parking and the dropping off and collection of teams and supporters.
There would be a loss of parking In response to the loss of parking facilities for the Brixton Market traders facilities for Brixton Market traders, it is as a consequence of the proposed to provide a dedicated parking redevelopment of the Pope’s Road area for stallholders at the northern end multi-storey car park of the site accessed via Canterbury Crescent. Whilst it is acknowledged that this area is further away from the market, Pope’s Road is relatively short and the temporary relocation to the northern part of the site would not be a significant distance to walk or delivery goods to the market stalls.
A number of the ice user groups have This application seeks to ensure the objected the application on the basis continuity of ice provision in the that the proposed ice rink is not fit for borough, if not in Streatham for a purpose and as such prevent or deter temporary 3 year period. users of the existing Streatham rink from using the temporary facility. The table set out in Section 8 of this Concern is also raised that as it is not fit report provides a breakdown of the for purpose, existing users may seek specifications of the current ice rink in alternative locations or cease to Streatham, the Pope’s Road rink and operate at all which turn would those of the approved replacement compromise the future viability of a new facility in Streatham. It shows that the rink in Streatham proposed rink is marginally smaller than the existing rink but only by 2m in width (26m as opposed to 28m); it however of the same length (56m). Both are of “regional” standard. There would be a reduced number of seats available for spectators !84 seats as opposed the
19 Page 66
existing 100) but there would be the same approximate number of standing spaces available (approx. 400). The internal facilities for team changing, benches referee facilities etc are broadly similar).
The National Ice Skating Association of GB and NI (NISA) who are the governing body for ice skating in the UK have commented on the application stating that it has taken a “pragmatic view that we cannot afford to lose any ice facility no matter how temporary that loss would be”. NISA confirm that it is supportive of the proposals, “recognising that it is imperative that we continue to provide ice for not only our competitive skaters but also for individually who skate recreationally.
As stated above, officers are of the opinion that the application site is highly accessible and therefore is an appropriate location for an ice rink. NISA reinforce this view in the submission by stating that “the proposed site which is some 3 miles from the existing facility is not in our view, too great a distance for our members to travel. Indeed the vast majority of our membership often travel in excess of 5 miles to participate in their sport”.
Officers consider that the proposed ice facility is therefore fit for purpose both in terms of its size and specification and also is accessible location.
Brixton does not need an ice rink and The application site lies within the that Streatham is a better location for Brixton town centre. Both the GLA’s and such a facility. Council’s policies for such locations regard leisure facilities as appropriate uses within town centres. The principle of an ice facility in the town centre is
20 Page 67
acceptable.
Streatham ice rink attracts violent and Notwithstanding any alleged anti-social youth crime and Brixton Market may behaviour in Streatham, this application attract such violence to Brixton town has been submitted following detailed centre. advice and guidance from the Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor and the Metropolitan Police.
Both the Crime Prevention Design Advisor and the Metropolitan Police have commented on the application and their comments are set out below.
Whilst it is acknowledged that this immediate area is dark and set away from the well lit and trafficked Brixton Road and may therefore be susceptible to the gathering of youths and street drinkers, it is proposed to impose a raft of conditions to address these concerns. Such conditions would include CCTV measures, external lighting together with the requirements of management and maintenance plans. Details of cycle parking racks to conditions to ensure that their detailed design prevents their use as ad hoc seating.
Subject to these details being approved, it is considered that any concerns regarding crime and/or the fear of crime may be successfully addressed
Whilst this location is lively by day given It is acknowledged that the proposed ice the proximity of Brixton Market and the rink may generate noise and distance in leisure centre, it is relatively quiet at the evening when it is open be that night and an ice rink in this location generated from within the ice (music and would cause noise and disturbance to noise from users and refrigeration etc adjacent residents equipment) and from people congregating outside the rink.
The application has submitted an acoustic assessments to confirm that noise emanation from within the rink would ne minimal so as to not to be discernable from the closest residential
21 Page 68
properties. The raft of conditions referred to above would mitigate against people congregating outside the rink and the imposition of a management plan would ensure that should disturbance occur the perpetrators of that disturbance would be moved on.
For these reasons, therefore, it is considered that the amenity of neighbouring residents may be safeguarded.
6.9 The 30 copies of a circulated letter of objection referred to above raises important considerations which officers consider Members should be aware of when reaching a decision. For ease of reference the letter is reproduced in full below.
“I object to Tesco’s planning application for a proposed temporary rink in Popes Road, Brixton as UNFITFORPURPOSE My concerns as a skater/parent are that when the option for a temporary rink was suggested on Streatham Common, Tesco’s promised a state of the art temporary facility similar to Cardiff’s, 85mx40m, a 60mx30m ice pad, with up to 250 spectator seats and fully compliant with NISA, EIHA and UHF design rules. When Streatham Common was rejected by local opposition and Lambeth put Popes Road as the only option, this became unacceptable as we never agreed to a temporary rink, just anywhere, it does not give us an equivalent replacement for Streatham in terms of size, facilities or parking availability. Tesco’s also promised that ice skaters would not be any worse off because of their need to demolish Streatham Ice Rink earlier than previously agreed still Tesco’s cited recession as a need to vary the section 106 agreement, the recession has not impacted them as their profits are increasing year on year. This reasoning is false and we will be far worse off if this is allowed to proceed.
At Streatham we have more than 80 parking spaces, in Popes Road there will only be 22, from policy 15 UDP a structure of this size should have been allowed over 60 spaces, MDO5 is breached because no parking has been provided for customers of the market, the alternative area being provided to the market traders is considerably less than they currently have and this will lead to conflicts for parking spaces in the surrounding streets and generate congestion. The offer from Lambeth of alternative parking behind the Town Hall is over half a mile away and totally unreasonable, as many of our hockey players have large bulky heavy kit bags to tote to and from parking, to suggest that these can be taken on local public transport is unacceptable and of the alternative transport listed as methods to reach Popes Road; there are no tube stations in Streatham, No direct links to Brixton from Streatham, Streatham Common or Streatham Hill Rail stations without at least one change and of the 22 buses listed only 6 go to Brixton and journey times are at least half an hour longer.
22 Page 69
The ice Rink at Popes Road will only allow about 350 customers into the free space, at Streatham we are allowed 1200, it is too small for Figure and Ice Dance skaters, at Streatham the pad is 60n’28ru, Popes Road is just 56m26m, this will disadvantage them in competitions due to timing differences of routines, It has only 84 seats instead of the 200 plus we have at Streatham. We have a large cafe and party room with seating, in Brixton there is only a small service area and no seats, Hockey teams and officials cannot be separated in the confined free space, facilities for teams and officials are too small, cramped and inadequate. Home and Visiting team’s coaches will have conflicts for parking during the day with recreation centre coaches and at nights with cars. Storage rooms are too few and too small. Our sessions run from 6am till 2am and are fixed and agreed, with the extra journey times parents and children will not be allowed to arrive late or leave early from work or school, this will lead to lateness for sessions and non-attendance will increase, leading to the eventual folding of our clubs and teams that have been in existence for decades. I am particularly concerned about the Werewolves of London Special Needs Hockey team 65 members, they cannot be left unattended at a drop off or pick-up point for any time while parents, caters or volunteers try and find parking elsewhere, only 2 blue badge spaces are being provided and this is far too few, I am very concerned about crime and disorder, as criminals have many bolt holes in the surrounding area, local post code gangs have expressed an interest in “New Meat” coming to Brixton, this means our youth will be at risk, the Brixton police have advised us not to allow our children to come to the area between 3pm and 7pm as they cannot guarantee their safety, this will needlessly take up police time and if roads are congested leads to access issues for the Police and fire brigade. I am also concerned about parking in the surrounding streets, local residents will not be used to an ice rink being open from 6am till 2am and this may lead to needless conflict. Financial viability of such a small ice facility is questionable, any management company would quickly trade insolvent and be forced into liquidation, leaving us with no rink once Streatham is demolished. I do not want either Streatham or Brixton’s communities damaged by this thoughtless planning.
Reject this application and instead hold Tesco’s to the Mayors conditions to build the Leisure Centre including a full Olympic Sized Ice Rink first on the Streatham Hub and for it to be opened and operational before Tesco’s Store or Housing on the site, uphold the existing Section 106, saving the needless cost of building a temporary rink anywhere. For Brixton, if the Car Park is repairable it will generate over Lam in revenue over this 3 year period or if it is to be demolished, create ground level parking instead realising £852,000 revenue over the same period, this is what Lambeth is prepared to pay in loss of revenue for a temporary Ice Rink in Brixton, Lambeth’s voters will expect you to spend this money more wisely on something else”. 6.10 Councillor Clyne has submitted on objection to this application and the application to vary the s106 Agreement on the Streatham Hub site which has been endorsed by Councillors Judy Best, Streatham Wells Ward, Clive Bennett, St Leonard’s Ward, Jeremy Clyne, Streatham Hill Ward, Alex Davies, Streatham Wells Ward, Roger Giess, St Leonard’s Ward, Ashley Lumsden, Streatham Hill Ward, Daphne Marchant, Streatham Wells Ward.
“I am submitting the following on behalf of Liberal Democrat councillors representing Streatham wards – please note that this excludes Cllr Palmer
23 Page 70
who is unable to make any submission because of his membership of the Planning Applications Committee and Cllr Ogden who has a personal interest because of her employment.
Planning Applications 10/04049/S106 and 10/03425 (Streatham Hub S106 revision and Temporary ice rink, Pope’s Rd)
We the undersigned Streatham Liberal Democrat councillors object to the revision of the Streatham Hub Section 106 agreement which was designed to safeguard the provision of ice skating in Streatham and to secure its continuity on the existing site.
The consultation process is prejudiced by the paucity of information regarding the changes. The simple description on the planning notice is inadequate and the sole supporting document gives a 16-line “summary of principal variations” with a schedule of clauses which would be varied but no detail as to what the variation would be.
At present there is a clause in the S106 (Schedule 6 para 10.2) stating that “no part of the Store…shall be occupied and no part of the Store shall open for trade or continue to trade unless and until…….the Developer has achieved Completion of the Leisure Centre.” We have been informed that this clause will be removed from a revised S106.
Even if the clause were to remain it would be no guarantee of a replacement facility in the circumstances where the existing rink is demolished. The applicant Tesco proposes to demolish all buildings on site, including the ice rink and council-owned leisure centre but the applicant could simply leave the site in an undeveloped state until such time as it thought fit or convenient regardless of the interests or needs of the Streatham population.
Given the length of this process, without a single thing to show for it, and given that it is almost eight years since planning permission was granted, it is unreasonable to expect Streatham residents and ice rink and leisure centre users to put their unconditional trust in Tesco to complete, or even begin, construction of this development.
Demolition of the ice rink, the swimming pool/leisure centre, together with the Go-Kart track, will leave Streatham devoid of any active leisure facilities for young people and families for a substantial period, and without any guarantee of their eventual replacement. This is unacceptable and unsustainable and would have a damaging effect on community cohesion.
We therefore express extreme concern over demolition of the existing facility and replacing it with a temporary facility. The applicant claims that the current S106 makes the scheme unviable and that by demolishing the whole site it will become profitable but the Council has failed to scrutinise the financial justification for reneging on the existing agreement.
We further object to Brixton Pope’s Road as the location of a temporary rink. The proposed facility fails on a number of counts:
• It is inadequate in size, lacks basic facilities and is technically unfit for purpose
• It will not be financially viable
24 Page 71
• It fails to replace facilities currently available at the existing Streatham rink
• It is not easily accessible
• There is grossly inadequate parking provision
The proposal is opposed by local residents and the business community in Brixton.
Cllr Judy Best, Streatham Wells Ward Cllr Clive Bennett, St Leonard’s Ward Cllr Jeremy Clyne, Streatham Hill Ward Cllr Alex Davies, Streatham Wells Ward Cllr Roger Giess, St Leonard’s Ward Cllr Ashley Lumsden, Streatham Hill Ward Cllr Daphne Marchant, Streatham Wells Ward
6.11 Councillor Davies objects to the application on the basis that the application is in clear breach of the s106 Agreement relating to the hub development, that the proposed temporary ice rink is not fit for purpose and that it would detrimentally impact on Brixton traders.
6.12 Councillor Parr has similarly commented stating that the proposed ice facility should not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that there would be adverse impact on Brixton Market and retailers in Brixton due to a lack of town centre parking provision.
6.13 Kate Hoey MP endorses the objections raised by local groups and Brixton residents and re-affirms that the applicant should honour its original obligations.
6.14 Val Shawcross , Assembly Member at the GLA states
“I am writing to comment on the above application to make a temporary ice rink facility on the site of Pope’s Road Car park, Brixton, Whilst not objecting in principle, I have some serious concerns which I would like to see resolved during the planning application process.
I) The market in Brixton Town Centre sells goods not just to local shoppers- but also wholesale sale goods to restaurants and shops. Those smaller businesses who use the market desperately need parking for vans close and convenient to the market and 1 would like to see the provision of short stay parking to deal with the needs of both market traders and wholesale customers. The temporary loss of such facilities could threaten the future of some market stalls.
2) The Streatham Hub project was originally granted consent on the basis that the ice rink in Streatham would be rebuilt on site before the supermarket. I am therefore fearful that the variance of these arrangements by allowing off site development of a temporary ice rink may in the long term be used by the applicant to make a case for not re-providing an ice rink at the hub site in
25 Page 72
Streatham. I urge the committee to place the strictest possible legal conditions ‘on the applicant to ensure the ice rink in Streatham at the hub site goes go ahead as promised and that the temporary ice rink in Brixton is strictly time limited in to a short life development.”
6.15 The following external consultees were consulted:
Sport England
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010
Location: Multi-storey Car Park, Pope’s Road, London
Proposals: Redevelopment of the site to provide a temporary ice facility for a period of three years including changing rooms, café, spectator seating and associated works
Thank you for consulting Sport England on this application. As the site does not include a playing field, Sport England has considered the application as a non-statutory consultee.
Any assessment of the proposals for a temporary ice rink in Brixton Town Centre must also take into account its potential implications for the existing and proposed ice rink in Streatham. Sport England’s understanding is that the rationale for the current proposal it to enable cost savings to be made in implementing the Streatham Hub redevelopment, i.e. for it to proceed in two phases: demolition across the entire site, followed by construction of the Tesco store, leisure facilities and residential accommodation. In order to secure a continuity of ice provision, the proposal for a temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road is designed to ‘bridge the gap’ until the replacement ice rink on the Streatham Hub site is opened.
Whilst this appears to offer a pragmatic solution, in practice the proposals raise a number of serious concerns which render it clearly inferior to the proposals under the existing planning permission and S106 agreement, that require construction of the new sports facilities, including the ice rink, before the existing rink is demolished. By this means, there is retention of current provision in the same location and to existing standards. This has clear advantages in satisfying the needs of existing users and sustaining their levels of participation, activity and viability.
In contrast, the proposal to replace the existing facility by a temporary rink in Brixton Town Centre carries significant risks to the sporting interests of current users. This is because the location is almost three miles away, involving travel on congested roads; does not offer equivalent accessibility (a particular issue for ice hockey players with their bulky kits, and for more vulnerable users, including people with learning difficulties) and it lies in a different catchment area to the Streatham Ice Arena.
The confined nature of the Pope’s Road site has also imposed significant design restrictions on the proposed facilities for the temporary rink, including lack of provision of separate officials’ changing (a requirement for ice
26 Page 73
hockey competitions) and drastically reduced seating capacity for ice hockey spectators. The impact of the latter on the continuing financial viability of clubs, from reduced gate receipts, could result in clubs folding or having to move elsewhere. They would then be less likely to return to Streatham when the replacement ice rink is opened. The interests of sports development and growing participation would clearly be best served by continuing to meet the needs of existing clubs and participants at their preferred location in Streatham.
Sport England therefore considers firstly, that there are outcomes detrimental to the interests of sport that are likely to result from relocating the ice facility to a temporary rink in Pope’s Road; and secondly, that these detrimental outcomes can best be avoided if the existing S106 requirements are retained for the implementation of the planning permission for the Streatham Hub development.
In the light of the above, Sport England considers it necessary to lodge an objection to this planning application.
I would be grateful if you would inform me of the outcome of this application in due course by forwarding a copy of the decision notice. This is needed to update our database on planning application consultations.
Thames Water
Raise no objection to the proposal.
London Underground
Raise no objection to the proposal.
6.16 The following consultees within the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:
Physical Regeneration Section
This letter provides a response to the Planning consultation letter dated November 2010 with regards to the development of a temporary ice rink at Popes Road. It provides the reasons for the Council's approach; and its aims and objectives of the development including the subsequent amendment to the S106 and Development Agreement. The Physical Regeneration Division would like to provide you with a brief Overview of the background to this application and clarification of the physical requirements of ice skating facilities.
Background
In late 2009 the developer made clear that, in light of the current economic downturn, they had a preference to deliver a much reduced Streatham Hub scheme. In response, the Council argued that the proposed reduced scheme represented an underdevelopment of the site and that this proposal was not
27 Page 74
acceptable. Over a period of time the Council was successful in negotiating with the developer (Tesco) to deliver all elements of the original scheme. Tesco however made clear that, in order for the development to remain financially viable, they would only proceed with the original scheme if a solution could be found to site the temporary ice skating facilities off site to enable them to construct the entire Hub site in a single construction phase.
Review of temporary sites
The Council agreed to carryout a review of suitable alternative sites for the provision of a temporary ice rink. While, it was agreed that the first preference should be for the temporary ice rink to remain within Streatham, this has proven very difficult to achieve.
A list of up to13 potential sites was identified radiating out from Streatham, both within the borough boundary and in neighbouring areas. These were assessed on the basis of a number of key criteria, associated impacts and risks. Criteria included suitability of land use; area I size of site; planning constraints; and accessibility. A shortlist of 3 sites emerged: Streatham Common, 512/522 Streatham High Road and the former multi-storey car park at Pope's Road in Brixton. The site of the former Pope's Road Car Park was considered the best option. It is an available site owned by the Council; well connected by road with a range of easily accessible public transport modes; it is relatively close to Streatham; and matches well with the acceptability criteria.
Current Status
There are several advantages to proceeding with the development of a temporary off-site ice rink. The main one being that it enables the delivery of the Streatham Hub scheme in its entirety and in one phase; thereby reducing the construction time and any adverse impacts on local residents, businesses, the environment and delivering the benefits sooner. The condensed build programme will provide new leisure facilities by 2013 which is 2 years earlier than planned.
The delivery of the Streatham Hub scheme will provide many local benefits supporting the sustainable regeneration of the wider area. Specifically these include an all new 1000 seat ice rink; a modem wet and dry sports centre; 250 new homes; up to 600 jobs and new retail provision.
Officers in the Physical Regeneration team have met continuously with the Streatham Hub Ice User Group to discuss their requirements in terms of ice use, along with the associated ice skating facilities and have negotiated with Tesco for their comments to be incorporated into the design and layout of the temporary facilities. Whilst it is unlikely that everyone's preferences will be met or satisfied, Council Officers in Physical Regeneration and Cultural Services have tried to ensure that the temporary facility continues to meet existing demand in respect of competitive ice hockey matches and training as well as providing opportunities for training and recreational ice dance. We
28 Page 75
accept that there will be limitations in respect of the highest levels of ice dance competitions, but for gifted and talented skaters the Council will support access to alternative provision. The size of the proposed temporary ice rink will allow for regional ice hockey competition.
Parking
Car parking for the temporary ice rink has been noted as a matter of some concern. To address this issue Tesco has agreed to provide up to 23 spaces for ice users on the proposed temporary ice rink site; this is more than would usually be recommended for a town centre location with an excellent Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) rating. In addition, temporary car parking for market traders is being provided to the rear of the site -with access from Canterbury Crescent.
Additional town centre parking is also being developed at Buckner Road, behind the Town Hall, and only a short walk away from the proposed temporary ice facilities. This will help to compensate for the loss of spaces at Popes Road, had the site been developed as a surface road car park. An additional 33 Pay and Display (PBD) spaces are proposed for Buckner Road between 7am-11pm with a 4 hour maximum stay. This provision is in addition to 36 free short-stay spaces provided in May 2010 in the vicinity of the Popes Road car park
Deed of Variation to DA and S106
A Deed of Variation to the existing Development Agreement will be considered alongside the application for the temporary ice rink. Legal amendments to both the DA and S106 will cover a wide range of issues but, in principle, will allow for the continuity of ice provision to be provided at a temporary Location. Specific obligations will be placed on Tesco to keep open and operate the Streatham Ice Rink until the development of the temporary scheme is completed; and thereafter to ensure that Tesco are legally bound not to open the new Tesco Store until the permanent leisure centre has been constructed. At this time the DA will detail the deconstruction of the temporary facilities at the Popes Road site.
The attached Appendix A provides a spreadsheet of the current ice rink facilities alongside those of the proposed temporary ice rink and that of the permanent ice rink to be re-built in Streatham. The spreadsheet lists the key specification criteria required to support the ice user groups and shows the comparative facilities across all 3 ice rinks, i.e. existing; proposed temporary and new I proposed permanent facility. The temporary ice facilities can be seen as a stepping stone on the way to the provision of the new, improved and permanent ice rink and compare fairly well with those currently existing in Streatham. We are assured that the temporary facilities will meet with the needs of users while the permanent leisure centre is being built and LBL are committed to working with sporting bodies to ensure the amenities meet with user requirements.
29 Page 76
The table attached to these comments at appendix A is incorporated into the landuse section of this report to support the council’s case that the proposed temporary ice facility is fit for purpose.
Policy team
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008) and the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 , with material considerations including planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.
It should also be noted that the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 26th March 2010. The Core Strategy is still subject to change and has little weight until it has been through the examination process. As such the UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 is still the principal document for determining planning applications.
The Pope’s Road Car Park is located to the east of the Core of Brixton Town Centre within the edge of centre area as designated on the proposals map. It is currently not in operation as a car park. The site is located within MDO 5. It is not a Listed building nor is it within a Conservation Area but it is adjacent a Conservation area. To the west of the site is the Brixton Recreation centre, To the north of the site is the Canterbury Hotel, to the northeast/east of the site are medium rise residential properties, to the east there is surface level parking for the markets and some smaller building containing services to the markets and a small retail unit and to the south there is the railway line and access to the Pope Road market under the arches. The Brixton Overground Station is also in close proximity.
This application proposes the demolition of the car park and the erection of a temporary ice rink to provide a replacement venue while the Streatham Ice Rink is being reprovided.
Policies 59 to 63 of the UDP specifically relate to Brixton and encourage development in keeping with the unique character of the area.
Pope’s Road Car Park is identified in MDO 5 of the Unitary Development Plan. Part (e) advises that the development of Popes Road Car Park is permitted provided an appropriate level of short stay shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council.
Policy 4 (Town Centres and Community Regeneration) advises that development should sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the borough’s major and district town centres, appropriate to the scale, role and character of each centre and its catchment and promotes a range of uses
30 Page 77
including leisure in the major and district town centres. Part (f) advises that further residential community facilities, employment (B1) and leisure development is promoted with town centres subject to retaining/providing active frontage uses where appropriate (see Policy 19) and protecting amenity (Policy 7 and Policy 29).
Policy 19 advises that development in town centres and elsewhere where it would promote urban vitality should have active frontage open to the public. All street frontage buildings in these locations should have frontages and entrances orientated towards the street.
Taking the above UDP policies into account it is considered that development of the site for leisure purposes is acceptable in principle subject to providing active frontages and replacement parking.
Other polices on design, sustainability, transport, waste and mitigating impact would also need to be taken into account.
Lambeth’s Core Strategy is currently under examination and scheduled for adoption in late 2010. The Core Strategy policies will supersede some of the policies in the UDP. This is set out in Annex 10 of the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy policies particularly relevant to the principle of development of the Popes Road Car Park as an Ice Rink are Policy PN3-Brixton and Policy S3-Economic Development.
Policy PN3 supports development on Popes Road Car Park and surrounding land to provide mixed use residential, retail, food and drink, town centre car parking, cycle storage, parking and community uses and public realm improvements. Policy S3 supports local economic development through supporting the vitality and viability of Lambeth’s hierarchy of major district and local centres. Part (e) of Policy S3 seeks to safeguard and improve leisure, recreation, arts and cultural facilities where they meet local and wider needs, especially in town centres, unless adequate replacement provision is made.
Taking the Core Strategy policies into account it is considered that the principle of developing a large leisure use such as an ice rink on the Popes Road Car Park site on a temporary basis would be acceptable and would not prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of the site in the future and therefore would not conflict with the above policies.
In summary the principle of locating a temporary ice rink on this site is considered to be acceptable.
Crime Prevention Unit
I have viewed the applicant’s proposals to redevelop the multi-storey car park in order to provide a temporary ice facility for a period of three years including changing rooms, café, spectators seating and associated works.
The Temporary Ice Rink will be centrally located within Brixton Town Centre, close to the three transport hubs and neighbouring the Brixton Market (Station
31 Page 78
Approach Road). The Town Centre is very busy and vibrant through day and night and an ongoing Crime Hotspot, where a higher number of incidents of robbery than the borough average are reported. Incidents including theft, street crime and anti-social behaviour, drug related offences have been reported throughout the day and night.
The existing ice rink at Streatham currently draws in significant numbers of youth from Lambeth, Croydon and further afield, so it is important to reduce the likelihood of visitors becoming potential victims as they approach or leave the new venue. It is essential that the exterior of the temporary building and associated public realm promotes safety and security and deters criminal and anti-social behaviour opportunities.
The Design and Access Statement (D & A) refers to the ‘pre-application consultation’ meeting that I attended on July 19 th 2010 with the Architect and project managers. I made a number of recommendations regarding the Home Office guidance, “Safer Places - The Planning System and Crime Prevention” and LDF Policy 32 “Community Safety and Designing out Crime”. In the D & A, the applicant commits to incorporate some of my recommendations however more details are necessary to enable me to make an informed response, so I have requested a number of conditions to be implemented should you decide to grant planning permission. I draw your attention to my comments below regarding the creation of active frontages and natural surveillance, which are a concern.
Community Safety recommendations are as follows:-
This proposed development is situated close to a densely packed market. You may be aware that “Crowded Places” form part of Al Qaeda methodology, so this application should be subject to the scrutiny of the Counter Terrorist Security Advisor, (CTSA) Damien Crilley . His contact details are: Damian Crilly. LCGI. Counter Terrorism Security Adviser. Phone: 0207 1613242 Mobile: 07795 291 221 :E-mail: [email protected] Mail: SO20, Counter Terrorism Protective Security Command, Counter Terrorism Section, New Scotland Yard, Broadway, London, SW1H OBG.
1. The proposed development is situated close to strategic infra-structure and railway property so comments should be sought from the British Transport Police CTSA/CPDA Cris Evans . His contact details are DS Cris Evans, BTP Force HQ, 25 Camden Road, NW1 9LN. Phone: 0207 023 6940: E-mail: [email protected]
I recommend that Cris Evans be consulted re this application.
2. The existing street scene on Pope’s Road is totally lacking in any over looking from the “Rec” creating a large area which is recessed, dark, railed off and devoid of active surveillance and this is compounded by the limited overlooking out on to Pope’s Road from the “Canterbury Arms” Public House. After dusk, the area between Station Approach Road and Gresham Road has limited activity and surveillance and can appear quite remote.
32 Page 79
This operation will draw a significant number of youths to the area, some of whom may be inclined to use it as a meeting point, gather outside in groups and socialise. In adherence with ‘Safer Places guidance’ the new Ice rink building should take steps to mitigate these risks and include good sized active windows to generate the impression of activity, surveillance and capable guardians. I recommend a design solution be found to increase natural surveillance and activity around the Pope’s Road and Brixton Station Road frontages of this building to adequately address the environmental context of this site.
4. Should you decide to approve this application for full planning permission and the ‘technical requirements’ mentioned in the D & A (paras 1.5 & 1.6 – natural surveillance) fully prohibit the use of such glazing then a good quality security lighting scheme, façade lighting to activate the elevations and surrounding street and create a ‘sense of place’ must be incorporated to mitigate the lack of active surveillance. A condition may be suitable .
5. Good quality targeted external lighting scheme covering the access courtyard, street and car park(s) to be designed to Bs 5489 with a minimum uniformity of 25% and white light with a minimum colour rendering scale of 60. The CCTV systems employed and lighting should be designed to compliment each other. Please condition for an external lighting lux plan to be provided for agreement prior to construction and if necessary a lighting scheme to activate the external communal elevations during hours of darkness.
6 Targeted digital CCTV coverage giving facial recognition to cover vulnerable internal communal areas, the entrance and exit doors, the external communal courtyard and the elevations along Pope’s Road and Station Approach Road. Any system fitted should be able to provide identification / evidential quality images. More guidance on CCTV systems can be found on the PSDB publication 17/94 CCTV Operational Requirements Manual and is available free from the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/or_manual . Please condition for agreement prior to construction.
7. To mitigate potential community safety risks created by this development and future event / crowd management issues, the external CCTV provision provided by Lambeth Council may require additional cameras or upgrading to ensure that the areas around the proposed centre are adequately covered. Existing CCTV assessment should include the length of Pope’s Road, Station Approach Road and the Network Rail connective footways between Station Approach Road and Atlantic Road. A condition may be suitable.
8. Provision of a protocol arrangement giving Lambeth CCTV control room real time access to the Ice Rink’s external CCTV images to help mitigate Community Safety / event & crowd management risks. I recommend that Planning consult with the CCTV Development Manager, Kevin White to progress points 6, 7 & 8. Please condition CCTV details.
33 Page 80
9. A management and maintenance plan is necessary to address the ongoing operational management and maintenance of the Ice Rink, associated public realm and the two car parks. It should detail how the applicant will mitigate UDP 32 “Community Safety”, specify opening hours including the rationale for any late night events, licensing arrangements, security arrangements, membership strategy and storage of property/valuables.
An Ice Rink “Community Safety” management plan including details of the types of events proposed is also recommended to enable all relevant partners to provide an effective response and service.
I recommend that the Brixton Town Centre Director, Stephanie Butcher be consulted re this application.
Please require provision of detailed Management Plan & Community Safety Management plans by condition for this application.
10. The provision of a day time dropping off/picking up area and short term car/coach/mini-bus parking is recommended close to the Ice rink. This area should be well lit, have good formal (CCTV) and informal surveillance and overlooking with parking enforcement/crime prevention patrols operating. It should have a targeted security lighting scheme to BS 4589, a minimum uniformity of 25%, with a minimum of 2m high, good quality, visible fencing and locked when the centre is closed.
11. A similar provision is recommended for the proposed “Market traders” car park and loading bays at the rear of the site. Please require details of lighting, security, CCTV provision of detailed Parking Management plans for both the ‘Ice Rink car park’ and ‘the market trader’s car park’ by condition.
12. External landscaping and allocation of defensible space, cycle storage facilities, seating arrangements and any items of public art should be carefully designed to promote a family orientated venue and discourage large groups of youths or street drinkers from gathering and potentially causing anti-social behaviour. All of these elements should be assessed regarding Lambeth UDP Policy 32 and details may be suitable to condition.
13. The physical security specifications for the temporary Ice Rink, associated parking, external areas and public realm should ensure that the new development complies with the relevant standards of “Secured by Design accreditation scheme” This should include fixtures, access control measures, equipment / valuables storage lockers, cycle storage facilities etc. Please condition.
• The exterior walls should be constructed to ensure that the metal cladding cannot be peeled back to gain access to the building. This has occurred in some metal clad commercial storage warehouse facilities. • The accessible walls/cladding should be treated to resist graffiti damage.
34 Page 81
14. Visitor Cycle storage should consist of an M type or similar rack securely fixed to the ground with a good level of overlooking and surveillance. The rack or stand should enable the cycle frame to be secured at two independent points and discourage being used as a seat. Please condition.
In response to these issues raised, the British Transport Police, Counter Terrorism Security Adviser and Principal Architectural Liaison Officer wrote in to state that “further to recent correspondence I have had with PC Ann Burroughs, Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser for Lambeth, I have been asked if BTP has, from either a Counter Terrorism Security or Crime Prevention Design perspective, any comments to make on the above planning application close to the railway infrastructure within Brixton, including Brixton Main Line Railway Station. Having liaised with my colleague PC Jerry Isterling (BTP CPDA) I can inform you that we have no issues to raise regarding the planning application due to no, or minimal impact on the railway infrastructure”.
Streatham Town Centre Manager
States that given that this would facilitate the implementation of the wider Streatham Hub scheme together with its regeneration benefits for the area, I do not wish to object to the planning application in question.
Conservation and Design team
Context
The subject site is located at the Junction of Pope’s Road and Brixton Station Road adjacent to Brixton Recreation Centre. A multi-storey car park currently occupies the site. Access into the car-park is from Canterbury Crescent. The site does not lie within a conservation area, however the Brixton Conservation area is located directly south west and north west of the site. No’s 1- St John’s buildings located north of the site along Canterbury Crescent are Grade II listed.
Scale and Mass
In terms of scale and mass the temporary ice rink standing at approximately 8.6m will be lower in height than the neighbouring Canterbury Arms which is 12.7m in height. Neither will the ice rink compete in scale with Brixton Recreation. In my view the ice rink is appropriately scaled and will not loom over neighbouring properties.
Appearance
The building is constructed of large portal frame enclosure clad in a random pattern of coloured cladding panels. The coloured panels not only serve to break up the mass of the building it also creates some visual interest to the building. This is considered acceptable. If you are minded to approve the application I would suggest a condition covering sample and schedule of materials.
35 Page 82
Active Edges
Whilst an active edge along the Pope’s elevation in the form of window openings is encouraged, in order to enliven and provide natural surveillance of the road. I accept the requirements to avoid direct natural light on the ice surface is vital to the functioning of the ice rink.
Conclusion
Overall, I have no objections to the proposal which is likely to improve the setting of the area and increase activity and pedestrian footfall in this part of Brixton
Transport Planning team
The proposals are for the redevelopment of the site to provide a temporary ice rink for a period of 3 years.
Site & Accessibility The site is located on that of the existing Pope’s Road car park which has become structurally unsound and is scheduled for demolition regardless of this proposal. The site is located within Brixton town centre and is well served by buses, Underground and National Rail train services and this is demonstrated by the PTAL of 6b which is classed as ‘Exceptional’ and is the highest rating possible on this scale.
Whilst access to the site by public transport is excellent it is the case that, strangely for a car park, access by road is relatively complicated with banned turns and one-way systems requiring drivers to navigate a circuitous route to gain access. To overcome this appropriate signage for the ice rink will be needed on the approaches in to Brixton with the applicant meeting the cost of installation.
The site’s location within a well established town centre means that pedestrian facilities are of a high standard with well maintained footways and suitable pedestrian crossings provided. It should be noted though that concerns about personal safety in the general area of the site may deter some visitors from walking to the rink from public transport stops; improved lighting, CCTV coverage and more visible policing may help to address this .
Trip Generation In terms of vehicle movements it is accepted that the proposed ice rink will see a reduction compared to the previous use as a multi-storey car park with the majority of trips likely to be made by public transport and foot. As such no detailed analysis of vehicle movements or junction modelling is required. Peak times for use are anticipated to be Friday and Saturday evenings when public skating is most popular and on Sunday evenings when the Streatham Redskins would host their league ice hockey matches. Depending on the opponent it is likely that these league matches will attract several hundred spectators as well as two playing squads of roughly 20 players each. It is not anticipated that this level of visitor numbers would have any impact on either public transport capacity or traffic flows in the vicinity with the Brixton Academy regularly attracting in excess of 5000 people to the area without incident.
36 Page 83
Car Parking The development proposed a total of 20 car parking spaces within a secure car park, this includes the provision of 2 disabled bays; there is also further car parking available for visitors within the surrounding streets in Pay & Display bays which operate Monday to Saturday 8:30am to 5:30pm and outside of these times vehicles can park free of charge on single yellow lines and within the marked bays on-street. The provision of 20 car parking spaces on this site is in excess of the relevant standard but given the temporary nature of the facility and the fact that it is serving as a replacement for an existing facility in Streatham that makes informal provision of in excess of this number of cars it is accepted that this provision is acceptable. A Parking Management Strategy should be secured by condition to ensure that the car park is suitable managed.
Drop off facility Within the car park there is a large lay-by proposed that would provide a facility for drop-offs and pick-ups by car. This will be of particular value to parents of young skaters and is likely to be well used. A concern could be that drivers look to park in the lay-by for extended periods if all of the dedicated parking spaces are occupied thus reducing the drop-off facility and to prevent this details of the lay-by’s operation should be included in the Parking Management Strategy.
Coach Parking The current ice rink in Streatham regularly receives coaches from visiting ice hockey teams and their fans and this is expected to continue with the temporary rink. Coach parking drop-offs and pick-ups are proposed to be accommodated on Popes Road adjacent to the site as is the case for the adjacent Brixton Rec centre. No facility for long stay coach parking is proposed on-site so between dropping off and picking up the coaches will have to relocate somewhere away from the site, no details have been provided on this at this time but details of this could be secured by condition and included in the Parking Management Strategy to ensure that coach drivers are directed to a suitable location.
Cycle Parking A total of 14 cycle parking spaces are proposed to serve the ice rink and these are shown to the front of the site on Brixton Station Road. The relevant standard requires 1 space for every 50 seats and it states in the Design Statement that the rink would hold up to 84 seated spectators and 300 standing which would require 8 spaces so it can be seen that the proposed provision is comfortably in excess of the minimum standard in terms of quantity. Security and accessibility are also important considerations though and the proposed location on Brixton Station Road would satisfy these with a good level of natural surveillance and a prominent location at the front of the site.
Relocation of Market Traders’ parking A large portion of the proposed ice rink site is currently in use as a parking / storage area for the Brixton market traders and they would need to be relocated to accommodate the ice rink. It is proposed that the new location for them would be to the east of the ice rink adjacent to the Canterbury Arms
37 Page 84
PH with access directly off Canterbury Crescent and would be of a comparable size to the existing provision. Given the very short distance of the relocation I do not consider that there will be any significant impact from this change in terms of traffic.
Servicing Servicing for the ice rink would be undertaken off-street via the same access from Canterbury Crescent that is used for the relocated market traders’ area in a separate dedicated area. A Servicing Management Plan should be secured by condition.
Travel Plan A Travel Plan should be secured by condition with a draft submitted prior to occupation and initial travel surveys undertaken and submitted within 3 months of occupation.
Suggested conditions • Parking Management Strategy (to include coach strategy) • H23 – Parking (remove garaging from condition wording) • H25 – Loading and unloading within curtilage only • H31- Delivery Management Strategy • H33 – Cycle Parking • H37 – Travel Plan • H43 – Method of Construction Statement
Recommendation Subject to the above conditions I do not raise an objection to the proposals.
Parks and Open Spaces
Raise no objection to the application.
Arboricultural Officer
Given that the primary affected trees are street trees, the matter has been referred to Parks.
Building Control
State that as this is a temporary structure an application should be made under Section 30 London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 for this structure.
Performance, Strategy and Regeneration
No response received to date.
Brixton Town Centre Manager
No response received to date.
Regulatory services (Noise and Pollution)
38 Page 85
No response received to date.
Regulatory Services (Entertainment Licensing)
No response received to date.
Regulatory Services (Street Trading)
No response received to date.
Sewers Group
No response received to date.
Corporate Asset Strategy
No response received to date.
6.17 In addition to the above consultees, additional responses have been received from a number of organisations and groups both from ice users and representatives of Brixton market these are set out below.
National Ice Skating Association of GB and NI
As the Governing Body for ice skating in the UK, we are aware of the above mentioned proposal. I am not aware that we have been formally consulted on this mailer however I have recently seen an objection lodged by Sport England and felt it important that the Lambeth Planning Department was made fully aware of NISA’s views on this matter.
Whilst we appreciate that the proposed temporary development is not exactly in line with the original planning application for the development of the Streatham ice rink, as the Governing Body for ice skating in the UK, we take the pragmatic view that we cannot afford to lose any ice facility no matter how temporary that loss may be. We also fully recognise that any development will only happen through the full commitment and support of the private sector, in these difficult economic times, we take the view that we do need to work with the developers to ensure that we have access to a temporary ice facility and the long term re- instatement of a full sized permanent ice facility in Streatham.
The development of ice rinks in the UK is completely reliant on the private sector, unfortunately the sector does not have access to lottery or government exchequer funding for the development of capital projects of this nature.
In conclusion, we are supportive of the proposals, recognising that it is imperative that we continue to provide ice for not only our competitive skaters but also for individuals who skate recreationally. The proposed site which is some 3 miles from the existing facility is not in our view, too great a distance for our members to travel. Indeed the vast majority of our membership often travel in excess of 5 miles to participate in their sport.
If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely
39 Page 86
Streatham Ice Skating Action Group
We have been campaigning for continuity of ice skating provision in Streatham since Tesco bought the ice rink site in 2001. We were disappointed that the scheme agreed in 2008, where the existing ice rink would have remained open until the replacement was open, did not go ahead. When it became clear that the only option was to accept a temporary rink, we would have much preferred a site in Streatham. The proposed Brixton site will cause inconvenience to many current users of the rink and serious problems for some, but Lambeth Council have made it clear that a temporary rink in Pope's Road is the only way that the development of the permanent leisure centre is going to go ahead with continuity of ice in the meantime. On these grounds we are prepared to support the application, because we believe the alternative, where the permanent leisure centre and ice rink remain stalled for the foreseeable future, would be worse.
The temporary ice rink plan seems to make reasonable use of the limited space available. As expected, there is very restricted parking, and it will be important to make sure the spaces are managed so that those staff and rink users with most need are accommodated, and the parking cannot be used other than for the rink.
Our acceptance of this scheme only makes sense if there are robust conditions in the revised Section 106 agreement for the Streatham Hub site to ensure
1. Continuity of ice provision between the existing rink, the temporary rink and the new permanent rink 2. Under no circumstances will the Tesco store be allowed to open until the new permanent leisure centre and ice rink in Streatham are open.
We will be responding separately to the application to revise the Section 106 when it is published.
Save Skating in Streatham
Save Skating in Streatham represent the following groups, teams, clubs and Ice Skating users:
Skaters 4 The Hub Streatham Chiefs Hockey team London Bulldogs Hockey team Werewolves of London Special Needs Hockey team Warriors under 10’s Hockey team Mini Braves under 12’s Hockey team Braves Under 14’s Hockey team Scorpions Under 16’s Hockey team Girls under 16’s Hockey team Women’s Storm Division 1 Girls B Hockey team Women’s Storm Premier Girls A Hockey team Beginners girls Hockey team Figure Skaters Ice Dance Skaters including Elite Skaters Pro Instructors
40 Page 87
Sound Studio Night Club Skate Shop The Two Thousand general public who have signed our petitions
General Design Issues
The Head of Physical Regeneration at Lambeth Borough Council, Alison Young’s briefing of Friday 26tk March refers to a temporary Structure of 85m’40m with an approximate height of 14m, this will incorporate a GOm*30m Ice Pad, up to 250 spectator seats, team changing areas, skate hire desk, reception and boot changing areas as well as toilets and back offices and storage areas. This is not what we are being offered at the proposed Popes Road site. The application talks only of changing rooms, cafe, and spectator seating. When looking at the plans provided, the size of the cafe is only 12m sq. which is approx 10’ * 13’4”. This size is suitable only for a vending area, there is no seating associated with the cafe. Spectator seating is only 84 not the 250 promised. The Ice Pad is only 26m*56m. The proposed rink’s lobby requires a reception window as access needs to be controlled, whereas the current plans include a turnstile only. The design for the new rink does not include a staff rest room, which is a legal requirement. One office is insufficient, three are required, being reception, cashing up and a Meeting room/managers office, The changing rooms are below the recommended International Ice Hockey Federation minimum size, with too few showers and toilets. The boot changing area has too few seats. The design of the ice-facility therefore falls short in terms of the application, in what was previously described by Lambeth Borough Council as “State of the Art”, and in what is required for the ice rink to continue to be a viable facility for all its users.
Background to the Application
2.2 Continuity of Ice provision within the section 106 requires the existing ice rink be open throughout until the new Ieisure Centre is built and operational, only then can the existing ice rink be closed and demolished. This does not infer that an ice rink can be opened elsewhere i.e. completely removed from the current site. The Mayor of London was clear in his conditions to keep the existing rink open back in December 2004, as were GOL in March 2005.
2.3 It is not evident that the scheme is more easily delivered in terms of construction and financial feasibility, nor is the extent of the impact of the recession on Tesco. Year on year turnover and profits have consistently increased, with the first 6 months of 2010 alone showing a profit of £1.6bn, an increase of over 9% on the previous year. Tesco can plead the recession has impacted them but we do not accept this. Breaking the section 106 agreement just for financial reasons, especially as Tesco’s have already been given approval to increase the floor space to 60,000 square feet (an increase of 56%), means this additional potential increase in turnover will more than offset the costs of keeping their promise to build the Leisure Centre first on the Streatham Hub site.
2.4. We do not accept that this has speeded up the process. We believe this has slowed down the project by well over a year whilst needless investigations have spent time and wasted money looking for alternatives that just don’t exist. Had
41 Page 88
Tesco started the Leisure Centre project back in early 2009 it would be nearing completion by now.
Selection of the Popes Road Site
2.5 There were opportunities missed when Lambeth Borough Council carried out its investigations for alternative sites. Lambeth Borough Council should have worked in co-operation with either Merton or Bromley Borough Councils to fully investigate opportunities in Crystal Palace or Stockport Road. Instead they put forward reasons why they could not be realised.
2.6 We should never have listened to the Lambeth councillors’ promising that a temporary ice rink could be built on Streatham Common. This was a too good to be true promise, which then opened up the whole can of worms of a temporary rink elsewhere, when the truth that it could never be built on the Common was announced, the electioneering promise that could never materialise became an urgent issue to find an alternative site no matter how unsuitable.
The Site and Surroundings
2.9 The Popes Road site was approved by the Cabinet without any consultation with Brixton’s residents or businesses. We requested all cabinet members not to approve this site by email before the meeting on the 26th July but this request was ignored and they approved this site despite knowing our objections.
3.1 An ice rinks external plant area building services plant is controlled by thermostats and operates intermittently over the full 24 hours, this noise can be intrusive particularly at night when ambient background noise is at its lowest The survey identified as needing to be carried out separately has yet to be done and we are concerned that the external plant will disturb neighbours in close proximity in residential accommodation at Wincheap Court and Westgate Court on Canterbury Crescent. We are not satisfied that attenuation, enclosures or screening will control this noise.
3.2 The application refers to the proximity of Brixton Markets importance as a local feature. This is salient as the proposed ice rink will not only take the space that should be used for parking following the demolition of the car park, but it will also take a substantial amount of the adjacent car parking area allocated to Brixton Market traders, thus putting further pressure on already depleted local car parking facilities.
3.3 Popes Road car park was neglected by Lambeth Borough Council for many years culminating in it going into a state of disrepair and suffering significant problems with ceilings and walls. A 2007 planning application to clad the walls in aluminium was rejected, the results of this structural survey must be made public. This car park had over 380 spaces and was estimated to have 600 cars using it daily. The revenue lost to Lambeth is over Lim per annum. Even if the car park is demolished and a surface level car park was to be put in its place revenue was estimated at £284,000, meaning that over 3 years this is a loss oft52,000. This figure is therefore effectively what Lambeth
42 Page 89
Borough Council would be paying to move the ice rink to Brixton. It cannot be afforded in the current climate of cutbacks - Brixton needs car parking not an ice rink.
If it is possible to repair the car park and make it safe then that turnover would be in excess of £3m. This needs to be seriously re-investigated. Steve Reed, now Leader of Lambeth Borough Councillor, and Jackie Meldrum, now Deputy Leader, stated in 2003 that Popes Road car park should not be demolished until a replacement was built and operational. It is essential to the sustainability of Brixton’s economy, so it is unclear why the same officials now reject this statement.
3.5 Streatham Hub also has a PTAL rating of 6b, the difference is Streatham has greater ease of access and safety by design built in to the location it sits in.
3.6 Streatham Ice Rink has a bus stop right outside it on both sides of the road and Streatham Station is only 100 metres away. Public transport is not suitable to carry large kit bags and hockey sticks and the distances between the Popes Road site and public transport are too great to carry this heavy and expensive kit.
Description of the Development
4.3 ‘Continuity of Ice’ has always referred to the Streatham Hub site. The application’s reference to continuity ‘within the borough’ is a distortion of this and was never acceptable to the ice rink users.
4.4 The changing areas, accommodation for visiting coaches and referees is not of suitable size or design. The English Ice Hockey Association Rule 42 states that prayers entering or leaving the ice surface or their dressing rooms must have a clear passageway to do so without interference from members of the general public. This is not possible with the current proposed layout. The shared toilet in the coach room is not suitable for both male and female users, which is unacceptable given that both male and female officials may need to use this facility at a given time. The changing rooms for ice users on the proposed site are below the International ice Hockey Federation’s recommended minimum size, with too few showers and toilets for the requirements of professional ice users.
4.5 Spectator seating of 84 is far below the promised 250. The stated standing room promise of 316 spectators is overstated as the general public will not be allowed to stand near to the entrance/exit gate for the Zamboni resurfacing machine. This combined with access for players and officials will potentially reduce this to a total of nearer 300 and not the 400 quoted on the plans.
4.6 Dedicated public car parking spates which include only 2 disabled blue badge bays out of 22 bays would be insufficient, particularly for the Werewolves of London, Streatham Ice Rink’s special needs ice hockey team who cater for 65 children with a range of disabilities. At Streatham Ice Rink we regularly have more than 80 cars in our own car park and many park in the close neighbourhood. The parking situation in Popes Road and the surrounding area is congested at all times of the day and night. Our users will not be able to go some 800 metres or more to park behind the Town Hall due to their expensive, large
43 Page 90
and heavy hockey bags and kit, and because many of them are children or are disabled for whom travelling longer distances can be more difficult.
4.7 Contrary to this statement the Brixton Market Traders Federation have objected to this proposal. They have pointed out that this area behind the proposed rink will only hold about 20 vans and is not acceptable for the purposes of service and van parking for market traders. Currently they have 42 spaces in the car park next to Popes Road. The proposed parking provision for the traders is almost this number, 25 spaces, and this will lead to the surplus 17 vans going onto the surrounding streets and adding to the already difficult competition for parking in the area. Add to this the influx of ice rink users and parking will become an impossible and heated daily task.
Assessment of the Development: Planning Policy Guidance
5.2 PPS1 is not met, this development does not protect and enhance the natural historic environment, nor does it support existing communities in Brixton or Streatham. It removes an important regional sporting facility from Streatham for at least two and a half years and moves a smaller temporary rink into the centre of Brixton, damaging the viability of this historic multicultural market area by increasing parking competition in the surrounding roads, preventing customer access putting off shoppers from across London and further. This development does not support existing communities in Brixton or Streatham.
5.3 It is a fallacy that trade from Ice Rink users will benefit these markets. The 600 plus regular ice rink users arrive just in time for their timed sessions and depart for home immediately afterwards. There will be little opportunity for these users to shop in Brixton, particularly if they have heavy and expensive kit to carry. This temporary rink would not reduce the need to travel - indeed the vast majority of our regular users from South London and its environs would be travelling an extra three miles to Brixton and back leading to further pollution. It would not promote regeneration as it is only temporary and cannot tackle deprivation in any way. The vitality and viability of Brixton Markets and the temporary ice rink conflict with each other - the rink is too small to be profitable and the lack of car parking will kill off the markets.
5.5 PPM is not being followed, there is no sequential approach and there are adverse Impacts both to the community and to the rink users.
5.6 PPG13 is not met attempting to promote the use of public transport, walking and cycling when a facility used by over 600 regular users is moved 3 miles further away is unlikely to happen. Users cannot take heavy expensive kit onto public transport or bikes, and walking an additional 3 miles is implausible.
NB This section makes no mention of PPG 17, the outcomes of which aim to deliver networks of accessible and high quality sport and recreation facilities. Paragraph 13 of PPG17 states “development may provide the opportunity to exchange the use of one site for another to substitute for any loss of open space, or sports or recreational facility. The new land and facility should be at least as accessible to current and potential new users and at least equivalent In terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality. Wherever possible, the aim should be to achieve qualitative improvements to open spaces, sports and recreational
44 Page 91
facilities’, As is clear from this letter, there are considerable issues with the accessibility, equivalent of size, usefulness and quality of the proposed new sports facility in Popes Road, and therefore PPG17 is not being met in this application.
Assessment of the Development: Regional planning policy guidance
5.8 Policy 2A.8 is not met, this development instead reduces sustainability, reduces viability and vitality, increases the need for servicing by police and increases road user conflict. Policy 3C.24 is not met as it is the management of the ice rink that will have to somehow control parking in the area. This is possible for the 22 allocated places but does nothing for the other users in the surrounding streets. The numbers driving around the area will increase significantly as customers of both the market and ice rink attempt to find spaces in the congested area. Congestion issues in this area could easily become severe.
5.9 Policy 3D.1 is not long term, but rather the placing of a temporary ice rink in the centre of Brixton, It is a three year experiment likely to damage the Brixton community and the ice rink user base beyond repair, as market trade will be hit hard and many ice hockey clubs and teams are likely to fold if they cannot easily gain access to the facility in a timely fashion.
5. 10 The London Plan identifies Brixton and Streatham as Major Centres, these should not be impacted adversely by thoughtless planning.
Assessment of the Development Local planning policy guidance
5.14 Policy 9 of the UDP policies has been ignored as Tesco have falsely assumed that there is no need for a traffic assessment. The Popes Road and surrounding streets have become congested parking areas at most times of the day and night due to the closure of the car park. Customers still drive around the area trying to locate a parking place, and the area is very busy with these traffic movements. It can be assumed that many have been put off coming to the markets as trade is down by between 30% and 50%. This will be further aggravated by ice rink users competing for the few spaces that are available. In the event that the proposed rink was opened, there would be severe congestion at various times, most notably on Saturdays and Sundays when up to 100 or more cars plus several coaches are used for the attendance of ice hockey matches. The coach bay in Brixton is not open for coaches during the evenings. Further congestion is caused by school coaches using Brixton Recreational Centre, particularly as Streatham and Clapham Leisure Centres are currently closed.
Policy 14 of the UDP policies has not been met. They are restricted to a greater level than the standards of UDP policies i.e. the total area of the proposed rink is 2429m2, meaning that a car park catering for just over 60 spaces would be allowed whereas we are only being provided with 22 spaces. We suspect that away from this standard formula, the shortfall in parking will be even greater. Policy 14 states that the level of parking ‘should not...be below [that for] minimum disabled persons’, but the Werewolves of London require spaces that cater for 65 disabled children with a wide spectrum of disabilities. The provision of 2 disabled bays is clearly unacceptable for their purposes. Furthermore, and again contrary
45 Page 92
to Policy 14, the Brixton Market Traders’ business premises will not have the servicing facilities they require leading to yet more congestion in this area.
Policy 73 M0071 is reiterated in the Mayors conditions that the Leisure Centre be built and operational before anything else is built or demolished. The ice rink is to remain open till then.
(a) ls the development supported by planning policy?
5.13 MDO5 East Brixton Regeneration Arc states that development of Popes Road is permitted provided an appropriate level of short stay shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the council. Unfortunately there is no alternative car parking being planned close enough to entice customers of the market or users of the ice rink to park and walk the significant distance to these facilities.
5.19 The short stay parking being delivered as part of the development is inadequate for the market traders or for the ice rink users, both require far more spaces than are being provided, assumptions that people will choose to travel by public transport are fallacious.
(b) Does the development represent high quality and sustainable design?
5.22 The design has progressed with discussions with the various Ice User groups. Unfortunately the council officers have not heeded our comments about the unsuitability of the temporary rink, citing budgetary constraints/limitations of the site and the fact that the facility is a temporary structure, instead of accepting that this site is not fit for purpose and advising Tesco not to waste any further time or money pursuing this. The Mayor’s planners at the CIA set out conditions for continuity of ice on the Hub site When we were approached by Tesco and Lambeth Borough Council to find out whether we would accept an alternative site, we were firm that only if it was in Streatham and was of equivalent size and facilities, They promised we would be no worse off than we are in Streatham. However, the Popes Road site falls short on so many aspects that it is unacceptable and we therefore request that the original promise to build the Leisure Centre on the Streatham Hub site first is honoured. We tried to assist in finding a site that was in Streatham and would also meet our needs, but Lambeth Borough Council would not investigate these alternative sites more closely. It appeared that their minds were made up and we if we did not accept Popes Road we would be left with nothing and that the funds set aside for this project by Lambeth Borough Council, some £19.3m, would be redirected to meet shortcomings in other budget.
5.23 We don’t accept that this temporary ice rink is an improved and more modern facility, it is cramped, one sided and does not meet the requirement of the English Ice Hockey Association, the International Ice Hockey Federation or National Ice Skating Association, nor is it a careful or sensitive regeneration.
46 Page 93
5.24 The poor environmental quality of the site referred to is due to the years of neglect by Lambeth Borough Council. If they had maintained and repaired it this car park could still be in use, generating over Lim revenue each year.
Sustainability
5.25 The main components of the temporary ice rink may be modular, but who would chose to have a one sided, cramped ice rink elsewhere?
5.26 Carbon reduction is not an environmental benefit from this temporary rink, this means that the heat generated by cooling the ice pad will be dissipated into the atmosphere for three years further damaging the poor air quality in Brixton Centre.
5.27 There is no confirmation that the requirement for 1500 Lux lighting will be met
(c) ls the Development fully accessible and reduce the need to travel by private car?
5.29 Streatham also has a PTAL of 6b
5.30 The argument made here is false. Brixton’s town centre has relied on Popes Road car park for decades? evidence of the impact of its loss is highly tangible, the streets surrounding the area are highly congested and it is very difficult to find a single parking space day or night. A difficult parking situation for residents and traders will be worsened by the influx of many regular ice skaters arriving by car alone, as families, or by coach. Public transport is not an option for the majority of these users due to the size and weight of their equipment, the fact that many hockey players are small children, and issues involving disabled access. With just 22 dedicated spaces this will cause conflict and further congestion in the surrounding roads, particularly given the aforementioned parking issues already being suffered in the area as a result of the closure of Popes Road car park.
A transport assessment is required to explain how a potential 100 cars in the busy times can be accommodated in the Popes Road area without causing further serious congestion problems. For example we have repeatedly advised officers that the Werewolves of London special needs ice hockey team have their training on a Saturday afternoon from 3pm till 7pm. There are 65 disabled children with a wide spectrum of disabilities and the provision of 2 disabled bays is clearly unacceptable for their purposes. These children cannot be dropped off and left while parents, carers or volunteers try to find parking offsite. Distance matters greatly to these players and their attendance would be during the busiest time of the week for Brixton Market. The Werewolves of London are a perfect example of the Big Society where there are many volunteer helpers assisting these special needs children. The club will fold if adequate provision of parking next to the rink is not available. In addition, the parking provision for the traders is almost half of what they currently have for vans, 25 spaces instead of 42, this will put these 17 vans onto the surrounding streets and add to the conflict for parking spaces further, they will also have much further to carry their goods to and from their shops or stalls.
47 Page 94
(d) Are there any adverse Impacts of noise pollution minimised?
5.33 We are concerned that the applicant was not allowed access to the car park to carry out these studies due to health and safety reasons, and that a full submission will only follow after this submission, We are not convinced a fair assessment of the dangerous structure has been carried out and argue this report should be made public and a further assessment urgently carried out. We do not wish to be in conflict with the local residents over noise if this has not been resolved. Skaters will be arriving and leaving 7 days a week from 6am till 2am and they should not be put in a potential situation of conflict with residents and traders in Brixton.
The noise from the ice rinks external plant area is likely to be intrusive particularly at night when ambient background noise is at its lowest. The survey identified as needing to be carried out separately has yet to be done and we are concerned that the external plant will disturb neighbours in close proximity at residential accommodation in Wincheap Court and Westgate Court on Canterbury Crescent. We are not satisfied that attenuation, enclosures or screening will control this noise.
(e)Whether the development has been designed to minimise crime and the fear of crime
5.37 We are concerned that the discussions between the Town Centre manager and the Crime Prevention Design Advisor have not been minuted and attached to this submission. Public Safety is a major concern for us, we are not convinced CCTV, extra external lighting or the “secured by design” will prevent crime. local post code gang members from Brixton have expressed an interest in the youngsters likely to come to Coldharbour ward, we do not want our youths from Streatham being put at risk needlessly
5.38 “We do not accept natural surveillance as an argument for provision of public safety. Recently a woman was attacked and robbed outside the recreation centre in broad daylight in Popes Road, the robbers managed to get away down one of the many escape routes into the residential blocks of fiats with ease and therefore avoided capture by the police, just one hundred yards away from Brixton Police Station.
5.39 A community management plan does not cover the 20 hour period that the Ice Rink is open Le. 6am till 2am. Community police officers have limited powers and usually only work from 9am till 5pm, so this would not be a satisfactory solution.
5.40 A Community Management Plan will put the onus on the staff of the rink particularly the security staff, Our current security staff at Streatham, are refusing to go to Brixton as they fear potential issues flaring between youngsters in the area and skaters from other areas.
5.41 We do not accept this development is in accord with the Secure by Design principles and UDP Policy 32. The functional design of the proposed ice rink will include a 6Gm length of mad with no windows and therefore this stretch of the site will not overlook users as they go to and from the rink. This will lead to a lack
48 Page 95
of security for ice rink users, for young people carrying expensive equipment particularly at night in and around Popes Road which are termed as “no go” areas at night in the Brixton Master Plan 2009 The Ice Rink will attract many youths from many more areas, and we are concerned that conflict could become a norm around this temporary rink.
Consultation Process
These meetings have taken place but we dispute that the officers have conveyed our concerns fully, No minutes have been taken of any of the Skate User Design Group meetings. We raised our concerns about the unsuitability of the Popes Road site from the very first meeting on the 20th July 2010. Over 200 people also raised their objections to the temporary rink going to Popes Road at the Peoples Question time with Chuka Umunna on the 22d July, a meeting that was again not minuted and details never published. Having attended many of these meetings we were concerned that different information and plans were presented to the different groups, for example our Ice User Group meeting on the 21 September had only A4 and A3 plans without any measurements on them. Although the plans had a scale we were told by officers not to try to work with these measurements as they may have been distorted by the photocopier. However we attended the residents meeting the next evening on the 22 September to see displayed on the tables full sized A0 plans with dimensions and more information. In this plan the cafe had changed to a service area, spectators were shown standing around the seating and corner curves with figures suggesting 84 seated and 316 standing a total of just400 people allowed In the rink. We feel these consultations were deliberately pitched at different audiences and that information was deliberately withheld from our group. We have repeatedly requested copies of the plans we saw on the 22nd but these have not been given to us. These plans would have enabled our group on the 21st to have pointed out that spectators would not be allowed to stand in the vicinity of the Zamboni resurfacing machines entrance and exit gate reducing the numbers of spectators even further. This rink is unfit for purpose and financially unviable, but our views have been actively ignored.
6.3 Many more queries were raised such as could a mezzanine floor be put into the proposed ice rink similar to the Tesco Store, but we have never had a satisfactory reply to this. Instead from version 1 to version 2 of the plans we lost cafe seating, a reception office, the rooms all became even smaller and the whole area more cramped. This is an unacceptable layout for many of the rink’s teams and users and it does not meet ice rink standards.
6.5 We feel the Cabinet’s decision to approve Popes Road as the temporary Rink location on the 261h July, this report having been written before even the first consultation meeting with us on the 201h July, was short sighted. This consultation process, particularly with regards to the Brixton Market Traders who only found out about this proposal on the day of the Cabinet meeting, has been rushed through erroneously with a consultation process in its infancy before any plans had been sighted. We wrote to every cabinet member by email on the July asking them to defer this decision until other options were considered but we were ignored. I have attached a copy of this email as an Appendix.
49 Page 96
6.6 With the Ice Rink open up to 20 hours per day from 6am till 2am we are concerned that the community safety management will fall short of expectations.
6.7 We dispute that a significant proportion of users will arrive by public transport. The management of the ice rink rely heavily on the regular user clubs and teams, schools and coaches, and all of these use cars or coaches as our equipment is heavy, bulky and expensive. We are also concerned that more of this kit wilt have to be transported to and from the rink as there is very limited storage space at the rink compared to what we currently have in Streatham. We are bemused by the comment that there will be easy access to taxis. This is not a method used by any of our members currently and the cost would make skating very prohibitive, certainly for most families struggling to support their children’s sporting aspirations on a tight budget already. Furthermore, this does not meet the key planning aspiration of reduction of car usage.
6.8 The proposed rink is not a replication of the current ice rink. The ice pad is significantly smaller 26x56 instead of 30x28, the number of customers allowed in to the rink 380 instead of 1200, 22 car parking spaces instead of 80+, 84 seats instead of over 200, a much smaller cafe with no seating and no party room instead of a large cafe with 40 seats and a party room catering for up to 20 children with vending machines outside for out of hours service. Turnstiles instead of a manned reception, skate shop outside of the building instead of inside. Our biggest concern is the financial viability with only a maximum of 380 users or less allowed into the building the rink will be trading insolvent within a short space of time and may be forced into liquidation much earlier than the 3 years planned leaving us without an ice rink.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we disagree with Tesco’s application to modify the existing Section 106 and provide a temporary rink in Brixton’s Popes Road and Lambeth Borough Council’s conclusion to approve this and we instead plead that planning permission should not be granted to this temporary ice rink at Popes Road, instead we ask you to revert to the original conditions set by the Mayor for London and advise Tesco’s that they must build the leisure centre first as originally agreed.
N.B. see attached comments regarding Appendix 1 Cabinet Meeting 2G July 2010 and copy of Skaters 4 The Hubs email from 23rd July requesting Cabinet Members that Popes Road is not an acceptable site for the temporary rink and to reject or at a minimum defer agreeing as suggested until it and other sites have been re-investigated further
Comments on Popes Road Temporary Ice Rink- Appendix 1
Lambeth Cabinet Report July 26th 2010
2.1.2 We are still waiting to see the section 106 Deed of Variation applying for off- site ice provision during the construction process. The mayor is clear in his condition from 22 December 2004 that the new leisure facility must be constructed and operational prior to any other element of the proposed scheme, and no demolition of any of the existing facilities can take place without the
50 Page 97
appropriate funding for the replacement facilities being obtained and a contract let for the construction of the new ice rink/leisure centre. TfL also needs to be satisfied that its bus turnaround area will be provided. Tesco are reminded that they agreed to keep the existing ice rink open for a period of three years while the bus facility and leisure facilities are constructed, operational and open to the public. The fact that the supermarket and flats cannot be constructed until the leisure facility is ready for use will provide reassurance that the promised regeneration benefits associated with the new supermarket will materialise. These conditions were confirmed by GOL on the 3 March 2005.
Tesco’s budget has been kept secret for commercial confidentiality reasons but it should be sufficient for a complete ice rink with minimum facilities as agreed by the National Ice Skating Association, and The Hockey Associations. We were promised a state of the art temporary rink better than Cardiff’s, but we have not been given this in the plans for the proposed ice rink at Popes Road.
2.7 Objections to Crystal Palace and Stockport road playing field were fallacious. From our discussions with both the LDA and Bromley Borough Council it was clear that no discussions ever took place between them and Lambeth Borough Council. Similarly Stockport Road could be made viable by working with Merton Borough Council, but this site was not looked at closely either, even though we requested a full investigation of its potential. Two other sites were turned down in Coldharbour Lane mainly due to security and safety issues. Similar concerns were expressed for Popes Road but these were played down as scaremongering when we raised concerns about safety.
2.13 There is no explanation of how Tesco or the potential operator will ensure our safety concerns are met.
2.14 Insufficient parking cannot be addressed by a drop off and pick up point. Taxis are a very expensive option, which are not used currently by any of our regular users. Cars will continue to be the only sensible method of reaching the ice rink with heavy, bulky kit
2.15 Off site parking locations identified so far are too far away from the rink. They are also identified as short stay 1-2 hours which is not sufficient time for our club or team users.
2.16 Streatham is far easier for most users of the ice rink to get to and it also has a PTAL of 6b. The Victoria Line ends at Brixton and Brixton railway station does not directly serve Streatham, Streatham Hill or Streatham Common stations, so at least one change would be required. The only public direct route is by bus using the A23, which is regularly jammed and will add at least a half an hour journey time. With fixed time slots this means that children will not be able to arrive late for school or leave early to go to the rink. Adults and parents will similarly not be able to arrive late for work or leave work early to go to the rink. While the logistics of this have not been considered, when mentioned to the officers we were told they were only interested in Lambeth taxpayers- anyone living out of the borough was not to be considered. Streatham Ice Rink is a regional facility used by not just the southern London boroughs but by people from Surrey and Kent
51 Page 98
2.18 We feel officers have ignored most of our concerns about the design and lack of facilities at the temporary rink. We have repeatedly informed them of our concerns about the inadequate provision and we are told that within Tesco’s limited budget we are getting a state of the art facility and that if we don’t accept it we will end up with nothing as this is the only option available. We refute the notion that we have supported this development in any way.
2.20 The market traders currently have been given 42 dedicated spaces, when the rink is built they will be re-provided with just 25 spaces at the rear of the rink. This double hit will further damage the market’s viability. With 17 vans contesting parking spots close to the rink this will ultimately lead to needless further conflicts and will impact on traders set up time.
2.21/2 We are concerned that the gym, dance studio and swimming pool will not be built for at least 3 years. It is unclear why when the estimated time to build the leisure centre was just 2 years the users of these amenities should be sacrificed for a further year just to facilitate Tesco getting its store 2 years earlier?
2.3 In March 2010 Lambeth Borough Council Cabinet approved the temporary ice rinks construction on Streatham Common. This was never going to be possible but it was used as an electioneering campaign to suggest that the Council had delivered the Streatham Hub Scheme. This plan was destined to failure - even without the vast local opposition the Secretary of State would never have agreed to it. We admit to being duped but we never agreed to a temporary rink anywhere else. Following the failure of the Common scheme, Tesco should have been forced back to the original Mayors conditions.
3.1 Tesco is currently responsible for building the Leisure Centre on the Streatham Hub site. The section 106 should not be varied to allow them to build an inadequate, unfit for purpose rink elsewhere. A bare minimum requirement should be for an equivalent size to Streatham Ice Rink with similar facilities. The proposed Popes Road rink does not and cannot be made to meet this minimum requirement. Tesco should be told this option is not acceptable.
3.4 Only when it is proved that the Popes Road multi storey car park cannot be repaired and made secure to raise more than a Elm pounds per annum, should it then be demolished. A surface level car park created on that site could then raise the much needed estimated £284,000 per annum, whilst providing the much needed customer car parking for the Market and other business traders in Brixton, Given the revenue this car park would make over three years, we question how Lambeth can afford to throw away £852,000 potential revenue.
5.1 By converting the Popes Road car park into a surface level car park, it preserves the MDOS requirement and would enable the building of a mixed use development should funds become available.
6.1 -3 Consultation has been rushed, information has been difficult to obtain and plans have been lacking in detailed measurements. Approval by Cabinet was given before any local Brixton residents or groups had been consulted.
52 Page 99
7.2 Equalities impact assessment has not taken account of the many cultural issues in Brixton, with its wide reputation as a diverse cultural and creative centre.
Community safety issues had not been consulted on prior to this approval, Brixton Police advised one of our parents not to allow their children to come unaccompanied to the Popes Road area between 3pm and 7pm daily as this is a difficult time to police the area safely.
Appendix I List of Sites considered for the temporary ice rink
It is difficult to believe that any serious consideration was given to the majority of these sites. 5 were common land or park land, 2 had planning applications in progress, 2 were identified as outside of the borough and would require funding for leasehold payments which Lambeth could not afford, and 3 identified as too small or green space/playing fields.
From discussions with both the LDA and Bromley Borough Council it is unlikely that any discussion ever took place with either. Stockport Road was only investigated on the Lambeth Borough Council part of this massive plot of land. No thought was given to access from the Merton Borough Council part of this land, and again speaking with Merton Borough Council planners, no contact from Lambeth Borough Council had occurred. Tesco also confirmed they had not looked at either of these sites but felt that if Lambeth Borough Council approved them they would be happy to build in either area as they seem far simpler to build on with far less opposition from local residents and businesses,
This is a formal request to Cabinet and the full Council from Skaters 4 The Hub to reject the Streatham Hub report’s recommended choice of the Popes Road Car Park as it is unsuitable for purpose as the Temporary Ice Rink location. At the public meeting last night many skaters expressed major concerns about this location, primarily it is not in Streatham the prime promise broken, the lack of dedicated adequate free parking next to it especially when Lambeth have so far only provided two dozen spaces to the market traders even though they were promised 50 if they can’t provide these where are the 60 or more we need plus coach bays going to be, the small footprint will severely limit our minimum required facilities internally, the rink is open from 6am till 2am and security has been identified by many as a real concern to the extent that they have stated they will not continue or allow their children to continue skating, the worries of the Ice Hockey managers who fear that their clubs will fold quickly, I have added an email from the Werewolves Special Needs Hockey Club Manager which clearly states his fears. Many Ice users have travelled to the Popes Road site to look at it and have experienced much longer journey times than expected to the extent that many will find it difficult to go early morning and after school training sessions, many are unable to use either the Tube or Railway to reach Brixton its either car or Bus the A23 is often jammed solid, Visiting teams come in coaches where are they going to park often for at least 4 hours, none of these issues have been thought through clearly, we may be beggars but we do have a choice and we all said no to Popes Road, it is not viable, We were promised we will be no worse off and have at least the same as we have currently this is not the case.
53 Page 100
The other sites listed as having been investigated were never made public to our stakeholders group until the report was published on the 16th July, we were given only three sites as being viable, Streatham Common, M15 site and Popes Road, we were told that the Streatham Common site would take too long to get through planning, the local opposition would delay it by at least 18 months, the M15 site was owned by a storage company who have planning permission to build on the site and that they are going to start building soon, leaving just Popes Road, when challenged about location, limited size, parking and security issues we were told this is the only choice and if you don’t go with this the project will not happen, we agreed if this was true we would reluctantly accept it, however upon reading the report we found that a number of sites had not been investigated fully and particularly Stockport Road playing field had not been thought through correctly there are many entrances to this large site, some are in the borough of Merton and many of these roads are not The area is well served by buses No’s 60, 118 during the day and N 133 at night, it is also close to Streatham Common Station, Car parking is not a problem in Turle Road, Isham Road and the car park can hold 80 cars and can accommodate coaches, access does not require the removal of any playground as listed, As Lambeth own Stockport Playing Fields, there is no lease cost, I would presume that there will be minimum costs from Merton to provide access from their side, an all weather tarmac road and walkway could be provided at minimal cost to facilitate the build and access and removed easily at the same time as the rink by Tesco’s, this could be built in far less time than the minimum 14 months projected for Popes Road and would mean the Streatham Hub could start much earlier. With three schools close to this site this would encourage Streatham youth and schools to use the facility and keeps a much needed sports facility in South Streatham. Please listen to our needs and concerns reject this report and investigate Stockport Road urgently Tesco’s looked at the plan of the area last night and agreed it was a very viable option.
Streatham Redskins
Whilst the Streatham Redskins hockey club see that this is only real alternative to get the Hub project through. Until we can see the plans with all the dimensions on and go over it with our Ice Hockey governing body who have raised some concerns over the temporary rink and the Council, we are unable to get behind and support this project. As there is a possibility that the Ice Hockey governing body will NOT ALLOW league hockey to be played in the temporary rink. (I have had various phone calls with them about the rink and this could happen). If this happens there will be no continuity of ice and the hockey clubs would have to object to this proposed temporary move to Pope’s Rd.
Werewolves of London
I am writing on behalf of the www.werewolvesoflondon.org.uk to oppose the above planning application for the following reasons;
54 Page 101
The proposed new development is not fit for purpose. The site it too small for an ice rink suitable for ice hockey. There is inadequate interior space to ensure that teams are separated when moving from locker rooms to the ice surface and also kept separate from supporters of the opposing teams. There is inadequate space for supporters which will impact on the viability of some of the ice hockey clubs who are dependent on regular attendance by large numbers of supporters. There is inadequate storage space for equipment. The ice rink itself is also too small for ice hockey.
Of greater importance to the Werewolves of London Special Ice Hockey Club [for children and young people with learning disabilities] is the lack of exterior space for dedicated parking at the proposed ice rink. It is not practicable for parents of children with disabilities to carry bulky ice hockey equipment on public transport while looking after children with learning disabilities – many of whom exhibit challenging behaviour – along with their siblings. It is crucial for parents to be able to set off from home secure in the knowledge that there will be no difficulty in parking at or close by the ice rink for periods of up to 3 hours. It has been suggested that additional on-street parking will meet our parking needs but this will not provide an effective substitute for designated parking. The point about a designated car park is that people will drive to it with the reasonable expectation that there will be spaces available. Some of our players travel from as far as Coventry and Guildford. But even those who live relatively close by need to be able to drive for the reasons given above.
People will not drive around Brixton Town Centre in heavy traffic in the hope of finding an empty space. Good public transport links do not provide a solution for hockey players in general and for special needs ice hockey players in particular for the reasons given above.
The proposed provision will not provide continuity of ice for our special needs ice hockey club, the only one of its type in the country. Our club will fold if this project proceeds as proposed.
Friends of Brixton Market
I write to object to the above planning application on behalf of the Friends of Brixton Market (FBM).
INTRODUCTION: FBM came together in the spring of 2008 in reaction to Lambeth Council's master-planning process Future Brixton, which proposed to redevelop Granville Arcade. The group was constituted in Autumn 2008 as a not-for- profit company. FBM is a voluntary organisation run by local residents, shoppers and people who love Brixton Market. We have a board of directors and a management committee. We are an open organisation that seeks to include all the views of Brixton's diverse community in the development of our vision and strategy.
We have three aims: To see Brixton Market survive To see Brixton Market improve but retain its character To ensure Brixton Market remains affordable and culturally diverse
55 Page 102
BACKGROUND: Pope’s Road car park is currently closed, awaiting demolition. It was the only public car park in the centre of Brixton. Its closure has already badly affected traders in Brixton Market. An FOI request has revealed that the drop in stall occupancy coincides precisely with the closure of the car park. The closure endangers the traders and threatens the market as a community resource for Brixton and beyond. Lambeth’s planning policies require any redevelopment of this site to be mixed use: retail, housing and - crucially - replacement parking. We are led to believe by the council that, in the current economic climate, no developers are coming forward with any such proposals. Given how vital car parking is to any retail area our understanding was that following demolition of the existing multi-storey car park, the site could be used for surface level parking. Meanwhile in Streatham, Tesco has sought to break its existing section 106 agreement in respect of its planning permission to build a new supermarket on the site known as the Streatham Hub. This agreement provides, among other things, that Tesco will build a new ice rink on the site to replace the existing one before the existing one is demolished. Tesco now wish to raze the site and build everything in a single phase. To make this possible, they need to establish a rink somewhere else for about three years. It should be noted that the site first chosen was on Streatham Common. This plan was abandoned following strenuous objections by local people.
Thus the planning application in question is not about something being FOR Brixton, it is something being done TO Brixton to facilitate Tesco saving money on a development miles away.
OBJECTIONS:
1 PARKING As indicated in the background, this application would result in a lack of parking for market customers, visitors to Brixton, and market traders. Stalls and shops are already suffering without customer car parking; they cannot survive for another three years or more. Furthermore, Brixton Market street traders are losing parking for their vans. The nearest alternative car park at Tesco’s supermarket in Acre Lane is insufficient and too far away from the market, and new proposed on-street parking in the Town Hall area is similarly too far away, and cannot be seen as a replacement for a named destination car park.
2 DISRUPTION Local residents will suffer from noise, disruption, and traffic congestion. Already inadequate on street parking will be squeezed. The rink will operate from 6:00am until 2:00am. It will not only attract extra car traffic to an already very congested area; it will also bring in many coaches and mini-buses.
3 STRESS ON SERVICES The rink will add to demands on local services; in particular, it will take up police time. The car park of the local police station opens onto the Canterbury Crescent cul-de-sac, which meets Pope’s Road at its open end. There is a danger that traffic from the nearby fire station will also be affected.
4 NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE It is a gross irony that while this development is only proposed to facilitate the continuation of ice skating during the Streatham development, because the
56 Page 103
site is too small, leading to a not-fit-for purpose rink, it will not even meet the needs of Streatham skaters. Problems include that the ice rink will be smaller than the existing one and much smaller than current Olympic standards (to which a new rink on the Streatham site would be built); hockey teams and supporters will not be separated; facilities for officials will be inadequate; and there will be longer journeys for most users and inadequate parking.
5 ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE The energy used in creating ice will be wasted (the plan at Streatham was to use it to heat a swimming pool). It is a gross waste to create a new building only to tear it down again in a few years. It will cause longer journeys for most users.
6 CRIME AND DISORDER Any sporting venue where there are competing teams and supporters, is liable to attract some crime and disorder. This site is ideal for crime - confined but with many bolt holes. These are compelling reasons against this use of the Pope’s Road site; the only reason for using it is to save one of the Country’s biggest companies money in developing a different site.
Brixton Market Traders Federation
1 We act on behalf of the Brixton Market Traders Federation (“the BMTF”), an unincorporated association representing the interests of those who trade from stalls on the Buxton market (the market”). The BMTF has been in existence as a constituted body since approximately 1990, and as a less formal body since the 1960s. It has about 70 members, representing the vast majority of those who trade from stalls on the market. All of the BMTF’s members trade exclusively from the market.
2. The BMTF objects to the application for planning permission for the erection of a temporary ice-rink on land at Popes Road, Brixton, SW9 (“the site”) on the following grounds: a. The proposed development will result in the loss of much-needed ear parking for shoppers in the centre of Brixton, which will have a severely adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the market and the town centre as a whole. b. The alternative proposed parking arrangements for market stallholders are unworkable and impractical.
3. The BMTF has read, and supports, the objections made on behalf of The Brixton Society (‘the Society”) in the letter dated 28 October 2010 from its Chair, Mr Bill Linskey. In particular, it endorses the concerns the Society has articulated about the impact of the proposed development on police resources, and the consequential impact on the ability of the police to allocate resources to other parts of Brixton town centre. However, the BMTF’s objection focuses primarily upon the two matters identified above, being matters upon which it is uniquely well-placed to comment.
57 Page 104
4. Before setting out the substance of the BMTF’s objection, it should be noted that neither the applicant nor the Council has engaged in any meaningful pre-application consultation with the BMTF or its members. There are three points we would wish to emphasise: a. There was no serious attempt by the Council to canvass the BMTF’s views before deciding that the site should be identified as the preferred location for the temporary ice-rink. Had these views been canvassed, and properly taken into account, it is unlikely that the site would have been selected for the reasons that we set out below. b. The two meetings reported at paragraph 6.2 of the Planning Statement submitted by the applicant in support of its application (“the Planning Statement”) did not constitute proper and effective consultation. The first was a relatively brief informal discussion, which was used essentially to inform the BMTF that the site was going to be used as the location for the temporary ice- rink rather than to canvass the BMTF’s views. The second was more formal, at which a letter was given to the cabinet member for Regeneration and the lead regeneration officer. the letter outlined the BMTP’s opposition to the closure of the car park and stated the need for wider consultation with all relevant Brixton town centre stakeholders. The proposed ice-rink use was at all times presented to the BMTF as a fait accompli, rather than a proposal at a formative stage, and the BMTF’s views were not being sought as to whether the proposal was or was not a sensible one to pursue. c. The clear views expressed by the BMTF at the pre-application stage as to the inadequacy and impracticality of the proposed alternative arrangements for stallholders’ parking have simply been ignored.
5. The BMTF has been left with the very clear impression that, for commercial reasons, this application has been put together in considerable haste, without the benefit of any proper pre-application consultation or an adequate detailed understanding of the impacts or practicality of the proposal. This has manifested itself in the limited and superficial nature of the supporting material submitted by the applicant. For reasons that we explain below the net result is that the Council has not been provided with sufficient information to enable the impacts of the proposal to be assessed, and thus it is not in a position where it can properly determine the application.
Brixton Market
6. Brixton market is a general street market, with stalls selling a wide range of food, general household goods, soft furnishings and other items. It attracts customers from across South London and in particular it plays an important role as an affordable ethnic food market.
7. The market also has a vitally important function in terms of the attractiveness of Brixton town centre’s retail offer, making a very significant contribution to its vitality and character. As the Council’s Future Brixton Masterplan notes, the markets arc a key feature of Brixton’s character, which, despite changes over time, continue to provide goods and services to the local community. That document also explains that the diversity of market
58 Page 105
trading space creates a unique retail environment and experience which should he capitalised upon (page 30, section 3.1 .2).
8. The market is particularly important to many of London’s deprived communities, supporting higher living standards due to lower prices. As the Future Brixton Masterplan notes (p. 30, section 3.1.2), the majority of those using the markets come From lower-income brackets. In order to fulfil this role, it is essential that the market stalls are able to enjoy a high turnover so that prices can he kept low.
9. The markets are also able to eater for the particular needs and preferences of South London’s varied ethnic communities.
10. Another important benefit of the market is that it provides a source of income and employment to a large number of people, from a wide range of social and ethnic backgrounds. In addition to the stallholders themselves, for whom the market is their livelihood, about ball of the stallholders also employ assistants.
Markets provide relatively low risk opportunities for business start-up and market testing, and are vital to the success of a large number of small and medium size enterprises — generally acknowledged by the Council as a particularly important source of employment in Lambeth. It should be remembered that Marks and Spencer and Tesco both started as market stalls.
12. More detail on the role and importance of London’s retail street markets can be found in the draft Final Report, dated June 2010 and entitled “London’s Retail Street Markets”, prepared by Regeneris consulting on behalf of the London Development Agency.
13. The importance of markets is reflected in the strong planning policy support that they enjoy at all levels, in national planning policy (PPS4 — see in particular EC4le and ECl0.2d and e), strategic development plan policy (the London Plan — see in particular Policy 3D.3, which seeks to prevent the loss or retail facilities, including Street markets, that provide essential convenience and specialist shopping), local development plan policy (the Lambeth TJDP - see in particular Policy 4(a) and (b)), and in the Future Brixton Masterplan of July 2009.
14. Any development that is likely adversely to affect the vitality and viability of the market will therefore not only cause harm to the livelihoods of the individuals staIIholders and their employees and suppliers, it will also adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre and give rise to conflict with planning policy at all levels, including national policy on retailing arid town centres in PPS4. The Council must therefore take great care in considering the likely impact of this proposal on the market, and the extent to which this issue has been properly analysed and addressed in the material submitted in support of the application.
The importance of the site to the health and success of the market
59 Page 106
15. There are currently 42 parking spaces provided for the market stallholders on land within the site and adjacent to the Pope’s Road multi storey car park. The trader’s ear park is used to its full capacity thanks to a well-established arid carefully organized system. Many of the stallholders’ vehicles are long wheel based vans (e.g. Transit or Mercedes Sprint). These vehicles can enter and exit 38 of the 42 spaces freely at any time, with the remaining four spaces being used on the basis of co-ordination with those using the spaces nearby so as to ensure that vehicles are able to leave as desired. The current arrangements have been in existence for some time, and work well. It is an essential facility for those trading from the market, and is critical to the stallholders’ ability to carry out their business.
16. It is important to note that the applicant’s Transport Statement is therefore seriously inaccurate in reporting that the area of the site currently used for Market Traders’ parking provides room for approximately 25 spaces” (paragraph 1.7). That is simply not correct, and the error is symptomatic of the limited and superficial analysis which is presented in the supporting documents submitted with the application. There are other important errors and omissions in the applicant’s supporting material, as we explain elsewhere in this letter.
17. Until December 2009, the multi-storey car park on the site provided vital car parking facilities for shoppers visiting the market. The majority of those who visit the market do so in order to undertake their weekly shop, and much of the shopping takes the form of bulk buying. Ready access to convenient car parking is therefore an essential element of the market’s attraction, as customers will alien need to carry heavy bags and other items following their visit.
18. On street ear parking near to the town centre is heavily over-subscribed, with the small number of spaces closest to the market limited to one hour of free parking, which is inadequate for those wishing to undertake a full weekly shop, let alone undertake any linked trips. On- Street car parking cannot provide an effective substitute for adequate off-street provision. This is recognized by the requirement in Policy MDO 5(c) of the UDP for the provision of an appropriate level of parking either on this site and/or elsewhere as part of any redevelopment. The Council clearly does not consider that existing parking provision is adequate. It is also recognized by UDP Policy 14(e), which explains that the loss of parking in town centres open to the public “will be acceptable only if it is demonstrated to be surplus”. There can be no credible suggestion in this case that the parking that has been and would otherwise be provided on the site is surplus, no least because both Policy MDC 5(e) and the Future Brixton Masterplan consider it necessary to provide such parking as part of any redevelopment proposals. It should also be noted that Lambeth’s only current leisure centre is also adjacent to the site, and that the leisure centre creates its own demand for parking.
19. Following the closure of the multi-storey car park, there has been a very substantial, and indeed unsustainable, reduction iii the level of trade enjoyed by the stallholders of the market, and a consequential adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole.
60 Page 107
20. The car park was closed four days before Christmas 2009, a very important trading period, and its closure had an immediate adverse effect on trade within the market (and an immediate adverse effect on traffic congestion in Brixton town centre, as shoppers sought to find alternative parking). Up until the closure of the car park, patterns of trading during 2009 had been healthy. However, the level of trade over the last [our days before Christmas was down by approximately’ two-thirds from what would normally be expected, depriving the traders of a substantial part of their annual income. That adverse effect has continued throughout 2010 with the level of trade generally down by about half compared to the previous (recessionary) year.
21. In simple terms, the effect of this substantial reduction in trade has been to threaten the market’s survival. The level of occupancy has already reduced to about 50%, and at least twelve traders have gone out of business already as a result of the loss of trade. Others arc scaling down their operations in order to seek to remain solvent, but unless the lack of parking is resolved soon it is likely that many if not most of the stallholders will have little option but to cease to trade from the market.
22. As the Council will be aware, it is also important that the market should be able to generate enough rental income to cover the costs of its operation. At present the street trading account is running a substantial deficit (approximately £50-60,000 per annum).
23. In the absence of an appropriate number of replacement of parking spaces, the BMTF is of the view that the market is unlikely to survive in anything like its current form or very long, and certainly not for the length of time that it is proposed to use the site as an ice rink.
The proposed use of the site
24. The Planning Statement submitted in support of the proposed development states that an area to the rear of the proposed rink will be given over to use by the market traders. It appears to be suggested that this arrangement has been agreed by the BMW (paragraph 4.7), but that is simply not correct. Indeed, the BMW’s serious objections to the proposed replacement car park have been ignored, resulting in a proposed arrangement that is both inadequate and entirely impractical.
25. Only 35 parking spaces would be provided, fewer spaces than the BMTF had been led to expect during the pre-application discussions with the Council’s officers. Seven stallholders would therefore lose their spaces altogether, with no replacement provision. No consideration has been given to the impact of this loss in the applicant’s supporting material, though in the absence of suitable parking it is almost certain that these stallholders would he unable to continue to trade.
26. In addition to the reduction in the number of spaces, the proposed arrangement of spaces is unworkable. The lanes in between the rows of spaces are too narrow to enable vans to manoeuvre in mid out when the spaces are occupied, and a great many of the vehicles parking on the site
61 Page 108
would effectively be blocked in and unable to leave once the spaces in front were occupied. No proper consideration has been given to the practicality of the proposed arrangement, which is also symptomatic of a hastily prepared application. It has not been demonstrated that these concerns could he overcome by means of some alternative arrangement of spaces in the area designated for this purpose on the proposed site plan. There is a very real lire risk from vans being blocked in and impracticalities of traders being able to vacate the proposed parking site in the case of an emergency.
27. It is said that the development will also include 20 “public car parking spaces” (Planning Statement, paragraph 5.30), hut these spaces are ‘for the ice-rink” (Transport Statement, paragraph 1.16) and have been proposed ‘due to feedback from the Ice User groups” and are therefore considered necessary by the applicant to eater for the parking needs of those using the proposed ice-rink.
28. The IBMTF considers that the number of parking spaces provided for those using the ice-rink is inadequate. At weekends and in the evenings during the week, it has been observed that anywhere between approximately 50 and 100 cars are parked at the existing Streatham ice-rink at any one time. Those visitors to the ice-rink who arrive by car and are unable to park on site will therefore add to the existing pressure on the limited on-street car parking spaces in the vicinity, reducing yet further the ear parking available to those shopping in the market.
29. No parking has been proposed for shoppers and other visitors to the town centre.
The use of the site if planning permission is refused
30. In order to assess the impact of the proposed development, it is necessary to consider what is likely to happen to the site in circumstances where planning permission is refused. ‘The following two points can be gleaned from the officer’s report to the Council’s Cabinet dated 26 July 2010 in relation to the Streatham 1 Hub: a. The existing multi-storey car park is to be demolished (page 42). b. A surface level car park on the site (following demolition) would bring in all annual income of £284,000, which could help to offset the “significant pressure on the [Council’s] Parking income budge?’ (page 50, paragraphs 3.3-3.4).
31. Any redevelopment of the site would presumably have to comply with the Council’s site- specific UDP policy, MDC 5. It would thus have to include, inter alia, “an appropriate level of short-stay shoppers/visitors car parking ... on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council”.
32. Further guidance as to the Council’s views on the fixture of the site can be found in its Future Brixton Masterplan, which embodies the Council’s long term strategy as developed through close working with local people (see ‘Foreword’ by ClIr. Lib Peck, the Cabinet member for Housing and
62 Page 109
Regeneration). This document explains that there is to be a new multi-storey car parking facility at Popes Road “as a means to reinforce shortfall in the centre and help to market Brixton as a major retail destination” (paragraph 4.4.5, and see also paragraph 5.1.11).
33. It can therefore reasonably be concluded that in the absence of the proposed development, the site would: a. continue to provide parking for market stallholders in the short term; h. provide an increased level of public ear parking, with associated increases in footfall for the market and the town centre’s other retailers in the short to medium term as a result of the creation of a temporary surface level car park following demolition of the existing building; and c. be redeveloped in the longer term so as to provide, inter alia, an appropriate level of short-stay shoppers/visitors car parking.
34. The impacts of the proposed development therefore fall to be measured against that baseline.
Loss of car parking
35. Contrary to the requirements of site-specific policy MDO 5 of the UDP, the applicant does not propose to provide any short-stay shoppers/visitors car parking on site or elsewhere, let alone an appropriate level.
36. In this respect, paragraphs 519 and 5.20 of the Planning Statement are potentially misleading in stating, in the context of MDO 5, that the site “will deliver short-stay parking as part a/the Development” and that the proposed development is thus in full accord with Policy MDO 5. This is because the parking to be provided is to cater for the needs of those using the proposed ice-rink, and not 11w shoppers and other visitors to the town centre as the policy stipulates. The proposed development would plainly involve a departure from development plan policy, and must be treated as such.
37. Paragraph 2.15 of the officer’s report to Cabinet dated 26 July 2010 explains that the Council expects the applicant to provide short stay parking to offset the spaces which could have been provided at surface level following demolition of Pope s Road car park” (emphasis added). Similarly, paragraph 5.3 reports the comments of the Council’s Divisional Director of Planning that any planning application would need to include an investigation of alternative sites ... to compensate for the town centre parking spaces that could have been provided on the site after demolition of the car park”. that process has not produced any alternative parking proposals, with no sites being identified for additional parking provision that are available and/or sufficiently close to serve the needs of those shopping at the market. No mention is made of this issue in either the Planning Statement or the Transport Statement submitted in support of the application.
63 Page 110
38. Thus the effect of the proposed development would he to prevent the site being used for the provision of ear parking until at least the time when the ice rink is demolished and the site redeveloped again. As we have explained, the effect of the loss of ear parking on the site has been disastrous for the vitality and viability of the market, and thus also for the vitality and viability of the town centre. If the proposed development is permitted, and proceeds, that impact will continue and is likely to render the market uneconomic, at least in its current form.
39. We would add that the market is unlikely to benefit to any significant extent from an increase in visitors associated with the proposed ice-rink use. As we have explained, most of those who visit the market do so in order to undertake their regular weekly shop, and not to carry out impulse or comparison shopping (as might be the ease in, say, the Camden markets). The scope for linked trips for those whose primary purpose is to use the ice-rink is therefore minimal. In any event, there has been no attempt by either the applicant or the Council to investigate or assess the potential scale of any possible increase in trade from this source. There is no credible basis for believing that any possible increase would he sufficient to offset the substantial adverse impact on trade associated with the loss of parking.
40. For those reasons, the proposed development is contrary to policy at all levels, and, importantly, it is not in accordance with the most directly relevant policies in the UDP (MDO 5, Policy 4 and Policy 14(e)) and the London Plan (Policy 3D.3). Therefore the presumption pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is in favour of refusal.
41. In addition, the development would also give rise to significant harm to the retail vitality and viability of the town centre, to the livelihoods and employment prospects of a significant number of those who depend on the markets, and to the economic wellbeing of many of the borough’s most vulnerable citizens.
42. None of these issues has been addressed in the supporting material provided by the applicants, and at present the Council simply does not have sufficient information to enable it properly to consider the impacts associated with the proposed development, the Council could not lawfully grant planning permission in those circumstances.
The inadequacies in the proposed replacement parking provision
43. In addition to the absence of any shopper/visitor parking to compensate for the loss of such car parking as would otherwise he created following demolition, the applicant’s proposals for replacing the parking currently provided for market stallholders arc inadequate and unworkable for the reasons we have explained above.
The temporary nature of the proposed development
64 Page 111
44. It is no answer to the adverse effects of the proposed development to say that they will only be temporary. As paragraph 109 of Circular 11/95 explains, in deciding whether a temporary permission is appropriate, three main factors should be taken into account: a. It will rarely be necessary to give a temporary permission to an applicant who wishes to carry out development which conforms with the provisions of the development plan. h. It is undesirable to impose a condition requiring the demolition after a stated period of a building that is clearly intended to be permanent. c. The material considerations to which regard must be had in granting any permission are not limited or made different by a decision to make the permission a temporary one. Thus, the reason for granting a temporary permission can never be that a time- limit is necessary because of the effect of the development on the amenities of the area. Where such objections to a development arise they should, if necessary, he met instead by conditions whose requirements will safeguard the amenities. If it is not possible to devise such conditions, and if the damage to amenity cannot be accepted, then the only course open is to refuse permission.
45. As to the first of those factors, in this case the development does not conform with the most directly relevant provisions of the development plan, for the reasons set out above.
46. As to the second factor, the proposal is to erect a substantial building on the site, though the absence of detail in the Design and Access Statement makes it hard to assess the extent to which the design is consistent with the stated intention that it be temporary. In the Sustainability Statement it is said that the main components of the ice rink are modular and removable for on- going use on alternative Sites (paragraph 1.5), but no detail is given as to which parts of the proposed building are said to he re-usable and which are not.
47. As to the third factor, the impacts of the proposed development arc simply not acceptable. Even if the anticipated programme of development at the site and the associated Streatham Hub site were to proceed entirely as planned (which would not be a safe assumption given the nature and complexity of the schemes), the site would be unable to provide car parking For shoppers for in excess of three years. Many, if not most, of the market stallholders would be forced to cease trading in those circumstances.
48. in practice, it is likely that the programme of development would not proceed entirely according to plan, and the site would be unavailable to provide ear parking for considerably longer than three years.
49. The impacts associated with the proposed development are therefore unacceptable. Unless and until those impacts can effectively he mitigated, planning permission ought to be refused.
Conclusions
65 Page 112
50. The proposed development is contrary to policy at all levels, and is in breach of the site- specific development plan policy for the site and other important development plan policies. The presumption is therefore in favour of refusal.
51. in addition, the development would cause significant harm to the retail vitality and viability of the town centre, to the livelihoods and employment prospects of a significant number of those who depend on the markets, and to the economic wellbeing of many of the borough’s most vulnerable citizens. it is therefore also directly in conflict with the relevant national policy guidance in PPS4.
52. the applicant’s proposals for replacing the parking currently provided for market stallholders are wholly inadequate and unworkable.
53. It is no answer to the BMTF’s objections to seek to rely on the temporary nature of the proposed development.
54. The Council has not been provided with sufficient information to enable it properly to determine the application, let alone lawfully to grant planning permission.
55. For those reasons the BMTF objects to the proposed development, and urges the Council to refuse planning permission.
7.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
7.1 National Guidance
7.1.1 Central Government advice is contained in a range of Government Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These are essentially general policies which aim to guide the local planning authority to securing good policies based on real and sound objectives and the need to provide high quality, well thought out developments which make a positive contribution to the locality and which help to protect or enhance the environment. Those which are relevant to the consideration of this application are set out below.
Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development:
7.1.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) attempts to ensure that development and growth are sustainable. The guidance note outlines the positive role for the planning system in guiding appropriate development to the right place.
7.1.3 The policy statement underlines the need to promote urban (and rural) regeneration to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those communities. Policies should promote mixed use developments for locations that allow the creation of linkages between different uses and can thereby create more vibrant places.
66 Page 113
7.1.4 PPS1 also seeks to ensure the provision of improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space, sport and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car.
7.1.5 The Statement requires local authorities to focus developments that attract a large number of people, especially retail, leisure and office development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability, social inclusion and more sustainable patters of development.
Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
7.1.6 Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) sets out the Government's comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable economic development in urban (and rural) areas. This replaces Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms (PPG4), Planning Policy Guidance 5: Simplified Planning Zones (PPG5), Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (PPS6) and the economic development sections of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7).
7.1.7 Economic development includes development within the B Use Classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses.
7.1.8 The main uses to which the town centre policies in this PPS apply are:
Retail development (including warehouse and factory outlet centres) Leisure, entertainment facilities and the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres, and bingo halls) Offices, and Arts, Culture and Tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities)
7.1.9 PPS4 advises that Local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably.
7.1.10 All planning applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impact considerations:
whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change; the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured;
67 Page 114
whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions; the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives; the impact upon local employment
7.1.11 PPS4 applies separate tests for determining planning applications for economic development for town centre uses not in town centres, for economic development in rural areas, for economic development affecting local centres and villages, and for economic development other than town centre uses.
Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport:
7.1.12 PPG13 (Transport) deals with transport and particularly the way in which it integrates with the proper planning of the environment. It seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices and accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and discourages the need to travel by car. Paragraph 17 states that parking standards should not be expressed as minimums and requires planning authorities to revise parking standards to allow for lower levels of off-street parking especially in locations which are served by good public transport.
Planning Policy Guidance 17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation
7.1.13 PPG 17 states that open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin people's quality of life. Well designed and implemented planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are therefore fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives. These include: supporting an urban renaissance - local networks of high quality and well managed and maintained open spaces, sports and recreational facilities help create urban environments that are attractive, clean and safe. Green spaces in urban areas perform vital functions as areas for nature conservation and biodiversity and by acting as 'green lungs' can assist in meeting objectives to improve air quality.
supporting a rural renewal - the countryside can provide opportunities for recreation and visitors can play an important role in the regeneration of the economies of rural areas. Open spaces within rural settlements and accessibility to local sports and recreational facilities contribute to the quality of life and well being of people who live in rural areas.
promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion - well planned and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities can play a major part in improving people's sense of well being in the place they live. As a focal point for community activities, they can bring together members of deprived communities and provide opportunities for people for social interaction.
68 Page 115
health and well being - open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness, and in the social development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others.
promoting more sustainable development - by ensuring that open space, sports and recreational facilities (particularly in urban areas) are easily accessible by walking and cycling and that more heavily used or intensive sports and recreational facilities are planned for locations well served by public transport.
Planning Policy Guidance 24 (Planning and Noise)
7.1.13 This Guidance relates to acoustic issues and provides guidance with respect to minimising adverse noise impact, for both noise-sensitive and noise generating developments. The focus is on the suitability of development sites for new housing, but it also advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise from various types of development.
7.2 London Plan (as amended 2008)
7.2.1 The London Plan is the Mayor's development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.
7.2.2 It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and, proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport.
7.2.3 All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
7.2.4 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:
2A.1 Sustainability criteria 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic 3D.1 Supporting Town Centres 3D.6 The Olympic and Paralympic Games and sports facilities; 4A.1 Tackling climate change 4A.2 Mitigating climate change 4A.4 Energy assessment 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 4A.21 Waste strategic policy and targets 4B.8 Respect local context and communities
69 Page 116
7.3 Unitary Development Plan (Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010)
7.3.1 The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010) are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 1 The Vision for Lambeth; Policy 4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration; Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime; Policy 34 Renewable Energy in Development; Policy50 open Space and Sports Facilities; Policy 56 Waste; Policy 57 Planning Obligations; and Policy 73 Regeneration of Streatham Town Centre
MDO 5 East Brixton Regeneration Arc
7.4 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
7.4.1 The following adopted SPD is relevant:
SPD: S106 Planning Obligations
7.4.2 The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is also considered relevant.
7.5 Lambeth’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy
7.5.1 The Policies of Lambeth’s Core Strategy have been declared sound by a government inspector, in the Inspector’s Report dated 6 December 2010 and, at the time of writing, it is anticipated that the Core Strategy will have been adopted by the Council on 19 January 2011.
7.5.2 The following Policies of the Council’s Core Strategy are relevant to the current planning application:
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives
Policy S3 – Economic Development
Policy S4 – Transport
Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction
Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment
8. Assessment
8.1 Landuse Considerations
70 Page 117
8.1.1 Loss of Existing Car Park and the Principle of an Ice Rink Facility on this Site The site is located within the designated Brixton Town Centre and until November 2009, it provided town centre car parking for shoppers and visitors to Brixton. The car park has however been closed to the public on health and safety grounds since this time and is now being demolished. The Council’s appointed contractors should have completed the demolition by March 2011. 8.1.2 The principle of the demolition of the existing multi storey car park on the application site and the felling of the mature Plane trees within and immediately adjoining the site have been agreed outside the consideration of this or the other related planning applications and as such do not materially affect the consideration of this application. 8.1.3 Turning to whether the principle of an ice rink in this location is acceptable in landuse terms, there are a number of policies against which this application has to be tested.
8.1.4 The London Plan identifies a number of International, Metropolitan, Major and District centres across the capital allocated in terms of their scale, role and function. Brixton is identified as a Major Centre (as is Streatham). Policy 2A.8 of the London Plan requires boroughs to maintain a network of town centres and seeks to enhance the vitality and viability of such centres. The Mayor also seeks to strengthen the wider role of town centres through Policy 3D.1. The policy promotes the development of retail and leisure uses in town centre locations. An ice rink falls within Use Class D2 “Assembly and Leisure” and as such is policy compliant with the London Plan.
8.1.5 The principle of an ice rink on this site has also to be considered having regard to Lambeth’s adopted and emerging policies as set out in the UDP Policies saved beyond 05 August and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 (Saved UDP) and the Lambeth Local Development framework Core Strategy: Pre Adoption version January 2011.
8.1.6 Saved UDP Policy 4 (Town Centres and Community Regeneration) advises that development should sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the borough’s major and district town centres, appropriate to the scale, role and character of each centre and its catchment and promotes a range of uses including leisure in the major and district town centres. Part (f) advises that further residential community facilities, employment (Use Class B1) and leisure development is promoted with town centres subject to retaining/providing active frontage uses where appropriate (see Policy 19) and protecting amenity (Policy 7 and Policy 29).
8.1.7 Saved UDP Policy 19 advises that development in town centres and elsewhere where it would promote urban vitality should have active frontage open to the public. All street frontage buildings in these locations should have frontages and entrances orientated towards the street.
8.1.8 MDO 5 relates to the East Brixton Regeneration Arc within which the application site lies. Part (e) of the MDO designation relates specifically to the
71 Page 118
pope’s road car park. It states that the “development at Pope’s road car park is permitted provided an appropriate level of short stay shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council”.
8.1.9 Taking the above UDP policies into account it is considered that re- development of this town centre site for leisure purposes is acceptable in principle subject to providing active frontages and replacement parking.
8.1.10 Whilst it acknowledged that active ground floor frontages are limited primarily to the entrance lobby on the Pope’s Road / Brixton Station Road corner of the building, the external envelope of the building is driven largely by the technical requirements necessary for the efficient and secure functioning of the building together with the need to mitigate any noise emanation. Also, and perhaps most fundamentally, the proposed building is temporary for three years only and should therefore be seen in the context of seeking to enable the delivery of a state-of-the-art ice rink in Streatham as expeditiously as possible. Set in this context, it is considered that the lack of active frontages within the proposed ice rink is offset by the wider benefits that would be derived should planning permission be granted. The question of replacement parking has been sought to be addressed by the submission of the application for a temporary (3 years) town centre car park in Porden Road / Bruckner Road, the report for which is also on this agenda.
8.1.11 Lambeth’s Core Strategy is currently under examination and scheduled for adoption in late 2010. The Core Strategy policies will supersede some of the policies in the UDP. This is set out in Annex 10 of the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy policies particularly relevant to the principle of development of the Popes Road Car Park as an Ice Rink are Policy PN3-Brixton and Policy S3-Economic Development.
8.1.12 Policy PN3 supports development on Pope’s Road Car Park and surrounding land to provide mixed use residential, retail, food and drink, town centre car parking, cycle storage, parking and community uses and public realm improvements. Policy S3 supports local economic development through supporting the vitality and viability of Lambeth’s hierarchy of major district and local centres. Part (e) of Policy S3 seeks to safeguard and improve leisure, recreation, arts and cultural facilities where they meet local and wider needs, especially in town centres, unless adequate replacement provision is made.
8.1.13 Taking the Core Strategy policies into account it is considered that the principle of developing a large leisure use such as an ice rink on the Pope’s Road Car Park site on a temporary basis is in itself acceptable in landuse terms. Equally importantly, it would not prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of the site in the future and therefore would not conflict with the above policies.
8.1.14 The site lies within MDO 5 however requires that the “development of Pope’s Road car park is permitted provided an appropriate level of short stay
72 Page 119
shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council”. Whilst this application does not comply with requirement, there are considerations which overcome this expectation. Firstly, the application is for a temporary 3 year period only, after which time the use will cease and the rink will be demolished once the new, approved leisure centre/ice facility in Streatham has been built and handed over to the Council. This application would not compromise the requirements of the MDO in the longer term. Also, it is proposed to provide short stay shoppers/visitors car parking elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council, namely in Porden Road, supplemented by additional on-street spaces. This provision would therefore be in compliance with the MDO requirements and therefore be policy compliant. The application is not therefore a departure from the Development Plan. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposed ice facility is fit for purpose for all users any may be supported.
8.1.15 Acceptability of the Proposed Ice Rink Given the Need for Continuity of Ice Provision
The application site has been identified as the most suitable for a temporary ice rink in terms of deliverability, timing and cost. It has been established that the principle of a leisure facility i.e. an ice rink in this town centre location is acceptable in landuse terms. However, for the application to be considered to be acceptable, the Council has to be satisfied that this particular proposed ice rink facility is of satisfactory size and specification to be fit for purpose to ensure the continuity of the required ice facilities over the next 3 years whilst the replacement on site ice rink, is built out and handed over to the Council.
8.1.16 The existing ice facility in Streatham has an ice pad measuring 56mx28m which is of “regional standard” The proposed temporary ice facility would be smaller than the existing rink in that the pad would measure 56x26m. This reduction in width does not affect the status of the proposed pad as it too is categorised as being of “regional” standard. It is considered to be limited reduction in width is not of such significance as to prevent or significantly compromise users from continuing their sports at the application site to warrant refusal of planning on this ground.
8.1.17 It is acknowledged that the various ice users generate support and that these supporters have therefore to be accommodated on the proposed site. The Streatham rink provides for 100 spectator seats with room available for approximately 400 standing spectators. The proposed rink would provide 84 seats with standing room also available for approximately 400 standing supporters. Again, whilst the shortfall of seating is acknowledged it is considered that overall level of room available for spectators is sufficiently comparable with the existing rink as not to warrant refusal.
8.1.18 The table below sets out a comparison between these rinks and that approved for the new permanent rink in Streatham. Members will note that the internal arrangements for ice users, referees, supporters and staff are broadly similar between the two rinks. It is considered therefore that given these broad similarities between the Streatham rink which is regarded as being fit for purpose, the Pope’s Road temporary rink may also be considered fit for purpose having regard to its size, fixtures and fittings.
73 Page 120
8.1.19 There is however a more marked difference in the level of car parking provision. The Streatham rink has an area around it which may accommodate up to 51 cars to remain within Fire Certificate Regulations, although it is understood there is additional ad hoc on site parking. The proposed rink would accommodate 22 dedicated car parking spaces together with one disabled bay and an allocated drop off space. Coach parking can reasonably and safely take place in Pope’s Road alongside Brixton leisure centre. Whilst there is a clear shortfall when comparing the 2 rinks, Brixton is a highly accessible location generally and this site is only a short walk from train and tube stations and bus stops. All these transport facilities offer direct access across London and the south east generally and as stated by NISA the approximately 3 mile separation distance between the existing and proposed rinks is not considered to be unduly prohibitive. Moreover, associated with this application is the linked application for a temporary car park in Porden Road, Brixton. This would provide an additional 33 car parking spaces in the town centre, which is only a short walk from Pope’s Road and together with additional on-street spaces being laid out, would be available to users of the proposed rink. The proposed location for the temporary rink is therefore considered to be highly accessible. The location of the site and the transport linkages to and from it are considered to be such that the proposed rink would be fit for purpose in terms of its accessibility for users and spectators.
Specification Current Ice-Rink in Pope’s Road Proposed New and Streatham Temporary Ice-Rink improved Permanent Streatham Ice-Rink
Ice Pad Size 56 x 28m (Regional 56 x 26m (Regional 60m x 30m (Regional standard) standard) Standard)
Available Spectator 100 seats 84 seats 1000 Seating
Available Standing Approx. 400 Approx. 400 n/a
Changing Rooms 2 x changing rooms 2 x 22 person team 6 x 20 person changing room changing rooms with Additional Rooms showers (includes 2 x Coach Rooms coach facilities)
Each changing room has a shower/wc room adjacent to it
Skate Hire Desk Skate hire desk Skate hire desk with Skate hire desk space for c1000 skates and skate repair room
Boot Change Area Dedicated Boot Dedicated Boot Dedicated Boot change area change area change area
Kit Storage Rooms 2 x purpose made 2 x storage rooms Dedicated storage storage rooms area
74 Page 121
Lockers Unknown Number to be agreed Banked storage lockers opposite the boot change area benches
Toilets Male = 4 x WC, + Male = 2 x WC, 4 x Male = 2 x WC, 7 x Urinal and basins Urinal, 3 x basins, Urinal, 4 x basin
Female = 3 x WC + Female = 7 x WC, 5 Female = 14 x WC, 8 basins x basins x basin
Disabled = 1 Disabled = 1
Reception Reception desk Reception desk Entrance Foyer with inside entrance inside entrance reception desk
Back Office Offices above ice rink Back office room GR FL Main Office
Cafe Café counter and Café area with Café, seating and separate room for seating additional vending seating machines
Goal Judge Stations Person stands on 2 x dedicated goal 2 x dedicated goal viewing side of judge enclosures judge stations Perspex and operates a light switch
Team Benches 2 x team benches 2 x team player 2 x team benches adjacent to ice pad enclosures with adjacent to ice pad benches adjacent to ice pad
Penalty Areas Penalty Bench Dedicated 2 x 2 x Penalty Boxes seating alongside Penalty Boxes (capacity 3 players) team benches opposite side of ice and team benches [No dedicated penalty boxes]
Time Keeper Station Seated alongside Dedicated Time Dedicated Time Penalty Bench Keeper Station Keeper Station
Car Parking and Area around ice rink 22 dedicated car 138 Leisure Centre Coach Drop Off building provides for spaces, + 1 x car parking spaces up to 51 car spaces dedicated disabled provided by Tesco to remain within Fire and allocated drop Certificate off space. Regulations Coach parking at Popes Rd alongside Brixton Recreation
75 Page 122
8.1.20 In conclusion, therefore the provision of an ice rink, being a leisure facility, within a town centre is in accordance with both GLA and Council policies and as such is acceptable in principle. The site lies within MDO 5 which requires that the “development of Pope’s Road car park is permitted provided an appropriate level of short stay shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council”. Whilst this application does not comply with the requirement, there are considerations which overcome this expectation. Firstly, the application is for a temporary 3 year period only, after which time the use will cease and the rink will be demolished once the new, approved leisure centre/ice facility in Streatham has been built and handed over to the Council. This application would not compromise the requirements of the MDO in the longer term. Also, it is proposed to provide short stay shoppers/visitors car parking elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council, namely in Buckner Road/Porden Road, supplemented by additional on-street spaces. This provision would therefore be in compliance with the MDO requirements and therefore be policy compliant. The application is not therefore a departure from the Development Plan. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposed ice facility is fit for purpose for all users and may be supported.
8.1.21 The application is therefore considered to be acceptable in landuse terms
8.2 Design Considerations
8.2.1 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues.
8.2.2 Policy 33 of the UDP is relevant in that it sets out that all development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area.
8.2.3 Policy 39 of the UDP sets out that as much attention should be paid to the design of the areas between buildings as to buildings themselves. Development should provide or enhance an uncluttered, consistent, simple, accessible and co-ordinated public realm, with robust and appropriate materials and landscape design which enhances the setting, connections and spaces between buildings.
8.2.4 Policy 41 seeks to protect important views backdrops and setting of local heritage assets.
8.2.5 Policy 47 of the UDP sets out the presumption that development outside of conservation areas should not harm the setting of the area or harm views into or from the area.
8.2.6 Policy S9 of the Core Strategy relates to the Council’s aspirations for improving and maintaining the quality of the built environment and its liveability, in order to sustain stable communities. In particular Policy S9 seeks to ensure the highest quality of design in all new buildings and the public realm.
76 Page 123
8.2.7 Part (e) of Policy S9 of the Core Strategy sets out the Council’s objectives to, amongst other matters, improve the quality of the public realm to ensure that it supports regeneration objectives, encourages physical activity, is accessible for people with disabilities, supports sustainable travel and includes safe and attractive pedestrian and cycle routes within and through neighbourhoods, linked to green spaces and public transport nodes and interchanges. Part (g) of Policy S9 also acknowledges that the quality of the built environment and its liveability will be dependent upon matters of ongoing management in partnership with businesses and users.
8.2.8 Turning initially to the overall context of the site, it is located at the junction of Pope’s Road and Brixton Station Road adjacent to Brixton Recreation Centre. A multi-storey car park currently occupies the site. Access into the car-park is from Canterbury Crescent. Part of the site to the east is also occupied by a parking and storage area for the Brixton market traders. The site does not lie within a conservation area, however the Brixton Conservation area is located directly south west and north west of the site. No’s 1- St John’s buildings located north of the site along Canterbury Crescent are Grade II listed.
8.2.9 In terms of scale and mass the temporary ice rink standing at approximately 8.6m will be lower in height than the neighbouring Canterbury Arms which is 12.7m in height. Neither will the ice rink compete in scale with the public house nor the Brixton Recreation centre opposite. It is considered that the ice rink is appropriately scaled and will not dominate the neighbouring properties.
8.2.10 The building would be constructed of large portal frame enclosure clad in a random pattern of coloured cladding panels. The coloured panels not only serve to break up the mass of the building it also creates some visual interest to the building. This is considered to be acceptable. However notwithstanding the temporary nature of the building a condition requiring the submission of a sample of the cladding and schedule of materials proposed is recommended.
8.2.11 An active edge along the Pope’s elevation in the form of window openings has been encouraged in order to enliven and provide natural surveillance of the road. It is accepted however that the requirements to avoid direct natural light on the ice surface is vital to the functioning of the ice rink.
8.2.12 Overall, in design and townscape terms, no objections are raised to the proposal, particularly given that it would be temporary for three years only.
8.3 Sustainability and Renewable Energy
8.3.1 The Mayor's Energy Strategy has set a target of 20% of energy to come from renewable sources.
8.3.2 Saved UDP Policy 35 states that development of this nature should show, by means of a sustainability assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. This should include, among other matters,
77 Page 124
utilising environmentally friendly specification and materials and specifying the use of sustainable sources.
8.3.3 LDF Core Strategy Pre-Adoption Version January 2011 Policy S7 states that the Council will ensure that future development achieves the highest standards of sustainable design and construction and subsequent operation.
8.3.4 The applicant has submitted a Sustainability Statement in support of the proposal.
8.3.5 Firstly, it has to be acknowledged that the proposed ice rink building is for a temporary facility only. The proposed facility does not propose ground heat pumps or other measures such as photo-voltaic cells or wind turbines as would be expected with a permanent ice facility. These technologies require a long term use to achieve positive carbon dioxide emissions reduction. As the temporary ice rink is only proposed for a three year period, there would be no environmental benefit secured by the installation of these technologies. The Sustainability Statement asserts that the carbon cost of manufacturing and installing the equipment would outweigh the carbon reduction achieved thereby further negating this requirement.
8.3.6 Nevertheless, certain sustainable and energy efficiency measures are proposed. The main components of the ice rink building are modular and removable for on-going use on alternative sites. There would also be the installation of low energy lighting , refrigeration and dehumidifying systems together with vegetable based coolant supplied from renewable sources and rubber mats and benches manufactured from recycled products.
8.3.7 It is considered that given the temporary nature of the proposed ice rink, the applicant has made reasonable endeavours to ensure that the ice rink is as sustainable as possible and, as such, the proposal may be supported on these grounds.
8.4 Neighbouring Amenity
8.4.1 Saved UDP Policy 7 of the Adopted UDP requires land uses not to have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
8.4.2 Saved UDP Policy 33 requires new development to protect residential amenity.
8.4.3 Saved UDP Policy 36 (c) sets out criteria which new development should not unacceptably affect. These protected criteria are as follows: privacy; outlook and associated unacceptable sense of enclosure; and, sun/daylight.
8.4.4 Saved UDP 38 states that proposals to intensify existing residential areas are welcomed where this can be achieved without harming local amenities.
8.4.5 Upon adoption of the Core Strategy, these policies will be superseded by the Development Management Development Plan Document but for the purposes of this application, the application falls to be considered with regard to the above saved UDP policies.
78 Page 125
8.4.5 The immediate locality of the site and its wider setting is typically vibrant enjoying high levels of activity and vitality both by day and night given the proximity of the Brixton Market, leisure centre and the town centre uses centred on Brixton Road. However, there is a high level of residential accommodation in immediate proximity of the site. Care therefore has to be exercised to ensure that the amenity of these adjacent residents is not detrimentally affected given the attraction of and congregation outside the facility and noise emanating from it.
8.4.6 The closest residential accommodation is located within Canterbury Gardens, a post war housing estate immediately to the east of the site, the closest blocks being Wincheap Court and Westgate Court. Additional residential accommodation is located to the north and north-east of the site on the opposite side on Canterbury Crescent.
8.4.7 The proposed ice rink building would be a purpose built modular structure. It would be effectively fully enclosed to ensure effective and sustainable refrigeration, ventilation and dehumidification. The extent of fenestration would be limited to street level windows serving the main entrance lobby and ancillary office together with those serving the coaches rooms. Any overlooking would therefore be limited to views over the public domain and would not therefore materially affect the residential blocks to the east of the site.
8.4.8 As identified in the design section above, the proposed structure would be significantly smaller both in terms of bulk and height than the former multi- storey car park and as such it is considered that the proposed ice rink would not be contentious having regard to daylight and sunlight reaching the residential accommodation in the immediate vicinity. Equally, it is considered that the proposal raises no objections having regard to any increased sense of enclosure or sense of overbearing of these residents.
8.4.9 Perhaps most contentiously having regard to the amenity of adjacent residents is the impact on any noise and disturbance generated by an ice rink in this location. As the former use of the site was a car park, care has to be exercised to ensure that any such impacts are adequately mitigated against to ensure the safeguarding of the amenity of adjacent residents. These impacts would potentially be created by noise emanation from within the rink or from congregation outside the facility or from the car parking, storage and servicing areas associated with the facility and that provided for the market traders.. Consideration of noise emanation is analysed below and the impact on wider amenity and public safety are set out in section 6.6 below.
8.4.10 In support of the application, the applicant has submitted an Acoustic Assessment of noise from the building. The report considers the noise break out from the rink. A 24 hour noise survey has been performed to determine background levels on the site as a basis for the design of the rink and a further survey has also established a range of noise levels from activities associated with an ice hockey match. The Assessment indicates that noise from such activities in conjunction with the physical construction of the rink itself should control the ambient breakout noise to 10dB below the existing background level. This is deemed to be an appropriate basis for design of an ice rink. This would also ensure compliance with national guidelines on noise
79 Page 126
levels. The robust and cogent Acoustic Assessment report concludes that the ambient noise breakout from the building is predicted to be 10dB less than the existing background at the critical location (closest and potentially most affected residential unit) which is in accordance with national guidance. Plant noise would be adequately controlled by attenuation, enclosures and screening to meet the necessary criteria. At the time of writing, the Council’s Regulatory Services (Noise and Pollution) are yet to comment on the application. Under such circumstances, it is considered reasonable and appropriate to impose a condition requiring further details of these attenuation measures.
8.4.11 It is also considered appropriate to attach a condition governing the hours of operation of the facility.
8.4.12 Given the former use of the site as a car park and parking and storage area for the market traders, officers do not consider that the alternative parking and storage areas provided as part of the scheme would lead to any loss of amenity due to noise.
8.4.11 The provision of an ice facility on this town centre site may give rise to wider impacts on public and community safety and these are addressed below.
8.5 Wider Amenity and Community Safety
8.5.1 It is anticipated that the proposed ice rink is likely to generate local interest from both established (Streatham based) ice user groups and recreational users in Brixton as well as Streatham. The impact of this influx has to adequately managed, as do any additional issues arising as a consequence of a new additional recreational facility in Brixton town centre.
6.5.2 Beyond the saved UDP policies referred to above (7, 33, 36, 38), Saved 32 Policy 32 (Community Safety/Designing out Crime) is directly relevant here. It states that development such as that proposed should enhance community safety. In other words, development will not be permitted where opportunities or crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.
6.5.3 In accordance with Policy 32, this scheme has been designed having regard to the principles of “Secured By Design”. Lambeth’s Community Safety Officer and the Local Crime Prevention Design Officer have been consulted throughout and Members will be aware of the comments received on the application from the Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor. For ease of reference, these are set out in full at Section 5 above.
6.5.4 The Design Advisor’s comments have helped inform the design and layout of the proposed ice rink. The design seeks to establish a high quality building which fulfils its intended function and as such has been laid out to meet the needs of its legitimate users. The building would create a clearly defined external environment with no ambiguity between public and private space and the layout and arrangement is considered to be both clear and legible. Also, given that the ice rink would be in place for only three years, it would remain in a good of repair to retain a good standard of appearance and maintenance.
80 Page 127
6.5.5 The main entrance to the rink is via the glazed lobby on Brixton Station Road which would provide a good vantage point over both the street and entrance into the facility car park. Moreover, the car park is overlooked by windows in the public boot room which would a direct view of all bar one space (No.2). It is also expected that the relocated market trader parking facility immediately to the north of the proposed rink would augment this level of natural surveillance of the rear of the service area. On this point, it is acknowledged that Pope’s Road is relatively short and contains within it the side elevation of recreation Centre and the Canterbury Hotel which means that it is well used by day and animated by evening when the rink would be open.
6.5.6 Public access into and from the building would be limited to this single controlled entrance lobby. There would be no public route across or through the site and the car park would have only the one entry and exit point, both leading directly onto Brixton Station Road. The car park would have full security gates to ensure controlled access and protection after opening hours.
6.5.7 The size requirements of the rink and the site area are such that there would be no open space or recesses around the building for large groups of youths and / or drinkers to gather and as stated above entry and egress is directly off the street. The scheme involves two external service areas located at the north-east corner of the proposed building. Although there would be no public access to these areas, there would be regular staff access and CCTV surveillance to mitigate against break in or anti social behaviour occurring in these locations.
6.5.8 The building is well served by existing street lighting in Pope’s Road and Brixton Station Road and during operational hours the car park will be lit to comply with the relevant BS requirements governing lighting levels.
6.5.9 These proposed provisions, both individually and cumulatively, are considered to mitigate any undue levels of noise and general disturbance in the general vicinity of the application site detrimental to the amenity of the adjacent residents and also help to mitigate against any actual, or the fear of, anti social behaviour in the wider area.
6.5.10 In response to the ongoing negotiations with the applicant and the Local Crime Prevent Design Advisor, a further series of measures have been incorporated into the submitted scheme. In brief, these include the installation of high quality digital CCTV on all elevations of the ice rink, an operator management plan, a daytime drop off / pick up area would be provided adjacent to the entrance/reception area, the installation windows to overlook this area. It is also proposed to install 2m high, visible fencing around both the drop off / pick up area and the rear service rear which would be locked when the rink is closed.
6.5.11 It is considered that subject to a raft of conditions requiring full details of these provisions, the impact of the proposed ice rink may be satisfactorily mitigated to ensure that both the amenity of adjacent residents and public safety may be safeguarded.
6.6 Transportation Matters
81 Page 128
6.6.1 London Plan Policy 3C.1 “Integrating transport and development” and 3C.2 “Matching development to transport capacity” seek to integrate transport and development and ensure that there is sufficient transport capacity to accommodate demand generated by new development.
6.6.2 Policy 9 of the UDP sets out that planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts upon highway safety, upon the environment and the road network and upon all transport modes, including public transport (in particular, the impact on the demand for and the operation of public transport), walking and cycling.
6.6.3 Policy 14 of the UDP relates to parking and traffic restraint. It supports car free development in areas of good, very good and exceptional public transport accessibility. Policy 14 also requires the provision of cycle parking.
6.6.4 Policy S4 of the Core Strategy commits the council to contributing to sustainable patterns of transport, minimising the need to travel and to reducing dependence on the private car. It sets out that development should be appropriate to the level of public transport accessibility and capacity in the area, or to contribute towards increasing public transport accessibility and capacity. It also seeks improvements for better connectivity, quality and capacity in public transport including interchanges.
6.6.5 Policy S4 requires development to comply with the maximum car parking standards in the London Plan and to reflect the public transport accessibility of the development; and to include provision for cycle parking, motor-cycle parking in appropriate locations, and car clubs wherever possible. The Policy is also promoting of walking and cycling.
6.6.6 The site is located within Brixton town centre and is well served by buses, Underground and National Rail train services and this is demonstrated by the PTAL of 6b which is classed as ‘Exceptional’ and is the highest rating possible on this scale.
6.6.7 Whilst access to the site by public transport is excellent it is the case that, strangely for a car park, access by road is relatively complicated with banned turns and one-way systems requiring drivers to navigate a circuitous route to gain access and to this effect directional signage would be beneficial given that many users arrive to the existing facility in Streatham by car. The location of a site within a well established town centre means that pedestrian facilities are of a high standard with well maintained footways and suitable pedestrian crossings provided.
6.6.8 In terms of vehicle movements it is accepted that the proposed ice rink will see a reduction compared to the previous use as a multi-storey car park with the majority of trips likely to be made by public transport and foot. As such no detailed analysis of vehicle movements or junction modelling is required. Peak times for use are anticipated to be Friday and Saturday evenings when public skating is most popular and on Sunday evenings when the Streatham Redskins would host their league ice hockey matches. Depending on the opponent it is likely that these league matches will attract several hundred spectators as well as two playing squads of roughly 20 players each. It is not anticipated that this level of visitor numbers would have any impact on either public transport capacity or traffic flows in the vicinity with the Brixton
82 Page 129
Academy regularly attracting in excess of 5000 people to the area without incident.
6.6.9 With regard to associated car parking, the development proposed a total of 20 car parking spaces within a secure car park, this includes the provision of 2 disabled bays; there is also further car parking available for visitors within the surrounding streets in Pay & Display bays which operate Monday to Saturday 8:30am to 5:30pm and outside of these times vehicles can park free of charge on single yellow lines and within the marked bays on-street. The provision of 20 car parking spaces on this site is in excess of the relevant standard but given the temporary nature of the facility and the fact that it is serving as a replacement for an existing facility in Streatham that makes informal provision of in excess of this number of cars it is accepted that this provision is acceptable. A Parking Management Strategy should however be secured by condition to ensure that the car park is suitable managed.
6.6.10 Within the car park there is a large lay-by proposed that would provide a facility for drop-offs and pick-ups by car. This will be of particular value to parents of young skaters and is likely to be well used. A concern could be that drivers look to park in the lay-by for extended periods if all of the dedicated parking spaces are occupied thus reducing the drop-off facility and to prevent this, details of the operation of the lay-by should therefore be included in the Parking Management Strategy.
6.6.11 The current ice rink in Streatham regularly receives coaches from visiting ice hockey teams and their fans and this is expected to continue with the temporary rink. Coach parking drop-offs and pick-ups are proposed to be accommodated on Pope’s Road adjacent to the site as is the case for the adjacent Brixton Recreational centre. No facility for long stay coach parking is proposed on-site so between dropping off and picking up the coaches will have to relocate somewhere away from the site, no details have been provided on this at this time but details of this could be secured by condition and included in the Parking Management Strategy to ensure that coach drivers are directed to a suitable location.
6.6.12 A total of 14 cycle parking spaces are proposed to serve the ice rink and these are shown to the front of the site on Brixton Station Road. The relevant standard requires 1 space for every 50 seats and it states in the Design Statement that the rink would hold up to 84 seated spectators and 300 standing which would require 8 spaces. It can therefore be demonstrated that the proposed provision is comfortably in excess of the minimum standard in terms of quantity. Security and accessibility are also important considerations though and the proposed location on Brixton Station Road would satisfy these with a good level of natural surveillance and a prominent location at the front of the site.
6.6.13 A large portion of the proposed ice rink site is currently in use as a parking / storage area for the Brixton market traders and they would need to be relocated to accommodate the ice rink. It is proposed that the new location for them would be to the east of the ice rink adjacent to the Canterbury Hotel PH with access directly off Canterbury Crescent and would be of a comparable size to the existing provision. Given the very short distance of the relocation It is considered that there would not be any significant impact from this change in terms of traffic.
83 Page 130
6.6.14 Servicing for the ice rink would be undertaken off-street via the same access from Canterbury Crescent that is used for the relocated market traders’ area in a separate dedicated area. A Servicing Management Plan should be secured by condition.
6.6.15 A Travel Plan should be secured by condition with a draft submitted prior to occupation and initial travel surveys undertaken and submitted within 3 months of occupation.
6.6.16 It is considered that the application is therefore acceptable on highways grounds subject to the imposition of the above conditions together with additional conditions requiring further details of a Parking Management Strategy (to include coach strategy), Parking; Loading and unloading within cartilage only ;Delivery Management Strategy; Cycle Parking; Travel Plan and Method of Construction Statement
7.10 Infrastructure implications/S.106 requirements
7.10.1 Although, Policy 57, supplemented by the other policies of the UDP sets out the circumstances in which the Council will seek planning obligations from a developer to mitigate against the potential impacts of a scheme. However, the Council owns the application site and has powers beyond the planning regime to secure the £50,000 contribution towards community safety by clauses in the lease to occupy the land or other means.
8.0 Conclusions
8.1 This application has to be considered in the context of delivering the Streatham Hub development. The s106 Agreement for the scheme required continuous on site ice provision. The applicant is now seeking to build out the development in one phase as this would deliver both time and cost saving. This would therefore necessitate the demolition of the existing ice rink and provide a temporary rink off site. Pope’s road has been identified as being the most appropriate site within the borough.
8.2 The multi storey car park on the site has been closed on health and safety grounds since November 2009 and is presently being demolished. Its demolition was agreed prior to the submission of this application and would have taken place regardless of this planning application.
8.3 An ice facility is a defined leisure use which are considered to be acceptable uses in principle in town centres. Brixton is a Major town centre. The provision of an ice rink in the town centre is therefore acceptable.
8.4 This site lies within MDO 5 “East Brixton Regeneration Arc”. With specific regard to this site, the MDO designation requires that the “development of Pope’s Road car park is permitted provided an appropriate level of short stay shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council”. Whilst this application does not comply with requirement, there are considerations which overcome this expectation. Firstly, the application is for a temporary 3 year period only, after which time
84 Page 131
the use will cease and the rink will be demolished once the new, approved leisure centre/ice facility in Streatham has been built and handed over to the Council. This application would not compromise the requirements of the MDO in the longer term. Also, it is proposed to provide short stay shoppers/visitors car parking elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Council, namely in Porden Road, supplemented by additional on-street spaces. This provision would therefore be in compliance with the MDO requirements and therefore be policy compliant. The application is not therefore a departure from the Development Plan.
8.5 The proposed ice rink is broadly similar in terms of the size of the ice pad and would be specified to “regional” standard as is the Streatham facility. It is considered to be of sufficient size with the necessary fixtures and fittings for all users and their supporters to be regarded as being an adequate temporary replacement whilst the new, approved state-of-the-art ice facility is built in Streatham.
8.5 The rink would be modular in construction, being temporary, and would be a simple design incorporating coloured panels to offer visual relief in townscape terms. The building would be specified to ensure that it would be policy compliant having regard sustainability, community safety and residential amenity.
8.6 The proposed rink would be approximately 3 mile distant from the existing rink in Streatham. However, the proposed site has the same “exceptional” PTAL rating as the Streatham rink and is in close walking distance from the train, tube and bus. 22 dedicated car parking spaces would however be provided together with a disabled and drop bay. Ice users may also take advantage of the additional 33 spaces in the temporary Porden Road car park and well as the on-street spaces spread across the town centre. It is considered that the site is highly accessible for users and their supporters.
8.7 It is considered therefore that the application both on its merits and when considered in the wider context of delivering the Streatham Hub scheme, together with its regeneration benefits which include a new state-of-the-art ice facility is acceptable.
9 Recommendation
. Grant planning permission subject to the attached conditions.
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 were taken into account:
85 Page 132
Policy 4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration; Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime; Policy50 Open Space and Sports Facilities; Policy 73 Regeneration of Streatham Town Centre; MDO 5 East Brixton Regeneration Arc
The following Policies of the Council’s Core Strategy are relevant to the current planning application: Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives; Policy S3 – Economic Development; Policy S4 – Transport; Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction and Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment/
CONDITIONS
1 The ice facility hereby approved shall operate for a temporary 3 years period only, after which time the use shall cease.
Reason: In order to safeguard the future re-development of the site having regard to requirements of Policy MDO 5 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy PN3 of the Core Strategy: Pre Adoption Version January 2011.
2 The temporary ice facility hereby permitted shall operate only between 07.00am to 11.00pm and shall not operate outside these permitted hours unless as agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of the occupiers of the adjacent residential properties. (Policies 7, 33, 36 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
3 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, full details and specifications including layout plans of the ice facility, including the ice pad, player and referee facilities, supporters ’viewing areas and all ancillary facilities, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of the use The approved layout and specifications shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained for the temporary duration of the use in accordance with the approved scheme .
Reason: To ensure that the ice facility is fit for purpose. Policies 50 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer and S1 of the of the Core Strategy: Pre Adoption Version January 2011.
4 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, full details and specifications of external lighting of the building, its car park, the market traders’ parking and storage area shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the use.
86 Page 133
Reason: In the interests of community safety, designing out crime and highway safety. Policies 9 and 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
5 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, full details and specifications of the CCTV provisions on and within the ice facility (in compliance with BS5489) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the use.
Reason: In the interests of community safety, designing out crime and highway safety. Policies 9 and 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
6 Details of a Management and Maintenance Plan to address daily and ongoing operational management and maintenance of the ice rink, its car parks and associated public realm shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use, and shall be complied with for the duration of the use.
Reason: In the interests of community safety, designing out crime and safeguarding the amenity of adjacent residents. Policies 7 and 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
7 Details and manufacturer’s specifications of all cycle storage rack shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use, and shall be complied with for the duration of the use.
Reason: In the interests of community safety, designing out crime and safeguarding the amenity of adjacent residents. Policies 7 and 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
8 Noise which may result from amplified speech or music shall not exceed 65 dB(A) 15mins when measured 1 metre away from the from façade of the nearest residential premises;
Reason: To ensure that the amenity of the adjacent residents is safeguarded. (Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refers).
9 Noise emissions from the proposed fixed plant and equipment should not exceed a level of 5dB(A) above the existing background level OR 10dB(A) below if there is a particular tonal quality, when measured according to British Standards BS4142-1997, at a point one metre from the window (or external) to the nearest residential premises.
87 Page 134
Reason: To ensure that the amenity of the adjacent residents is safeguarded. (Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refers).
10 The scheme for parking, garaging, manoeuvring, and the loading and unloading of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway (Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
11 Details of a proposed parking management plan, including the parking enforcement strategy, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use, and the operation of the car park shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved strategy.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
12 No loading or unloading of goods, including fuel, by vehicles arriving at or departing from the premises shall be carried out other than within the curtilage of the premises/site.
Reason: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and to safeguard the amenities of adjoining properties (Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
13 No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until a strategy for the management of deliveries and servicing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Deliveries and servicing shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
88 Page 135
14 No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until the provision for cycle parking shown on the application drawings has been implemented in full and the cycle parking shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
15 A Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the use hereby permitted commencing. The measures approved in the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the (a) use hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
16 No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
INFORMATIVE
1 With regard to the need to comply with the requirements of Conditions 4, 5, 6 and 7 you are advised to contact PC Ann Burroughs, the Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor (020 7926 2840 / 07974 643842 ./ Aburroughs@Lambeth. gov.uk)
89 Page 136
This page is intentionally left blank Page 137 Agenda Item 5
Page 138
Location Site Of 17 Porden Road London SW2 5SA
Ward Brixton Hill
Proposal Application Formation of a car park for a temporary period of three years with 33 car parking spaces and associated lighting, ticket machines and provision of a crossover.
Applicant Lambeth Parking Services - London Borough Of Lambeth
Agent Mr Mike Ibbott: TP Bennett
One America Street London SE1 0NE
Date valid 2 December 2010
Case Officer Mr Jonathon Fullelove
Application 10/04174/FUL Reference
Recommendation(s) Grant conditional temporary planning permission for 3 years
Constraints Major Town Centre - Core
Advert Publication 17th December 2010 Date
Site Notice posted on 17th December 2010
2 Page 139
10/04174/FUL
Executive Summary
In September 2002, the Council’s Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of what is now known as the “Streatham Hub” site in Streatham High Road for a mixed use scheme comprising a leisure complex (ice rink, swimming pool, health and fitness facilities and community uses), 250 residential units, including affordable housing, a retail store, bus lay-over, public square together with associated car parking and servicing (ref: 02/02557/FUL). Due to lengthy negotiations between the developer and the Council over the associated Section 106 and Development Agreements, the decision was not formally issued until 30 November 2007.
In brief, and specific to this agenda, it was anticipated and subsequently secured by the s106 Agreement that there would be continuous on site ice provision. The existing ice rink had therefore to be kept operational and open to the public for the duration of the construction of the new ice facility that forms part of the Streatham Hub scheme.
However, having reviewed the Hub scheme, the applicant is now seeking to build out the development in a single phase. This would deliver both time and cost savings but would necessitate the demolition of the existing ice rink from the outset.
In order to speed up the delivery of the scheme and taking into account the requirement for the continuity of ice facilities, it is now proposed to provide a temporary ice rink off site during the construction of the approved scheme which includes a permanent ice rink on the Hub site.
This re-consideration raises a number of issues which Members will assess as part of their consideration of this and the other related applications on this agenda. Firstly, there is the issue of the acceptability of the principle of allowing a temporary off site facility. This then raises the question as to whether the original s106 Agreement may be varied to remove the clauses requiring continuous on site ice provision and redraft it to facilitate a temporary ice rink elsewhere in the borough whilst the existing rink in Streatham is demolished and the Hub scheme built out in one phase.
After much investigation, the site of the former multi-storey car park in Porden Road, Brixton has been identified as the most appropriate site for the temporary ice rink. The redevelopment of the Pope’s Road site then raises the question as to the acceptability of replacing the displaced car parking provision with a temporary car park elsewhere in Brixton town centre.
There are therefore 3 linked applications before Members on this agenda. Firstly, there is the application to vary the original s106 Agreement for the Hub scheme to remove the clauses requiring the continuity of ice facilities on site and to facilitate a temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road whilst the new ice rink in Streatham is built out and handed over to the Council. Secondly, there is the planning application for the temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road and thirdly there is the planning application to relocate additional town centre parking spaces to the vacant site in Porden Road, Brixton as a replacement for the parking spaces that would have been provided at Pope’s Road once the existing closed multi-storey car park on the site is demolished.
3 Page 140
1.0 Main Issues
1.1 The main issues relating to this application are:
• The principle of the use of the site as a town centre car park;
• The impact on the existing transport infrastructure of the town centre;
• The impact on the amenity of residents in Porden road and beyond; and
• The impact of the car park on the visual amenity of the area.
2.0 Application Site
2.1 The application site is located on the south east corner of Buckner Road adjoining its junction with Porden Road. It is presently a cleared site bounded by approximately 2m high perimeter fencing.
2.2 The site was formally occupied by a single storey temporary office building which was demolished in 2006. The vacant site has subsequently been used as a depot for TfL and the Council’s highways contractors.
2.3 The site is adjoined to the north, east and south by various offices and ancillary buildings used by the Council including Hambrook House, immediately to the south. Adjoining Hambrook House is a 2-3 storey vacant office building which has been partly in use as a theatre in the past. The site adjoins the rear of the Fridge nightclub which fronts Brixton Hill. Porden Road is residential in character characterised by inter war terraced properties.
2.4 The site is located within the “core” of the Brixton Major Town Centre and is a Major Development Opportunity site (MDO 10 Hambrook House, 17 Porden Road / 2-7 Town Hall Parade).
2.5 It is not within a conservation area, although the Brixton conservation area backs on and wraps around the site. There are not any immediately adjoining listed buildings, however St Matthew’s Church is a Grade II* listed building on the opposite side of Brixton Hill; it is however visually divorce from the application site. Brixton Town hall is also a Grade II listed building.
3.0 Relevant Planning History
3.1 On 8 May 2006 planning permission was granted for the erection of a steel palisade fence (2.1m in height) to the perimeter of the site along with associated alterations
3.6 Related Applications
3.7 This planning application, the subject of this report, has to be assessed not only on its own planning merits but also in the wider context of delivering the Streatham Hub scheme and thus the other linked applications to facilitate the delivery of that development.
3.8 Beyond the Streatham Hub-specific applications, Members’ attention is drawn to the linked application to vary the original S106 Agreement for the Streatham Hub to facilitate the off site temporary ice facilities in order to deliver the Hub scheme. Also,
4 Page 141
this application has to be considered having regard to the planning application to develop the former multi storey car park in Pope’s Road, Brixton for a temporary ice rink as this application, the subject of this report, seeks to offset the town centre parking that would be lost due to the temporary re-location of the ice rink.
3.9 Both these linked applications are on this agenda and the reports specific to them discuss these applications in greater detail.
4.0 Proposal
4.1 The proposal seeks temporary permission for a period of three years for the operation of a public pay and display car park comprising 33 car parking spaces, accessed through new gates at the southwest corner of the site. The existing perimeter fencing would remain around the site. Two ticket machines and 8 no. 3.75m lighting columns would be installed. The vehicular crossover would be re-built.
4.2 It is proposed that the car park would operate between 7.00am to 11.00pm with pay and display control. The maximum length of stay would be 4 hours, with pricing to reflect that for on-street parking in the town centre. Outside operating hours the car park would be locked and secured. There would be continuous CCTV coverage from a new camera located on Hambrook House (although this does not form part of the application, being outside the application site).
4.3 To enable access to the car park, the solo motorcycle parking bay opposite will need to be relocated approximately 15m to the east, but again this lies outside the application site.
5 Consultations
5.1 The application has been the subject of extensive local neighbourhood consultation as well as involving the relevant external agencies and Council services.
5.2 Consultation letters were sent to occupiers of properties in Porden Road, Brixton Hill and Acre Lane. In addition to these local occupiers, the Friends of Brixton Market and Brixton Market Traders Federation were also specifically consulted.
5.3 The application was also advertised by way of an advertisement in the local press and site notices posted outside and adjacent to the site.
5.4 Following the neighbourhood consultations, at the time of writing 5 responses have been received from local residents, 4 of whom who object to the application on amenity grounds. There has been 1 letter in support of the application. The reasons for objection may be summarised in the table below.
5.5 The following local interest groups were also notified:
Brixton Business Forum: No response received to date.
Brixton Society: No response received to date.
Herne Hill Society: No response received to date.
Central Brixton Housing Forum: No response received to date.
5 Page 142
Guinness Trust Loughborough Park Tenants Association: No response received to date.
Herne Hill and Park View Tenants Association: No response received to date
Herne Hill Traders Association: No response received to date
Moorlands Estate Management Steering Group: No response received to date
Milkwood Residents Association: No response received to date
Southwyk Hose Tenants Association: No response received to date
Southwyk House Tenants and Residents Association: No response received to date
Clapham Society: No response received to date
Bedford Acre Hetherington Action Group: No response received to date
Brighton Terrace Tenants Association: No response received to date
Central Brixton Housing Forum: No response received to date
Ferndale Residents Association: No response received to date
Notre Dame Tenants Association: No response received to date
Pulross Area Playground Association: No response received to date
Robsart Estate Tenants Association: No response received to date
Ruskin on the Hill Residents Association: No response received to date
St Lukes Avenue residents Association: No response received to date
The Friendly Almshouses: No response received to date
Trinity Gardens Residents Association: No response received to date
Cressington Gardens Tenants Association: No response received to date
Friends of Rush Common: No response received to date
Herne Hill and Park View tenants Association: No response received to date
Josephine Avenue Group: No response received to date
Rushcroft Road and Clifton Mansions Residents Association: No response received to date
Renton Close Tenants Association: No response received to date
Tulse Hill Estate Tenants and Residents Association: No response received to date
Water Lane Residents Association: No response received to date
6 Page 143
Water Lane Society: No response received to date
Arlington Lodge Residents Association: No response received to date
Blenheim Gardens TMO: No response received to date
Holmewood Neighbourhood Association: No response received to date
Renton Close Tenants Association: No response received to date
Sulina/Morrish/Brixton Residents Association: No response received to date.
5.6 Lambeth Cyclists
Lambeth Cyclists are a local voluntary and community group with over 700 members in the Borough of Lambeth. We wish to support our members resident in Porden Road who object to the development on the grounds that it affects an adjoining cycle route, and request that if this development is permitted, that measures to mitigate the flow of vehicles into and out of the car park is stipulated and that Lambeth Cyclists are consulted on any amendments to the design to effect this stipulation.
5.7 In addition to these representative groups, the Councillors for Coldharbour, Ferndale, Tulse hill and Brixton Hill Wards were consulted together with Kate Hoey MP, Tessa Jowell MP and Chuka Umunna MP. Val Shawcross the GLA Assembly Member for Brixton has also been consulted.
5.8 Response
No. of letters sent No. of No. in support No. of to residents Objections comments
37 6 1 -
5.9 Assessment
Objections Response
Increased noise generated from cars, The proposed car park would have a their alarms and general vehicular maximum capacity of 33 spaces. Whilst manoeuvring suffered by local residents the site is presently vacant and therefore particularly those living in Porden Road inactive it has been used in the past as and Arlington Lodge, Baytree Road, a vehicular depot for both TfL and Brixton Hill. Council contractors. Such vehicles are typically larger, more polluting and noise generating, particularly when reversing when safety horns sound, than standard family cars.
7 Page 144
The residents living on the south west side of Porden Road back onto the large car park associated with the supermarket on Acre Lane which generates considerably more noise and disturbance that would be expected at the application site. Whilst the cumulative impact of both car parks has to be taken into account, it is considered that any additional noise and disturbance would be minimal and not of such concern as to justify refusal of planning permission. To reinforce this conclusion, it is understood that Lambeth Parking have created additional on-street parking spaces within the town centre which may help ease the pressure and therefore activity levels at this site.. The Council’s Regulatory Services (Noise and Pollution) raise no objection to the application.
Additional noise and disturbance at Whilst the concerns raised regarding night, given 24 hour operation of the car noise and disturbance are valid and park. acknowledged, the car park would not in fact be a 24 hour operation.
It is proposed to operate the car park from between 7.00am to 11.00pm. It would not therefore be open to public in the early hours of the morning. A condition is recommended to restrict the opening hours to those stated.
In addition to these neighbourhood objections, the Porden Road Residents Group has also objected to the application. The group’s comments dated 14 January 2011 are set out below
The Porden Road Residents Group has read the planning documents in relation to this proposed development and has the following objections to make under four themes of suitability, evidence of need, impact on residents and surrounding area, and contravention of existing planning policies.
8 Page 145
1. Suitability of the site
1.1 Surface
The road surface of Porden and Buckner roads is in poor condition. The extra traffic the car park would generate would only serve to exacerbate further deterioration. In addition the road is not designed for the suggested use, as the narrow space between parked vehicles will create collision issues with users who are unfamiliar with the road.
1.2 One-Way traffic flow
Buckner and Porden Roads are both one-way streets. Recent studies show that an average of 25 vehicles per day drive the wrong way down both roads (Buckner Road, Brixton Transport Statement, November 2010). This is not deemed by the residents group to be an acceptable level. The predicted traffic levels, particularly in peak times will only serve to increase this number. We believe the assertion that traffic will not drive the wrong way down the road because there are no potential time savings for drivers is a fallacy. Drivers use the street in the wrong direction because the signage and traffic calming measures are not adequate. If the intention is to attract new visitors to Brixton by car by providing extra parking, then it is logical that the amount of wrong way traffic will increase as a result of greater number of drivers that are unfamiliar with the area.
A bollard at the junction of Porden Road and Acre Lane to reduce the number of vehicles travelling in the wrong direction has only been “suggested”. It is not a definite part of the overall plan. As noted in the documentation (ref.), the number of vehicles that go the wrong way is currently higher than expected. Vehicles travelling in the wrong direction at a peak time will cause major problems and possibly accidents.
A great number of pedestrians and cyclists use Porden Road, so increased wrong way traffic will pose a greater potential threat to these categories. Indeed there is already (anecdotal) evidence of several near misses between cars, pedestrians and cyclists as a result of vehicles using the roads in the wrong direction.
1.3 Cycle Route (and Pedestrians)
Porden Road is a designated cycle route, and a large number of cyclists pass through each day (throughout the day) on journeys from Herne Hill, Streatham/Brixton Hill etc to Clapham and central London. The proposed entrance to the car park is slap-bang on the cycle route. Moreover it is on a sharp/tight corner, so that cars will have to turn in and out of the car park, just as cyclists have completed a crossing of the major road junction and will be proceeding at speed along their designated (signed and mapped) route. It is highly likely that neither motorists nor cyclists will be paying full attention at this point (i.e. they'll be concentrating on finding a space, or on have just got across Brixton Hill in one piece.)
Furthermore it is worth pointing out that a large number of cyclists use Porden Road contra to the current traffic flow. Therefore not only will a large number of cars be turning into and across oncoming cycle traffic, they will also meet large numbers of cyclists crossing their path when they are not expecting it.
9 Page 146
To this end, the cut through between Porden Road and Brixton Hill is also used by a large number of pedestrians throughout the day and night. There will obviously be increased risk with the proposed car park traffic crossing the path of pedestrians.
We are concerned that recent surveys have not taken into account the behavioural patterns of legitimate users (i.e. cyclists and pedestrians.)
1.4 Traffic on Acre Lane.
In order to access the car park, drivers will have to approach via Buckner Road, from Acre lane. Therefore the majority of visitors will have to negotiate the Brixton one way system, and then enter the already congested left hand lane/Bus lane on Brixton Hill on order to turn into Acre lane. Any build up of traffic here can serve to delay the many bus routes that go straight ahead to Brixton road.
For those drivers approaching from Clapham on Acre Lane, although they have avoided the one way system as described above, still have to enter the traffic that has built up from the lights at the junction with Brixton Road. This often tails back to Tesco's entrance and at peak hours almost to Baytree Road, and drivers have to sit in this queue in order to turn right into Buckner road. In turn they must wait for a break in the traffic coming into Acre Lane from Brixton Hill before they can cross the oncoming traffic - and this only serves to extend the queues on Acre lane.
Moreover due to the one way streets, and lack of turning space at the junction of Buckner and Porden Roads, there will be no way that cars may queue for the car park if there is high demand. If the peak hours suggestion is 60 cars per hour looking for availability from 33 spaces, then it is likely that there will be queues as drivers have to wait on Buckner Road, then enter and drive around the car park, before queuing on Porden Road in order to enter the traffic on Acre Lane, and then try and negotiate the centre of Brixton to find a space elsewhere - and closer to the shops. It is difficult to imagine that many repeat visitors will be willing to try this if the chance of getting a space is so slim.
In addition, if drivers enter the car park to find that it is full, due to the one way system they will have to drive around between the parked cars, then go back onto Porden Road, and then enter back into the already heavy traffic a the junction of Acre Lane and Brixton Hill/Road. As mentioned as a result of the combination of traffic lights at this junction, and the location of the pedestrian crossing on Acre Lane, traffic often tails back as far as Baytree Road, and it is extremely difficult to execute a right turn out of Porden Road into this traffic, as the traffic do not give way. Any significant volume (e.g. 1 car per minute) will only serve to extend this bottleneck. As well as create more opportunities for collisions.
1.5 Accidents in Acre Lane.
Analysis of accidents by Lambeth Council for the 3 years of data available suggests that all of them were caused by driver error - misjudging speed, path of traffic or road conditions. It seems not unreasonable to suggest that therefore conditions at the junctions concerned are such that increasing the numbers of drivers unfamiliar to the area - trying to negotiate a busy traffic system with buses, pedestrians and cyclists all jostling for position - will only serve to cause more (and potentially more serious) accidents.
10 Page 147
1.6 Community safety
We appreciate that the fence will remain in place. However there are already problems with drug dealing and occasional vehicle crime on Buckner and Porden Road. There will be easy access into the car park until 11pm, which would provide an ideal discrete location for illegal transactions - either in cars, or between cars. The provision of CCTV and lighting will not be adequate to prevent criminal activity or ensure drivers' personal safety
2. Evidence of need for the car park
2.1 No convincing evidence of need
There is insufficient evidence in the application and relating documents that the outstanding 33 parking spaces lost after the closure of Popes Road car park will still need to be provided. We have observed that the numerous pay and display spaces in Porden Road, Buckner Road and surrounding streets in the heart of Brixton often remain empty, even during the run up to Christmas and the suggested Friday/Saturday peak periods. There is no data (that we could find) in the planning documents that measure the use of pay and display spaces in the centre of Brixton.
There is no incentive for drivers visiting the area to use the pay and display spaces, which are currently for a maximum of 2 hours when there is there is far larger adjacent car park open from 7am-10pm that provides free parking for 90 mins. Even though this is a car park on Tesco’s property, drivers will not wish to pay £3 a hour when they can park for free.
The hours limit on the some of the current pay and display parking spaces on local pay and display spaces could be increased to 4 hours to encourage the spaces to be used more frequently and improve on the demand for long stay spaces closer to the market. Lambeth council could also negotiate a parking payment plan with Tescos for long stay visitors. Such schemes have been successfully utilised at Clapham common Sainsburys, Balham Waitrose, and Clapham Junction Asda. We have noted that Tesco’s car park is seldom used to full capacity.
2.2 Distance from the market
Is paying for parking on Buckner road really going to be attractive enough to users, particularly those who maybe travelling some distance to the market to stock up on wholesale provisions? It is far enough away to deter those visitors that have large loads they need to transfer by car.
2.3 Opening hours
There is plenty of parking capacity in the neighbourhood when the resident/business permit rules finish at 5.30pm or 6.30pm. So keeping the car park open beyond this time would be redundant, as drivers will not wish to pay for parking when it is free on the roads. There is already adequate provision of spaces to service the night time economy of Brixton town centre.
3. Impact on Residents
3.1 Recent history of the site
The proposed site was previously used as a works depot by TFL and LB Lambeth highways contractors for a period of many months. This resulted in a large amount of
11 Page 148
works vehicle traffic throughout both day and night. Several residents made complaints about noise and disturbance throughout the period that the site was used for this purpose.
Local residents were not consulted about this use of the site and complaints were apparently ignored as the contractors continued to work at night. The road surface in Porden Road suffered badly from the increased heavy vehicle traffic and the damaged surface has not yet been repaired.
It was a great relief to all local residents when the highway works were completed and the street went back to being a quiet residential street without major disturbances. We were assured by councillors that we would not have to endure other such disturbances in the future.
3.2 Increased noise, pollution and traffic volumes
The documentation accompanying the Planning Application estimates that the car park will double the amount of traffic in Porden Road at peak times. But this is an estimate based on figures from the Popes Road car park. As the available parking is now in various places around Brixton town centre, drivers will have to hunt for a space. If there is extensive signage to the new Buckner Road car park then there will very likely be more traffic than estimated. Drivers have no way to tell if the car park is full without driving all the way round Buckner Road and Porden Road. This will result in increased noise, pollution and traffic volumes, in addition to those vehicles who successfully find places in the proposed car park.
It is proposed that the car is open from 7am to 11pm. So Porden Road residents will have increased traffic and noise into the evening. As permitted parking is free on the street after 6.30pm we fail to see any purpose in the car park remaining until 11pm.
The documentation does note UDP Policy 7, Residential Amenity: “In predominately residential areas the establishment of a new, or intensification of an existing, incompatible non-residential use, likely to have a materially adverse environmental and/or traffic impact, will not be permitted. In mixed-use areas, the scale, design, layout, hours-of-use, intensity, concentration, and location of non- residential uses, will be controlled in relation to residential uses to protect residential amenity.”
A comment follows:
“The car park use would be unlikely to give rise to any greater adverse impacts on residential amenity than the previous temporary use.”
We strongly object to this reasoning, that because we have previously suffered from the disruption of the works depot, without any consultation, we should now be subjected to further disruption; extra traffic, noise and risk of accidents.
We note that the application states that the use of the site as a car park is temporary, only 3 years. But we suspect that if the plans to provide alternative car parking are delayed that this “temporary” status may be extended, subjecting the residents to prolonged disruption.
12 Page 149
4. Policy Alignment
4.1 UDP Policy 9: Transport Impact
Policy 9 is not identified as a relevant policy within the Planning Design and Access Statement. Policy 9 of the UDP does pertain because of the significant local transport impact of the proposal. There are three main ways in which the proposal fails to fulfil the policy:
(a) Cumulative Impact
UDP Policy 9 states: “Planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts:
• On highway safety; • On the environment and the road network; and • On all transport modes, including public transport (in particular, the impact On the demand for and the operation of public transport), walking and cycling.”
The Transport Statement produced by TPP does not assess the cumulative impacts within these parameters and does not therefore comply with UDP Policy 9. Some data is included about estimated trip generation, but no consideration is given to the congestion impacts of these trips on the local road network, in particular with respect to the junctions of Buckner Road and Porden Road with Acre Lane or indeed on the junction of Buckner Road with Porden Road; the impact on the pedestrian crossing on Acre Lane or on pedestrian and cyclist usage of Buckner Road and Porden Road. Instead of such analysis there is an assertion at para 5.6 “It is unlikely that this level of traffic [one vehicle per minute] will result in congestion”. This assertion is not evidenced and is also not credible.
(b) Independence of the Transport Statement
UDP Policy 9 goes on to say “Applicants will be required to submit an independent Transport Assessment (TA) for all developments which are likely to have a significant transport impact.” The TPP Transport Statement is not independent as evidenced in paragraph 1.3 where it is stated that the Statement “has been produced in support of the planning application”. We further question the independence of this Transport Statement on the basis that it was prepared by TP Bennett who are cited in the planning application as the agent of the applicant LB Lambeth. There is a conflict of interest between the preparation of an independent Transport Assessment and acting on behalf of Lambeth council as agent. Furthermore, the responsible director at TP Bennett identified as the agent for the application, Mike Ibbott, was previously Head of Strategic Planning at LB Lambeth and his independence should also be reviewed. c) Mitigation
UDP Policy 9 goes on to say “The TA will be required to ensure traffic reduction and restraint/mitigation measures by the developer and other measures (both physical and non-physical) to improve access by other modes of transport such as public transport, walking, and cycling.” Suggested mitigations in Table 5 of the UDP referenced by Policy 9 include “Provision of covered and secure cycle parking; management and use of parking spaces, so that, for example, priority is given to certain categories of people, e.g. disabled people, people with children, visitors, or cars with more than one occupant; provision of travel information about public
13 Page 150
transport, walking and cycling access, travel plans, city car clubs, cleaner fuel initiatives, Community Transport, and other measures to promote alternatives to the private car; and Traffic calming/management measures”. No such mitigations are described, other than the introduction of one bollard at the junction of Porden Road with Brixton Hill.
4.2 UDP Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity
“The right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their homes will be respected.
In predominantly residential areas the establishment of a new, or intensification of an existing, incompatible non-residential use, likely to have a materially adverse environmental and/or traffic impact, will not be permitted.
In mixed-use areas, the scale, design, layout, hours-of-use, intensity, concentration, and location of non-residential uses, will be controlled in relation to residential uses to protect residential amenity”
The citation (7.6.4 of the Planning Design and Access Statement) of the previous depot usage as a comparator is inappropriate. That was temporary usage, not normal. It was exceptional and related to the fulfilment of specific works in pursuit of Brixton’s physical regeneration goals. It was also implemented without due consultation or permission. The disbenefits of the depot for local residents were acknowledged by Members and officers at the time.
In fact the proposal would, as demonstrated above, have materially adverse environmental and traffic impact on the residents of Porden Road and is therefore in breach of UDP Policy 7.
PPS1 (2005)
PPS1 is cited within the Planning Design and Access Statement provided with the application. PPS1 emphasises the promotion of Social Cohesion and Inclusion and the Protection and Enhancement of the Environment. The Statement does not identify impacts of the proposal with respect to either of these aims, especially with respect to environmental impacts and with respect to Equalities Impact Assessment. No provision is made within the proposal for people with specific needs or disabilities.
4.3 The London Plan
The London Plan is cited within the Planning Design and Access Statement. This document promotes reduction in parking levels. This proposal does not support this aim and therefore contravenes the London Plan.
5.10 The following external consultee was consulted:
Transport for London : No response received to date, although comments are awaited.
5.11 The following consultees within the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:
Brixton Town Centre Manager: No response received to date.
14 Page 151
Crime Prevention Unit;
The proposed car park is located in the centre of Brixton, close to the town hall, Windrush Square and transport hubs. Locally, traffic-flow and footfall is very busy throughout the day and night and there are a number of social venues nearby. There are a number of issues that affect this area, including street-crime, drug related offences, motor vehicle crime and anti-social behaviour. Brixton town Centre is ongoing crime hotspot, so mitigation of UDP 32 Policy Community Safety / Designing out Crime is an important consideration.
With regard to the details of this application, I make the following recommendations:
1. The pack states that the guarantee is valid for 1 year. However, the Electrical lighting document quotes a 3 year lifespan for the car park. To be cost effective for the council should typically require a 3 year guarantee, to prevent expense following the expiration of the guarantee.
2. The positioning of the lamp post requires rethinking. The light columns attached to the palisade fence make it vulnerable to climbing when closed. Ideally they should be placed a metre away from the Palisade fence. Historically the crime in the area is prostitution and drug dealing during evening and night time, so this area must be secure otherwise it may be used for these purposes.
3. The proposed lighting units do not appear to have any shielding to prevent spill of light and light pollution on to neighbouring properties. There are a number of residential properties surrounding the car so this is an important consideration.
4. Ideally, the armoured cable should not be fixed on the fence, as it may be vulnerable to vandalism during the three year life span.
5. The CCTV system on Hambrook House will require some light level to allow it to operate during hours of darkness, so I recommend that a low level of light is retained when the operating lighting scheme is switched off. This low level lighting should compliment the CCTV system installed.
6. The gates provided should be the same height as the palisade, lockable and resist easy climbing.
Regulatory Service (Noise and Pollution): No objection raised to the proposal.
Conservation and Design team: No objection raised to the proposal.
Physical Regeneration section:
Physical Regeneration has submitted commented relating background and delivery of the Streatham Hub scheme and the planning applications on this site and that in Pope’s Road. Specific to this application the following comments have been raised:
Car parking for the temporary ice rink has been noted as a matter of some concern. To address this issue Tesco has agreed to provide up to 23 spaces for ice users on the proposed temporary ice rink site; this is more than would usually be recommended for a town centre location with an excellent Public Transport Access
15 Page 152
Level (PTAL) rating. In addition, temporary car parking for market traders is being provided to the rear of the site -with access from Canterbury Crescent.
Additional town centre parking is also being developed at Buckner Road, behind the Town Hall, and only a short walk away from the proposed temporary ice facilities. This will help to compensate for the loss of spaces at Popes Road, had the site been developed as a surface road car park. An additional 33 Pay and Display (PBD) spaces are proposed for Buckner Road between 7am-1lpm with a 4 hour maximum stay. This provision is in addition to 36 free short-stay spaces provided in May 2010 in the vicinity of the Popes Road car park
Policy team:
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008) and the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010, with material considerations including planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.
It should be noted that, following examination, the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy has been declared sound by a government inspector, in the Inspector’s Report dated 6 December 2010. It is anticipated that the Core Strategy will be adopted by the council on 19 January 2011. On adoption, the Core Strategy will become part of the development plan in Lambeth alongside the London Plan and the remaining UDP saved policies that are not superseded by the Core Strategy policies.
In the period between publication of the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report and adoption of the Core Strategy, the policies in the Core Strategy should be given considerable weight in determining planning applications. Where there is a conflict, Core Strategy policies should be given more weight than saved UDP policies.
The application site is located at the southern end of the primary shopping area in Brixton Town Centre and is located within MDO 10. The scheme would make use of an existing depot site in Lambeth council’s ownership to provide temporary car parking for a period of three years to serve shoppers and other visitors to Brixton Town Centre.
The existing town centre parking at Popes Road has been closed since 2009 and is soon to be demolished as it is a dangerous structure. This site has been identified as a suitable location for a temporary ice rink and as such Lambeth parking had to search for suitable sites elsewhere. The proposed car park would provide 33 parking spaces and would be for town centre use.
The London Plan 3C.23 advises that the Mayor in conjunction with the borough’s, will seek to ensure that on site car parking is the minimum necessary and that there is no over provision that could undermine the use of more sustainable non car modes. The
16 Page 153
only exception to this approach will be to ensure that developments are accessible for disabled people. DPDs and Local Implementation Plans should:
• Adopt on and off street parking policies that encourage access by sustainable means of transport, assist in limiting the use of the car and contribute to minimising road traffic • Adopt the maximum parking standards set out in the annex on parking standards (Annex 4) where appropriate taking account of local circumstances and allowing for reduced parking provision in areas of good transport accessibility • Reduce the amount of existing, private, non residential parking, as opportunities arise • Recognise the needs of disabled people and provide adequate parking for them • Take account of the needs of business delivery and servicing movements • Provide adequate facilities for coaches that minimise impact on the road network capacity and are off road wherever possible • Generally resist the introduction of temporary car parks • Encourage good standards of parking design • Seek to re- allocate space to provide for cycle parking where this does not meet the recommended levels of provision in TfL’s cycle parking standards
Core Strategy Policy PN3 relates to Brixton and advises that Brixton’s role as a distinctive multicultural and diverse town centre will be safeguarded and promoted through careful and sensitive regeneration, recognising its local heritage and historic built environment with a specific focus on different character areas, and supporting the ‘One Planet Living’ framework to inspire sustainable development together with major opportunities for new development. Policy PN3 supports development on Popes Road car parking and neighbouring land for a mix of uses including town centre parking and it supports mixed use development in the Town Hall area with residential, civic and public service uses, retail and employments uses and entertainment and leisure uses. Policy PN3 supersedes UDP Policies 59 – 63 relating to Brixton.
UDP MDO 5 part (e) which relates to the site of the proposed ice rink advises that development on Popes Road car park is permitted provided an appropriate level of short stay shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the council. MDO 10 which relates to the application site advises that the municipal offices on site may become surplus to operational requirements and that development should be compatible on either side of Porden Road, have active frontages to Brixton Hill, maintain consistency of the setting of St Matthews Church and preserve the setting of listed Town Hall.
Core Strategy Policy S3 supports local economic development, Lambeth’s contribution to the central and wider London economy and a range of local business and job opportunities, by giving priority to a diverse range of economically beneficial uses in appropriate locations.
Core Strategy Policy S4 requires developments to comply with maximum parking standards in the London Plan and to reflect the public transport accessibility of the development; and to include provision for cycle parking, motor-cycle parking in appropriate locations, and car clubs wherever possible.
17 Page 154
UDP Policy 14 is partially superseded by Core Strategy Policy 4 including the sections on town centre parking.
The application is for a temporary car park providing a lower level of parking than would be provided on a fully operational Popes Road car park. Given that it replacement rather than new car parking provision it is considered that the proposal does not conflict with any of the above policies. The temporary nature of the proposed use means that it does not conflict with the Core Strategy aims for the Town Hall area or the aims of UDP MDO 10.
Whilst the London Plan generally resists the introduction of temporary car parks it allows for the circumstances of each case to be taken into account when determining if one is appropriate.
In summary it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable subject to impact on transport and residential amenity.
Streetcare : No response received to date.
Transport and Highways
Formation of a car park for a temporary period of three years with 33 car parking spaces and associated lighting, ticket machines and provision of a crossover.
Proposals
The proposals comprise the provision of a temporary car park for three years providing 33 standard car parking spaces for public use. The car park will operate with pay and display control, charged at £4 an hour, for a maximum stay of four hours, which reflects the surrounding on-street parking restrictions, preventing long stay parking. The application form states that the car park will be open between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00, 7 days a week. The proposed form of enforcement is not mentioned within the application. It is assumed that Parking Enforcement Officers will undertake regular checks, but confirmation of the proposed strategy is required.
The proposed layout is considered appropriate, accommodating 33 parking spaces. I haven’t been able to print out the drawings to scale but assuming the bays measure 2.4m x 4.8m it appears that the circulatory lane is some 6m wide. If these measurements can be confirmed then the proposed dimensions are appropriate. A designated pedestrian route and appropriate lighting are also proposed.
Location & Alternative Car Parking
The proposed car park is located at the corner of Porden and Buckner Roads, behind Lambeth town hall in Brixton town centre. It is within a short walk of Brixton market, some 400m of the junction of Electric Avenue / Electric Lane, and is therefore considered suitable for short-term parking for shoppers.
Since the closure of the 360 space car park at Pope’s Road in early 2010 due to health and safety concerns, 30 short stay free parking spaces were provided in the town centre to encourage shopping in Brixton town centre. The site is located within CPZ Brixton B, and parking on-street is restricted between the hours of 08:30-17:30
18 Page 155
Monday to Saturday, although a number of 4 hour maximum Pay and Display bays are available.
Access
The car park is accessed from the A2217 Acre Lane, with entry via Buckner Road which is one-way southbound, and predominantly in light industrial use, and exit via Porden Road, which is one-way northbound, and predominantly residential. A pedestrian and cycle link to Brixton Hill is closed to vehicular traffic.
The car park is proposed to be accessed at its southern end, via an existing gated access. The existing vehicular crossover onto Porden Road is in a poor state of repair and would need to be upgraded to a bellmouth access as part of the development.
The swept paths included in the submission indicate that a car is able to manoeuvre within the car park and enter / exit the bays with minimal manoeuvring. The vehicle exiting the car park is shown to overrun the motorcycle parking bay opposite the car park so if motorcycles are parked up opposing cars would have to wait to pass each other, but it is thought that given the low numbers of arrivals / departures from the car park this is acceptable.
Traffic Impact
A Transport Statement has been included within the application, which includes an assessment of the likely use of the car park, including predicted vehicular trip generation, and car parking accumulation.
Trip Generation:
Information on the usage patterns of the Popes Road car park during October 2009 has been used to derive the average daily profile of arrivals and departures for the proposed Buckner Road car park. The maximum recorded occupancy during October 2009 was 115 vehicles on a Saturday. The average length of stay was 1-2 hours, with a longer stay on Saturdays, reflecting shoppers’ longer average stay.
The Buckner Road profile follows the same number of arrivals and departures up to the maximum capacity of 33 vehicles, and the same pattern of arrivals and departures as accumulation falls below 33. This assessment assumes that the car park will operate at its maximum capacity from 09:00 until 15:00 on an average weekday, and from 09:00 until 17:00 on an average Saturday. This is considered a robust worst case analysis, and reflects the fact that on-street parking is unrestricted from 17:00, hence drivers would be unlikely to use the car park in large numbers after this time. This profile would generate a weekday daily trip generation of 253 arrivals and 252 departures, or a maximum of 36 arrivals and 36 departures during the weekday interpeak hour 13:00-14:00. This would equate to approximately one additional vehicle entering Buckner Road and one exiting Porden Road every two minutes at peak times.
19 Page 156
Impact Assessment:
Existing traffic flows were recorded at Porden Road in September 2010. Flows on Buckner Road are assumed to be very similar, given that the roads form a one-way loop from Acre Lane. The data suggests that traffic flows are relatively low, with a high percentage of motorcyclists at 22% of all vehicles, and in addition traffic speeds are low, with 81% of vehicles travelling at 10-20mph.
The below table provides a summary of the existing traffic flows, and the expected maximum increase in flows on Porden and Buckner Roads as a result of the proposed car park. The results suggest that a maximum daily increase of 50% can be expected on a Saturday, and a maximum hourly increase of 103% can be expected during the midweek interpeak. Given the low baseline traffic flows, the impact on junction operation at Buckner Road/Acre Lane and Porden Road/Acre Lane is expected to be minimal.
Porden Car park flows % Porden Road Road Time Period Increase existing flows total In Out in Flows flows Average 2.2% AM peak 8-9am 45 12 1 46 Weekday Sept 2010 102.9% Interpeak 1-2pm 35 36 36 71 57.1% PM peak 5-6pm 42 9 24 66 44.6% Daily flows 565 253 252 817 Saturday Peak hour 1- 31.4% 35 11 11 46 18 Sept 2pm 2010 49.6% Daily flows 401 200 199 600
The Transport Statement also gives an overview of the previous use of the site, as a works compound for highway works on the Brixton gyratory. LB Lambeth’s highways contractor Conways has provided information on the approximate numbers of vehicles which were accessing the site on a daily basis. This is reproduced in the table below. Although the total number of vehicles accessing the site was clearly lower than the numbers predicted to use the Buckner Road car park, it is clear that the type of vehicle was significantly different, with a large number of the vehicles being HGVs and other works vehicles.
Approximate Daily Flows Types of vehicle previously accessing the site In Out Total Cars / Light vans 6-8 6-8 12-16 Dumper / forklift trucks (3-6 tonne) 20-30 20-30 40-60 HGV (30 tonne) 5 5 10 Total 31-43 31-43 62-86
20 Page 157
It is understood that a number of vehicles are known to enter Porden Road southbound, despite this being a banned manoeuvre. The October 2010 traffic counts indicate that an average of 25 vehicles per day make this manoeuvre, although the majority of these (18) are motorcycles rather than cars or larger vehicles. However, given that there would be no significant time saving in accessing the proposed car park provision by this route it is considered unlikely to result in additional vehicles performing the banned manoeuvre. Furthermore, since the majority of the vehicles currently performing this manoeuvre are motorcycles, and the car park will not attract additional motorcycles, the risk of encouraging additional banned manoeuvres is minimal.
A second banned manoeuvre is mentioned in the Transport Statement. It is suggested that some vehicles drive on to Brixton Hill via the cycle link from Porden Road in order to avoid the signalised junction at Acre Lane / A23 Brixton Hill. However, Lambeth Highways are not aware of this being a significant issue, and there does not appear to be any evidence of damage on site. The bollard proposed to prevent this move is therefore not considered necessary.
Transport for London
Given the car park is accessed from Acre Lane, which forms part of the Strategic Road Network, and is in close proximity of the major signalised junction at Brixton, which is managed by TfL, they should be consulted as to whether they have any concerns over the impact on the capacity of this junction.
Conclusions
Subject to the below conditions I do not wish to raise any in principle objections to the proposals.
Conditions
H06 - Access Altered First - No other part of the development shall begin until the means of access has been altered in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
H23 – Parking (Details already submitted) – The scheme for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way.
Retention of Parking – The existing parking and turning area at the premises, as shown on the application drawings, shall be permanently maintained solely for those purposes and shall not be obstructed in any way.
Lighting – Details of the scheme to light the parking area hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall be implemented in full before the development hereby permitted is used. The approved lighting shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme.
21 Page 158
Parking Management Plan – Details of the proposed parking management plan, including the parking enforcement strategy, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development, and the operation of the car park shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved strategy
6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
6.1 National Guidance
6.1.1 Central Government advice is contained in a range of Government Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These are essentially general policies which aim to guide the local planning authority to securing good policies based on real and sound objectives and the need to provide high quality, well thought out developments which make a positive contribution to the locality and which help to protect or enhance the environment. Those which are relevant to the consideration of this application are set out in summary below.
Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development:
6.1.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) attempts to ensure that development and growth are sustainable. The guidance note outlines the positive role for the planning system in guiding appropriate development to the right place.
6.1.3 The policy statement underlines the need to promote urban (and rural) regeneration to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those communities. Policies should promote mixed use developments for locations that allow the creation of linkages between different uses and can thereby create more vibrant places.
6.1.4 PPS1 also seeks to ensure the provision of improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space, sport and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car.
6.1.5 The Statement requires local authorities to focus developments that attract a large number of people, especially retail, leisure and office development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability, social inclusion and more sustainable patters of development.
Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
6.1.6 Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) sets out the Government's comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable economic development in urban (and rural) areas. This replaces Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms (PPG4), Planning Policy Guidance 5: Simplified Planning Zones (PPG5), Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres
22 Page 159
(PPS6) and the economic development sections of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7).
6.1.7 PPS4 provides the government’s advice in relation to achieving a sustainable economy, including in relation to town centres. Policy EC4 supports town centres in general and specifically calls on Laps to identify land or buildings within existing town centres suitable for development or changes of use.
7.1.3 Specifically in relation to parking, Policy EC8 promotes the setting of maximum parking standards, bearing in mind (amongst other matters) “the need to make provision for adequate levels of good quality secure parking in town centres to encourage investment and maintain their vitality and viability”.
7.1.4 Policy EC18 goes on to promote in-centre parking that is consistent with any overall town centre parking strategy and which will genuinely service the town centre as a whole and is proportionate for the size of the centre.
Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport:
7.1.5 PPG13 (Transport) deals with transport and particularly the way in which it integrates with the proper planning of the environment. It seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices and accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and discourages the need to travel by car. Paragraph 17 states that parking standards should not be expressed as minimums and requires planning authorities to revise parking standards to allow for lower levels of off-street parking especially in locations which are served by good public transport.
Planning Policy Guidance 24 (Planning and Noise)
7.1.6 This Guidance relates to acoustic issues and provides guidance with respect to minimising adverse noise impact, for both noise-sensitive and noise generating developments. The focus is on the suitability of development sites for new housing, but it also advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise from various types of development.
7.2 London Plan (as amended 2008)
7.2.1 The London Plan is the Mayor's development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.
7.2.2 It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and, proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport.
7.2.3 All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
7.2.4 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:
23 Page 160
2A.1 Sustainability criteria 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic 3C 23 Parking strategy 3D.1 Supporting Town Centres 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 4A.21 Waste strategic policy and targets
7.3 Unitary Development Plan (Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010)
7.3.1 The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010) are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 1 The Vision for Lambeth; Policy 4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration; Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime; Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design;
MDO 10 Hambrook House, 17 Porden Road / 2-7 Town Hall Parade
7.4 Lambeth’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy
7.4.1 The Policies of Lambeth’s Core Strategy have been declared sound by a Government Inspector, in the Inspector’s Report dated 6 December 2010. At the time of writing, it is anticipated that the Core Strategy will have been adopted by the Council on 19 January 2011.
7.4.2 The following Policies of the Council’s Core Strategy are relevant to the current planning application:
Policy PN 3 Brixton;
Policy PN 4 Streatham (part (d) Streatham Hub)
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives
Policy S3 – Economic Development
Policy S4 – Transport
Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction
Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment
24 Page 161
8. Assessment
8.1 Landuse Considerations
8.1.1 The application site is located at the southern end of the primary shopping area in Brixton Town Centre and is located within MDO 10. The scheme would make use of an existing depot site in Lambeth council’s ownership to provide temporary car parking for a period of three years to serve shoppers and other visitors to Brixton Town Centre.
8.1.2 The existing town centre parking at Pope’s Road has been closed since 2009 and is being demolished on health and safety grounds. This site has been identified as a suitable location for a temporary ice rink and as such Lambeth’s Physical Regeneration section had searched for suitable sites elsewhere. The proposed car park would provide 33 parking spaces and would be for town centre use.
8.1.3 The London Plan 3C.23 advises that the Mayor in conjunction with the boroughs, will seek to ensure that on site car parking is the minimum necessary and that there is no over provision that could undermine the use of more sustainable non car modes. The only exception to this approach will be to ensure that developments are accessible for disabled people. Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and Local Implementation Plans should:
Adopt on and off street parking policies that encourage access by sustainable means of transport, assist in limiting the use of the car and contribute to minimising road traffic,
Adopt the maximum parking standards set out in the annex on parking standards (Annex 4) where appropriate taking account of local circumstances and allowing for reduced parking provision in areas of good transport accessibility,
Reduce the amount of existing, private, non residential parking, as opportunities arise,
Recognise the needs of disabled people and provide adequate parking for them,
Take account of the needs of business delivery and servicing movements
Provide adequate facilities for coaches that minimise impact on the road network capacity and are off road wherever possible,
Generally resist the introduction of temporary car parks,
Encourage good standards of parking design,
Seek to re- allocate space to provide for cycle parking where this does not meet the recommended levels of provision in TfL’s cycle parking standards.
8.1.4 Core Strategy Policy PN3 relates to Brixton and advises that Brixton’s role as a distinctive multicultural and diverse town centre will be safeguarded and promoted through careful and sensitive regeneration, recognising its local heritage and historic
25 Page 162
built environment with a specific focus on different character areas, and supporting the ‘One Planet Living’ framework to inspire sustainable development together with major opportunities for new development. Policy PN3 supports development on Pope’s Road car parking and neighbouring land for a mix of uses including town centre parking and it supports mixed use development in the Town Hall area with residential, civic and public service uses, retail and employments uses and entertainment and leisure uses. Policy PN3 supersedes UDP Policies 59 – 63 relating to Brixton.
8.1.5 UDP MDO 5 part (e) which relates to the site of the proposed ice rink advises that development on Pope’s Road car park is permitted provided an appropriate level of short stay shoppers/visitors car parking is provided on site and/or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the council. MDO 10 which relates to the application site advises that the municipal offices on site may become surplus to operational requirements and that development should be compatible on either side of Porden Road, have active frontages to Brixton Hill, maintain consistency of the setting of St Matthews Church and preserve setting of listed Town Hall.
8.1.6 Core Strategy Policy S3 supports local economic development, Lambeth’s contribution to the central and wider London economy and a range of local business and job opportunities, by giving priority to a diverse range of economically beneficial uses in appropriate locations.
8.1.7 Core Strategy Policy S4 requires developments to comply with maximum parking standards in the London Plan and to reflect the public transport accessibility of the development; and to include provision for cycle parking, motor-cycle parking in appropriate locations, and car clubs wherever possible.
8.1.8 UDP Policy 14 is partially superseded by Core Strategy Policy 4 including the sections on town centre parking.
8.1.9 The application is for a temporary car park providing a lower level of parking than would be provided on a fully operational Pope’s Road car park. Given that it is replacement rather than new car parking provision, it is considered that the proposal does not conflict with any of the above policies. The temporary nature of the proposed use means that it does not conflict with the Core Strategy aims for the Town Hall area or the aims of UDP MDO 10.
8.1.10 Whilst the London Plan generally resists the introduction of temporary car parks it allows for the circumstances of each case to be taken into account when determining if one is appropriate.
8.1.11 In summary it is considered that the principle of a temporary car park on this site is acceptable in landuse terms, given the circumstances of the bigger picture of delivering the temporary ice rink in Pope’s Road to expedite the delivery of the Streatham Hub scheme.
26 Page 163
8.2 Design Considerations
8.2.1 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues.
8.2.2 Policy 33 of the UDP is relevant in that it sets out that all development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area.
8.2.3 Policy 39 of the UDP sets out that as much attention should be paid to the design of the areas between buildings as to buildings themselves. Development should provide or enhance an uncluttered, consistent, simple, accessible and co-ordinated public realm, with robust and appropriate materials and landscape design which enhances the setting, connections and spaces between buildings.
8.2.4 Policy 41 seeks to protect important views backdrops and setting of local heritage assets.
8.2.6 Policy S9 of the Core Strategy relates to the Council’s aspirations for improving and maintaining the quality of the built environment and its liveability, in order to sustain stable communities. In particular Policy S9 seeks to ensure the highest quality of design in all new buildings and the public realm.
8.2.7 Part (e) of Policy S9 of the Core Strategy sets out the Council’s objectives to, amongst other matters, improve the quality of the public realm to ensure that it supports regeneration objectives, encourages physical activity, is accessible for people with disabilities, supports sustainable travel and includes safe and attractive pedestrian and cycle routes within and through neighbourhoods, linked to green spaces and public transport nodes and interchanges. Part (g) of Policy S9 also acknowledges that the quality of the built environment and its liveability will be dependent upon matters of ongoing management in partnership with businesses and users.
8.2.8 Notwithstanding the raft of policy expectation to ensure high quality townscape and public realm, this application has to be seen both in terms of the site itself and its wider context.
8.2.9 The site is presently cleared having previously been occupied as contractor’s depot bounded by utilitarian perimeter fencing. Prior to that it accommodated a single storey pre-fabricated office building, although it does not appear that planning permission was sought for a change of use. Its present and former appearance, therefore, offered little if anything to the townscape of this immediate part of the town centre.
8.2.10 The proposal involves the resurfacing of the site to provide an appropriate bituminous surface, plus marking out of the car parking spaces and pedestrian routes. The crossover would be renewed. The lighting columns are of simple if functional design and an Electrical Design pack has been submitted to ensure an even level of light across the car park.
8.2.11 The Council’s Conservation and Design team has been consulted and raise no objection to the design and layout of the car park. It is considered therefore that in view of the previous and present appearance of the site, its laying out as a car park, for a temporary only, may be regarded as a visual improvement. It is considered that
27 Page 164
the car park would preserve the character and appearance of the adjacent Brixton conservation area. As such the application is not considered to be contentious in design and townscape terms.
8.3 Sustainability and Renewable Energy
8.3.1 The Mayor's Energy Strategy has set a target of 20% of energy to come from renewable sources.
8.3.2 Saved UDP Policy 35 states that development of this nature should show, by mean of a sustainability assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. This should include, among other matters, utilising environmentally friendly specification and materials and specifying the use of sustainable sources.
8.3.3 LDF Core Strategy Pre-Adoption Version January 2011 Policy S7 states that the Council will ensure that future development achieves the highest standards of sustainable design and construction and subsequent operation.
8.3.4 Again, it has to be acknowledged that the proposed car park is for a temporary facility only. That said, the ticket machines would be solar powered which is welcomed.
8.4 Neighbouring Amenity
8.4.1 Saved UDP Policy 7 of the Adopted UDP requires land uses not to have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
8.4.2 Saved UDP Policy 33 requires new development to protect residential amenity.
8.4.3 Saved UDP Policy 36 (c) sets out criteria which new development should not unacceptably affect. These protected criteria are as follows: privacy; outlook and associated unacceptable sense of enclosure; and, sun/daylight.
8.4.4 Saved UDP 38 states that proposals to intensify existing residential areas are welcomed where this can be achieved without harming local amenities.
8.4.5 Upon adoption of the Core Strategy, these policies will be superseded by the Development Management Development Plan Document but for the purposes of this application, the application falls to be considered with regard to the above saved UDP policies.
8.4.5 The application site is adjacent to residential properties in Porden Road and those in Brixton Hill. As such care must be exercised to ensure that the amenity of these residents is safeguarded and that the proposal complies with the requirements of the above policies.
8.4.6 Given that the site is presently cleared and vacant and that the proposal involves its re-surfacing with only ancillary structures on site (ticket machines and lighting columns), it is considered that the proposal would raise no concerns regarding any loss of sun/daylight or increased sense of enclosure suffered by adjacent residents. Any loss of privacy generated by the re-use of the site is considered to be minimal given the transient nature of a car park and its distance from the residential properties.
28 Page 165
8.4.7 Of greatest concern is therefore the potential impact of noise and disturbance generated by vehicular manoeuvring, engines revving, doors slamming, alarms sound etc, together with any additional noise generated by shoppers etc visiting the town centre. These concerns have been raised by a number of local residents who have commented on the application.
8.4.8 The proposed car park would have a maximum capacity of 33 spaces. Whilst the site is presently vacant and therefore inactive it has been used in the past as a vehicular depot for both TfL and Council contractors. Such vehicles are typically larger, more polluting and noise generating, particularly when reversing when safety horns sound, than standard family cars. Moreover, the car park would be open from 7.00am to 11.00pm and only for a temporary 3 year period.
8.4.9 The residents living on the south west side of Porden Road back onto the large car park associated with the supermarket on Acre Lane which generates considerable more noise and disturbance that would be expected at the application site. Whilst the cumulative impact of both car parks has to be taken into account, it is considered that, set in the context of the comments made by the Council’s Transport Planning team, any additional noise and disturbance would be minimal and not of such concern as to justify refusal of planning permission. To reinforce this conclusion, it is understood that Lambeth Parking have created additional on-street parking spaces within the town centre which may help ease the pressure and therefore activity levels at this site.. The Council’s Regulatory Services (Noise and Pollution) raise no objection to the application.
8.4.10 The car park would be floodlit in the evenings. The applicant has submitted a detailed lighting impact assessment to ensure that lighting would be focussed on the car park only and not spill out beyond the site to avoid any undue intrusion into the adjacent residential properties. A condition is recommended however requiring the full specification of the lighting fixtures and fittings to ensure that this is indeed the case and that they are fit for purpose on security grounds for the 3 year temporary use.
8.4.11 On this basis, therefore, the application is considered to be acceptable in amenity terms.
8.5 Transportation Matters
8.5.1 London Plan Policy 3C.1 “Integrating transport and development” and 3C.2 “Matching development to transport capacity” seek to integrate transport and development and ensure that there is sufficient transport capacity to accommodate demand generated by new development.
8.5.2 Policy 9 of the UDP sets out that planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts upon highway safety, upon the environment and the road network and upon all transport modes, including public transport (in particular, the impact on the demand for and the operation of public transport), walking and cycling.
8.5.3 Policy 14 of the UDP relates to parking and traffic restraint. It supports car free development in areas of good, very good and exceptional public transport accessibility. Policy 14 also requires the provision of cycle parking.
29 Page 166
8.5.4 Policy S4 of the Core Strategy commits the council to contributing to sustainable patterns of transport, minimising the need to travel and to reducing dependence on the private car. It sets out that development should be appropriate to the level of public transport accessibility and capacity in the area, or to contribute towards increasing public transport accessibility and capacity. It also seeks improvements for better connectivity, quality and capacity in public transport including interchanges.
8.5.5 The proposed car park is located at the corner of Porden Road and Buckner Road, behind Lambeth Town Hall in Brixton town centre. It is within a short walk of Brixton Market, some 400m of the junction of Electric Avenue / Electric Lane, and is therefore considered suitable for short-term parking for shoppers.
8.5.6 Since the closure of the 360 space car park at Pope’s Road in early 2010 due to health and safety concerns, 30 short stay free parking spaces were provided in the town centre to encourage shopping in Brixton town centre. The site is located within CPZ Brixton B, and parking on-street is restricted between the hours of 08:30-17:30 Monday to Saturday, although a number of 4 hour maximum Pay and Display bays are available.
8.5.7 The car park is accessed from the A2217 Acre Lane, with entry via Buckner Road which is one-way southbound, and predominantly in light industrial use, and exit via Porden Road, which is one-way northbound, and predominantly residential. A pedestrian and cycle link to Brixton Hill is closed to vehicular traffic.
8.5.8 The car park is proposed to be accessed at its southern end, via an existing gated access. The existing vehicular crossover onto Porden Road is in a poor state of repair and would need to be upgraded to a bellmouth access as part of the development.
8.5.9 The swept paths included in the submission indicate that a car is able to manoeuvre within the car park and enter / exit the bays with minimal effort. The vehicle exiting the car park is shown to overrun the motorcycle parking bay opposite the car park so if motorcycles are parked up opposing cars would have to wait to pass each other, but it is thought that given the low numbers of arrivals / departures from the car park this is acceptable.
8.5.10 A Transport Statement has been included within the application, which includes an assessment of the likely use of the car park, including predicted vehicular trip generation, and car parking accumulation.
8.5.11 With regard to trip generation, information on the usage patterns of the Pope’s Road car park during October 2009 has been used to derive the average daily profile of arrivals and departures for the proposed Buckner Road car park. The maximum recorded occupancy during October 2009 was 115 vehicles on a Saturday. The average length of stay was 1-2 hours, with a longer stay on Saturdays, reflecting shoppers’ longer average stay.
8.5.12 The Buckner Road profile follows the same number of arrivals and departures up to the maximum capacity of 33 vehicles, and the same pattern of arrivals and departures as accumulation falls below 33. This assessment assumes that the car park will operate at its maximum capacity from 09:00 until 15:00 on an average weekday, and from 09:00 until 17:00 on an average Saturday. This is considered a robust worst case analysis, and reflects the fact that on-street parking is unrestricted from 17:00, hence drivers would be unlikely to use the car park in large numbers after this time. This profile would generate a weekday daily trip generation of 253
30 Page 167
arrivals and 252 departures, or a maximum of 36 arrivals and 36 departures during the weekday interpeak hour 13:00-14:00. This would equate to approximately one additional vehicle entering Buckner Road and one exiting Porden Road every two minutes at peak times.
8.5.13 With regard to impact assessment, e xisting traffic flows were recorded at Porden Road in September 2010. Flows on Buckner Road are assumed to be very similar, given that the roads form a one-way loop from Acre Lane. The data suggests that traffic flows are relatively low, with a high percentage of motorcyclists at 22% of all vehicles, and in addition traffic speeds are low, with 81% of vehicles travelling at 10- 20mph.
8.5.14 The table below provides a summary of the existing traffic flows, and the expected maximum increase in flows on Porden and Buckner Roads as a result of the proposed car park. The results suggest that a maximum daily increase of 50% can be expected on a Saturday, and a maximum hourly increase of 103% can be expected during the midweek interpeak. Given the low baseline traffic flows, the impact on junction operation at Buckner Road/Acre Lane and Porden Road/Acre Lane is expected to be minimal.
Porden % Porden Road Car park flows Time Period Road total Increase existing flows In Out flows in Flows Average 2.2% AM peak 8-9am 45 12 1 46 Weekday Sept 102.9% 2010 Interpeak 1-2pm 35 36 36 71 57.1% PM peak 5-6pm 42 9 24 66 44.6% Daily flows 565 253 252 817 Saturday 31.4% Peak hour 1-2pm 35 11 11 46 18 Sept 2010 49.6% Daily flows 401 200 199 600
8.5.16 The Transport Statement also gives an overview of the previous use of the site, as a works compound for highway works on the Brixton gyratory. LB Lambeth’s highways contractor Conways has provided information on the approximate numbers of vehicles which were accessing the site on a daily basis. This is reproduced in the table below. Although the total number of vehicles accessing the site was clearly lower than the numbers predicted to use the Buckner Road car park, it is clear that the type of vehicle was significantly different, with a large number of the vehicles being HGVs and other works vehicles.
Approximate Daily Flows Types of vehicle previously accessing the site In Out Total Cars / Light vans 6-8 6-8 12-16 Dumper / forklift trucks (3-6 tonne) 20-30 20-30 40-60 HGV (30 tonne) 5 5 10 Total 31-43 31-43 62-86
31 Page 168
8.5.17 It is understood that a number of vehicles are known to enter Porden Road southbound, despite this being a banned manoeuvre. The October 2010 traffic counts indicate that an average of 25 vehicles per day make this manoeuvre, although the majority of these (18) are motorcycles rather than cars or larger vehicles. However, given that there would be no significant time saving in accessing the proposed car park provision by this route it is considered unlikely to result in additional vehicles performing the banned manoeuvre. Furthermore, since the majority of the vehicles currently performing this manoeuvre are motorcycles, and the car park will not attract additional motorcycles, the risk of encouraging additional banned manoeuvres is minimal.
8.5.18 A second banned manoeuvre is mentioned in the Transport Statement. It is suggested that some vehicles drive on to Brixton Hill via the cycle link from Porden Road in order to avoid the signalised junction at Acre Lane / A23 Brixton Hill. However, Lambeth Highways are not aware of this being a significant issue, and there does not appear to be any evidence of damage on site. The bollard proposed to prevent this move is therefore not considered necessary.
8.5.19 For these reasons, therefore, the application is considered to be acceptable in transport and highways terms.
9.0 Conclusions
8.1 This application has been submitted primarily in order to provide additional town centre car parking in Brixton following the redevelopment of the former multi-storey car park in Pope’s Road to provide a temporary ice rink as part of the Streatham Hub scheme. Given that the proposal is for a temporary period of 3 years only, its laying out as a car park would not prejudice the future redevelopment of this site or those adjoining falling within MDO 10. As such, the proposal can be justified in landuse terms.
8.2 Although now vacant, the site has in the past been used as a contractor’s vehicular depot for both TfL and the council. There is therefore a history of vehicular activity on the site. The submitted Transport Assessment identifies that there would be little impact on the highway in the vicinity of the site and nearby junctions, a point which also weighs in favour of the proposal in amenity terms.
8.3 Given the appearance of the site both at present and in the recent past, it is considered that its temporary laying out as a car park raises no concerns in design and townscape terms.
8.4 For these reasons, therefore, the application is considered acceptable.
9. Recommendation
A. Grant planning permission subject to the attached conditions.
32 Page 169
CONDITIONS
1 The car park hereby approved shall operate for a temporary 3 years period only, after which time the use shall cease.
Reason: In order to safeguard the future re-development of the site having regard to requirements of Policy MDO 5 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy PN3 of the Core Strategy: Pre Adoption Version January 2011.
2 The temporary car park hereby permitted shall operate only between 07.00am to 11.00pm and shall not operate outside these permitted hours unless as agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of the occupiers of the adjacent residential properties. (Policies 7, 33, 36 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
3 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, full details and specifications of the lighting of the car park shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of the use The approved lighting shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained for the temporary duration of the use in accordance with the approved scheme .
Reason: In the interests of community safety, designing out crime and safeguarding the amenity of adjacent residents. Policies 7 and 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
4 Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, full details and specifications of the gates and supporting structures for the car park shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the use.
Reason: In the interests of community safety, designing out crime and highway safety Policies 9 and 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
5 The use shall not commence until the means of access has been altered in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use .
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
33 Page 170
6 The scheme for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
7 The existing parking and turning area at the site, as shown on the application drawings, shall be permanently maintained solely for those purposes and shall not be obstructed in any way.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
8 Details of the proposed parking management plan, including the parking enforcement strategy, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use, and the operation of the car park shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved strategy. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 refer).
INFORMATIVE
1 With regard to the need to comply with the requirements of Conditions 3 and 4, you are advised to contact PC Ann Burroughs, the Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor (020 7926 2840 / 07974 643842 ./ Aburroughs@Lambeth. gov.uk) DRAWING NUMBERS ETC
Design and Access Statement:
Transport Assessment;
Lighting Impact Assessment;
Electrical Design Park;
LA-BRCP-01;1047/01;02 (incl.)
34
Page 171 Agenda Item 6
1 Page 172 Section 2 – Application Summary
Location Arches 228-232 Waterloo Station Approach London SE1 7LY
Ward Bishops
Proposal Continued use of Arches 228-232 for a temporary period of 1 year Application for theatre use and associated activities. Applicant Mr Michael Smythe
Date valid 5 November 2010 Case Officer Mrs Ruth Smithson
Application 10/03873/FUL Reference
Drawings Email from Michael Smythe dated 13/01/2011, Emergency and Evacuation Manual dated 1/08/2009, Operation Manual dated 01/08/2009, Fire Risk Assessment dated 01/08/2009, Risk Assessment dated 01/08/2009, Crowd Management Procedure dated 10/02/2010, 7434-06, 7434-07.
Recommendation(s) Grant Conditional Planning Permission
Constraints Environment Agency Flood Zone (Dec 2006) Local Plan Area Tunnel Safeguarding line Waterloo Office Regeneration Area Waterloo Visitor Management Area
Advert Publication 3rd December 2010 Date
Site Notice posted 17th December 2010 on
Page 173
10/03873/FUL
1. Summary Of Main Issues
1.1. The acceptability of the change of use 1.2. The acceptability of the impact on existing neighbouring occupiers’ amenity. 1.3. The acceptability of the impact upon transport.
2. Site Description
2.1. Arches 228-232 are located under the tracks on the approach to Waterloo Station located between Waterloo Station Approach Road and York Road, access to the arches is from the Waterloo Station Approach Road and Leake Street.
2.2. For the past year, following application 09/03271/FUL the arches have been used as a theatre space with associated activities. Prior to this the arches appeared to have been in storage use. There is an existing NCP car park to the south of the site; the proposals would not affect the existing car park use.
2.3. The site lies within the Environment Agency Flood Zone 2. The site is also located within the Central London Activities Zone (CAZ), the Waterloo Office Regeneration Area, Waterloo Development Framework Area, Waterloo Visitor Management Area and Major Development Opportunity Area 91 – Waterloo Station (Land under Waterloo Station) (MDO 91) as identified on the UDP Proposals Map.
2.4. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor does it contain any listed structures.
3. Planning History
3.1. 19.01.2010- Planning permission granted for the Change of use of Arches 228-232 for a temporary period of 1 year to theatre use and associated activities. (09/03271/FUL).
3.2. 21.04.2010- Approval of details pursuant to condition 5 (Crowd management strategy) of planning permission ref 09/03271/FUL (Change of use of Arches 228-232 for a temporary period of 1 year to theatre use and associated activities. (Amended Description 7 December 2009) granted on 19.01.2010. (10/00698/DET).
4. Scheme Details
4.1. The application is for the renewal of the change of use of the arches to a theatre use in connection with the Old Vic Theatre. The arches
3 Page 174
have been known for the past year as the ‘Old Vic Tunnels’. The use of the arches as a theatre was previously granted permission for one year, and the current application seeks to use the arches for a further year.
4.2. It is proposed that the space is used for site-specific performance and visual arts projects with an associated educational and outreach programme devised by ‘Old Vic New Voices’.
4.3. The venue is licensed to hold up to 500 audience members at any one time, however it is noteworthy that the type of performance will differ with each production; in some cases performances will not have a seated audience, but will be in a promenade style with the audience walking through the space, experiencing and interacting with the theatre.
4.4. The audience would access the site from the Waterloo Station Approach Road, and would exit through Leake Street. The applicant would provide Security Staff on the Waterloo Station Approach Road entrance and Leake Street exit. The cast and staff would utilise the Leake Street access, and deliveries will be taken from either the NCP car park or Leake Street.
4.5. For the past year there has been no ticket office on site and tickets have been purchased from the Old Vic theatre. The applicant states that in future there may be the possibility of tickets being purchased at the Old Vic Tunnels; this would be ancillary to the theatre use applied for within this application.
5. Consultation Responses
5.1. Consultation letters were sent to the following neighbouring addresses
- All addresses at 114-118, 119-120, 121, 122, 123-124, 127, 127- 130, 131, 132, 133, 134-135, 136, 140, 141, 142 Lower Marsh London
- All addresses at The Walrus Social 172 Westminster Bridge Road London
- All addresses at 1, 3 Addington Street London
- Arches 28 and 232 Leake Street London
- Arches 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 Waterloo Station Approach London
5.2. No responses were received as a result of the public consultation.
5.3. Consultation letters were also sent to the following local amenity and residents groups:
4 Page 175
- Association of Waterloo Groups- No response received to date. - Cinema & Theatre Association- No response received to date. - Coin Street Community Builders- No response received to date. - County Hall Residents Association-No response received to date. - Kennington Association- No response received to date. - Lambeth Estates Residents Association- No response received to date. - South Bank Board- No response received to date. - South Bank Management Company Ltd- No response received to date. - The Theatres Trust - Supports the application. - Waterloo Quarter Business Area- No response received to date.
5.4. The following consultees within the Council and external Statutory Consultees were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:
- Planning Policy - No objection - Regulatory Services - Noise Pollution-No objection. - Lambeth Arts- No objections. - Transport/Highways- No objection. - Implementation Team- No response received to date. - Streetcare- No response received to date. - LBL Crime Prevention- No objection - North Lambeth Town Manager- No response received to date. - TFL-No objection subject to conditions.
5.5. A site notice was displayed on the 17 th December 2010 and the proposal was advertised in South London Press on the 3rd December 2010.
6. Planning Considerations
6.1. Relevant Policies
6.1.1. Central Government advice is contained in a range of Government Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG) and/or Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These contain general policies which aim to guide the local planning authority in securing good local planning policies based on real and sound objectives and the need to provide high quality, well thought out and sustainable developments, which make a positive contribution to the locality and which help to protect or enhance the environment.
5 Page 176
6.1.2. The following national guidance is considered particularly relevant to this application:
- PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) - PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Communities) - PPG13 (Planning and Transport) - PPG24 (Planning and Noise)
6.1.3. Planning Policy Statement 1 - Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.
6.1.4. Planning Policy Statement 4 - Planning policies should promote town centre vitality and viability by planning for the growth and development of existing centres and promoting and enhancing existing centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all.
6.1.5. Planning Policy Guidance 13 (Transport) deals with transport and particularly the way in which it integrates with the proper planning of the environment. It seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices and accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and discourages the need to travel by car. Paragraph 17 states that parking standards should not be expressed as minimums and requires planning authorities to revise parking standards to allow for lower levels of off street parking especially in locations which are served by good public transport.
6.1.6. Planning Policy Guidance 24 - outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which will generate noise; introduces the concept of noise exposure categories for residential development, encourages their use and recommends appropriate levels for exposure to different sources of noise; and advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise.
6.1.7. The London Plan
6.1.8. The London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now includes alterations that have been made since it was adopted in February 2004. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides
6 Page 177
strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.
6.1.9. The London Plan provides the strategic policy for London. In the assessment of this application regard was had to the policies within sections;
- 3A (Living in London) - 3C (Connecting London) - 4B (Designs on London).
6.1.10. The Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007)
6.1.11. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008) and the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010, with material considerations including planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.
6.1.12. It should be noted that, following examination, the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy has been declared sound by a government inspector, in the Inspector’s Report dated 6 December 2010. It is anticipated that the Core Strategy will be adopted by the council on 19 January 2011. On adoption, the Core Strategy will become part of the development plan in Lambeth alongside the London Plan and the remaining UDP saved policies that are not superseded by the Core Strategy policies.
6.1.13. In the period between publication of the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report and adoption of the Core Strategy, the policies in the Core Strategy should be given considerable weight in determining planning applications. Where there is a conflict, Core Strategy policies should be given more weight than saved UDP policies.
6.1.14. The following policies of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) are considered relevant to this application:
6.1.15. The following key saved UDP land use policies apply in this case:
Policy 1 – The Vision for Lambeth Policy 7 – Protection of Residential Amenity
7 Page 178
Policy 19 – Active Frontage Uses Policy 24 – Use of Railway Arches Policy 28 – Hotels and Tourism Policy 29 – The Evening and Late Nigh Economy, Food and Drink and Amusement Centre Uses Policy 30 – Arts and Culture Policy 79 – Waterloo Development Framework MDO 91 – Waterloo Station (Land under Waterloo Station)
6.1.16. The following Core Strategy policies also apply:
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S3 – Economic Development Policy PN1 – Waterloo
6.1.17. The Waterloo Area Supplementary Planning Document is also relevant to the application.
6.2. Land Use
6.2.1. Policy 1 seeks to make Lambeth a great place to live, work and visit by promoting high quality, sustainable development. Policy 1 of the Mayor’s Culture Strategy states that London needs to ensure its cultural institutions and events are of a high quality, world class status and shall ensure that major cultural developments are supported and developed.
6.2.2. Policy PN1 requires development in the Waterloo Development Framework Area to contribute to the comprehensive and integrated sustainable regeneration of the area in line with its Central London functions and its role as a strategic opportunity area. Criterion (a) of this policy seeks a mix of Central London Activities, including maximizing opportunities for housing and community facilities, appropriate to the size and character of the site and the scale of development proposed.
6.2.3. The expansion of arts and cultural activities throughout Waterloo is promoted by Core Strategy Policy PN1
6.2.4. The continued change of use would assist in achieving the objectives contained in the policies outlined above through the promotion of a cultural activity in connection with The Old Vic Theatre Company. The development would also assist in ensuring the needs of cultural institutions and events are supported and developed as required by Policy 1 of the Mayor’s Culture Strategy, and with the aims of PN1 of the Core Strategy.
8 Page 179
6.2.5. Policy 28 requires that visitor attractions (including arts venues, conference and related facilities, function rooms, banqueting suites, night clubs and major food and drink uses) and large hotels (including large extensions to existing facilities), be located within the Waterloo Visitor Management Area or in the edge or Major Town Centres or in non-residential areas with good, very good or exceptional public transport accessibility with easy access to central London, including the Albert Embankment. Policy 30 relates to Arts and Culture and specifically states that the role of the South Bank Centre as Europe’s premier arts and cultural facilities is to be supported. The policy goes on to state that commercial development associated with arts and cultural uses will be permitted where they are ancillary and complementary to the arts or cultural uses, and where there is a clear and lasting benefit to the arts or cultural uses. Policy S3 states that the Council will support the location of and investment in major office developments, large hotels and apart-hotels, major leisure and cultural activities, other tourist attractions and retail development in the Central Activities Zone, Vauxhall and Waterloo London Plan Opportunity Areas and Brixton and Streatham town centres.
6.2.6. The character and function of the proposed use, which is to produce a series of performance works, fundraising events and other theatre orientated activities, is considered to be complementary to the arts and cultural uses of the area in accordance with Policy 30. Furthermore, the development site is located within the Waterloo Visitor Management Area as required by Policy 28.
6.2.7. Policy 24 relates to the use of railway arches and this policy states that railway arches in industrial or storage use are protected for such uses unless they are proven to be causing significant detriment to residential amenity and/or adverse impact on highways network. For vacant arches, and where it is demonstrated that existing arches are no longer suitable for continue employment use, a number of uses, including active frontage uses, may also be acceptable, subject to the Plan’s other policies. The policy does recognise that in the Central Activities Zone, a more flexible approach towards the use and re-use of railway arches will be adopted. The policy goes on to state that in these areas, the change of use to active frontage uses is encouraged, provided:
(i) This will assist in the achievement of the Council’s regeneration objectives; and
9 Page 180
(ii) The change of use would not result in the loss of any significant employment generating use that is appropriately located.
Paragraph 4.11.24 to this policy also acknowledges that the policy allows changes of use within the A1, A2, A3, D1 and D2 use classes (as appropriate).
6.2.8. Policy 19 requires development in town centres, local centres and along main pedestrian routes in the Waterloo Visitor Area, the Thames Policy Area, and elsewhere where it would promote urban vitality and/or regeneration, to have active frontage uses open to the public. All street frontage buildings in these locations should have uses, frontages and entrances orientated towards the street.
6.2.9. The application states that the arches are currently vacant and the premises were last used by The Old Vic Theatre Company in spring 2009 for a one-off theatrical production. The application form suggests that the previous lawful use was storage (use class B8). It is considered that the continued use of the arches for the purposes of performance and theatre related activities would be appropriate in land use terms given the site is no longer in employment use and was formerly vacant. Furthermore, Policy 24 does recognise that a more flexible approach towards the use of railway arches as being appropriate in areas such as the CAZ and is therefore further supported by this policy. The proposed use would also enable entrances orientated towards the street in accordance with the objectives of Policy 19.
6.2.10. The application site also falls within MDO 91 which relates to Waterloo Station (Land under Waterloo Station). This policy relates to the remodelling of the Waterloo Station and seeks to increase platform, concourse, and tube capacity with potential for air-rights development above the utilisation of arches space below (i.e. areas which are not presently accessible and which lie under the station). It is considered the development would not hinder the aspirations outlined in this policy and would bring into use vacant arches which would assist in providing a range of uses in the area within and around Waterloo Station.
6.2.11. The Waterloo Area SPD is also of relevance to the application and paragraph 2.29 recognises the importance of the Old Vic and states the following: “The South Bank is Europe’s premier arts and cultural centre and is recognised in the London Plan as being a strategically important area for arts, culture and entertainment. Waterloo is also home to the Old Vic and the Young Vic on The Cut and the Doon
10 Page 181
Street development will provide a home for the Rambert Dance Company. Improvements are planned to modernise and expand the rest of the Southbank Centre, the National Theatre and the BFI National Film Theatre. The public realm around these important institutions also needs improving to accommodate higher numbers of visitors, to provide better pedestrian links and to create an appropriately high quality setting.” The change of use would enable further development of The Old Vic Theatre Company in Waterloo and as such consistent with the guidance outlined in the Waterloo Area SPD.
6.2.12. It is considered a change of use of the vacant arches which were formally in use as storage (use class B8) would be appropriate in land use terms having regard to the sites location within the CAZ and the Waterloo Visitor Management Area and the objectives to support and enhance culture and arts in the Waterloo area. It is therefore considered that the development would comply with the objectives contained in Policies 1, 3, 19, 24, 28, 30, 79 and MDO 91.
6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations
6.3.1. The application does not propose any external alterations. As such it is considered there are no design and conservation issues raised by the proposal. It is noted that the application form states that the Applicant wishes to erect signage, although no details or plans have been provided regarding this. It is considered that it may be that the signage would benefit from deemed consent; however the applicant is advised by an informative to submit further details for further advice.
6.4. Amenity Impact
6.4.1. Policy 7 states that "the right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their homes will be respected".
6.4.2. Policy 29 states with regard to the evening and late night economy, food and drink and amusement centre uses that such uses will only be permitted where the proposal would not cause unacceptable noise or other harm to residential amenity, in relation to the proximity to residential premises. Policy 29 states that the specific nature of the use applied for must be acceptable, where necessary conditions will be applied restricting the use of the premises within a use class, where the specific proposed use would not cause these problems. The capacity of premises will be restricted to that permitted by fire safety regulations. The closing
11 Page 182
hours, concentration and scale of premises, and use of outdoor areas, should not create or add to unacceptable noise or harm to amenity or risk of public disorder. Vehicular movements (including those of customers) should not cause noise nuisance to local residents or cause traffic problems.
6.4.3. It is noted that the nearest residential premises to the site are located between 15-20 metres away on Lower Marsh and that the Waterloo Station Approach Road runs between the subject site and the residential properties. It is acknowledged that the premises are located within the superstructure of the station and in the urban area of Waterloo Station.
6.4.4. It is noted that the applicant is seeking varied hours from those that were previously granted which were 10:00-23.30. The applicant is now seeking permission for the following hours which would be in line with the hours granted within their License;
Sunday- Wednesday 10:00 - 23:30 Thursday-Saturday 10:00 - 03:00
6.4.5. Lambeth’s Environmental Health- Noise Pollution Team were consulted on the application and raised no objection to the proposal. They advised that there have been no recorded noise complaints relating to the use. The Environmental Health Team previously advised that that due to the nature of the premises there were no concerns regarding internal noise from the arches given that they are located beneath the station superstructure.
6.4.6. With regard to the proposed hours it is considered that the opening hours proposed for Sunday-Wednesday are acceptable as these are a continuation of those previously proposed.
6.4.7. In consideration of the proposed hours for Thursday- Saturday it is noted that these are an increase from the previously approved 23.30 closing time. The applicant advises that the increase in hours to 3am would bring the planning permission in-line with the current license. The applicant has advised that late operational hours are only effective on rare occasions, such as post show events or fundraisers etc, with most shows finishing 22.30pm.
6.4.8. It is considered that due to the condition requiring that no amplified sound is audible outside the premises the key issue which relates the increase in hours would be the
12 Page 183
possibility of noise and disturbance caused by people leaving the premises; rather than noise escaping from the premises themselves. The premises exit onto Leake Street which is be away from the residential uses on Lower Marsh, and it is likely that people leaving the venue would be more dispersed when reaching York Road. The applicant has advised that there will be security staff at both the entrance and exit to ensure that people exiting the venue in a safe, quiet and orderly manner which would minimise any noise and disturbance from people leaving the venue. It is considered that as the application is for a temporary permission for one year, it is possible to use this period as a ‘trial period’ for the later hours, which can then be reviewed should a re-application be made at the expiration of the subject application. It is noted that no complaints have been generated from the use and that should there be noise complaints these can be dealt with under Environmental Health and Licensing legislation.
6.4.9. The applicant has submitted a detailed Operation Manual and Risk Assessment for the proposed use, although it is noted that the risk assessment varies for each performance. The previous application was approved subject to the submission of a management plan
6.4.10. It is considered that the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance for local residential occupiers and as such it is considered the proposal complies with policies 7 and 29 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues
6.5.1. Policy 9 requires that planning applications are assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts on highway safety, the environment and road network and on all transport modes, including public transport. Policy 9 has not been superseded by the Core Strategy.
6.5.2. Transport for London (TfL) were consulted on the application and did not raise any objections to the proposal for the change of use for one year. TfL requested that any measures used to manage queues are placed in such a way that pedestrians not involved in the event are still able to use Station Approach without stepping onto the carriageway. TfL also recommended that any queues should be managed to queue northwards (towards Waterloo Road) rather than south towards Leake Street as the footway in this direction is generally wider and there is a footpath on both sides of the road. The management of the queue to allow continued
13 Page 184
pedestrian passage formed part of the approved Crowd Management Plan; in the light of the response from TfL it is considered pertinent to require the implementation of the approved Crowd Management Strategy in association with this application.
6.5.3. Lambeth’s Transport and Highways team were consulted on the application and raised no objections to the proposal. It is noted previously that Lambeth’s Transport Team raised queries regarding the crowd management of the queuing, the congregation of the number of people on the site and the impact upon pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Station Approach, and this concern was dealt with through a condition requiring the submission of a Crowd Management Strategy. This condition was discharged under application 10/00698/DET. In light of the previous concerns of the Transport Team it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the previously approved Crowd Management Strategy to be implemented in association with this application.
6.5.4. As such it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and complies with policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
6.6. Refuse and Recycling
6.6.1. PPS10 requires Local Authorities to ensure that new development makes sufficient provision for waste management and promote designs and layouts that secure the integration of waste management facilities without adverse impact on the street scene or, in less developed areas, the local landscape.
6.6.2. With regard to refuse and recycling the applicant has stated that refuse and that the landlords of the site (BRBR) have provided the venue with a regularly serviced skip and disposal collection on a daily bases. The skip is situated off- site under Waterloo Station. All waste will be removed from the site by the applicant and deposited in the skip.
6.6.3. It is considered that these servicing arrangements are acceptable and as such the proposal complies with PPS10.
6.7. Designing Out Crime
6.7.1. Policy 32 states that development, including alterations, extensions and changes of use should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where
14 Page 185
opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.
6.7.2. Lambeth’s Designing Out Crime Adviser has commented on the application and raised no objection.
6.7.3. The applicant proposes to provide two trained Security Staff on the entrance from the Waterloo Station Approach Road and two trained Security Staff on the exit to Leake Street, whilst the premises is in use. It is also proposed to have security staff patrolling the site out of hours. As such it is considered that the proposal complies with policy 32 of the Unitary Development Plan and is acceptable in this regard.
6.8. Flood Risk
6.8.1. The site is within an Environment Agency Flood Zone 2. The Environment Agency were consulted on the previous application and confirmed that a Flood Risk Assessment is not required on this case.
7. Conclusion
7.1. It is considered that the submission represents an acceptable proposal which would enhance the provision of cultural activities within the North of the borough and the Central London Activities Zone. It is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residential uses and highway safety, subject to the recommended conditions.
8. Recommendation
8.1. Grant Planning Permission subject to Conditions.
Summary of Reasons
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant:
- Policy 1 The Vision for Lambeth - Policy 3 The Central London Activities Zone - Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity - Policy 9 Transport Impact - Policy 19 Active Frontage Uses
15 Page 186
- Policy 24 Use of Railway Arches - Policy 28 Hotels and Tourism - Policy 29 The Evening and Late Night Economy, Food and Drink and Amusement Centre Uses - Policy 30 Arts and Culture - Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime - Policy 79 Waterloo Development Framework - MDO 91 Waterloo Station (Land under Waterloo Station)
Core Strategy Policies:
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S3 – Economic Development Policy PN1 – Waterloo
Conditions
1. This permission shall be for a limited period only, expiring for 1 year from the date of this decision. On or before that date any building or works carried out under this permission shall be removed and the land re-instated, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that the decision is in line with the time limit required by the application.
2. The refuse and recycling shall be stored and collected in line with the details submitted with the application, as outlined in Section 7 of the application form received on 5 th November 2010 and shall thereafter be carried out in compliance with these details for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval is obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variations.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies 9, 17, 32 and 56 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies Saved Beyond 5 th August 2010 and PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management refer)
3. The proposed new use hereby permitted shall only be open between the hours of 10.00-23.30 Sundays- Wednesdays, Public Holidays and bank holidays and 10.00-03.00 Thursdays-Saturdays; any variation to these hours will require approval in writing by the Local Authority.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers. (Policies 7 and 26 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 refer.)
4. There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music, which is audible outside the premises.
16 Page 187
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining premises and the area generally. (Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 refer).
5. The crowd management strategy approved under application 10/00698/DET shall be implemented in association with this application and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers. (Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers.)
Informatives
1) You are advised that no details of signage was submitted for approval as part of this application and it was not shown on any plans. It may be that the signage would benefit from deemed consent. You are advised to contact Ruth Smithson at [email protected] for further advice.
17 Page 188
This page is intentionally left blank Page 189 Agenda Item 7
Page 190 Application Summary
Location Dunraven Lower School, Mount Nod Road and Dunraven Upper School ,82-100 Leigham Court Road, London
Ward Streatham Wells
Proposal Partial approval of details pursuant to condition 14 (Samples and a Application schedule of materials to be used in the external elevations) of planning permission ref: 10/01335/RG3 (As Phase 2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme: South Site: demolition of existing selected buildings and their replacement with new three-storey teaching building with partial basement store fronting Leigham Court Road in conjunction with new entrance lobby and access ramp with tree planting scheme; new three-storey teaching building facing towards the centre of the school site with associated hard and soft landscaping improvement works with limited tree felling; refurbishment of remaining buildings including selected window replacements; and new and improved railings and fences to street and general site boundaries with new multi use games area (MUGA) towards the west of the site and remodelled car parking and accesses and bike storage. North Site: partial demolition of the existing sixth form teaching block and its remodelling with a part two-, part four-storey building; the relocation of the Sophie Centre day nursery within a single-storey building from the South Site to the north-eastern extent of the North Site; hard and soft landscaping works with tree planting and access and boundary treatment remodelling; associated car parking spaces and access located to the north of the site; and improvements to pedestrian links between the two sites on Leigham Court Road) granted on: 13.07.2010.
Applicant Mr Mike Pocock of Building Schools for the Future team
Agent Amolak Dhanjal 3 Maltings Place 169 Tower Bridge Road London SE1 3JB
Date valid 16 November 2010
Case Officer Mr David Smith
Application 10/03979/DET Reference Recommendation(s) Grant Approval of Detail
Constraints Archaeological Priority Areas
Advert Publication N/A Date
Site Notice posted N/A on
Page 191
Officer Report 10/03979/DET
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Planning permission was granted on 13 July 2010 under application 10/01335/RG3 for:
As Phase 2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme:
South Site: demolition of existing selected buildings and their replacement with new three-storey teaching building with partial basement store fronting Leigham Court Road in conjunction with new entrance lobby and access ramp with tree planting scheme; new three-storey teaching building facing towards the centre of the school site with associated hard and soft landscaping improvement works with limited tree felling; refurbishment of remaining buildings including selected window replacements; and new and improved railings and fences to street and general site boundaries with new multi use games area (MUGA) towards the west of the site and remodelled car parking and accesses and bike storage.
North Site: partial demolition of the existing sixth form teaching block and its remodelling with a part two-, part four-storey building; the relocation of the Sophie Centre day nursery within a single-storey building from the South Site to the north-eastern extent of the North Site; hard and soft landscaping works with tree planting and access and boundary treatment remodelling; associated car parking spaces and access located to the north of the site; and improvements to pedestrian links between the two sites on Leigham Court Road.
1.2 The permission was granted subject to 49 planning conditions. Condition 14 of the permission specifically requires that:
14. Samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the external elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the relevant parts of the building works commence and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The samples and schedule of materials to be submitted shall be accompanied by clearly annotated drawings at a scale appropriate to enable assessment by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To allow Members of the Planning Applications Committee to ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31 and 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
1.3 This was a resolution made by Planning Applications Committee A on 07 July 2010. In making the decision, Members of that committee resolved that the detailed submissions pursuant to conditions 11 (Parking Management Plan), Page 192
14 (Materials and Façade Treatments – the subject of this application), 35 (Parking Arrangement) and 36 (Cycle Parking) be referred back to a Planning Applications Committee for final determination as to their acceptability.
1.4 The local planning authority are not as yet in receipt of applications to discharge the submission requirements of conditions 11, 35 and 36 of the permission.
2.0 INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO APPROVE / DISCHARGE CONDITION
2.1 The application submissions include a sample board and associated drawings indicating the materials to be used in the external elevations of the development.
2..2 The materials for the development comprise of a mix of ‘Kalwall’ insulated translucent panels; pre-cast concrete; solar control glass; Staffordshire blue brundle smooth brick (for the sixth form centre on the northern site); Stamford multi buff brick (on the southern site); aluminium window frames, vertical fins and infill panels; galvanised steel louver panels; steel mesh cladding; and ‘Corten’ steel (the enclosure for the front walkway to the main building).
3.0 RELEVANT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
3.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008) and the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010, with material considerations including planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.
3.2 It should be noted that, following examination, the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy has been declared sound by a government inspector, in the Inspector’s Report dated 6 December 2010. It is anticipated that the Core Strategy will be adopted by the council on 19 January 2011. On adoption, the Core Strategy will become part of the development plan in Lambeth alongside the London Plan and the remaining UDP saved policies that are not superseded by the Core Strategy policies.
3.3 In the period between publication of the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report and adoption of the Core Strategy, the policies in the Core Strategy should be given considerable weight in determining planning applications. Where there is a conflict, Core Strategy policies should be given more weight than saved UDP policies.
3.4 Of particular relevance to the determination of this application are Policies 31 (Streets, Character and Layout) and 33 (Building Scale and Design) of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan.
4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design officer has reviewed the sample board and drawings submitted in respect to the application and raised no objections to the choice and colour of materials proposed. However, the Page 193
Conservation and Urban Design officer has noted that the submission lacks a physical sample of the proposed Corten steel and steel mesh cladding.
5.0 ASSESSMENT
5.1 Saved UDP Policy 31 of the UDP sets out that developments should respond to and enhance the architectural character of the area. Saved UDP Policy 33 states that all development should be of a high quality design and contribute to its surrounding area.
5.2 In the first instance, it should be noted that the detailed elevations were approved under the consented planning permission granted on 13 July 2010.
5.3 In this context it is considered that the application submissions have on the whole sufficiently demonstrated that the buildings would employ a materials palette of a high quality and durability that are of a compatible or complementary colour and texture to each other. In this respect, it is considered that the planning authority may be satisfied as to the standard of development, having paid particular regard to the visual amenities of the locality.
5.4 Notwithstanding the general acceptance of the above details, officers have noted the lack of submission of a physical sample as regards to the proposed use of Corten steel and the mesh cladding. In terms of the Corten steel, a precedent study has been submitted rather than a sample or a photograph of the sample to be used. In terms of the steel mesh cladding, the picture and drawings provided raise slight concerns about the potential solidity of the design feature; a physical sample would be required to confirm the diameter of the perforated holes.
5.5 It should also be noted that no details have been submitted with respect to the proposed Sophie Centre which was a requirement of the condition. Such details would need to be submitted and referred to the Committee for a decision prior to the commencement of those building works; hence the discharge of this condition being referred to as ‘part’.
5.6 Officers therefore are recommending the partial discharge of the condition’s requirements, reserving the Council’s position with respect to matters where further information/detail should be sought. Notwithstanding the slight concerns with regard to the steel mesh, given the general acceptance of details and the separate location of the proposed Sophie Centre which is physically contained well within its section of the application site, officers are recommending that details of such may be agreed by officers under powers delegated to them without further reporting of the matter to the Planning Applications Committee.
5. RECOMMENDATION
1. Issue written consent for the materials, other than those of the Corten steel, the steel mesh and the full details required for the Sophie Centre.
2. That the upon the receipt of acceptable physical samples of the Corten steel, the steel mesh and the full material for the Sophie Centre, that this element of the condition may be agreed by officers Page 194
under delegated powers without future recourse to the Planning Applications Committee.
Reason:
In deciding to issue written consent, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the material samples submitted in the context of these issues, it is considered that the materials are a sufficiently high quality standard so as to safeguard and enhance and the visual amenities of the locality. In reaching this decision Saved Policies 31 and 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007) were particularly relevant.
INFORMATION TO APPLICANT
1. For the avoidance of doubt, it is advised that this decision notice does not convey the requisite consent for the external materials to be used in the Sophie Centre, nor for the Corten steel or the steel mesh cladding. Such details shall need to be submitted to the Council for approval prior to the commencement of those particular building works as required by Condition 14.
2. As per the requirements of condition 14 of planning permission 10/01335/RG3, the development shall hereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the details hereby approved; unless the written permission is first received from the local planning authority for any variations.
PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/09/2010AND 30/09/2010
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNC IL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION:
09/02342/FUL Full Planning Mr John Alflatt 174-176 Tulse Hill Conversion of existing property to Delegated Refuse Permission 03/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission London SW2 3BU provide 2 additional self contained flats Decision involving the erection of a two storey side extension at first and second floor levels with undercroft at ground level giving access to garages at rear, erection of a roof extension
The inspector considered the main issues to be the effect of the scheme on 1) the street scene and 2) the living conditions of the occupiers of no 172b Tulse Hill On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘I consider that the introduction of four dormers (two of double width) and a general raising of the ridge, would result in a top-heavy, over-dominating appearance to the roof-scape which would merely add to the existing visual incoherence. For this reason, I consider that the scheme conflicts with “saved” UDP Policies 31 and 36’. On the 2 nd issue he Inspector noted ‘the aspect from the ground floor window of no 172b is already compromised to some extent by the existence of a solid wooden fence on the common boundary which rises more than 2m, less than 3m away. Nevertheless, it seems likely to me that the additional height and mass of the appeal scheme would result in a significant increase in the sense of enclosure’ to the occupiers of this property. The Inspector then went on to dismiss the appeal.
09/03547/FUL Full Planning Mr Peter Kulpa The Cottage 14 Erection of part 2 part 3 storey building Committee Minded to Refuse 03/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission Stanthorpe Road to provide one 2 bedroom house and Decision Permission Page 195 London SW 16 2DY one 1 bedroom house, with associated refuse, recycling and cycle storage, landscaping and works to protected tree; and elevational alterations to North elevation of existing rear maisonette.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be the effect of the proposal 1) on the character and appearance of the area, 2) on the adjoining residents and 3) on the future occupiers of the dwellings. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘I consider the proposed development would introduce an incongruous and alien feature into the street-scene…The approach seems to represent an attempt to reconcile the features of the rear of 14 Stanthorpe Road with the front of the Bournevale Road terraces: in my opinion, the failure to do this satisfactorily merely emphasises the inappropriateness of the proposal in principle. The council’s criticisms of the architectural details are also, in my opinion, well-founded, and add to the visual harm’. nd
On the 2 issue the Inspector noted ‘I agree with the council that the largely blank 8m high eastern elevation of the building, only 1.5-2.0m off the boundary with the rear garden of no 16 Stanthorpe Road, would result Agenda Item8 in an unreasonably oppressive sense of enclosure for the occupiers of that dwelling’ contrary to UDP Policy 33. On the 3 rd issue the Inspector noted ‘the scheme envisages creating a small enclosed garden for house no 2 which would be separated from amenity space and bin/cycle storage at the front, a 2-space car-park, a re- vamped garden for flat 2 at 14 Stanthorpe Road and a new garden for house 1. The result of this complex arrangement would be a compromise between security on the one hand, and the impact both on the street- scene of untypical screening measures and on the outlook from the ground floor windows of the house on the other. I agree with the council that this risks further conflict with their policies and adds weight to the objections to the scheme’. He then went on to dismiss the appeal.
09/02457/FUL Full Planning Mr Gary Sugarman 57 Narbonne Avenue Conversion of a single dwelling to Delegated Refuse Permission 08/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission London SW4 9JP provide 3 self contained flats together Decision with the formation of an internal courtyard at ground floor level to th e side elevation, removal of existing single storey ground floor rear addition, the installation of folding doors to the rear elevation The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on parking capacity and highway safety. The Inspector noted that the council resolved to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement. This agreement was prepared but was never completed. He added ‘the council effectively agree that there are no planning grounds, either in principle or in matters of detail, for preventing the development from taking place, so long as UDP Policies 14 and 17 are complied with. In the absence of a suitable agreement the appeal must be dismissed’.
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DEC ISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION:
10/00184/FUL Full Planning Mr And Mrs Robert 28 Chelsham Road Erection of a s ingle storey rear/side infill Delegated Refuse Permission 03/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission And Hollie De London SW4 6NP extension and the installation of a Decision Keyzer. rooflight to the existing single storey rear projection.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be whether or not the proposal would 1) harm the architectural integrity of the building to which it would be attached and 2) preserve the character of the Sibella Road Conservation Area and 3) whether or not the proposed development would erode the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling at 26 Chelsham Road. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘I consider the design of the proposed extension to be contrived. The extension, with a length of some 9.5m incorporates a lean-to, slate covered roof, almost 6.5m in length, punctuated by 4 rooflights. This element of the roof is contained by a parapet wall, and is adjoined by a flat roofed section of roofing which abuts the existing flat roofed extension. When seen in the context of the original building it is my opinion that the disparate design elements lack cohesion and present a poor design of unacceptable quality which fails to accord with UDP Policy 36’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘having found the design of the appeal proposal unacceptable in dealing with the first issue it is axiomatic I find that it would not preserve the character of the Sibella Road Conservation Area. For this reason the proposed development fails to conform to UDP Policy 47’. On the 3 rd issue the Inspector noted ‘it seems to me that the appeal proposal would appear oppressive, over dominant and unneighbourly when seen from the rear garden of 26 Chelsham Road. Of more importance is the fact that by virtue of concealing views of part of the open sky which are currently obtainable from the rear rooms of 26 Chelsham Road the proposed development would also unacceptably affect levels of daylight received within these rooms thereby eroding the amenities that the occupiers of this adjoining property might reasonabl y expect to enjoy’. The Inspector then went on to dismiss the appeal.
09/03421/FUL Full Planning Mr Hawes And Ms 65-67 Dalberg Road Change of use of basement and ground Delegated Refuse Permission 08/09/2010 Appeal Allowed Permission L Brittain London SW2 1AJ floor levels from retail to create 2 self Decision contained units, excavation of basement area comprising enlargement of existing rear lightwells with new patio access Page 196 doors and removal of shopfront wit h excavation of front lightwells
The Inspector considered the main issue in this case to be whether or not the proposed change of use would conflict wit the Council’s policies to provide support for viable retail activity in the Borough, as an instrument of community regeneration. The Inspector considered that the reason for refusal in this case was not warranted. He considered that the loss of a retail unit in this location did not constitute a breach of Saved UDP Policies 4 & 19 as he considered that the location of the appeal property was not in a centre or a likely retail location, and he therefore felt that Policies 4 or 19 could be applied. He concluded that the proposed change of use would not conflict with the council’s policies to provide support for viable retail activity in the borough, and allowed the appeal subject to a number of conditions.
10/01334/FUL Full Planning Mr B Nanda 91 Kingsmead Road Erection of a first floor front roof Delegated Refuse Permission 08/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission London SW2 3HZ extension. Decision
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the roof extension upon the character and appearance of the host building and upon its relationship with 91A Kingsmead Road. The Inspector noted ‘I accept that these two properties have been altered over time, most significantly at the rear, and to that extent they are no longer identical. However, despite the loss of much of the uniformity of the pair some sense of consistency remains, including the eaves and ridge line heights and the single storey projections. Accordingly, it is still possible to appreciate that the two bungalows were built as matching semi- detached properties. The current proposal would remove this important symmetry, which is readily apparent from within the driveway and front garden areas of the two dwellings’. He concluded by adding ‘that the detailed design of the gable end extension with its increased height to the eaves represents an over-dominant feature that will be harmful to the original form of the dwelling’.
09/03531/FUL Full Planning Mr M Munim 79 Waterloo Road Change of use of upper floors to provide Delegated Refuse Permission 08/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission London SE1 8UD a cab office (Sui Generis). Decision
The Inspector considered the main issues to be the effect of the change of use on 1) policies designed to maintain the Borough’s housing stock, 2) highway safety and efficiency and 3) the living conditions of nearby residents. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘I must give considerable weight to the council’s strategy to retain hous ing wherever possible, as set out in UDP Policies 3 and 79. The second of these is especially significant since it contains a presumption in favour of the retention of housing “where such accommodation can still be used, with or without adaption, for permanent residential purposes”…I have therefore concluded that the change of use would fail to comply with policies designed to maintain the borough’s housing stock’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘I share the councils concern that some of the limited space available here for the use of local residents and firms could be monopolised by taxi drivers waiting for calls from the office, which would be particularly harmful during business hours’. The Inspector concluded on this point ‘that the pressure on on-street parking spaces in the locality is such that there is little or no scope for accepting the further demand which a taxi business would inevitably entail’. On the 3 rd issue the Inspector noted ‘I have noted that UDP Policy 7 seeks to minimise the impact of non-residential uses on amenity, and accept that there is some risk of the proposed use being the cause of noise and disturbance due, in part, to the proximity of bars and the potential difficulty of enforcing the stated intention of preventing direct access to the office’ The Inspector then went on to dismiss the appeal.
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION: 09/03688/FUL Full Planning Done Bookmakers 132-134 Streatham Change of use of premises to a betting Delegated Refuse Permission 08/09/2010 Appeal Allowed Permission Hill London SW2 4RS shop (Use Class A2). Decision
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) the impact of the use of the ground floor premises as a licensed betting office on the vitality and viability of the retail function of Streatham (including Streatham Hill) Major Town Centre core area, and 2) the physical and visual impact of its use upon the character and appearance of the Streatham High Road and Streatham Hill Conservation Area. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘its seems to me that the specific isolated nature of this parade means that, if it is to perform any sort of town centre retail function, the most effective method of achieving this is by ensuring that the bulk of the units in this particular row of shops are occupied by uses that will contribute to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre as a whole…A betting office seems to me to be the next best alternative. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted that ‘conservation area considerations reinforce my conviction that it would be greatly preferable to see these ground floor units in healthy economic, even if non-retail, use rather than, as in the instance of one of the present shop units under consideration, permanently closed with an unattractive solid metal shutters firmly shut…with an attractive shopfront, this could provide a considerable boost to the attractiveness of the Conservation Area’, and went on to allow the appeal.
09/01824/FUL Full Planning Mr Simon Hesketh 12 Carson Road Erection of a single storey ground floor Delegated Refuse Permission 10/09/2010 Appeal Allowed Permission London SE21 8HU rear/side infill extension and a re ar Decision dormer window.
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the Rosendale Road Conservation Area and the host property. The Inspector noted ‘although several, apparently quite recent, roof alterations nearby are boxy and ill-proportioned, the majority of dormers which appear to be either original or features of long standing are of modest proportions and surrounded on either side and above by a significant area of retained roof slope. The proposed dormer would similarly, fit comfortably within the rear facing roof slope, with proportions comparable to that of the existing front facing dormer at the appeal property’. With regard to the proposed extension, the Inspector noted that ‘neither of the single-storey elements proposed would be prominent in private views from surrounding residential properties to the rear, in view of the existence of boundary walls and extensive vegetation in the rear gardens’. He concluded therefore to allow the appeal, feeling that all elements of the proposal would comply with UDP Polices 36 and 47.
Page 197 10/01526/FUL Full Planning Miss Launa 216 Acre Lane Erection of a single storey ground floor Delegated Refuse Permission 10/09/2010 Appeal Allowed Permission Williams London SW2 5UG rear and side extensions and installation Decision of a new window to first floor rear elevation together with alteration to existing rooflight and insertion of an additional rooflight to flank roofslope.
The Inspector considered that the main issues of this appeal were 1) the effect of the proposal upon the integrity of the original building and 2) the impact of the development upon the living conditions of nearby residents. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘whilst the extension will result in changes to the form of the original building, the enhanced living space that will result is to my mind such as to outweigh any harm to the integrity of the house as erected. It will be largely screened by existing boundary walls and fences and by the single storey extension to no. 214, which has a pitched roof’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘The extension will not be visible from no. 214 next door. There are no flank facing windows to no. 218 although there are first floor rear-facing habitable room windows to this property which will have an oblique view of part of the roof of the rearmost section of the extension. However, this section of the roof projects only some 1m above the level of the boundary fence and is set away from the common boundary by 1m. thereby reducing any loss of outlook or sense of enclosure to an acceptable degree’. The Inspector concluded that the ‘development as proposed will not result in any unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of nearby residents’ and went on to allow the appeal.
09/03091/FUL Full Planning Mr Paul Smith 133 Lansdowne Way Erection of a single storey lower ground Delegated Refuse Permission 14/09/2010 Appeal Allowed Permission London SW8 2NP floor rear extension to garden flat with Decision decking to the courtyard.
The Inspector considered the main issue of this appeal to be the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the Larkhall Conservation Area and of the host property. The Inspector noted ‘The appeal proposal would not be visible in public street-views and, because of boundary walls around, and vegetation within nearby gardens and its position at basement level, it would not be prominent in views at the rear. As a result there would be very little effect on the character and appearance of the Larkhall Conservation Area’. He added that whilst the depth of the proposed extension would exceed 3m (the maximum usually acceptable as set out in the SPD), ‘the proposed extension would not give rise to any adverse effect in relation to adjoining properties by reason of privacy and overlooking, sunlight, daylight, outlook or sense of enclosure, and the rear garden would remain a substantial size with the proposed extension in place’. He concluded that the proposal would therefore comply with UDP Policies 36 and 47 and allowed the appeal.
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION: 09/03643/LDC Certificate of Mr Simon Rooney- 42 Englewood Road Application for a Certificate of Lawful Delegated Refuse Permission 14/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed P Lawful Use Smith London SW12 9NZ Development (Proposed) with respect to Decision proposed the removal of existing ground floor rear conservatory and the erection of a single storey ground floor rear and side infill extension with the formation of a courtyard.
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether or not the proposed development constitutes development permitted under the provisions of the GPDO 2008. The Inspector noted ‘although the council’s decision preceded the document “Permitted Development for Householders” published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in August 2010, the council’s interpretation fully accords with the technical guidance in that document’. The Inspector added ‘for the reasons given above I conclude that the council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development for the proposed development was well founded and that the appeal should fail’.
09/01425/FUL Full Planning Mr Louis Panayouto 140 Norwood Road Change of use of basement / ground Delegated Refuse Permission 16/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission London SE24 9AY floor to residential in association with the Decision conversion of existing property to provide 5 self contained flats with the erection of front and rear dormers, formation of a front lightwell, alterations to windows and doors Page 198 The inspector considered the main issues to be 1) whether residential use is appropriate at basement and ground floor levels having regard to the council’s objective to retain local centre units and isolated shops in active frontage uses, and 2) whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for the occupiers of the proposed flats. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘although I observed that some units in the vicinity were vacant, I have not been given full details of the extent or duration of such vacancies. No evidence of marketing has been provided, nor any detailed evidence demonstrating that continuation of an active frontage use of the ground floor is not viable. I am, therefore, unable to conclude that loss of active frontage use of the ground floor of the appeal property would be consistent with fostering vitality and viability as policies 4 and 19 of the UDP seek’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘the deficiencies the council identifies are principally in relation to the floorspace of the living room areas’. But adds ‘I do not consider that the size f the open plan living/dining/kitchen spaces proposed would be so restricted in area terms that inadequate living conditions would be provided for future occupants’. He concluded by saying ‘I have concluded that the proposed flats would provide satisfactory living conditions for future residents, that the location is suitable for residential development and that there would be no harm to the living conditions of the occupants of nearby residential accommodation. However, these points do not outweigh the harm that I have found to arise from the loss of active frontage use of the ground floor of the appeal property’ and dismissed the appeal.
09/02402/FUL Full Planning Mr Panayiotis 144 Norwood Road Change of Use at ground floor and Delegated Refuse Permission 20/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission Mavroudi London SE24 9AY basement levels to provide 2 self Decision contained flats (Use Class C3) involving the removal of shed to the rear of property, the erection of an external staircase to the front elevation and alterations to windows and doors
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) whether residenti al use is appropriate at ground floor level having regard to the council’s objective to retain local centre units and isolated shops in active frontage uses, 2) whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for the occupiers of the proposed flat s and 3) the effect of the proposed external alterations on the character and appearance of the appeal building. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘although I observed that some units in the vicinity were vacant, including the appeal premises, I have not been given full details of the extent or duration of such vacancies and no detailed marketing evidence. I am, therefore, unable to conclude that loss of active frontage use of the ground floor of the appeal property would be consistent with fostering vitality and viability as policies 4 and 19 of the UDP seek’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘the creation of light wells at the front and rear would admit reasonable levels of daylight to the proposed lounge and bedroom at basement level. However, the location of the proposed kitchen in the centre of this proposed unit, away from windows and enclosed by internal walls, would cause that part of the proposed basement level to be particularly gloomy. I do not consider that a satisfactory level of natural light would be available so as to provide acceptable living conditions for the occupants of the proposed basement flat’ in conflict with UDP policy 17. On the 3 rd issue the Inspector noted ‘in principle the alteration of the existing mainly glazed shopfront to accommodate residential use could, subject to design, be consistent with the character or appearance of the (host) building’. He concluded by saying ‘I accept that the site is a suitable location for residential accommodation. ..however neither this nor my favourable conclusion in respect of the 3 rd main issue, outweighs the harm that I have found would be caused in respect of the first two main issues. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed’.
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION: 09/03929/FUL Full Planning Lexadon Ltd Land Adjacent To Refurbishment of vacant site involving Delegated Refuse Permission 21/09/2010 Appeal Allowed Permission Christchurch Hall And the erection of a 3 storey building to Decision Fronting On To provide 9 self contained flats, including Smedley Street provision of refuse, recycling and cycle London storage, communal amenity space and associated landscaping.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be whether or not the appeal proposal would 1) relate appropriately in form and design to neighbouring development, and 2) provide a suitable area of amenity space and an acceptable standard of residential accommodation. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘the council is critical of the desig n and form of the appeal proposal and finds its relationship with Christ Church hall unacceptable, having identified the church hall as “an important and established feature within the Smedley Street and Union Grove streetscape and helps to define the urban structure of the area”. In my opinion this assessment is exaggerated. Although occupying a corner site the church hall is diminutive in its setting and I do not consider that it is a building of architectural merit. In my view it is inappropriate to consider the hall building as the key feature that should influence the design of any development on the appeal site’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘the private amenity area provided for some flats would not achieve the 10 sq m required by the council’ s standards. Coupled to this matter the council is also critical of the limited area and siting of the balconies serving certain of the dwellings. However, as the balconies would provide an asset and purchasers of the dwellings would be aware of any shortcomings, I take no point from the council’s criticisms, particularly as there is a significant area of public open space at Larkhall Park perhaps 2 or 3 minutes walk from the appeal site’, and went on to allow the appeal subject to a number of conditions.
09/04314/FUL Full Planning Mr Dougal Hartley 84 Crimsworth Road Loft conversion comprising t he erection Delegated Refuse Permission 21/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission London SW8 4RL of a rear dormer, the erection of an Decision extension on the rear elevation at second floor level, and the installation of two front rooflights.
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether or not the appeal proposal would detract from the form and appearance of the building to which it would be attached. Page 199 The Inspector noted that the ‘definition of a dormer in the Penguin Dictionary of Building is given as “A vertical window through a sloping roof to give light into an attic, usually with a pitched roof, upright cheeks, and a front apron”. Contrary to this definition, the appeal proposal would appear largely as a flat roofed cuboid structure at roof level occupying the full width of the appeal property, which is some 4.6m, and rising almost to its ridge level. The mass and design of the proposed development would bear no relation to the pitched roof. The inappropriate appearance of the development would be exacerbated by the “tacked on” flat roof structure that is proposed to accommodated the study/nursery’. The Inspector added ‘it is my opinion that the totality of the appeal proposal would appear as an alien and incongruent feature which would be destructive to the character of the original building, particularly at roof level’ contrary to UDP Policy 36. The Inspector then went on to dismiss the appeal.
09/02499/FUL Full Planning Mr Neil 5 Oakdale Road Demolition of existing house and the Delegated Refuse Permission 27/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission Shaughnessy London SW16 2HW erection of a three storey building to De cision provide 8 self contained flats, with the provision of off street parking, cycle store and an enclosure for refuse and recycling to the rear garden.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) whether or not the proposed development would respect the character of the adjoining buildings, 2) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 4 Oakdale Road in relation to possible overlooking, 3) the appropriateness of the parking provision in relation to its scale and its effect on the occupants of the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring dwellings, and 4) the effect of the proposed development on the supply of relatively low cost accommodation in the area. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘the relationship between the two storey and single storey elements of this extension would mean that the central section of the building would have no rear facing windows. This would give the building a contrived and incongruous appearance reflecting an emp hasis on maximising the amount of development on the site at the expense of the character of the area’ and would fail to respect the character of the neighbouring development, contrary to UDP Policy 33. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘the first floor window of the living/dining room of Flat 6 would face directly towards the garden of 4 Oakdale Road at a distance of about 5-6m. I accept that some overlooking from windows of upper floors of adjacent properties is to be expected in urban areas, but this is normally looking away from the building towards the end of the garden. In this instance the sense of being overlooked would be significantly greater as the view would be across the garden and the rear of the building. This loss in privacy would in my view be harmful and also contrary to Policy 33 of the UDP’. On the 3 rd issue the Inspector noted that the development would provide 8 parking spaces. However he added ‘this provision, together wit the necessary arrangements for cycle and bin storage would occupy much of the undeveloped area of the site adding to the impression that the development would be unduly cramped’. On the 4 th issue the Inspector noted that the 8 one bedroom flats proposed would not fall within the definition of affordable housing’, and would therefore not comply with UDP Policy 15. The Inspector concluded by adding ‘because of the harm I have found in the first three of the main issues…I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION: 09/02539/FUL Full Planning Mr Asif Ansari Plot 85 Brixton Hill Erection of 6 storey building including Committee Refuse Permission 30/09/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission London basement level to provide 9 self Decision contained residential units.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing building and the Rush Common Conservation Area, and 2) whether the accommodation provided by the development would be adequate. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘the proposed development would be on 6 floors and thus three floors would be created within the height of the ground and first floors of the existing building. This inevitably means that the new flats would not fully respect the symmetry of the fenestration of the existing building’. He added ‘apart from the obvious discontinuity in the level of windows, those proposed would have slimmer more vertical proportions than those in the original terrace. Their detailed form is not clear from the plans but from their proportions it is appears that they would not be sash windows and would therefore be inconsistent with the rest of the terrace’. He concluded that this would be contrary to UDP Policies 33 and 47. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted that ‘for the most part the proposed development would comply with the standards set out in the SPD. However flat 9 on the fourth floor would fall significantly short of this standard both in total floorspace and in the size of the living/dining/kitchen area. In Flat 5, while the individual rooms would be of an adequate sixe, the total area would fall slightly short of the minimum‘. He added ‘the development would provided just 66sq m of amenity space. This is rather less than half the provision required to comply with the SPD. All of the flats on the three lowest floors would have some private space but those on the top floors would not have any’. On this issue the Inspector concluded that ‘the development would be rather too intensive as it would fail to provide acceptable living space and private amenity space for all of its occupants’, contrary to UDP Policy 33, the Inspector then went on to dismiss the appeal.
Allowed Dismissed Planning 6 12 Page 200 Enforcement 0 0 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/10/2010AND 30/10/2010
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION:
09/04326/FUL Full Planning Mr M.U. Siddiqui 49 Mount Ephraim Conversion of existing dwelling to Delegated Refuse Permission 07/10/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission Road London SW16 provide two self contained units on Decision 1LP ground floor with the installation of two new windows to the side elevation.
The Inspector considered the main issue to be 1) whether the proposal would be detrimental to the area’s housing needs, and 2) whether the living conditions of future occupiers would be harmed by reason of the layout and size of the proposed accommodation. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘the proposal would result in the loss of a unit of family accommodation’ contrary to UDP Policy 17. He added ‘I have taken note that the appellant has had difficulty for some time in letting the flat to a family. In this connection he argues that it is because the accommodation is too large, the garden is communal, heating costs and council tax are high and there are no state schools nearby to make it attractive for families. Given the lack of interest over a considerable period of time in renting this accommodation I consider that there is justification for these reasons for making an exception to the policy requirement in this case’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘the kitchen of the proposed front flat would be slightly deficient in terms of the minimum floor area required under the council’s SPD requirements, to which I have given significant weight. Neither of the proposed flats would make provision for dining space, neither as separate rooms or in a combination with the kitchen or living rooms, which would also be contrary to the SPD minimum requirements’. He concluded with ‘although I have concluded that the proposal would not harm the housing needs of the area, I have found that it would harm the living conditions of future occupiers’ and dismissed the appeal.
10/01032/FUL Full Planning Mr Justin Garrett 39 Herne Hill Road Conversion of existing single dwelling Delegated Refuse Permission 07/10/2010 Appeal Allowed Page 201 Permission London SE24 0AX house to provide 3 self contained flats, Decision involving the erection of a single storey ground floor rear extension and the excavation at basement level. Provision of refuse and cycling facilities situated towards the front elevation
The Inspector considered that the main issue to be the effect of the proposed single storey rear extension on the character and appearance of the host building. The Inspector noted ‘bearing in mind that the proposed single storey rear extension would replace a lean-to conservatory on the side of the existing rear projection and a lean-to toilet and shower I consider the increased floor space would not be excessive. In my opinion, the modest sized extension would not be out of proportion with the scale of the building as a whole or specifically with the rear ground floor accommodation’. He added ‘I conclude that the character and appearance of the building would not be harmed and that the appeal should be allowed’.
10/00846/FUL Full Plannin g Mr John Dueuchars 159 Rosendale Road Application for removal of condition 1 Delegated Refuse Permission 13/10/2010 Appeal Allowed Permission London SE21 8HE (Within one month of the date of this Decision decision the rooflights hereby permitted located to the side elevation of 159 Rosendale Road shall be obscure- glazed and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be o pened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room they service)
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether the appeal condition is necessary to prevent any unacceptable overlooking ot perception of overlooking which would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers on no’s 96-102 Thurlow Park Road. The Inspector noted ‘from the rooflights it is possible to look down into the rear gardens and rear facing windows in the lower floors of no’s 96-102 Thurlow Park Road. However, because of the slope of the ceiling within the room, the sill height of the openings and the narrowness of their glazed areas, it is necessary to make a specific effort to obtain clear views of these areas from the rooflight. The rear gardens of no’s 96-102 are about 20m long and, at this distance, it is not easy to see clearly into the closest rear facing windows in these properties’. He added ‘In these circumstances I conclude that the appeal condition is not necessary to prevent any unacceptable overlooking or perception of overlooking which would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers on no’s 96-102 Thurlow Park Road. It is therefore not necessary to impose the appeal condition to secure compliance with UDP Policy 36’ and went on to allow the appeal to remove this condition.
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION: 10/01769/FUL Full Planning Mr A Lechi 3 Copley Par k Retrospective planning application for Delegated Refuse Permission 13/10/2010 Appeal Allowed Permission London SW16 3DE the retention of a rear dormer extension. Decision
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether the appeal development harms the character or appearance of the Streatham Lodge Estate Conservation Area. The Inspector noted ‘views of the appeal works are largely masked by surrounding roof. From publicly accessible areas they are visible only from a location outside the Conservation Area around the junction of Copley Park and Streatham Common South. Even from this location, only a small part of the brick side wall and upstand can be seen. Above the transverse ridge of the adjacent house the works are barely noticeable’. He concluded by adding ‘In these circumstances I conclude that the appeal development causes no harm to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. It therefore complies with Policies 36 and 47 of the UDP’, and allowed the appeal.
09/03167/FUL Full Planning Mr Patrick O'Farrell 11 Wavertree Road Conversion of property to provide a Delegated Refuse Permission 20/10/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission London SW2 3SJ single dwelling house. Decision
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the availability of low cost housing. The Inspector noted ‘Policy 15 of the Lambeth UDP resists the net loss of affordable housing units (including premises in lawful use as purpose built hostels and properties in multiple paying occupancy) to non affordable housing use. This policy has been adopted in response to the substantial need for affordable housing in the borough and the part that housing in multiple occupation can play in meeting this need. The proposed development would clearly run counter to these claims’. He added ‘PPS1 Planning for Sustainable Development indicates that decisions on planning application should be taken in line with relevant development plan policies unless material planning consideration suggest otherwise. In this instance the owner of the property has referred to the difficulties of managing the property and the desire to move into it. It is also clear that some improvements to the facilities of the building are necessary. However the priority attached by the council to the retention of affordable housing is very clear in terms of Policy 15 and the reasons given for the proposed change of use are not, in my view, sufficient to justify a departure from the policy’, and went on to dismiss the appeal. 09/03605/FUL Full Planning Mr Yasir Mahmood 311 Railton Road Partial change of use of ground floor unit Delegated Refuse Permission 22/10/2010 Appeal Dismissed
Permission London SE24 0JN to provide a mini cab office (Sui Generis). Decision Page 202
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of a cab office on highway safety and the living conditions of local residents with regard to noise and disturbance. The Inspector noted ‘It seems inevitable to me that the cab office would bring more traffic to Railton Road, where recent changes have sought to reduce it and give more priority to pedestrians. There would be additional pressure on the limited number of parking spaces and associated double parking and illegal parking with overall an unacceptably adverse effect on highway safety’ contrary to UDP Policies 9 and 14. The Inspector added ‘the mix of uses in the Railton Road area means that there will already be some noise and disturbance generated by associated activity on the streets in the evening. However, this does not mean that the situation should be made any worse, which I believe would be the result of bringing a cab office into the area. I conclude that a cab office, on the terms proposed would have a unacceptable effect on the living conditions of local residents with regard to noise and disturbance’, and went on to dismiss the appeal.
10/01770/FUL Full Planning Dr A Lechi 3 Copley Park Retrospective planning application for Delegated Refuse Permission 22/10/2010 Appeal Allowed Permi ssion London SW16 3DE the retention of a single storey ground Decision floor rear extension.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the Streatham Lodge Conservation Area, and 2) it’s effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 5 Copley Park, in relation to outlook and privacy. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘unlike other extensions in Copley Park, the appeal extension cannot be seen from within the public realm. Its impact when viewed from the rear of No 5 bears on the second main issue, rather than on character and appearance. From other Copley Park rear gardens, and from properties to the rear largely masked by mature trees and other vegetation, I estimate that it is barely visible’. On the 2 nd issue The Inspector noted ‘I saw that it has a significant effect on the outlook from No 5’s small rear dining room next to the extension, and that it is prominent when viewed from the rear garden close to the dwelling. However the dining room outlook is also affect by vegetation in No 5’s garden, which is more generously proportioned than at many terraced properties. No 5 also has a substantially larger rear facing habitable room, with more extensive glazing, on the further side of the property which projects some 0.7m from the main rear wall. The extension has no material impact on the outlook from that room. I conclude that it is not unduly overbearing in the overall outlook at No 5’, and went on to dismiss the appeal.
10/00466/FUL Full Planning Mr. A. Khan 24-28 Brixton Water Erection of a mansard roof extension to Delegated Refuse Permission 29/10/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission Lane London SW2 provide 2 new self contained flats in Decision 1PE addition to the existing self-contained flats below.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) the effect of the extension on the appearance of the appeal building and its surroundings and 2) the adequacy of the accommodation proposed, having particular regard to relevant planning guidance. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘the mansard roofs proposed would extend along only part of the terrace fronting Brixton Water Lane. They would introduce an imbalance in the appearance of the terrace and reduce the significance of the corner building at 1 Tulse Hill. In terms of detailed design, the mansards roofs would reflect little of the intricacy of the terrace’s main elevation’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘the council’s planning guidance includes space standards for new dwellings. I am unable to resolve any miscalculation or differences between the parties in interpreting the relevant standards but I am inclined to the Appellant’s view that, even if the floor areas in t his case fall short of the council’s guidance, the dwellings proposed would provide acceptable living accommodation’. He added ‘my conclusion on this main issue does not outweigh the objections I have identified in relation to the first main issue’ and went on to dismiss the appeal.
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION:
09/03746/FUL Full Planning Mr R Jackson Rear Of 27 Sunnyhill Demolition of existing single storey Delegated Refuse Permission 21/10/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission Road London building and change of use with the Decision erection of 2 x 2 storey residential dwellings including the provision of refuse store, amenity space, hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance o f the site and its surroundings, 2) whether the proposal would harm the living conditions of existing and future occupiers by reason of the standard of the accommodation, effect on outlook, the provision of private amenity space, effect on privacy through overlooking and the effect of noise and disturbance, and 3) whether the proposal would comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes. On the first issue the Inspector noted ‘it seems to me that the intention to create two units of residential accommodation on what is a small, backland site at the rear of a terraced dwelling would result in a cramped and over intensive form of development which would be uncharacteristic of its immediate surroundings. Although there are evidently other outbuildings at the rear of houses in the vicinity I have seen no evidence that there is residential development of a similar nature to that proposed which has taken place in these other backland situations. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would significantly and detrimen tally alter the character of the site and its surroundings by introducing an unacceptably intensive for of development which would have no precedent locally’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘the living/dining/kitchen rooms and bedrooms in each unit would have shortfalls in their floor areas against the minimum standards set out in the SPD. Furthermore, the overall size of the accommodation in each unit would be below the minimum expected. Accordingly, I concur with the council’s view that the proposal would result in cramped and substandard accommodation’. He added ‘the roof lights in the rear slope of the roof at first floor level in each unit would restrict the outlook from the bedrooms for future occupiers because of their height. The appellant has indicated that this could be addressed by raising the windows or inserting an additional row of roof lights to allow future occupiers views from a lying and/or standing position. However, I must deal with the proposal before me, and in my opinion the outlook from the bedrooms in each of the units would be poor’. With regard to private amenity space the Inspector noted ‘the proposed amenity areas would be substantially below the recommended minimum 30 sq m for new houses in the SPD. However, bearing in mind that the proposed units are small in comparison to an average sized house and would be occupied by a maximum of two people in each, I am satisfied that the area of private amenity space to be provided would be acceptable, appropriately laid out and screened’. With regard to overlooking and any consequent loss of privacy the Inspector noted ‘I have noted the concern raised by the occupier of 21 Pinfold Road that views into and out of the roof lights would result in a loss of Page 203 privacy both for himself and future occupiers of the proposed units…accordingly, I conclude that there would be overlooking and loss of privacy for the occupiers of the proposed units and the occupiers of the adjoining property whose garden will be overlooked’. With regard to noise and disturbance the Inspector noted ‘I do not share the councils concern that the increased comings and goings associated with the proposed units would result in a loss of privacy or an increase in noise and disturbance…In my opinion, the increased use of the passageway by which access would be gained to the proposed units would have only a limited effect on the occupiers living conditions because of the small number of openings serving habitable rooms that would be affected and the relatively few additional movements that would be generated’. He concluded on this issue by adding that ‘there would be no harm to the living conditions of no. 27 Sunnyhill Road and that the private amenity spaces to be provided would be an acceptable size and layout, I have concluded that the living conditions of the future occupiers of the proposed units would be harmed by reason of the poor standard of accommodation, poor outlook from the bedrooms and overlooking resulting in loss of privacy in the bedrooms and that there would be a loss of privacy for the occupiers of no 21 Pinfold Road’ contrary to UDP Policies 33 and 36. On the 3 rd issue the Inspector noted ‘even though the application did not contain the relevant information needed to allow the council to make an informed judgement about its conformity with the Code for Sustainable Homes, the appellant has provided information relating to this matter as part of his appeal submission. Furthermore, I note that if the appeal was to be allowed the council has suggested a condition be imposed to require submission of details in regard to compliance with the Code for approval prior to the development being carried out. I am satisfied, therefore that the council would have control to ensure that the proposal complied with the Code and that accordingly there would be no breach with UDP Policy 35’. In his conclusion the Inspector noted ‘although I have concluded that the proposal could be made compliant with the Code for Sustainable Homes I have concluded nevertheless that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings and that the living conditions of existing and future occupiers would be harmed’ and dismissed the appeal. Costs - Costs – an application for an award of costs against the council was made. The Inspector noted ‘costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process’. The Inspector noted ‘I am satisfied that the appellant was provided with the council’s views at an early stage, albeit at officer level and without prejudice to the outcome of any application that may have been submitted. It was then for the appellant to decide in the light of this pre -application advice, relevant development plan policies and other supporting supplementary planning guidance and the history of past decisions, together with his agent’s professional advise, whether or not to submit an application for the council’s former consideration. I con clude that the council did not act unreasonably and that the appellant was not put to unnecessary expense as a result’. The Inspector went on to refuse an application for costs against the council.
DC REF: APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL: DECISION TYPE OFFICER DATE COUNCIL APPEAL DETAILS: RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION DECISION: 09/03127/FUL Full Planning Mr Philip Green Plot Bounded By Redevelopment of land to provide Committee Grant Permission 25/10/2010 Appeal Dismissed Permission Railway Line And residential accommodation with the Decision Oppo site 251 To 275 erection of a part three/part four storey Milkwood Road development to provide 55 self London contained residential units.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) whether the proposed development would appear as an overdevelopment of the site due to the scale, mass and bulk of the scheme, as well as the characteristics of the locality and 2) whether the proposed accommodation would be substandard in terms of size of the units and 3) whether the submitted noise level survey recommendations would provide adequate protection for future residents of the new development from noise emanating from the adjacent railway line and train services. On the 1 st issue the Inspector noted ‘to my mind, as the development would have such an extensive and almost continuous built form in the street scene, it would appear out of place, as well as being dominant and oppressive’. The Inspector added ‘I am not convinced from the representations that a development that includes a flat roof form of construction would be in keeping or compatible with other development in the immediate locality... it seems to me that in terms of design, scale mass and bulk, the proposed scheme would not be compatible with the street sce ne and appear incongruous and overbearing in character. Because of these matters, the scheme would be likely to appear as an overdevelopment of the site’. On the 2 nd issue the Inspector noted ‘that 13 of the flats have a shortfall in terms of overall floor area and would not meet the standards set out in the council’s SPD. In terms of combined kitchen/dining/living areas a further 7 flats again fall short of the necessary standards’. The Inspector added ‘I am not satisfied that the proposed scheme would reach the necessary standards for living accommodation set out in the Council’s SPD’. On the 3 rd issue the inspector noted ‘the appellants have offered to up-grade the mitigation measures and meet the council’s standards, as well as those advised in Planning Policy Guidance 24. In such circumstances, I have concluded that adequate conditions could be imposed to mitigate such noise intrusion’. The Inspector went on to dismiss the appeal due to the harm found in the first 2 main issues.
Page 204 Allowed Dismissed Planning 4 6 Enforcement 0 1 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/09/2010 AND 30/09/2010
ENF Ref: ADDRESS: Breach of Planning Control Notice Type Decision Date Appeal Decision
There were no Enforcement Notice appeals decided within this period Page 205 Agenda Item9 Page 206
This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/10 /2010 AND 30/10/2010
ENF Ref: ADDRESS: Breach of Planning Control Notice Type Decision Date Appeal Decision
07/00451/3DEV 107 Wavertree Road Without planning permission, the material change of use of the premises from Enforcement Notice 27/10/10 Enforcement Notice Upheld a dwellinghouse into 2 self-contained flats, one at ground floor level and the other at 1 st and 2 nd floor level
This appeal related to an enforcement appeal under Ground A (That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice) and Ground C (that there has not been a breach of planning control). On Ground A the Inspector noted ‘for whatever rea son, the appellant did not pay the necessary fee within the specified period, even though this was extended. As a result the Ground A appeal and the deemed application for planning permission have lapsed. I cannot therefore consider whether the matters which appear to constitute a breach of planning control are acceptable in planning terms and should be given permission to be retained’. On Ground C the Inspector noted ‘the appellant contends that the loft conversion is permitted development. However, the enforcement notice is not directed at any loft conversion, which is an operational development. Rather, it concerns a material change of use of the premises from a dwelling house into 2 self-contained flats. The appellant doe not argue that this is permitted development. Since the appellant does not claim that the matters stated in the enforcement notice do not constitute a breach of planning control, there is no valid appeal on Ground C to consider’, and dismissed the appeal and upheld the enforcement notice.
Page 207
Page 208
This page is intentionally left blank