Planning Applications Committee Items Deferred from 13 March 2012 Meeting

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE ITEMS DEFERRED FROM 13 MARCH 2012 MEETING

Date and Time: Tuesday 20 March 2012 7.00 pm

Venue : Council Chamber, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW

Contact for enquiries: Website: Nigel Harvey www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee Democratic Services Officer Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 3136 Lambeth Council – Democracy Live Fax: 020 7926 2361 on Facebook Email: [email protected] http://www.facebook.com/

Governance and Democracy @LBLdemocracy on Twitter Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy London, SW2 1RW To tweet about Council agendas, minutes or meetings use #Lambeth Despatched: Wednesday 14 March 2012

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Councillors BRATHWAITE, LING (Vice-Chair), MEMERY, MORRIS (Chair) and PALMER

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors AMINU, CLYNE, EDBROOKE, GIESS, J.WHELAN, MALLEY, PICKARD, PRENTICE and SMITH

AGENDA

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING

Page Nos. 1. Declarations of Interest

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.

2. 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4 -10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And 1 - 56 Holmes House, Holmes Terrace, London, SE1 (Bishop's Ward) (11/03237/FUL) (11/03239/CON) (11/03238/LB)

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 and the attached conditions.

3. 98 to 104 Baylis Road and 25 Murphy Street London SE1 7AT 57 - 72 (Bishop's Ward) (11/04041/FUL)

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 and the attached conditions.

4. 604 -610 Streatham High Road, London, SW16 (Streatham South 73 - 136 Ward) (11/02169/FUL)

Recommendation: Grant Conditional Permission subject to Section 106 Agreement.

5. The South Bank Centre, Belvedere Road, London, SE1 137 - 152 (Bishop's Ward) (11/04332/FUL)

Recommendation: Grant Conditional Permission.

6. 1A Brailsford Road, London SW2 (Tulse Hill Ward) 153 - 192 (11/03190/FUL)

Recommendation: Grant Conditional Permission.

7. 35 -51 Bedford Road, London, SW4 (Ferndale Ward) 193 - 246 (11/03988/FUL)

Recommendation: Grant Conditional Permission.

8. 32 St Faith's Road, London, SE21 (Thurlow Park Ward) 247 - 282 (11/03853/FUL)

Recommendation: Grant Permission Subject to Section 106 Agreement.

9. Addendum (20.03.12 283 - 306

PUBLIC INFORMATION QR CODES (for use with smart mobile phones)

Dates of future meetings, the agenda management timetable and details of past meetings can be found on the Council’s website, if you are viewing this online http://tinyurl.com/pacdates

Access Information: • 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. • If you are viewing this online, http://tinyurl.com/lambethtownhallmap

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.

Sound enhancement system available in meeting room. Please contact the officer shown on the front page of this agenda to discuss your needs. .

Adapted toilets on the premises.

Meeting papers are available in large print and other formats on request.

For further assistance please contact the officer listed on the front page Audio/Visual Recording of meetings

Everyone is welcome to record meetings of the Council and its Committees using whatever, non-disruptive, methods you think are suitable. If you have any questions about this please contact Democratic Services (members of the press please contact the Press Office). Please note that the Chair of the meeting has the discretion to halt any recording for a number of reasons including disruption caused by the filming or the nature of the business being conducted.

Anyone filming a meeting is asked to only focus on those actively participating but please also be aware that you may be filmed whilst attending a council meeting and that attendance at the meeting signifies your agreement to this.

Persons making recordings are requested not to put undue restrictions on

the material produced so that it can be reused and edited by all local people and organisations on a non-commercial basis.

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, email address 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 Lambeth libraries, and also on the internet from the day of publication in the following manner which you can access by logging onto www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee

• Log on to www.lambeth.gov.uk • Click on Council and Democracy in the menu on the left hand side • Then click on the third main item in the body of the page– Committee reports, minutes and agendas, and then Council meetings and decisions pages . Click on the relevant committee in the list and then the meeting you require.

If you are unable to locate the document 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 2131) 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).

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE (PAC)

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED

1 Who sits on the PAC?

The Council has established a Planning Applications Committees. Which consists of five Councillors (elected members).

2 Where and when do PAC meetings take place?

Meetings are usually held in Room 8 at Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW. They normally meet on a Tuesday evening .and are held 1 or 2 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 are 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 2 clear working days before the meeting.

The meetings are normally on a Tuesday, so the deadline would be 12 noon by the Thursday before the meeting.

6 Can I speak at PAC meetings?

Yes. Up to three supporters (including applicants), three objectors and Ward Members can address the meeting at the Committee’s discretion for a maximum of 3 minutes each.

You must register your wish to speak on any application by telephoning Democratic Services on 020 7926 2170 or emailing [email protected] by 12 noon on the last working day before the meeting

7 Does the PAC consider applications in the order listed on the agenda?

Not necessarily. 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.

(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 time does the meeting come to an end?

The meeting will be conducted in a business like fashion and the Committee will endeavour to deal with reports as quickly as possible.

However if there is a lot of outstanding business at 9.00 pm the Chair will advise the meeting if and how the timetable for the meeting has to be revised, in order to deal with remaining business and finish the meeting at 10.00 pm. At 10.00 pm the meeting will decide which business can be completed by 10.45 pm and any business not reached by that time will be deferred to the next meeting.

10 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.

11 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.

12 If I am unable to attend the PAC meeting, how can I find out the decision?

You can find out the decision by contacting Democratic Services the day after the meeting. The minutes from the meeting will also be available on the Council’s website 5 clear 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.

13 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) Democratic Services: Tel: 020 7926 2170, Email: [email protected]

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 1 Agenda Item 2

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Section 2 – Application Summary

Location 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4-10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes Terrace, London, SE1 Ward Bishops

Proposal Demolition and redevelopment of 152 and 158 Waterloo Application Road, 2 Pear Place and 2-10 Baylis Road; erection of a 7 storey building (plus basement level) to provide retail/restaurant (Use Class A1/A3) at ground floor level, offices (Use Class B1) on the upper floors, three self contained units (Use Class C3) on first, second and third floor levels. Change of use of 150 Waterloo Road to provide restaurant (Use Class A3) at ground floor level and 10 residential units on the upper floors. Installation of a new window and door on the side elevation at the ground floor level (Holmes Terrace).

Internal alterations to involve; removal and installation of partition walls and doors on all levels.

[Town Planning, Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent] Applicant Breanstar Ltd

Agent John Dyke: Savills Planning

Date valid 25 th October 2011 Case Officer Mr Kevin Tohill

Application 11/03237/FUL Reference

Recommendation(s) Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 and the attached conditions

Constraints Lower Marsh CAZ Frontage PSA Lower Marsh CAZ Frontage Boundary Conservation Area Environment Agency Flood Zone Listed Building Opportunity Area

Page 5

Advert Publication 9th November 2011 Date

Site Notice posted 18 th November 2011 on

Location 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4-10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes Terrace, London, SE1 Ward Bishops

Internal alterations to involve; removal and installation of partition walls and doors on all levels.

[Town Planning, Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent] Applicant Breanstar Ltd

Agent John Dyke: Savills Planning

Date valid 25 th October 2011

Case Officer Mr Kevin Tohill

Application 11/03239/CON Reference

Recommendat ion(s) Grant conservation area consent subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 and the attached conditions

Constraints Lower Marsh CAZ Frontage PSA Lower Marsh CAZ Frontage Boundary Conservation Area Environment Agency Flood Zone

Page 6

Listed Building Opportunity Area

Advert Publication 9th November 2011 Date

Site Notice posted 18 th November 2011 on

Location 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4-10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes Terrace, London, SE1 Ward Bishops

Internal alterations to involve; removal and installation of partition walls and doors on all levels.

[Town Planning, Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent] Applicant Breanstar Ltd

Agent John Dyke: Savills Planning

Date valid 25 th October 2011 Case Officer Mr Kevin Tohill

Application 11/03238/LB Reference

Page 7

Recommendation(s) Grant listed building consent subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 and the attached conditions

Constraints Lower Marsh CAZ Frontage PSA Lower Marsh CAZ Frontage Boundary Conservation Area Environment Agency Flood Zone Listed Building Opportunity Area

Advert Publication 9th November 2011 Date

Site Notice posted 18 th November 2011 on

Proposal Application

A: Demolition and redevelopment of 152 and 158 Waterloo Road, 2 Pear Place and 2-10 Baylis Road; erection of a 7 storey building (plus basement level) to provide retail/restaurant (Use Class A1/A3) at ground floor level, offices (Use Class B1) on the upper floors, three self contained units (Use Class C3) on first, second and third floor levels. Change of use of 150 Waterloo Road to provide restaurant (Use Class A3) at ground floor level and 10 residential units on the upper floors. installation of a new window and door on the side elevation (Holmes Terrace) on the ground floor level. Internal alterations to involve; removal and installation of partition walls and doors on all levels. [Town Planning]

B: Demolition and redevelopment of 152 and 158 Waterloo Road, 2 Pear Place and 2-10 Baylis Road; erection of a 7 storey building (plus basement level) to provide retail/restaurant (Use Class A1/A3) at ground floor level, offices (Use Class B1) on the upper floors, three self contained units (Use Class C3) on first, second and third floor levels. Change of use of 150 Waterloo Road to provide restaurant (Use Class A3) at ground floor level and 10 residential units on the upper floors. installation of a new window and door on the side elevation (Holmes Terrace) on the ground floor level. Internal alterations to involve; removal and installation of partition walls and doors on all levels. [Conservation Area Consent]

C: Demolition and redevelopment of 152 and 158 Waterloo Road, 2 Pear Place and 2-10 Baylis Road; erection of a 7 storey building (plus basement level) to provide retail/restaurant (Use Class A1/A3) at ground floor level, offices (Use Class B1) on the upper floors, three self contained units (Use Class C3) on first, second and third floor levels. Change of use of 150 Waterloo Road to provide restaurant (Use Class A3) at ground floor level and 10 residential units on the upper floors. installation of a new window and door

Page 8

on the side elevation (Holmes Terrace) on the ground floor level. Internal alterations to involve; removal and installation of partition walls and doors on all levels. [Listed Building] Application References

A: 11/03237/FUL B: 11/03239/CON C: 11/03238/LB

Recommendations:

Grant Conditional Planning Permission (11/03237/FUL), grant Conservation Area Consent (11/03239/CON) and grant Listed Building Consent (11/03238/LB).

Page 9

1.0 Main Issues

1.1 The main issues pertaining to this application are:

• The principle of demolition of the existing buildings and the visual impact of the replacement building on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, surrounding townscape, nearby listed buildings and any Archaeological Heritage of the site. • The impact of the proposal upon surrounding residential amenity in terms of visual intrusion, overbearing impact, a sense of enclosure, loss of light, privacy, noise and disturbance; • The acceptability of a residential use in this location; • The quality of the residential accommodation proposed; • The provision of affordable housing; • The impact of the development upon the highway network and conditions of highway safety; • The sustainability of the development; • Whether the development would increase opportunities for crime; • Whether adequate refuse storage facilities would be provided for the development; and • Infrastructure implications.

2.0 Application Site

2.1 The application site is situated on the corner of the south eastern side of Waterloo Road and northern side of Bayliss Road with a site area of 0.18ha. To the immediate north is Holmes Terrace and beyond a railway viaduct, to the rear of the site is Spur Road. The site contains a collection of buildings ranging in ages and appearance. There are two private access roads serving the site, Holmes Terrace and Pear Place.

2.2 The Old Fire Station (No.150 Waterloo Road) is Grade II listed and serves a restaurant/bar (use class A3/A4) on the ground floor with four floors of offices above (use class B1). To the rear of the Old Fire Station is a four storey office building known as Holmes House accessed from Holmes Terrace to also include a courtyard. At the junction of Waterloo Road and Baylis Road is a three storey building (158 Waterloo Road) serving a book shop on the ground floor (use class A1) and two floors of office accommodation above. Either side of this building; turning to the north is a single storey building in use as a betting shop (use class A2) and to its immediate rear is a 3 storey office building accessed from Pear Place that runs adjacent to the Old Fire Station building. To the west of No.158 are two, 2 storey terraced buildings (6-10 Bayliss Road) that comprise a retail shop (use class A1) and a restaurant (use class A3).

2.3 The submitted schedule of existing floor areas outlines that the site comprises the following use classes: 3309 sqm of B1 (office), 319 sqm

Page 10

of A1 (Shops), 176 sqm of A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and 628 sqm of A3 (Restaurant). All of the buildings are currently occupied as described.

Surrounding Area

2.4 A dense mix of building forms and land uses surround the site, typifying the variety of its central location.

2.5 To the north of the site lies the railway viaduct of Waterloo station and its rail sidings that provides a distinct physical barrier. Beyond this is the complex of Waterloo station.

2.6 Immediately to the rear of the site sits 14 Baylis Road, which is a prominent building of 2-3 storeys. This building provides accommodation for the Waterloo Community Development Group. Adjacent is No.12 Baylis that also shares a boundary with the application site, this building is 3 storey in height and serves a solicitors (use class A2).

2.7 Opposite the Old Fire Station building is a 4 storey commercial parade that includes 108-119 Waterloo Road and adjacent, to the south east is Emma Cons Garden, an area of open space.

2.8 Diagonally opposite to the corner building of No.158 Waterloo Road, across Waterloo Road is the Old Vic theatre that is Grade II* Listed. Further to the south west is Waterloo Millennium Green an area of open space.

2.9 The site lies within the core of the Waterloo (Lower Marsh) District Centre and Conservation Area. Lower Marsh is one of the oldest streets in Lambeth dating back to the early 18th century. The conservation area is characterised by 2-8 storey housing with ground floor shops. The dominant material is brickwork with some stone dressing around windows. Although the conservation area has few listed buildings, it has a strong intimate character emphasised by buildings on narrow plots with strong vertical emphasis. The fire station and the library on 14 Baylis Road (locally listed) are cited as having a positive contribution to the character of the Waterloo Road end of the conservation area.

2.10 The site is situated within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), the Waterloo District Centre Core Area, the Waterloo Visitor Management Area and is within the Waterloo Area SPD.

2.11 Waterloo Road is identified as a London Distributor Road.

Page 11

3.0 Planning History

3.1 Three applications including listed building and conservation area consent were submitted in 2010 for the refurbishment and alterations to Old Fire Station to include the retention of existing A3 (Restaurant) and A4 (Bar) and the demolition of unlisted buildings at 152 and 158 Waterloo Road, 2 Pear Place and 2-10 Baylis Road with the erection of new six storey buildings linked to the existing Old Fire Station building to provide an Hotel (Class C1) with ancillary conference facilities, two units for either class A1 (Shops) or A3 (Restaurant) and new Gymnasium (class D2) in new basement level along with associated works. These applications were refused planning permission for the following reason:

1: The proposal would result in the loss of existing occupied office floorspace. For these reasons the proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Policy 21 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy 3B.1 and 3B.2 of the London Plan.

3.2 This current application under your consideration is a revised redevelopment application which addresses this reason for refusal through the retention and extension of the existing office use, while providing additional housing and commercial uses.

4.0 Description of Proposal

4.1 Planning permission is being sought for the demolition of the existing building at 152 and 158 Waterloo Road, 2 Pear Place and 2 - 10 Baylis Road and the erection of a part four, part six, part seven storey plus basement building to provide retail/restaurant (Use Class A1/A3) at ground floor level, offices (Use Class B1) on the upper floors, three self contained units (Use Class C3) on first, second and third floor levels and 13 residential units on the upper floors including 5 affordable units (38.5%).

4.2 The demolition of the corner building, 152 and 158 Waterloo Road would be replaced by:

• Erection of a new building of basement, ground and five upper floors plus lift shaft accommodation for retail use at ground floor level and office on the upper floors.

• Erection of a new building of ground plus four upper floors on the site of 2 pear Place for five affordable residential units.

• Change of use and refurbishment of the upper floors of the Old Fire Station for eight private residential units.

Page 12

• All units would include private balconies or roof terraced space including 72sqm for the 3-bed unit.

4.3 Proposed external alterations to the Old Fire Station include:

• Infill of three later inserted windows at second and third floor level on the Pear Place elevation.

• Installation of a platform lift within the flank residential entrance.

• Enlargement of window at first floor level in the rear elevation to create an escape door.

• Existing doorway in-filled behind doors at third and forth floor level in the rear elevation.

4.4 It is proposed to include the residential in two parts, within the new block on Pear Place and the upper floors of the Old Fire Station. The new block on Pear Place would provide 5 x 1-bed affordable units. The upper floors of the Old Fire Station would be renovated to provide 3 x 1-bed, 4 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed residential units all of which would be private ownership units.

4.5 The development would result in the following floor space: -

• 8 x 1-bed - total area ranging from 53sqm to 55sqm • 4 x 2-bed - total area ranging from 68sqm to 78sqm • 1 x 3-bed - total area 147sqm

4.6 The existing site provides a total of 1672sqm of B1 office floor space and the proposed redevelopment would now provide 3099sqm, an increase of 1427sqm of office floor space.

4.7 A new retail unit of 361sqm will be provided on the corner of Waterloo Road and Baylis Road. The current ground floor shop provides 319sqm therefore increasing the retail floor space by 42sqm. The Old Fire station would remain restaurant/public house at ground floor level and the betting shop would be removed permanently.

4.8 Refuse and recycling storage would remain in the existing commercial arrangement.

4.9 Submitted information indicates that the scheme has been designed to comply with the principles of Secured by Design (following comments from Secured by Design Officer) and that all residential units would comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes, which is indicated to be level 3 and very good on the commercial element.

Page 13

5.0 Consultations

5.1 Four site notices were displayed in the vicinity of the site on the 18 th November 2011 and an advertisement was published in local press (The Weekender) on the 9th November 2011.

5.2 A total 186 letters of consultation were sent out to occupiers in the surrounding area and other interested parties identified from the previous application on the 9 th November 2011.

5.3 To date we have received 2 objections raising the following issues:

Objections: Council’s Response:

Height, Scale and Design

Where the height of the building The elevations facing on to previously sought (10/02253/FUL) Lower Marsh while substantial in was broadly acceptable, the scale and appearance are not current proposals are taller (albeit uncharacteristic of Lower Marsh, the same number of storeys) and on the corner the proposal of a higher density, particularly would step up and down from with regards to the part of the the adjoining buildings at an development proposed for Pear appropriate level, rising to the Place and the Baylis Road corner which is not uncommon frontage. The proposed building for sites within the CAZ. There on Baylis and Waterloo Roads are a significant number of very completely dwarfs the adjacent 12 large blank flank walls in the Baylis Road. The main building is road and while this may not be a full three storeys (plus plant an ideal solution, these enclosure) taller than numbers 12 elevations must be taken in and 14 Baylis Road and therefore regard of their context as they appears out of keeping with the are generally screened by the existing building height on this part buildings on the corner and the of Baylis Road. In addition to the curve of this end of Lower proposed height, the development Marsh. The Councils is excessive in its bulk and mass Conservation and Design in relation to the properties on officers consider that from street Baylis and Spur Road, leading to level the above mentioned an imposing scheme which wraps elevations would not be highly around existing properties and visible and as such are not does not respect their scale. considered to detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area. Impact on the Conservation Area The Councils Conservation and Whilst it is accepted that the Design Officer considered that

Page 14

buildings being replaced are of the scheme is of a sound poor quality, the design of the contemporary design and a Proposed development does not, suitable solution to such a site in itself, contribute to the unique within a conservation area in the attributes of the conservation area. CAZ, respecting the heritage Furthermore, it is disappointing assets surrounding the site and that little regard has been made to the conservation area as a the remaining buildings in the area whole. In relation to the appeal in terms of design cues taken from on the adjoining property the building lines, materials or any decision related to the impact of other details. The summary of pre- the building on the conservation application discussions, set out in area should the alterations be the Design and Access Statement, built, not on any roof within the notes that officers previously had Lower Marsh conservation area concerns regarding the scale of which includes widely varied the new building against the listed roof forms. Therefore this does building and the conservation not apply to the proposed area. Whilst the Design and development. Access Statement comments that the design has evolved to take this into account, there is little evidence either within the Design and Access Statement, or from a review of the elevations, that there are any contextual references in this building design. The building lines and floor levels are independent from each other, the design and materials are different, and the roofscape takes on the same monotonous form as the buildings it replaces, rather than continuing the varied nature of the more interesting traditional buildings that remain and which are seen to give character to the conservation area.

In 2006 Steel & Shamash had an appeal dismissed for a loft conversion and dormer window extension at 12 Baylis Road. In this instance, the Inspector placed a strong emphasis on the traditional roofscape in this location and on the visibility of the proposed dormer windows in views into the conservation area. Due to its visibility and the impact on the roofscape, it was

Page 15

considered that the proposal would “fail to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and would be contrary to the aims of Policy 42” (Appeal Ref APP/N5660/A/06/2009744, ST Wood, Paragraph 6). Given the strong stance taken on this minor application, it would be inconsistent to take a more lenient approach to a monolithic proposal (the combination of the Waterloo/Baylis Road building and Pear Place flats) which neither preserves nor enhances the roofscape. Impact on Office Accommodation The building at No 12 and 14 Concerns have been raised about Baylis Road are commercial and the relationship between the rear community use in nature, while of 12 Baylis Road and the new the proposal would reduce light proposal, particularly where the received limited weight can be four upper most storeys of the given to the impact on light to a residential flats at Pear Place will non-residential building. While create a vast flank wall facing onto this is the case the applicant has the rear of the offices at No 12 amended the scheme to include (see Section 07 of the submitted glazed bricks on this flank Design and Access Statement). elevation up to third storey level. The flat roof of No 12 which would This solution can be found in front the Pear Place flank wall lower Marsh and was favoured contains three roof lights to three by Victorian builders to reduce ground floor level offices. These the impact on loss of light. roof lights are the only source of Officers consider that as the natural light to two of the offices. affected buildings are non- With the proposed flank wall for residential the steps taken are Pear Place and the even taller satisfactory in this case. flank wall on the eastern elevation, these offices will have restricted daylight and sunlight due to overshadowing. Further to the aforementioned Appeal, Steel and Shamash secured planning permission in April 2011 for a loft conversion involving the erection of two dormer windows and four rooflights in the roof of 12 Baylis Road (Application Ref:

Page 16

11/00299/FUL) which maintains the roofscape. We have been informed by our client that structural works have been undertaken historically to enable such a development and that works are intended to commence in early 2012 to implement the attached planning permission (which has no pre-commencement conditions). The two lead clad dormer windows approved on the north east elevation of No 12 would directly face a proposed flank wall with glazed units directly above the dormer windows. Whilst the applicants may not have taken account of this planning permission, the glazing as part of the development proposal in particular, is likely to create a future conflict in terms of overlooking. Although it is understood that a lesser weight is given to the overlooking of commercial properties than residential, it should also be considered that the overlooking concerns are two way, and that the quality of the proposed offices will suffer if they are overlooked so closely by other offices. It should be noted that our client has also sought pre-application advice this year from the London Borough of Lambeth in respect of a potential rear extension to 12 Baylis Road. Richard McFerran advised on the 5 June 2011 that a rear extension ending one full storey below eaves level would be acceptable on the part of this site which is currently a flat roof. This would allow a 1 st 5 and 2nd mezzanine level to be developed which would enable Steel and Shamash to extend their offices in the future. Therefore, any future extension would look directly into a tiny lightwell, should the development at Pear Place be

Page 17

permitted. We consider that measures need to be taken so that any future extension of 12 Baylis Road (as an existing office building) would not be compromised to such an extent.

As described earlier, the proposal wraps around the existing buildings on two sides and is considered to be overbearing by virtue of its height, mass and bulk. The overall increase in building heights is likely to create a sense of enclosure around 12 Baylis Road. At present, the only building to the rear of 12 Baylis Road is the three storey No. 2 Pear Place, whilst the building immediately adjacent is the two storey No. 10 Baylis Road. These buildings are to be demolished and replaced with six storey buildings (albeit of varying heights). Increasing the height of the surrounding buildings would reduce the amount of natural light that the offices enjoy, and will create a sense of enclosure by limiting the outlook from the offices. Effectively the existing rear elevation of 12 Baylis Road will be located in a light well enclosed on two sides by six storey development.

Noise and Vibration

It is expected that any new plant or Conditions would be attached to equipment should demonstrate limit the levels of noise of the that it can meet the Council's noise plant equipment. standards, and that the details described in the acoustic statement should be conditioned for approval. For a development which will involve piling in such close proximity to commercial premises we would expect an assessment of construction noise and vibration to be carried out.

Page 18

Conditions should ensure that construction noise is carefully controlled and that the neighbouring occupiers are kept informed of works at all times. Long periods of noisy works in close proximity to adjoining premises will severely limit their ability to operate their business.

Construction Impacts

One of the major concerns of our All development creates noise client in relation to this proposal is and disturbance and the the impact of construction works. monitoring and restriction of Whilst it is accepted that the such noise is covered by developer has a right to redevelop environmental health and the the site and that some disruption is Councils Highways departments going to be inevitable and and legislation. unavoidable, the amenity of the occupiers of surrounding buildings must be given serious consideration. Disruption must be minimised in order to protect local business and the directly neighbouring properties must be given assurances over the structural impact of development.

5.4 The following local amenity groups were consulted on the proposed scheme:

Association of Waterloo Groups Kennington Oval & Vauxhall Forum Lambeth Estates Residents Association South Bank Employers Group Waterloo Community Development Group Waterloo Quarter Business Area Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association

To date we have received one objection from the Waterloo Community Development Group raising the following concerns:

Page 19

Objections: Council’s Response:

Bulk, height, massing

The way in which the proposed The flank elevations facing on to building faces Lower Marsh and Lower Marsh while substantial in the south west is unacceptable. A scale and appearance are not series of bulky over-high blank uncharacteristic of Lower Marsh. facades are proposed to glower There are a significant number over the Waterloo Action Centre. of very large blank flank walls in This is entirely inappropriate in the road and while this may not any context, let alone a be an ideal solution, these Conservation Area. The damage elevations must take regarding is shown most clearly on the in context as they are generally drawing entitled Proposed South screened by the buildings on the West elevation, which shows one corner and the curve of this end blank wall standing more than of Lower Marsh. Councils twice the height of the Waterloo Conservation and Design Action Centre frontage. The only officers consider that from street articulation in the majority of this level the above mentioned highly visible wall is the narrow elevations would not be highly windows of a stairwell. The North- visible and as such are not east elevation reveals an considered to detract from the unsatisfactory relationship character and appearance of the between the listed Fire Station conservation area. building and the proposed office block, which is 50% taller than the listed building and dominates it, thereby not preserving or enhancing it, as required by planning policy. Again, the view from Millennium Green shows that the proposed building will entirely dominate the frontage of 12 and 14 Baylis Rd, the sole survivors of the original shopping street in this location. In short the proposals are too high at points such that views from certain key spaces do not respect sufficiently the historical fabric, the conservation area or the listed building.

Impact on Heritage

While a substantial corner building Conservation and Design is welcome as a gateway to Lower Officers consider the Marsh and to help better define relationship with the Old Vic,

Page 20

Emma Cons Gardens, the across a large and busy junction relationship with the Old Vic is would not have an adverse unconvincing, particularly given impact on the heritage of the their symmetrical relationship to Old Vic as the distance and their two adjacent open spaces. locations of both sites would not allow both buildings to be full appreciated together. Amenity and impact on neighbours

The proposal is to build right up to The building at No 12 and 14 the curtilage of the site on the Baylis Road are commercial and south-west side - hence the blank community use in nature, while walls. This creates an unpleasant the proposal would reduce light wall of development which will received limited weight can be loom over the public spaces in the given to the impact on light to a Waterloo Action Centre, as well non-residential building. While reduce the daylight and sunlight to this is the case the applicant has both 14 and 12 Baylis Rd. The amended the scheme to include building connecting the office glazed bricks on this flank block to the Fire Station on Pear elevation up to third storey level. Place is particularly problematic in This solution can be found in this context, and compares lower Marsh and was favoured unfavourably with the light glass by Victorian builders to reduce structure proposed in the 2010 the impact on loss of light. application for this part of the site. Officers consider that as the affected buildings are non- residential the steps taken are satisfactory in this case. Access for WAC blocked

Waterloo Action Centre has an The applicant has confirmed entrance onto Pear Place which is that this emergency access will seldom used but is retained as an be retained. emergency access, and is the only means of accessing the external courtyard which sits between WAC and the rear of Holmes House. Although the text states that the emergency access will be retained, the drawings seem to show WAC’s access being walled up by the proposed connecting building. Even if the access were provided, the access to the courtyard would still be lost.

Page 21

Servicing

While vehicle servicing was The Councils Transport Officer previously proposed to go through considers the proposed Holmes Place, this is not possible servicing arrangement now that Holmes House has been acceptable subject to condition removed from the scheme. The regarding a management plan applicant proposes simply being approved. retaining the current waste management and servicing arrangements, directly from Waterloo Road. This is unacceptable. The amount of development on the site is doubling, and given its current underuse we would anticipate the amount of servicing required to be triple that currently. Waterloo Rd is a very busy road in terms of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and both the pavements and carriageway are frequently congested. On the other side of Waterloo Rd Sainsbury’s already cause considerable problems to all forms of traffic when they service the shop from the main road between midnight and 7am. Such servicing will be entirely in conflict with the new residents created by the development. The most obvious alternative is to use Pear Place, but this is being kept free of traffic as a ground floor gated space for residents. (This would not be the case were there no residential uses proposed.) Given the large increase in development on the site the commensurately large financial uplift currently being generated should be used to create a more acceptable servicing arrangement.

Transformer on Baylis Road

The plans show a transformer Following discussions with proposed to sit on shopping adjoining occupiers and the

Page 22

frontage on Baylis Road. This was Conservation and Design to have gone into Holmes Place. Officers, the applicant has This is a wholly unacceptable and amended the transformer room wasteful use of a key shopping frontage to retain the frontage at the entrance to Lower appearance of the active Marsh. frontage on the rest of the ground floor level with the exception of a small area of louvers to top the of this area. Officers are satisfied that the amendment addresses this concern. Residential Block

Some of these issues arise out of London Plan policy 3.9 ‘Mixed the decision to include residential and Balanced Communities’, uses in the scheme, of which I am seeks mixed developments not entirely convinced. The site is including residential, commercial adjacent to Europe’s busiest and retail within central activity station, and is rapidly becoming a zones. The proposal fully very lively night-time area in complies with this policy and Waterloo, with some bars licensed while the affordable mix is not to stay open until 5am. This considered ideal, due to site suggests that a hotel would be constraints and in light of the more fitting. Although the positive aspects of the overall inclusion of affordable units in the scheme is considered application is very welcome, it is acceptable in this case. disappointing that they are all one bed apartments, and we’re yet to be satisfied that they will be genuinely affordable.

5.5 The following Council departments and statutory bodies were also consulted on the proposed scheme and their responses are summarised as follows:

Housing - No objection Parks and Open Space - No objection Crime Prevention - No objection subject to condition Conservation and Design - No objection subject to condition Transport - No objection Planning Policy - No objection Strategy and Regeneration - No objection Regeneration Partnership - No objection Waste Management - No objection Environment Agency - No objection Network Rail - No objection

Page 23

TfL - No objection English Heritage - No objection Thames Water - No objection

6.0 Planning Considerations

6.1 Relevant Policies ( including national guidance )

6.2 The following national guidance is considered relevant to the determination of this application:

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13: Transport PPG23: Planning and Pollution Control PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk

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.

6.3 Planning Policy Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development:

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. The advice also states that adequate provision should be made for employment users and for the provision of new housing developments, and that local authorities should operate on the basis that applications for development should be allowed having regard to the Development Plan and all material considerations, unless the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to the interests of acknowledged importance.

The policy statement underlines the fact that the planning system can deliver high quality, mixed use developments characterised by compactness, mixed-use and dwelling types, affordable housing, a range of employment uses, leisure and community facilities and a high standard of design. The emphasis is also on the use of planning conditions to control development and also to make the best use of brownfield sites.

Page 24

6.4 Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing:

Planning Policy Statement 3 underpins the delivery of the Government’s strategic housing policy objectives and the goal to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home, which they can afford in a community where they want to live.

6.5 Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic Environment:

Planning Policy Statement 5 sets out the value of the historic environment, and the contribution it makes to our cultural, social and economic life, is set out in the Government’s Statement on the Historic Environment for England 2010. Planning has a central role to play in conserving our heritage assets and utilising the historic environment in creating sustainable places. This PPS comprises policies that will enable the Government’s vision for the historic environment as set out in the 2010 Statement to be implemented through the planning system, where appropriate.

6.6 Planning Policy Guidance 13 - Transport:

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) stresses the reliance of the past on the private car. The guidance note encourages alternative means of travel which would have less environmental impact. It suggests the location of new housing in urban areas, and the optimum use of under-used sites and the promotion of new rail links and other improvements to public transport. One of the main objectives of this piece of Central Government thinking is to reduce the number of car movements and usage.

6.7 Planning Policy Statement 23 - Planning and Pollution Control

The policies in this statement and the advice in the accompanying Annexes (Annex 1: Pollution Control, Air and Water Quality and Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination) should be taken into account by Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in preparing Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) and Local Development Documents (LDDs).

6.8 They are also material to decisions on individual planning applications.

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), the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011), and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy

Page 25

January 2011’. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.

6.8 London Plan 2011

London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. 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.

The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital over the next 20-25 years. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

The London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. 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.

The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are:

- Policy 2.13 Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas - Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply - Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential - Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments - Policy 3.8 Housing Choice - Policy 3.9 Mixed and Balanced Communities - Policy 3.11 Affordable Housing Targets - Policy 4.1 Developing London’s Economy - Policy 4.2 Offices - Policy 4.3 Mixed Use Developments and Offices - Policy 4.7 Retail and Town Centre Development - Policy 4.9 Small Shops - Policy 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation - Policy 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction - Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy - Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management

Page 26

- Policy 5.18 Construction, Excavation and Demolition Waste - Policy 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity - Policy 6.9 Cycling - Policy 6.13 Parking - Policy 7.1 Building London’s Neighbourhoods and Communities - Policy 7.3 Designing Out Crime - Policy 7.4 Local Character - Policy 7.5 Public Realm - Policy 7.6 Architecture - Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology - Policy 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes - Policy 8.2 Planning Obligations

6.9 Lambeth LDF Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011)

The following policies within the Council’s Core Strategy are relevant to this application:

- Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives - Policy S2 Housing - Policy S3 Economic Development - Policy S4 Transport - Policy S5 Open Space - Policy S6 Flood Risk - Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction - Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management - Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment - Policy S10 Planning Obligations

6.10 London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’

The following policies within the Council’s UDP are relevant to this application:

- Policy 4 Town Centres & Community Regeneration - Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity - Policy 9 Transport Impact - Policy 15 Additional Housing - Policy 16 Affordable Housing - Policy 19 Active Frontage Use - Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout - Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime - Policy 33 Building Scale and Design. - Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction - Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas - Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design

Page 27

- Policy 45 Listed Buildings - Policy 46 List of Buildings of Local Architectural Merit - Policy 47 Conservation Areas

7.0 Land Use

7.1 The application site is located within the London Plan Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and the London Plan Waterloo Opportunity Area. It is also located within the primary shopping area of the Lower Marsh/The Cut London Plan CAZ frontage. The site is not located in a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA). (Please note that the former UDP designations ‘Waterloo Office Regeneration Area’ and ‘Waterloo Visitor Management Area’ have been superseded by the Core Strategy and no longer exist.)

7.2 The application relates to 150, 152 and 158 Waterloo Road, 2-10 Baylis Road and 2 Pear Place. Holmes House on Holmes Terrace is not included within the application site. 150 Waterloo Road is the listed Old Fire Station, currently in A3 use at ground floor level with B1 office above. 152 Waterloo Road is a one storey building in use as a betting shop (A2). 158 Waterloo Road is a three storey building with an A1 unit (bookshop) on the ground floor and two floors of office above. 2-10 Baylis Road are in A1, A3 and B1 use. 2 Pear Place is a three storey building to the rear of 152 Waterloo Road in B1 office use. It is understood that a large proportion of this office floor-space is currently occupied.

7.3 The proposed development involves refurbishment of the listed Old Fire Station and redevelopment of the remaining buildings to provide an increased quantity of office floorspace, one A1/A3 unit at ground floor level and 13 residential units of varying sizes, of which 5 (38.5%) would be affordable with no public subsidy.

7.4 Core Strategy Policy PN1 Waterloo sets out the vision for the regeneration of Waterloo in the context of the London Plan CAZ and Opportunity Area designations. It reflects the content of the draft Waterloo Area Supplementary Planning Document, currently out to consultation. The policy supports development in Waterloo for the full range of central London uses. In particular, section (a) supports sustainable development for jobs and homes in line with London Plan targets. Section (b) of the policy seeks to maximise the area’s potential for the full range of central London and town centre activities to enable it to compete effectively for beneficial inward investment with other parts of central London and elsewhere for the benefit of the local community and more widely for the borough including safeguarding and promoting the role of Lower Marsh/The Cut as a centre for local needs and specialist independent retailing. Section (h) seeks to enhance Waterloo as a sustainable residential neighbourhood fully supported by social and green infrastructure, alongside its commercial and cultural role.

Page 28

7.5 This policy for places and neighbourhoods should be read alongside relevant London Plan policies, the Core Strategy strategic policies (particularly S2 and S3) and the remaining saved detailed policies in the UDP which support them. The proposal involves an increase in office floorspace. Core Strategy Policy S3 (b) supports the location of major office developments (over 1,000 sqm) in the CAZ and Waterloo Opportunity Area. This policy is supported by saved UDP Policy 21 which provides more detail about the consideration of large scale office development. This states that if there is clear evidence of a surplus of supply in the office development pipeline, then evidence of demand for the proposal should be supplied. In this case, the existing offices are occupied and there is not considered to be a surplus of office floorspace in this location, so no evidence of demand for the proposal is required. Colleagues in the Regeneration Strategy and Policy team should advise on the implications of the uplift in office floorspace for public transport capacity and the resulting section 106 planning obligations that would be required.

7.6 London Plan Policy 4.3 ‘Mixed use development and offices’ is also relevant in this case. This states that, within the CAZ, wherever increases in office floorspace are proposed they should provide a mix of uses including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies in the plan. It is therefore appropriate, in principle, that this scheme includes housing alongside the increased quantity of office floorspace. The inclusion of housing would help to achieve the wider objectives for Waterloo and would contribute to meeting the London Plan housing target for the borough (Core Strategy Policy S2(a)), which is to be welcomed.

7.7 With regard to the housing element of the scheme, Core Strategy Policy S2 (c) seeks the provision of affordable housing on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes. At least 50 per cent of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is available, or 40 per cent without public subsidy, subject to housing priorities and, where relevant, to independently validated evidence of viability. The mix of affordable housing should be 70 per cent social rented and 30 per cent intermediate. 13 units are proposed in this case, and 5 of them are proposed as affordable housing with no public subsidy. This equates to 38.5% which, given the constraints of the site, is considered to be close enough to 40% of the units to meet the policy requirement. No affordable housing viability assessment is considered necessary in this case. With regard to the size of the affordable units, it has been acknowledged in pre-application discussions with the applicant that the site is very constrained and that, while the mix of units is not ideal in order to provide a separate affordable core, it is only possible to accommodate one bedroom dwellings. Furthermore, given that this is a difficult site with competing issues and that it provides additional benefits it is considered that Officers are satisfied that the overall objectives of Policy S2 Housing would be met.

Page 29

7.8 The final issue is in relation to the proposed ground floor A1/A3 unit. This is an essential requirement within the primary shopping area of the CAZ frontage and in order to provide an active frontage in this significant corner location. The total area of A class floorspace is slightly smaller than the existing but this is not considered to be a concern given the overall benefits of the proposed development. An A1 use is considered to be particularly welcome in this location, given that the existing corner unit is in A1 use. An A3 use is acceptable in principle, subject to the two tests: (1) That not less than 50% of the original units in the primary shopping area would be in A1 use, in accordance with saved UDP Policy 4(c) and (2) that no more than 25 per cent of original units in the whole centre (in this case the Lower Marsh/The Cut CAZ frontage), and no more than 2 in 5 consecutive original units, should be in A3 use, in accordance with saved UDP Policy 29. The proposal would just fall within this threshold and given the benefits of the overall development in creating a mixed and balanced community within the CAZ and the substantial increase in office floor space, the proposed mixed use development is to be welcomed in principle as it would help to achieve the regeneration objectives for this key part of Waterloo, a key Opportunity Area in line with London Plan policies 3.9, 4.2 and 4.3 together with Local Core Strategy and saved UDP policies.

7.9 Quality of the proposed residential environment

Mix of Units

7.10 The units vary in size from 1 to 3 bedroom units. The current dwelling mix policy requirement is for a mix of dwelling types, affordability and size. Policy 15 (c) of the Council’s UDP (2007) does not prescribe a mix of units; rather it encourages "a reasonable mix" and advises that predominance of one type of housing should be avoided. It draws upon government policy, which seeks to encourage mixed and balanced communities by providing a mix of housing.

7.11 The mix of units is usually dependent upon assessed housing need. The proposed mix of units has the support of the Council's Housing officers. During consideration of any application Housing officers are minded to ensure the unit and tenure mix is not less favourable than that approved at the bid for Housing Corporation funding. In this case the proposed mix is considered acceptable and as such, in compliance with Policy 15 of the Council’s UDP (2007).

Size of units

7.12 All of the units proposed would be built to Lifetime Homes standards. Each of the rooms within these units scheme meets and in some case exceeds the standards set out in SPD.

Page 30

7.13 The development would have to meet Part M of the Building Regulations, which deals with aspects of the Disability and Discrimination Act (DDA) including width of doors and corridors, level thresholds, toilet facilities, stairs etc.

Natural lighting/Outlook/Privacy

7.14 In terms of outlook and privacy, each of the units are orientated to face either the front or the rear elevation of the property. It is considered that each of the units will provide acceptable living environments in terms of natural lighting, outlook and privacy.

7.15 The applicant has commissioned a sunlight/daylight assessment report to determine the impact of the proposed development on adjoining properties and the light received by the proposed residential units on Pear Place. The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the British Research Establishment (BRE) Guidelines: 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight' (1991).

7.16 In relation to the light received by each unit, the results show that in terms of daylight and sunlight the proposed development has the potential for good daylight of the interior in accordance with the “BRE Site Layout Planning for daylight and sunlight - A Guide to Good Practice” and that in most instances there is a pattern of compliance with the BRE guidelines.

7.17 It is therefore considered that the proposed residential units are in compliance with both the London Plan and the Council’s UDP and SPD.

7.18 Design and Conservation Considerations

7.19 Policy 36 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that alterations and extensions should be generally subordinate to the original building. It states that all service equipment should be located in visually inconspicuous positions, on the least important elevations, and be of an acceptable design, positioning and visual impact, with minimal effect on local amenity.

7.20 Policy S9 of the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy states that the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability by seeking the highest quality of design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions and, of the public realm.

Principle of Demolition - Conservation Area Consent

7.21 In accordance with the provisions of UDP Policy 47, any development proposal in a Conservation Area should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The following buildings are proposed for demolition:

Page 31

• 150 - 158 Waterloo Road • 2 - 10 Baylis Road • 2 Pear Place

7.22 The site is within the Lower Marsh Conservation Area. The Council has a formally adopted (2007) Conservation Area Statement that is a material consideration. The Conservation Area Statement describes the area as:

‘…a varied mix of mostly 19th and 20th Century commercial buildings – shops offices, premises, workshops and pubs. Generally the earlier buildings occupy narrow historic plots whilst many of the later buildings spread over a number of these plots. The strong building line gives a great sense of unity and enclosure to the whole whilst the street market brings colour and activity to the streetscene.’

7.23 The Conservation Area Statement describes Waterloo Road, Baylis Road, Holmes Terrace and Pear Place as:

• Waterloo Road: ‘This main road terminates the Conservation Area to its North end. Only the buildings on its West side between the corner of Baylis Road and Holmes Terrace are within the conservation area. Of particular note is the former Fire Station, 150 Waterloo Road’.

• Baylis Road: ‘Only the North and South ends of Baylis Road are included in the conservation area. The North end of the street is a continuation of Lower Marsh. Of particular note are the former library and K2 telephone kiosk at its North end’.

• Holmes Terrace: ‘This former street runs down the North side of 150 Waterloo Road. It is now an access way to a 1950’s block, Holmes House, which does not contribute to the special character of the area’.

• Pear Place: ‘Pear Place is now just gated access between 150 and 152 Waterloo Road. Historically known as Peartree Street. Historic interest’.

7.24 The Conservation Area Statement states that the existing building of 150 Waterloo Road (Old Fire Station) and No.10 Baylis Road make a positive contribution. It discusses that No. 150 Waterloo Road (former fire station) is an impressive Neo-Georgian fire station with good detailing and picturesque roofline.

7.25 In terms of Baylis Road, No’s 10, 12 & 14 Baylis Road are considered to have group value. No 10 is a plain two storey building with a painted brick façade. No 12 is a tall brick building with good stucco detailing and some decorative tiles but poor modern shop front. No14 is an

Page 32

impressive red brick former library in the Neo-Jacobean style with good stone dressings. It dates from 1892 and was designed by J. E. Trollope.

7.26 Buildings that make a negative contribution have a form or treatment of detailing that is at odds with the traditional character of the conservation area. These are buildings that the Council would seek to have sympathetically enhanced (through re-fronting etc) or replaced with more sympathetic examples. Buildings and structures deemed to make a negative contribution that comprise the application site include No. 2-8 Baylis Road, 152-156 Waterloo Road and Holmes House, Holmes Terrace.

7.27 With respect to No.10 Baylis Road, the Councils Conservation Officer acknowledges that the property was given a ‘positive contribution’ value when Lower Marsh Conservation Area was appraised in 2007. This was based on the understanding that it was largely 19th Century in date. However, it was clear from the detailed inspection on site (undertaken by Conservation Officers at the time of the previous hotel scheme) that the building has been largely rebuilt. It is likely that it was heavily damaged by the Second World War bomb that destroyed the adjoining buildings on the corner of Waterloo Road. What remains today is essentially only the ground floor and part first of the original building with a rebuilt façade, a modern shopfront and modern windows. There is a high parapet with a stepped detail. The current building appears at least a storey shorter than the original as the original party wall survives and rises another full storey. The rear elevation observes ad-hoc alterations. On balance, the view of the Conservation Officer is that it is conceded that this building is not of sufficient merit to warrant retention. At best it makes a neutral contribution.

7.28 In line with UDP Policy 47 officers do not object to the demolition of the existing buildings, provided that a replacement building is proposed that follows the provisions of UDP Policy 33, and preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area. As discussed in the subsequent sections of the report the proposal would suitably respond to its townscape setting and, notwithstanding more fundamental land use concerns, any consent for demolition would be subject to a condition requiring that the buildings are not be demolished until a contract for new work has been made.

Principle of Replacement Building - Full Planning Application

7.29 Massing and Scale

7.30 The existing buildings on site range from single storey to four storey in height. The neighbouring buildings vary in height significantly ranging from the two and three storey properties on Baylis Road to Waterloo train station along waterloo road of a comparable height to the

Page 33

proposed development. As established the site lies within the Lower March Conservation Area and is adjacent to the Former Fire Station a Neo-Georgian Grade II Listed building along Waterloo Road. The site also forms part of the Waterloo SPD Area which states that: ‘The Lower Marsh Area is focused on the Lower Marsh shopping street, lined with 19th Century commercial buildings and some re-fronted 18th Century buildings. The commercial character continues along part of Westminster Bridge Road. Development is characterised by a perimeter block layout, with blocks divided into fine grain plots. Buildings are typically 2 to 5 storeys in height. Retail uses fill the ground floor and residential uses on the upper floors on Lower Marsh. A number of stand-alone developments sit along the area’s eastern edge, such as Johanna Primary School, Matheson Lang House and Munro House’ (Waterloo SPD, p34)

7.31 With respect to the scale and mass Policy 33 ‘Building Scale and Design’ states that:

- Major development should relate satisfactorily to adjacent townscape taking into account its scale, character, historic layout and uses;

- Improve the sense of place and legibility, and define the edges by retaining characterful buildings, appropriate building line and extending frontages

7.32 The buildings on the eastern side of Waterloo Road are generally four storeys in height with commercial uses on the ground floor. The current buildings at 2-8 Baylis Road & 152-156 Waterloo Road make a negative impact on the conservation area. No.10 being neutral and 12 & 14 Baylis Road are considered to have group value (Lower Marsh CA Statement). The building at 152-156 Waterloo is under scaled, of poor architectural quality and creates a visually weak corner building.

7.33 The proposed development would have a slightly elevated height to its neighbours including the listed fire station, rising within the centre of the proposal to 7 storey for the lift shaft and sefrvicing. Although it is higher, this is considered acceptable as the building forms the edge of an important junction. The elevated height of the building along with turret feature allows the building to emphasis this significant node and also gives the proposed building prominence at this corner creating a sense of place and legibility.

7.34 Despite the fact that the building is higher than its immediate neighbours along Waterloo Road and Baylis Road it responds sensitively to both elevations through plot width and detailing. On the Baylis Road elevation the building responds to the narrower plot sizes of its historic neighbours. The sixth storey has been set back from the boundary with 12 Baylis Road and from the building façade which creates an acceptable relationship between the existing buildings along

Page 34

Baylis Road and the proposed development. By incorporating building and window lines at the same height as the cornice lines of the listed building and Waterloo Station on the Waterloo elevation, and by setting back the sixth storey and flank 4 storey element to reduce the bulk of the building, the building is able to integrate itself into the streetscene successfully. In general, the height of the development is considered acceptable.

7.35 In terms of its frontage the proposal is set back substantially from the listed building frontage (Old Fire Station, Waterloo Road) further than the set back of the existing building on site. This gives the listed building some breathing space and establishes a visual separation between buildings. This allows the listed building and the proposal to be clearly identified and appreciated in views. This also results in the listed building maintaining its presence on the street, as the proposal does not dominate it in any significant way. Although the building is set back, it still manages to create a strong, well defined edge along the street and turns the corner successfully. Given the suitable design of the scheme and separation distances involved to the Old Vic that is Grade II* Listed, the proposal would not contend with this building and therefore would not harm its setting.

7.36 The site is located within the core area of a District Centre and within the Waterloo Visitor Management Area and as such Policy 19 ‘Active Edges’ is relevant. Active frontages promote urban vitality and/or regeneration. It is considered that the proposal meets this policy requirement in that it would have active uses at ground floor level along Baylis Road and Waterloo Road with a window display and entrance at ground floor level. Following discussions with interest groups and Council Officers the ground floor plant room entrance adjoining 14 Baylis Road has been amended to retain an active, glazed frontage, in line with the rest of the ground floor elevations. In addition to this the development with its largely glazed frontage on the upper floors with full height windows, would provide some activity and natural surveillance of the street.

7.37 In response to the articulation and materials of the proposal Policy 33 states that infill development should be compatible with;

i) The site, context and historical development of the area ii) Existing topography, landscaping and boundary treatments iii) Prevailing building lines and plot sizes iv) The height, massing and scale of neighbouring buildings v) Roof profiles and silhouettes of adjoining buildings vi) Colour, type, source and texture of local materials vii) Architectural compositions including patterns and rhythms and set pieces of townscape; and viii) Established gaps and open spaces, views and skylines.

Page 35

7.38 The design and articulation of the front elevation along Waterloo Road and Baylis Road is restrained, with regular window openings. Similar to the Listed building its character and interest is expressed through high quality detailing of fenestration. These proposed window reveals create shadow and depth to the frontage which is subtle but effective.

7.38 Overall it is felt that the proposed scale of the building is considered acceptable in terms of design and layout and that it would suitably respond to the conservation area and heritage assets.

7.39 Amenity Impact

7.40 Policy 7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan deals with the protection of residential amenity. It states that the right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their homes will be respected. It also states that 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 in order to protect residential amenity.

7.41 Policy 7 of the Adopted UDP requires land uses not to have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Policy 33 requires new development to protect residential amenity.

7.42 Adopted 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. The above mentioned daylight and sunlight assessment confirms that there would be a minimal impact on neighbouring properties.

7.43 The site is located is in a commercially urbanised location and well separated from existing residential uses, with the nearest residential dwellings located at a distance. A dense mix of building forms and commercial land uses surround the site, typifying the variety of its central location.

7.44 To the north of the site lies the railway viaduct of Waterloo station and its rail sidings that provides a distinct physical barrier. Beyond this is the complex of Waterloo station.

7.45 Immediately to the rear of the site sits 14 Baylis Road, which is a prominent building of 2-3 storeys. This building provides accommodation for the Waterloo Community Development Group. Adjacent is No.12 Baylis that also shares a boundary with the application site, this building is 3 storey in height and serves a solicitors office (use class A2). There are a number of windows serving offices that face the application site and are in close proximity to the proposal.

7.46 Opposite the Old Fire Station building is a 4 storey commercial parade that includes 108-119 Waterloo Road and from visual inspection the

Page 36

uppers floors contain office accommodation. Adjacent to this building, to the south east is Emma Cons Garden, an area of open space.

7.47 Diagonally opposite the corner building of No.158 Waterloo Road, across Waterloo Road is the Old Vic theatre that is Grade II* Listed. Further to the south west is Waterloo Millennium Green an area of open space.

7.48 UDP Policy 33 requires that development should protect residential amenity of existing and future residents by ensuring acceptable standards of privacy and not creating an undue sense of enclosure. Adopted SPD ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and Housing Conversions’ explains and provides further guidance with regards to overlooking and sense of enclosure.

7.49 The thrust of policy 33 and relevant guidance is to protect the amenity of residential occupiers and as such commercial uses such as offices and community uses do not afford significant protection with respect to un-neighbourly impact.

7.50 As described above, from inspection of the surrounding sites there are no residential occupiers in close proximity to the scheme and therefore it is considered acceptable in this regard. As stated to the immediate south west is No.12 and 14 Baylis Road which comprise commercial uses. Given the nature of these neighbours, and whilst it would include additional bulk, the scheme is considered not to appear unduly intrusive to these commercial occupiers which would warrant a refusal of the scheme on this ground.

7.51 However regard will need to be paid to any undue noise impact and that any air conditioning and plant should operate below ambient noise levels experienced within the location. The proposal has been submitted with a noise report which addresses such issues; this document has been perused by the Councils Conservation Officer whom raises no objections subject to the imposition of safeguarding conditions. In the event of granting planning permission and notwithstanding more fundamental concerns conditions could be imposed mitigation against noise.

7.52 In terms of use, the LPA accepts that such A3 uses are generally compatible in district centre locations and can often operate without undue harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

7.53 The Council does however recognise that the closing hours, concentration and scale of premises can potentially create or add to unacceptable noise or harm to amenity. Policy 29 relates to food and drink uses and advises that they 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 amenity and having regard to each of the 3 criteria set out in the policy.

Page 37

7.54 Criterion (i) relates to the specific nature of the proposed use and advises that this must be acceptable taking account of specific measures such as noise insulation. Criterion (ii) relates to closing hours, concentration and scale of premises and applies generally to both the core and the edge of major town centres and district centres, and will be breached where 25% or more of original units would be in A3 use, furthermore to mitigate the potential impact of local overconcentration within town centres, not more than 2 in 5 consecutive original units should be in A3 use. Criterion (iii) relates to vehicular movements. Of the three criteria, only criterion (ii) sets a specific land use requirement that could impact on the acceptability of the development in principle as it allows no more than 2 in 5 consecutive units to be in A3 use. In this policy A3 is taken to mean A3, A4 and A5.

7.55 Firstly regarding the assessment of local overconcentration it is noted that the proposed change of use would not result in more than 2 in 5 consecutive A3 (A4, A5) units. As two uses are proposed, either A1/A3 use class, to prevent an overconcentration of A3 uses and to maintain the commensurate provision of the existing A1 units, notwithstanding more fundamental concerns a condition can be imposed securing that that one of these proposed units are restricted to retail use only (Use Class A1).

7.56 Regarding the general test of overconcentration it is acknowledged that the Lower Marsh District Centre currently contains approx 27% of original units in A3/4/5 use, which is in excess of the 25% threshold established within the Unitary Development Plan. The change of use of the subject site to a mixed use, centring on A3 would result in this same percentage as the unit, albeit larger would replace an existing A3 use at No.10 Baylis Road. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed change of use could result in a larger A3 unit, it is considered that attention must be paid to the reasoning of the policy. The 25% threshold is set to ensure that an overconcentration of premises do not adversely impact upon residential amenity on neighbouring occupiers, add to unacceptable noise or harm or risk public disorder. It is noted that the subject site does not have residential accommodation located adjacent to the proposed development. It is also noted that the character of Lower Marsh, as identified within the Lower Marsh Conservation Area Statement, is that of a lively ambience with a bustling and intimate character.

7.57 For these reasons, therefore, the scheme is considered to have been designed to ensure that the amenity of the adjacent occupiers has been safeguarded. As such the scheme is considered to be acceptable in amenity terms and compliant with Policies 7, 33 and 36.

Page 38

Principle of the Old Fire Station Alterations – Listed Building Consent

7.58 The alterations to the listed building would convert the upper floors into 8 residential units for private ownership. The majority of the alterations would take place within the flank and rear elevations and the alterations have been kept to a minimum. The rear elevation has been considerably altered in the past and is not considered to enhance the special character of the listed building.

7.59 To avoid any signification alterations to the listed building fabric the alterations have been largely kept to bob-original window removal, secondary glazing on the listed window elevations, original balconies would be restored and the flat roof used as external amenity space and non-original restaurant roof would be renovated.

7.60 Internally the alterations have also been kept to a minimum to ensure the alterations do not impact on the listed building fabric. In conclusion the proposal would be minimal in nature, removing non-original elements or reusing them to provide usable space for the proposed flats. The proposal for listed building consent is not considered to have an adverse impact on the special character and appearance of the Old Fire Station listed building and as such complies with Council policy 45.

7.61 Archaeology

7.62 English Heritage Archaeology have recommended the archaeological position of the site should be reserved by attaching a condition to any consent granted. It is anticipated that the archaeological interest can be progressed by the application of a limited programme of trial trench evaluation, the results of which will enable judgements to be made as to whether there is a continued archaeological interest and if so how it may be mitigated. A suitable specification will need to be submitted by the developer appointed archaeological practice and for it to be approved before being implemented.

7.63 Highways and Transportation Issues

7.64 Policy 9 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development will be assessed for their transport impacts, including cumulative impacts on highway safety, the environment and road network, and on all transport modes.

7.65 Policy S4 of the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy states that the Council will achieve transport objectives by requiring development to be appropriate to the level of public transport accessibility and capacity in the area.

Page 39

Site & Accessibility

7.66 The site has a PTAL score of 6b, which is considered ‘Excellent’. The site is therefore considered in transport terms to be appropriate for a mixed-use development such as that proposed. The site is located at the junction with Baylis Road and the A301 Waterloo Road, which forms part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN).

Trip Generation

7.67 Using the Travel database the applicant has estimated the potential increase in trips to the site, which would predominantly be generated by the increase in B1 floor area. Given the absence of car parking and the easy access to public transport the findings indicate that walking and public transport would be the best used modes. The below table taken from the Transport Assessment shows a breakdown of the additional trips by mode;

Table 7 – MAIN Mode Additional trips

MAIN Mode Residential Offices Total

All Car Drivers 0 2 2 Motor Cycle 3 0 3 Bus 10 31 41 Underground 9 42 51 Rail 0 72 72 Pedal Cycle 3 21 24 Walk 19 88 107 Total 43 256 299

Car Parking

7.68 No off-street car parking is proposed with the development and given the constraints of the surrounding road network few opportunities exist for on-street car parking close to the site to accommodate the needs of disabled drivers. London Plan policy states that even where no general parking is provided a minimum of 1 disabled space should be provided either on or off-street. A previous scheme on this site proposed disabled bays on Holmes Terrace and it is considered that this is the only feasible option and further details on this will be required. All residential units will be prevented from obtaining on-street parking permits through a S106 Agreement and this will ensure that the number of cars and associated traffic generated by the development will be minimal.

Page 40

Vehicle Access

7.69 An existing vehicle access on to the site exists on Waterloo Road via Pear Place. A recent streetscape scheme installed a high quality granite sett entry treatment to achieve a level surface across the access and further discussion is required on whether it is appropriate to retain this or replace it with a full height kerb to prevent informal use by vehicles. No other vehicle accesses are proposed with the development.

Servicing

7.70 The servicing demands of the proposed development would not be significantly increased from existing levels with none of the proposed uses requiring a high number of deliveries but to ensure that any potential impact would be minimised the applicant has submitted a Service Management Plan which should be secured by condition.

Cycle Parking

7.71 The proposed level of cycle parking is in excess of relevant London Plan standards. In addition to cycle parking the B1 use should provide shower and changing facilities for staff to encourage cycling to work. The proposed cycle parking provision should be retained for the life of the development and retained by condition.

Travel Plan

7.72 A Travel Plan is required for the proposed B1 use and together with a monitoring fee should be secured by S106. The applicant is proposing to submit a final document for approval within 6 months of occupation of this element of the site and this is considered to be appropriate.

7.73 A Construction Method Statement would be secured by condition.

7.74 Waste and Recycling

7.75 Policy S8 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that residential, commercial and community development proposals, including changes of use include adequate provision within or as apart of the development for residual and re-cycled waster; in terms of facilities for refuse/ recycling containment, litter control and waste disposal. Further guidance on waste management is provided in "Council's Guidance for Architects and Developers- Waste and Recycling Storage and collection Requirements".

7.76 Refuse bins for all uses in site will be stored off the highway and not on the footways as per the current arrangement. The Councils Streetcare and transport teams have raised no objection to the refuse

Page 41

arrangement. Details would be conditioned regarding the refuse stores. The proposals are therefore in accordance with Lambeth’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements Guidance for Architects and Developers.

7.77 Crime Prevention

7.78 Policy 32 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development should enhance community safety and will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.

7.79 The Council’s Crime Prevention Officer was consulted on the scheme from the pre application stage and the comments have been incorporated into this scheme. A condition is proposed should permission be granted to ensure compliance with the Secured by Design standards. In addition details of landscaping and the treatment of all areas not covered by building and of security lighting would be reserved by condition.

7.80 Sustainability and Renewable Energy

7.81 The Government has set a national target to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20% by 2010 and 60% by 2050. There is scope to achieve this target by ensuring that new buildings are designed to conserve fuel and power and sited to reduce the need to travel and, restraint measures are adopted to encourage more sustainable means of transport. The Mayor's Energy Strategy has set a target of 20% of energy to come from renewable sources.

7.82 UDP Policies 34 and 35 encourage the use of energy-conservation technologies; use of renewable power sources; and design, layout and orientation of buildings to minimise energy use. 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 things, utilising environmentally friendly specification and materials and specifying the use of sustainable sources.

7.83 The applicant has produced a Energy Strategy and BREEAM report which, in brief, sets out the measures to be undertaken to ensure that the proposed scheme is compliant with the CO2 reductions in order to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and BREEAM very good for the commercial development.

7.84 A feasibility study has been undertaken to establish the most suitable renewable technology for integration at the proposed development. Solar photovoltaic panels were the recommended renewable technology providing the most cost effective carbon dioxide emission saving for the proposed development. However the resulting CO2

Page 42

emissions reduction due to the limitations of the site would fail to provide the required 10% by Council and London Plan policy however a proposed 45kW CHP unit would provide sufficient emission reductions through this unit to comply with Council policy.

7.85 Conditions are proposed requesting: a) an energy statement, and b) details which indentify which credits are targeted and how they will be achieved to be submitted to and approved the LPA prior to construction commencement.

7.86 S.106 Contributions

7.87 Policy 57, supplemented by the other policies of the UDP and the SPD on s106 planning obligations, sets out the circumstances in which the Council will seek planning obligations from a developer to mitigate against the potential impacts of a scheme.

7.88 As already stated, the scheme proposes 38.5% affordable housing. This provision will need to be secured by way of S106 legal agreement. Further to this, it is considered that financial contributions should be secured by way of S106 for the proposed car club bay and local road network improvements.

7.89 In addition, this scheme requires further financial contributions to mitigate against its impact. These are set out below:

Education - £15,445.76 Health - £9,520.50 Sport & Leisure - £22,041.94 Parks & Open Spaces - £43,583.20 Children & Young People Play Space - £1,501.00 Travel Plan - £1,000.00 General Employment & Training - £16,837.59 S106 monitoring and programme costs - £2,748.50

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 The development provides planning benefit in the provision of 38.5% affordable housing, additional B1 floorspace and the complete redevelopment of this prominent corner. The proposed redevelopment of the site is considered to be acceptable in that it would be of an appropriate design (subject to conditions); it would provide a good living environment for future occupiers and provide a mixed and balanced scheme within the CAZ. It is considered that it would not harm conditions of on-street parking or prejudice conditions of the free flow of traffic and highway safety.

8.2 The development shows sufficient commitment to sustainable design and construction, the provision of renewable energy technologies,

Page 43

promoting more sustainable modes of transport and the achievement of Lifetime Homes Standards.

8.3 It is therefore considered that the development is compliant with the planning policies of the development plan and the London Plan.

9 Recommendation

9.1 Application A: (11/03237/FUL) Planning Application

Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Obligation (Heads of Terms set out in section 7.63 of this report) and the attached conditions

Justification

Core Strategy

Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

Page 44

- Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas - Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design - Policy 45 Listed Buildings - Policy 46 List of Buildings of Local Architectural Merit - Policy 47 Conservation Areas

9.2 Application B (11/03239/CON) Conservation Area Consent

Grant conservation area consent subject conditions:

Justification

In deciding to grant conservation area 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 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 Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies were relevant:

Core Strategy

- Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives - Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment

Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

- 33 - Building Scale and Design - 36 - Alterations and Extensions - 47 - Conservation Areas

9.3 Application C (11/03238/LB) Listed Building Consent

Grant listed building consent subject conditions:

Justification

In deciding to grant listed building 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 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 Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies were relevant:

Page 45

Core Strategy

- Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives - Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment

Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

- 33 - Building Scale and Design - 36 - Alterations and Extensions - 45 - Listed Buildings

Conditions

9.4 Application A: (11/03237/FUL) Planning Application

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this decision notice.

Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved plans.

3 Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding: the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures; details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; details regarding dust mitigation, details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area. The details of the approved Method of Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process.

Page 46

compliance with Policies 9 and 31 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

4 The residential development hereby approved shall achieve a Final BREEAM minimum of Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the relevant BREEAM scheme (Code for Sustainable Homes) or subsequent superseding equivalent BREEAM scheme. No development shall take place until a relevant BREEAM Certificate demonstrating the proposal’s achievement of the minimum Level 3 rating has been submitted to and approved by the Council. Within 4 months of the first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, an issued Final BREEAM Certificate stating the BREEAM Level achieved (minimum Level 3) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

6 The building hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum criterion of 'Very Good' for the BREEAM comercial standard. A BREEAM estimator assessment, indicating credits that are expected and how this will be achieved, shall be submitted for the Local Planning Authority's approval prior to the commencement of works on site. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with measures set out in the estimator assessment approved. Further to this, a post construction review shall be undertaken and a BREEAM certificate demonstrating that the development has achieved the prescribed minimum 'Very Good' standard (or above) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interests of securing a sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Core Strategy policy S7 refer and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document for Sustainable Design and Construction 2007)

7 Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations including all walls, doors, windows front entrances and balconies within the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building work commences and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Page 47

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in compliance with Policies 31, 32, 36 and 38 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

8 Detailed drawings to a scale of 1:20 to confirm the detailed design and materials of the:

1. Schedule and sample of materials used in roof all elevations, should also include brick sample board (bonding and pointing) 2. Details of all windows and doors at scale 1:10, windows shall be set at least 115mm within window reveal scale 1:10 3. Details of balconies, bris soliel and canopies 4. Construction details of all external elements at 1:20 scale (including sections). This should include: shop fronts, entrances and exits, canopies, glazing, masonry, weathering and flashings, balustrades and parapets, roof, plant and plant screening, health and safety systems. 5. Full drawn details (1:20 scale elevations, 1:2 scale detailing) of the railings and gates to Pear Place (including hinges, fixings, locks, finials) 6. Notwithstanding approved plans details of hard landscaping, should also include details of furniture and lighting 7. Details and locations of rain water pipes

Shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development herby permitted. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies 31, 32, 36 and 38 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

9. Prior to the commencement the development hereby approved, a hard landscape and areas within the curtilage of the site hereby approved scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This Strategy is to include, amongst other things, details of:

- Hard Landscaping - Details at 1:20 - Sample of Materials

Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping areas are of a high quality and for consistent treatment of the public realm. (Policies 33 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

Page 48

10 No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used until full details of the proposed cycle storage, including elevation drawings at a scale of 1:20 of the new storage enclosures and details of manufacturer’s specifications, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as are approved shall be provided prior to first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the cycle parking on the site, in the interests of the promotion of sustainable modes of transport (Policy 14 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 refer).

11 Notwithstanding the approved plans, full details of the refuse and recycling storage, hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building work commences and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

12 Details of a waste management plan for each individual category of use, incorporating provision for refuse storage and recycling facilities on the site, the provision of litter bins both inside and outside of each commercial premises for use by customers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of each use. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the buildings and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and recyclables on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area. (Policies 9, 14, 35 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy policy S9).

13 Prior to commencement of building works, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, gates to the basement car park, CCTV provision,

Page 49

external lighting provision, electronic access control, specifications of all external doors and all residential doors, windows and glazing and benches, seating, obelisk and cycle storage. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

14 Prior to the commencement of building work, full details of a lighting strategy, including details of the lighting of all public areas, basement and buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved lighting shall be installed before the commencement of the use and maintained thereafter. Development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal. (Policy 32 and 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

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 residential 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 ensure that the travel arrangements to the residential development are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements. (Policy 9 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

16 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of buildings.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies 31, 32, 36 and 38 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

17 All residential flats hereby permitted shall comply with the relevant Lifetime Homes standard.

Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, in accordance with Policy 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

Page 50

18 No roof terraces not already indicated on the approved drawings shall be provided on the roof areas of any of the blocks. Any areas of flat roof that are not shown as balconies or roof terraces shall not be used as a sitting out area or be used for any other recreational purpose whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development and the occupiers of adjoining residential properties. (Policy 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)

19 Details of all air conditioning units, ventilation and filtration equipment and any other plant, machinery or equipment (including rooftop plant), in addition to measures to control noise from such equipment, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the operational use of the relevant parts of the development hereby permitted. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details and shall be so retained for the duration of the permitted use unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers or of the area generally (Saved Policy 7 and Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2011).

20 Environmental noise levels from any plant within or on any part of the building shall not increase the background noise levels when measured outside any nearby residential property unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard amenity of existing and future residents (Saved Policies 7 and 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).

21 Before the development commences a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provision for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not pose an unacceptable risk to the quality of the groundwater.

Page 51

22 Provision shall be made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site during the construction period in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to all new build construction works commencing. The loading, off-loading, parking and turning areas shall be provided so as to avoid any damage to trees on the site.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users, and to avoid damage to trees. (Policies 9 and 39 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)

23 Adequate precautions shall be taken during the construction period to prevent the deposit of mud and similar debris on the adjacent public highways in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users (Policies 9 and 31 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

24 The ground floor A1 retail use hereby approved shall only operate between the hours of 0700 and 0000 on Mondays to Sundays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers. (Policies 7 and 29 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

25 No demolition shall take place within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of protecting areas of special archaeological interest in accordance with London Plan 2011 policy 7.8.

26 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme pursuant to this condition. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitable qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of protecting areas of special archaeological interest in accordance with London Plan 2011 policy 7.8.

Page 52

Notes to Applicants:

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

2. You are advised that this consent is without prejudice to any rights which may be enjoyed by any tenants/occupiers of the premises

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

4. Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings (B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled.

5. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities

6. In connection with the soundproofing condition, you should consult the Council's Building Control Section before carrying out any works

7. As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following:

- name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building

This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below.

Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected] tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9104

Page 53

8. You are advised that under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the National Rivers Authority is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact Mr D DeCoster on 0181 310 5500 for details.

9. You are advised that under the terms of the Water Industries Act 1991, the prior written consent of the London Borough of Lambeth, Sewerage Contractor for Thames Water Utilities Ltd is required for any development works draining into, or connecting to, the public sewers. Contact Mr S K Bellehewe on 0171 926 7108

10. You are advised to contact Thames Water Utilities regarding mains/supply pipe connections for the development at Network Services Waterloo District, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Waterworks Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1SB. Contact Mr D Kirk on 0645 200800 for details

11. It is the view of Lambeth Council that the proposed development has scope for the provision of recycling and/or composting facilities. For advice on incorporation of such facilities please contact:

Jason Searles/ Dean Parry 3rd Floor, Blue Star House 234-244 Stockwell Rd London SW9 9SP 020 7926 2624 [email protected]

12. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

Page 54

13. Your attention is drawn to the condition relating to a crime prevention strategy of this planning consent. Please contact the Council Crime Prevention Officer. Details below: -

Pc Ann Burroughs. Crime Prevention Design Advisor. London Borough of Lambeth. Community Safety Unit. 205 Stockwell Road. Brixton. SW9 9SL. Mobile: 07974643842 Phone: 020 7926 2840

9.5 Application B (11/03239/CON) Conservation Area Consent

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)

2 The demolition hereby permitted shall not be commenced before a contract for the replacement building has been made, on which work is to be commenced within 3 months or such longer period as may previously have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid premature demolition and to maintain the character and appearance of the conservation area (Policy 47 of the Unitary Development Plan, 2007).

9.6 Application C (11/03238/LB) Listed Building Consent

1 The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 18(1)(a) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

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

Page 55

3 Prior to the commencement of development, detailed drawings (including sections) of the following features, shall be submitted at an appropriate scale and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details:

1. Details of the works of upgrading accommodation including - plant and services, fire, sound and thermal insulation. 2. Details of the five steel windows on the pear place elevation will be removed and in-filled prior to occupation. The new replacement window openings shall match the adjoining existing windows in every respect (including reveal and cill) unless otherwise approved in writing by the council. 3. Details of all new windows, doors and patent glazing to restaurant roof and any alterations to existing windows and doors at 1:20 scale (including sections, frame and cill details etc). 4. Details of the internal alterations (including finishes, fixings etc) to the restaurant and kitchen. 5. Details of the platform lift in the Pear Place entrance (including fixings, finishes and associated alterations to the listed building). 6. Details of the bulkhead for the bathroom waste water pipes below the first floor slab. 7. Details of any alterations proposed in relation to the paving or drainage on the first floor patio garden.

Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011)

4 The damaged glazed brickwork corner on the pear Place elevation will be raked out by hand and matching replacement bricks toothed in.

5 All new vents and flues shall be terminated in a traditional imperial sized air brick. Their locations and full details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development herby permitted. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Page 56

6 Prior to the commencement of development, a full detailed Method statement and schedule for the internal demolition works to include drawings and specifications for all new structural works including the protection of retained internal tiled surfaces, balustrades during the conversion works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details of the approved Method statement and schedule for the internal demolition works must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process.

Page 57 Agenda Item 3

SECTION 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP

Page 58

SECTION 2 – APPLICATION SUMMARY

Location 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Murphy Street London SE1 7AT

Ward Bishops

Proposal Application Demolition of the existing building and the erection of part 4/part 7 storey linked buildings with mixed development comprising of (A1/A3/B1/D1) and 9 residential units with associated amenity space, cycle parking and 2 car parking spaces.

Applicant Loncor Homes

Agent Nia Griffith, Savills Planning

Date valid 11 November 2011 Case Off icer Philip Joyce

Application 11/04041/FUL Reference

Recommendation(s) Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 and the attached conditions

Constraints Central Activities Zone Waterloo Opportunity Area Archaeological Priority Areas Environment Agency Flood Zone Tunnel Safeguarding Line

Site Notice posted 18 December 2011 on

Page 59

1 Summary of Main Issues

1.1 The main issues involved in this application are:

• Whether the proposed would be acceptable in land use terms • Whether the loss of the existing building is acceptable in terms of built heritage and design • Whether the proposal would result in significant harm to the residential amenity of surrounding properties • Whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of traffic impacts and car parking

2 Site Description

2.1 The site measures some 0.5 hectares, located on the corner of Baylis Road and Murphy Street and is occupied by a vacant 4 storey building (98-104 Baylis Road) and 2 storey building (25 Murphy Street). Vehicle access to the site is from 2 separate drop kerbs along Murphy Street. The most recent use of the site was for the purposes of warehousing (Use Class B8) and light industry (Use Class B1).

2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character comprising buildings of various age, quality and design. In terms of scale, building in the vicinity range between 4 and 10 storeys in height. The site is located within the London Plan Central Activities Zone, Waterloo Opportunity Area and is in close proximity to the locally designated Lower Marsh Primary Shopping Frontage and Lambeth North underground station.

2.3 The site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area. The site is not located within a conservation area and does not contain any listed buildings.

3 Planning History

3.1 There is no relevant planning history.

4 Proposal

4.1 The proposal is for the demolition of the existing 4 storey, vacant building and redevelopment to provide a part 4, part 7 storey linked building accommodating some 954sqm of commercial floorspace and 9 self contained residential apartments together with associated roof terrace, plant equipment, car parking, cycle parking, refuse facilities and new pedestrian and vehicle entrances. The following table provided a breakdown of floor spaces for each use.

Commercial Use Floor Area (sqm) A1/A3/B1 335 B1/D1 619 TOTAL 954

Page 60

Residential Bedrooms Net Internal Floor Unit Area (sqm) 1 3 117 2 2 80 3 3 102 4 2 80 5 3 102 6 2 82 7 3 102 8 3 122 9 3 167

4.2 The ground floor of the linked buildings would accommodate the residential and B1/D2 lobbies, bin stores, garaging (2 car parking spaces) and the proposed A1/A3/B1 floor-space (335sqm).

4.3 The upper floors of the proposed 4 storey element fronting Murphy Street comprise a mix of B1 and D1 floor-space (619sqm) with children’s play space (50sqm) and plant and machinery on the roof. A staircase and lift accessed off the B1/D1 lobby off Murphy Street would provide access to the upper floors.

4.4 The proposed 7 storey element fronting Baylis Road comprises the residential accommodation including 3 x 2 bedroom apartments and 6 x 3 bedroom apartments. A staircase and lift accessed off the residential lobby off Murphy Street would provide access.

4.5 The 7 storey roof would be used to house an array of photovoltaic cells and a combined heat and power boiler would be housed at first floor level. In totality the proposed sustainability measures would reduce carbon dioxide omissions by some 30%. In addition, all of the residential apartments would be constructed to lifetime homes standards and code for sustainable homes level 3.

4.6 Each of the proposed apartments would be provided with at least one private balcony. The plant room roof would be used as a communal roof terrace (circa 50sqm) on the second floor and a children’s play space would be provide on the roof of the 4 th storey element accessed via a link bridge link at 4 th floor level from the residential block.

4.7 A total of 35 cycle parking spaces including 10 spaces within the garage, 10 on the second floor roof terrace for residential use. The remaining spaces for commercial use would be located under the B1/D1 staircase and on the front footway along Baylis Road.

5 Consultatio ns and Responses

5.1 A total of 254 neighbouring properties have been consulted including addresses at Walpole House, Chamberlain House, Munro Hose, Palmerston House, 126 Westminster Bridge Road and residents of Greenham Close and Frazier Street.

5.2 A site notice was displayed 8 th December 2011 to 29 th December 2011.

Page 61

Internal consultation

5.3 The Council’s Conservation and Design officer raised no objections subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to the further approval of external materials and fixings, Shopfronts, ventilation for the refuse store and screening for the roof top plant.

5.4 The Council’s Planning Policy officer raised no objections subject to provisions to secure the long term future of the proposed B1 units and that B1 uses are fitted out prior to occupation of the residential apartments.

5.5 The Council’s Crime Prevention Unit were consulted but have not provided a response.

5.6 The Council’s Highways and Transportation officer raised no objections to this application subject to conditions on closing and providing new vehicles crossovers, delivery management, method of construction and details approval of cycle parking. In addition officers recommend the inclusion of section 106 clauses on car free housing, car clubs and financial contributions towards public realm improvements (£50,000).

External consultation

The Environment Agency have recommended a condition be included requiring the development to be implemented in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment.

5.8 The Waterloo Community Development Group (WCDG) object to the application on the grounds the proposed A1 ground floor use would damage the vitality and viability of the nearby Lower Marsh shopping centre. In addition WCDG have raised concerns with respect to the excessive height of the proposed building and the affect of the proposal on the levels of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties.

5.9 English Heritage (EH) was consulted on the basis the site is located within an archaeological priority area. EH did not provide any response relating to archaeology but did object on design grounds. Notwithstanding the objection it is noted the existing building is not listed or within a conservation area.

5.10 Transport for London was notified in writing of the proposed development and had no observations on this application.

5.11 Council received 12 letters of representation including 10 objections and 2 in support. The following includes a summary of the material planning issues raised by objectors. An analysis of these issues is included within section 7-12 of this report.

• Retail Provision • Building height • Loss of daylight / sunlight • Privacy / outlook

Page 62

• Traffic Impacts • Built Heritage • Car parking provision • Materials

6 Planning Policy Considerations

National Guidance

6.1 Central Government advice is contained in a range of Government Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG) and/or Planning Policy Statements (PPS). The most relevant national policies for this application are: PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS6, PPG13 and PPS25.

Development Plan

6.3 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 (July 2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) and the remaining saved, non-superseded policies in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010. The following are the most relevant Development Plan policies:

London Plan (2011) Policy 1.1, 2.10, 2.13, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 5.12, 6.3, 6.9, 6.12, 6.13, 7.3, 7.8

Lambeth Core Strategy (2011) Policy S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, PN1

Saved Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policy 7, 9, 14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38,

7 Land Use

7.1 London Plan Policy 1.1 and Core Strategy S1 include an overall vision for promoting sustainable growth. In accordance with London Plan Policy 2.10 (Central Activities Zone) and 4.4 (Mixed Use Developments and Offices) the proposal would provide office floor-space within CAZ as part of a mix of uses including housing. Policy PN1 sets out the council’s vision and approach for Waterloo, reflecting the London Plan Opportunity Area Planning Framework. London Policy 2.13 (Opportunity Areas) seeks to optimise residential and non- residential output and densities with an appropriate mix of uses.

7.2 Core Strategy S3 and Saved UDP Policy 23 set out Council’s approach for protecting existing B use classes and floorspace outside of Key Industrial Business Areas and the exceptional circumstances in which loss of floorspace can be considered.

7.3 Given the objectives for Waterloo the loss of B1/B8 floorspace could be off-set

Page 63

by the delivery of new residential dwellings, purpose built commercial floorspace and the potential community benefits of D1 healthcare facilities. In addition, London Plan Policy 4.2 encourages renewal and modernisation of the existing office stock in viable locations to improve its quality and flexibility.

7.4 In order to ensure the B1 units are secured in the long term it is recommended a conditions and/or a legal agreement accompany any permission requiring the B1 units to be fitted out to ‘turn-key’ standard and made available to the market at the same time as the residential accommodation.

7.5 WCDG have concerns on the impacts of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the Lower Marsh centre. The proposed ground floor includes a flexible range of uses including A1/A3 and B1. It is understood there are no objections to either A3 or B1 uses. The site is located within the London Plan Central Activity Zone and Opportunity Area and covered by the provisions of Core Strategy Policy PN1 on the Waterloo Area. The principal aims of Policy PN1 seek sustainable development in the form of jobs and homes to meet London Plan targets and maximise Waterloo’s potential as part of central London for provide a full range of town centre activities. On this basis it is considered the development would provide an appropriate mix of uses and activation of street frontages in accordance with the London Plan.

7.6 Policy 4.7 seeks to achieve retail, commercial, culture and leisure development on sites within town centres, or if no in-centre sites are available, on sites on the edges of centres that are well integrated with the existing centre and public transport. Given the size of the proposed A1 floorspace and close proximity to Lower Marsh and high accessibility to public transport, it is considered the development would comply with the policy and not harm the vitality and viability of the nearby centre.

8 Heritage and Design

8.1 Council has received objections seeking to retain the existing building to protect the heritage value of the surrounding area. It is noted the site does not contain any listed buildings and the site is not within a conservation area. On this basis the existing building is not a heritage asset and not protected by the development plan.

8.2 Notwithstanding the above English Heritage consider the building has architectural merit and encourage the retention of or at least some elements. To this extent it is understood the applicant has investigated the possibility of retaining the existing façade but it was not a practical due to issues relating to building regulations and disabled access. On balance it is considered the planning merits and good quality of proposed design outweigh any potential harm caused by the loss of the existing building.

8.3 Local residents and WCDG have objected on the basis the proposed building is too tall. In considering the height of the proposal it is noted the street frontage buildings on this end of Baylis Road are generally 3 to 4 storeys in height as per the existing building. The adjoining tower block ranges from 8 to11 storeys set within landscaped grounds. . It is considered the height of the proposal is not

Page 64

overly dominant given the top 2 floors of the 7 storey element would be set back to reduce the impact of the building.

8.4 Local residents have raised concerns in relation to the use of a darker colour bricks rather than London stock for the 4 storey element of the building. It is noted the variation of bricks provides a distinction between the residential and commercial elements of the building. It is recommended a condition be included to require detailed approval of external materials.

8.5 In summary, careful consideration has been given to the height, scale and massing of the building through consultation with Council’s Conservation and Design officers and pre-application advice.

8 Amenity

8.1 In terms of future occupiers, it is considered the proposal would provide more than adequate living conditions. The proposed residential apartments all comply with Council’s residential spaces standards and the proposed provision of private and communal amenity spaces is sufficient.

8.2 Residents of nearby Chamberlain House have raised objections on the potential for loss of privacy. In terms of outlook and privacy, the closest relationship would be the window openings on the south elevation of the residential accommodation facing the north elevation of Chamberlain House at a distance of 9.5m. It is noted the existing office elevation contains 11 larger windows compared to 12 smaller windows on the proposed residential building and the windows on this elevation would light bedrooms or provide secondary lighting to lounge rooms. In order to help mitigate any perceived impacts it is recommended a condition be included to require habitable room windows facing Chamberlain House to be partially obscured glazing.

8.3 Residents living in Chamberlain House (126 Waterloo Bridge Road) have raised concerns on the potential for loss of daylight and sunlight. A detailed assessment of the impact of the proposal on daylight and sunlight has been undertaken. In summary the results indicate the development would not affect any of the neighbouring building to any significant degree. Whilst there would be some loss of light the analysis shows that each room would remain adequately lit for their location and use. It is noted the applicant’s report refers to Chamberlain House as 1-25 Baylis Road.

8.4 It considered the proposed development has been designed to ensure there would be no significant loss of residential amenity for neighbouring properties and the proposal would comply with Policy 36 of the saved UDP.

8.5 Should an A3 use be implemented as part of the proposal it would be necessary to control the hours of operation to prevent noise and disturbance to nearby properties. On this basis it is recommended a condition be included to restrict the hours of operation of this potential use to between the hours of 09.00 to 23.00 daily.

8.6 In addition, should the A3 use be implemented it would be necessary to seek

Page 65

the further detailed approval of extraction and ventilation of cooking processes and disposal of cooking oils and fats to prevent nuisance from noise and odours.

Local residents have raised concerns on the potential for noise nuisance caused by associated plant and machinery including ventilations systems. It is recommended a condition be included to ensure such equipment do not increase noise levels above background noise levels when measured for the nearest window of an closest residential property.

10 Traffic and Parking

10.1 Council has received representation raising concerns of both under and over provision of car parking spaces. The provision of 2 car parking spaces would be in accordance with London Plan standards for the proposed mix of uses. Given the high levels of public transport accessibility and lack of available on-street car parking, the provision of car free residential development is appropriate and can be secured through a clause within any section 106 agreement.

10.2 Local residents have raised concerns relating to increased traffic generation. The transport statement includes a trip generation analysis and suggests the number of trips generated by food retailer at ground floor, a medical centre and residential (highest potential trip generators) would be greater than the previous use but would remain relatively low. Given the high levels of public transport accessibility (PTAL 6b) and lack of nearby car parking, the vast majority of trips generated would be on foot. On this basis the proposal is unlikely to have detrimental impacts on the local highway network or traffic safety.

10.3 In terms of servicing it has been agreed the proposed loading bay is not necessary. Transport officers have agreed a Service Management Plan (SMP) enabling future deliveries to be undertaken from the kerbside on Murphy Road facilitated by amendments to the loading restrictions. The SMP included suggested delivery times of 7.00-18.00 daily.

11 Other Matters

11.1 Policy S8 of Core Strategy seeks to ensure adequate provision for refuse and recycling storage in new developments. The Council's Guidance for 'Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements' provides a more comprehensive guide to waste storage provision.

11.2 The proposed refuse and recycling facilities are considered to be acceptable in principle. It is recommended a condition be included to require detailed approval of waste management plan to ensure that adequate provision is made for the management of waste litter and refuse of the premises, in the interests of the residential amenities of the area.

11.3 Should D1 or A3 floorspace be implemented it shall be necessary for the applicant to submit further such plans to tackle the specific waste requirements of medical and food waste.

Page 66

Council’s transport officers have requested financial contributions of £50,000 towards the public realm improvements to enhance main pedestrian routes from nearby public transport links. It is recommended this contribution is sought by the inclusion of a clause within a section 106 agreement.

12 Conclusion

13.1 In conclusion the proposal is acceptable in land use terms as it has been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would be acceptable in land use terms and would not be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties or the character and appearance of the surrounding area or cause harm be means of traffic impacts or the provision of refuse and recycling facilities.

14 Recommendation

14.1 Grant planning permission subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement.

15 Summary of the Reasons

15.1 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:

London Plan (2011) Policy 1.1, 2.10, 2.13, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 5.12, 6.3, 6.9, 6.12, 6.13, 7.3, 7.8

Lambeth Core Strategy (2011) Policy S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, PN1

Saved Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policy 7, 9, 14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38,

16 Conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this decision notice.

Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the

Page 67

approved plans.

3 Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details of design and materials at a scale of 1:20 shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

a) Schedule and sample of materials used for the roof and elevations, should also include brick sample board (bonding and pointing) b) Details of all windows and doors at scale 1:10, c) Details of balconies, roof terraces and walkways d) Construction details of all external elements at 1:20 scale (including sections). This should include: entrances and exits, canopies, glazing, masonry, weathering and flashings, balustrades and parapets, roof, plant and plant screening, health and safety systems. e) Details and locations of rain water pipes

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies 31, 32, 36 and 38 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

4 Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding: the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures; details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; details regarding dust mitigation, details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area. The details of the approved Method of Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process.

5 Prior to the occupation of the residential apartments (Use Class C3) hereby approved, the B1 employment floorspace shall be finished and serviced for immediate user-ready occupation.

Reason: To ensure the delivery of and the effective management of the proposed employment floorspace is undertaken to ensure that employment opportunities in the Borough are maximised and to support local economic development (Saved policy 23 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy S3 of the Core Strategy (2011) refer).

6 None of the approved B1/D1 floorspace shall be converted to residential use without the written approval from the local planning authority. Should an

Page 68

additional dwelling unit be provided on the site is shall be necessary to provide a affordable housing in accordance with the relevant development plan policies.

Reason: To ensure the delivery of and the effective management of the proposed employment floorspace and the provision of affordable housing. (Saved policy 23 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy S2 and S3 of the Core Strategy (2011) refer).

7 There shall be no means of vehicular access to the development other than from Murphy Street, as shown on the approved drawings.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highways users (Policy 9 of the saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (2011) refer.)

8 Within a period of 6 months of the access being brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.

Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users (Policy 9 of the saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (2011) refer.)

9 All deliveries and servicing shall be conducted in accordance with the details outlined in the approved Servicing Management Plan prepared on behalf of Loncur Homes dated January 2012.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highways users (Policy 9 of the saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (2011) refer.)

10 Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development herby approved full details of the proposed 35 cycle parking spaces, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include elevation drawings at a scale of 1:20 of the new storage enclosures and stands together with details of manufacturer’s specifications, The details as approved shall be provided prior to first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use.

11 The development permitted hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Walsh Associates dated 12 October 2011 including the following mitigating measures.

Page 69

a) Placing vulnerable areas at first floor and above (section 3.1) b) Making tenants aware of Environment Agency Flood Warning System (Section 3.3) c) Control of surface water flows (Section 5.2.2) d) A high level overflow in the outgoing sewer (Section 5.3)

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants (Policy S6 Core Strategy 2011)

12 All windows to habitable rooms to residential accommodation on the south elevation, facing Chamberlain House, of the development hereby permitted shall be fitted with obscured glazing.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality. (Policies 36 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

13 The opening hours of any A3 Use Class premises shall be restricted to the following:

07.00 - 18.00 daily

The opening hours of any A1 Use Class premises shall be restricted to the following:

07.00 - 24.00 daily

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the locality in accordance with Policies 7 and 29 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

14 Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development herby approved full details of the refuse and recycling storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The details as approved shall be provided prior to occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use.

15 Prior to the commencing each use hereby permitted, a waste management plan for each individual category of use, incorporating provision for refuse storage and recycling facilities on the site, the provision of litter bins both inside and outside of each commercial premises for use by customers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of each use. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the buildings and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning

Page 70

authority.

16 Prior to commencement of development, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police.

The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, gates to the basement car park, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, electronic access control, specifications of all external doors and all residential doors, windows and glazing and benches, seating, obelisk and cycle storage. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

17 The residential development hereby approved shall achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 or subsequent superseding equivalent scheme.

18 The non residential floor-space hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum criterion of 'Very Good' for the BREEAM comercial standard.

19 The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Sustainability Statement prepared by CD International Building Services Engineers dated November 2011.

The sustainability measures including the requirement to achievement at minimum a 30% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, against 2010 baseline compliant data.

Reason: In the interests of securing a sustainable development (Policy 35 of the

Page 71

Saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Core Strategy policy S7 refer and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document for Sustainable Design and Construction 2007)

20 All residential flats hereby permitted shall comply with the relevant Lifetime Homes standard.

Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, in accordance with Policy 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

21 The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Acoustic Report prepared by EEC Ltd dated 7 November 2011.

Environmental noise levels from any plant or ventilation system within or on any part of the building shall not increase the background noise levels when measured from the nearest window of the closest residential property unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard amenity of existing and future residents (Saved Policies 7 and 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).

17 Informatives

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

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

3 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

4 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities

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

6 You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division concerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or

Page 72

regulations made there under.

7 Your attention is drawn to the necessity to register your food business with the Council's Environmental Health Division, under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 before the use commences. Failure to do so may result in prosecution.

8 Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings (B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled.

9 As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following:

- name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building

Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected] tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9104

10 You are advised to contact Thames Water Utilities regarding mains/supply pipe connections for the development at Network Services Waterloo District, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Waterworks Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1SB. Contact Mr D Kirk on 0645 200800 for details

11 Your attention is drawn to the condition relating to a crime prevention strategy of this planning consent. Please contact the Counci l Crime Prevention Officer. Details below:

Pc Ann Burroughs. Crime Prevention Design Advisor. London Borough of Lambeth. Community Safety Unit. 205 Stockwell Road. Brixton. SW9 9SL.

______

Page 73 Agenda Item 4

Page 74 Section 2 – Application Summary

Location 604-610 Streatham High Road London SW16 3QJ

Ward Streatham South Proposal Demolition of 14 existing garages and four existing semi-detached Application houses and the erection of two new buildings comprising of a 4- storey building fronting Streatham High Road to provide 11 flats and a terrace of six 2-storey houses to the rear of the site (17 residential units in total), together with 2 car parking space including a new vehicular crossover to Streatham High Road, a new pedestrian access, associated landscaping and children's play space area, cycle parking and refuse and recycling storage. Applicant AGM Property

Agent Mr Greg Dowden, c/o Indigo Planning Swan Court, Worple Road, London SW19 4JS

Date valid 7 July 2011 Case Officer Mr Robert O'Sullivan

Application 11/02196/FUL Reference

Recommendation(s) Grant Planning Permission subject to S106 legal agreement

Advert Publication 10th February 2012 Date

Site Notice posted 10th February 2012 on

Drawing nos. 2008/204/00, 2008/204/01, 2008/204/02, 2008/204/03, 2008/204/04, 2008/204/05 Rev A, 2008/204/06 Rev A, 2008/204/07 Rev A, 2008/204/08, 2008/204/09, 2008/204/10, 2008/204/11, 2008/204/12, 2008/204/13, 2008/204/14, 2008/204/15 Rev A, 2008/204/16 Rev A, 2008/204/17 Rev A, 2008/204/18, 2008/204/19, 2008/204/20, 2008/204/21 Rev A, 2008/204/22, 2008/204/23, 2008/204/24 Rev A, 2008/204/25, 2008/204/26, 2008/204/27, MS-3413, SHR-PLN-001 Rev E, SHR-PLN-002 Rev D, SHR-PLN-003 Rev C Design and Access Statement received 09 January 2012 Planning Statement (Indigo Planning) received 27 June 2011

Page 75

1.0 Main Issues

1.1 The main issues pertaining to this application are:

• The principle of redevelopment and intensification of the site for residential purposes;

• The acceptability of the dwelling mix and provision of affordable housing;

• The standard of proposed residential accommodation;

• The impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties;

• The acceptability of the design of the proposal and its impact upon surrounding townscape;

• The highways and parking implications of the proposal;

• Sustainability and renewable energy issues;

• Whether the development would increase opportunities for crime;

• Planning obligations; and

• Whether the proposal has overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

2.0 Site and Surrounding Area

2.1 The 0.2ha site is situated on the western side of Streatham High Road. Existing upon the site are 14 vacant garages and two pairs of semi detached dwellings (Nos. 604-610), comprising 4 dwellings in total. The vacant garages are accessed via a driveway to the south-east of the site in between the adjoining Shirley Court and Marqueen Towers. The garages are single storey in height (approx 2.1m) and the houses are part single and part 2 storeys in height (maximum ridge height of 8.1m).

2.2 The site is made up of five plots of land, forming a U-shape site which wraps around the adjoining property at Nos. 612-618 Streatham High Road (Marqueen Towers). Four of the plots are existing residential dwellings with large rear gardens (approx 37m in length). The fifth plot is L-shaped and contains the 14 vacant garages and accessway from Streatham High Road.

2.3 For assessment purposes it is noted that these plots comprise of a mix of previously developed (brownfield) and greenfield land. The garage plot, access road and the existing building footprints are brownfield. The rear gardens to the four properties are greenfield land. Page 76

2.4 The adjoining property to the east at Nos. 612-618 Streatham High Road is occupied by a 5 storey residential property containing ten residential flats and known as Marqueen Towers. This property has a communal amenity space to the rear, which shares a boundary with the site.

2.5 To the south-east is Shirley Court which is a 3 storey building. Shirley Court is situated on the corner of Streatham High Road and Colmer Road and this property is in commercial use at ground floor and residential use on the two upper floors. Adjoining the site to the south is a terrace of two storey houses which front Colmer Road.

2.6 To the west are eight no. two-storey terrace properties in residential use (Nos. 2-16 Danbrook Road (evens)). To the north of the site are 7 no. two-storey houses which front Rochester Close (Nos. 1-7) and a detached house at No. 602 Streatham High Road. No. 600 Streatham High Road is on the Council’s register of locally listed buildings.

2.7 The site is situated within an Archaeological Priority Area and is situated on Streatham High Road which forms part of a Transport for London red route (A23). The site is not situated in a Conservation Area, and is not listed.

2.8 The site has good access to public transport (PTAL 4) with Norbury Rail Station located approx 600m to the south of the site. The site and surrounding streets are not included within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) meaning that there are no on-street parking restrictions.

2.9 The borough boundary with the London Borough of Croydon is located close to the south of the site. The application site lies adjacent to the Norbury District Centre Edge area.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.0 08/03663/FUL – Planning application for ‘Demolition of 14 existing garages and 4 existing semi detached houses and the erection of two new buildings (1 x 5 storey plus basement building and 1 x part 2 and part 3 building plus a double basement) to provide 34 residential units (10 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 7x 3 bed and 2 x 4 bed) with 26 sub basement parking spaces, 3 disabled parking spaces and 34 cycle parking spaces together with 2 new vehicular crossovers on Streatham High Road.’ was refused on 11 February 2009 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, height, bulk and detailed design, would result in a development that is out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings which would have a detrimental impact on visual amenity. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 31 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007). Page 77

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, height and detailed design, would result in the direct overlooking and a subsequent loss of privacy to the occupiers of adjoining residential properties in Colmer Road, Danbrook Road and Rochester Close and to the amenity space to the rear of Marqueen Tower. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 15 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

3. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, height and bulk, would create an undue sense of enclosure to the adjoining residential properties in Colmer Road, Danbrook Road and Rochester Close which would adversely affect the amenity of the existing occupiers. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 15 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

4. The proposed development would, by virtue of the inclusion of undersized units and undersized rooms, insufficient provision of children and young people’s play space, overlooking between the front and rear blocks and the failure of the applicant to demonstrate the proposed units would receive adequate sunlight and daylight, result in sub-standard residential accommodation, adversely affecting the amenity of future occupiers. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 15 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.

5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposed development would achieve at least a 10% reduction in carbon dioxide emission from expected energy use, by virtue of insufficient detail on the biomass boiler. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 34 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

6. The proposed development would, by virtue of the excessive number of car parking spaces proposed; the applicant’s failure to include measures to discourage car ownership and reduce on street car parking and the inaccurate trip generation figures submitted, fail to encourage more sustainable modes of transport and would have a detrimental impact on the safety and function of the adjoining highway network. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies1, 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

7. The proposed development, by virtue of the narrowness of the first 6 metres of the access to the lower basement car park and the siting of the vehicular crossovers for on site servicing, would have a detrimental impact on the safety and function of the adjoining highway network. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007). Page 78

8. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation under s106 of the Act, the application fails to provide the affordable housing proposed in perpetuity; fails to include commitments to a car share club and monitoring as part of a Travel Plan; and fails to include suitable mitigation against the development’s impact upon the local infrastructure. In the circumstances the development is contrary to policies 9, 14, 16, 23, 26, 50, 53 and 57 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).

3.1 11/00018/FUL - Planning application for ‘Demolition of 14 existing garages and four existing semi-detached houses and the erection of two new buildings comprising of a 4-storey building fronting Streatham High Road to provide 11 flats and a terrace of seven 2-storey houses with accommodation in roofspace to the rear of the site (18 residential units in total), together with 2 car parking space including a new vehicular crossover to Streatham High Road, a new pedestrian access, associated landscaping and children's play space area, cycle parking and refuse and recycling storage’ was refused on 19 April 2011 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale, height, massing and detailed design, would represent an unneighbourly form of over development that would appear visually intrusive and overbearing to the detriment of the residential amenity of the occupiers of adjoining properties in Colmer Road, Danbrook Road and Rochester Close. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its detailed design and external materials, would fail to provide buildings of sufficient design quality and therefore would fail to adequately complement the Streatham High Road streetscene and surrounding area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

3. In the absence of a Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking the application proposal would result in additional burden on local infrastructure which would not be satisfactorily mitigated. In this respect the proposal is contrary to Policy 26 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the requirements of the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘S106 Planning Obligations’ (July 2008).

Relevant planning history of adjoining properties Page 79

3.2 06/04282/FUL – Planning permission for ‘ Redevelopment of the site, involving the erection of part 2, part 3 and part 4 storey building to provide 56 flats comprising 11 x 1 bed and 45 x 2 bed, together with provision of 12 car parking spaces, cycle storage, landscaping and boundary treatment. ’ at Nos. 417-419 Streatham High Road (William Court) to the south-east of the application site was granted on 5 April 2007.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 This is a resubmission following refusal of a previous planning application (ref: 11/00018/FUL) on 19 April 2011.

4.2 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of 14 existing garages and four existing semi-detached houses and the erection of two new buildings comprising of a 4-storey building fronting Streatham High Road to provide 11 flats and a terrace of six 2-storey houses to the rear of the site (17 residential units in total), together with 2 car parking space including a new vehicular crossover to Streatham High Road, a new pedestrian access, associated landscaping and children's play space area, cycle parking and refuse and recycling storage.

4.3 The 17 units within the proposal would comprise the following dwelling mix:

Frontage Block: 1 x one-bedroom apartment; 5 x two-bedroom apartments; 3 x three-bedroom apartments; and 2 x four-bedroom apartments.

Rear Terrace: 6 x three-bedroom townhouses located parallel with the rear boundary of the site.

4.4 The four-storey frontage block facing onto Streatham High Road would have a maximum height of 11.2m and would include a 1.2m setback at fourth floor (roof level). The rear terrace of townhouses would have a maximum height of 6.0m.

4.5 The design approach is contemporary in nature. The proposed material palette would be a mix of render and timber veneer cladding panels. The roof would be a flat sedum roof and the doors/windows would be aluminium with colour coated finish.

4.6 Pedestrian and vehicular access would be via Streatham High Road. The proposal would require the blocking up of the existing vehicular crossover to the south-east corner and the installation of a new vehicular crossover to the north-east corner facing onto Streatham High Road. Servicing of the development by refuse and delivery vehicles would take place on Streatham High Road.

4.7 Refuse storage for the frontage block would be provided in the forecourt area in between the front block and Streatham High Road. Page 80

One parking space for a car club bay and one disabled car parking space would also be provided within this hard surfaced area. Cycle parking and refuse storage for the 7 terraced houses would be provided within the curtilage of each dwelling, with a communal refuse collection area provided at the Streatham High Road entrance adjacent to the southern boundary.

4.8 The site would be landscaped and a communal amenity area incorporating children’s play space would be provided between the front building and the rear terrace.

4.9 The applicant has advised that in the event of public subsidy being provided the 6 houses and the 2 ground floor 4-bedroom flats in the frontage block would be affordable housing, and if public subsidy is not available then the 6 houses to the rear terrace and one of the ground floor 4-bedroom flats in the frontage block would be provided as affordable housing. The proposed affordable housing provision and tenure mix is shown in the following table:

Table 1: Proposed Affordable Housing Provision

Affordable Housing Provision

Without public subsidy With public subsidy

Social 5 units (5 x 3-bed townhouses) 5 units (5 x 3-bed townhouses) Rented 2 units 3 units Intermediate (1 x 3-bed townhouse and 1 x (1 x 3-bed townhouse and 2 x 4- 4-bed flat) bed flats)

Tenure Split 71% : 29% 63% : 37%

Total 7 units (41% of total units) 8 units (47% of total units)

4.10 Renewable energy technology would be installed in the form of a combined photovoltaic and solar thermal system to the roofs of the buildings.

Key difference with previously refused application Ref: 11/00018/FUL

4.11 The following is an overview of the key differences between the previously refused scheme and the current proposal: Page 81

• Reduction in total number of units from 18 to 17 facilitated by a reduction in the number of units to the rear terrace from 7 no. four-bedroom houses to 6 no. three-bedroom houses

• The rear terrace of townhouses has been reduced in height, bulk and scale by the removal of a dual pitched roof and front dormer. The proposed townhouses are now two-storey with a flat roof and a maximum height of 6.0m. The previous scheme had a maximum ridge height of 8.6m.

• The footprint of the rear terrace has been reduced and sited further away from the northern and southern boundaries. There is a proposed separation distance of 6.2m with the northern boundary (previously 3.8m) and a proposed separation distance of 6.0m with the southern boundary (previously 3.8m).

• The design of the frontage block has been amended through the introduction of render as a second finishing material and two projecting bays.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Letters were sent to 131 property addresses including adjoining properties on Streatham High Road, Colmer Road, Danbrook Road, Rochester Close and Hepworth Road.

5.2 The application was also advertised by way of 6 site notices displayed adjacent to the site on 29 th July 2011 and a press advert published on 29 th July 2011. A second consultation was carried out on 10 th February 2012 following receipt of amended drawings showing design alterations to the frontage block.

5.3 The following local interest groups were notified and both raised objection to the proposal:

The Streatham Society

Colmer and Danbrook Road Residents Association

5.4 At the time of writing 29 responses (from 22 individual properties) were received in response to the public consultation, all of which raised objection to the proposal. Any further response received in advance of the Planning Application Committee will be reported by way of addendum.

5.5 The three Streatham Hill Ward Councillors (Cllr Mark Bennett, Cllr John Kazantzis and Cllr David Malley) were notified. Councillors Kazantzis and Malley have both objected to the proposal. Councillor Malley has requested that the application comes to Planning Application Committee for determination. Page 82

5.6 The objections received from the public consultation are summarised in the following section, with an officer response to those comments contained within the right hand column.

Objection Officer Response (A) LAND USE The derelict garages should be The Council can only assess the application refurbished for use by local submitted for consideration. Alternative land residents or made into a more uses are not a matter for consideration. appropriate land use such as an allotment. (B) RESIDENTIAL AMENITY Intensification of use would result The site is in a location well served by public in increased noise disturbance to transport and local amenities, and located adjoining residential properties adjacent to a key arterial traffic route. In such locations higher densities of development are encouraged by national and local planning policies. The land use is also in conformity with the prevailing pattern of development.

In any event, matters of noise nuisance are more appropriately dealt with under environmental health legislation if and when statutory noise nuisance occurs. No objection has been raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Noise Pollution team. Loss of sunlight/daylight to A daylight and sunlight study assessing adjoining residential properties potential impact upon adjoining residential properties has been submitted with the application. The report concludes that there would be no material impacts upon adjoining properties. The proposal is considered to be policy compliant in this regard and no objection is raised. Increased artificial light pollution. Due to its proposed residential use the development would be expected to generate Loss of night-time darkness to artificial light levels similar to those already adjoining properties. found in the surrounding area. This is considered reasonable within such an urban setting.

Details of external lighting of communal areas and access paths within the development could be conditioned to ensure that light spillage from these areas is managed and mitigated where necessary. Loss of privacy and unacceptable Section 7.4 of this officer report provides a Page 83

overlooking to adjoining detailed assessment of privacy issues to residential properties. adjoining residential properties. It concludes that the proposal would not adversely impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining residential properties subject to a condition to ensure that obscure glazing is provided (and retained) with the first floor windows to the rear of the terrace of townhouses. Creation of undue sense of Section 7.4 of this officer report provides a enclosure and vi sual intrusiveness detailed assessment of sense of enclosure to neighbouring properties issues to adjoining residential properties. It concludes that the proposal has overcome the previous reason for refusal relating to sense of enclosure and visual intrusiveness to the properties on Danbrook Road, Colmer Road and Rochester Close by providing a reduced number of terrace houses of lower density and height, and set back from these neighbouring properties and is now compliant with Saved Policies 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy in this regard. (C) DESIGN Unacceptable loss of residential Section 7.1 of this officer report provides a (Greenfield) land contrary to detailed assessment of the principle of National Planning Guidance. building on the existing rear gardens of Nos. 604-610. It concludes that the redevelopment and intensification of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in land use terms and policy compliant. Over-development of the site. Section 7.1 of this officer report provides a detailed assessment of density. It concludes Excessive Density that the previous objection relating to density and overdevelopment of the site has now been overcome. The proposed density of development sought is acceptable in land use terms and policy compliant. Objection to loss of 4 period The existing dwellings do not have any houses (Nos. 602-610). statutory protection or designation under the local development plan, and as such there is no objection raised to the principle of their demolition. Frontage block out of keeping with Section 7.5 of this officer report provides a neighbouring buildings due to its detailed assessment of the design of the siting, bulk, height and massing. proposal. It notes that the Urban Design Officer has raised no objection to the siting, Detrimental impact on visual bulk, height or massing of the proposal. The amenity. design of the proposal is considered to be compliant with relevant development plan policies. Page 84

Choice of timber cladding to The proposal would be finished with frontage block is out of character. composite timber panels with a natural wood veneer. This gives the appearance of timber Already examples of where it without any of the associated maintenance hasn’t worked in close proximity issues. The Urban Design Officer supports due to deterioration and the use of this material as it overcomes the maintenance issues. identified failings with natural wood finishes used within other developments in the borough. Rear terrace of townhouses would Development plan policies do not preclude be located within an enclosed development within backland locations area and thereby fails to address subject to compliance with a number of a street with its frontages and requirements including those detailed within entrances. Saved Policy 38(c) of the UDP. Backland development would by its very nature fail to address a street with its frontages and this is not considered to be a justification for refusing the proposal.

The proposal is considered to comply with development plan requirements including Saved Policy 38(c) and no objection is therefore raised. The cycle and refuse storage Officers agree that the cycle storage structure structures to front forecourt would would be unacceptable to the site frontage. look cluttered and be detrimental Details showing revised siting of the cycle to visual amenity and streetscene. storage could be sought through a planning condition in the event of planning permission being granted.

It is considered that a refuse storage could be sited within the front forecourt subject to acceptable design, siting and visual subordination. (D) QUALITY OF PROPOSED ACCOMMODATION Poor quality living The proposal complies with the unit/room size accommodation, including poor and amenity space requirements of the level of green landscaping. Council’s SPD ‘Housing Development and House Conversions’. Proposed townhouses are of The townhouses comply with Adopted SPD limited size and not suitable for Standards for three bedroom units. family housing. Officers are mindful of retaining adequate This will result in demand for separation distances and of the requirement additional extensions, thereby to ensure that adequate amenity space reducing the separation distance provision is maintained for the townhouses. It to the Danbrook Road properties is considered reasonable to remove permitted development rights for the townhouses, thereby requiring planning permission for any Page 85

extensions or erection of outbuildings in the rear gardens of the townhouses. This would allow an assessment of residential amenity impacts and potential loss of private garden space. (E) TRANSPORT/HIGHWAYS/ ACCESS/PARKING Increased parking stress on Section 7.7 of this officer report provides a surrounding roads from future detailed assessment of the highways and occupiers and visitors to the transport impacts of the proposal. development. The Council’s Transport Planner concludes that on balance the proposal is acceptable in policy terms subject to a series of mitigation measures to address the issue of parking stress. Proposal would add to general Transport for London has assessed the traffic congestion and free flow of proposal as the Statutory Highway Authority traffic on Streatham High Road for Streatham High Road, with the Council’s and within surrounding area. Transport Planner also assessing the proposal for all surrounding roads not under the control of TFL. Both parties are satisfied th at the proposal would not unacceptably add to general traffic congestion or unduly impact on the free flow of traffic on surrounding roads. Access for emergency vehicles to Fire access arrangements is a matter for the rear terrace would be consideration under Part B (Fire Safety) of unacceptable and pose a safety Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2000 hazard to future residents and the (as amended), and therefore isn’t a planning local community. matter. Access and parking arrangements It is noted that the site currently has are unsafe due to proximity to unauthorised parking to the front of 604/610 signalised junction. Streatham High Road as well as 14 garages to the rear of the site. The proposed development would reduce the level of on- site parking to two vehicles.

Transport for London has assessed the proposal and has raised no objections to the access and parking arrangements. (F) CRIME PREVENTION/DESIGNING OUT CRIME The proposal would give rise to Section 7.8 of this officer report provides a anti-social behaviour issues and detailed assessment of the crime crime risk and would be contrary prevention/designing out crime issues relating to Policy 32 of the UDP. to this development.

The siting of the children’s play The Crime Prevention Design Advisor has Page 86

area in a backland location not been consulted and does not object to the visible from the street would be principle of the proposed development, contrary to Policy 32 of the UDP. subject to compliance with Secured by Design standards. A condition is Proposal would exacerbate recommended to this effect. existing anti-social behaviour issues in the surrounding area, such as in Rochester Close and would allow local youths to congregate on the site. Security to neighbouring A number of objectors have raised concerns properties would be compromised. with previous anti -social behaviour arising from within the site (including squatters). It is considered that the proposal would increase security to neighbouring properties by bringing this vacant s ite into use and ensuring that a secure boundary treatment is provided to restrict access to the rear gardens of adjoining properties. (G) OTHER Waste provision doesn’t appear to The proposal would be required to provide be adequate, which could result in adequate waste and recycling storage in line increased litter in the surrounding with the Council’s adopted guidance. Further area. details, including a waste management plan, could be secured by condition in the event that planning permission is granted. Imbalance of flats in the The application site is located on a key surrounding area due to recent arterial traffic route with a good level of public developments such as William transport availability. Higher density Court to the east of the site and developments which include a range of unit the LIDL development site, which sizes are fully supported by development plan adjoins the borough boundary policies. although it is located within the adjoining London Borough of The Council’s Housing Division has been Croydon. consulted and fully supports the proposed dwelling mix and the quantum of affordable housing offered. Engagement with neighbouring At the time of submission there was no properties in advance of the statutory or legislative requirement to engage application submission was in pre-application consultation with inadequate. neighbouring properties.

Notwithstanding, the Council has carried out a full consultation exercise in compliance with legislative requirements. The proposed developmen t would A full officer assessment of the proposal is infringe the quality of life of given in Section 7 of this report. It is officer adjoining residents and therefore consideration that the proposal would not be contrary to the Human Rights unac ceptability infringe upon the quality of life Act 1998. of adjoining residents. Page 87

The submitted site plan is The submitted site plan (drawing no. inaccurate and misleading. The 2008/204/04 - scale 1:200) shows a site dimensions of the proposal would depth of approx 61m from the site frontage on not fit within the site. In reality this Streatham High Road to the rear boundary would mean that the rear terrace with the Danbrook Road properties. would be sited clos er to Danbrook Road properties. Officers have measured the site using the Council’s electronic mapping system and can confirm that this is an accurate representation of the site dimensions. No inaccuracies are noted and the drawings are not considered to be misleading.

Internal Consultees

5.7 The following Consultees within the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:

• Transport and Highways - No objection to the application subject to identified conditions being placed on a grant of planning permission and to the provision of a travel plan, provision of a car club bay on-site and free membership for future residents for a period of 2 years.

• Implementation Team (S106) – Advised that planning obligations are required in order to comply with the requirements of the Council’s SPD on Planning Obligations and to mitigate the potential impact of the development.

• Conservation and Design – No objection in principle to the proposal. Should planning approval be granted it is recommended that a number of conditions are included to require further details of the materials and detailed design of the scheme.

• Performance, Strategy & Regeneration – No response received at the time of finalising this report.

• Arboricultural Officer – Has reviewed the proposed layout and landscaping scheme and is satisfied that an appropriate level of soft landscaping can be secured. No objection raised subject to the inclusion of appropriately worded conditions if planning approval granted.

• Regulatory Service (Noise Pollution) – No objections to the development. Should planning approval be granted it is recommended that a condition is included to address potential environmental noise impact arising from Streatham High Road. Page 88

• Housing – No objection to the proposal. The scheme should provide 50% of the units to be affordable (assuming public subsidy).

• Crime Prevention Design Advisor – No in principle objection. A condition to ensure the development is built to Secure by Design standards is recommended.

• Streetcare – Comments not received at the time of finalising this report.

• Planning Policy – Advises that the principle of residential development is supported by the Core Strategy and the UDP. Further comments provided in relation to affordable housing, dwelling mix, lifetime homes, wheelchair housing, transport impact, flood risk, amenity space provision and renewable energy provision.

• Building Control – Verbal comments provided advising that the issue of fire access would be controlled under non-planning legislation through the technical guidance contained in Part B (Approved Document B) of schedule 1 of the Building Regulations. It covers the requirements with respect to fire safety.

External Consultees

5.8 The following Consultees external to the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:

• English Heritage (Archaeology) – Recommend approval of the submitted archaeological desk-based assessment report. It is concluded that there is potential for archaeological remains to occur on site and specifically in the western portion of the site. Archaeological position should be reserved by condition to any grant of planning permission.

• TFL Road Network – Proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact to the Transport for London Road Network subject to the imposition of a number of suggested conditions and a S106 legal agreement to any grant of planning permission. These are discussed further in the main body of the report.

• Bus Priority and Traffic Unit – No response received at the time of finalising this report.

• Environment Agency – The application has been assessed as having a low environmental risk. Unfortunately, due to workload prioritisation the EA is unable to make a response. Page 89

• Thames Water – No objection raised with regards to water or sewage infrastructure. Developer should be advised to contact Thames Water with regards to surface water drainage in the event of a planning approval.

• London Borough of Croydon – No objection raised following consideration at the Council’s Delegated Business meeting.

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). The following documents were considered as part of the assessment of this application:

• Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development:

• Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing:

• Planning Policy Statement 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation:

• Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport:

• Planning Policy Statement 22 – Renewable Energy:

• Planning Policy Guidance 24 – Planning and Noise:

• Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk

6.2 London Plan (2011)

6.2.1 The London Plan was adopted in July 2011. 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.

6.2.2 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.

6.2.3 All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

6.2.4 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant: Page 90

Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 2.9 Inner London Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments Policy 3.6 Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation Facilities Policy 3.8 Housing Choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and Balanced Communities Policy 3.10 Definition of Affordable Housing Policy 3.11 Affordable Housing Targets Policy 3.12 Negotiating Affordable Housing on Individual Private Residential and Mixed Use Schemes Policy 3.13 Affordable Housing Thresholds Policy 3.14 Existing Housing Policy 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy Policy 5.11 Green Roofs and Development Site Environs Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management Policy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage Policy 5.14 Water Quality and Wastewater Infrastructure Policy 5.21 Contaminated Land Policy 6.3 Assessing Effect of Development on Transport Capacity Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s Neighbourhoods and Communities Policy 7.2 An Inclusive Environment Policy 7.3 Designing Out Crime Policy 7.4 Local Character Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology Policy 8.2 Planning Obligations

6.2.5 The Mayor of London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance – Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (March 2008) is also of relevance to the consideration of amenity space provision.

6.3 Local Development Plan Policies

6.3.1 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 (2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy (January 2011) January 2011’. Page 91

Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.

6.3.2 The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan are considered relevant to this application:

Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 15 Additional Housing; Policy 16 Affordable Housing; Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime; Policy 33 Building Scale and Design; Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction; Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas; Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design;

6.3.3 The following policies of the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) are considered relevant to this application

Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 Housing Policy S3 Economic Development Policy S4 Transport Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10 Planning Obligations

6.4 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

6.4.1 The following adopted SPDs are relevant:

• SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions

• SPD: Safer Built Environments

• SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction

• SPD: S106 Planning Obligations

6.4.2 The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is also considered relevant.

7.0 ASSESSMENT Page 92

7.1 LAND USE

7.1.1 The existing application site comprises of two distinct elements, both of which would be demolished and/or redeveloped to facilitate the 17 residential unit development scheme as proposed. These two elements are:

(i) Four dwelling houses (Nos. 604-610) and ancillary rear gardens.

(ii) 14 vacant garages and access driveway from Streatham High Road.

(a) Demolition of existing dwellings

7.1.2 Policy S2(b) of the Core Strategy seeks to prevent the net loss of existing housing. In this instance the 4 dwellings proposed for demolition would be replaced with 17 new dwellings, and in this regard there would be no net loss of current housing stock and no objection is therefore raised. It is noted that the existing dwellings do not have any statutory protection or designation under the local development plan, and as such there is no objection raised to the principle of their demolition.

(b) Principle of development on residential garden land

7.1.3 It is noted that neighbouring residents raised several objections to the proposed development on the grounds that it would represent a loss of residential garden space (referred to as ‘garden grabbing’). It was stated that residential gardens are now protected from development due to amendments to PPS3 (Housing) in 2010 which removed residential gardens from the definition of ‘previously developed land’.

7.1.4 The application site comprises of a mix of previously developed (brownfield) and greenfield land. The garage plot, access driveway and the existing building footprints are brownfield. The rear gardens to the four properties are greenfield land and therefore the principle of redevelopment of this land requires further consideration.

7.1.5 For clarification purpose, it should be noted that the amendments to PPS3 did not place a blanket ban on any development taking place on residential gardens. Instead the change in legislation reaffirmed the powers that Local Planning Authorities have to refuse inappropriate development on residential land. Every development proposal on residential land must still be assessed on its own merits in the context of development plan policies and other material considerations.

7.1.6 Lambeth planning policy contained with Saved Policy 33 states that “the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of new residential development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that Page 93

are appropriate to their site characteristics, setting, civic function and/or importance and location in the townscape”. This design led approach does not distinguish between previously developed (‘brownfield’) land and undeveloped (‘greenfield’) land and therefore the amendments to PPS 3 have not altered the policy position in Lambeth. An assessment of the design merits of the proposal, neighbouring residential amenity and the provision of amenity space for the proposed development is detailed further on in this report. It summary, the proposal is considered to be policy complaint in regards to each of these elements, and no objection is therefore raised to redevelopment of the rear gardens.

7.1.7 It is noted that no objection was raised by the Council on land use grounds in refusing the previous planning application.

7.1.8 National policy guidance in PPS3 [Housing] actively promotes the use of previously developed (brownfield) sites for housing. The garages are classified as previously developed land and therefore no objection is raised to their redevelopment.

7.1.9 It is also noted that no objection was raised to the demolition of the garages in either of the previous two applications as the proposal would not result in the displacement of existing cars as the garages have been vacant for a number of years. The Council’s Transport planner has confirmed the acceptability of the loss of the garages.

(d) Principle of intensification of residential use

7.1.10 With respect to the intensification of residential use on the site, Core Strategy Policy S2(a) seeks the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/11 and 2016/17 in line with London Plan targets, and a further 8,800 more homes by 2024/25 subject to London Plan targets for that period.

7.1.11 The application site is surrounded by residential development and the use of the site for residential accommodation would be compatible with the surrounding land use. Therefore in land use terms the provision of additional dwellings (also Class C3 use) would be in accordance with this aspect of Policy S2 of the Core Strategy, subject to compliance with other development plan policies and other material considerations.

7.1.12 The proposal would positively contribute to the annual target for housing delivery within the Borough, as identified by the London Plan and the Core Strategy.

(e) Density of development

7.1.13 Policy 3.4 of the London Plan states that development should optimise housing output taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 of the London Plan and public transport Page 94

capacity. Reference is also made to indicative density ranges for different types of locations contained within Table 3.2 of the Plan.

7.1.14 Saved UDP Policy 33 states that the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of new residential development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Proposals for higher densities than that prevalent in the surrounding area will be encouraged in appropriate locations, which include areas of good, very good or exceptional public transport accessibility. Schemes that under-develop a site will be refused. In all cases, however, development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding development or harm residential amenity. Illustrations of densities that can be achieved are given within the supporting text to the Policy. This indicates that densities of 450-700 Habitable Rooms per Hectare (HRH) are achievable in urban areas with moderate to high levels of public transport accessibility and within walking distance of a town centre.

7.1.15 Policy S2(g) of the Core Strategy seeks levels of residential density consistent with London Plan guidelines, having regard to the provision of other uses on the site, availability of local services, access to and capacity of public transport, urban design context, quality of design and impact on existing and future residents.

7.1.16 The site lies within an urban location, because it is located along a main traffic artery and lies within 800m of a designated town centre (Norbury Town Centre as designated within the hierarchy of Centres within the LB of Croydon UDP). The site has a PTAL of 4, and the surrounding area is characterised by terraced houses or blocks with medium building footprints and buildings of typically two to four storey in height. The density of the proposed development is 85 units per hectare or 430 habitable rooms per hectare which is just below the density range set out within Policy 33 of the UDP.

7.1.17 However, it must be recognised that the density ranges given in both the London Plan and the Local Development Plan are indicative and that policy is very clear that the existing site context must be considered in applying these ranges. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP expressly states that development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding development or harm residential amenity.

7.1.18 It is officer consideration that whilst the density falls just below the target density range, the resulting density of the scheme makes best use of the site whilst taking into account surrounding development. The applicant has demonstrated that the density level sought can be accommodated on this constrained part-backland site without compromising the residential amenity of existing neighbouring properties. This has been achieved through a reduction in the number of units/habitable rooms and a scaling back of the rear terrace of Page 95

townhouses, which was the principle concern with the previous refused scheme.

7.1.19 The previous objection relating to density and overdevelopment of the site has now been overcome. In reaching this conclusion full account has been taken of London Plan and Local Development Plan policies and other material planning considerations including recent planning permissions granted for adjoining sites and referred to in the applicant’s supporting statement.

7.2 STANDARD OF PROPOSED ACCOMMODATION

7.2.1 Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community. Saved Policy 33 states that all development should be of a high design quality that makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of potential residents. In terms of the quality of residential units to be provided, Saved Policies 15 and 33 are also supplemented by the Council’s SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.

7.2.2 The SPD advises on requirements such as minimum unit and room sizes and space standards, floor to ceiling heights, amenity space requirements, daylight/sunlight provision, privacy and spacing between buildings.

(a) Size of units/rooms

7.2.3 A schedule of all room sizes contained within the development is set out at Appendix 7 of the Planning Statement. Additionally, each of the principle habitable rooms and the overall units sizes have been measured and compared against the Council’s minimum units and room size requirements in Figures 1 and 2 of the SPD respectively. The scheme would comply with the overall unit and room size requirements for each flat/house.

7.2.4 The SPD provides further advice on the requisite floorspace and states that each unit should have storage space and sufficient circulation space to allow unimpeded access between habitable rooms. The submitted floorplans shows that each of the units would have adequate storage space or room to provide storage space, and would provide sufficient circulation space.

7.2.5 Each of the units would achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.3m.

7.2.6 The stacking of the proposed units is considered acceptable and all units would need to be constructed in accordance with the soundproofing requirements under the Building Regulations.

(b) Natural lighting (Sunlight/Daylight) Page 96

7.2.7 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight.

7.2.8 A daylight and sunlight study for proposed rooms within the development has been commissioned and submitted as Appendix 6 of the planning statement. This advises that the proposed design satisfies all of the requirements set out in the BRE guide ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’. The proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy 33 in this regard and no objection is raised.

7.2.9 It is considered that each of the habitable rooms within the frontage block would provide adequate outlook for future occupants. Within the rear terrace it is considered that the primary living space and the east facing bedroom at first floor level would be provided with adequate outlook.

7.2.10 In order to overcome a potential loss of privacy issue to neighbouring properties (discussed further on in this report) it is proposed to install obscure glazed oriel windows in the two bedrooms at first floor level, which face towards the rear elevations and gardens of properties on Danbrook Road. Whilst this would partially restrict the outlook from these bedrooms it is noted that there would be clear glazing at 1.7m above finished floor level and the side panels within these oriel windows would also be clear glazed. This is considered a necessary design solution to address overlooking issue to neighbouring properties. Officers consider that whilst the reduced level of outlook to these secondary bedrooms is regrettable, it is not considered sufficient grounds to warrant a refusal. This is a design approach that has been utilised on other schemes within the borough without objection being raised.

7.2.11 A planning condition is recommended to require details of the obscure glazing and to ensure that the glazing is installed before first occupation of the townhouses and permanently retained for the duration of the use of the properties.

(d) Privacy

7.2.12 The previous scheme refused in February 2009 was considered to result in substandard accommodation, due in part to mutual overlooking and loss of privacy between proposed residential units within the scheme, namely between the frontage block and the rear terrace of dwellings.

7.2.13 The current proposal would introduce a 16.0m (approx) separation between the rear elevation of the frontage block and the rear terrace of dwellings, which is considered satisfactory within an urban location such as Streatham. In addition, no windows would be used within the Page 97

ground floor elevation of the front block and defensive planting would be utilised to the ground floor elevations of the rear terrace to provide a natural barrier between the residential units and the proposed communal amenity space (including children’s playspace). The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has advised that further demarcation between the communal area and the ground floor windows of the rear terrace could be reserved through the introduction of planting as part of a scheme of soft landscaping. It is also acknowledged that the primary living/dining area would be located to the rear of the ground floors of the townhouses. Having considered these factors, there is no objection raised on the grounds of mutual overlooking within the development. In fact, the overlooking of communal amenity space is welcomed as a design feature with the Council’s SPD.

(e) Amenity Space/Children’s Play Space

7.2.14 In carrying out an assessment of amenity space provision there are two aspects to be looked at. Firstly there is the total amenity space provision, which is calculated on the basis of the number of units to be provided. Secondly, there is children’s play space provision which is based on the child yield for the development.

(a) Total amenity space provision

7.2.15 The requirement for amenity space provision as part of new residential developments is detailed both in the London Plan and the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(h) of the Core Strategy requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by, where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.

7.2.16 This is expanded on in Section 2 of the Council’s Adopted SPD (Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions) which seeks to ensure that new housing developments provide an appropriate standard of useable amenity space for occupiers, both private and communal space.

7.2.17 With respect to the proposed flats, the SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions sets out that for new flatted development, shared amenity space of at least 50sqm per scheme should be provided. A further 10sqm per flat should also be provided, either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal space. The minimum requirement for the block of 11 flats is therefore 160sqm. It is noted that the 2 ground floor 4-bedroom flats would each have private amenity space of approx 41sqm and 45 sqm respectively. Therefore a requirement for 140sqm would be required for the remaining 9 flats. The proposal provides 280sqm (approx) of communal amenity space between the front block and the rear terrace adjoining the northern boundary of the site. In addition, there is a proposed 130sqm (approx) area of communal amenity space adjoining Page 98

the southern boundary, which has been marked out for use as a communal garden/vegetable patch/sitting out area. This provision is far in excess of the required 140sqm of communal amenity space and no objection is raised to the amenity space provision.

7.2.18 With respect to the proposed housing, the SPD minimum requirement is 30sqm per dwelling. All 7 of the proposed terrace dwellinghouses would benefit from west facing rear gardens that meet this figure and therefore would be compliant with policy. Two of the townhouses would have private amenity space of 130sqm and 140sqm respectively.

Children’s play space provision

7.2.19 In respect to Children’s play space, UDP Policy 50 (i) and the associated Housing Development SPD set out that the provision of suitable play areas for pre-school and junior children will be sought, where appropriate, in residential developments of 10 or more units, or on sites of 0.1 Ha or more, or in large mixed use developments. Play areas should be easily accessible, overlooked by habitable rooms and enclosed either through fencing, railings or other safety features. Appropriate play equipment that complies with current safety standards should be installed. Further guidance on the amount of provision is provided in the GLA’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (adopted March 2008) . This indicates that new residential development generating more than 10 children (as determined by the application of child occupancy assessments) should provide suitable play space as

part of the development scheme. It states that provision should be based on 10sqm per child and that the provision should be considered as part of the overall open space provision rather than ‘over and above’ the requirements for private or shared amenity space as set out above.

7.2.20 The plans show an area of children’s play space set aside between the frontage block and rear terrace, adjacent to the northern boundary with Rochester Close. The expected child yield for this 17 unit scheme has been calculated at 12 using the Council’s Adopted S106 SPD, which would amount to an expected 120 sqm provision in accordance with the requirements set out in the GLA’s SPG and the Council’s SPD requirements. It should be noted that the child yield figure would normally vary depending on the tenure mix and level of affordable housing. In this instance the exact level of affordable housing provision has yet to be confirmed as details of whether public subsidy is achievable has not been provided. However, the Council’s S106 toolkit calculator shows that both the 41% affordable housing scheme (7 affordable housing units) and the 47% affordable housing scheme (8 affordable housing units) would generate a similar child yield figure when rounded off.

7.2.21 The actual area of communal play space shown on the drawings would exceed this minimum requirement as previously detailed in paragraph Page 99

7.2.17. Should planning permission be granted officers recommend that further detailed drawings of the playspace, the boundary treatment and the type of equipment to be provided be secured by way of planning condition in order to ensure compliance with adopted Council policy. This would ensure the appropriate provision of either railings, fencing or other safety features as required by the Adopted SPD.

7.2.22 In summary the level and nature of amenity space is considered acceptable and would not prejudice the aims of the SPD. In the event of planning permission being granted it is recommended that a landscape management and maintenance plan for the communal amenity space and children’s’ play space be secured by condition.

(f) Noise Impact

7.2.23 Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise) guides local planning authorities on the use of their planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise. This guidance introduces the concept of Noise Exposure Categories (NECs) to help Local Planning Authorities in their consideration of applications for residential development near transport-related noise sources.

7.2.24 It is noted that 8 of the 11 flats within the frontage block would have habitable windows facing towards Streatham High Road, which is a busy traffic artery providing links to and from Central London. A number of recent residential developments have been granted in close proximity to the site on Streatham High Road (e.g. Nos. 417-419, Sinclair Court) and the proposal would have a setback of approximately 10m from the site frontage.

7.2.25 The Council’s Environmental Health team (Noise Pollution) has raised no objection to the scheme. A condition has been recommended to limit internal noise levels to living rooms and bedrooms to prevent environmental noise impact from the road.

7.2.26 In light of these issues it is officer consideration that the residential amenity of potential residents could be safeguarded in the event of planning permission being granted.

7.3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING/DWELLING MIX

Affordable Housing Provision

7.3.1 Core Strategy S2 seeks affordable housing on all sites over 0.1 of a hectare or capable of providing 10 or more units, and as such affordable housing is required on this site. The policy requirements are for 50% (40% without public subsidy) of units to be affordable with a tenure split of 70% social rented and 30% intermediate.

7.3.2 Paragraph 4.9 and the accompanying Table 1 of this report outlines the affordable housing provision offered by the applicant. Page 100

7.3.3 The figures proposed are broadly considered to be in compliance with housing policy objectives and with Saved Policy 16 of the UDP, Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and the provisions of the London Plan. This would need to be secured by way of a Section 106 legal agreement.

Dwelling mix

7.3.4 Policy S2(d) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of the community including through applying lifetime homes and Building for Life Standards and providing wheelchair accessible housing.

Table 2: Proposed dwelling mix

No. of units Percentage of units

1-bed flat 1 6.0%

2-bed flat 5 29.0%

3-bed flat 3 18%

4-bed flat 2 12.0%

3-bed house 6 35.0%

7.3.5 Table 2 shows the proposed dwelling mix. This complies with Policy S2 by providing a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community, including a number of family homes for which there is an identified demand within the borough. On this basis there is no policy objection to the proposed dwelling mix.

Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair accessible housing

7.3.6 Policy 3.8 of the London Plan, Saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(d) of the Core Strategy provide guidance on Lifetime Homes and wheelchair accessible housing. This is further expanded on in Section 7 of the Adopted SPD ‘Guidance and standards for housing development and house conversions’. This requires Lambeth to ensure that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes. In addition, within a development, ten per cent of all new homes should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.

7.3.7 The submitted planning statement advises that the development is compliant with Lifetime Homes standards. This could be secured by planning condition in the event of planning approval. Page 101

7.3.8 The submitted planning statement also advises that the proposed scheme promotes inclusive design with 100% of units being designed to be capable of accommodating the needs of wheelchair users. The requirement to secure 10% of units as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users could be secured by planning condition in the event that planning approval is granted.

7.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

7.4.1 Saved Policies 7, 33, 36 and 38 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with regards to amenity related matters. The application site is constrained both by its physical layout and by the proximity of adjoining occupiers on all shared boundaries. This section assesses the design proposal’s impact on privacy, sense of enclosure, outlook, daylight/sunlight and noise to adjoining properties.

(a) Sense of Enclosure/Overbearing impact/Visual intrusion

7.4.2 Policy 33 requires that proposed development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding properties resulting in an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

7.4.3 In assessing this resubmission it should be noted that both previous schemes were refused on the basis of the creation of an unacceptable sense of enclosure from the rear terrace of townhouses that would adversely affect the amenity of adjoining property occupiers.

7.4.4 This clearly identifies the constraints of developing this part-backland site, especially due to the proximity of adjoining properties on Colmer Road, Danbrook Road and Rochester Close. In attempting to overcome the previous reason for refusal the design of the rear terrace has been amended with a reduction in the number of units from 7 to 6 and the removal of a dual pitched roof and front dormer and replacement with a two storey building with a flat roof. This has reduced the maximum height of the townhouses from 8.6m to 6.0m.

7.4.5 In addition the footprint of the rear terrace has been reduced and sited further away from the northern boundary with Rochester Close and southern boundary with Colmer Road. There is a proposed separation distance of approx 6.2m with the northern boundary (previously 3.8m) and a proposed separation distance of approx 6.0m with the southern boundary (previously 3.8m).

7.4.6 The relationship of the rear terrace with each of the adjoining property boundaries is now assessed:

Colmer Road (to the southern boundary)

7.4.7 In assessing the previous application it was considered that the proximity of the proposed terrace of townhouses coupled with the Page 102

overall ridge height, would result in an overbearing relationship and cause unacceptable visual intrusiveness to adjoining properties in Colmer Road. The current proposal seeks to address this concern by reducing the overall height of the terrace and increasing the setback.

7.4.8 The separation distance between the proposed rear terrace and the Colmer Road properties has been increased due to a shifting of the proposed terrace away from the shared boundary wall by approximately 2.2 metres. It is considered that the properties that would be most affected would be Nos. 4 & 6 Colmer Road which would directly face onto the side flank wall of the proposed terrace. The closest distance would be approximately 14.2m between the side flank wall of the proposed terrace and the closest rear elevation (of No. 4 Colmer Road). This is an increased separation distance of approximately 6.0m over the first refused scheme, which had proposed a side flank wall to be built flush with the shared boundary at ground and first floor level with a second floor setback of 5.4m.

7.4.9 In light of these changes to the previously refused scheme, it is considered that the siting, bulk and height of the proposed development within the backland site would be acceptable and would not result in an overbearing relationship or cause unacceptable visual intrusiveness with adjoining properties in Colmer Road.

Danbrook Road (to the western boundary)

7.4.10 The site is bounded to the west by a row of two-storey terraced properties (Nos. 2-16 Danbrook Road). These properties have an angled relationship with the shared western boundary wall meaning that the separation distance increases moving northwards from No.2 towards No. 16. The closest distance between the Danbrook Road elevations and the proposed terrace would be approximately 15.8m to No.2 Danbrook Road rising to approximately 20.0m to No. 16 Danbrook Road. In considering this relationship it is also noted that the garden depth between the shared western boundary wall and the rear elevation of the proposed terrace would vary between 5.4m and 7.0m.

7.4.11 Having considered the various amendments to the scheme and in light of site visit observations including to No. 16 Danbrook Road, it is considered that the changes to the siting, bulk, length, detailed design and height of the proposed terrace have addressed previous concerns. The proposal would not result in an overbearing relationship or cause unacceptable visual intrusiveness to adjoining properties in Danbrook Road. As such the previous reason for refusal has been overcome.

Rochester Close (to the north)

7.4.12 With respect to the Rochester Close properties, it is observed that the properties most likely to be affected would be Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The flank wall of the proposed terrace would be approximately 6.2m from Page 103

the shared northern boundary wall (previously 3.8), with an approximate separation distance of 14.2m to the rear windows of ground floor living rooms within the Rochester Close properties.

7.4.13 In light of these changes to the previously refused scheme, it is considered that the siting, bulk and height of the proposed development within the backland site would be acceptable and would not result in an overbearing relationship or cause unacceptable visual intrusiveness with adjoining properties in Rochester Close.

7.4.14 No objection is raised with regards to sense of enclosure or visual intrusiveness to other adjoining properties to the east or north on Streatham High Road or south-east within Shirley Court.

7.4.15 Having regard to the above considerations, it is considered that the proposal has overcome the previous reason for refusal relating to sense of enclosure and visual intrusiveness to the properties on Danbrook Road, Colmer Road and Rochester Close by providing a reduced number of terrace houses of lower density and height, and set back from these neighbouring properties and is now compliant with Saved Policies 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy in this regard.

(b) Loss of Privacy/Overlooking

7.4.16 Saved Policy 33(d) requires that the scale and design of new buildings should respect standards of privacy and not create unacceptable overlooking to neighbouring properties.

7.4.17 In terms of the frontage block, it is considered that the proposed building has been designed to ensure that there would be no direct overlooking into windows of adjoining residential properties on Rochester Close. Potential overlooking into rear gardens may occur at an oblique angle, but this form of overlooking is to be expected in an urban setting such as that surrounding the application site.

7.4.18 The flank walls of the rear terrace would be blank, and therefore there would be no issue of overlooking to properties that face Rochester Close or Colmer Road. The high level walkways that were a feature of a previous scheme have been omitted in the current proposal.

7.4.19 The rear of the proposed terrace of 7 houses would face onto the rear of the properties on Danbrook Road, with a distance from elevation to elevation ranging from approx 15.8m with No.2 Danbrook Road up to a distance of approx 20.0m with No. 16 Danbrook Road. The applicant envisages that the existing perimeter wall around the site would be retained, thereby maintaining appropriate levels of privacy to rear gardens of neighbouring dwellings at ground floor level. Full details of boundary treatment could be reserved by planning condition in the event of planning approval being granted. Page 104

7.4.20 At first floor level the proposal would utilise oriel windows to serve the two rear bedrooms. These oriel windows form a box which projects from the face of the rear elevation, the sides of which would be clear glazed while the rear part of the window facing Danbrook Road would be obscure glazed up to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level. The obscure glass would allow light through but not allow any direct or significant views into the Danbrook Road properties or rear gardens. Oblique views may be possible but would be restricted to the clear glazed sides and top of the oriel window, which would allow a reasonable balance to be struck between protecting the privacy of the properties at Danbrook Road while providing a degree of outlook for the occupiers of the proposed bedrooms. This approach has been used within other development schemes within the borough and it is officer consideration that it would adequately address privacy concerns.

7.4.21 An objection was also previously made within the first refused scheme that the upper floors of the terraced house would be able to overlook the communal garden of Marqueen Tower immediately abutting the eastern boundary of the application site. It is acknowledged that there would be potential for overlooking from the first floor bedroom and corridor. However, this has been balanced against the removal of the raised walkways and front doors that were at first floor level in the first refused scheme, the removal of the habitable rooms and front facing dormer within the roofspace, the use of these proposed east facing rooms for bedroom purposes and the quasi-public character of the adjoining space. It is also acknowledged that the adjoining communal gardens are already overlooked to a considerable degree by other properties in the vicinity, in particular by the properties at Shirley Court. In light of this information it is officer consideration that a reason for refusal on the grounds of loss of privacy to the Marqueen Tower communal garden could not be sustained at appeal and is therefore not maintained.

7.4.22 Overall, the proposed layout and positioning of windows, coupled with proposed mitigation measures, is considered acceptable and would be sufficient to achieve adequate privacy and outlook.

7.4.23 Saved Policy 33(d) requires that new buildings should be of a scale and design that protects residential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers by having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight. In assessing daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development upon residential neighbours, Saved Policy 33 states that regard will be had to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice’. Page 105

7.4.24 A daylight and sunlight study in respect of potential impact upon adjoining properties has been commissioned and submitted as Appendix 5 of the planning statement. This advises that the proposed design satisfies all of the requirements set out in the BRE guide ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’. The report concludes that there would be no material impacts upon adjoining properties.

7.4.25 With respect to the potential for overshadowing of neighbouring gardens, the applicant has submitted an overshadowing report as part of the BRE study. The BRE guide recommends that for an open space to appear adequately lit throughout the year, no more than 40% and preferably no more than 25% of its area should be prevented from receiving any sunlight at all on 21 st March. If the garden can receive some sun on 21 March, then it will receive some sunlight all summer.

7.4.26 The submitted report concludes that the proposed development would comply with the above requirements. The proposed development therefore passes the BRE overshadowing to gardens and open spaces test.

(d) Noise/Light disturbance

7.4.27 It is accepted that the site would be more intensively occupied, especially relative to the vacant garages and underutilised residential dwellings on site at present. However, the site is in a location well served by public transport and local amenities. In such locations higher densities of development are encouraged by national and local planning policies. Matters of noise nuisance are more appropriately dealt with under environmental health legislation if and when it occurs. Matters of noise transmission between properties are more appropriately a consideration of building regulations and there is no evidence to suggest that the future occupiers would be a source of unacceptable noise or disturbance.

7.4.28 The Council’s Environmental Health (Noise Pollution) team has provided comments and has not raised an objection to the proposal on noise grounds.

7.4.29 In the circumstances there is no reason to suggest that the proposed nature and intensity of residential use of the site would cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of the vicinity and the proposal is considered to comply with Saved Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy.

7.4.30 The issue of disturbance to adjoining residents from light pollution has also been raised by a number of objectors. In assessing this issue it is observed that the application site is located with an urban setting typified by a tight urban grain. The siting of the proposed terrace, and in particular windows, would be at an adequate separation distance and would not be out of keeping with existing layouts elsewhere in the surrounding area. As such there is no reason to believe that the Page 106

proposed development would lead to unacceptable levels of light pollution.

7.4.31 Details of external lighting of communal areas and access paths within the development could be conditioned to ensure that light spillage from these areas is managed and mitigated where necessary.

7.5 DESIGN AND TOWNSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS

7.5.1 A high quality standard of design is an integral requirement for all new build schemes, which is clearly reflected in National, Regional and Local level policies and guidance. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 states that good design is indivisible from good planning, with high quality and inclusive design being the aim of all of those involved in the development process.

7.5.2 The design approach is contemporary in nature which follows on from the previously refused scheme. It is noted that the previous proposal was refused on design and visual amenity grounds for the following reason:

“The proposed development, by virtue of its detailed design and external materials, would fail to provide buildings of sufficient design quality and therefore would fail to adequately complement the Streatham High Road streetscene and surrounding area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)”.

7.5.3 In refusing the previous application the Local Planning Authority raised specific objection to the unusual shape of the timber veneer cladding system, which was felt to contradict the angular proportions and detailing of the building. There was also concern that the panelling due to its size could appear quite flat, lacking texture and interest. Concerns were also expressed by the Council’s Urban Design Officer with the use of a single material for the external facades of the building. The design of the current proposal has been developed in light of these concerns.

Building Form, Scale, and Height

7.5.4 Saved Policy 33(b) states that all development should be of an appropriate scale, massing and height appropriate to the site characteristics. Saved Policy 38 states that backland development should be subordinate to the frontage housing.

7.5.5 This part of Streatham High Road is generally between two to four storeys in height. Properties located off of the main High Road are suburban in character typically two storey Victorian and interwar homes. The properties along the High Road tend to be elevated in Page 107

height (three to four storeys) in comparison to the residential hinterland beyond. Marqueen Tower to the east is uncharacteristic of neighbouring buildings being five storeys in height with a fifth storey set back. It is also noted that a number of buildings have recently been constructed along the High Road including William Court (No. 417-419 Streatham High Road), Sinclair Court and the new Lidl development within the adjoining LB of Croydon and have a maximum height of four storeys.

7.5.6 The terrace in which the development is sited does not have a consistent height and ranges from two to five storeys. The scheme proposes a front block with a height of four storeys with the fourth storey set back from the building frontage. The proposal’s height is a storey lower than Marqueen Tower and approximately a storey and a half higher than the adjoining No. 602 Streatham High Road. In design terms it is considered that the proposal provides an acceptable transition between the differing scale of neighbouring properties.

7.5.7 In assessing the proposed rear terrace, it is worth reiterating that the residential hinterland off of Streatham High Road consists of mainly low scale residential properties generally two storey in height with pitched or hipped roofs. The proposed terrace to the rear would be two storey in height with a flat roof.

7.5.8 In providing comments on the previous refused application the Council’s Urban Design officer commented that in her opinion the rear terrace would benefit from removing the fourth bedroom in the roof, leaving a flat roof proposal. These comments have been taken on board and incorporated into the current proposal.

7.5.9 On this basis the proposed rear terrace is considered to be visually subordinate to the properties surrounding it, and therefore complies with Saved Policy 38 of the UDP. No objection is raised to the proposal’s scale, bulk or height.

Layout

7.5.10 The proposal for the frontage block follows the common building line along Streatham High Road which is acceptable.

7.5.11 The Council’s Urban Design Officer considers the proposed site layout to be broadly acceptable. However, this is subject to addressing design/layout concerns with the front forecourt, in particular the potential visual impact/dominance of large structures for cycle and refuses storage for the flats within the frontage block. It is officer consideration that the cycle storage area could be relocated into the communal garden. It is also considered that the forecourt has an excessive amount of hard surfacing, which could be addressed through the incorporation of more soft landscaping and greater depth of perimeter planting. These design revisions could be secured through planning conditions. Page 108

Appearance & materials

7.5.12 Saved Policy 33 (Building scale and design) states that all development should be of high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area. In addition Saved Policy 33(a) states that developments should be compatible with the colour, type, source and texture of local materials.

7.5.13 The proposal takes a contemporary approach in its design and materials. The proposed material palette for the frontage block would be a mix of render and timber veneer cladding panels. A sample of a dark red/brown colour Prodex cladding panel has been submitted, which is a composite panels with a natural wood veneer. The applicant has advised that these panels give the appearance of timber without any of the associated maintenance issues.

7.5.14 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has not raised an objection to the use of dark red/brown timber veneer cladding panels and has commented that the colour resonates with many developments within the area. Further advice states that the quality of the cladding is largely dependent on the fixing mechanism, which should utilise a concealed fixing with no visible screws. Details of the method of fixing along with the size of profile of the cladding could be controlled through planning condition.

7.5.15 The doors/windows would be aluminium with a polyester powder coated finish. A stainless steel balustrade would be installed on the top floor set back with glazed laminated panels to the north and south ends. Frameless glass balustrades are proposed for the units above ground floor level. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has advised that these should be clear glazed rather than the coloured glazing suggested by the applicant. The rear terrace of 6 townhouses would be a mix of white insulated render and timber veneer cladding panels. The roofs would be a flat sedum roof. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has advised that window detailing would benefit from simplification and has recommended that further details be sought by way of planning condition.

7.5.16 The previous scheme has been amended through the introduction of a second facing material, two projecting rendered bays to the front elevation and design alterations to the side flank walls. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has provided the following comments regarding the design amendments to address the previous design reason for refusal:

“The frontage block front elevation has regular openings and displays balance and symmetry. The revised scheme incorporates Sto white render bays to the front elevations, the contrast between the dark red/brown cladding and white render serve to break up the large areas of cladding whilst the Page 109

projection of the bays brings relief and depth to the façade which results in a more visually interesting façade. The side elevations have also been amended and now include render and cladding which through the arrangement of materials results in a more interesting elevation. The material arrangement also reduces the perceived mass of the building The rear block is simply articulated clad in Sto white render with Prodex [timber cladding] accents to the front entrance, ground floor rear window infill panel and projecting first floor rear window bay surround which is acceptable.”

7.5.17 No. 600 Streatham High Road is locally listed. Officers consider that the proposal would not unacceptably impact upon the setting of this locally listed building.

7.5.18 In summary, the proposed development has overcome the design concerns noted within the previously refused scheme. Subject to the approval of further design details by way of planning conditions it is officer consideration the proposal would provide a scheme of acceptable design quality that complements the Streatham High Road streetscene and surrounding area. As such the proposal is compliant with Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

Trees

7.5.19 A number of objections have been raised to the felling of trees that previously existed on the site. This is not a matter for consideration as the trees did not benefit from any statutory protection and the applicant was entitled to remove them from this private property without the requirement to seek approval from the Local Planning Authority. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has reaffirmed this point.

Landscaping

7.5.20 Saved Policy 39 of the UDP states that development should include landscape design that enhances the area. Details of the proposed landscaping treatment have been provided within the submitted Design and Access statement and the accompanying application drawings. The intention is to provide a comprehensive proposal for landscaping around the two buildings. Trees and shrubs would be planted in front of the building fronting Streatham High Road and also throughout the communal garden.

7.5.21 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has raised no objection to the indicative layout but has requested that further details of a scheme of final scheme of soft and hard landscaping as well as a planting schedule be reserved by condition in the event of a planning approval. The landscaping scheme should also be amended to address the Page 110

earlier concerns relating to the treatment of the front forecourt area and relocation of the cycle storage.

7.5.22 In light of these comments, it is officer consideration that an acceptable landscaping strategy and management plan could be secured in the event of planning approval that would comply with the intentions of Saved Policy 39 of the UDP.

Loss of wildlife/Protection of the natural environment

7.5.23 Policy 5.3 of the London Plan seeks to protect and promote biodiversity and nature conservation. Given the existing use of the site, both in terms of the unmanaged rear gardens and the vacant garages site, it is unlikely that the application site would contain residual biodiversity interest. It is acknowledged that the proposal would introduce managed soft landscaping, including gardens and communal amenity space, to a site that is currently uncared for and unmanaged. There are no implications in terms of protected landscapes, sites of wildlife importance or access to and use of existing open space.

7.5.24 However, it is noted that the garages are currently vacant and are not currently accessible due to the erection of a boundary wall along the access driveway. In the absence of activity on this part of the site it is not inconceivable for some wildlife to be present on the site. Officers therefore consider it appropriate to seek an ecological survey before works commence on site to establish if there are any legally protected species or habitats which might be present on the application site, and to detail appropriate mitigation measures in the event that such species are present.

Archaeological matters

7.5.25 The application site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area. Policy S9(b) of the Core Strategy states that the Council has a responsibility to safeguard and promote the borough’s heritage assets, including marking appropriate provision for assets of archaeological value.

7.5.26 The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Statement which has been reviewed and commented upon by English Heritage Archaeology. Advice has been received that there is potential for archaeological remains to occur on site and specifically in the western portion of the site. It has advised that the archaeological position should be reserved by attaching a condition to any grant of planning permission to prevent any development works commencing before further investigative works have been undertaken to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

7.6 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES Page 111

7.6.1 Policy S7(a) of the Core Strategy requires all major developments to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in line with London Plan targets. This adopts a presumption that developments will achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation [Policy 4A.7 Renewable Energy]. Saved Policy 35 sets out that all development proposals should show how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles.

7.6.2 The applicant has submitted an Energy Statement by Southfacing Services Ltd enclosed as Appendix 11 of the Planning Statement. This states that consideration had been given to a range of potential solutions to achieve a 20% CO2 reduction through the use of renewable technologies. Five possible renewable technologies were investigated by the Sustainability consultants. These are Solar Thermal, Ground Source Heat Pumps (gSHP), Biomass Boilers, Photovoltaic cells (PV) and rooftop integrated wind turbines.

7.6.3 Four of these were found to achieve a reduction of 20% of the total carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the Council’s requirements, with the wind turbines option discounted. Of the four options, a standalone biomass system proves to have the lowest installed cost, but would require additional plant space, communal distribution system and a fuel store. The combined PV and Solar Thermal array has been chosen as the preferred solution because it would require minimal additional space within the scheme compared to biomass. Additionally this option would incur lower maintenance overheads and be eligible for the Feed in Tarriff (FIT). The submitted energy statement indicates that the installation of 125sqm of panels on the roofs would achieve a carbon dioxide reduction of 22.25%.

7.6.4 It is considered that in the event of planning approval, policy compliance could be secured by way of a condition requiring further details of the preferred solution to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This would also allow the Local Planning Authority to address any potential design or amenity issues arising from the renewable technology equipment.

7.6.5 With reference to Saved Policy 35, all development proposals should show, by means of a Sustainability Assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. The sustainability assessment should detail how a proposed development incorporate the sustainability principles set out in the UDP and as expanded on in the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. The SPD sets out that the Council’s preferred method of environmental certification for residential development is the Code for Sustainable Homes. The Council seeks the achievement of Code Level 3 as a minimum standard although it aspires to Code Level 4 in the majority of developments.

7.6.6 The applicant has submitted a Code for Sustainable Homes Pre- assessment report by Southfacing Services Ltd enclosed as Appendix 10 of the Planning Statement. This indicates that based on the current Page 112

design the proposal would achieve a score of 70.86%, which places the development within Code Level 4 in excess of the Council’s minimum requirement. If planning permission is granted it is recommended that a condition is attached stating that no dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.

7.7 HIGHWAYS AND PARKING ISSUES

7.7.1 Saved Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with respect to Transportation and Highways matters. These policies seek to ensure that proposals for development have a minimal impact on the performance and safety of the highway network and that sufficient and appropriate car parking and cycle storage is provided whilst meeting objectives to encourage sustainable transport and to reduce reliance on the private car.

7.7.2 The site is located within an area of good public transport (PTAL score of 4) and is not within a Controlled Parking Zone. The site is located on the A23 Streatham High Road which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network.

7.7.3 The proposal would not provide any on-site parking with the exception of one parking space for a car club bay and one disabled car parking space within this hard stand area to the site frontage onto Streatham High Road.

Trip Generation

7.7.4 The site currently contains 14 garages which although currently vacant could be used for off-street car parking. The applicant has suggested that combined with the four existing houses, the existing site has the potential to generate approximately 34 two way vehicle trips per day. The proposed development of 17 residential units is likely to generate 28 two way vehicle trips to the site per day meaning a reduction of 6 two way trips per day. The Council’s Transport Planner is satisfied that there would not be any significant increase in vehicle trips as a result of the proposal.

Vehicle Access

7.7.5 A number of objections have been received from local residents with regards to the pedestrian and vehicular safety at the site entrance and on Streatham High Road, especially at its junctions with Colmer Road and Green Lane. The proposal would involve the installation of a new vehicular crossover to Streatham High Road to facilitate access to the proposed front forecourt area. Both Transport for London and the Council’s Transport Planner have been consulted and no issue has been raised with this arrangement. TfL has requested that a S106 obligation be imposed to require that the developer enters into S278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980 with TFL for the removal of Page 113

redundant crossovers/reinstatement and making good the footway on Streatham High Road. If planning permission is granted it is recommended that this be included within the s106 legal agreement.

Car parking

7.7.6 Policy 14(g) states that car free developments are encouraged in areas of good, very good and exceptional public transport accessibility (with reference to PTAL score). In these areas, especially where there is presently severe parking stress or there would be a significant increase in parking stress following development, development will be secured as car-free (no on-site parking) and/or permit-free (where the eligibility of occupiers for Council parking permits is prohibited), and/or be part of/contribute towards a city car club.

7.7.7 The site has a PTAL of 4 which indicates good accessibility and therefore the principle of low car parking provision, in this instance a total of 2 spaces for a disabled user bay and for a city car club within the site, is acceptable. However, it is inevitable that additional on-street car parking would occur and therefore it is necessary to look at the impact of this. The applicant has undertaken an overnight parking survey in the surrounding area which confirms the Council’s Transport Planner’s view that parking stress in the area is currently at a very high level with little spare capacity remaining.

7.7.8 In order to estimate what impact the proposed development would have on parking levels in the area it is necessary to calculate how many vehicles are likely to be owned by future residents. The most accurate method of doing this is by referring to car ownership data from the 2001 Census. This shows that 63.4% of households in this area own one or more vehicles, which is the highest level of car ownership of any ward in Lambeth.

7.7.9 The development proposes a total of 17 units so using the Census data it would be expected that 14 cars would be owned by residents of the development, with 8 dwellings owning 1 car and 3 flats owing 2 cars. When these additional cars (less the one on-site disabled parking bay) are added to the overall parking stress for both restricted and unrestricted lengths of road, an overall stress of 74% is reached. This level is 92% when unrestricted on-street parking is assessed. The Council’s Transport Planner considers this to be high and has requested that a series of mitigation measures are put in place to address this issue. These include:

• Provision of a minimum of 30 cycle spaces to be secured by planning condition in the event of planning approval. • Designation of an on-site car club bay and membership to be secured for residents of the development for a 2 year period with £25 of driving credit per member to be secured by S106 in the event of planning approval. Page 114

• Securing of a travel plan through a S106 in order to promote sustainable modes of transport for future occupiers.

7.7.10 On balance and taking into account the proposed mitigation measures and the Good PTAL rating of 4 the Council’s Transport Planner considers that subject to conditions and a S106 legal agreement the proposal is acceptable in transport/highways terms.

7.7.11 It is noted that Transport for London has advised that the car parking provision is in accordance with the standards set out in the London Plan.

Construction Management Plan

7.7.12 Transport for London (TFL) has been consulted as the appointed highways authority for Streatham High Road. TFL requests that a Construction Logistics Plan, as referred to in the London Freight Plan, which identifies efficiency and sustainability measures to be undertaken whiles developments are being built, is submitted to and approved by the LB of Lambeth in conjunction with TfL before construction work commences on site. This could be secured by planning condition in the event of a planning approval.

Cycle Parking Provision

7.7.13 Cycle parking is shown to be provided in connection with the development. A total of 24 cycle spaces are proposed for the entire development with 12 provided in a secure communal structure located in front of the site for use by occupiers of the flats and a further 12 provided for the houses. This would have been sufficient according to Lambeth UDP standards, however these have not been saved under the Core Strategy. London Plan standards are now used which require one space per 1 or 2 bed unit but 2 spaces for every 3+ bed unit. This being the case the applicant should provide a total of 28 cycle spaces.

7.7.14 The Transport Planning Officer has advised that further details including manufacturer’s specification could be requested by way of planning condition should planning approval be granted. It is also noted that the Council’s Urban Design Officer has raised concerns with the siting of the communal cycle storage structure in the front forecourt area. In the event of planning approval this could be reserved by way of planning condition.

7.7.15 It follows that the development, subject to appropriate conditions and s.106 obligations, has addressed the previous transport/highways reason for refusal and is acceptable in the context of Transportation and Highways related Policies; namely Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).

7.8 DESIGNING OUT CRIME Page 115

7.8.1 Saved Policy 32 of the UDP requires that development should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. Policy S9(f) of the Core Strategy requires the Council to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability by creating safe and secure environments that reduce the scope for crime, fear of crime, anti-social behaviour and fire, having regard to Secured by Design standards.

7.8.2 A number of objections have been received from local residents raising concerns in terms of potential increased crime risk and anti-social behaviour resulting from the development. In addition, objection was previously received from Sergeant Mark Brindley on behalf of the Streatham South Safer Neighbourhood Team (c/o Streatham Policy Station). The following concerns were raised:

• The proposal would give rise to anti-social behaviour issues and crime risk and would be contrary to Policy 32 of the UPD. • The siting of the children’s play area in a backland location not visible from the street would be contrary to Policy 32 of the UPD. • Proposal would exacerbate existing anti-social behaviour issues in the surrounding area, such as in Rochester Close and would allow local youths to congregate on the site. • Affordable housing units could end up on Lambeth’s Housing Register and fail to contribute positively to the surrounding area based on existing precedents in the area such as the adjoining Marqueen Tower.

7.8.3 The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Officer (CPDA) was consulted on the scheme at pre-application stage and has confirmed a visit to the site to discuss the proposal with the applicant’s planning consultant. The CPDA has also been provided with a copy of the concerns raised by Sgt Brindley before providing her comments.

7.8.4 The CPDA has advised that the main crime issues that affect this area are groups of youth loitering, with some committing street crime, drug related offences and anti-social behaviour. It is essential that this proposed development is well designed to mitigate these potential risks and include good boundary fencing all round with effective lighting and good quality audio visual access control at the communal entrance points. The narrow entrance to the houses requires particular attention to ensure a safe access point along the gardens of Marqueen Towers.

7.8.5 The CPDA has not raised an in principle objection to the scheme, but instead has made a number of recommendations to address potential crime generation/anti-social behaviour issues including a requirement that the development should be required to achieve ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation. It is officer consideration that this could be addressed by way of a planning condition in the event of planning approval being granted. Page 116

7.8.6 The CPDA has also raised the issue of whether it may be appropriate to consider securing financial contributions through a S106 legal agreement for local youth facilities provision due to the potential introduction of further youths into the area, and the pre-existing issues arising from local youths congregating in the vicinity of the site.

7.8.7 It is officer consideration that such an obligation would not be suitable in this instance, and would fail to meet the tests for planning obligations as set out in Government Circular 05/2005 (Planning Obligations). Firstly, this planning application is not a suitable mechanism to address pre-existing issues with anti-social behaviour in the surrounding area. There are other legislative measures and potential funding streams to deal with this problem. Secondly, no evidence has been put forward to indicate that the proposed development would intensify this existing anti-social behaviour issue. The scheme provides an acceptable quantum of amenity space in line with adopted SPD requirements for all target age groups. A financial contribution is therefore considered unreasonable and wouldn’t be necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning term.

7.8.8 It is also noted that a sum of £ 9,749.65 would be secured by way of planning obligation towards the provision and upkeep of sports and leisure facilities within the borough (see para 7.10.4 of this report). This would be used to maintain sports and leisure facilities within the borough, which would be available to users of the proposed development.

7.8.9 The CPDA has also requested that the boundaries between the proposed development and the side access/rear garden of Marqueen Tower be improved to ensure the safety and security of residents. In the event of planning approval this could be secured by way of planning condition.

7.8.10 It follows that the development, subject to appropriate conditions, is acceptable in the context of crime prevention/Designing out crime related policies; namely Policy 32 of the UDP and Policy S9(f) of the Core Strategy.

7.9 REFUSE/RECYCLING STORAGE

7.9.1 Policy S8 of the Core Strategy places a requirement on developments to contribute to the sustainable management of waste. Specific guidance is set out within the Council’s ‘Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements’ guidance (2006).

7.9.2 It is proposed to provide separate waste and recycling facilities for the rear terrace of 6 dwellinghouses and the frontage block containing 11 flats. The 4 storey frontage block would have a purpose built storage structure located within the front forecourt area adjoining the two vehicle parking spaces. The 11 flats contain a total of 28 bedrooms. The required capacity for the communal storage is 1,680 litres (to be Page 117

provided by 2 x 1,100 litre waste bins) and 840 litres (to be provided by 1 x 1,280 litre recycling bin).

7.9.3 The rear terrace of 6 dwellinghouses would have one 360 litre bin for waste for each house, along with a recycling box to be provided by the Council. A communal storage area would also be provided within the access pathway between Marqueen Towers and Shirley Court. This would be located behind secure access gates.

7.9.4 In the event of planning approval a condition could be attached to any planning permission requiring the agreement of a refuse management plan with the Council which would ensure that appropriate refuse and recycling storage arrangements are put in place upon completion of the development.

7.9.5 It is noted that objections have been raised on traffic/highways ground to the requirement for refuse collection vehicles to park on Streatham High Road when servicing the development, especially in light of its proximity to the junction with Green Lane. The issue has not been raised as a concern by Transport for London (TfL) as the highways authority for Streatham High Road. As such no objection is raised on transport/highways grounds.

7.9.6 It follows that subject to condition, the development need not conflict with Policy S8 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).

7.10 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLICATIONS/S.106 REQUIREMENTS

7.10.1 Policy 16 of the UDP and Policy S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), supplemented by the other policies of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and UDP and the SPD on s106 planning obligations, sets out the circumstances in which the Council will seek planning obligations from a developer to mitigate against the potential impacts of a scheme.

7.10.2 As already stated, the scheme proposes 41% affordable housing based on units. This provision would comprise 6 no. three-bedroom townhouses and 1 no. four-bedroom apartment. It is proposed that 5 of the townhouses be social rented with the 2 remaining units for intermediate housing. This would equate to a 71%:29% tenure split. This would need to be secured by way of a Section 106 legal agreement. No details have been provided regarding whether grant funding would be available. It is further recommended that any S106 agreement should require an uplift in the event that grant funding does become available to secure one additional affordable unit.

7.10.3 In order to mitigate the Transport/Highways impacts of the development, one of the 2 off-street bays within the front forecourt is proposed to be designated as a Car Club Bay. The applicant has submitted details of a potential agreement with Streetcar to operate this bay. This should be secured by way of planning obligation along with a Page 118

requirement that provision of membership to the car club is provided for all of the residential units for a minimum period of 2 years. As previously mentioned, a S106 obligation is also recommended to require that the developer enters into S278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980 with TFL for the removal of redundant crossovers/reinstatement and making good the footway on Streatham High Road

7.10.4 Further to this, it is considered that financial contributions should be secured by way of S106 to mitigate against the development’s impact as follows:

• Education £75,873.65 • Health £13,599.50 • Libraries £2,614.14 • Sports and Leisure £9,749.65 • Parks and Open Spaces £27,380.80 • Public Art £23,525.00 • Revenue Contributions £2,738.00 • Travel Plan £1,000 • Local Labour in Construction £5,881.25 • Monitoring Fee 4,059.04

7.10.5 The above contributions come to a total of £166,421.03

7.10.6 It is considered that the above provisions, once secured under S106 of the Act, would appropriately mitigate against any potentially harmful impacts of the development in accordance with Policies 9, 14, and 16 of the UDP, Policies S2 and S10 of the Core Strategy and with the Council’s associated SPD on S106 obligations.

7.11 FLOOD RISK

7.11.1 Policy S6 of the Core Strategy advises that the Council will work in partnership with the Environment Agency in order to manage and mitigate flood risk. The site lies within an area that is categorised by the Environment Agency as having a low environmental risk from flooding. It follows that the site and development does not pose an unacceptable risk in terms of river or sea flooding or flooding from alternative sources.

7.11.2 In terms of managing surface water drainage and run-off, the submitted design and access statement advises that paving throughout the site would be permeable to allow natural drainage. A condition is recommended which would require further details on how the proposal Page 119

would address surface water runoff and peak flow to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7.12 CONTAMINATED LAND

7.12.1 A Phase 1 Environmental desk study report relating to potential land contamination at the site has been submitted with the application. The findings did not reveal any significant existing sources of ground contamination. However, based on the desk study information, some contamination issues associated with the potential risk to groundwater and surface water may be present. The main potential sources of contamination are potential made ground beneath the site, the residential garages on the site and the former petrol filling station some 15m to the east of the site.

7.12.2 The study report suggests further works that could reasonably be secured by condition were the development considered acceptable in all other respects. This would take the form of a Phase II intrusive site investigation and assessment. Should this recommendation be fulfilled, with the inclusion of suitable mitigation measures should the results demonstrate inappropriate levels of contamination, then the site’s history need not be a barrier to the provision of an acceptable living environment for future residential properties. A condition of consent is recommended in this respect.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 The development as proposed optimises the potential of a part brownfield and part greenfield site located within an area of good public transport accessibility

8.2 The proposed redevelopment of the site is acceptable in that it would be of an appropriate design; it would provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers; it would not prejudice the amenity of neighbouring properties; it would not harm conditions of on-street parking or prejudice conditions of the free flow of traffic and highway safety; and would not unacceptably impact upon local infrastructure.

8.3 Furthermore, provisions are to be secured under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure the delivery of an appropriate quantum of affordable housing in accordance with policy requirements and to mitigate the impact of the development.

8.4 This report details that the proposed development has overcome the three reasons for refusal given by the Local Planning Authority in refusing the previous application on the site (ref: 11/00018/FUL).

8.5 It is therefore considered that the development is compliant with the planning policies of the development plan and that no other material planning considerations of sufficient weight exist that would dictate that the application should nevertheless be refused. Page 120

9 RECOMMENDATION

A. Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Obligation (Heads of Terms set out in section 7.10 of this report) and the attached conditions; or

B. It is further recommended that, in the event that the committee is minded to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, that delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a Section 106 agreement with the appellants in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

Summary of Reasons:

CONDITIONS

STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

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

DESIGN/HERITAGE 3. No development shall commence until detailed drawings, samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations and roofs within the scheme hereby permitted are submitted to and approved in writing by Page 121

the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. This shall include details of size and method of fixing of the timber cladding panels. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

4. No development shall commence until detailed drawings (scale of 1:20) to confirm the detailed design and materials of the:

i) new metal work including railings, gates, ballustrades and balconies, ii) window and door systems (including technical details, elevations, plans and cross sections) iii) front entrances for both front and rear blocks (including surrounds) iv) roof structure (including sections) v) rain water pipes (including material and colour) are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

5. All window reveals on the external faces of the development hereby permitted shall be set within 112mm (minimum) reveals from the face of the building unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

6. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme for the siting and design of all walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings for the Page 122

whole site (including details of those existing which are to be retained and of those proposed). The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and such walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the development and be permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and to ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenity is provided (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

7. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a revised site layout showing the relocation of the communal cycle storage structure from the front forecourt to the rear of the site. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details before the initial occupation of the development and be permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

8. No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of the buildings.

9. No development (including demolition) shall take place within the site until the applicant, their agent or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme pursuant to this Page 123

condition. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigation before any archaeological remains may be affected by the development (Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2011), Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)) and Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) – Planning for the Historic Environment).

10. No development shall commence until full revised details of the refuse and recyclables storage area(s) for the approved scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies 9, 33, 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S8 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

11. No development shall commence until a Waste Management Strategy outlining the operation and management of waste storage and collection has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate arrangements are put in place for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area and the safe operation of the adjacent public highway (Policies 9, 33, 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4, S8 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

SUSTAINABILITY/BIODIVERSITY 12. The development hereby approved shall achieve a Final BREEAM minimum of Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the relevant BREEAM scheme (Code for Sustainable Homes) or subsequent superseding equivalent BREEAM scheme. No development shall take place until a relevant BREEAM Certificate demonstrating the proposal’s achievement of the minimum Level 3 rating has been submitted to and approved by the Council. Within 4 months of the first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, an issued Final BREEAM Certificate stating the BREEAM Level achieved (minimum Level 3) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th Page 124

August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

13. Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on the approved drawings or supporting information, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until further details on how the proposal will address surface water runoff and peak flow has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

14. Prior to the commencement of development details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority detailing how renewable technologies will be used on site to deliver a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions. The equipment for renewable power generation shall be provided before first occupation of the development and permanently retained as such in accordance with the approved details unless the written approval is obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.

Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development and in order to control the overall design standard of the development (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1, S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

15. Prior to first occupation of the development a scheme showing the siting, size, number and design of the solar thermal and photo voltaic array including cross sections of the roof of each building showing the panels in-situ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be sited so as to minimise its visual impact upon the external appearance of the buildings. The development shall thereafter be completed in strict accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such for the duration of use.

Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development and in order to control the overall design standard of the development Page 125

(Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1, S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

16. All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained.

Reason: In order that the development is made more accessible to all (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policy S2(d) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the related Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008)).

17. No development (or demolition) shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed statement of the development’s impact upon any legally protected species or habitats which might be present on the application site, and any mitigation measures to be implemented should any protected habitats or species be found on the application site. The details of mitigation as are approved shall thereafter be implemented as part of the development and, if appropriate, shall be retained thereafter for the duration of the permitted use of the site.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development minimises its impact with respect to protected wildlife species that may be present on site or on adjacent properties, particularly bats, in accordance with Policy 5.3 of the London Plan.

TRANSPORT 18. Prior to the first occupation of the development, all existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and reinstating the footway verge and highways boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.

Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of highway users (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Page 126

January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

19. Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of the proposed access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access has been sited, laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access. (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

20. The scheme for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles shown on the approved 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 (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

21. A sign reading ‘No reversing into street’ shall be erected in a prominent position adjoining the exit before the use commences and shall thereafter be retained in the approved position 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 user of the public highway (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

22. No development shall commence before full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Demolition and Construction Statement, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Demolition and Construction Statement shall include details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures including details of the phasing of construction, and details of parking, deliveries and storage to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area and the safe operation of the public highway. The details of the Page 127

approved Method of Demolition and Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process.

Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway. (Policies 7, 9, 31, and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

23. Notwithstanding the approved plans, detailed drawings and material samples of the cycle storage areas including elevational appearance, layout, and manufacturer’s specification shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before first occupation of the development. Sheltered and secure provision shall be provided for a minimum of 28 cycles. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details and retained as such for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site, to promote sustainable modes of transport and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area (Policies 9, 14, 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

LANDSCAPING 24. No development shall commence until a specification of all proposed soft and hard landscaping and tree planting (including the sedum roofs) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of all street furniture and the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. In addition all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 and current Arboricultural best practice.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity (Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

Page 128

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

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development (Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

26. Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans, prior to the residential occupation of the development full details of the children’s playspace provision to include details of layout, boundary and surface treatment and specifications for the proposed play equipment and the communal amenity area, including a landscape, management and maintenance plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as approved shall be implemented and operated prior to the residential occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers, particularly with regard to families and children (Policy 50(i) of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011), the Council's Supplementary Planning Document: "Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions" (2008), and Policy 3.6 of The London Plan and the Mayor of London's associated Supplementary Planning Guidance "Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation").

NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 27. No roof terraces shall be provided on the roof areas of any of the buildings hereby approved. No areas of flat roof shall be used as a sitting out area or be used for any other recreational purposes whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development and the occupiers of adjoining residential properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th Page 129

August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

28. The proposed buildings shall be built to the ground levels and heights as shown on the approved drawings or lower and if the indicated existing heights and levels of the neighbouring properties should prove to be erroneous, then the heights of the proposed building shall be no higher than the relative height difference(s) between the heights of the neighbouring properties and proposed buildings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development is built to the heights relative to adjoining properties as shown on the approved drawings in the interests of visual and residential amenity (Policies 7, 33, and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

29. The first floor windows in the western elevation of the terrace of townhouses hereby permitted shall be:

(i) obscure-glazed up to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed to a glazing specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and (ii) non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed,

and shall be permanently retained as such for the duration of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)).

30. The residential accommodation hereby approved shall be constructed to include at least 2 of the units as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users and permanently retained as such for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure that an adequate proportion of units are wheelchair accessible or adaptable for wheelchair use (Policy 3.8 of The London Plan, Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Page 130

Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011), and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008)).

31. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the further investigations (namely a Phase II intrusive site investigation and assessment) recommended in the Phase 1 Environmental desk study report submitted with the application shall be undertaken. The finding of the investigations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with evidence that where the investigations demonstrated inappropriate levels of contamination that suitable mitigation measures have been undertaken to alleviate these matters before first occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the site is not hazardous and to address the risk of pollution in the interest of the amenity of future residents and the wider environment in accordance with Policy 5.21 of the London Plan (2011) and national planning policy guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control.

32. The development hereby permitted shall meet 'Secured by Design Standards', consistent with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 2005.

Reason: To ensure the safety and security of future occupiers and adjoining properties and prevent crime and disorder occurring within and in the immediate vicinity of the site, in the interest of public safety (Policy 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document, Safer Built Environments).

33. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D & E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of, or to, any dwellinghouse the subject of this permission shall be carried out without planning permission having first been obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority; nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed on any part of the land covered by this permission without such planning permission having been obtained.

Reason: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the nature and density of the layout requires strict control over the form of any additional development which may be proposed in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory residential environment having regard to Policies 7, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August Page 131

2010, Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).

34. Noise levels within habitable rooms within the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the following levels:

Living rooms 35dB(A) Leq 18 hour 07:00hrs to 23:00hrs; Bedrooms 30dB(A) Leq 8 hours + no individual noise event to exceed 45dB(A) max (measured with F time weighting) – 23:00hrs to 07:00hrs.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of future occupiers of the development by reason of potential noise disturbance (Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). and Policy Planning Guidance Note 24).

35. No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a strategy for the exterior lighting of the site including the lighting of all public/communal areas. The details approved shall be implemented prior to the commencement of use of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use, unless the written approval is received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, the security of the site and in order to minimise its impact with respect to protected wildlife species, especially bats. (Policy 5.3 of the London Plan (2011), Policies 7, 32, and 33 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 refer, Policies S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document, Safer Built Environments).

36. No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water or sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the relevant water or sewerage undertaker. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.

Reason: In order to mitigate the potential impact of the development on local underground water and sewerage utility infrastructure (Policy 5.14 of the London Plan (2011)). Page 132

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

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

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

4. You are advised all conditions which require further details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority need to be accompanied by an application form and a fee. The application form and fee schedule can be viewed at www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning .

5. It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.

6. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities. The London Borough of Lambeth’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (May 2006) is available on the planning pages of the Council’s website: www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning

7. As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following: - name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building

Page 133

8. It is the view of Lambeth Council that the proposed development has scope for the provision of recycling and/or composting facilities. For advice on incorporation of such facilities please contact:

Jason Searles/ Dean Parry 3rd Floor, Blue Star House 234-244 Stockwell Rd London SW9 9SP 0207 926 2624 [email protected]

9. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

10. With regards to Condition 3, the Council’s Urban Design Officer has advised that the quality of cladding is largely dependent on the fixing mechanism, which the Council would insist is a concealed fixing with no visible screws.

11. With regards to Condition 4, the Council’s Urban Design Officer has advised that the balcony details should be revised to omit any coloured glazing.

12. With regards to Condition 9, please note that the site lies within an area where archaeological remains have been identified and any archaeological remains therein should be retrieved or recorded before they are damaged or destroyed due to the development hereby permitted. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with appropriate English Heritage guidelines.

Page 134

You are advised to contact English Heritage’s Archaeological Officer (Mr Mark Stevenson 020 7073 3000) to discuss the submission of details required to discharge the archaeological condition.

13. With regards to Condition 22 (Method of Construction Statement), Transport for London has advised that no skips or construction material shall be kept on the footway or carriageway on the Transport for London Road Network at any time.

14. With regards to Condition 24, the Council’s Urban Design Officer considers the proposed site layout to be broadly acceptable. However, this is subject to addressing design/layout concerns with the front forecourt, in particular the potential visual impact/dominance of large structures for cycle and refuse storage for the flats within the frontage block. It is officer consideration that the cycle storage area could be relocated into the communal garden. It is also considered that the forecourt has an excessive amount of hard surfacing, which could be addressed through the incorporation of more soft landscaping and greater depth of perimeter planting.

15. With respect to internal noise standards detailed within Condition 34 the Council’s Environmental Health (Noise Pollution) team has provided the following comments:

BS8233:1000 gives guidance for internal noise levels in rooms for residential purposes for environmental noise to maintain appropriate resting and sleeping conditions. The publication provides noise levels for ‘good’ and ‘reasonable’ standards to be aimed for within dwellings. The ‘good’ standard being in compliance with the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) standards on Community Noise. WHO advises that as well as considering average noise levels (LaEQ metric) the individual single event LaMax level should be considered as well as the LaEQ where there are distinctive events.

Both WHO and BS8233:1999 also recommends that any individual noise event at night should not normally exceed 45dB(A) max. This standard is designed to minimise sleep disturbance and, by necessity, precludes ventilation through open windows. These schemes often require some form of forced ventilation to allow for rapid ventilation.

It is highly important that a sound insulation scheme with noise attenuated ventilation provision is incorporated.

16. With respect to Condition 32 (Secured by Design), it is advisable that the design and type of external doors, windows, glazing and entrances to the new buildings, the design of the cycles stores and the access areas from Streatham High Road, and any boundary treatment and defensive planting along the boundaries of the site and to flats, shall meet ‘Secured by Design’ consistent with Section 17 of Page 135

the Crime and Disorder Act 2005. This is in order to address the safety and security of future occupiers and neighbouring properties and to aid with the prevention of crime and disorder occurring within the immediate vicinity of the site.

17. With regard to condition 35, the scheme of exterior lighting should adhere to BS5489. White light is preferred for areas where CCTV is used and elsewhere high pressure sodium is acceptable. A lighting engineer should be consulted to provide a well designed scheme. This should be in vandal resistant housing providing even light with no shadows or voids and minimal light pollution. A minimum uniformity rating of 25% and above with a colour rendition index rating of 60.

The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor has commented that the weakest area of the site is the remote driveway that will lead down to the houses at the rear. Therefore a good level of effective lighting is important.

18. In addition the scheme of exterior lighting should be designed in order to minimise its impact with respect to protected wildlife species, especially bats. Existing guidance provided by recognised bodies such as the Bat Conservation Trust (www.bats.org.uk, BCT), Institute of Lighting Engineers (www.ile.org.uk) or Natural England (www.naturalengland.org.uk) should be followed in the selection, installation and maintenance of lighting units and lamps. If lighting sources that have a high UV emission potential, e.g. mercury or metal halide, are used in lighting units, then appropriate UV filters should be installed, such as glass screens or faces fitted to luminaires, and each unit should be correctly positioned and maintained to minimise light spill or leakage.

19. With respect to boundary treatment, the Crime Prevention Design Advisor has recommended that the rear perimeter fence/wall be a minimum of 2.2m in height and be designed to resist climbing, preferably incorporating a trellis topping.

20. With regards to Condition 36 (Piling Method Statement), the applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0845 8502777 to discuss the contents of the statement.

21. Thames Water recommended that the following informatives be added to this planning decision.

(a) With regards to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a Page 136

combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required on 0845 80 2777.

(b) Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation. Groundwater permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water’s Risk Management Team by telephoning 020 85074890 or by e-mailing [email protected] . Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality . Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.

(c) Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (Approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water’s pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

Page 137 Agenda Item 5

Page 138

Location The South Bank Centre Belvedere Road London

Ward Bishops

Proposal Temporary installation (from 21st March 2012 to 7th October 2012) Application of art exhibits comprising sculptures, other settings for artist and community events and related temporary structures, including 'pop up' cafes, market stalls, bandstand and associated exhibits for the Festival for the World. Including temporary display (from 21st March 2012 to 7th October) of signage comprising graphic/artist, displays, way finding signs and light/film projections for the festival of the world (Town Planning and Advertisement consent applications). Applicant

Agent Mr Richard Hesketh Quod Ingeni Building 17 Broadwick Street London W1F 0AX Date valid 7 December 2011 Case Offi cer Mr Carl Griffiths

Application 11/04332/FUL Reference

Recommendation(s) Grant Temporary Conditional Planning Permission

Constraints Conservation Area Environment Agency Flood Zone Listed Building Locally Listed Building Metropolitan Open Land Opportunity Area London Plan Thames Policy Area Tunnel Safeguarding line Archaeological Priority Areas Central Activities Zone Protected Vistas

Advert Publication 27th January 2012 Date

Site Notice posted 27th January 2012 on

Page 139

1.0 Key Issues

1.1 The main issues involved in this application are as follows:

• The impact the temporary art exhibits would have on The Queens Walk adjacent to Jubilee Gardens and County Hall ; • The impact of the proposal would have on land adjacent to the public open space; • The impact of the proposal on the South Bank Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings; • Re-instatement of the site; • Residential amenity; • Visitor management and public safety; • Accessibility on this part of the Thames Riverside; • The highways and transport implications and traffic movements in the local area.

2.0 Site Description

2.1 The application site is located on the South Bank of the River Thames, bounded by Waterloo Bridge to the north, Jubilee Gardens to the south, and Belvedere Road to the east.

2.2 The temporary exhibits will be positioned in and around the South Bank estate which includes The Queens Walk and riverfronts, Hungerford car park, under the Hungerford railway bridge, Southbank Centre Square, and in between existing buildings which include the Royal Festival Hall, Queen Elizabeth Hall and Hayward Gallery.

2.3 Jubilee Gardens is a large open area between County Hall and Hungerford Bridge. It is soft landscaped with open grassed areas and some trees and allows views to North, East and West. The low-lying Hungerford Car Park acts as a buffer between the gardens and the Hungerford viaduct.

2.4 The Queen’s Walk, forming part of the site also known as the Riverside Walk, is the spine of the conservation area and presents a very long linear pedestrian boulevard, which has dictated the siting and form of most of the significant post-war buildings

2.5 The site is situated within the South Bank Conservation Area and the site lies between two landmark listed buildings, the Royal Festival Hall (Grade I) and, County Hall (Grade II-star). The river embankment wall to the west of County Hall is Grade II Listed.

2.6 The Hungerford Coach Park and Jubilee Gardens are designated as Metropolitan Open Land and the Queen’s Walk is designated as Public Open Space within the Council’s UDP.

3.0 Relevant Planning History

3.1 11/00505/FUL - Installation of art exhibits comprising of sculptures, bandstand, beach hut and associated related structures for a temporary period from 21st March 2011 to 25th September 2011 for the Festival of Britain 60th Anniversary Celebration. This application was approved subject to conditions.

Page 140

3.2 11/00506/ADV - Display of illuminated and non illuminated graphic/artistic displays, directional signs, and light/film projections for a temporary period from 21st March 2011 to 25th September 2011 for the Festival of Britain 60th Anniversary Celebration. This application was approved subject to conditions.

4.0 Proposed Development

4.1 Permission is sought for the display of the temporary installation (from 21 March to 7 October 2012) of art exhibits comprising of sculptures, other settings for artist and community events and related temporary structure, for the Festival of the World event.

4.2 The Festival of the World (FOTW) will be based around the exploration of the work and life or Barron Pierre de Coubertin. Pierre de Coubertin was a polymath, philosopher, visionary and activist and established the modern Olympic Games in 1896. The FOTW will continue on from recent successful festivals on the site such as the Overture in 2007, the Brazil Festival in 2010 and the Festival of Britain in 2011.

4.2 The proposed temporary exhibits will be located principally in the following areas:

• The Queen’s Walk and ‘Festival Riverside’; • Hungerford Car Park; • Under the Hungerford railway bridge; • Southbank Centre Square; • The area between the Royal Festival Hall and Queen Elizabeth Hall and Hayward Gallery; • The RFH, QEH and Hayward (Level 2) terrace; • The QEH Sundeck; • The QEH undercroft; • RFH roof; • Festival Pier.

4.3 The proposed temporary art exhibits will consist of the following:

• A beach comprised of coloured sand with artistic boardwalk/seating structures; • Festival viewing points/seating structures housing de Coubertin related material; • 10 artist customised small structures and shelters; • A ticket office; • 7 information points; • 8 beacons of welcome (to a maximum height of 10 metres); • A bandstand; • A symbolic tree sculpture incorporating a meeting point; • A figurative sculptural installation made from reclaimed timber; • A celebration of de Coubertin installation; • An interactive earth environment created by schoolchildren; • A sculptural exhibition inspired by a Colombian community; • 2 gathering and performance spaces; • A pop up café on level 2 terrace; • Canopies of fabric and other light materials including lighting;

Page 141 • Flags; • Various signs incorporating graphic/artistic content • Sounds/speakers in appropriate locations; • A staircase from QEH level 2 (first floor) to Queens Walk (8 metres wide x 12 metres long x 6 metres high); • A 3D canopy hung between the office building and RFH; • An LED screen, projections and sound/lighting; • Imaginative floor coverings in key thoroughfares; • Festival demarcation; • A funfair to be located on part of the Hungerford Car Park (tallest attraction will be the ‘star rider’ at 40 metres high).

4.4 Al of the exhibits will be of a temporary nature and will be in place for the duration of the FOTW. There would be a phased installation with the first phase consisting of the installation of a ticket office, 7 information points, the staircase and 2 pop up cafes. The first phase of installations will aim to establish the presence of the festival in order to attempt to maximise benefit of the festival once opened. The first phase will be installed from 21 March 2012, will be completed by 5 April 2012 and will remain in place for the duration of the FOTW until 9 September 2012.

4.5 The second installation phase of the temporary exhibits will commence on 16 April 2012 and will be completed by 30 May 2012. This phase will see the installation of the remainder of the exhibits which will remain in place until the end of the FOTW on 9 September 2012.

4.6 Following the end of the ‘run’ period of the festival from 1 June 2012 to 9 September 2012, there will be a dismantling exercise which is known as a ‘strike’ period all of the exhibits would be de-installed which will commence on 10 September 2012 and will be completed by 7 October 2012.

4.7 The proposed daily opening hours of the festival will be 11am to 11pm Monday to Sunday with the exception being the opening hours for the pop up café adjacent to the Southbank Centre which will operate from 8am to 10pm.

5.0 Consultations

5.1 Consultation letters were sent to 26 neighbouring properties and the application was also advertised by way of site notices and was also published in the Weekender Press on 27.01.2012.

No. Letters sent No. of No. in No. of Objections support comments 26 0 0 1

5.2 No objections were received in relation to the proposed development however a response was received outlining matters that should be taken into consideration including the content and theme of the festival and the lasting impression it should make to visiting tourists.

5.3 The following amenity groups/external stakeholders/internal consultees were notified of the application:

• Streetcare – No response • Planning Policy – No objection

Page 142 • Transport/Highways – no objection • Lambeth Arts – No objection • Port Of London Authority – No objection subject to conditions • TFL Road Network Development – No response • City Of Westminster – No response • Environment Agency – No objection • LFCD Authority – No response • English Heritage – No response • Association of Waterloo Groups – No response • Kennington Oval & Vauxhall Forum – No response • South Bank Employers Group – No response • South Bank Management Company Ltd – No response • Waterloo Community Development Group – No response • Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association – No response • South Bank Board – No response • Conservation & Design – No objection • Crime Prevention – No objection

6.0 Planning Considerations

Relevant Policies 6.1 The Core Strategy (January 2011) Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2: Housing Policy S3: Economic Development Policy S4: Transport Policy S5: Open Space Policy S7: Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment Policy PN1: Waterloo

6.2 The Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy January 2011)

Policy 9: Transport impact Policy 29: The evening and late night economy, food and drink and amusement centre uses Policy 30: Arts and Culture Policy 31: Streets, character and layout Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing out Crime Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 39: Streetscape, landscape and public realm design Policy 45: Listed buildings Policy 47: Conservation Areas Policy 50: Open Spaces and Sport Facilities MDO 94: The South Bank Arts Complex – includes National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall, Queen Elizabeth Hall, Hayward Gallery- Area: 4.8Ha

Land Use

6.3 Core Strategy Policy S3 supports leisure and cultural activities and other tourist attractions in the Central Activities Zone. Policy PN1 – Waterloo also supports cultural and arts uses particularly in the South Bank/Riverside area.

Page 143 6.4 Policy 30 of the UDP supports and promotes the role of the South Bank as Europe’s premier arts and cultural facility. Part (c) of the policy states that the council will seek to secure enhanced or increased provision of arts and cultural uses and public arts.

6.5 While development on MOL would not ordinarily be supported, in this case permission is sought for a temporary installation that will not result in the permanent loss or harm to the openness of the existing open space. It is considered that the proposed use is supported by the strategic policies in the Core Strategy and London Plan as it will contribute to the vibrancy and vitality of the South Bank/Riverside area, attracting visitors and adding interest. The part of Hungerford Car Park that forms part of the application site is designated as open space but has not yet been formally laid out as such. In this regard it is not considered that the proposed development would jeopardise the aspiration to extend Jubilee Gardens onto part of Hungerford Car Park

6.6 The South Bank Centre is an established centre for arts and culture and Council policy aims to promote the role of the South Bank Centre as Europe's premier arts and cultural facility. The London Plan identifies The South Bank as being a strategically important area for arts, culture and entertainment in London which provides some of the most exciting opportunities in London for the development of arts and cultural facilities in the foreseeable future. The hosting of arts and cultural events is fundamental and central to the historical function of the South Bank and as such the exhibits to facilitate the Festival of the World would serve to promote its role as Europe's premier arts and cultural facility. The exhibit would provide a facility and event that would bring benefit to the community and would likely attract significant additional footfall to the South Bank, adding to its vibrancy and vitality for the duration of the festival.

Conservation and Design

6.7 Policy S9 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the building environment by seeking the highest quality of design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions. Policy 47 of the UDP requires that all development should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Policy 45 of the UDP requires that all development should preserve the special interest of listed buildings.

6.8 The proposed development would consist of the installation of various exhibits and installations that will be located throughout the curtilage of the Southbank Centre. None of the installations will be physically attached to any listed structure and as such it is considered that there would be any harm caused to the special interest or character of any heritage assets. Any concern over the scale, massing and bulk of the proposed exhibits is mitigated by the fact that the exhibits will only be in place temporarily. In relation to the specific design and aesthetic form of the exhibits and installations, Conservation and Design officers are of the view that as the Southbank Centre is one of the UK’s premier arts and culture centre, any control over the final appearance of the exhibits or conditions relating to the aesthetic manifestation of the exhibits is unnecessary.

6.9 Furthermore, the Council’s Arts Development officer was consulted on the application and had no objection.

Page 144 Amenity Impact

6.10 Policy 7 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan requires that development should respect that people have the right for the quiet enjoyment of their homes. In mixed use areas the scale, layout, hours of use intensity concentration and location of non residential uses, will be controlled in relation to residential uses to protect residential amenity

6.11 The proposed development will be situated in one of the busiest tourist areas in central London comprising the internationally renowned South Bank Arts Centre, The London Eye and County Hall. The nature of the South Bank area is such that it accommodates large numbers of visitors on a regular basis and as such it is considered that the location is appropriate for hosting a festival of this scale. In terms of potential noise and disturbance generated by visitors to the Festival of Britain, the proposal would not have a significantly greater impact on residential amenity above that of the existing uses in the area.

6.12 The extent and scale of the proposed exhibits would be similar to that of the Festival of Britain in Summer 2011 granted permission under 11/00505/FUL. In the determination of this previous application it was deemed that due to the nature of the South Bank Centre and the large distances from the nearest residential properties, there would not be an unacceptably harmful impact on the residential amenity of the nearest residential occupiers. Given the similarities between the current application and the previous application relating to the Festival of Britain (11/00505/FUL). A condition was placed on this previous application stating that no amplified sound, speech or music which should be audible outside the site between the hours of 11pm and 9am. Whilst the operating statement submitted as part of the application states that this will be the case, officers consider that it a similar condition should still be placed on the permission to ensure that this is adhered to.

Transport / Highways Impact

6.13 Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan states that all planning application will be assessed on their transport impact, including the cumulative impacts on highway safety, environment and road network and all transport modes.

6.14 The Festival of the World event will operate and be constructed in a very similar manner to the Festival of Britain event in 2011 which did not result in any adverse impact to the safety or operation of the surrounding public highway nor did it result in any undue obstruction to the various rights of way that run through the site. With this in mind it stands to reason that the proposed development would have a similarly negligible impact.

6.15 The applicant has submitted an operating statement relating, amongst other things, to servicing, deliveries and the arrangements for the ‘build’ and ‘strike’ phases. The Council’s Transport and Highways officers have had reference to the operating statement and are satisfied with the details provided. It is considered that it is pertinent to put a condition on the permission stating that the festival shall operate in accordance with the details provided in the statement.

Crime Prevention / Public Safety

Page 145 6.16 Policy 32 states that development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.

6.17 The Council’s Crime Prevention officers were consulted on the application and were of the view that the proposed festival would not cause any insurmountable problems in terms of public safety or the opportunities for crime. The only potential additional risk factor identified will be due to the increase in numbers on the South Bank which may include foreign tourists with less awareness of street crime so acquisitive and opportunistic crime may well increase. To this end, an informative is placed on the permission advising the applicant of this risk factor.

6.18 The applicant has submitted an operating statement within which it is demonstrated that consideration has been given to security measures and the safety of visitors to the festival. Furthermore, previous festivals held on the site have operated without significant problems in terms of public safety.

6.19 Subject to a condition stating that the festival shall operate in accordance with the operating statement, officers consider that the application will be acceptable in terms of public safety and is in accordance with Policy 32 of the UDP.

Waste

6.20 The submitted operating statement sets out the details and arrangements for waste collection and refuse storage. The applicant has confirmed within the ‘Operating Statement’ that regular checks of the site and surrounding area will be undertaken to ensure the area is free of litter throughout the day. Furthermore, it states that the exhibitors, restaurant operators and Southbank Centre will manage the final clean-up of the site, ensuring it is returned to it original condition. Officers raise no objection to the approach being proposed.

6.21 Subject to the condition requiring adherence to the details contained within the operating statement, it is considered that the application is acceptable from a waste and refuse perspective and is in accordance with Policy S7 of the Core Strategy.

Lighting / River Traffic

6,22 As part of the application process, the Port of London Authority were consulted on the development and expressed slight concern at the lack of detail pertaining to potential light spill or glare from the exhibits which could hinder the safe passage of river traffic. Following the submission of further clarification from the applicant, the Port of London Authority advised that the applicant be made aware that should any of the proposed lighting prove to be a hindrance to river traffic then measures should be implemented to alleviate the hazard. To this end, an informative is attached to the permission advising the applicant of this potential risk.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 The proposed festival activities represent an acceptable use of the Southbank area. The proposal will not have a significant adverse affect on pedestrian flows along Queens Walk. This section of Queens Walk is considered wide enough to cope with anticipated pedestrian footfall. In this

Page 146 context the use of the site for a purpose such as that proposed is considered acceptable.

7.2 The proposal is consistent with the Councils' policies for the area in relation to arts, cultural and entertainment uses. The use is considered to be compatible with other cultural uses in the vicinity.

7.3 The submitted supportive information adequately address the issues of visitor management and other operational issues pertaining to the proposed use and these shall be approved as part of this planning permission and will be conditioned to ensure that the ‘Festival of the World’ operates in accordance with these documents.

7.4 The temporary nature of the use is such that its impact will be limited. A condition will be attached to ensure that all structures associated with the application will be removed and the site reinstated once the use ceases.

8.0 Recommendation

8.1 Grant Temporary Conditional Planning Permission

Summary of the Reasons

Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011);

Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2: Housing Policy S3: Economic Development Policy S4: Transport Policy S5: Open Space Policy S7: Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment Policy PN1: Waterloo

London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011 :

Page 147 MDO 94: The South Bank Arts Complex – includes National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall, Queen Elizabeth Hall, Hayward Gallery- Area: 4.8Ha

Conditions

1 This permission shall be for a limited period only, starting on the 21/03/2012 and expiring on the 07/10/2012. On or before that date the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and any buildings, structures or associated equipment carried out under this permission shall be remove. The Hungerford Coach Park, and the Queen’s Walk shall be returned to their existing state unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.

Reason: To ensure future control of the use of the Council owned open space (Policy 50 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).

2 There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audible outside the ‘Festival of the World’ between the hours of 23.00 and 09.00hrs Monday to Sunday.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.

3 Amplified noise levels within the festival, up to 23.00hrs shall be restricted so as not to exceed 65 dB(LAeq) over any 15 minute period when measured at any Live Band or Recorded Music.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.

4 Subject to Condition 6, the use of the site hereby permitted shall not begin before 9.00am on any day of the week.”

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.

5 The festival shall cease to operate at 23.00 Monday to Sunday.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.

6 The pop-up cafes/ restaurants associated with the festival located at the Queen Elizabeth Hall Sundeck hereby approved shall not begin operating before 8am and shall cease to operate at 23.00 Monday to Sunday and all customers shall vacate the premises within 30 minutes of service ceasing. The pop-up cafe/ restaurant associated with the festival located at the Queen Elizabeth Hall Terrace Level 2 hereby approved shall not begin operating before 9am and shall cease to operate at 11pm Sunday to Wednesday and at midnight Thursday to Saturday and all customers shall vacate the premises within 30 minutes of service ceasing.

Page 148

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.

7 All servicing and deliveries relating to the development, hereby permitted, shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted Delivery and Servicing Plan (received on the 07/12/2011).

Reason: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and to safeguard the amenities of adjoining properties (Policy 14 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers.)

8 The lighting hereby permitted shall not operate after the hours of 23:45 hrs Monday to Sunday.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policy 7 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.

9 No signage, notices or information boards of any kind shall be fixed to any retained tree by using invasive methods (drilling, nailing or screw fixtures).

Reason(s): To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the existing trees to be retained that are situated on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the locality and wider area (Policy 39 of the Saved UDP)

10 Noise emission from plant, machinery or equipment on the site shall 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 noise sensitive premises in proximity or the area in general.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.

11 The development hereby approved shall be managed strictly in accordance with the operating statement (received 07/12/11).

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.

Informatives

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

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

Page 149 2 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

3 Should the lighting of the approved exhibits prove to be a hazard to river traffic, the lighting shall be adjusted so as to remove the hazard and ensure safe passage for boats on the River Thames. The applicant is advised to contact Lucy Owen of the Port of London Authority on 01474 562384 or [email protected] for further information.

4 Given the expected number of visitors to the festival, the applicant is advised that there maybe an increased risk of acquisitive and opportunistic crime being committed. Visitors are likely to consist of large numbers of foreign tourists without awareness of these likely risks. The applicant is advised that measures should be implemented to make visitors aware of the risk and to minimise the liklihood of such crimes occuring.

Page 150

Date of Application : 07.12.2011 Date of Decision :

In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of THREE years from the date hereof.

Proposed Development At : The South Bank Centre Belvedere Road London

Summary of the Reasons for Granting Planning Permission :

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 proposals 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: Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011); Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2: Housing Policy S3: Economic Development Policy S4: Transport Policy S5: Open Space Policy S7: Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment Policy PN1: Waterloo London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011: Policy 9: Transport impact Policy 29: The evening and late night economy, food and drink and amusement centre uses Policy 30: Arts and Culture Policy 31: Streets, character and layout Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing out Crime Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 39: Streetscape, landscape and public realm design Policy 45: Listed buildings Policy 47: Conservation Areas Policy 50: Open Spaces and Sport Facilities MDO 94: The South Bank Arts Complex – includes National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall, Queen Elizabeth Hall, Hayward Gallery- Area: 4.8Ha

Page 151

Appendix 1 - List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies And Local Amenity Groups Consulted.

Streetcare Planning Policy Transport/Highways Lambeth Arts Port Of London Authority TFL Road Network Development (non-referable) City Of Westminster Environment Agency LFCD Authority English Heritage Association of Waterloo Groups Kennington Oval & Vauxhall Forum South Bank Employers Group South Bank Management Company Ltd Waterloo Community Development Group Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association South Bank Board Worksheet Conservation & Design

Page 152

This page is intentionally left blank Page 153 Agenda Item 6

Section 1 – Site Location Map

Page 154 Section 2 – Application Summary

Location 1A Brailsford Road London SW2 2TB

Ward Tulse Hill

Proposal Demolition of existing industrial building and erection of a 4 storey Application building to provide 8 self contained residential units. Provision of refuse/recycling storage and cycle store.

Applicant Mr Giles Underhill

Agent Mr Mike Levy: Alan Camp Architects LLP 88 Union Street London SE1 0NN

Date valid 13 September 2011 Case Officer(s) Miss Panyun Chow/ Mr David Moon

Application 11/03190/FUL Reference Drawing number(s) 1448_01, 1448_02 Rev. A, 1448_03 Rev. D, 1448_04 Rev. D, 1448_05 Rev. B, 1448_06 Rev. B, 1448_007 Rev. B, 1448_009, 1448_010, OS-299-11.2, OS-299-11.3, 1481_05, 1481_06.

Design and Access Statement

Sustainability Statement

Transport Statement dated April 2011

Daylight and Sunlight Report by CHF Surveyors Ltd dated April 2011

Environmental Desk Study and Tree report by Open Spaces dated August 2011

Email correspondence from Project Agent dated 29 February 2012.

Recommendation Grant Planning permission subject to conditions

Constraints Streets Under Conversion Stress Adjacent to Brockwell Park and Brixton Hill Conservation Areas, and Grade II Listed Buildings (nos. 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane)

Advert Publication 4th November 2011 Date Site Notices 4th November 2011 posted on Page 155

3.1 Summary of Main Issues

• Loss of light industrial offices (B1 use class); • The scale, height and design of the proposal and its impact upon surrounding townscape and the character and appearance of adjacent Conservation Areas; • The impact of the development upon the amenity of neighbouring properties; • The standard of residential accommodation to be provided; • The highway and transportation issues of the proposal; • Sustainability issues; and • Community safety/Designing out crime.

3.2 Site Description

3.2.1 The application site relates to a plot of land containing a vacant single storey brick workshop and two temporary buildings within the Tulse Hill Ward. The applicant has indicated that the site was previously used by an antiques restoration company dating back to 2005. The applicant has also indicated that the site provides a total of 231sqm of light industrial (B1) floorspace.

3.2.2 The application site is bounded by the rear gardens of nos. 46 to 48 Brixton Water Lane to the north and nos. 7 to 13 Arlingford Road to the west. To the east, the application site adjoins Brockwell Park. To the south, the application site faces the side flank wall of 1 Brailsford Road. The surrounding area is mainly residential and is characterised by two/three storey terraced housing.

3.2.3 To the north of the application site there are three existing trees located within the rear gardens of nos. 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane, which over-hang the application site, comprising of a sycamore (T1), lawsons cypress (T2) and ash (T3) tree. To the south of the application site at the rear boundary of no. 1 Brailsford Road, there is an existing lime (T4) tree, which also over-hangs the application site. As such, a total of four trees are growing within neighbouring properties gardens that overhang onto the application site.

3.2.4 The northern and eastern edges of the site form the boundary of two conservation areas. To the east is Brockwell Park and to the north is Brixton Water Lane Conservation Area. The two houses to the north of the site, nos. 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane, are Grade II listed buildings located within the Brixton Water Lane Conservation area.

3.2.5 Brailsford Road is identified as a street within a conversion stress area on the Lambeth Local Development Framework (LDF) Proposals Map (January 2011).

Page 156

3.2.6 The application site has a PTAL rating of 4 which reflects good access to public transport provision. The application site is located within Brixton ‘B’ Controlled Parking Zone.

3.3 Relevant Planning History

3.3.1 30 August 2000 (00/01432/FUL) – Planning permission GRANTED for the erection of a single storey building for the use as a workshop to restore fine art for a temporary period until 01/09/2002.

3.3.2 25 May 2005 (05/00180/FUL) – Planning application REFUSED by delegated decision for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part 4 storey building to provide 13 self contained flats comprising of 4 x 1, 8 x 2 and 1 x 3, bedroom units, along with parking and access.

The application was refused on the following grounds:

1 Inadequate and inaccurate information has been submitted regarding the proposed development (obscured detailed elevations, lack of parking survey and visibility splays, lack of arboricultural report, inaccurate BRE analysis) to allow the Local Authority to fully assess the implications of the development within its setting. The proposal is contrary to policies H10, H16, T9, T14, ENV1, ENV7, CD2 and CD15 of the adopted Lambeth UDP (1998) and policies 7, 9, 14, 31, 32, 36, 42, 44 and 46 of the revised deposit Lambeth UDP (2004-2017).

2 The proposed development due to its inappropriate design, resulting storey height to Brailsford Road, its schedule of materials and projection beyond the established rear building line would constitute an overly dominant and incongruous form of development detrimental to the visual amenity of Brockwell Park, the character and appearance of neighbouring properties, the adjoining Brixton Water Lane and Brockwell Park Conservation Areas, the setting of adjoining Listed Buildings and the existing Brailsford, Arlingford and Brixton Water Lane streetscenes. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies H6, H10, CD2, CD13, CD15, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 42, 44, of the revised deposit Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2004-2017).

3 The proposed 3-storey element to Brailsford Road due to its storey height and the close proximity of its western flank wall to neighbouring habitable room windows to nos.: 9, 11 and 13 Arlingford Road would be overbearing and result in the undue overshadowing, loss of outlook to those windows to the detriment of existing residential amenities. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies H10 and CD15 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Page 157

Development Plan (1998) and policies 7 and 32 of the revised deposit Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2004-2017).

4 The proposed development due to its high resulting residential density and excessive building footprint results in the unsustainable, overdevelopment of the site detrimental to existing residential amenity and the local environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 6, 7, 32 of the revised deposit Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2004-2017).

5 The development due to its resulting ground floor elevation and layout, poorly interacts with the street providing for an inappropriate residential street frontage that does not contribute positively to its surroundings and is detrimental to the existing streetscenes and also to the security of future occupants and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy H10 and CD15 and policies 31 and 31a of the revised deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004-2017).

6 The proposed development due to its extremely close proximity to neighbouring existing mature trees would result in their undue loss as a result of damage that would be likely to be incurred during the construction phases. Those trees are situated within a Conservation Area and provide a valuable visual amenity, now and in the future. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies G10, ENV7 and ENV8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 6 and 36 of the revised deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004-2017).

7 The proposed refuse storage due to its location, size and dimensions fail to provide for an ease of access and the total number and size of bins required for the existing and proposed development. The proposal is contrary to policies ENV24 of the adopted Unitary Plan (1998) and policy 50 of the revised deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004-2017).

8 The proposed car parking area and cycle store due to their poor design would result in future difficulties with access and parking generally. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy T14 and T36of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy 14 of the revised deposit Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2004-2017).

9 The proposal fails to provide for a larger family sized residential unit at ground floor level with access to open amenity space on a site where it is desirable and capable of doing so and also provides a large family unit at roof level, which lacks amenity space and therefore constitutes a substandard form of accommodation. The proposal is contrary to policy H10, H11 of the adopted Unitary Page 158

Development Plan (1998) and policy 15 and 32 of the revised deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004-2017).

3.3.3 6 February 2006 (05/02375/FUL) – Planning application WITHDRAWN for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 4 storey building to provide 13 self contained flats comprising of 4 x 1 beds, 8 x 2 beds, and 1 x 3, bed, with provision of cycle store, communal garden, landscaping and boundary treatments and associated works.

3.3.4 12 September 2006 & 22 May 2007 (06/01674/FUL & APP/N5660/A/06/2032606) – Planning permission OVERTURN at committee meeting dated 5 September 2006 and DISMISSED at appeal for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 4 storey building to provide 12 self contained flats comprising of 4 x 1 bed, 7 x 2 beds and 1 x 3 beds, with provision of cycle store, communal garden and landscaping. - Amended to alter elevational details including the use of timer window system, toughened glass balustrades, change to vertical timber panels and brick on facades and alterations to the siting and width of proposed dormer windows to reduce bulk and mass.

The application was refused on the following grounds:

1 The proposal due to its design and scale would constitute an overly dominant and incongruous form of development, detrimental to the visual amenity of Brockwell Park, the character and appearance of neighbouring properties, the adjacent listed buildings and the existing Brailsford, Arlingford and Brixton Water Lane streetscenes, contrary to policies CD2, CD13, CD15, ST1 and of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 42 and 44 of the Revised Draft Unitary Development Plan (2004).

2 The proposal would result in the loss of an employment site and the prospect for future employment, contrary to policies EMP6 and EMP7 of the AUDP (1998) and policy 27 of the RDUDP (2004).

The planning inspector dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:

The principle of the residential use is acceptable. However, the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the conservation areas which adjoin the site and would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This is due to the excessive bulk and scale of the building on a confined and sensitive site which, is worthy of a scheme of particularly high architectural standards which are not achieved by the appeal proposals. It is also considered that the bulk and the over-dominant blank gables together with the position of the main entrance, would unacceptably harm the residential amenities of people living close by. As such, it was concluded that the proposed development does not therefore accord with national and local planning policies which seek to preserve and enhance conservation areas and listed buildings, the quality of the Page 159

urban environment and the residential amenities of people living close to new development schemes.

3.4 Details of Current Proposal

3.4.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing industrial building and erection of a 4 storey building to provide 8 self contained residential units. Provision of refuse/recycling storage and cycle store.

3.4.2 Since the previous refused planning application and dismissed appeal (06/01674/FUL & APP/N5660/A/06/2032606), the following changes have been made to this current planning application:

• The number of dwellings and mix of units has changed from 12 self contained flats comprising of 4 x 1 bedroom flats, 7 x 2 bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat to 8 self contained flats comprising of 1 x 1 bedroom flat, 6 x 2 bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat. • The main communal entrance has been relocated from the south elevation (Brailsford Road) to the west elevation of the application site facing onto the rear gardens of Arlingford Road. • The overall bulk, scale, height, design and appearance of the building has been reduced in size.

3.4.3 It should be noted that since the application was submitted minor changes have been made to this current application, which include the dormers being set in by a further 200mm, coping, guttering and rainpipe details indicated on plans and windows on the north elevation at ground, first and second floor levels have been made smaller and one window has been removed at ground floor level.

3.4.4 The proposal would not provide any off-street parking spaces on site. Nine secure and enclosed cycle rack spaces would be provided adjacent to the west boundary. Residential refuse storage areas would be provided to the south-west corner of the site facing onto Brailsford Road and would be gated.

3.4.5 No communal garden space has been provided for the 8 residential units, however, 6 of the residential units would be provided with either private balcony or amenity space.

3.4.6 The proposed four storey building would measure approximately 13.3m wide from east to west at the southern elevation of the property and would measure approximately 16.4m wide (east to west) at the northern elevation of the property. The eastern elevation of the proposed building is setback 9m from the rear boundary of properties at 7-13 Arlingford Road and is set approximately 21m away from the main rear elevation of those properties. The proposed development would measure approximately 13.4m deep from north to south at the Page 160

western elevation and 16.4m deep at the eastern elevation. At the western frontage the building would measure approximately 11.4m in height at its highest point. There is a mansard roof extension and 8 dormer windows at third floor level, which are set back by 700mm from the edge of the roof which is 9m in height at eaves level. The rear building line would be in line with the existing adjoining rear building lines to the south.

3.4.7 External materials would include yellow multi facing brickwork, double glazed PPC aluminium framed windows and doors, PPC aluminium box guttering/coping, downpipes and canopy, glazed glass balconies along with slate tiles for the mansard and graphite zinc-clad dormers.

Proposed unit and room sizes

3.4.8 The internal accommodation for the proposed 8 self contained flats at first, second and third floor levels have been assessed against the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008):

Flat 1 (Ground Floor Level) (Overall unit size 72sqm – SPD minimum 60sqm, +12sqm)

Proposed room Minimum SPD sizes Bedroom 1 18.1sqm 12.0sqm (+6.1sqm) Bedroom 2 13.3sqm 12.0sqm (+1.3sqm) Living/Dining/Kitchen 25.3sqm (- 25.5sqm 0.2sqm) Bathroom (s) 7.5sqm (+4sqm) 3.5sqm Balcony/terrace 33.3sqm 10sqm space

Flat 2 (Ground Floor Level) (Overall unit size 92.5sqm – SPD minimum 70sqm, +22.5sqm)

Proposed room Minimum SPD sizes Bedroom 1 17.4sqm 12.0sqm (+5.4sqm) Bedroom 2 11.4sqm 7.0sqm (+4.4sqm) Bedroom 3 11.2sqm 7.0sqm (+4.2sqm) Living/Dining/Kitchen 36.8sqm 26.5sqm (+10.3sqm) Bathroom (s) 8.8sqm 3.5sqm (+5.3sqm) Page 161

Balcony/terrace 139.4sqm 10sqm space

Flat 3 (First Floor Level) (Overall unit size 71sqm – SPD minimum 60sqm, +11sqm)

Proposed room Minimum SPD sizes Bedroom 1 12.6sqm 12.0sqm (+0.6sqm) Bedroom 2 12sqm 12.0sqm Living/Dining/Kitchen 28.7sqm 25.5sqm (+3.2sqm) Bathroom (s) 8.5sqm (+5sqm) 3.5sqm Balcony/terrace 5sqm 10sqm space

Flat 4 (First Floor Level) (Overall unit size 70.3sqm – SPD minimum 60sqm, +10.3sqm)

Proposed room Minimum SPD sizes Bedroom 1 13.2sqm 12.0sqm (+1.2sqm) Bedroom 2 12.3sqm 12.0sqm (+0.3sqm) Living/Dining/Kitchen 28.6sqm 25.5sqm (+3.1sqm) Bathroom (s) 8sqm (+4.5sqm) 3.5sqm Balcony/terrace 5.6sqm 10sqm space

Flat 5 (Second Floor Level) (Overall unit size 71sqm – SPD minimum 60sqm, +11sqm)

Flat 6 (Second Floor Level) (Overall unit size 70.3sqm – SPD minimum 60sqm, +10.3sqm)

Page 162

Flat 7 (Third Floor Level) (Overall unit size 60sqm – SPD minimum 60sqm)

Proposed room Minimum SPD sizes Bedroom 1 13.9sqm 12.0sqm (+1.9sqm) Bedroom 2 8.2sqm 7.0sqm (+1.2sqm) Living/Dining/Kitchen 25.5sqm 25.5sqm Bathroom 4.6sqm 3.5sqm (+1.1sqm) Balcony/terrace None 10sqm space

Flat 8 (Third Floor Level) (Overall unit size 48sqm – SPD minimum 45sqm, +3sqm)

Proposed room Minimum SPD sizes Bedroom 1 15.3sqm 12.0sqm (+3.3sqm) Living/Dining/Kitchen 22.5sqm (+1sqm) 21.5sqm Bathroom (s) 3.7sqm 3.5sqm (+0.2sqm) Balcony/terrace None 10sqm space

3.5 Consultations and Responses

3.5.1 Letters were sent to 61 neighbouring properties within the vicinity of the site:

Internal consultation: Page 163

• The Council’s Transportation/Highways department raised no objections to this application subject to conditions. These conditions are discussed in the highways section of this report.

• The Council’s Conservation and Design officer raised no objections to this application subject to conditions being imposed on the construction detailing and materials of external finishes of the building.

• The Council’s Arboricultural officer raised no objections to this application subject to conditions being imposed on the protection of the existing trees adjacent to the site and details of landscaping to the proposed development to comply with Saved Policy 39 of the UDP.

• The Council’s Policy officer provided comments in terms of land use and redevelopment of the site. These comments are discussed in further detail in the Land use and redevelopment section of this report.

• The Council’s Noise and Pollution officer was notified in writing of the proposed development and at the time of finalising this report no response had been received.

• The Council’s Crime Prevention advisor raised no objections to this application subject conditions. These comments are discussed in further detail in the Crime Safety section of this report.

• The Council’s Streetcare officer was notified in writing of the proposed development and at the time of finalising this report no response had been received.

• The Council’s Parks and Open Spaces officer was notified in writing of the proposed development and at the time of finalising this report no response had been received.

External Consultation: 3.5.2 The South-East Environment agency officer raised no objections to this application subject to conditions.

3.5.3 The Water Lane Residents Association, Brixton Society, Water Lane Society and Friends of Brockwell Park were consulted. The Water Lane Residents Association, Brixton Society, Water Lane Society, Friends of Brockwell Park and The Victorian Society raised objections to this application on the following grounds and these are addressed and responded to in this report:

• Detrimental impact on the character and heritage of Brockwell Park, Brixton Water Lane Conservation area and listed buildings in the area; • Loss of privacy and amenity to park users due to overlooking; • Dominant scale and bulk of proposed development; Page 164

• Inappropriate siting and design of proposed development; • Damage to trees within Brockwell Park and neighbouring properties; • Undue noise and disturbance; • Increased parking stress.

3.5.4 Three site notices were displayed adjoining the site on the 4 November 2011 and a press notice was published on the 4 November 2012 in the Lambeth Weekender.

Responses

No. Letter s No. of No. in support No. of sent objections comments

61 36 0 2

3.5.5 A total of 61 notification letters were sent out to occupiers of the following properties: 38 to 58 (even) Brixton Water Lane, 1-13 (odd) Arlingford Road, 2-6 (even) Brailsford Road and 1-9(odd) Brailsford Road. 36 letters of objection have been received (inclusive of letters of objections from the Water Lane Residents Association. Brixton Society, Water Lane Society, Friends of Brockwell Park and The Victorian Society). A letter of objection was also received from Brixton Housing Co-op with a petition of 6 local residents within the area.

3.5.6 The objections received from the public consultation are summarised in the following section, with an officer response to those comments contained within the right hand column.

Objection Officer response

1 Loss of amenity and The proposed developments impact on privacy to neighbouring the amenity of neighbouring residents residents and Brockwell at Brailsford Road has been reduced Park users due to through screening of windows and the increased overlooking. use of obscured glazing. Windows on the northern elevation of the proposed development would overlook into the rear gardens of properties on Brixton Water Lane however overlooking into these rear gardens would currently occur from upper levels of neighbouring properties, and it is considered that the potential increase in this is acceptable. The window separation from the north elevation windows to the windows on Page 165

the rear main elevation of 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane is approximately 23m which is considered to provide acceptable levels of privacy to these properties. The layout of living rooms to the east of the proposed flats allows for additional overlooking of Brockwell Park which would help mitigate instances of crime. 2 Over intensification of The Borough is in need of additional residential use at the housing. Previous schemes of 12 property. residential units have been refused for their high density. This scheme of 8 residential units provides a suitable density of development for a site of this type whilst providing additional housing for the Borough. 3 Design of proposed The proposed development has been development does not designed to incorporate features of the complement existing surrounding Victorian and Georgian Victorian and Georgian properties such as recessed windows character in the with stone sills and heads and a immediate area and mansard roof form. The height of the neighbouring Brockwell building and eaves match those of Park and Brixton Water neighbouring dwellings on Brailsford Lane Conservation Road to help create a uniform pattern Areas. of development when viewed from Brockwell park.

4 The size, bulk and The application site is considerably siting of the proposed larger than neighbouring sites on development is not Brailsford Road. This allows for a larger consistent with the development in general. surrounding area. The height of the building matches adjacent dwellings on Brailsford Road. The siting of the new building corresponds with the siting of dwellings along Brailsford Road, in particular along the prominent frontage of the site with Brockwell Park and also with the siting of 13 Arlingford Road, which has been built to the boundary with Brailsford Road. 5 Increase in parking The Council’s Transport Planner has stress on surrounding indicated that the site scores a PTAL streets due to increased rating of 4, which is considered to have residential density and good acc ess to public transport. no provision of onsite Increased housing density is car parking. encouraged in areas of good public transport accessibility, as are car free Page 166

developments. 6 Potential damage to The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has protected Sycamore stated that the proposed works to the tree located adjacent to Sycamore Tree on the boundary the property. between 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane would not have an adverse impact on the health or the appearance of the tree. 7 Loss of employment The principle of a change of land use use in the area. was supported in the previous Appeal Decision; the Inspector considered that given the residential nature of the surrounding area and that the site is not allocated for employment purposes in the UDP, the change of use complied with both the Council’s residential and employment policies. 8 Additional cycle parking The Council’s Transport Planner has should be provided as raised no objection to the number of no onsite car parking is cycle parking spaces provided on site. provided. 9 cycle spaces have been proposed in excess of 1 cycle per flat. 9 Additional noise Noise from the proposed development disturbance from high would not exceed what can be usually number of new expected from a residential building of residential units this size. 10 Additional waste The amount of refuse and recycling resulting from future storage space proposed for the occupiers of proposed development exceeds the volume development. required by the Council’s guidance.

3.5.7 Councillor Marcia Cameron has requested that this application be reported to the Council’s Planning Applications Committee if the application is recommended for approval.

3.6 Relevant Planning Policies

3.6.1 National Guidance 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.

3.6.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development: Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) attempts to ensure that development and growth are sustainable. The guidance note outlines Page 167

the positive role for the planning system in guiding appropriate development to the right place. The advice also states that adequate provision should be made for employment users and for the provision of new housing developments, and that local authorities should operate on the basis that applications for development should be allowed having regard to the Development Plan and all material considerations, unless the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to the interests of acknowledged importance.

3.6.3 Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing Planning Policy Statement 3 underpins the delivery of the Government’s strategic housing policy objectives and the goal to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home, which they can afford in a community where they want to live.

3.6.4 Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic Environment Planning has a central role to play in conserving our heritage assets and utilising the historic environment in creating sustainable places. This PPS comprises policies that will enable the Government’s vision for the historic environment as set out in the 2010 Statement to be implemented through the planning system, where appropriate.

3.6.5 Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) encourages alternative means of travel to the private car, which would have less environmental impact. It suggests the location of new housing and employment uses in urban areas, and the optimum use of under-used sites and the promotion of new rail links and other improvements to public transport. One of the main objectives of this piece of Central Government thinking is to reduce car movements and usage.

3.6.6 London Plan (Adopted July 2011)

3.6.6.1The new London Plan was adopted on the 22nd July 2011. 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. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

3.6.6.2The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are: Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.10 Walking Page 168

Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.2 An Inclusive Environment Policy 7.3 Designing out Crime Policy 7.4 Local Character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.13 Safety, Security and resilience to emergency Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes

3.6.7 Local Planning Policy

3.6.7.1 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 (July 2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.

3.6.7.2 The following saved Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 are considered relevant to this application:

Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint

Policy 23: Protection and Loss of other Employment Uses Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing Out Crime Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 35: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 38: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas Policy 39: Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 47: Conservation Areas.

3.6.7.3 The following Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies (January 2011) are also considered relevant:

Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 – Housing Policy S3 – Economic Development Policy S4 – Transport Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment

Page 169

3.6.8 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

3.6.8.1 The following adopted SPDs are relevant: • SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions • SPD: Safer Built Environments • SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction

3.7 Land use and principle of redevelopment

Loss of light industrial offices (B1 use class)

3.7.1 Policy S3 (b) of the Core Strategy advises that the Council will maintain a stock of other employment sites and premises outside KIBAs in commercial use across the borough, subject to the suitability of the site and location. This policy is supported by saved Policy 23 of the UDP.

3.7.2 Saved Policy 23 of the UDP protects existing employment floor space and lists a number of exceptions which could allow a change to a non- employment use, including: the suitability of the site for continued employment use; proven lack of demand for the site; the provision of 100% affordable housing on the site. The lack of demand or unsuitability of a site for continued employment use must be supported by evidence of an open and wide-ranging marketing campaign. Saved Policy 23 sets out that, in terms of the length of time a property has remained vacant, a minimum of one year is considered appropriate (sub-para. 4.11.20).

3.7.3 In this case, the principle of the change of use was accepted through the previous appeal. While the application had been refused by the Council in 2006 with reference to the employment policies in place at that time (namely, EMP6 and EMP7 of the adopted 1998 UDP and Policy 27 of the emerging replacement UDP 2004), the Inspector in determining the appeal concluded that “given the site is not allocated for employment purposes in the adopted or emerging UDP and it location within a quiet residential area, I consider that redevelopment for residential purposes would accord with both the Council’s housing and employment policies” (ref. para 5).

3.7.4 Since the time the appeal decision was made (May 2007) the current UDP (August 2007) and Core Strategy (January 2011) have been adopted. Notwithstanding this, the thrust of relevant employment protection policies is broadly similar to those that were in place and applied in the assessment of the application in 2007. Therefore it is not considered that relevant development plan policies have changed so significantly since the appeal decision such that a different conclusion could now be reached in terms of the ‘in principle’ acceptability of the change of use. For this reason it is considered that it would be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal on land use grounds. Page 170

Land use

3.7.5 The introduction and intensification of a residential use on the site is supported by National policy guidance in PPS 3 (Housing) and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) which promotes the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/11 and 2016/17 in line with London Plan targets. This is subject to compliance with other material planning consideration such as residential amenity which is discussed further on in this officer report.

3.7.6 Brailsford Road is identified as a street ‘under conversion stress’ on the Lambeth LDF Proposals Map (January 2011). Policy S2 (e) of the Core Strategy protects all family sized houses from conversion into flats in parts of the borough under conversion stress, and protects family sized houses of less than 150 square metres as originally constructed in other parts of the borough not on the main road network. However, as the application does not affect a ‘family sized house’ Policy S2 (e) would not apply in this case.

3.7.7 The site is located within a residential area. Therefore residential use on the site such as the one proposed is compatible within the locality in terms of mutual impacts and retaining/securing appropriate residential amenity.

Intensification of residential use

3.7.8 National policy guidance in PPS3 [Housing] actively promotes the use of formerly developed sites for housing. In order to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of Greenfield land being taken for development, the government is committed to maximising the re- use of previously developed land to provide new housing.

3.7.9 Policy S2 seeks levels of residential density consistent with London Plan guidelines, having regard to the provision of other uses on the site, availability of local services, access to and capacity of public transport, urban design context, quality of design and impact on existing and future residents.

3.7.10 The application site has a PTAL rating of 4 which reflects good access to public transport provision. The key public transport artery of Tulse Hill is located approximately 5-10 walking distance to the north. The Council’s Transport Planner has raised no objection to the intensification of the site on transport and accessibility grounds. On this basis the redevelopment of the site to provide a higher density of housing to the area, thereby increasing the Borough’s housing stock, is considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other material planning considerations discussed further in this officer report.

Affordable housing provision Page 171

3.7.11 Policy S2 (c) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy seeks the provision of affordable housing on sites of at least 0.1 hectares or on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes.

3.7.12 In the first instance it is noted that the site is less than 0.1 hectares in area, and therefore there isn’t an automatic requirement for affordable housing provision. With respect to the capability of providing 10 or more homes, an assessment has been made about whether the proposed building envelope could accommodate 10 units. It is officer consideration that the proposed development has not been deliberately designed and laid out to circumvent the Council’s affordable housing requirements.

3.7.13 In conclusion, the principle of the development to provide residential use comprising of 8 self contained flats at first, second and third floor levels is considered acceptable in land use terms. The proposal would therefore comply with the Council’s policies in this report. As such, the previous reason for refusal 2 of planning application ref. 06/01674/FUL has been overcome.

3.8 Standard of proposed accommodation

3.8.1 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP states that new residential development should be of an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. The Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (SPD) expands on this policy and advises on requirements such as minimum room sizes and space standards, amenity space requirements, daylight/sunlight provision and privacy and spacing between buildings. It is a material consideration in the determination of applications involving all forms of residential development.

Unit and room sizes

3.8.2 The Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document for ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ outlines the requirements for internal layout and room sizes of a residential development.

3.8.3 Each of the principle habitable rooms and the overall units sizes have been measured and compared against the Council’s minimum room size requirements. The scheme would exceed the overall unit size requirements for each flat.

3.8.4 The living/dining/kitchen room of Flat 1 would have a shortfall of approximately 0.2sq.m or 0.8%. All other rooms would meet or exceed the minimum requirements.

Page 172

3.8.5 It is officer consideration that the shortfall is too minimal to justify a refusal on the grounds of failure to comply with Adopted Policy, as the all other rooms and overall floorspace of the unit exceeds the minimum requirements.

Internal layout, circulation and storage space

3.8.6 Figure 2 of Section 1.11 of the SPD ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008) states that there should be sufficient circulation space to allow access between habitable rooms and storage space to be provided for all household needs.

3.8.7 It is considered that the layout of the proposed flats at ground, first, second and third floor levels would provide sufficient storage space, internal layouts and circulation space within the residential units on the upper floors. As such each of the units complies with the Council’s SPD ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008).

Stacking of flats

3.8.8 The stacking of the flats is acceptable, as the layout of the rooms have been designed to ensure that there is appropriate stacking of habitable rooms with the intention of minimising disturbance between flats.

Floor to ceiling height

3.8.9 The SPD outlines that all of the floors must maintain a minimum of 2.3m in floor to ceiling height. The SPD also states that at least 50% of the floor area, within a room with sloping ceilings, should remain at least at 2m. The submitted drawings demonstrate that all of the residential units would meet this floor to ceiling height requirement.

Natural light/Outlook

3.8.10 It is considered that each of the units would provide acceptable living environments in terms of natural lighting and outlook. All habitable rooms would be served by generously sized window openings.

Overlooking/Loss of privacy

3.8.11 There would be no loss of privacy or overlooking to the proposed flats 1 to 8 at ground, first, second and third floor levels, as all balconies and amenity spaces would be screened to prevent any overlooking between flats.

Amenity space and play space

Page 173

3.8.12 The requirement for amenity space provision as part of new residential developments is detailed both in the London Plan and the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan. Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(h) of the Core Strategy requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by, where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.

3.8.13 The SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions sets out that for new flatted developments, shared amenity space of at least 50sqm per scheme should be provided. A further 10sqm per flat should also be provided, either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal space. Communal gardens should comply with the following standards: (i) receive natural light; (ii) be screened from parking areas; (iii) be easily accessible to all occupants; (iv) be overlooked by habitable rooms to ensure safety and surveillance; and (v) have a landscape, management and maintenance plan. Therefore the minimum requirement for this proposal would be 130sqm.

3.8.14 The proposed development does not provide any communal amenity space and therefore does not accord with the above guidance. It is also to be noted that the two flats on the first and second floors would have modest balconies of around 5m² each and that the two flats on the third floor would have no private outdoor space. However, the proposed development would be located within a two minute walk of Brockwell Park which it backs onto. In view of this the proposed level of outdoor amenity space provision is considered acceptable.

3.9 Design and Conservation Considerations

3.9.1 A high quality standard of design is an integral requirement for all new build schemes, which is clearly reflected in National, Regional and Local level policies and guidance. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 states that good design is indivisible from good planning, with high quality and inclusive design being the aim of all of those involved in the development process.

3.9.2 Saved Policies 31 and 33 of the UDP seek to ensure that new developments are of a high standard of design and layout and take into account the height, bulk, scale, materials, colour, character and amenities of the area. Saved Policy 38 of the UDP states that proposals to intensify existing residential/mixed use areas are welcomed where this can be achieved through good design without harming local amenities. Any attractive prevailing character and appearance of the area should also be retained.

3.9.3 To secure a building of appropriate design, scale, massing and height reference must be made to Policy 33 (Building, Scale and Design), which requires high quality design that positively contributes to the surrounding area and is appropriate to the site characteristics. In Page 174

particular Policy 33 states that infill development should be compatible with: • The site, context and historic development of the area; • Existing topology, landscape and boundary treatment; • Prevailing building lines and plot sizes; • The height, massing and scale of neighbouring buildings; • Roof profiles and silhouettes of adjoining buildings; • Colour, type, source and texture of local materials; • Architectural compositions including patterns and rhythms and set pieces of townscape and; • Established gaps and open spaces, views and skylines.

Layout and Siting

3.9.4 Properties on Brailsford Road currently exhibit a uniform pattern of development along both the street frontage and at the rear of the properties along Brockwell Park. Due to the sites ‘backland’ location the most prominent ‘frontage’ is that along Brockwell Park where the proposed development has been sited in line with the existing uniform pattern of development of Brailsford Road. At the Brailsford Road frontage, the layout of the proposed residential building would utilise the large plot size whilst being sympathetic to the existing pattern of development.

3.9.5 The proposed building siting close to the boundary with 1 Brailsford Road forms a uniform pattern of development with 13 Arlingford Road which is built to the boundary at the Brailsford Road frontage.

3.9.6 The building is setback 20.2m from the adjacent Grade II listed buildings at 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane ensuring that the proposed buildings siting would have a minimal impact on views and sightlines of these buildings.

3.9.7 It is considered that the siting and layout of the proposed development complements the existing pattern of development in the immediate area particularly along the prominent Brockwell Park frontage of the site.

Building form, scale and height

3.9.8 The predominant building form in the immediate area is of terraced housing, however due to the ‘backland’ nature of the site it would not be possible to continue this building form. The design proposed appropriately utilises the larger plot size to create a building of a suitable form and scale to the surrounding area. The proposed building when viewed from Brockwell Park would take on the form of 2 semi-detached dwellings, which is an improvement over the existing vacant light industrial buildings where the single storey height of the Page 175

buildings creates a considerable gap in development between 1 Brailsford Road and 48 Brixton Water Lane.

3.9.9 The predominant building height in the area is 3 storeys in height; whilst the proposed development is to be 4 storeys the overall height of the development would not exceed that of neighbouring properties. The building has been designed to have a mansard roof form and eaves height that would match adjacent buildings. This would continue the uniform pattern of development that exists along the Brockwell Park frontage of the site.

Detailed design & materials

3.9.10 Policy 33(a) states that developments should be compatible with the colour, type, source and texture of local materials. As detailed earlier external materials would includes multi-stock facing brickwork, double glazed aluminium framed with powder coated finish windows and doors, metal and glass balconies along with square profile metal gates painted black.

3.9.11 The proposed developments design is sympathetic to the established surrounding Victorian residential neighbourhood. The development proposes a mansard style roof with eaves at a height matching those of adjacent terraced properties. Dormer windows at roof level have also been proposed as inline with surrounding development. The applicant has also proposed recessed windows with a stone head and sill which is a common design feature of surrounding properties. The use of these design features ensures that the proposed development does not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area or the adjacent conservation areas.

3.9.12 Further to this the applicant has proposed materials which generally complement the surrounding area, and provide a contemporary alternative to traditional materials. The proposed yellow multi facing brick combined with light coloured stone head and sills is common in the area as is the proposed slate tiles for the mansard roof. If approval is granted a condition will be attached for a schedule and samples of materials to be submitted and approved by the Council prior to the commencement of development to ensure the proposed materials to not harm the setting of the surrounding area.

Other design matters

3.9.13 Policy 33 states that the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of a development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes an efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of the existing and potential residents. The development is considered to achieve this. Page 176

Summary of Design Matters

3.9.14 Overall the proposed development is considered to provide a positive contribution to the area, the proposed design utilises the potential of a larger plot size whilst still maintaining uniformity with surrounding development in particular the prevailing building line of the prominent frontage along Brockwell Park. The proposed building height, roof form and materials further enhance the uniformity with the surrounding area and ensure that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on the surrounding conservation areas and adjacent Grade II listed buildings. It is considered that the proposed development has overcome reason 1 for refusal in application ref. 06/01674/FUL.

3.10 Sustainable Design and Construction

3.10.1 Saved Policy 35 of the UDP sets out that all development proposals should show how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. The Council’s SPD on Sustainable Design and Construction sets out that all developments should achieve a minimum 3 star rating for the Code for Sustainable Homes, albeit that the Council aspires to 4 stars or more in the majority of developments.

3.10.2 A sustainability statement has been submitted with the planning application providing information on sustainable design matters. The applicant has also provided a sustainability pre-assessment of the residential use scheme detailing how it would meet the sustainable design and construction standards in accordance with the planning policies in the UDP, the London Plan, and Government objectives.

3.10.3 Core Strategy Policy S7(a) requires all (non major) development proposals to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in carbon dioxide measures through energy efficient design, decentralised heat, cooling and power systems (where appropriate) and on-site renewable energy generation. The sustainability statement undertaken by AJ Energy Consultants Limited states that the energy efficiency measures proposed would achieve a 5.3% improvement against Building Regulations, which is a welcomed improvement.

3.10.4 The sustainability pre-assessment evaluates the potential rating the proposed development would achieve under a formal Code for Sustainable Homes assessment. To meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 developments need to achieve a total percentage points score equal to or greater than 57 points. The pre-assessment indicates a score of 60.7 points which is equivalent to a Code Level 3, which is in accordance with Policy 35 of the UDP.

3.10.5 If approval is to be granted a condition would be attached to ensure that the Level 3 of the Code of Sustainable Homes is achieved prior to the occupation of the development. Page 177

Lifetime Homes and Accessibility

3.10.6 Policy 3A.4 (Housing Choice), Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(d) of the Core Strategy provide guidance on Lifetime Homes. This is further expanded on in Section 7 of the Adopted SPD ‘Guidance and standards for housing development and house conversions’. This requires Lambeth to ensure that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes.

3.10.7 The applicant has not provided detailed information relating to lifetime homes and accessibility, however has indicated that the all flats would comply with Lifetime Home Standards. It is considered that this could be secured by way of condition should the application be recommended for approval.

3.11 Amenity Impact Considerations

3.11.1 Policies 7, 33, 36 and 38 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with regards to amenity related matters. This section assesses the design proposal’s impact on privacy, sense of enclosure, outlook, daylight/sunlight and noise to adjoining properties.

Privacy and Overlooking

3.11.2 Policy 33(d) requires that the scale and design of new buildings should respect standards of privacy and not create unacceptable overlooking to neighbouring properties.

3.11.3 The ‘backland’ nature of the site makes the proposed development susceptible to overlooking and privacy concerns. The property is located adjacent to the rear gardens of 7, 9, 11 and 13 Arlingford Road and the rear gardens of 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane. The property is also adjacent to Brockwell Park.

3.11.4 The proposed development would overlook into the rear gardens of properties on Brixton Water Lane from the upper levels, however it is considered that existing surrounding properties overlooking already occurs from upper levels into these rear gardens. In built up areas overlooking into neighbouring gardens is likely to occur. It is considered that any overlooking into the rear of these properties would not further reduce the privacy of residents from current levels. The separation between windows of habitable rooms above ground level of the proposed development and the rear main elevation windows of properties on Brixton Water Lane is 23.4m, which is considered to be an acceptable distance to mitigate any loss of privacy for residents.

3.11.5 Instances of overlooking into the rear gardens of 7-13 Arlingford Road would be reduced by the internal layout of the units, which propose the Page 178

bedrooms to the west of the units overlooking the Arlingford Road properties and living rooms to the east of the units overlooking Brockwell Park. The western elevation of the proposed building is 21.0m from the rear main elevation of properties on Arlingford Road which is considered to be a sufficient distance to ensure there would not be an unacceptable loss of privacy.

3.11.6 The proposed development proposes opaque glazed windows and aluminium privacy screening at the south elevation to prevent overlooking into properties along Brailsford Road.

Sunlight and Daylight

3.11.7 Policy 33(d) requires that new buildings should be of a scale and design that protects residential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers by having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight. In assessing daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development upon residential neighbours, Policy 33 states that regard will be had to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice’.

3.11.8 A number of properties share a boundary with the application site and levels of daylight and sunlight at these properties could be affected by the proposed development. The applicant has provided a Daylight and Sunlight Report, prepared by CHP Surveyors Limited. The report has indicated that all habitable rooms of surrounding properties would maintain adequate levels of daylight and sunlight. It is considered that levels of sunlight and daylight to properties to the north and the west would not be unacceptably affected by the proposed development. Due to the proposed developments siting in close proximity to the property at 1 Brailsford Road, the impact on this property warranted closer scrutiny, in particular the windows at the front and side elevations of the property. This property has been converted to two flats, planning permission ref. DC/JP/GLE/15132 approval granted 01 February 1978.

3.11.9 The daylight and sunlight report indicates that the window on the side flank of the second floor level would have a significant loss of daylight, however it has been confirmed by the applicant that this window serves a bathroom. Officer site visit observations would indicate that this is a bathroom. Therefore it is considered that this loss of natural light would not have an undue impact on the residential amenity of occupiers of this property.

3.11.10 The daylight and sunlight report also indicates that the room served by the front bay window at basement level of 1 Brailsford Road would experience some loss of daylight. It would appear from site visit observations on Brailsford Road that this room is in use as a bedroom. The daylight and sunlight report has indicated adequate Page 179

daylight/sunlight levels would be maintained for such a use. Therefore it is the officer’s consideration that the scheme would no adversely affect levels of daylight and sunlight to habitable rooms at 1 Brailsford Road in line with BRE Guidance.

Sense of enclosure/Loss of outlook

3.11.11 The proposed development is located a considerable distance from neighbouring properties at 9, 11 and 13 Arlingford Road and 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane, at 21.0m and 20.3m respectively. This separation between properties ensures that the development would not result in a sense of enclosure for occupiers of 9-13 Arlingford Road and 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane,

3.11.12 The proposed development extends 6.5m forward from the front elevation of 1 Brailsford Road, this would result in some sense of enclosure for residents however this is considered minimal as the property outlooks directly down Brailsford Road, which gives a sense of openness. It is also a common feature at corner blocks that properties are enclosed on one side by adjacent development.

3.11.13 Residents at 9-13 Arlingford Road currently have an outlook of Brockwell Park from the rear of their dwellings; this outlook would be affected by the proposed development however it is considered that whilst they will lose view of the park the separation between their dwellings and the proposed development still provides a satisfactory level of outlook.

3.12 Trees

3.12.1 Policy 39 of the UDP is relevant with regards to tree matters and seeks to protect trees of high amenity. The applicant has provided an Arboricultural Report which outlines the tree protection measures proposed to protect the trees situated in adjacent gardens during the construction stage of development. Works are proposed to the canopy of the nearest tree to the development, the Sycamore on the boundary of 46 and 48 Brixton Water Lane, which would require pruning back to facilitate the development. The Council’s Aboricultural Officer has stated that these works would not have an adverse impact on the health or the appearance of the tree.

3.12.2 The Aboricultural Officer has suggested a number of conditions to be attached if the application were to be granted approval, to ensure the proposed development complies with Policy 39 of the UDP.

3.13 Highways and Transportation Considerations

3.13.1 Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with respect to Transportation and Page 180

Highways matters. These policies seek to ensure that proposals for development have a minimal impact on the performance and safety of the highway network and that sufficient and appropriate car parking and cycle storage is provided whilst meeting objectives to encourage sustainable transport and to reduce reliance on the private car.

3.13.2 The application site has a PTAL rating of 4 which reflects good access to public transport provision. The application site is located within a Controlled Parking Zone Brixton B. As previously noted, the proposed development would not include the provision of onsite car parking spaces but would provide 9 cycle spaces.

3.13.3 The Council’s Transport Planning officer was consulted on this application and made the following comment:

Accessibility and Density

3.13.4 The site has a PTAL score of 4, which is considered good. Increased housing density is encouraged in areas of good public transport accessibility, as are car free developments.

Access

3.13.5 The existing site is served by a vehicular crossover to Brailsford Road. The proposals do not include a vehicular access; therefore the applicant should fund the removal of the crossover, and the reinstatement of the footway at this location. A communal pedestrian gate is proposed onto Brailsford Road.

Car Parking

3.13.6 No off street parking is proposed. Census 2001 car ownership data for the Tulse Hill ward suggests that the proposed unit mix would generate four vehicles requiring on-street parking.

3.13.7 The site is located with Controlled Parking Zone Brixton ‘B’. March 2011 parking survey information has been submitted with the application, which found an average parking stress of 63% within 200m of the site and 58% on Brailsford Road. The additional four vehicles generated by the proposed development would increase parking stress on Brailsford Road to 62% which is considered acceptable.

Cycle Parking

3.13.8 A cycle store is shown within the courtyard, which contains 9 vertical racks, in excess of 1 space per unit. Vertical racks are not generally encouraged in residential developments, and the proposed configuration looks very tight to accommodate and comfortably manoeuvre 9 cycles. It is suggested that the cycle racks should be changed to 5 x Sheffield style racks which would accommodate 10 Page 181

cycles. Further details of Cycle Storage should be secured by condition if approval is granted.

Construction

3.13.9 A Method of Construction Statement should be secured by condition if approval is granted.

Conclusion

3.13.10 Subject to conditions the Council’s Transport Planner does not raise any objections to the proposal. The proposed development would not have any undue detrimental impacts on the surrounding transport and highways system.

3.14 Refuse and recycling considerations

3.14.1 Policy S8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy seeks to ensure adequate provision for refuse and recycling storage is incorporated within new developments. The Council's Guidance for 'Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements' also provides a more comprehensive guide to waste storage provision.

3.14.2 Separate refuse and recycling storage areas have been provided for the residential units at ground floor level, which can be accessed via the access gate facing onto Brailsford Road. 2 x 660 litres eurobins for refuse waste and 1 x 1280 litres eurobin for recycling storage have been provided for the residential units within the building. In the circumstances the refuse storage needs of the development would be suitably served by the provision shown.

3.14.3 The Council’s Waste & Recycling storage requirements for residential development of up to 10 households is as follows:

* 80 litres storage capacity per bedroom; * The Council provides sacks and/or a green box for dry recyclable material.

3.14.4 The total requirement for residential is 1,280 litres (1 x 1 bedroom flat, 6 x 2 bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat = 16 bedrooms). 2 x 660 litres refuse bins and a 1 x 1280 litres bin for recycling would be provided on site.

3.14.5 The refuse storage for residential units with dry recyclable storage area for the property is considered acceptable, as there would be a total of 1,320 litres capacity provided for the 16 bedrooms, which requires 1,280 litres capacity and exceeds the refuse requirement by 40 litres. Therefore, this would comply with the Council’s Waste & Recycling storage requirements for residential development of up to 10 households. Page 182

3.14.6 A condition of consent is recommended to secure the provision and to require the submission of full details of the provision for refuse and recyclables storage for the development, including elevation drawings at a scale of 1:20 of the storage enclosures.

3.14.7 It follows that subject to condition, the development need not conflict with Policy S8 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).

3.15 Community Safety/Designing out Crime

3.15.1 Saved Policy 32 of the UDP requires that developments should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. This requirement is contained within Section 17 of The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which imposes an obligation on the local planning authority to consider crime and disorder reduction in the assessment of planning applications.

3.15.2 The Council’s Crime Prevention officer has provided the following recommendations for the proposed development to mitigate crime risks at the property: • The development should comply with the relevant physical protection standards as defined in part 2, Secured by Design/New Homes 2010. • External cycle storage should consist of a rack securely fixed to the ground within a secure and lockable area. • Care should be taken to ensure that the bin storage facility does not obscure visibility or obstruct the front access to houses. • Lighting should adhere to BS 5489 and an engineer should be consulted to provide well designed scheme. Details to be secured by condition if approval granted. • Landscaping should maintain a clear field of vision around the site. Details to be secured by condition if approval granted. • Details of boundary treatments to be secured by condition if approval granted.

3.15.3 The Council’s Crime Prevention officer believes if the above recommendations are adhered to as well as the Secure By Design minimum standards for new windows, doors, lighting and access control then most of the crime risks should be mitigated.

3.16 Conclusion

3.16.1 The proposed development represents an effective and efficient use of vacant light industrial land to provide a residential scheme in accordance with current government guidelines and the Unitary Development Plan policies, which encourage higher densities.

Page 183

3.16.2 The proposed development is considered to be an appropriate response to the character, bulk and height of buildings in the immediate surrounding area. It is considered that the proposal is compatible with the scale of development located on either side of the subject site.

3.16.3 The proposal would not unduly detract from the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers by reason of loss of outlook, sunlight, daylight or privacy. The scheme would provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation.

3.16.4 The impact of the development on transport and parking is considered acceptable. The proposed development is serviced well by public transport and would not unreasonably increase parking stress in the area.

3.17 Recommendation

3.17.1 Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

3.17.2 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:

UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011:

Policy 7 – Protection of Residential Amenity, Policy 9 – Transport Impact, Policy 14 – Parking and Traffic Constraint, Policy 23 – Protection and Loss of other Employment Uses, Policy 31 – Streets, Character and Layout, Policy 32 – Community Safety/Designing Out Crime, Policy 33 - Building Scale and Design, Policy 35 - Sustainable Design and Construction, Policy 38 – Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas, Policy 39 – Streetscape, Landscape & Public Realm Design and Policy 47 – Conservation Areas.

Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 :

Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives, Policy S2 Housing Policy S3 – Economic Development, Policy S4 Transport, Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction and Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management

Conditions: Page 184

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

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

3 No development works shall take place until detailed drawings, samples and a schedule of materials to be used within the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications to these matters which have been given on the approved plans and in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the details approved in writing. The following details will be required.

a) Scaled drawings of window reveals, sills and heads, framing and glazing at a scale of 1:20 b) Samples of elevational treatment including, bricks, render and stonework; c) Details of rainwater goods, vents, extracts and pipes; d) Scaled drawings metal and timber work including railings and balustrades; e) Samples of all roof materials; and f) Details of doors.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5 th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)

4 Prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the development a specification of all proposed hard and soft landscaping and external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details before the initial occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted and retained for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5 th August 2010 and Policy S5 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) Page 185

5 Details of the siting and design of all walls and/or fencing including all boundary treatment between plots shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the development hereby approved. Such walls or fencing as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the buildings unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning authority to any variation has been obtained.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory resultant appearance and in the interests of the privacy of future and existing residents in accordance with Polices 7, 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5 th August 2010 and Policies S5 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)

6 All windows indicated on approved plans as obscured glazed shall be of a permanently fixed, non-opening design, and shall be permanently maintained with obscure glass.

Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in accordance with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

7 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 ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area and to ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Policies 9, 14, 35 and 56 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

8 Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, full details of the refuse and recyclables storage area for the development, including elevation drawings at a scale of 1:20 of the new storage enclosures, as well as a Waste Management Strategy outlining the operation and management of waste storage and collection for both the commercial and residential uses and the removal of fats and cooking oils (if applicable), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as are approved shall be provided prior to the residential occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies Page 186

9, 33, 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policies S8 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

9 Within 3 months of the new/altered access being brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.

Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users in accordance with Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

10 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, in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

11 No trees within or adjacent to the site shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the locality and wider area in accordance with policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

12 All tree protection measures and arboricultural method statements as outlined in Section 7.0 & 8.0 of the Approved Arboricultural Report prepared by Open Spaces Landscape Consultants dated August 2011 shall be implemented before the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved. The tree protection measures shall remain in place for the duration of the construction of the development and only be dismantled or removed following the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Page 187

13 Required tree surgery works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Approved Arboricultural Report prepared by Open Spaces Landscape Consultants. The tree works shall accord with BS3998:2010 and the development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

14 No demolition works or development shall take place until a specification of all proposed soft landscaping and tree planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. In addition all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 and current Arboricultural best practise.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy 39 of the adopted London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

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

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development in accordance with Policy 39 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).

16 Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted drawings showing the lighting of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall Page 188

be installed prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings and shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: In ensure the safety and security of the access in accordance with Policy 9 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policies S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

17 The approved development shall meet 'Secured by Design Standards', consistent with s17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 2005.

Reason: To ensure the safety and security of future occupiers and to prevent crime and disorder occurring within and in the immediate vicinity of the site, in the interest of public safety in accordance with saved Policy 32 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5 th August 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)

18 The dwellings shall achieve at least Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) (or such equivalent national measure of sustainability which replaces that scheme). No development shall take place until a design stage certificate with interim rating (or, if this is not available, evidence that the development is registered with a CSH certification body and a pre-assessment report) has been submitted indicating that the development can achieve the stipulated final CSH level. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate has been issued certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and achieve the agreed rating. The development shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of addressing climate change and to secure sustainable development in accordance with Policy S7 of the Lambeth Core Strategy January 2011, Policy 35 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Lambeth’s adopted Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document July 2008.

19 All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained.

Reason: In order that the development is made more accessible to all in accordance with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010, Policy S2(d) of the Local Development Page 189

Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the related Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008).

20 The proposed buildings shall be built to the ground levels and heights as shown on the approved drawings or lower and if the indicated existing heights and levels of the neighbouring properties should prove to be erroneous, then the heights of the proposed building shall be no higher than the relative height difference(s) between the heights of the neighbouring properties and proposed buildings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development is built to the heights relative to adjoining properties as shown on the approved drawings in the interests of visual and residential amenity (Policies 7, 33, and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

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

The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To protect vulnerable groundwater resources and ensure compliance with Planning Policy Statement 23.

22 Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demeonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with approved details.

Reason: To protect vulnerable groundwater resources and ensure compliance with Planning Policy Statement 23.

Informatives:

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

Page 190

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

4. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities.

5. As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following

- name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building - register new flats or new buildings with Royal Mail

This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985.

The correct street number or number and name must be displayed prominently on the premises in accordance with regulations made under Section 12 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.

Contact details are listed below.

Tom Brown tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 0780 email: [email protected]

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

7. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

8. Contaminated soil that is excavated, recovered or disposed of, is controlled waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste legislation, which includes: Page 191

• Duty of Care Regulations 1991 • Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 • Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the permitting status of any proposed off site operations is clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.

9. Sustainable surface water drainage systems are endorsed by the Environment Agency. The collection and dispersal of clean surface water to ground to recharge aquifer units and prevent localised drainage or surface systems flooding in heavy rainfall is encouraged. However, dispersal into the ground through soakaways will always require a site specific investigation and risk assessment. Generally, we would except roof drainage going to a soakaway, but other surface drainage may need to go through treatment systems or to foul main, for instance vehicle parking. Surface drainage from car parking for less than 20 private cars is normally acceptable, provided there are suitable pollution prevention measures in the system prior to the discharge point and the groundwater is grater that 10 metres below final discharge level. The detailed design at any site can be negotiated on a site specific basis dependant on environmental setting and drainage design proposals.

Page 192

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 193 Agenda Item 7

1 Page 194

Location 35 - 51 Bedford Road London SW4 7SG

Ward Ferndale

Proposal Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide Application a six storey building (plus basement level) comprising of office space (Use Class B1) at ground and first floor levels, 58 self contained units (Use Class C3) front Bedford Road. Erection of a four storey building to the rear of the site to provide 17 self contained units (Use Class C3), provision of refuse and recycling storage, bicycle parking and associated hard and soft landscaping (AMENDED DETAILS IN RELATION TO PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ALTERATIONS TO FENESTRATION ON LOWER GROUND FLOOR OF REAR ELEVATIONS OF BEDFORD ROAD BLOCK) Applicant

Agent Mr William Smith 25 Savile RowLondonW1S 2ES

Date valid 30 November 2011 Case Officer Mr Nicholas Linford

Application 11/03988/FUL Reference

Recommendation(s) That conditional planning permission is granted subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Constraints Streets Under Conversion Stress

Advert Publication 30th December 2011 Date

Site Notice posted 30th December 2011 on

Page 195

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. Affordable housing provision and justification for policy requirement shortfall.

1.2. Consideration of employment floorspace.

1.3. Design and appearance of proposed development.

1.4. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers.

1.5. Impact on the amenity of future residential occupiers of the development

1.6. The impact on the transport and highway network.

1.7. Implications of the recent planning appeal.

1.8. The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement to support the application.

2. Site Description

2.1. The appeal site is located on Bedford Road immediately to the south of the railway viaduct which serves Clapham High Street station. The site has a wide frontage to Bedford Road but quickly narrows from the rear, creating a triangular shape as the rear of Ferndale Road converges towards the path of the railway.

2.2. The site is currently occupied and used by a builders’ merchants yard for the trade and members of the public. The site is occupied by two principal buildings. The first runs parallel to Bedford Road and is sited towards the front of the site. This accommodates the principal retail business and office functions of the site as well as retail and storage.

2.3. A similarly large retail storage warehouse runs perpendicular to the first building along the boundary adjoining Collcutt Lodge and 4 – 8 Ferndale Road. Building materials are also stored in smaller storage facilities along the northern side of the site adjacent to the railway viaduct/embankment.

2.4. The site area is 0.32ha. The railway line assists in providing a barrier between land use character areas. The southern side where the site is located is predominantly residential with some commercial or industrial uses in the minority. To the north side of the railway, the land use becomes more commercial with shops, restaurants and bars where Bedford Road joins Clapham Road, Clapham High Street and Landor Road.

2.5. The site is situated close to Clapham High Street railway station serving Victoria and London Bridge stations. Clapham North underground station on the northern line is even closer to the site. Frequent bus services use Clapham High Street and Clapham Road and also Landor Road and Bedford Road to a lesser extent.

Page 196

2.6. The site is outside of a Conservation Area, however the Ferndale Road Conservation Area boundary runs along the entire southern boundary of the site. The building immediately to the south at the junction of Bedford Road and Ferndale Road is a grade II listed building and is known as Rathcoole House.

2.7. There are no specific policy led designations for this site set out on the current adopted proposals map supporting the Core Strategy and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

3. Planning History

3.1. In 1995 two applications were submitted for the use of front part of site to sell natural stone products to the building industry (B8 storage & distribution use) and use of rear part to facilitate/stockhold/distribute steel with communal loading/unloading & reception areas. (App Ref’s: 95/02506/PLANAP & 95/02662/PLANAP. Both applications withdrawn).

3.2. In 1996 an application was submitted for the erection of an enclosed and soundproofed building for stone dressing purposes in connection with display and sale of natural stone products on land fronting Bedford Road (Marked 'A'), and the storage of stone material on land to the rears of Nos.6-28 Ferndale Road. (App Ref: 96/02396/PLANAP, Application withdrawn).

3.3. In 2006 an application was submitted for the erection of a single-storey rear extension to the south elevation of the existing showroom for the provision of additional display floorspace. (App Ref: 06/00334/FUL, Application granted 15.05.2006).

3.4. In 2010, an application was submitted for the demolition of builder's merchant's showroom, offices and storage buildings and redevelopment to provide a mixed use scheme comprising 83 flats (including 34% affordable dwellings) and 309 sqm of B1 (Business) Use Class floorspace, in a layout of 1 six storey block of flats, 1 four and 1 five storey buildings with basement accommodation, and 1 six storey building with offices on the ground and first floor, along with a communal garden. Refuse/recycling storage and 89 cycle storage spaces. (App Ref: 10/01565/FUL, Application withdrawn 30.04.2010).

3.5. In June 2011, an application was submitted for the Demolition of existing builders' merchant and redevelopment of the site to provide B1 Office at Part Ground and Part 1st Floor, 75 x self-contained flats (Use Class C3), of which 20 would be affordable, provided within a 6 storey terraced block fronting Bedford Road, a four storey mews style block to the rear, together with 89 cycle parking spaces and associated hard and soft landscaping (11/00485/FUL). This application was refused for six reasons including the failure to provide sufficient affordable housing, quality of design, overbearing impact and outlook, loss of sunlight and daylight to both future and neighbouring occupiers and proposed room sizes.

3.6. An appeal (APP/N5660/A/11/2157836) was made against the refusal by way of an informal hearing which took place on 18 January 2012. During the course of the appeal process, the applicants took advantage of a

Page 197 procedure known as the ‘Wheatcroft Principle’ which allows the applicant to provide amended plans to the Planning Inspector which are subject to a planning application and ensures that the Planning Inspector make a decision on these new plans rather than the plans subject to the refusal of planning permission.

3.7. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal on 27 January 2012 on daylight and sunlight grounds in relation to the amended daylight and sunlight assessment which had been submitted with the appeal.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Planning permission is sought for a mixed use scheme comprising employment premises and residential units together with new landscaping, public realm improvements and access arrangements.

4.2. The development proposes a building which creates a frontage to Bedford Road with a residential mews building to the rear which makes use of the triangular shape of the application site. The building at the rear is accessed via an archway leading through the main building fronting Bedford Road.

4.3. The proposed employment use (Class B1) comprises 286sq.m of floorspace (GIA) and is located at the northern end of the site to the north of the entrance. The employment floorspace is spread over two floors. Four floors of residential accommodation are located above the employment premises.

4.4. The residential accommodation is in the form of 75 apartments. 17 of the proposed units within the development are affordable, which follows an agreed position between the applicants and the Council with the assistance of BNP Paribas. The proposed affordable units are to be located within the mews block. The provision and tenure of these are to be secured through a Section 106 agreement. The proportion of the affordable housing provision in the overall development is 22.6% by unit while the proportion of the provision of the affordable rent tenure properties (as opposed to intermediate housing) is 70.6% by unit numbers.

4.5. At the northern end of the site the building rises to six storeys. At the southern end, the building is smaller and the design approach references the adjacent listed building as well as the form and proportions of the nearby residential terraces. The design approach, both at the front of the terrace and at the rear, compliments rhythm and form of existing historic development in the area.

4.6. The proposal includes open space, landscaping and public realm works. Private balconies and gardens are provided for the residential units. Shared amenity space is also provided within the site consisting of public realm, communal space and playspace. A green roof is proposed to the commercial unit.

4.7. The development is proposed to be car free. Restrictions on eligibility for residents car parking permits, commercial units as well as a car club membership. Space for at least 77 cycle parking spaces are proposed as well as on site servicing and manoeuvring space and refuse collection facilities for the development.

Page 198 4.8. The scheme is expected to reach BREEAM ‘very good; for the commercial element and Level 3 in the Code for Sustainable Homes for the market housing and Level 4 for the affordable housing. 20% of the energy requirements will be provided from renewable sources.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. Consultation has been carried out with the occupiers of 305 neighbouring properties in Ferndale Road, Bedford Road and Aristotle Road, Lendal Terrace, Clapham High Street, Fenwick Place and Cottage Grove.

5.2. The Council received 8 objections to the application. Responses to the objections are set out in the table below:

Planning objections Responses The transport plan The transport plan has been indicates that appraised by the Transport Planner underground peak who has observed that the addition of hour capacity is 75 units and the commercial already exhausted. floorspace would not have a The provision of significant impact on the passenger additional households transport network at Clapham North would provide extra station. Any increase in demand has strain on the capacity to be balanced with the expected in the northbound drop in vehicular trips which would morning peak. occur. A development of this The site is situated in a site with a size should provide PTAL rating of 6. Accessibility to high on site car parking quality passenger transport would spaces. justify the removal of car parking on site. Residents will be entitled to apply for membership of a car club. Although the It is acknowledged that permit free development is car parking can occur overnight and may capped, residents lead to parking stress however, it is would still be allowed expected that any demand will be to park in surrounding offset by accessibility to passenger streets following the transport end of the restricted hours. 75 additional flats The scheme provides a mix of unit without parking would sizes and includes those suitable to attract residents who families with children. The site is are young and would close to a district centre, schools and be more likely to other community facilities. The site is remain out late at suitable for people of all ages and the night and on their assertion that this site will return would create a demonstrably lead to an additional noise an antisocial influx of people accessing late night noise problem. premises in Clapham High Street cannot be proved. The building is too The scheme design features buildings high and there should of varying heights starting from the be a reduction in the northwest corner by the railway number of units within viaduct opposite substantial buildings the development. on the western side of Bedford Road. However, attention is drawn to the elevation drawings which clearly 6

Page 199 show that the building heights drop considerably to be comparable to existing structure heights in Bedford Road including Rathcoole House and the terrace to the south of the Ferndale Road junction. Long view/aspect drawings show a streetscene with a uniform built form for a substantial part of Bedford Road. Although a contemporary design, the structure would appear to respect its context. A six storey building As per above, the building occupies would overshadow smaller floor heights to achieve a the road. The rest of greater number of storeys, while the street is only a retaining a roof line that corresponds maximum of 4 with the established line in Bedford storeys. Road. This would block light The Inspector’s report and the and invade privacy subsequent appraisal of the applicant’s daylight and sunlight report which recommended modifications to the building would ensure that daylight and sunlight impact would not occur. The pinchpoint between buildings at the southern corner would be the most obvious place to create issues concerning daylight protection and privacy protection. However, it is considered that here the impact has been mitigated. Due to the height of the The acoustic report suggests that building, sound background noise levels would be generated by activities significant so as to result in an in Bedford Road would unacceptable impact on amenity. echo around and be contained around the street. The height of the The development maintains the development would building line already established in affect the micro-climate Bedford Road by older or original within Bedford Road development. The buildings are not significantly greater in height than those already in Bedford Road. An impact on the micro climate may occur, however, it is not considered to be significant so as to greatly impact on the amenity and quality of life of existing or future residents. The proposed scheme Domestic lighting will clearly b e would also cause light noticeable in the locality, however, it pollution. would not be incongruous or visibly harmful to residential amenity. The scheme does not provide any floodlighting which would exacerbate any specific negative impact. Concern is expressed The Inspector’s report and the that the development subsequent appraisal of the does not take into applicant’s daylight and sunlight 7

Page 200 account the negative report which recommended impact of this modifications to the building would development on ensure that daylight and sunlight Colcutt Lodge in terms impact would not occur. The of light, privacy and pinchpoint between buildings at the overshadowing. southern corner would be the most obvious place to create issues concerning daylight protection and privacy protection. However, it is considered that here the impact has been mitigated. The height and design The scheme design features buildings of the development of varying heights starting from the would not be in northwest corner by the railway keeping with any other viaduct opposite substantial buildings dwelling, residential or on the western side of Bedford Road. commercial However, attention is drawn to the development in the elevation drawings which clearly locality. show that the building heights drop considerably to be comparable to existing structure heights in Bedford Road including Rathcoole House and the terrace to the south of the Ferndale Road junction. Long view/aspect drawings show a streetscene with a uniform built form for a substantial part of Bedford Road. Although a contemporary design, the structure would appear to respect its context. Furthermore, it is considered that the front elevational treatment to Bedford Road incorporates architectural features and detailing which would reflect some of the inherent characteristics of architecture in and around Clapham. There would be an The scheme would alter the impact on the skyline landscape in Bedford Road, however and views. this would not be harmful, hostile or incongruous. This is aided by the building height relationship that this scheme would have with other buildings in Bedford Road. The existing building merchants is not an effective use of the land and parts of the site along the railway viaduct or to the rear taper do not contribute to a high quality landscape or urban character. The scheme would not The scheme design features buildings relate to existing of varying heights starting from the townscape. northwest corner by the railway viaduct opposite substantial buildings on the western side of Bedford Road. However, attention is drawn to the elevation drawings which clearly show that the building heights drop considerably to be comparable to existing structure heights in Bedford 8

Page 201 Road including Rathcoole House and the terrace to the south of the Ferndale Road junction. Long view/aspect drawings show a streetscene with a uniform built form for a substantial part of Bedford Road. Although a contemporary design, the structure would appear to respect its context. Furthermore, it is considered that the front elevational treatment to Bedford Road incorporates architectural features and detailing which would reflect some of the inherent characteristics of architecture in and around Clapham. The building would The building is detached from have a negative impact Rathcoole House, is to the same on the setting and height as Rathcoole House and interest of the listed incorporates some of the architectural building at Rathcoole features of Rathcoole House within House. the elevational detail. The scheme design has been supported by the Planning Inspector who considered the impact of the building on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting and interest of the listed building. This is also a view that has been upheld by the Conservation and Urban Design officer. The scheme is very The scheme is within the acceptable dense and constitutes indicative range of housing and over development. development densities as set out in the London Plan. The site density based on habitable room per hectare is 654hr/ha which is within the indicative range of 200-700 set out in inner/urban London with a high PTAL rating. The development The Inspector’s report and the would have an impact subsequent appraisal of the on sunlight, daylight applicant’s daylight and sunlight and overlooking to the report which recommended occupiers of Collcutt modifications to the building would Lodge. ensure that daylight and sunlight impact would not occur. The pinchpoint between buildings at the southern corner would be the most obvious place to create issues concerning daylight protection and privacy protection. However, it is considered that here the impact has been mitigated. Insufficient spacing The scheme has been mod ified since would result between the previous refusal to ensure that the Collcutt Lodge and the Mews block has been re-designed new development. and re-orientated to reduce its visual impact. This element of the scheme would not impact on the quality of 9

Page 202 residential amenity, a view shared by the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspector is also of the view that the scheme would not have any impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of Colcutt Lodge. Neighbours would lose The scheme is a residential led mi xed the right to the quiet use development in a predominantly enjoyment of their residential led mixed use character homes. area. The scheme replaces a builders merchants characterised by high activity with machines and plant as well as a high turnover of customer visits. The scheme proposed is more appropriate to the land use character in this location. There would be a The scheme does result in the loss of material loss of a significant area of employment employment floorspace floorspace. The change proposed is within the development from a starting point of 652sq.m which has not been losing 366sq.m and arriving at justified. 286sq.m re-provision., However, the anticipated redevelopment and change of use would result in 24 FTEs on the sit compared to the existing 8. It is recommended that the employment use would be ready for occupation simultaneously to the residential element. The units should also be fitted out for occupation without significant modification. This would be secured by the Section 106 and a suitable management plan should also be secured by the Section 106 to enable the sustained and successful occupation of these units. The scheme would The scheme should be constructed to have a harmful impact achieve Secured By Design on the security of accreditation. Furthermore, a Crime existing occupiers. Prevention Strategy is to be required by condition. The roofscape does The front and rear elevation gables not match the typical are intended to respect and reflect and classical roofs of local character. It is acknowledged listed buildings on that the flat roofs would not Bedford Road. characteristic of the generic local character in and around Clapham, however, the development is contemporary and unashamedly seeks to express its own design and style while including an acknowledgement of local character.

5.3. In light of the appeal decision on 27 January, amended plans and a statement were prepared in light of the amendments to the provision of affordable housing and to alterations to the elevations in response to recommendations set out in the independently assessed daylight and sunlight assessment. This consultation period is still ongoing and any

Page 203 responses will be presented to Planning Applications Committee by way of an addendum.

5.4. The following is a summary of internal and external consultation:

5.5. Transport and highways: The transport impact of the development would not be harmful, subject to compliance with conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

5.6. Streetcare: No comments received

5.7. Planning policy: The comments received so far reflect the scheme as submitted and not the scheme as amended, in relation to affordable housing. Although the scheme will result in a net loss of floorspace, it has the potential to provide an uplift of employees on site. However, the employment floorspace has to be retained in perpetuity and managed properly to ensure that they enjoy maximum occupation. Subject to conditions and or a legal agreement, the scheme would be acceptable.

5.8. Noise pollution: Concerns have been expressed about the details contained in the noise report in relation to the noise and vibration that would be experienced by the future occupiers of the building. This can be overcome by condition.

5.9. Trees: No comments received

5.10. Crime prevention: Subject to conditions, the application would be acceptable.

5.11. Performance, Strategy and Regeneration: No comments

5.12. Housing: No comments

5.13. Implementation: No comments

5.14. Thames Water: No objections

5.15. Transport for London: Subject to conditions, the application would be acceptable.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. National planning policy guidance

6.1.2. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 sets out the Government’s policy to provide for sustainable development through the planning system. PPS1 provides that planning authorities should, amongst other matters, “promote urban and rural regeneration to improve the wellbeing of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those communities…” (para 27(ii)) and promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of sustainably located previously developed land and buildings…” (para 27(viii)).

Page 204

6.1.3. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 PPS3 Housing: specifies a number of outcomes that the planning system should deliver. It states that “Good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.” (para 12).

6.1.4. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5 PPS5 Planning for Historic Environment: sets out the Government's planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment.

6.1.5. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13 sets out the Government’s policy on transport. It states that local planning authorities should seek to promote more sustainable transport choices, promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling, and reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

6.1.6. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17 (on open space, sport and recreation) sets out, amongst other things, the Government’s policy objectives for open space, sport and recreation which may be material to decisions on individual planning applications.

6.1.7. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22 (on renewable energy) sets out the Government’s policies for renewable energy which planning authorities should have regard to when taking planning decisions.

6.1.8. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 sets out Government guidance on development and flood risk. It therefore looks to local planning authorities to ensure that flood risk is properly taken into account in the planning of developments to reduce the risk of flooding and the damage which floods cause.

6.1.9. London Plan (2011)

Policy 3.1 – Ensuring equal life chances for all Policy 3.3 – Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 – Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 – Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.7 – Large residential developments. Policy 3.8 – Housing choice Policy 3.9 – Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.10 – Definition of affordable housing Policy 3.11 – Affordable housing targets Policy 3.12 – Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes Policy 3.13 – Affordable housing thresholds Policy 3.14 – Existing housing Policy 5.21 – Contaminated Land Policy 7.6 – Architecture

6.1.10. Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)

Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives

Page 205 Policy S2: Housing Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10: Planning Obligations

6.1.11. Unitary Development Plan (2011)

Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 15: Additional Housing Policy 16: Affordable Housing Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 38: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas Policy 39: Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 45: Listed Buildings Policy 47: Conservation Areas

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the site comprising the removal of all structures associated with the current timber merchants use and the erection of two new blocks for a mixed use development.

6.2.2. The scheme proposes a six storey block along Bedford Road with 58 residential units and 285sq.m of employment floorspace. The rear mews block runs parallel with Ferndale Road and contains 17 residential units in affordable housing.

Housing provision

6.2.3. Core Strategy Policy S2 (housing) seeks the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/2011 and 2017/17 in line with the London Plan. The London Plan sets an annual monitoring target for Lambeth of 1,195 new homes. In addition, Core strategy Policy S2 seeks affordable housing provision on all sites which can accommodate more than 10 homes, albeit subject to independently validated evidence of viability.

6.2.4. The Council’s housing development pipeline for 2010/11 shows that 1,289 new dwellings were completed in Lambeth, with a total of 1,602 new homes when other forms of residential supply are added. The housing development pipeline is also healthy with over 5 years housing supply identified. It follows that the council need not in this instance override its employment protection policies in order to achieve its housing targets.

6.2.5. Core Strategy Policy S2 Housing sets out a number of requirements relevant to any proposal involving new residential development:

• The target for net additional dwellings across the borough during the plan period. • The provision of affordable housing on sites of at least 0.1 hectares or capable of accommodating 10 or more homes. At least 50 per cent of units should be affordable where public subsidy is available, or 40 per cent without public subsidy,

Page 206 subject to independently validated evidence of viability. The mix of affordable housing should be 70 per cent social rented units and 30 per cent intermediate units. • A mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community including through applying Lifetime homes and Building for Life standards and providing wheelchair accessible housing. • Levels of residential density consistent with London Plan guidelines, having regard to the provision of other uses on the site and a number of other factors listed in the policy. • High standards of residential amenity, having regard to council space standards, including provision of outside space and for children’s play.

6.2.6. The provision of new dwellings in addition to adequate replacement B class floorspace is to be welcomed in principle as it will help to contribute to achieving the council’s housing target. This site was identified in the GLA Strategic Housing Land The provision of new dwellings in addition to adequate replacement B class floorspace is to be welcomed in principle as it will help to contribute to achieving the council’s housing target. This site was identified in the GLA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2009 (SHLAA) as having potential to accommodate 46 units. By providing 75 units, a significantly higher proportion is being proposed in this scheme.

6.2.7. Its acceptability could only be supported if it is not at the expense of the providing full replacement employment floorspace; and does not compromise London Plan residential density levels, Building for Life and Lifetime Homes principles, and the standards for internal space, amenity space and children’s play space set out in the councils House Development and House Conversions SPD.

6.2.8. Officers consider that although the scheme establishes a reduction in floorspace, the proposed replacement employment floorspace constitutes a more effective working space, with a higher density of employees on site thereby creating a more productive use of land to meet Core Strategy aims on reversing worklessness in the Borough

6.2.9. Furthermore, it is considered that residential density on site is not excessive and is consistent with London Plan recommendations. The proposed density is 654habitable rooms per hectare in a PTAL zone 6 location which dictates that up to 700 habitable rooms per hectare could be provided. Open space, internal amenity and the provision of life time homes is also provided.

6.2.10. As such, the capability of the site to accommodate the proposed 75 units is demonstrated and given the proposed design and relationship with streetscene and local urban character, does not convey a sense of over development or over provision.

6.2.11. Policy S2 sets out that developments should provide a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community, including through applying Lifetime Homes standards and providing wheelchair accessible housing.

Page 207

6.2.12. Policy S2 sets out that with a scheme of this nature, at least 50 per cent of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is available, or 40 per cent without public subsidy, subject to housing priorities and, where relevant, to independently validated evidence of viability, or where there is a clearly demonstrable benefit in a different mix in the case of housing estate regeneration. Furthermore, there is an expectation that the mix of affordable housing should be 70 per cent social rented and 30 per cent intermediate.

6.2.13. London Plan Policy 3.11 requires borough council’s to seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in London over the term of this Plan. In order to give impetus to a strong and diverse intermediate housing sector, the Policy sets out that 60% of the affordable housing provision should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. Priority should be accorded to provision of affordable family housing.

6.2.14. Policy 16 of the UDP sets out that a range of units sizes of affordable housing should be provided, having regard to local circumstances, site characteristics and the aims of the borough’s annual housing strategy.

6.2.15. London Plan Policies 3.8 and 3.9 encourages a full range of housing choice. Also relevant is the London Housing Strategy, which sets a target for 42% of social rented homes to have three or more bedrooms.

6.2.16. The development would deliver some 75 residential units, 17 of which would be provided as affordable housing on a 70/30 split between social rented and intermediate units – the level of affordable housing provision and the tenure mix is discussed in more detail below. It is therefore the case that the development would contribute towards addressing Lambeth’s housing needs and demand.

6.2.17. Planning permission was previously sought for the provision of 20 residential units within the overall 75 as affordable housing which was deemed to be under provision in accordance with London Plan and Core Strategy policies. Independent assessment of that application demonstrated that 20 units at 27% proportion would constitute under provision of affordable housing on the site.

6.2.18. The application was refused on that basis and was intended to be subject to the grounds for appeal that took place on 18 January. Simultaneously, this application was submitted for 40% provision of affordable units. However, it was based on the principle of an explicitly policy compliant scheme and not necessarily a developable or viable scheme.

6.2.19. Prior to the appeal and with the express desire to reduce the grounds for appeal associated with the refused application 11/00485/FUL, the applicants engaged BNP Paribas to establish

Page 208 the actual level of affordable housing feasibility that could be associated with this scheme.

6.2.20. Extensive negotiation between Strutt & Parker and BNP Paribas resolved to agree and subsequently demonstrate that the feasible affordable housing provision on the site could only be 17 units equating to an affordable housing provision proportion of 23%. The development would provide 75 residential units in total. 22.6% of the dwellings would be affordable, with a 70/30 split between social rented and intermediate units. The mix of the residential units would be as follows:

Owner Social Intermediate Unit Occupied Rented Total Studio 8 0 0 8 (11%) 1 15 5 1 21 bedroom (28%) 2 32 0 0 32 bedroom (43%) 3 3 5 4 12 bedroom (16%) 4 (+) 0 2 0 2 (3%) bedroom TOTAL 58 (70%) 12 5 75

% of 70% 30% Affordable Housing

6.2.21. It is acknowledged that this would be a significant under-provision in respect of local and London wide targets, however reference is made to policy 3.12 of the London Plan which states that negotiations on sites should take account of a site’s individual circumstances, including development viability. The supporting text to the policy states that developers should engage with an affordable housing provider prior to progressing a scheme and provide development appraisals to demonstrate that each scheme maximises affordable housing output.

6.2.22. To this end and in conjunction with the unilateral undertaking and the informal hearing, the scheme could provide the optimum possible given the costs associated with the site. The Inspector summarised in his decision notice of 27 January that the, “the number of affordable units falls short of the proportion generally sought but the process by which the terms of the obligation were agreed means that Core Strategy Policies S2 and S10 and saved UDP policies 15 and 16 must be considered satisfied”.

6.2.23. As previously stated the scheme would not provide the policy quantum required. The application as originally submitted did propose the provision of a 40% proportion, however in tandem with the appeal, it was demonstrated through financial viability and negotiation between Strutt and Parker and BNP Paribas that

Page 209 achieving 30 units of affordable housing would not be financially viable. Although the previously refused scheme proposed 20 units, it was subsequently demonstrated through viability testing that this scheme would also not be viable. Indeed, it was agreed that the provision of 17 units could be secured for affordable housing through a Section 106 planning obligation.

6.2.24. Nevertheless, this is set in the context of the benefit that would accrue through the policy compliant bias towards the affordable tenure mix and the provision of 42% of social rent units at three bedroom size or larger.

Provision of employment floorspace

6.2.25. The 0.33ha site is currently occupied by buildings comprising 652m² (GIA) of active employment uses (Use Classes A1, B1 and B8) – in use a building/timber merchants. The scheme proposes the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme providing 75 homes and 286m² (GIA) of commercial floorspace (Use Class B1).

6.2.26. UDP Policy 23 protects employment uses, the definition of which includes B Class uses. Part (b) of the policy sets out the tests for the loss of employment floorspace. The policy states that where land is or has been in employment use, loss of floor space to non- employment use will not be permitted unless particular criteria are met. These criteria include (i) whether the site is no longer suitable for employment use; or (ii) whether the site is vacant and is demonstrated to be surplus; or (iii) where a scheme has substantial other planning benefits; or (iv) the redevelopment is for a town centre use, providing there is compensation for the loss of employment; or (v) it relates to a listed building or building with significant architectural merit and reverts that to residential use.

6.2.27. Core Strategy Policy S3 (Economic Development) seeks to maintain a stock of sites and premises outside of KIBAs in commercial use across the borough subject to the suitability of the site and location.

6.2.28. Policy 23 prevents the loss of B class floorspace unless specific exceptional circumstances apply. One of these, in section (b) (iii) of the policy, allows for loss of employment floor-space "exceptionally, where a scheme has substantial other planning benefits and where development of part of a site is compensated by for example, increasing the amount of employment on the remainder and/or providing modern small business units. The scheme should include the maximum feasible proportion of employment floor-space".

6.2.29. In consideration of this scheme’s exceptional circumstances or deliverable benefits in the context of policy 23 (b) (iii), the scheme can offer:

• Modern employment floorspace providing a more attractive working and functional space than the current use and the

Page 210 ability to significantly increase the employment opportunities on site. • A site and a use which should be dependent on far fewer servicing, customer and employee movements that is currently the case. • A use which is more benign and appropriate to the mixed retail, office and residential area. • A scheme which provides affordable housing • A scheme which is of high quality design

6.2.30. In this case, modern small business units would be provided and the applicant argues that the resulting amount of employment (estimated 24 FTE jobs) would be greater than that existing on the site (8 FTE jobs). These calculations for future employment derive from the calculations set out in the 2010 Homes and Communities Agency: The Employment Densities Guide and would underpin the anticipated benefits that could be derived from this scheme.

6.2.31. The Section 106 agreement negotiated on these premises also allows for contributions towards training and education facilities.

6.2.32. For the loss of B class floorspace to be acceptable on this basis, it is also essential that the new B1 units are secured in the long term for this use. It is very common that B1 units in mixed use schemes are not built out until after the residential floorspace has been completed and occupied; in some cases they are never fully fitted out and frequently no specialist managing company is involved. They are not therefore made available to the market in a form that is likely to let and subsequent applications for change of use to residential result. Therefore, officers would wish to impose conditions and/or a legal agreement to accompany any permission for this scheme, requiring that the B1 units are fully fitted out to ‘turn-key’ standard and made available to the market at the same time as the residential accommodation. Ideally the applicant should be required to involve a specialist company with expertise in managing small business units in London.

6.2.33. Saved UDP Policy 4 supports Core Strategy Policy S3 with respect to retail uses within town centres and also applies to isolated shops. Under section (e) of the policy, an isolated shop should remain in active frontage use unless it is demonstrated, through marketing evidence of lack of demand, that it is no longer viable for this use. In this case, the retail use is associated with the builder’s merchants and is relatively large. Another significant retail use in this out of centre location would not necessarily be appropriate and may undermine the objectives of Core Strategy Policy S3(d) with regard to supporting the vitality and viability of Lambeth’s hierarchy of major, district and local centres. Marketing evidence for the loss of the A1 floorspace is not considered necessary in this case, therefore, so long as the replacement B1 floorspace is secured in perpetuity.

6.2.34. The proposed land use implications are supported by the Council’s planning policy officers and no objection to the land use implications was held by the Planning Inspector in the recent appeal. The scheme is compliant insofar as the financial viability 18

Page 211 demonstrates in accordance with the London Plan in respect of the affordable housing provision despite the failure to meet one of the targets, and the loss of employment floorspace is offset by the reasons listed above, not least by anticipated trebling of potential employees on site.

6.2.35. The proposed development is therefore compliant with policy 3.12 of the London Plan, policies S2 and S3 of the Core Strategy and Saved policies 4, 15, 16 and 23 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Lifetime homes

6.2.36. The applicant has confirmed that all new homes would be built to lifetime homes standard in accordance with the policy requirements. 8 (10.6 %) of the 75 of the units would be built to be fully wheelchair accessible, which falls above the London Plan 10% target.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. Officers have assessed the proposals in relation to national, strategic and local policy guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1), Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5), London Plan Policies, Saved UDP Policies and the Adopted Core Strategy. Government guidance promotes the creation of more sustainable residential environments and puts the application of urban design principles and practices at the heart of making better, more 'liveable' places. PPS1 states that high quality and inclusive design requires carefully planned, high-quality buildings and spaces that support the efficient use of resources.

6.3.2. The site is located at the rear of Clapham High Street near to Clapham North Tube Station. Situated south of the railway viaduct it is an irregular almost triangular site which is bordered by a railway viaduct, a conservation area, a listed building and listed terrace.

6.3.3. The site historically housed a series of mid nineteenth century semi detached villas creating a terrace fronting onto Bedford Road with long linear gardens at the rear. The end of terrace properties had substantial open areas between the viaduct and the later No. 2 Ferndale Road (a detached grade II listed building). The villas have long been demolished and the site is currently used as a timber yard with showroom and storage, which has a series of one, two and three storey buildings.

6.3.4. The site was previously designated as a MDO 24 which asked for the re-creation of the street frontage that preserves or enhances the character of adjoining Ferndale Road Conservation Area. The character of the Ferndale Road is that of later nineteenth century three storey buff brick buildings with semi basements; with two storey rear returns. The properties are highly decorative with stucco window surrounds, recessed porches and string courses; all accessed by cantilevered steps. This policy has been superseded by Core Strategy Policy S2.

Page 212

6.3.5. The site is not located within a conservation area, but is in close proximity to the Clapham High Street Conservation area and adjacent to the Ferndale Road Conservation Area. The site is adjacent to a Grade II listed detached terracotta building and a Grade II listed mid nineteenth century terrace; four storey with basement highly decorative stock brick buildings with terracotta dressings with a mixture of Italian and Gothic motifs. The listed town houses are constructed of buff brick, terracotta and London Stock. These highly decorative buildings have a strong hierarchical rhythm of fenestration pattern and canted bays all accessed from Bedford Road from cantilevered steps and decorative porches. These are on a grander scale than those found on Ferndale Road which have a more muted albeit quality decorative pattern. Opposite the site are three storey stock brick terraces with decorative gables and red brick detailing.

6.3.6. Planning permission was refused in June 2010 on the grounds that the proposed development would feature rear elevations and roof detailing that would appear visually discordant, unattractive and inappropriate.

6.3.7. It was also considered that the bulk, size, scale and massing of the development would appear as an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development as perceived by the occupiers of the properties at 4 – 8 Ferndale Road.

6.3.8. The application site consists of two separate blocks and the scheme is assessed on this basis.

6.3.9. The frontage block to Bedford Road extends from the railway embankment to the listed building – Rathcoole House – at 2 Ferndale Road at the junction of Ferndale Road and Bedford Road. The frontage building is at its greatest height immediately to the south of the railway line and consists of a 6 storey height with the commercial uses over two storeys at the lower level. This element of the building is significantly different from the remainder of the terrace and incorporates a visual and architectural separation between the lower element to the south. Known as the Corner Element, with expressed balconies separating it from the style of the Terrace. This would be a strongly rectangular element which is substantially higher than the remainder of the development. It is considered that the railway viaduct allows for a suitable separation between the development and the properties to the north. It is also sufficiently separate from the historic facades and listed buildings further to the south.

6.3.10. Isolating the end block from the terrace with the glazing and anodised aluminium cladding will provide a visual segregation between the different uses. The end block now houses a small glazed roof extension; this is not considered contentious and helps to link the tall glazing on the first two floors and the entrance to the flats. The rising brickwork feature is not considered to be contentious and helps to reduce the block form of the development.

Page 213 6.3.11. The remainder of the terrace features a style of design and architecture which pays respect to the established character and architectural form within Bedford Road and other properties in the Clapham area. The front elevations feature a gable end form which certainly responds to 2 Ferndale Road. Plot widths and heights are also very similar to those expressed by the existing architecture in Bedford Road. The fourth floor level is set back and recessed from the gables in a flat roof section. Its set back reduces visibility from the street, but in any case, it shares a consistent height to roof level of the listed terrace situated on the southern side of Bedford Road. This development style is replicated again in a smaller block to bring the overall building height into the same scale as Rathcoole House. This element would be lower the listed terrace to the south and the front elevational gables would be lower than the front elevation of Rathcoole House. Given the strict sense of verticality of Bedford Road, it is considered that the design and elevational treatment presents a sense of uniformity within the streetscene. Indeed, taking into account long views along Bedford Road, especially looking southwards towards Acre Lane, demonstrates the design continuity along Bedford Road.

6.3.12. It is acknowledged that the façade treatment is certainly less detailed and more simplistic compared to the existing residential development, however, the choice of materials is supported by the Conservation and Urban Design officers.

6.3.13. The sunken gardens are not characteristic of the area, but the planting will help to minimise their impact as will the detailing of the brick steps which currently appear too utilitarian and are a sharp contrast with the rest of the development; the brick balustrades should be broken down reducing the height if possible or introducing visually less intrusive hand rails.

6.3.14. It is considered that the amendments to the approved scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would respect the unique character, setting and value of the listed building at Rathcoole House. By virtue of its form, height, scale and massing, the proposed development would not detract from the setting, interest and value of the terrace to the south of Bedford Road.

6.3.15. The rear elevation to the Bedford Road block incorporates a very similar architectural treatment to the front elevation with gable ends facing into the site sitting forward of a recessed flat roof element. The rear elevation is distinguishable from the front elevation by the use of rear access walkways.

6.3.16. As previously stated, it was the rear elevation of this block that was subject to refusal of planning permission. The concerns raised with regard to the rear of the Bedford Road elevation related to the lack of any verticality or articulation that characterised the front elevation and hat of the surrounding properties. The proposed rear elevation had strong horizontal plans which emphasised the mass of the building and therefore dominated the listed building by virtue of its massing. The revised scheme has introduced gables to the

Page 214 rear elevation which mirror those of the front, the top storey ahs been set back behind the brick gables and consequently sees the top deck access removed. These revisions add interest and rhythm to the structure.

6.3.17. Finally, the footprint of the terrace block has also been amended. Previously, the terrace would have been substantially visible through the gap between Rathcoole House and Collcutt Lodge. It is now the case that only the northern end of the site would be visible through the gap between Rathcoole House and Colcutt Lodge.

6.3.18. The Mews block is smaller in size compared to the terrace building. It is located on the northern side of the site to create south facing units and gardens. The block is located more than 20m away from the properties on Ferndale Road. The mews building has a similar palette of materials to the terrace with three storeys of brick with anodised aluminium cladding. It has also been amended between applications and shows a reduced height with a recessed upper roof storey. Two thirds of the way along the rear (or south facing) elevation the development features a visual and physical separation with the easternmost end set back from the building line and hence away from the rear boundaries to Ferndale Road. There is also a vertical feature which encloses the internal staircase and reduces the bulk of the structure. It is noted that the mews block is one storey higher than the existing warehouse at the site. However, in mitigation, the structure is set away from the rear boundaries with Ferndale Road offsetting any impact that may arise.

6.3.19. The front elevation of the mews block appears in some respects to reflect the architectural principles of the main terrace block with respect to the recessed flat roof, the walkways and the rectangular nature of the eastern end of the building. The block is considered to be subordinate to the terrace block and would relate well architecturally to the main block without appearing to constitute overdevelopment within the site.

6.3.20. The scheme considered within this application is based on the same plans considered by the Planning Inspectorate at the informal hearing on 18 January. As already stated, the applicants employed the Wheatcroft principle, thereby requesting the Inspector to consider substituted amended plans which also formed the basis for this application. In assessing these plans, the Inspector considered that the officer’s previously held views concerning the height, size, scale and massing of the terrace were sound and justified. The Inspector also considered that the amendments that had been carried out constituted a major improvement and significantly reduced the mass and bulk, especially also in its physical relationship with Collcutt Lodge. Furthermore changes to the Mews block allows for a more suitable sense of scale in the relationship with neighbouring buildings, even if the changes have been prompted more by concerns about neighbour amenity. In any case, the Inspector felt that the scheme would not cause any impact to the character and setting of the listed building or the conservation area and would not affect the

Page 215 character of the wider locality in general. In his view, therefore the scheme is compliant with policy S9 of the Core Strategy and Saved policies 33, 38 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP states that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents with regard to privacy, sunlight and daylight, overlooking and sense of enclosure.

Sunlight and daylight

6.4.2. The previous planning application was refused on the grounds that the scheme failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that there would not be any deleterious impact on the sunlight and daylight available to either the future occupiers of the development or the existing neighbours adjoining the site.

6.4.3. A daylight and sunlight survey assessment but had been out of date and had outlined an assessment of the impact on a number of properties that would not be affected. Furthermore, it was not considered to be sufficiently comprehensive so as to allow for an accurate assessment to have been made.

6.4.4. A considerably more detailed, accurate and contemporary assessment was provided with this application and in conjunction with the Wheatcroft Principle for appeals, was submitted also as part of the appeal documentation for the Inspector’s consideration in lieu of the sunlight and daylight assessment submitted with the previously refused application.

6.4.5. The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the future occupiers of a small number of flats within the development would not receive sufficient daylight or sunlight by virtue of the basement location of the habitable rooms to the southern end of the terrace block on the rear elevation. It was considered that the sense of enclosure that would result as well as the proximity of balconies above would limit the exposure to natural daylight and sunlight.

6.4.6. The BRE advises that if any part of a new building or extension, measured in a vertical section perpendicular to a main window wall of an existing building from the centre of the lowest window subtends an angle of more than 25 degrees to the horizontal, then the diffuse lighting of the existing building may be adversely affected. This will be the case if the vertical sky component measured at the centre of an existing window is less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value.

6.4.7. However, the sunlight and daylight study produced by Dixon Payne has been assessed by GL Hearn on an independent and impartial basis in the context of the revised October 2011 BRE guidelines “Site Layout for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice”.

Page 216 6.4.8. GL Hearn have assessed the potential impact on the occupiers of 54 – 72 Bedford Road, directly opposite the site on the western side of Bedford Road and also Collcutt Lodge, 4 and 4a Ferndale Road. In respect of both locations, all affected windows have been subject to testing of the Vertical Sky Component (VSC).

6.4.9. At 54 – 72 Bedford Road, 29 of the 50 windows assessed would transgress the recommended values with a 20% or greater reduction in light received. However with the exception of one window which would be left with a VSC of 19.85%, all windows would be left with a VSC in excess of 20% and in the majority of cases, above 23%.

6.4.10. In respect of Collcutt Lodge, 11 out of 62 rooms assessed would transgress the BRE criteria with 6 of these being bedrooms. The remaining rooms would serve living rooms and kitchens, however the actual loss, despite constituting a significant proportion of the existing VSC would actually in real terms be insignificant and negligible to the extent that that it would not be visually perceptible.

6.4.11. Due to the orientation of proposed and existing buildings in Bedford Road, the BRE document advises that no test of the impact on the enjoyment of the existing sunlight by the occupiers of 54 – 72 Bedford Road can be carried out.

6.4.12. GL Hearn consider that the sunlight assessment carried out by Dixon Payne which establishes that there is no impact on the current enjoyment of sunlight at Collcutt Lodge is accurate and as such, no harmful impact would occur.

6.4.13. In considering the impact of the proposed development on the sunlight and daylight enjoyed by surrounding occupiers, the Inspector held the view that there would not be any unacceptable reduction in the vertical sky component to neighbouring properties. Where a loss of greater than 20% would be recorded, this would be to locations where the daylight is already unacceptable. The Inspector remained inconclusive on the matter of sunlight, however, the GL Hearn assessment indicates that he scheme would be compliant with BRE recommendations.

6.4.14. The key issue, however, is the level of daylight and sunlight that the future occupiers of the development would enjoy. The appeal was dismissed on this individual ground.

6.4.15. The Inspector held greater concern with the impact on the occupiers of living rooms and kitchens to the rear elevation of the Bedford Road block, particularly at the southern end of the block. There would have been a significant shortfall within the Average Daylight Factor test, exacerbated by the position of balconies above. The applicant has sought to overcome this issue by creating larger windows which would enable the receipt of more daylight into these spaces.

6.4.16. In addition 32 bedroom windows at the southern end of the building from lower ground to second floor would suffer limitations

Page 217 to their access to daylight. The Inspector considered that this would result from the proximity to access balconies which would limit the daylight. The Inspector considered that because the balconies constituted a significant aspect of the building’s design, the scheme could not rely on that justification.

6.4.17. This fact has been confirmed by GL Hearn who agrees that 36 habitable rooms would not meet the required value for Average Daylight Factor. The windows and rooms have been reassessed by GL Hearn who have established that it is indeed the balconies that reduce the amenity to future occupiers. In light of this, the balcony design has been amended and the windows to the rear elevation have been increased by 30% in width and made to be full height. This would result in just 8 rooms in total that would not meet ADF requirements. Out of 237 rooms, this is considered to be only a minor concern which would not be sufficiently compelling so as to justify the refusal of planning permission. It is considered that the appeal and the previous refusal have been overcome.

Overlooking and loss of privacy.

6.4.18. The southern corner of the site and the relationship between the terrace block in Bedford Road and the existing properties in Ferndale Road, including Collcutt Lodge has the potential to create an overlooking impact between properties.

6.4.19. The previous application was refused on the grounds that the proposed development, by virtue of its design, scale, height, massing and proximity to the boundary with neighbouring properties would lead to the creation of an unneighbourly form of development which would also lead to overlooking and loss of privacy.

6.4.20. In response to this, the scheme was amended in respect of the height, location and orientation of the proposed Mews block in relation to the rear of Collcutt Lodge and 4 – 8 Ferndale Road. The block is now 20m at its closest to properties in Ferndale Road increasing to 27m or more elsewhere in the terrace. The eastern end of the block has been set back away from the boundary in order to preserve a rear elevation to rear elevation distance between properties to greater than 20m. Although the windows in the south facing elevations to the Mews block are to be clear glazed it is considered that there would be no impact on residential amenity and no conditions are proposed.

6.4.21. The Inspector held the view that the amended scheme would acceptably reduce the potential for overlooking to the occupiers of properties in Ferndale Road.

6.4.22. Windows to the southern end of the rear elevation of the terrace block would also be in close proximity to the windows in the flank elevation of Collcutt Lodge. In assessing the previous (refused) applications, concerns were also raised about the level of overlooking that would occur the walkways to the rear of the terrace to the windows in Collcutt Lodge. However in recognition of officers’ concerns about the close proximity between Collcutt

Page 218 Lodge and the new development, rooms have been relocated with bedrooms now principally situated at the rear on the upper levels which are less reliant on the requirement for high levels of daylighting and outlook. Windows facing eastwards will be opaque to the southernmost end of the rear elevation and entrance doors to the southernmost flats will face northwards.

6.4.23. It is acknowledged that the walkways will afford overlooking to the rear of Ferndale Road, however this is an access walkway and not a terrace or sitting out area which would lead to sustained periods of overlooking. It increases surveillance and improves the perception of safety to the rear areas. The Inspector held no objection on this matter and found that overlooking and loss of privacy issues were no longer applicable.

Sense of enclosure

6.4.24. The Mews block has been reduced in height and the design and massing has also been amended to ensure that the Mews block appears more visually appealing for the occupiers of Ferndale Road properties. The alterations to the roof structure and the withdrawal from the party boundary as well as the physical and architectural amendments to the elevation to break up the bulk have resulted in a more sympathetic form of development.

6.4.25. It is acknowledged that the block is higher than the existing warehouse on the site, however this impact is mitigated by the setback of the building from the boundary.

6.4.26. In relation to the sense of enclosure and outlook for existing occupiers that would be retained following construction of the terrace block in Bedford Road, it is considered that no harmful impact would remain. Windows on the western flank of Collcutt Lodge are not necessarily all primary windows and would retain a sense of outlook to the rear.

6.4.27. Nevertheless, the Inspector has determined that based on the plans submitted under the Wheatcroft principle, no impact in relation to the sense of enclosure and outlook would remain for the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

6.4.28. In respect of the amenity for future occupiers insofar as they relate to outlook and sense of enclosure, the greatest impact would be felt by the occupiers of the lower level flats at the southern end of the site. In relation to this potential level of impact, the Inspector held the view that there was no compelling objection or reason to refuse the application on these grounds.

6.4.29. In respect of residential amenity, it is considered that the proposed development would, following the incorporation of amendments to the refused scheme and also to the submitted scheme in February 2012 (which at the time of writing is subject to further consultation) would not result in a harmful impact on the residential amenity of future and current occupiers in the locality.

Internal layout and amenity

Page 219

6.4.30. The scheme was previously refused on the grounds that a number of units would be undersized in relation to the standards set out in the Supplementary Planning Document. A small number of studio apartments were designed to have an internal floorspace of 33sq.m.

6.4.31. These studio units have been amended and now meet the local standard. All other units, (with the exception of two), exceed standards, some of which, by a comfortable margin. London Plan standards require more generous internal amenity space and local planning authorities are required to achieve general conformity, however, for the interim period, Lambeth will rely on its own standards. On that basis, the scheme is considered to be acceptable.

Open space and playspace

6.4.32. The application proposes 677 sq.m of amenity space in the Orchard, informal play and shared surfaces, 228 sq.m in the rear garden courtyard, 156 sq.m in the sunken gardens, 261 sq.m in the form of private gardens for the Mews and 268.4 sq.m of balconies. The total amenity space provided both communal and private is 1358.4 sq.m. This provision accords with Council Policy requiring 50 sq.m of communal amenity space + 10 sq.m per property either individually or consolidated with the communal space.

6.4.33. The children’s play space incorporating swings, small fixed rides and hard surface notification is to be located in the wedge to the east of the site, amongst the soft landscaped areas. This space is overlooked by properties in Ferndale Road and easternmost building in the Mews block has windows in the flank elevation to provide further surveillance.

6.4.34. The Section 106 planning obligation will seek to secure contributions in relation to opens space provision and maintenance in the Borough.

Noise and vibration

6.4.35. The site is in close proximity to a railway line. The applicant has submitted a noise and vibration survey which indicates that the site falls within Category C under PPG24. This requires that noise be taken into account when determining planning applications, and where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise. A vibration survey has also been submitted, with assessed vibration levels indicating that the site is suitable for mixed use development that includes residential development.

6.4.36. PPG 24 identifies Category C as development for which permission should only be granted where suitable conditions can

Page 220 be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise.

6.4.37. Notwithstanding this Regulatory Services have advised that they have no objection to the application subject to the attachment of suitable safeguarding conditions, such conditions would have been attached in the event of the approval of the application.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. The site is well served by public transport with Clapham North and Clapham High Street stations located a short walk from the site. The site has a PTAL of 6a which relates to excellent passenger transport accessibility. The site is located in a Controlled Parking Zone and would not be provided with any on site car parking for the future residents of the development or for the future employees of the commercial floorspace.

6.5.2. Transport planners have assessed the transport statement submitted with the application, in relation to the potential highway impacts that would result from the scheme taking into account the material change of use that would occur.

6.5.3. Appraisal of the transport assessment has established that daily HGV movements would significantly reduce as a result of the proposals given the nature of the proposed use as opposed to the current builder’s merchants’ use. It is established that there may be a slight increase in the number of PM peak trips. However, this is not considered to have a material impact on existing highway conditions in the locality.

6.5.4. In relation to other modes, it is considered that there would be a substantial increase in pedestrian trips to the premises, again by virtue of the change of use that would occur on this site. In relation to passenger transport, the Transport Planner advises that the numbers of passengers to be added to the public transport capacity during peak hours are not expected to have a significant impact on capacity levels on the network.

6.5.5. In respect of accommodating cycling demand, the scheme proposes the provision of 77 spaces for combined uses. The Transport Planner has advised that a scheme of this nature should generate a demand for 89 spaces which exceeds the earmarked provision. A condition will be imposed on the permission which would seek further details showing the location and design of cycle parking facilities taking into account the minimum demand required for 89 spaces as opposed to 77.

6.5.6. In relation to car parking, no spaces are to be provided for any of the uses proposed. All units including both commercial and residential are to be permit free, as secured by a Section 106 planning obligation. Sufficient car club capacity exists in the locality and it is recommended that no new car club facilities should be sought, however, it is recommended that the applicant should undertake to fund lifetime membership of the car club for

Page 221 the occupiers of the residential units, again via the framework of a Section 106 planning obligation.

6.5.7. Refuse storage locations are shown within the site plans concentrated to the rear of the commercial block and adjacent to the railway embankment. This is also the proposed location for the recycling facilities. Concern is expressed that the pedestrian access to this space is confined and maybe perceived as being unsafe. This is intended to be mitigated by a condition requiring the submission of a Crime Prevention Strategy to consider management of residential security risks at the development and a condition requiring details of waste collection and storage to ensure that the capacity and the method and manner of collection is safe and effective.

6.5.8. In respect of servicing, diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate that the site can be accessed by vehicles in forward and reverse gear safely without causing manoeuvrability issues on site or an impediment to vehicle movements on Bedford Road.

6.5.9. A Travel Plan has been submitted with the application which contains a range of suitable measures to manage sustainable trip generation and demand from the site. However, further work is require to provide details on objectives, targets and monitoring. The requirement to carry out the necessary further detailed work will also be secured through a Section 106 planning obligation.

6.5.10. It is inevitable that there would be an element of noise, disturbance and inconvenience during the construction period. Notwithstanding, this would not prove reason to resist the development. A range of measures could minimise such impacts as far as is reasonably practicable, including the preparation and implementation of a Construction Management Plan. If the development is considered acceptable in all other respects, such matters could suitably be dealt with by way of planning conditions.

6.6. Trees

6.6.1. There are a line of trees to the rear of the proposed mews abuting the railway line. These consist of sycamores, Leyland cypress and a weeping willow. The Arboricultural report accompanying the application advises that roots may be affected by the proposal although due to the presence of existing buildings it is only possible to investigate this during construction and in any case does not consider that this would significantly adversely affect the trees in question. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the application and management of the existing and proposed trees can be secured by condition.

6.6.2. Policy 39 of the UDP seeks to ensure that new development includes landscape design that enhances the area. Basic details have been provided with the application showing front entrance ‘gardens’ with trees along with private gardens to the rear of the proposed mews and a communal orchard beyond the Mews containing play equipment. A condition requiring further details of

Page 222 all proposed hard and soft landscaping would be attached in the event of the approval of the application.

6.7. Sustainable construction and renewables

6.7.1. Policy S7 of the Core Strategy requires all major development to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in line with London Plan targets through energy efficient design, decentralised hear, cooling and power systems and on-site renewable energy generation. incorporate equipment for renewable power generation so as to offset at least 20% of carbon production, e.g. ground soured heat pumps, biomass heating, solar heating, solar photovoltaic, wind power. Policy 35 of the UDP states that development proposals should demonstrate how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles.

6.7.2. The applicant has submitted a sustainability/ energy report advising that the scheme will meet level 3 Code for sustainable homes in relation to the terrace flats and level 4 for the Mews. An estimated 20% of the energy requirements will be provided from renewable sources on site primarily through the use of photovoltaic cells. The scheme would therefore accord with the London Plan.

6.8. Crime prevention & Secured by Design

6.8.1. Policy 32 of the UDP states that particular regard will be paid to crime prevention. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. Any public spaces and access ways through or adjoining a site should be overlooked, have appropriate lighting, be set away from cover and provide clear sight lines.

6.8.2. The Crime Prevention Officer has been consulted and has not raised any objection to the proposal however this is subject to conditions which would require the submission of further details in relation to management and prevention of crime risks around the development. To this end, the planning permission is recommended to be subject to a condition requiring a crime prevention strategy, which should be approved prior to the commencement of work.

6.9. Contaminated land

6.9.1. The Applicant has submitted a contamination report with the application showing that the existing site has high levels of contamination with metals and other substances.

6.9.2. The applicant has provided documentation which relates to initial ground conditions investigation and survey and a follow up letter which addresses the subsequent actions required. It outlines the requirement for further, more detailed investigation as to the contamination and the devising of a remediation strategy to make good the site for residential occupation. These should be sought

Page 223 by condition and submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. Any remediation works should also be completed prior to the commencement of formal construction works.

6.10. Section 106/Planning obligations

6.10.1. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 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.

6.10.2. Policy S10 of the Core Strategy sets out the circumstances in which planning obligations will be expected from developers.

6.10.3. With specific regard to Streatham, Policy PN4 of the Core Strategy sets out that the various infrastructure improvements, public realm, education and other community premises and other improvements associated with the impact of development will be secured through planning obligations.

6.10.4. The Council’s adopted SPD on planning obligations sets out the circumstances where monies towards community infrastructure would generally be expected and a framework for calculating amounts that would likely be sought.

6.10.5. A Section 106 planning obligation is to be agreed seeking the following contributions:

• £175,567.92 for education • £71,836.50 for health • £10,571.82 for libraries • £39,428.10 for sport and leisure • £91,185.60 for parks and open spaces • £21,612.50 for children’s playspace • £16785 for public art • £11,279.81 for revenue contributions • £1,000 for travel plan • £10981.68 for monitoring

6.10.6. Financial contributions would total £450,248.93.

6.10.7. Non financial contributions would seek the following:

• The securing and provision of affordable housing • Preparation, adoption and review of a travel plan • Subsidised lifetime membership of a local car club for residential occupiers • Requirement that the B1 units are fully fitted out to ‘turn-key’ standard and made available to the market at the same time as the residential accommodation and that they are actively managed to ensure that the site makes an active contribution to employment land supply in the Borough. 31

Page 224 • Removal of the right of occupiers of the development to be able to apply for business or residential car parking permits and that the scheme is permit free.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The scheme proposes the redevelopment of the site, involving the demolition of all of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of buildings ranging from three to six storeys in height to provide 75 residential units, 286 sqm of commercial floorspace space (B1), cycle parking with access onto Bedford Road and associated landscaping.

7.2. This application constitutes a resubmission of a previous similar application refused in June 2011 affordable housing, design and various residential amenity grounds. An appeal was lodged and was heard in January 2012. This application (11/03988/FUL) was submitted in the lifetime of the appeal process and is based on plans which were submitted to the Planning Inspectorate under the Wheatcroft Principle, thereby substituting the plans subject to the previous refusal.

7.3. The Planning Inspectorate have therefore considered the majority of plans forming this application leading up to his dismissal of the appeal on daylight grounds. All other issues set out in the previous reasons for refusal were considered to be satisfied at the appeal stage.

7.4. The plans submitted to this application have subsequently amended to overcome the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal and to take into account the recommendations outlined by the independent appraisal of the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment.

7.5. The scheme proposes 17 units out of the total of the 75. The proportion of the affordable housing provision in the overall development is 22.6% by unit while the proportion of the provision of the affordable rent tenure properties (as opposed to intermediate housing) is 70.6% by unit numbers. 42% of the units which are in affordable rent will be 3 bedroom or larger. The scheme constitutes a shortfall of affordable housing, however it has been financially appraised and justified on this basis and additional provision would either compromise the tenure split in the affordable element or render the scheme financially unviable.

7.6. The scheme constitutes a loss of commercial floorspace, however, the floorspace functionality would contribute to the scheme being able to provide an uplift in employees and jobs on the site from 8 to 24 FTEs based on formal Government density calculations.

7.7. As stated, the scheme would now provide appropriate standards for the receipt of daylight and sunlight for the occupiers of both the adjoining and future occupiers of the development. The sense of enclosure has been mitigated by the re-orientation and re-design of the rear block.

7.8. The design of the structures has been created to ensure that it relates well in height an form with the general characteristics of the streetscene. The development respects existing building heights and makes reference to specific architectural detailing and characteristics, forming a contemporary but sympathetic form of development in its context. The design of the

Page 225 elevations and the roof elements has been amended to overcome previous concerns about articulation, character, bulk and massing.

7.9. Privacy issues have been overcome through the amendments to the main terrace block and the re-orientation of the Mews block.

7.10. The scheme provides no on site car parking and is permit free. It is accessible to passenger transport and the servicing and refuse storage/collection needs of the development are adequately met. Cycle parking is provided although further capacity can be sought by condition.

7.11. Sufficient playspace and open space can be accommodated on the site which would be an amelioration of the current on site conditions.

7.12. A Section 106 agreement is to be part of the planning permission should consent be granted and various measures and contributions are to be sought to mitigate the scheme’s impact in the locality.

7.13. Subject to compliance and the consideration of details to be secured by condition and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable and overcomes previous reasons for refusal of the Council and the Planning Inspectorate and is consistent with the aspects of the scheme that the Inspector felt obliged to allow.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That conditional planning permission is granted subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Summary of the Reasons:

London Plan (2011)

Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.7 Large residential developments. Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.10 Definition of affordable housing Policy 3.11 Affordable housing targets Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes Policy 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds

Page 226 Policy 3.14 Existing housing Policy 7.6 Architecture

Core Strategy (2011)

Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2: Housing Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10: Planning Obligations

Unitary Development Plan (2011)

Conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

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

3 Prior to commencement of development, detailed drawings, samples, and a schedule of materials, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (for determination by the Planning Applications Committee) and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given on the approved plans and in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the details approved in writing unless otherwise agreed in writing with local planning authority. The following details will be required.

1. Details of all window and door reveals on the external faces of the development (Scale 1:1 and 1:5) 2. Door entrance details (1:1 and 1:5) 3. Sample and schedule of materials including brick sample panel (with at least four brick courses) 4. Details of roof materials; 5. Details of vents, extracts and pipes; 6. Details of all balconies and walkways indicating materials, profiles and elevational appearance (Scale 1:20); 7. Details of balustrades of all roof terraces (Scale 1:20) 8 Construction details (1:1 and 1:5)

Page 227 Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the adjoining Ferndale Road Conservation Area along with the surrounding buildings in accordance with saved policies 33, 38 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Core Strategy PolicyS9 (2011).

4 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater goods, shall be fixed on the external faces of the building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: Such works would detract from the appearance of the building and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality (saved policies 33, 38 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Core Strategy Policy S9 (2011) refer

5 Details of all air conditioning units, ventilation and filtration equipment and any other plant, machinery or equipment (including rooftop plant), in addition to measures to control noise from such equipment, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the operational use of the relevant parts of the development hereby permitted. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details and shall be so retained for the duration of the permitted use unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority

6 Environmental noise levels from any plant within or on any part of the building shall not increase the background noise levels when measured outside any nearby residential property unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard amenity of existing and future residents (Saved Policies 7 and 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).

7 Prior to the commencement of develoment details of the siting and means of enclosure to house each of the refuse and recycling storage bins (to be in accordance with the Councils Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements; Guidance for Architects and Developers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details approved shall be installed prior to first occupation of the site and maintained permanently thereafter unless any variation is received and approved in writing.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area and to ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Policies 9, 14, 35 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy policy S9.

8 Details of a waste management plan for each individual category of use, incorporating provision for refuse storage and recycling facilities on the site, the provision of litter bins both inside and outside of each commercial premises for use by customers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of each use. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided

Page 228 in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the buildings and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

9 Prior to the commencement of development herby permitted a specification of all proposed soft landscaping and tree planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. In addition all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 and current Arboricultural best practice.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy 39 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan.

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

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development in accordance with Policy 39 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan.

11 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted detailed drawings, samples and/or a specification of all finishing materials to be used in any hardsurfacing and the treatment of all other parts of the site not covered by the new buildings including external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard-surfacing on the site and installation of any lighting and other external fittings shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that such works do not detract from the development itself or from the appearance of the locality in general. (Policies 31, 33, 39 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and core strategy policy (2011) S9).

12 Details of the siting and design of all walls and/or fencing including all external and internal boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of each of the phases of development agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Such walls or fencing as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the buildings unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning authority to any variation has been obtained.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory resultant appearance and standard of amenity of the site. (Policies 31, 33, 39 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Core Strategy policy S9)

Page 229

13 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the applicant must submit a Method of Construction Statement for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to that relevant phase of development commencing and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 9 and 31 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)

14 Before the development commences, a report setting out the full findings of a detailed site and ground conditions investigation which shall be carried out, prior to the commencement of development, to establish and assess the full degree and nature of the contamination on site, is to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing. The report shall also set out details of an appropriate remediation strategy which shall also require approval and implementation prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: In order to ensure that all risks attributable to the prevailing ground conditions are removed and/or mitigated prior to occupation to ensure that no harmful impact to public health on and beyond the site occurs during the lifetime of the development (Policy 5.21 of the London Plan (2011).

15 Any areas of flat roof that are not shown as balconies, walkways or roof terraces shall not be used as a sitting out area or be used for any other recreational purpose whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development and the occupiers of adjoining residential properties. (Policy 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)

16 Notwithstanding the approved plans full details of the proposed lighting within the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the relevant phase. The lighting shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal. (Policies 32 and 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).

17 The building hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum criterion of 'Very Good' for the BREEAM Industrial standard. A BREEAM estimator assessment, indicating credits that are expected and how this will be achieved, shall be submitted for the Local Planning Authority's approval prior to the commencement of works on site. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with measures set out in the estimator assessment approved. Further to this, a post construction review shall be undertaken and a BREEAM certificate demonstrating that the development has achieved the prescribed minimum 'Very Good' standard (or above) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

18 In the event of any (employment) unit(s) converting to residential within one month of completion of the development a post construction review shall be carried out to

Page 230 establish that the building has achieved a ‘Code Level 4’ BREEAM rating and the post construction review report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interests of securing a sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007)), core strategy policy S7 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document for Sustainable Design and Construction 2007).

19 Prior to commencement of building works, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following:

1.) Secured by Design physical protection measures to be incorporated in both the commercial and residential units. 2.) The internal walls separating the commercial units incorporate a steel mesh layer to prevent easy access via the neighbouring property. 3.) External & Courtyard communal lighting be to BS 5489 4.) Full audio-visual access control measures are incorporated to all units. 5.) Monitored Alarm facilities should be provided to the commercial units. 6.) CCTV is recommended at the entrance and around the exterior of the site 7.) Plant rooms to be lockable with robust security rated doors 8.) Bin stores to be lockable 9.) Cycle stores to be lockable 10.) Security rated doors and windows for each unit 11.) Good lighting to achieve a minimum of 0.25 uniformity

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).

20 In the event of any units converting to residential use the development hereby permitted shall be built to 'Life Time Homes' standard and 10% of residential units will be wheel chair accessible units as stipulated in the submitted Design & Access Statement

Reason: In the interests of providing longevity of tenure (Policy 31 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).

21 Details of manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The parking, manoeuvring and loading/unloading area shall be laid out and made available for use in accordance with the approved scheme before the development hereby permitted is occupied 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 in accordance with policies 9 and 14 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy S4 of the Core Strategy.

22 Details of the proposed access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. No other part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access has been sited, laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Page 231 Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 9 and 31 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)

23 Within (a) of the new/altered access being brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.

Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 9 and 31 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)

24 No other part of the development shall begin until visibility splays have been provided on 2.4m from both sides of the access.

Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 9 and 31 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)

25 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 hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 9 and 31 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)

26 Notwithstanding the details and plans hereby approved, provision shall be made for 89 cycle parking spaces and 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 ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport (Saved policy 9 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (2011) refer).

27 The proposed employment floorspace shall be finished and serviced for immediate user-ready occupation at the same time as the residential units hereby proposed are completed.

28 No trees within or adjacent to the site shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the locality and wider area in accordance with Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

29 All tree protection measures as outlined contained in the approved Arboricultural Report prepared by Landmark Trees dated 20/07/10 shall be implemented before the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved. The tree protection measures shall remain in place for the duration of the construction of the development, and only be dismantled or removed following the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Page 232

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the locality, and the wider surrounding area in accordance with Policy 39 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (2007).

30 All tree surgery works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Arboricultural Report prepared by Landmark Trees dated 20/07/10. . The tree works shall accord with BS3998:2010. The development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

31 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of all Arboricultural Site Supervision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Informatives

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

2 This decision is without prejudice to the London Borough of Lambeth's position as freeholder or ground landlord of the property. The application has been considered only from a Town Planning point of view and application for necessary consent which may be required from the London Borough of Lambeth as freeholder or lessor should be made to the Head of Legal Services of the Council in accordance with the provisions of the conveyance, lease or agreement.

3 This decision is without prejudice to the London Borough of Lambeth's position as owner of adjoining property.

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

5 You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division concerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or regulations made thereunder.

6 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Transport and Highways team within the Transport Division of the Directorate of Environmental Services, with regard to any alterations affecting the public footway.

Page 233 7 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities

8 You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of advertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from the Local Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

9 Street Naming & Numbering

As soon as building work starts on the approved development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do any of the following:

- name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building - apply new numbers to internal flats or units

Tom Brown Street Naming and Numbering Officer, London Borough of Lambeth, Ivor House, 1 Acre Lane, London SW2 5SD email : [email protected] telephone : 020 7926 2283

10 You are advised to consult the National Rivers Authority at Wah Kwong House, 10 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SP (tel: 0171 735 9993) regarding the method and extent of the site investigation and details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of ground water and surface water.

11 You are advised that under the terms of the Water Industries Act 1991, the prior written consent of the London Borough of Lambeth, Sewerage Contractor for Thames Water Utilities Ltd is required for any development works draining into, or connecting to, the public sewers. Contact Mr S K Bellehewe on 0171 926 7108.

12 You are advised to contact Thames Water Utilities regarding mains/supply pipe connections for the development at Network Services Waterloo District, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Waterworks Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1SB. Contact Mr D Kirk on 0645 200800 for details.

13 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

14 It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The

Page 234 developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.

Page 235

Section 4 – Decision Notice

Date of Application : 10.11.2011 Date of Decision :

Proposed Development At : 35 - 51 Bedford Road London SW4 7SG

Summary of the Reasons for Granting Planning Permission :

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 Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy policies were relevant: London Plan (2011) Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.7 Large residential developments. Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.10 Definition of affordable housing Policy 3.11 Affordable housing targets Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes Policy 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds Policy 3.14 Existing housing Policy 7.6 Architecture Core Strategy (2011)Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2: Housing Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10: Planning Obligations Unitary Development Plan (2011) Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 15: Additional Housing Policy 16: Affordable Housing Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 38: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas Policy 39: Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 45: Listed Buildings Policy 47: Conservation Areas

Page 236

Section 5 - Appendices

Appendix 1 - List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies And Local Amenity Groups Consulted.

Transport/Highways Streetcare Planning Policy Regulatory Services Noise Pollution Arboricultural Officer Performance, Strategy & Regeneration LBL Crime Prevention Unit Implementation Team Housing Housing Association S106 Hsg Development Control Department Thames Water English Heritage Network Rail TFL Road Network Development (non-referable) Environment Agency LFCD Authority Street Management Area Manager South Ferndale Residents Assoc Acre Lane Resident's Association Brixton Business Forum Bedford Acre Hetherington Action Group Worksheet Conservation & Design Housing Conservation & Design Planning Policy Bedford Acre Hetherington Action Group Brixton Business Forum Acre Lane Resident's Association Ferndale Residents Assoc Worksheet Conservation & Design

Page 237 6rhy9rpvv iEuGB h9v6 puHTpSrtvr rq6 puvrp hDrp hvrqiurTrp rh sThrs 8vvrhqGphyBr r

9rpvvqhr)!&Ehh ! ! 6rhySrs6QQI$%%6 ! $&'"% "$7rqs qShqGqTX#&TB ! " # $ %% ! &'# " ((# ! " ! ( ) !(& * !+,-.(* -& * !& !/ & /0 1")2! & * 9rpvv)Uurhrhyvqvvrq Q t r v hqvqrururh vt / ! ! ! $ & !! ! " & ! & " ! 3 ! & ! R * & & 5& " $ *3 & ! 3 ! * ! ! 1 / * & & 2* * O " / ! P *!! * ! ! 81 ! & ! & 2& O P ! ! 91&0 ! ! 2& 3 ! ! +,* " &: & & && / ! ; ! ! ! ! 3 & !!! & * ! M 8 < & " !! ! !!

Page 238 $' $##<,99$, 89

5 ! & !! & * ! & , 3 & * * & * " !!! & & ( * & ! * / & ! :!! " + & & * ! & & 1! /* ! 2 ! & !!! & ! ! & & ! & " # .'## ,9 & ! & ! ! ! ! MR , $ & *; * ! * 5 !)! ; - ; 3 - ; " $ * ! )! ; " & ! )! ; ! / ! & * 3 & * * & &*&5 9 3 " R ! ! ! ! && ! ! ! > ! ! ! 5 ! ! * ! & ! * & ! & " * - ; ? * * & ! @& * ! & * ! & & 3 ! ! & & ! * / ! & * * & *! /* & ! 0 !- ; 3 * ! !!! ! & $ * ! & A &

Page 239 $' $##<,99$, 89

! ! " # % .'## 88*8*+,+ M % ! ! * ! ! 8 *! !& & & ! * & ! O ! P $ @& & ! ! / * / & - ; &5 ! .'## 888 M 3 * ! +: ! ! 8 : & QC ! ' " R .'## A 0& ! !+: ! ! & ! $ * ! !& ! .'## ,88 Hhvvr - ! / ! ! & * M12 ! ! &: 12 & & Srh ! ! ! ! ! ! *! & +0, Q/R! * ! / ! * & & ! & ! & * ! & & E * " * &5 * ! * *5 ! ! & * ! ! & & ! & E *3 &5 ! .'## 88 8 ; ! ! + O & P & & ! : F & / R & " + & * 5 / * & ! )! & * ! & ! !! ! & &

8 Page 240 $' $##<,99$, 89

, ! ! & & ! 1$'-2 & !G! & $'- !,G! * ! & 9 ! & & ! )! ; & E ! *&0 $'-! 0! & & 9G, G1 G*3 2 $'- ! & G* A & ! & ! ! & & &E ! * 0! & &0 $'-* & ++G%9GE ! ! * !! * $'- & +8G GA 5 $'- !%GE ! */ $'- & 9G%GA! 5 $'- GE! 8& * &&0 ! & & * ! & &5 ! ! : ( $'- &! ! $ ! ! ! )! ; $'- !% G & ! *3 *& ! ! E ! 0! $'- !+G* && E 0! ! @ & $'- !G* &&* * !!0 3! ! * ! E * * ! & ! & & *!! & ! .'## 88 QC ! ' " R 3 " % < !!! !& " M ! & & & !! & 1H"2 $'-& $ H" &! G & & & & G1 2& / H" 1 2 & $'- & & G! %%G* 9G! %G ,G! G3 !!

+ Page 241 $' $##<,99$, 89

&* &0 $'- &! ! E * O );FC PH ! ! % ! & * ! 0! ! )! ; & * M& * * & E * *3 ! .'## 88 ! 3 & ! ! * * # 8 & " < ! * * &5 3 ! ! < ** Pr hyyppyv + ' & ! ! ! *3 ! & ! ! & & & / &* *: - * & 3

, Page 242 $' $##<,99$, 89

6QQ@6S6I8@T APS9`I6HD8QSPQ@SU`86QDU6GGGQ

; !" @ < '# " ((# ?( $ ? $ ) I# # C ' @ $ ; '/ # APSUC@GPI9PI7PSPVBCPAG6H7@UC

< (! # E!! < J & " E!! ' )<## & 9P8VH@IUTivrqururh vt $ 1 $/ R 2 ) ! O? ! P 8 $!! & H& + F , ' '1 "' 2 9 F/ 9 &

9 Page 243

PLANNING INSPECTORATE GOOD PRACTICE ADVICE NOTE 09

Accepting amendments to schemes at appeal

1. Section 1.9 of the Planning Inspectorate’s Procedural Guidance (PINS 01/2009) makes clear that in deciding whether to accept amendments to appeal schemes the principles of the “Wheatcroft” judgement 1 will be applied.

2. This good practice advice explains the governing principles estab lished by Wheatcroft and how these are to be applied in the light of the c ore principles set out in paragraph 1.4.2 of the Procedural Guidance.

3. For all appeals, in the interests of fairness and ensuring that decision s are made locally where possible, it is important that what is considered by the Secretary of State is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority. The appeal process should not be a means to progre ss alternatives to a scheme that has been refused or a chance to amend a scheme so as to overcome the reasons for refusal. In the first instance materially changed schemes should be re- submitted to the local planning authority as a fresh planning application.

4. It is equally important that local planning authorities and applicants work together to ensure that a decision can be made on the application so that there is certainty and clarity about the authority’s position should the case come to appeal. Where the appeal is against the failure of the local planning authority to make a decision there is a greater risk that third partie s will be prej udiced by the appeal process, especially if it is used to evolve a sch eme.

5. There may be occasions where amendments could be made to a scheme without prejudice to the delivery of a fair and more efficient system. Where amendments are proposed to a scheme, the Inspector will be guide d in their decision making by the Wheatcroft Principles . In the ‘Wheatcro ft’ judgement the High Court considered the issue of amendments in the context of conditions and established that “ the main, but not the o nly, criterion on which….judgment should be exercised is whether the development is so changed that to grant it would be to deprive those who should have been consulted on the changed development of the opportunity of such consultation ”. It has subsequently been established that the power

1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL, 1982, P37]. This decision has since been confirmed in Wessex Regional Health Authority v SSE [1984] and Wadehurst Properties v SSE & Wychavon DC [1990] and Breckland DC v SSE and T. Hill [1992}.

1 Page 244

to consider amendments is not limited to cases where the effect of a proposed amendment would be to reduce the development. 2

6. An integral part of the legal test is therefore the issue of fairness to third parties. This is a fact-sensitive question to be determined by the decision maker. The question of the stage in the process at which it is sought to make an amendment is likely to be relevant, together with the appellant’s reasons for seeking the amendment.

7. The core principles referred to above reflect the policy objectives of the modern planning system brought into effect by the 2008 Planning Act and which include the following: that the planning system should be streamlined, efficient and predictable; and that there must be full and fair opportunities for public consultation and community engagement. 3

8. The emphasis on community engagement is reinforced by the requirement in the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act for the local planning authority to prepare a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which is to be “a statement of the authority’s policy as to the involvement in the exercise of the authority’s functions under sections 19, 26 and 28 of this Act and Part 3 of the principal Act of persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to development in their area.” 4 Part 3 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (the ‘principal Act’) relates to the Control of Development.

9. The delivery of an efficient, customer focused appeal process which is of benefit to all depends on continuing constructive dialogue between the applicant and the local planning authority during the progress of planning applications. Where such dialogue takes place it should be possible for acceptable amendments to be agreed prior to the local planning authority’s decision. Thus should there be any subsequent appeal it can be about the scheme considered by the local planning authority, including any amendments made to overcome legitimate planning concerns. This allows the local planning authority to conduct any necessary public consultation in accordance with their SCI, ensuring that any third parties who may be interested in a proposal have a fair opportunity to comment on any amendments to a scheme before it comes to appeal.

10. There may be occasions where it has not been possible for the appellant to know what amendments might be acceptable during the passage of an application. For example, in non-determination cases where the local planning authority has failed to maintain communication with an appellant, the local planning authority’s objections may not be known until after submission of an appeal. Similarly, where elected members have overturned

2 see Breckland DC. v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1992) 65 P&CR.34. 3 Planning Bill Impact Assessment page 38 Part B Town and Country Planning Considerations “What are the policy objectives and intended effects” 4 Section 18 (1) and (2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

2 Page 245

officers’ advice the specific points of objection to a scheme may not be identified until the decision notice is issued.

11. In such circumstances it may be possible to overcome objections by making amendments within the Wheatcroft principle. Whilst amendments to a scheme might be thought to be of little significance, in some cases even minor changes may be considered to materially alter the nature of an application and lead to possible prejudice. Examples might include detailed treatment of schemes to alter listed buildings or where any changes would move structures or windows closer to a neighbouring property. Decisions regarding the acceptance of amendments are dependant on the individual circumstances of each case. The question of the necessity for and extent of any further consultation on amendments is likely to be relevant to the exercise of discretion.

12. Given the requirements of the 2004 Act and the responsibility of the local planning authority to comply with the SCI such consultation should be undertaken by the local planning authority where at all possible. Accordingly, if consultation on an amended scheme is considered necessary the appellant should normally be expected to seek to gain permission for a revised scheme using the free service for re-submitted applications, rather then pursue such amendments through the appeal system. Local planning authorities can help with this process by being open to discussions on whether an amended scheme is likely to be viewed favourably. This will help to avoid abortive applications and unnecessary delays in the system.

13. However, where it is clear that the local planning authority are unwilling to co-operate in a constructive dialogue it may be necessary for the appellant to carry out consultation on amendments to a scheme on which it is proposed to appeal or where an appeal has been lodged. In deciding whether the amendments can be accepted in such cases it will be crucial to establish whether or not all relevant parties have had the opportunity to consider proposed amendments and make their views on them known. Where consultation has been carried out by the appellant, particular care will need to be taken to ensure that statutory bodies and local people have been made properly aware of what is proposed and have had adequate chance to comment; timescale will clearly be relevant.

14. Where the appellant feels that their only recourse is to amend the scheme at appeal they should alert the Planning Inspectorate as soon as possible of their proposed approach to such amendments, their reasons for making them and how any necessary consultation has been or is being undertaken, including reference to the relevant local planning authority’s SCI. Where the consultation has taken place prior to the lodging of an appeal any representations can be submitted alongside the appeal. If it takes place after the lodging of the appeal the address to which representation should be sent should be agreed with the Planning Inspectorate.

15. It is unlikely that the Planning Inspectorate would agree to be the recipient of ad hoc comments on an amended scheme prompted by such

3 Page 246

consultation, as there is no provision for such late representations in the Rules and experience suggests that an ad hoc arrangement like this is likely to cause confusion amongst those consulted. However, provided that arrangements are made with and confirmed by the Case Officer prior to the consultation taking place (and in the knowledge of or preferably with the agreement of the local planning authority) the Planning Inspectorate will be prepared to receive “bundled” responses to consultation sent to the local planning authority in response to proposed changes to a scheme. It should be borne in mind that any post submission consultation is likely to lead to delay and may attract a costs application.

16. Where amendments are proposed to be made all parties interested in the appeal will be invited to comment on the appropriateness of the Inspector accepting such amendments.

Consequences of not following this guidance

16. Any party contemplating submitting changes to a scheme at appeal stage should carefully consider the potential consequences. Particular consideration should be given to whether submission of such a change at this stage would be likely to be regarded as unreasonable and, if so, whether it would result in any additional costs being incurred to other parties. Examples of the types of unanticipated effects that changes to scheme at appeal may result in include the need to adjourn events to consider the need for consultation and the timescale for it to be carried out effectively leading to delay in reaching decisions.

February 2011

4 Page 247 Agenda Item 8

Section 1 – Site Location Map

Page 248

Section 2 – Application Summary

Location 32 St Faith's Road London SE21 8JD Ward Thurlow Park

Proposed Demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey Development building comprising nine flats. Applicant Mr Tony Withnell Lambeth and Southwark Housing Association

Agent Miss Melissa Dowler Bell Phillips Architects Block K 17s Bermondsey Street London SE1 3UW

Date valid 31 October 2011

Case Officer Mrs Rebecca Saville

Application 11/03853/FUL Reference Recommendation(s) Grant conditional planning permission subject to a s106 legal agreement Constraints Streets Under Conversion Stress

Site Notice posted 1st December 2011 on Plan references P001 rev A (site location plan), P002 rev A, P010 rev A, P011 rev B, P012 rev B, P013 rev A, P014 rev A, P015 rev A, P016 rev A, P017 rev A, P018 rev A, P019 rev A; Design and Access Statement; Transport Statement; Sustainability Assessment; Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report; Shading Impact Report, Ecology Survey, Arboricultural Report, e-mail dated 20 Feb 2012.

Page 249

1 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES

1.1 The key issues in the assessment of this application are:

• The principle of development, whether the replacement of the existing building with the proposed block of flats is acceptable;

• The acceptability of the dwelling mix and the retention of affordable housing;

• Design -The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area;

• Standard of accommodation – whether the flats would provide future residents with an acceptable standard of accommodation;

• Amenity – The impact of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring properties;

• The transport implications of the proposal;

• Sustainability – whether the development would promote sustainability;

• Refuse and recycling - Whether sufficient measures have been proposed for the storage and of refuse and recycling;

• Ecological impacts, biodiversity and landscaping, particularly the effects on the adjoining Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the existing trees;

• Crime Prevention – Whether the development would increase opportunities for crime; and

• Planning obligations.

2 APPLICATION SITE

2.1 The application site is a substantial Victorian style detached residential property that lies on the south side of St Faith’s Road. A property of similar style lies to the east and to the west are several substantial Victorian buildings that front Norwood Road, including the South London Botanical Institute. The remaining buildings in St Faith’s Road are smaller semi-detached or terraced residential properties.

3 Page 250

2.2 The building on the application site and the adjoining building at 35 St Faith’s Road are not set perpendicular to the road. No. 35 is set back from no. 32 and this reflects the line of the road.

2.3 The ground slopes down from east to west so the application site is on higher ground that the properties facing Norwood Road but is slightly lower than the property to the east, 35 St Faith’s Road.

2.4 The property is not situated in a conservation area and the building is not listed. St Faith’s Road has been identified as being under conversion stress.

2.5 The garden of the South London Botanical Institute at 323 Norwood Road which adjoins the western boundary of the site is designated as a Local Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

2.6 The site has a PTAL of 5. There is space for car parking on the front forecourt but no bays are marked out.

3 PROPOSAL

3.1 The application is for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey building comprising nine flats and storage for refuse, recycling and bicycles.

3.2 The proposed building would have a larger footprint than the existing building and would extend 4.4m further forward on the plot however the building would still be set well back from the front boundary of the property, typically 12m. The majority of the additional development would be to the south (the rear) and the west. The building would have two flats, refuse and cycle store on the ground floor, three flats at both first and second floor and one flat at third floor level. The four storey part of the building would lie to the north west corner and would be 13m high; the other parts of the building would be three storey and 10m high. A lift would service all floors.

3.3 The building would be in a contemporary style and would have predominantly brick elevations with render to the lower part of the elevations and timber detailing around the windows. The lift shaft would be hung with slate.

3.4 The two ground floor flats would have private gardens of area 73m² and 54m². The communal garden at the rear would have an area of over 250m². The seven upper floor flats would each have a balcony with an area of 8m².

3.5 Four car parking spaces would be provided to the front of the building and the existing access would be moved to the south east.

4 Page 251

3.6 The existing trees on the site would be retained.

4 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 On 16 th June 1992 an application for alterations to the elevations in connection with the continued use of the property as 4 self contained flats and the laying out of off-street car parking and a dustbin enclosure (92/03093/PLANAP) was permitted.

4.2 On 22 April 2010 pre-application advice for a development of ten residential units was issued.

5 CONSULTATION

Neighbours 5.1 Letters were sent to 90 neighbouring properties within the vicinity of the site at the following addresses - • St Faith’s Road (odds and evens) 7 - 39 • Norwood Road (odds) 323 - 333 Twenty seven responses were received of which twenty five were objections. A petition with 96 signatures requesting refusal of permission to demolish the existing building was received.

Statutory consultations 5.2 A site notice was displayed on the 1 st December 2011.

Local Groups 5.3 The Dulwich Society and the Dulwich Residents Association were also consulted. At the time of writing this report no comments had been received from these groups.

5.4 The Heritage of London Trust objected to the loss of the existing building. The South London Botanical Institute raised a number of objections including overlooking, design of the proposed building, parking, noise and sustainability of the development as well as effects on the Institute garden from shading and run-off of de-icing fluid from the car park.

5.5 The objections received from the public consultation are summarised in the following section, with an officer response to those comments contained within the right hand column.

Objections raised Officer response

Character and appearance of the area

5 Page 252

1 Loss of existing There is no statutory protection for the building existing building and the Planning Conservation and Urban Design team did not object to its demolition. The replacement building is considered to be acceptable in design terms and accords with all relevant development plan design policies. 2 The proposed The proposed building would be building would be contemporary in style but has been unattractive and designed to be in keeping with the existing out of keeping. buildings in terms of proportion and materials. The proposed building would be of an acceptable design and in accordance with UDP Policy 33. 3 The proposed The proposed building would be not be out building would be of proportion with the street scene, given over-large. its detached nature and the large plot on which it would stand. The Planning Conservation and Urban Design team did not object to the proposal. The proposed building would be of an acceptable design and in accordance with UDP Policy 33. 4 Loss of semi- The proposed building would be different in suburban character but would not be out of atmosphere in proportion with the street scene, street. particularly given the large plot on which it would stand. The Planning Conservation and Urban Design team did not object to the proposal. The proposed building would be of an acceptable design and in accordance with UDP Policy 33 which encourages schemes of higher density in areas of good transport accessibility. 5 The proposed The existing building is sited further building would be forward on the plot than the building on the set forward of the adjoining site at 35 St Faith’s Road. The existing building proposed building would be set a further causing a loss of 4.4m forward of the existing building visual amenity. footprint but would still be set well back from the street, approximately 12m. Given the existing layout arrangement and the substantial set back it is considered that there would be no significant loss of visual amenity. 6 Over-development The density of the proposed development of the site. would be within London Plan recommendations and therefore in accordance with Policy. An increase from

6 Page 253

four flats to nine flats is therefore considered acceptable on a plot of this size. 7 Loss of open land The plot is large and the proposed development would retain a significant area of open land to the front and rear of the building. Lambeth Policy takes a design led approach to building on residential gardens i.e. greenfield land (see sections 7.1.11 to 7.1.13 below) and the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy.

Standard of residential accommodation

8 Inadequate outdoor The proposed amenity space would space for future exceed Lambeth requirements (see section residents. 7.3.22 below).

Effects on neighbouring properties

9 Effects on the The possible effects of the development on ecology of the the garden of the South Lambeth Botanical garden of the Institute (SLBI) have been assessed by the South London Council’s Ecologist who concluded that the Botanical Institute, resultant shadowing would be minor and including transient. shadowing and run-off of de-icing In the event of an approval it is salt recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the Council’s approval of details with respect to surface drainage and this would protect the Botanical Institute from run-off (see section 7.8.4 below). 10 Effects on the In the first instance it is noted that the amenity of the South London Botanical Institute is not a South London residential building, and as such the Botanical Institute, requirements to safeguard amenity would including not be as onerous as with a residential overlooking & property. noise. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the proposed development is a conforming land use within this residential area and would not raise unacceptable noise issues. Any statutory noise matters could be dealt with by non-planning legislation.

The rear garden of the South London Botanical Institute is already overlooked by

7 Page 254

adjoining residential properties such as the flats within Skipton Court. Overlooking from the windows in the western flank of the proposed building would be no worse that this existing situation.

No objection is raised on amenity grounds.

11 Loss of light to It is considered that any loss of natural light neighbouring to neighbouring properties would be within properties acceptable limits (see sections 7.4.2 to 7.4.8 below). 12 Loss of privacy to It is considered that any loss of privacy to neighbouring neighbouring properties would be within properties acceptable limits (see sections 7.4.9 to 7.4.14 below). 13 Noise and The more intensive use could generate disturbance, some additional noise but the use would particularly from continue to be residential and as such is balconies considered acceptable. 14 Detrimental effect Planning policy promotes mixed and on community spirit balanced communities. The addition of larger residential units of social housing would promote a mixed community in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S1.

Transport

15 Parking Lambeth Transport Planning considered that the development would generate five vehicles of which four would be accommodated on site and the fifth could be accommodated on street and therefore the Transport Planning team did not object to the proposed development. The proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on local highways and would therefore be in accordance with Policy (see section 7.5.2 below). 16 Traffic congestion Transport Planning did not raise an on Norwood Road objection to the proposed development. Given the PTAL of 5 it is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable effect on local highways.

Ecology

17 Damage to trees The Arboricultural officer considered that, subject to the imposition of tree protection conditions, the development would be

8 Page 255

acceptable. 18 Loss of wildlife The applicant has submitted a survey that demonstrates that the site is currently of poor ecological value. The Council’s Ecologist has not objected to the proposal.

Miscellaneous

19 Drug taking and The Crime Prevention Design Adviser did theft from cycle not raise concerns regarding the cycle store store and the entrance to the store would be inside the building. 20 Shortage of school It is considered that the provision of 9 places additional residential units at this location would not unacceptably impact upon the provision of school places. 21 Relocation of It is recognised that relocation could be existing tenants stressful for existing tenants, particularly including autistic the family with an autistic child however child this would not justify refusal of the application. The proposal would provide replacement social rented provision in lieu of the units to be demolished.

Internal consultations 5.6 The following teams within the Council were consulted: • The Planning Conservation team considered both the loss of the existing building and the design of the proposed building to be acceptable • The Transport Planning and Strategy team raised concerns regarding cycle parking and bin storage but considered that these could be satisfactorily addressed by the imposition of appropriate conditions. • The Arboricultural officer requested the imposition of conditions to safeguard the existing trees • The Parks Department Ecologist advised that the application site has limited ecological value and that effects of the proposed development on the garden of the South London Botanical Institute would be minor and transient. • The Crime Prevention Design Adviser (CPDA) raised no objection in principle and made a number of recommendations to improve security

5.7 The application has been called in to PAC by Cllr Clare Whelan.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

(a) National Planning Policies

9 Page 256

6.1 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 in 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. The following documents were considered as part of the assessment of this application:

• Planning Policy Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development • Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing • Planning Policy Statement 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: • Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport

(b) The London Plan 6.2 The London Plan was adopted in July 2011. 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.

6.3 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.

6.4 All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

6.5 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant: Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 2.9 Inner London Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments Policy 3.8 Housing Choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and Balanced Communities Policy 3.10 Definition of Affordable Housing Policy 3.11 Affordable Housing Targets Policy 3.13 Affordable Housing Thresholds Policy 3.14 Existing Housing Policy 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy Policy 5.11 Green Roofs and Development Site Environs Policy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage Policy 6.9 Cycling

10 Page 257

Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s Neighbourhoods and Communities Policy 7.2 An Inclusive Environment Policy 7.3 Designing Out Crime Policy 7.4 Local Character Policy 8.2 Planning Obligations

(c) Local Planning Policies: 6.6 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 (2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved, non-superseded policies in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.

6.7 The following policies are considered relevant to this application: Lambeth Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) S1 Delivering the vision and objectives S2 Housing S4 Transport S5 Open space S7 Sustainable design and construction S9 Quality of the built environment S10 Planning obligations

Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond the 5 th August 2010 Policy 7 Protection of residential amenity Policy 9 Transport impact Policy 14 Parking and traffic restraint Policy 15 Additional housing Policy 31 Streets, character and layout Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out crime Policy 33 Building scale and design Policy 35 Sustainable development Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas; Policy 39 Streetscape, landscape and public realm design

7 ASSESSMENT

7.1 Principle of development (a) Land use 7.1.1 The proposed development is the replacement of a residential building which has been divided into flats with a purpose built block of flats. The area is predominantly residential and the proposed development is therefore acceptable in principle.

11 Page 258

(b) Conversion stress 7.1.2 St Faith’s Road has been identified as being under conversion stress, a designation that aims to protect family sized dwellings. The existing building has already been converted into flats and therefore the demolition of this building would not entail the loss of a family sized dwelling. The proposed development would not be contrary to Core Strategy Policy S2 with respect to the protection of family sized dwellings on streets under conversion stress.

(c) Intensification of use 7.1.3 With respect to the intensification of residential use on the site, Core Strategy Policy S2(a) seeks the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/11 and 2016/17 in line with London Plan targets, and a further 8,800 more homes by 2024/25 subject to London Plan targets for that period.

7.1.4 The application site is surrounded by residential development and the use of the site for residential accommodation would be compatible with the surrounding land use. Therefore in land use terms the provision of additional dwellings (also Class C3 use) would be in accordance with this aspect of Policy S2 of the Core Strategy, subject to compliance with other development plan policies and other material considerations.

7.1.5 The development would have a density of 68.3units/ha, within the London Plan recommendations for development with a PTAL of 5.

7.1.6 The proposal would positively contribute to the annual target for housing delivery within the Borough, as identified by the London Plan and the Core Strategy and it is considered that the proposal would provide additional housing at an acceptable density within an appropriate development site.

(d) Dwelling mix 7.1.7 Core strategy Policy S2 (d) seeks a mix of unit sizes. The development would provide three 2 bedroom flats and six 3 bedroom flats and this provision of larger units is welcomed.

(e) Affordable housing 7.1.8 Core Strategy Policy S2 (c) states that the Council will seek the provision of affordable housing on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes. The proposed development is for nine residential units and therefore Policy does not require an s106 agreement and does not require the provision of affordable homes.

7.1.9 The property is in use as four social rented residential units. They would be replaced with nine units and the application states that two of these (one 3-bed and one 2-bed) would be ‘intermediate’ social housing and seven would be social rented. The proposed

12 Page 259

development would generate a net increase of three social rented units and 2 intermediate units.

7.1.10 However it cannot be guaranteed that the proposed provision would be maintained. UDP Policy 15 states that the net loss of affordable housing units will be resisted and it is therefore recommended that in the event of an approval an s106 agreement should be required to ensure that the existing provision of four social rented units is retained.

(f) Development on garden land 7.1.11 The application site comprises a mix of previously developed (brownfield) and greenfield land. The land covered by the existing house and outbuildings, access and hardstanding are brownfield land while the gardens are greenfield land and therefore the principle of development on this land requires further consideration.

7.1.12 It should be noted that recent amendments to PPS3 did not place a blanket ban on any development taking place on residential gardens. Instead the change in legislation reaffirmed the powers that Local Planning Authorities have to refuse inappropriate development on residential land. Every development proposal on residential land must still be assessed on its own merits in the context of development plan policies and other material considerations.

7.1.13 Lambeth planning policy contained with Saved Policy 33 states that “the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of new residential development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that are appropriate to their site characteristics, setting, civic function and/or importance and location in the townscape”. This design led approach does not distinguish between previously developed (‘brownfield’) land and undeveloped (‘greenfield’) land and therefore the amendments to PPS 3 have not altered the policy position in Lambeth. An assessment of the design merits of the proposal, neighbouring residential amenity and the provision of amenity space for the proposed development is detailed further on in this report. It summary, the proposal is considered to be policy complaint in regards to each of these elements, and no objection is therefore raised to redevelopment of the rear gardens.

7.2 Design considerations

7.2.1 Core Strategy Policy S9 and UDP Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 seek to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment. The design of the proposed building has been revised following public consultation and pre-application advice.

(a) Loss of existing building

13 Page 260

7.2.2 The existing building is a Victorian two storey detached villa and objections to its demolition have been received from local residents and from the Heritage of London Trust. There is no statutory or policy protection for the existing building. The Planning Conservation team did not raise an objection provided that the replacement building would be of good quality. It is considered that, subject to conditions, the replacement building would be of good quality and that in this case the loss of the existing building would be acceptable in policy terms.

(b) Building form, scale and height 7.2.3 The proposed building would have four storeys at the front where it would be 13m (approx) high but would otherwise be of three storeys with a height of 10m (approx). The Planning Conservation considered that “ There is no particular unity of built form along the street and therefore the addition of a fourth storey is not considered to be out of scale with the surrounding development. The stepping of the building does help to visually reduce the massing of the development as do the bay windows and recessed entrance.” It is considered that the form, scale and height would be in keeping with the street and in accordance with relevant development plan policy.

(c) Siting 7.2.4 The proposed building would have a larger footprint than the existing building and would extend 4.4m further forward on the plot however the building would still be set well back from the front boundary of the property, typically 12m. The larger part of the new development would lie to the south and west of the existing building. The retention of generous space to the front and rear is welcomed and the siting of the proposed building is considered acceptable.

(d) Design and Materials 7.2.5 The proposed building would be contemporary in design. Following pre-application advice the proposed development would be faced with brick slips and the lift shaft would be faced with slates, the lower part of the building would be rendered and there would be timber framed windows and timber panels adjoining the windows.

7.2.6 The Planning Conservation and Urban Design team considered that the use of brick was appropriate for this locality however they raised concerns regarding the use of brick slips, stating that brick slips need to be carefully detailed to look good, they also stated that render would not be a successful addition to the building and that consideration should be given to the weathering of the timber cladding. The Planning Conservation and Urban Design team considered that these concerns could be addressed through the imposition of an appropriate condition and in the event of an approval it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the Council’s approval of details with respect to the materials to ensure that the proposed materials would be of good quality and in keeping with the context of the building.

14 Page 261

(e) Conclusion 7.2.7 Subject to the imposition of a condition regarding materials as recommended above, it is considered that the proposed building would be in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S9 and UDP Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39

7.3 Standard of accommodation

7.3.1 Planning policy requires all new residential schemes to be of a high quality, to be well designed and built to a high standard as specified in PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS3 Housing (paragraph 10). In relation to design and quality, schemes should also comply with the requirements of UDP Policy 33 (Building Scale and Design), and SPD Guidance and Standards for Housing Developments and House Conversions (July 2008) to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

7.3.2 The quality of proposed accommodation is assessed on a number of grounds, which include minimum unit and room floor areas, internal layout and storage space provision, floor to ceiling heights, stacking, daylight and sunlight, outlook and privacy, and the provision of acceptable amenity space.

(a) Unit and room floor areas 7.3.3 Core Strategy Policy S2 states that the Council will seek high standards of residential amenity. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions contains the minimum space standards. All the proposed units have been considered against the Standards of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which are shown in the tables below.

Room sizes compared to the SPD:

Unit G.01 (2 bed flat)

SPD Proposed Minimum room sizes Difference (m²) (m²) (m²) Kitchen/living/dining 25.5 33 + 7.5 room Bedroom 1 12 16.6 + 4.6

Bedroom 2 7 12.5 + 5.5 Bathroom 3.5 4.6 + 1.1 Overall Floor Area 60 77 + 17

Unit G.02 (3 bed flat)

15 Page 262

SPD Proposed Minimum room sizes Difference (m²) (m²) (m²) Kitchen/dining room 12.5 16.5 + 4 Living room 14 17.1 + 3.1 Bedroom 1 12 13.8 + 1.8 Bedroom 2 7 12.8 + 5.8 Bedroom 3 7 8 + 3 Bathroom 3.5 5 + 1.5 Overall Floor Area 70 91 + 21

Units 1.01 and 2.01 (3 bed flats)

SPD Proposed Minimum room sizes Difference (m²) (m²) (m²) Kitchen/dining room 12.5 18.7 + 6.2 Living room 14 17.2 + 3.2 Bedroom 1 12 12 = Bedroom 2 7 12 + 5 Bedroom 3 7 11 + 4 Bathroom 3.5 6 + 2.5 Overall Floor Area 70 95 + 25

Units 1.02 and 2.02 (3 bed flats)

SPD Proposed Minimum room sizes Difference (m²) (m²) (m²) Kitchen/dining room 12.5 16.5 + 4 Living room 14 17.7 + 3.7 Bedroom 1 12 13.2 + 1.2 Bedroom 2 7 12.8 + 5.8 Bedroom 3 7 8 1 Bathroom 3.5 5 + 1.5 Overall Floor Area 70 91 + 21

Units 1.03 and 2.03 (2 bed flats)

16 Page 263

SPD Proposed Minimum room sizes Difference (m²) (m²) (m²) Kitchen/living/dining 25.5 27 + 1.5 room Bedroom 1 12 15.9 + 3.9

Bedroom 2 7 15 + 8 Bathroom 3.5 4.3 + 0.8 Overall Floor Area 60 74 + 14

Unit 3.01 (3 bedroom flat)

SPD Proposed Minimum room sizes Difference (m²) (m²) (m²) Kitchen/dining room 12.5 20 + 7.5 Living room 14 17 + 3 Bedroom 1 12 12 = Bedroom 2 7 12 + 5 Bedroom 3 7 12 + 5 Bathroom 3.5 6 + 2.5 Overall Floor Area 70 97 + 17

7.3.4 All the residential units would exceed the SPD minimum unit sizes and all the rooms would meet or exceed the minimum floor areas. In terms of floor areas the proposed development would provide a good level of accommodation for future residents.

(b) Layout and storage space 7.3.5 All the units have an acceptable layout with rooms opening into corridors. None of the units would have allocated storage space but given the good floor areas this is considered acceptable.

(c) Ceiling heights 7.3.6 The SPD ‘Housing development and house conversions’ recommends that all rooms should have a minimum 2.3m floor to ceiling height. No sections were included in the submitted documents but in an e-mail dated 20 th February 2012 the applicant stated that all the rooms would have a minimum height of 2.3m and therefore the development would be in accordance with the SPD. It is recommended that in the event of permission being granted this should be required by condition.

(d) Stacking 7.3.7 The SPD ‘Housing development and house conversions’ encourages the stacking of similar rooms to reduce noise disturbance. The

17 Page 264

proposed development would have good stacking with bedrooms above bedrooms and living rooms above living rooms.

(e) Sunlight and daylight 7.3.8 The front of the proposed building would face north across St Faith’s Road, the rear would face south across the rear gardens of the application site. The living rooms for the flats at upper floor levels would have windows in either the front or rear elevations and these windows would receive good daylight. The windows in the rear elevation would also receive good sunlight.

7.3.9 The living room for the front ground floor flat would have the main window in the western elevation, the western elevation would face slightly north of true west and therefore the sunlight to this window would be limited but this would be mitigated by the good sunlight for the terrace outside the window which would receive good levels of daylight.

7.3.10 The windows of the living room in the rear ground floor flat would open into the shared amenity space and would receive good levels of daylight and sunlight.

7.3.11 The bedroom windows would face either east or west and would receive acceptable levels of sunlight and daylight.

7.3.12 All the units would receive acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight in accordance with UDP Policy 33.

(f) Outlook 7.3.13 The living rooms of the upper floor flats would have windows in the front or rear elevations with good outlook. The bedrooms would have windows either facing east towards 35 St Faith’s Road or west facing Norwood Road and the outlook for all these windows is considered acceptable.

7.3.14 The windows of the front ground floor flat would open into the private amenity space and would have an acceptable outlook. One small window would overlook the communal space to the front with a good outlook.

7.3.15 For the rear ground floor flat, the bedroom windows would open into the private amenity space to the west and would have an acceptable outlook. The kitchen and living room would have windows opening into the communal garden. It is proposed that the window in the east facing flank elevation should be obscure glazed to a minimum height of 1.7m to protect the privacy of residents in the kitchen and this would limit the outlook but there would be an acceptable outlook from the other kitchen window. The living room would have a good outlook into the communal garden.

7.3.16 All the units would have an acceptable outlook.

18 Page 265

(g) Privacy 7.3.17 In general the windows on the upper floors would have good levels of privacy. The issue of mutual overlooking between flats has been assessed and it is considered that there would be no unacceptable mutual overlooking.

7.3.18 There is an existing window in the flank elevation of 32 St Faith’s Road which could potentially overlook the balconies and rear windows at the rear of the proposed development however the angle of sight between the existing window at 32 St Faith’s Road and the balconies in the proposed building would limit any overlooking to acceptable levels.

7.3.19 The front ground floor unit, G.01, would have one window in the front elevation close to the communal entrance which could be overlooked by people using the entrance however the drawings show defensive planting outside the window which would reduce overlooking. This would be a secondary window and therefore it would be possible for future occupants to take appropriate measures to improve privacy if they were concerned. The other windows for this flat would open into the private garden to the west.

7.3.20 The rear ground floor unit, G.02, would have bedroom windows facing into the private garden to the west with good levels of privacy. The kitchen would have two windows opening into the communal amenity space, the window in the eastern elevation would open directly onto the access path and obscured glazing is proposed for this window. In the event of an approval it is recommended that this should be required by condition. The other kitchen window would open onto the main communal amenity space which would limit privacy but not to an unacceptable degree. The living room would have a large window facing the communal amenity space across a small private terrace; defensive planting along the edge of the terrace would provide a degree of screening and this is considered acceptable subject to the approval of details by way of condition.

7.3.21 All the units would have acceptable levels of privacy.

(h) Amenity space 7.3.22 The SPD ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ recommends 50m² of communal space per scheme plus 10m² per flat, giving a requirement of 140m² for the proposed development of nine flats. All the units above ground level would have balconies with an area of 8m² and access to the communal gardens at the front and rear of the property. The rear garden would have an area greater than 250m². In addition the ground floor flats would have private gardens between the building and the western boundary of the property with areas of 54m² and 73m². The provision of amenity space would exceed the guidance in the SPD.

19 Page 266

7.3.23 UDP Policy 50 states that children’s play areas will be sought however this Policy applies to developments of 10 or more residential units and does not apply to this application for nine residential units.

(i) Conclusion 7.3.24 The proposed development would offer good floor space and acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight, outlook, privacy and amenity space. The development would offer an acceptable standard of accommodation in accordance with Policy S2 of the Core Strategy, Policies 17 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Developments and House Conversions’.

7.4 Amenity of neighbouring properties

7.4.1 UDP Policies 7 and 33 seek to protect the amenity of existing residents. The nearest residential building would be 35 St Faith’s Road, immediately to the east of the application site; 17-21 St Faith’s Road lie to the north and on the other side of the road while 323 – 325 Norwood Road lie to the west of the site. St Faith’s Road turns a corner to the east of no. 35 and the land to the south of the site comprises the rear gardens of 36-39 St Faith’s Road.

(a) Sunlight, daylight and shadowing 7.4.2 These three issues will be considered together, starting with the effects on the nearest building where any effects could be greatest and moving anti-clockwise. The applicant has submitted a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment that shows that any loss of sunlight or daylight or increase in shadowing to neighbouring residential properties would be within BRE guidelines.

7.4.3 The nearest building to the proposed development is the adjoining property at 35 St Faith’s Road. This building has only one window in the western flank elevation facing the development site and this does not appear to serve a habitable room however there are roof lights in the roof above. Where the proposed building extends further to the south than the existing building it is set 8m away from the boundary with no. 35. There could be a small loss of evening sunlight and daylight to the western elevation of 35 St Faith’s Road as a result of the south west part of the new building but this three storey part of the proposed building would be lower than the level of the rooflights and therefore any effect would be within acceptable limits.

7.4.4 There would be a small loss of sunlight, daylight for properties to the north caused by the increased bulk of the new building relative to the existing building but the increase in bulk would not be so much that these properties, which would be at a minimum distance of 13m, would experience an unreasonable additional loss of sunlight or daylight.

20 Page 267

7.4.5 The possible loss of sunlight and daylight and overshadowing to the garden of the South London Botanical Institute at 323 Norwood Road is discussed in the Ecology section below. The Institute building is set over 25m from the proposed development and at this distance any loss of sunlight, daylight or shadowing would be within acceptable levels if the garden was not a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

7.4.6 The proposed building would be 4m closer than the existing building to Skipton Court at 325 Norwood Road to the west but would still be at a distance of 30m. The proposed building would, when viewed from 325 Norwood Road, be bulkier than the existing building. The additional bulk would cause some loss of morning sunlight and daylight but it is considered that any loss would be within acceptable levels.

7.4.7 Any loss of morning sunlight to 327 Norwood Road would be transitory. There would be some loss of daylight and outlook however this is not a residential property and therefore any loss of natural light and outlook does not raise significant concerns.

7.4.8 The submitted Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment shows that any loss of sunlight or daylight or increase in shadowing to neighbouring residential properties would be within BRE guidelines. It is considered that the proposed development would not cause an unreasonable loss of natural light to neighbouring residential properties and would be in accordance with UDP Policy 33.

(b) Outlook and sense of enclosure 7.4.9 UDP Policy 33 requires that proposed development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding properties resulting in an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

7.4.10 At 35 St Faith’s Road there is a window in the flank elevation that would directly face the proposed building however this window does not appear to serve a habitable room and the facing wall of the proposed building would be at a distance of 10m. It is considered that any loss of outlook to this window would be acceptable.

7.4.11 There is a bay window at the front of 35 St Faith’s Road but the effects on this window have been limited by the siting of the proposed building; the nearest part of the new building would be set 0.8m further back than the existing building where it would lie on a line drawn at 45º from the centre of the bay window, as would the further part of the proposed building which would project further forward but would be sited at a distance of over 16m from the bay window. It is considered that any loss of outlook to this window would be acceptable.

7.4.12 There would be a small loss of outlook for properties to the north caused by the increased bulk of the new building relative to the existing building but the increase in bulk would not be so much that these

21 Page 268

properties, which would be at a minimum distance of 13m, would experience an unreasonable loss of outlook.

7.4.13 The proposed building would be 4m closer than the existing building to Skipton Court at 325 Norwood Road to the west but would still be at a distance of 30m. The proposed building would, when viewed from 325 Norwood Road, be bulkier than the existing building. The additional bulk would cause some loss of outlook but it is considered that any loss would be within acceptable levels.

7.4.14 The properties at 323 Norwood Road (the South London Botanical Institute) and 327 Norwood Road are not in residential use.

7.4.15 The proposed development would not cause an unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring residential properties and would be in accordance with UDP Policy 33.

(c) Privacy 7.4.16 The proposed development would be a more intensive land use than the existing development and this would increase the overlooking of neighbouring properties however the layout of the flats has been designed so that the living rooms on the upper floors face either north towards St Faith’s Road or south over the rear gardens. Any overlooking of properties to the east or west would be from bedrooms and generally this would be less intensive than overlooking from living rooms.

7.4.17 The windows and balconies in the north elevation of the proposed building would face the properties to the north of St Faith’s Road, nos. 17 – 21. The minimum distance would be 15m and it is considered that at this distance any additional overlooking from the windows and balconies of the new building would be acceptable.

7.4.18 The windows and balconies in the southern elevation would face over the gardens at the rear of properties in Norwood Road and 36 – 39 Norwood Road. These gardens are already overlooked by the surrounding buildings and it is considered that some additional overlooking would be acceptable.

7.4.19 A local resident raised concerns regarding the overlooking of the rooflights at 35 St Faith’s Road to the east, however the four storey part of the proposed building is set furthest away from no. 35 where the angle of sight would limit any overlooking. No. 35 is on slightly higher ground than no. 32 and it is considered that its height relative to the three storey part of the proposed building would prevent unacceptable overlooking of these rooms.

7.4.20 The western elevation would face the rear of nos. 325 and 327 Norwood Road. These properties are overlooked from the existing building but the proposed building would have additional windows and

22 Page 269

four Juliet balconies. The building at 327 Norwood Road is not in residential use and overlooking of this building is not a concern. Skipton Court at 325 Norwood Road is a block of flats but would be set at a distance of 30m and at this distance a small increase in overlooking is considered acceptable.

7.4.21 It is considered that any loss of privacy to neighbouring residents would be within acceptable limits.

(d) Noise 7.4.22 The increase from four flats to nine flats would lead to a small increase in noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents however the residential use would be retained and any noise would be the usual noise for residential areas. The site is in a location well served by public transport and local amenities. In such locations higher densities of development are encouraged by national and local planning policies. Matters of noise nuisance are more appropriately dealt with under environmental health legislation if and when it occurs; in any case there is no evidence to suggest that the future occupiers would be a source of unacceptable noise or disturbance.

(e) Conclusion 7.4.23 Any loss of amenity to local residents resulting from the proposed development would be within acceptable limits and would be fully in compliance with UDP Policies 7 and 33.

7.5 Transport Issues

7.5.1 Core Strategy Policy S4 promotes sustainable transport, UDP Policy 9 ‘Transport Impact’ states that “Development with an unacceptable transport impact … will be refused” and UDP Policy 14 ‘Parking and Traffic Restraint’ states that parking for new development may be accommodated on-street providing it meets certain conditions.

(a) Cars 7.5.2 The site has a ‘very good’ PTAL of 5 and is located within the Tulse Hill Controlled Parking Zone. The proposed development would include four on-site car parking spaces, including one for people with disabilities. This would be a reduction in the parking available at the moment for which there are no marked bays. Although objections were received from local residents with respect to parking and traffic congestion these objections were not supported by the Transport Planning team. The Transport Planning team advised that the development would be likely to generate five vehicles and considered that there would be enough capacity to accommodate one vehicle on street.

7.5.3 The development would include the relocation of the vehicular access to the site. Lambeth Transport raised no objection to this but pointed out that this would be for the developer’s cost.

23 Page 270

(b) Cycle parking 7.5.4 The proposal includes parking for 16 cycles in two secure stores that would be integral to the building. The Transport Planning team welcomed the level of provision but requested the imposition of a condition regarding details of the cycle parking to ensure that cycle stands would be suitable and that the proposed development would promote sustainable transport in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S4.

7.5.5 If the condition recommended above is imposed, it is considered that the proposed development would promote sustainable transport and would not have an unacceptable impact on the performance and safety of the surrounding highway network. As such, the proposal would be in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S4 and UDP Policies 9 and 14.

7.6 Sustainability

7.6.1 Core Strategy Policy S7 and UDP Policy 35 require the incorporation of measures to promote sustainability in any development. The application includes a Sustainability Assessment and this states that the development is expected to achieve level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. A pre-assessment estimator is given as appendix C of the Sustainability Assessment. The achievement of level 4 would require the incorporation of a wide range of sustainability measures both during the construction and during the use of the building and this is welcomed. Level 4 would exceed the policy requirements which stipulate level 3 and in the event of an approval it is recommended that a condition is imposed requiring the development meets this level.

7.6.2 The site lies on a slope and it is recommended that in the event of an approval a condition should be imposed requiring the Council’s approval of details with respect to drainage to ensure that the development promotes sustainable drainage.

7.7 Refuse and Recycling

7.7.1 Core Strategy Policy S8 seeks to promote the sustainable management of waste and UDP Policy 35 requires development to make adequate, integrally-designed provision for the storage and recycling of waste. The proposed development would include purpose built storage for waste and recycling in the ground floor of the building. The application does not specify what types of bins would be used however the store would be large enough to accommodate three 1100 litre bins and this would give adequate storage for waste and recycling. The proposed provision for waste and recycling would be in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S8 and UDP Policy 35.

7.8 Ecology

24 Page 271

7.8.1 Core Strategy Policy S9 and UDP Policy 39 promote good landscape design, including the protection of valuable existing habitats and maximising opportunities to create new wildlife habitats. Policy 5.3 of the London Plan seeks to protect and promote biodiversity and nature conservation. The application site at present is of poor ecological value so the primary concerns are the protection of the adjoining garden of the South London Botanical Institute and promoting the ecological value of the amenity space on the application site.

(a) South London Botanical Institute 7.8.2 The South London Botanical Institute at 323 Norwood Road has a garden that includes rare species of plants and is a designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Concerns were raised that increased shading would be detrimental to some of the rare species. Dr Iain Boulton, an ecologist for Lambeth Parks, reviewed the submitted shadowing assessment and considered that any shading would be transient and any effects would be minor. In the light of the submitted shadowing assessment and Dr Boulton’s ecological assessment is considered that mitigation measures are not considered necessary.

7.8.3 In the interests of goodwill, officers arranged a meeting between the applicant and representatives of the South London Botanical Institute, Dr Boulton, Mr Leonard the Council’s Arboricultural officer and the planning application case officer at the Botanical Institute premises on 16 th February 2012. Measures that would reduce the existing shading and therefore mitigate any additional shading were discussed. Representatives of the South London Botanical Institute objected to the cutting down of existing trees in the garden of 32 St Faith’s Road as this would alter the character of the garden at the Botanical Institute as would raising the flower beds. Representatives of the Botanical Institute objected to replacing the existing fence with one permeable to light, such as a trellis, on security grounds. Given the opposition from the South London Botanical Institute to these measures it is not recommended that conditions to mitigate shadowing of the Botanical Institute should be imposed on the proposed development.

7.8.4 The South London Botanical Institute also raised concerns regarding possible run-off of de-icer from the proposed car park which would be sited on the slope above the Institute garden. The proposed car park would be smaller than the existing car park and would be set further away from the boundary and therefore the proposed development should reduce this risk to the Botanical Institute. However, in the interests of promoting sustainable drainage, it is recommended that a condition should be imposed requiring the Council’s approval of details regarding drainage and this condition would also serve to protect the Botanical Institute from run-off.

(b) Ecology of application site

25 Page 272

7.8.5 The application included an ecological survey which concluded that the current ecological value of the application site is poor and that the proposed development would lead to a significant improvement in the ecological value. The applicant would seek ecological points in order to meet level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and this is welcomed.

7.8.6 At the meeting at the South London Botanical Institute the possibility of incorporating measures at 32 St Faith’s Road that would have a beneficial effect on the adjoining garden of the Botanical Institute were discussed. These measures could include insect attracting plants and bird boxes. Representatives of the Institute were invited to express preferences for ecological measures to be incorporated in the development. If the Committee is minded to grant approval it is recommended that a condition should be imposed requiring the Council’s approval of landscaping and any measures requested by the SLBI could be incorporated at this stage where this is practicable and reasonable.

(c) Trees 7.8.7 The application included an Arboricultural assessment. The proposed development would retain all the existing trees on the site. The Lambeth Arboricultural officer considered the proposed scheme acceptable with regard to impact on trees during the construction stage and to their integration as part of the new lay-out of the site. However he requested the imposition of a number of conditions to safeguard the trees and it is recommended that in the event of an approval such conditions should be imposed.

(d) Conclusion 7.8.8 The proposed development would enhance the ecological value of the application site. Effects on the garden of the South London Botanical Institute would be minor and would not justify refusing the application. It may be possible to include planting on the application site that would be beneficial to the garden of the Botanical Institute.

7.9 Crime prevention

7.9.1 Core Strategy Policy S9(f) seeks to create safe and secure environments. Policy 32 of the UDP (2007) states that development should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. This requirement is contained within Section 17 of The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which imposes an obligation on the local planning authority to consider crime and disorder reduction in the assessment of planning applications.

7.9.2 The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA) raised no objection to the proposed development. She stated that the development should meet Secured by Design and Safer Places

26 Page 273

standards. In the event of an approval it is recommended that a condition should be imposed to this effect.

8 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposed replacement of the existing building which is used as four flats with a new building comprising nine flats is acceptable in principle. The proposed design would be acceptable and would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation to future residents without having an unreasonable detrimental effect on the amenity of residents of neighbouring buildings. Subject to the recommended conditions the effects of the proposed building on transport, ecology and crime prevention would be acceptable.

9 RECOMMENDATION

A. Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Obligation and the attached conditions; or

Summary of Reasons:

Lambeth Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) S1 Delivering the vision and objectives S2 Housing S4 Transport S5 Open space S7 Sustainable design and construction S9 Quality of the built environment S10 Planning obligations

Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond the 5 th August 2010 Policy 7 Protection of residential amenity Policy 9 Transport impact

27 Page 274

Policy 14 Parking and traffic restraint Policy 15 Additional housing Policy 31 Streets, character and layout Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out crime Policy 33 Building scale and design Policy 35 Sustainable development Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas; Policy 39 Streetscape, landscape and public realm design

Conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

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

Design 3 No development shall commence until detailed drawings, samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations within the scheme hereby permitted are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

4 No development shall commence until detailed drawings (scale of 1:20) to confirm the detailed design and materials of the:

i) new metal work including railings, gates, balustrades and balconies,

ii) window and door systems (including technical details, elevations, plans and cross sections)

iii) front entrance (including surrounds)

28 Page 275

iv) roof structure (including sections)

v) rain water pipes (including material and colour)

are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

5 All window reveals on the external faces of the development hereby permitted shall be set within 112mm (minimum) reveals from the face of the building unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

6 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of the buildings.

7 Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme for the siting and design of all walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings for the whole site (including details of those existing which are to be retained and of those proposed). The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and such walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the development and be

29 Page 276

permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and to ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenity is provided in accordance with Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

8 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby permitted, detailed drawings of the proposed hard landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The grounds shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details before any of the flats hereby permitted is occupied and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the use unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a high quality development and to safeguard the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 33 and 39 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010.

Amenity

9 The roof areas of the building hereby approved shall not be used as a balcony, sitting out area or for any other recreational purposes whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development and the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy 33 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010. 10 All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained.

30 Page 277

Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008)).

11 The minimum floor to ceiling height for all the residential units shall be 2.3m.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of future occupiers of the residential development in accordance with Policy 33 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

12 Prior to the first occupation of the rear ground floor flat, designated G.02 on drawing no. P011 rev B, obscured glazing shall be installed in the kitchen window in the eastern elevation to a minimum height of 1.7m above external ground level. The obscure glazing shall be retained as such for the duration of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of future occupiers of the residential unit in accordance with Policy 33 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011,

Transport

13 Prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby permitted the parking bays shall be laid out in accordance with approved drawing P011 rev B. The parking bays shall be retained as such for the duration of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable layout and quantity of car parking spaces in the interests of safety, appropriate provision of parking spaces and to safeguard the appearance of the property in accordance with Policies 9 and 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).

14 Prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby permitted the new vehicular access shall be sited, laid out and constructed in accordance with approved drawing P010 rev A.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access in accordance with Policy 9 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).

31 Page 278

Cycle parking 15 No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until provision for secure cycle parking in the form of ‘Sheffield’ stands or lockers for 15 cycles has been implemented in full and the cycle parking shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.

Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and Policy 14 of the Lambeth UDP (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010.

Sustainability

16 The development hereby approved shall achieve a Final BREEAM minimum of Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the relevant BREEAM scheme (Code for Sustainable Homes) or subsequent superseding equivalent BREEAM scheme. No development shall take place until a relevant BREEAM Certificate demonstrating the proposal’s achievement of the minimum Level 3 rating has been submitted to and approved by the Council. Within 4 months of the first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, an issued Final BREEAM Certificate stating the BREEAM Level achieved (minimum Level 3) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

17 Prior to first occupation of the development a scheme showing the siting, size, number and design of the solar array including cross sections of the roof showing the panels in-situ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be sited so as to minimise its visual impact upon the external appearance of the buildings. The development shall thereafter be completed in strict accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such for the duration of use.

Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development and in order to control the overall design standard of the development in accordance with Policies 33 and 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1, S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

32 Page 279

18 Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on the approved drawings or supporting information, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until further details on how the proposal will address surface water runoff and peak flow has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

Ecology, biodiversity and landscaping

19 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby permitted a specification of all proposed soft landscaping, tree planting and other measures to promote biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. In addition all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 and current Arboricultural best practice. The grounds shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details before any of the flats hereby permitted is occupied and shall thereafter be maintained.

Reason: To promote biodiversity and to ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 39 of the adopted London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

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

33 Page 280

21 No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment Plan shall be felled, damaged or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the locality and wider area in accordance with Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

22 The details of all proposed tree surgery work to facilitate the development as indicated on the Approved Impact Assessment Plan shall be submitted and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority before any demolition, ground works or development commences on site. The agreed pruning works shall there after be carried out in accordance with BS3998:2010 and in line with current arboricultural best practice

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the locality and wider area in accordance with Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

23 An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) in relation to the protection of all retained trees shall be submitted and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority before any demolition, ground works or developments takes place. The (AMS) shall include conform to the recommendations as set out in Clause 7, 8, 9 & 10 of BS5837:2005 current arboricultural best practice and include details of all proposed site supervision and tree protection monitoring.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the locality and wider area in accordance with Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

24 The four parking bays as identified on the Approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment Plan shall be constructed using a 'No-Dig' method. The construction of the bays shall conform to APN12 'Through The Trees to Development' published by the Tree Advice Trust.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees, on or adjacent to the site, that represent an important visual amenity to the

34 Page 281

locality and wider area in accordance with Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

25 No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a strategy for the exterior lighting of the site including the lighting of all public/communal areas. The details approved shall be implemented prior to the commencement of use of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use, unless the written approval is received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.

Crime prevention

26 The development hereby permitted shall meet 'Secured by Design Standards', consistent with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 2005.

Informatives:

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

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

3 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise

35 Page 282

and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

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

5 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

6 It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). In addition the developer would be responsible for covering the costs of any changes required to traffic orders and the diversion of any existing underground services. The existing fire hydrant may require relocation or reinforcement and the costs of this would be for the developer.

7 With regard to Condition 3, the Council’s Conservation and Design team have advised that • the rendered plinth and lower storey are not a successful addition to the building; the rendered element of the design contrasts sharply with the brick elevations, and that brick should be used for the entire elevational treatment. • brick slips need to be carefully detailed if they are to have an acceptable appearance. • the appearance of the timber cladding needs to be considered due to concerns regarding weathering and maintenance. It is recommended that you investigate the use of timber veneer cladding panels to alleviate the maintenance issues associated with traditional timber cladding.

These comments should be taken on board when submitting details to discharge Condition 3.

36 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

9 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Amend Paragraph 2.3 to read as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes The submitted schedule of existing floor areas outlines that Terrace the site comprises the following use classes: 1672 sqm of London B1 (office), 319 sqm of A1 (Shops), 176 sqm of A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and 628 sqm of A3 (Restaurant). All of the buildings are currently occupied as described.

35 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Insert new paragraph 7.46 to read as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes The BRE daylight/sunlight guidelines do not apply to

Terrace commercial building therefore it is difficult to quantify the Page 283 London impact of the proposal on the adjacent buildings, namely 12 and 14 Baylis Road. 12 and 14 Baylis Road: These buildings adjoins the application site and should this development be approved, would have the 6 storey flank wall abutting the flank walls. 12 Baylis Road has windows to the front and Rear of the site and a small external space to the rear at basement level named ‘Yard’ on the plans.

14 Baylis Road has a row of original windows which face Agenda Item9 directly onto the proposed development.

Due to the location of these buildings, the majority of the offices and rooms within receive no natural light, including the basement level at No.12 which was approved planning permission for the change of use to office use ref: 91/01182/PLANAP in 1992. The lack of natural light on a commercial use is not considered reason for refusal in planning terms; furthermore the applicant of the 1992 approval was the existing owner of the building and did not

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

consider the lack of natural light to have an adverse impact on the use of the basement for office use.

In relation to the current proposal, there would be windows to the rear of 12 Baylis Road at basement to second floor level which would receive reduced daylight; due to the existing enclosure of the rear of this property the windows receive no direct sunlight, at No. 14 the row of flank windows to the rear at first floor level would also receive reduced light. It is acknowledged that the erection of a 6 storey flank wall adjoining 12 and 14 Baylis Road would reduce the daylight received however the applicant has Page 284 amended the plans to include glazed bricks to reflect the daylight into the affected windows I an attempt to reduce the impact. While there would be an impact on the windows to the rear of 12 Baylis Road, in planning terms we do not have control over the impact on amenity of commercial uses and therefore in light that the plans have been amended to reduce the impact, and that the impact would only affect approximately 4 offices within this entire building, the loss of light to commercial units is not considered sufficient reason to withhold planning permission.

40 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Amend Paragraph 7.76 to read as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes Refuse bins for all uses in site will be stored off the Terrace highway and not on the footways as per the current London arrangement. These stores would be located within the basement for the office use, at ground floor level within the affordable housing block for the residential use and at

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

ground floor level within the Old Fire Station building for the restaurant use. The Councils Streetcare and transport teams have raised no objection to the refuse arrangement. Details would be conditioned regarding the refuse stores. The proposals are therefore in accordance with Lambeth’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements Guidance for Architects and Developers.

42 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Amend Paragraph 7.88 to read as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes As already stated, the scheme proposes 38.5% affordable Terrace housing. This provision will need to be secured by way of

London S106 legal agreement. In addition it is accepted that car Page 285 free housing is acceptable in this location. Accordingly It is recommended the above financial contribution and car free housing be secured by the inclusion of clauses within a section 106 agreement.

48 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Amend condition 13 as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes Prior to commencement of Terrace building works, a crime London prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

of the following: Means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, electronic access control, specifications of all external doors and all residential doors, windows and glazing and benches, seating, obelisk and cycle storage. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter. Page 286 Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

49 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Amend condition 15 as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes A Travel Plan shall be submitted Terrace to and approved in writing by the London Local Planning Authority prior to the use of the commercial premises hereby permitted commencing. The measures approved in the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the residential use hereby permitted commencing and shall be so

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the residential development are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements. (Policy 9 of the London Borough of Lambeth

UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th Page 287 August 2010)

50 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Amend condition 20 as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes The building will be so designed to Terrace ensure that road and rail traffi c noise London inside habitable rooms shall not excee the following internal noise standards: Living Rooms - 40dB(A) Leq 18 hour 07.00hrs to 23.00hrs; Bedrooms - 30dB(A) Leq 8 hour + no individual noise event to exceed 45dB(A) max [measured with F time weighting]. - 23.00hrs to 07.00hrs.

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance o disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers or

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

the area generally (Policies 7, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 refer).

51 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Amend condition 24 as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes The ground floor A1 and A3 uses Terrace hereby approved shall only London operate between the hours of Page 288 0700 and 0000 on Mondays to Sundays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers. (Policies 7 and 29 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)

51 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Add condition as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes Within 2 months of the Terrace new/altered access being London brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and reinstating the

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.

Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users (Policies 9 and 39 of the Saved Unitary Development

Plan). Page 289

51 150 152 158 Waterloo Road, 4- Add condition as follows: 10 Baylis Road, 2 Pear Place And Holmes House, Holmes No more than one unit on the Terrace ground floor of the development London hereby approved shall be used as A3 use.

To preserve and protect the vitality and viability of the retail function and to limit the general amenity impact for future occupiers of the site and surrounding area in compliance with Council policy S1 and S3 of the Core Strategy 2011.

63 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Amend Paragraph 8.1 to read as follows:

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

Murphy Street London SE1 7AT Residents of nearby Chamberlain House have raised objections on the potential for loss of privacy. In terms of outlook and privacy, the closest relationship would be the window openings on the south elevation of the residential accommodation facing the north elevation of Chamberlain House at a distance of 9.5m. It is noted the existing office elevation contains 11 larger windows compared to 12 smaller windows on the proposed residential building and the windows on this elevation would light bedrooms or provide secondary lighting to lounge rooms. In order to help mitigate any perceived impacts it is recommended a Page 290 condition be included to require habitable room windows facing Chamberlain House to be obscured glazing.

65- 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Amend Paragraph 11.3 to read as follows: 66 Murphy Street London SE1 7AT Should D1 or A3 floorspace be implemented it shall be necessary for the applicant to submit further such plans to tackle the specific waste requirements of medical and food waste.

66 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Insert new paragraph 11.4 to read as follows: Murphy Street London SE1 7AT Council’s transport officers have requested financial contributions of £50,000 towards the public realm improvements to enhance main pedestrian routes from nearby public transport links. In addition it is accepted that car free housing is acceptable in this location. Accordingly It is recommended the above financial contribution and car

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

free housing be secured by the inclusion of clauses within a section 106 agreement.

66 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Amend Paragraph 14.1 to read as follows: Murphy Street London SE1 7AT Grant planning permission subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement to secure financial contributions for public realm improvements and car free housing.

66 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Amend Condition 2 as follows: Murphy Street London SE1 7AT The development hereby

permitted shall be carried out in Page 291 accordance with the approved plans listed in this decision notice unless otherwise approved by Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved plans.

67 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Amend Condition 5 as follows: Murphy Street London SE1 7AT Prior to the occupation of the residential apartments (Use Class C3) hereby approved, the B1/D1 employment floorspace shall be finished and serviced for immediate user-ready

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

occupation.

69 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Amend Condition 13 as follows: Murphy Street London SE1 7AT The opening hours of any A3 Use Class premises shall be restricted to the following:

09.00 - 23.00 daily

The opening hours of any A1 Use Class premises shall be restricted to the following:

07.00 - 24.00 daily

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the locality

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

in accordance with Policies 7 and 29 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

70- 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Amend Condition 19 as follows: 71 Murphy Street London The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Sustainability Statement prepared by CD International Building Services Engineers

dated November 2011. Page 293

The sustainability measures including the requirement to achievement at minimum a 30% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, against 2010 baseline compliant data, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

Sustainable Design and Construction 2007)

71 98 To 104 Baylis Road and 25 Amend Condition 21 as follows: Murphy Street London The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Acoustic Report prepared by EEC Ltd dated 7 November 2011.

Environmental noise levels from Page 294 any plant or ventilation system within or on any part of the building shall be 10 dB(A) less than background noise levels when measured from the nearest window of the closest residential property unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard amenity of existing and future residents (Saved Policies 7 and 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

81 604-610 Streatham High Road Update to Section 5.0 (Consultations) of officer report No change to recommendation

Members are advised that since the publication of the agenda on Friday 2 nd March 2012 correspondence has been received from Chukka Umunna MP (Member of Parliament for Streatham). Mr Umunna writes on behalf of two local residents on Colmer Road who raise objection to the proposed development.

Written objections have been previously received from both of these local residents. The objections and an officer response are detailed in Section 5.6 of the officer report.

Page 295 81 604-610 Streatham High Road Update to Section 5.0 (Consultations) of officer report No change to recommendation

Further written correspondence has been received from the occupier of an adjoining property at No. 16 Danbrook Road. A number of objections from this local resident have already been detailed and responded to in Section 5.6 of the officer report. The following new objection has been raised with an officer response provided in the right hand column:

Objection Response 1. The proposed The rear of the frontage block, proposed frontage block when considered would be located in tandem with the approx 32 metres from existing 5-storey the boundary with the Marqueen Tower, closest Danbrook Road

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

would form a property, and approx 44 visually intrusive metres from the closest building mass rear elevation within when viewed from Danbrook Road. These the rear of the separation distances Danbrook are considered to properties. adequately safeguard residential amenity of adjoining occupiers in Danbrook Road from visual intrusion or increased sense of Page 296 enclosure.

162 1A Brailsford Road Update to Section 3.5 (Consultation) of officer report

Members are advised that since the publication of the agenda pack further correspondence has been received from an occupier at 79 Brixton Water Lane. A written objection has been previously received from this occupier.

The letter further reiterated the occupier’s objection to the bulk, scale, siting and detailed design of the proposed development.

185- 1A Brailsford Road Condition 8 of the officer report is to be amended to read: 186 Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, full details of the refuse and recyclables storage area for the development, including elevation

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

drawings at a scale of 1:20 of the new storage enclosures, as well as a Waste Management Strategy outlining the operation and management of waste storage and collection for the residential use, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as are approved shall be provided prior to the residential occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the

amenities of the area (Policies 9, 33, 39 of the Unitary Page 297 Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policies S8 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

198 35 – 51 Bedford Road Receipt of further consultation responses None

A number of further responses have been received following the latest 14 day consultation period in relation to alterations to the rear elevation of the Bedford Road block to provide larger openings and to inform interested parties of the changes to affordable housing.

This included an 8-page document from occupies of Collcutt Lodge. This response raises the following issues:

• Design • Cycle parking • Capacity at Clapham North station

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

• Loss of employment generation • Impact on daylight and sunlight to Collcutt Lodge (including specific impact on four windows in the property. • Impact on privacy • Residential security • Layout and spacing

Response: The Inspector has set out in page 20 of his decision report that three rooms would have their ADF

reduced by about 20%. The Inspector has stated that the Page 298 ADF level is already substandard and it would be difficult to render this impact unacceptable as to warrant the dismissal of the appeal.

The other issues listed above are addressed and justified in both the report and the appendix containing the Inspector’s decision notice.

A further response was received in relation principally to the impact on daylight and micro climate of properties on the western side of Bedford Road. These issues are addressed within the report.

199 35 – 51 Bedford Road Refer to table of objections and responses and objection made against the impact that the building would create in relation to noise containment resulting from the enclosure caused by tall buildings.

Response to this objection is inaccurate and should be discounted, to be replaced with the following:

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

An acoustic assessment has been submitted with the application. This indicates that significant noise impacts will be borne by future occupiers of the development. However, PPG24 indicates these indicative noise levels can be mitigated for the benefit of future occupiers through an appropriate condition limiting internal noise levels. This condition has now been added. In relation to the containment of noise due to the nature of tall building development, this impact is acknowledged, however, it is difficult to assess and quantify this impact with indisputable precision. However, the design of the building including

building heights has been influenced by the existing Page 299 development in Bedford Road. The height of the proposed building is similar to established building heights in Bedford Road and the building line follows the established linear pattern. The scheme is therefore is an appropriate or natural response to the context which would outweigh concerns relating to noise containment in this location.

219 35 – 51 Bedford Road Correction to children’s playspace provision description. None The paragraph should read as follows:

The children’s playspace incorporating swings, small fixed rides and games integrated into the hard surface materials is to be located in the wedge to the east of the site, amongst the soft landscaped areas. This space is overlooked by properties in Ferndale Road and (the) easternmost building in the Mews block has windows in the flank elevation to provide further surveillance.

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

223 35-51 Bedford Road An addition and amendment to the list of financial None contributions to be secured through the Section 106.

An additional contribution of £27,500 is to be added to support Employment and training.

This results in an amendment to the monitoring contribution which is to be uplifted from £10,981.68 to £11,627.60.

223 35 – 51 Bedford Road An addition to the list of non – financial contributions to be None secured through the Section 106 planning obligation: Page 300

• Programme of notification of job vacancies arising from construction to Building Partnerships or other nominated agencies. • The supply of local construction trainees nominated by Building Partnerships or any other relevant agency at a ratio of 1:10 • Adoption of accredited training framework/programme for construction sector employment. A minimum qualification level of NVQ Level 2 will be sought.

232 35 – 51 Bedford Road Addition of the following condition: Add new condition:

Prior to the commencement of development, a Servicing Prior to the commencement of Management Plan detailing how each of the proposed development, a Servicing elements of the developments are to be accessed and Management Plan detailing how serviced shall be submitted and approved in writing to the each of the proposed elements of Local Authority. The development and the uses hereby the developments are to be approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the plan accessed and serviced shall be

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

permanently thereafter unless any variation is otherwise submitted and approved in agreed in writing. writing to the Local Authority. The development and the uses Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to hereby approved shall be highways users (Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary undertaken in accordance with Development Plan (2007) and Policy S4 of the Core the plan permanently thereafter Strategy (2011) refer). unless any variation is otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highways users (Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary

Development Plan (2007) and Page 301 Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (2011) refer). 232 35 – 51 Bedford Road Addition of the following condition: Add new condition:

The building will be so designed to ensure that road and The building will be so designed rail traffic noise within habitable rooms shall not exceed to ensure that road and rail the following internal noise standards: Living Rooms - traffic noise within habitable 40dB(A) Leq 18 hour 07.00hrs to 23.00hrs; Bedrooms - rooms shall not exceed the 30dB(A) Leq 8 hour + no individual noise event to exceed following internal noise 45dB(A) max [measured with F time weighting]. - standards: Living Rooms - 23.00hrs to 07.00hrs. 40dB(A) Leq 18 hour 07.00hrs to 23.00hrs; Bedrooms - Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is 30dB(A) Leq 8 hour + no caused to the detriment of the amenities of future individual noise event to exceed occupiers or of the area generally (Policies 7, 33 and 38 of 45dB(A) max [measured with F the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved time weighting]. - 3.00hrs to Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local 07.00hrs. Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 refer).

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers or of the area generally (Policies 7, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 Page 302 refer).

232 35 – 51 Bedford Road Addition of the following condition: Add new condition

A detailed scheme for the proposed sound insulation A detailed scheme for the proposed and noise mitigation measures to meet the sound insulation requirements of Condition 23, as well as details of and noise mitigation measures to mee ventilation measures for the western elevation of the the building, shall be submitted to and approved by the requirements of Condition 23, as well Local Planning Authority in writing within 6 months of details of the date of this permission or prior to the ventilation measures for the western commencement of above ground works, whichever is elevation of the the sooner. The scheme of ventilation, sound insulation building, shall be submitted to and and noise mitigation shall be carried out in accordance approved by the with the details herein approved. Local Planning Authority in writi ng with 6 months of Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is the date of this permission or prior to caused to the detriment of the amenities of future the occupiers or of the area generally (Policies 7, 33 and commencement of above ground work

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

38 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies whichever is Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded the sooner. The scheme of ventilation by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy sound insulation 2011 refer). and noise mitigation shall be carried o in accordance with the details herein approved.

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance o disturbance is caused to the detriment of the ameniti of future occupiers or of the area generally

(Policies 7, 33 and Page 303 38 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 a nd no superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 refer).

251 32 St Faith’s Road Since the completion of the report an additional objection 32 St Faith’s Road has been received stating that additional housing is not required in the area and raising concerns about the loss of the existing building, school places, noise nuisance, and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents.

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

281 32 St Faith’s Road Additional conditions

Prior to the occupation of any of the new residential units hereby permitted, details of the provision to be made for waste and recycling storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The waste and recycling storage shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before any of the flats hereby permitted is occupied and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.

Reason: To encourage sustainable management of waste Page 304 and maintain the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies S8 and S9 of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 35 and 39 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010.

No development shall commence until a Waste Management Strategy outlining the operation and management of waste storage and collection has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate arrangements are put in place for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 20 MARCH 2012 AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS

PAGE NO SCHEME REPORT CHANGES DECISION LETTER CHANGES

amenities of the area and the safe operation of the adjacent public highway (Policies 9, 33, 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4, S8 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

Page 305

DC Support DC Addendum Template (version 3) Page 306

This page is intentionally left blank