planning report D&P/3548/02 and D&P/3548a/02 23 September 2015 Triangle Site and Olive Morris House, Brixton in the London Borough of Lambeth planning application no. 15/02276/FUL and 15/02264/FUL

Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

The proposal

The Triangle Site: refurbishment and retention of Lambeth Town Hall to provide 8,503 sq.m. civic floorspace (sui generis use class); demolition of existing buildings and provision of a six- storey building, comprising 11,084 sq.m. office floorspace, and a part-ten part-fourteen building comprising 94 residential units; change of use to provide 26 residential units; change of use to provide a cycle hub; a total of 1,478 sq.m. of flexible commercial floorspace (A1 and A3 use class), and public realm improvements.

Olive Morris House: demolition of existing building, and erection of a part-six, part seven-storey building, comprising 74 residential units, together with 1,240 sq.m. of commercial and leisure floorspace (A1/B1/D1 and D2 use class). The applicant The applicant is Muse Developments Ltd, in a joint venture with Lambeth Council, and the architect is Cartwright Pickard Architects.

Strategic issues The principle of the comprehensive redevelopment of a number of town centre sites to consolidate council services within Brixton, and to deliver housing, is strongly supported. Outstanding strategic planning concerns relating to housing, urban design and heritage, climate change and transport, have been satisfactorily addressed, and the application is now acceptable.

The Council’s decision In this instance Lambeth Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Lambeth Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

page 1 Context

1 On 21 April 2015 the Mayor of London received documents from Lambeth Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under the following Categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

 Category 1B: “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats), which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.”.

 Category 1C: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than thirty metres high and outside the City of London”.

2 On 3 June 2015, Sir Edward Lister, Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff, acting under delegated authority, considered planning report D&P/3548/01 & D&P/3548a/01, and subsequently advised Lambeth Council that, whilst the principle of the proposal was strongly supported, the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 100 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in the report could address these deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 1 September 2015 Lambeth Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, and on 9 September 2015 it advised the Mayor of this decision. The referral was acknowledged complete on 10 September 2015. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Lambeth Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Lambeth Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application, and any connected application. The Mayor has until 23 September 2015 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

6 At the consultation stage Lambeth Council was advised that, whilst the principle of the proposal was strongly supported, the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 100 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in the report could address these deficiencies:

 Principle of development: the principle of both applications fully accorded with London Plan policies and were strongly supported. The applicant was required to provide further information on the nature and occupancy of the existing residential floorspace on the site. Further discussion with the applicant and the Council regarding the relationship of the development to the retained Electric Brixton music venue was also required to ensure its long-term operation, and its relationship to the proposed public realm improvements.

page 2  Housing: the proportion of affordable housing responded positively to local policy. The applicant’s viability appraisal was being independently assessed, and the results not known at consultation stage.

 Urban design and heritage: the overall development was strongly supported, and responded positively to London Plan policies. The impact of the tower element on important heritage assets needed to be assessed by both the GLA and the Council against the overall benefits of both applications. GLA officers welcomed further discussion with the applicant regarding a modest reduction in the tower, which could fully address all concerns raised with regards to heritage assets, without significant impact on the overall development. Further consideration was also required to be given to increasing the distance between Hambrook House and the new civic building; the public realm and landscaping design of Buckner Road; and further reducing the amount of service related frontage of Hambrook House. The applicant was also required to confirm that all units are designed to achieve a minimum of 2,600mm floor to ceiling height. Finally, the Council was encouraged to secure details of brickwork through conditions to ensure an appropriate tonal balance is achieved, and ensure that the 1950s balustrade and borough arms on No.7 Town Hall Parade is incorporated within the new civic offices.

 Climate change – adaptation: the application raised concerns with regards to surface water flood risk. The applicant was therefore required to ensure that the London Plan sustainable drainage hierarchy, contained within London Plan Policy 5.13, was implemented as part of the redevelopment proposals. Further information was also required regarding existing street trees.

 Climate change – mitigation: it was not possible to determine at consultation stage whether the proposal accorded with London Plan energy policies. Further information on energy efficiency, the proposed heating system, overheating, heat-network, and the proposed energy centre was therefore required. The applicant was also required to prioritise a future connection with any planned district heating network, and commit to delivering a site-wide heat-network linking all uses and buildings, which should include an assessment of the feasibility of linking both application sites. Finally, the applicant was required to provide the carbon emissions in tonnes per annum for all the new build elements in table format, in accordance with GLA assessment guidance, to allow for a full assessment of the proposal against London Plan Policy 5.2. Once agreed, the Council was required to appropriately secure the final energy strategy, and specifically the delivery of a site-wide heat-network.

 Transport: at consultation stage the application did not comply with the London Plan with regards to transport. Further discussions were required concerning trip generation, blue badge car parking, trees, bus infrastructure, and construction access routes. Principle of development

7 As set out at consultation stage, the principle of the consolidation of Lambeth Council services within Brixton Town Centre, which includes the retention of the existing town hall building for civic purposes, is strongly supported, and fully accords with strategic policy. However, the applicant was required to confirm the nature of the existing residential floorspace on the site, and provide further details on the relationship of the development to the retained Electric Brixton music venue to ensure its long-term operation, and its relationship to the proposed public realm improvements.

8 The applicant has subsequently confirmed that there is a single existing residential unit within the 1 Town Hall Parade building. This unit is within the freehold of Lambeth Council and is currently being occupied on a temporary ‘guardian’ basis in order to prevent unauthorised visitors

page 3 to the building. The loss of this floorspace is off-set by the provision of 194 residential units, and accords with London Plan Policy 3.14.

9 At consultation stage the Council was required to ensure that the relationship between the long-term operation of the Electric music venue and the proposed development was appropriately addressed. As set out in detail in the Council’s committee report, the emerging Local Plan allocates the site occupied by the Electric as a music venue, and includes specific local policies that seek to ensure the retention of existing cultural uses. The building is also locally listed. The positioning of office uses adjacent to the music venue is not considered by the Council to present any conflict in relation to undue noise as a result of the two uses operating at alternative times of the day and night. The proposal appropriately accommodates the servicing requirements of the Electric, including its need for large coach and mobile broadcasting vehicles, which will help support its operation. The Council has also secured the provision of a screening strategy, to include elevation works, for the rear of the venue to address the current poor environment along Buckner Road at this location, presently dominated by shipping containers and a refuse compacter. This will ensure the rear building facade contributes to the wider public realm improvements sought for Buckner Road, and will provide an improved relationship to the street, and as such is strongly supportive. Housing

10 The application includes a total of 78 affordable housing units, representing 40% of overall housing provision. At consultation stage it was not possible to determine whether the proposal provided the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, and therefore whether the proposal accorded with London Plan Policy 3.12. The applicant’s viability report has been subject to independent assessment on behalf of the Council, which concluded that this represents the maximum reasonable amount in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.12. The Council has secured the provision of a review mechanism through the section 106 agreement, which is strongly supported. The application is therefore acceptable with regards to affordable housing and policies 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan. Urban design and heritage

11 At consultation stage the overall development was strongly supported, and responded positively to London Plan policies. However, a number of issues were raised, particularly in relation to the tower element.

12 GLA officers have subsequently discussed the proposal in detail with Council planning and design officers, and additional visual assessments were submitted by the applicant to allow for a thorough assessment of the impact of the proposed development. The discussions included a review of options setting back the building line of the northern elevation, a colonnade on this side return, and clarification on the facing materials. The additional visual perspectives demonstrate that the impact of the tower on the views from Windrush Square, St Matthew’s Gardens, and Effra Road would not harm the heritage assets in the vicinity. The view from Kellett Road, with the tower element forming a new backdrop to St Matthew’s, would create less than substantial harm to the setting of this Grade II* listed heritage asset when viewed from this particular location. However, this harm needs to be appropriately weighed against the considerable benefits brought about by this application, including the significant improvements secured by the Council to the Town Hall building.

13 The Council has secured a number of interventions to the existing Grade II listed Town Hall, including the removal of later additions; creation of a landscaped courtyard to the rear; improved permeability through the building; upgrade to existing services and thermal and acoustic installation. The proposal results in the retention and safeguarding of the Town Hall building in its original civic function use, as well as the retention of Ivor House, and delivers high-quality office provision and housing in a town centre location.

page 4 14 On balance, GLA officer consider that this harm is satisfactorily outweighed by these comprehensive benefits. The Council, in its local assessment detailed within its committee report and subsequent positive resolution, concluded that any harm to heritage assets would be outweighed by the public benefits derived from the development. The objections raised by Historic England, Twentieth Century Society, and the Victorian Society are detailed in paragraph 29 of this report, and are assessed in detail in the Council’s committee report.

15 In addition to comments made relating to heritage assets, comments were also made in relation to the need to maximise active frontage to Porden Road and Buckner Road, and the need to ensure the landscape strategy is appropriately secured and includes details of how movement will be successfully managed for all users. The applicant has stated that the inactive frontage has been limited and represents the minimum required to meet the servicing and refuse needs of the building. The Council has included a number of conditions relating to the detailed design of this element, including gate treatment and materials, and as such is encouraged to pay particular attention to materiality, to ensure it is designed to respond successfully to the wider landscaping strategy, and does not read as a continuous blank frontage. With regards to the landscaping strategy, this has been appropriately secured by the Council, including details of vehicle crossovers and access. The Council has also secured the retention of the landscape architects throughout the construction phase, which is an important element in ensuring the high-quality envisaged for Buckner Road is reflected in the completed development, and is strongly supported. There is also the requirement to appoint a public art working group to ensure this forms an integral part of the proposals.

Residential quality

16 At consultation stage a number of concerns were raised with regards to residential quality within the tower element, and particularly its proximity to the proposed town hall building. The applicant has subsequently amended the internal layout of the two affected residential units by repositioning the bedrooms to ensure these do not face the town hall building, but are afforded either an east or west outlook. The Council has also secured a flexible fritted glazing approach for the town hall to ensure that a bespoke approach to glazing is taken with a view to appropriately screening the town hall building and securing privacy for the future residents. Details of any screening required for the balconies of the residential units has also been appropriately secured. These measures appropriately mitigate the proximity of the buildings, and will ensure a good level of residential quality.

17 It is disappointing to note that the applicant has concluded that it will not provide floor-to- ceiling heights of 2.6 metres. However, whilst the 2.5 metre floor to ceiling heights proposed will subsequently not create the highest quality units, it is acknowledged that the historic context presents challenges with regards to height, and the units on balance do respond positively to strategic standards of residential quality. Consequently, and in the context of the other benefits delivered by the application, the proposal is acceptable within regards to residential quality. Climate change - adaptation

18 As set out at consultation stage, the application raised concerns with regards to surface water flood risk. The applicant was therefore required to ensure that the London Plan sustainable drainage hierarchy, contained within London Plan Policy 5.13, was implemented as part of the redevelopment proposals. Further information was also required regarding existing street trees.

19 The Council has secured the provision of a sustainable drainage scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water run-off limitations, which is supported and will manage the risk of flooding due to surface water run-off. The Council has also secured the provision of biodiverse roofs. Finally, as discussed in paragraph 25 of this report, the applicant has confirmed that the proposal does not include the removal of any street trees on the Transport for London Road Network.

page 5 Climate change – mitigation

20 At consultation stage it was not possible to determine whether the proposal accorded with London Plan energy policies. The applicant has subsequently provided additional information to address the concerns raised previously, including further details on solar gain, energy efficiency, boiler efficiency, the proposed energy centre, and district heating. The Council has also appropriately secured the agreed energy strategy via condition. The application is therefore acceptable with regards to London Plan climate change policies. Transport

21 At consultation stage, the application did not comply with the London Plan with regards to transport. Further discussions were required concerning trip generation, blue badge car parking, trees, bus infrastructure, and construction access routes. Contributions towards buses and Legible London were also requested, along with the need for a travel plan, delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan to be secured by condition or through the section 106 agreement.

22 Clarification has been provided by the applicant concerning trip generation; a contribution of £11,000 payable to the Council has been secured for the borough to deliver new Legible London wayfinding signage; a delivery and servicing plan, construction management plan and workplace and residential travel plans have been secured by condition, and the section 106 agreement also includes a clause requiring three years free car club membership for all residential units, as requested by TfL. A car park management plan has also been secured by condition. The exclusion of occupant’s rights to apply for a parking permit in the surrounding Controlled Parking Zone is included as a clause to be secured through the section 106 agreement.

23 A contribution of £270,000 has been secured to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the capacity of the bus network; TfL will require the full bus contribution to be paid upon commencement of phase one (Triangle Site); this is to be secured through the section 106 agreement. A £14,000 contribution has also been secured for relocating the bus shelter and flag, with the details to be agreed through the s106 agreement.

24 Ten blue badge parking spaces for the residential element will be provided within the basement of Olive Morris House, along with one on-street bay. It is disappointing that the provision provided falls short of the London Plan requirement for 10% provision.

25 Some large construction vehicles will need to access the site via Brixton Hill and St Matthew’s Road, which is acceptable. The section 106 agreement also includes a clause requiring the applicant to enter into a section 278 agreement with TfL, for highway works on the Transport for London Road Network. In addition, whilst not included within the planning application, TfL would expect further discussions in relation to the street tree on Brixton Hill. Finally, TfL would welcome the opportunity to further review the section106 agreement prior to it being signed. Response to consultation

Local neighbourhood consultation

26 Lambeth Council publicised the application by sending notifications to all adjoining owners and occupiers (1,812 consulted in total), and all statutory consultees (42 consulted in total). Two periods of consultation were undertaken. A total of 61 representations were received in response to the local neighbourhood consultation, in addition to a petition with 124 signatures, all but one of which raised objection to the proposal. In summary, the following issues were raised:

 Land use: proposal should retain provision for the Fridge Club and Fridge Bar; provision of retail unnecessary and inappropriate for a residential area; need for community facilities.

page 6  Amenity: loss of daylight and sunlight; loss of privacy; impact on outlook from adjoining properties; security; impact of noise; quality of refuse and recycling; quality of new flats; litter problems; smell from take-away outlets, and demolition and construction impacts.

 Transport: increased parking demand; reduced parking spaces for residents; insufficient parking for the disabled; insufficient cycle parking information; traffic congestion; increase in footfall and public transport usage, and reduction in the width of Brixton Hill footpath.

 Other: impact on local services; impact on local infrastructure; insufficient affordable and family housing; need to secure the legacy of Olive Morris; insufficient space for growing of food and plants; no justification for the demolition of existing buildings, and impact of development potential of adjoining land.

 Design: height and mass of the proposed buildings; heritage value of Olive Morris House; uninspiring materials proposed, and impact on the character of Brixton.

 Objections relating to non-material planning considerations: concerns regarding consultation process; justification for the development; need to consider alternative designs; proposed level of harm would not be acceptable if it was not a Council project; more deserving causes to spend Council money on; only reason for height is monetary; application submission difficult to understand; lack of transparency and information not provided, and tall buildings not consulted upon in the early stages.

27 With regards to the objections raised relating to design, as stated in the urban design section of this report, and the Mayor’s consultation report, the scheme has been carefully assessed, and appropriately accords with London Plan policy. The Council has undertaken a detailed local assessment and has also concluded that the design accords with local planning policy. Matters relating to impact on local amenity, including noise and overshadowing, as well as privacy, have been appropriately assessed by the local authority, who concluded that the proposed development is acceptable. Matters relating to transport have also been assessed by Transport for London, as well as the local planning authority, and on balance the application accords with London Plan transport policies.

28 Whilst the owner of the Electric music venue has objected to the proposals, this objection primarily relates to the impact of the Town Hall development on the Electric’s ability to redevelop its site. However, as detailed in the Council’s committee report, given the protection provided to the existing use, its locally listed status, and its location adjacent to the Grade II listed Town Hall Building, substantial redevelopment is unlikely to be considered acceptable in the context of local planning policies, particularly the addition of any residential accommodation

Statutory consultees and local bodies

29 The following statutory consultees provided a consultation response to this application:

 Historic England: object to the proposal due to the harm caused to the Brixton Conservation Area and damage done to the individual setting of the Grade II* listed St Matthew’s Church and Grade II listed Town Hall. Concern was also raised regarding the loss of 1-6 Town Hall Parade, which required robust justification, and the scale of the new town hall building, which should better reflect the setting of the listed buildings.

 Historic England - Archaeology: advised that the proposed development may affect remains of archaeological importance and therefore requested a condition to secure detailed investigations to ensure any remains are extensively investigated. The Council

page 7 has included an appropriate condition in response to comments made by Historic England Archaeology.

 Twentieth Century Society: object to the proposal for Ivor House on the basis that the double mansard extension would change the proportions of the classically derived building, and compete with an overwhelm it.

 Victorian Society: object to the proposal on the grounds that it will cause serious harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Town Hall, and would be detrimental to the appearance and character of Brixton Conservation Area; the scale of the new civic building; the loss of Town Hall Parade; the inappropriate tall building, and the mansard roof extension on Ivor House.

 Environment Agency: raised no objection subject to the inclusion of five conditions and two informatives related to the identification and management of risks associated with flood risk, groundwater, and land contaminants. The Council has included an appropriate condition in response to comments made by the Environment Agency.

 Thames Water: raised no objection subject to the inclusion of two conditions requiring the submission and approval of a drainage strategy to address infrastructure capacity issues, and the submission and approval of a piling method statement to address risks to its assets. The Council has included an appropriate condition in response to comments made by Thames Water.

 Arlington Lodge Residents Association: submitted an objection signed by 124 residents on the grounds that the Hambrook House redevelopment will be out of keeping with existing buildings; will reduce daylight and sunlight to existing properties; will have balconies too close to existing residents; will impact on local services, and has insufficient affordable housing.

 Pordon Road Residents Group: object to the proposal on the grounds of safety and anti-social behaviour; loss of daylight and sunlight; loss of privacy and amenity; light pollution; need to maintain cycle access, and impact of the proposed buildings on streetscape and character.

30 As discussed in this report, the Mayor’s consultation report, and the Council’s committee report, the height and design of the proposal, specifically with regards to heritage assets, has been carefully assessed, and is considered acceptable. Matters relating to impact on local amenity, including noise and overshadowing, as well as privacy, have been appropriately assessed by the local authority, who concluded that the proposed development is acceptable. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

31 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

32 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The

page 8 Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

33 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government Planning Practice Guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

34 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

35 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

36 The principle of the comprehensive redevelopment of a number of town centre sites to consolidate council services within Brixton, and to deliver housing, is strongly supported. The issues raised at consultation stage regarding affordable housing, urban design and heritage, climate change and transport, have all been addressed, and the application is now acceptable in strategic planning terms.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Sarah Considine, Principal Strategic Planner, case officer 020 7983 5751 email [email protected]

page 9

planning report D&P/3548 and D&P/3548a 3 June 2015 Triangle Site and Olive Morris House, Brixton in the London Borough of Lambeth

planning application no. 15/02276/FUL and 15/02264/FUL

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

The proposal

The Triangle Site: refurbishment and retention of Lambeth Town Hall to provide 8,503 sq.m. civic floorspace (sui generis use class); demolition of existing buildings and provision of a six- storey building, comprising 11,084 sq.m. office floorspace, and a part-ten part-fourteen building comprising 94 residential units; change of use to provide 26 residential units; change of use to provide a cycle hub; a total of 1,478 sq.m. of flexible commercial floorspace (A1 and A3 use class), and public realm improvements.

Olive Morris House: demolition of existing building, and erection of a part-six, part seven-storey building, comprising 74 residential units, together with 1,240 sq.m. of commercial and leisure floorspace (A1/B1/D1 and D2 use class). The applicant The applicant is Muse Developments Ltd, in a joint venture with Lambeth Council, and the architect is Cartwright Pickard Architects.

Strategic issues The principle of the comprehensive redevelopment of a number of town centre sites to consolidate council services within Brixton, and to deliver housing, is strongly supported. However, there are a number of outstanding strategic planning concerns relating to housing, urban design and heritage, climate change and transport.

Recommendation That Lambeth Council be advised that, while the principle of the proposal is strongly supported, the applications do not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 100 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out could address these deficiencies.

page 10 Context

1 On 21 April 2015 the Mayor of London received documents from Lambeth Council notifying him of two planning applications of potential strategic importance to develop the above sites for the above uses. An updated consultation notification was received from the Council on 21 May 2015. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 11 June 2015 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the applications comply with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The Triangle Site application is referable under the following Categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

 Category 1B: “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats), which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.”.

 Category 1C: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than thirty metres high and outside the City of London”.

3 The Olive Morris House application is referable under the Order by virtue of its connection to the Triangle Site application: “If the local planning authority receive an application for planning permission for development, which they consider forms part of more substantial proposed development on the same land or adjoining land, they must for the purposes of this Schedule treat that application as an application for planning permission for the more substantial development”. Matters raised with regards to Olive Morris House primarily relate to housing, which is being considered in the context of the housing also proposed as part of the Triangle Site application. (Insert additional text if other referral possibilities need to be discussed.)

4 Once Lambeth Council has resolved to determine the applications, it is required to refer them back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

5 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

6 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

7 The ‘Your New Town Hall’ proposal comprises two application sites within Brixton town centre; each site the subject of its own planning application. The combined sites equate to 1.683 hectares, and comprise the Triangle Site, and Olive Morris House:

page 11 The Triangle Site

8 The Triangle Site represents the main development site, comprising 1.423 hectares across a total of five distinct elements; Lambeth Town Hall; 1 Town Hall Parade; 2-7 Town Hall Parade; Hambrook House; Ivor House and The Press. The Triangle Site forms an urban block primarily bound by Acre Lane, Brixton Hill and Porden Road, and is dissected by Buckner Road which traverses the site on a broad north-south axis. In addition to comprising the five sites within the red-line boundary, the urban block also includes a retained street of terraced residential properties on Porden Road, and the retained Electric Brixton music venue, both of which fall outside of the proposal.

9 The site is located within walking distance to Brixton underground station, and Brixton national rail station, located north-east of the site. There are twelve bus routes (109, 118, 250, 59, 45, 333, 159, 133, 355, 35, P5 and 37) and five night buses (250, 159, N109, N133 and N25) serving the local bus stops on Brixton Hill and Acre Lane. The site therefore has a public transport accessibility level of 6b, on a scale of 1 to 6b, where 6b is the most accessible. The A23 Brixton Hill, which bounds the site to the east, forms part of the Transport for London Road Network.

10 A detailed breakdown of the five sites which form part of the Triangle Site application is provided below:

 Lambeth Town Hall: a Grade II Listed Building, bound by Acre Lane to the north, Brixton Hill to the east, the Electric Brixton music venue to the south, and Buckner Road to the west. The site sits within the core centre and primary shopping area of Brixton town centre, and lies within Brixton Conservation Area, as designated by the Council. The primary functions of the existing building are council offices, committee chambers, and meeting rooms, together with the community/entertainment functions within the assembly hall.

 1 Town Hall Parade: a four-storey building bound by the Electric Brixton music venue to the north, Brixton Hill to the east, 2-7 Town Hall Parade to the south, and Buckner Road to the west. The site sits within the core centre and primary shopping area of Brixton town centre, and the front of the site, as it fronts Brixton Hill, lies within Brixton Conservation Area, as designated by the Council. The primary functions of the existing building are bar/nightclub (sui generis use class), and 120 sq.m. of residential accommodation, together with a council operated, surface-level, public car park.

 2-7 Town Hall Parade: a four-storey building bound by 1 Town Hall to the north, Brixton Hill to the east, Porden Road to the south, and Buckner Road to the west. The site sits within the core centre and primary shopping area of Brixton town centre, and the front of the site, as it fronts Brixton Hill, lies within Brixton Conservation Area, as designated by the Council. The primary function of the existing building is for council offices, totalling 3,241 sq.m. together with a council operated, surface-level, public car park.

 Hambrook House: a part-five, part-six storey building bound by Porden Road to the north, Brixton Hill to the east, Arlington Lodge, a five-storey residential block, to the south, and residential terraced properties and supermarket parking to the west. The site sits within Brixton town centre, and the front of the site, as it fronts Brixton Hill, lies within Brixton Conservation Area, as designated by the Council. The primary function of the existing building is for council offices, totalling 2,860 sq.m, together with an area of private surface-level car parking.

 Ivor House: a locally listed four-storey building bound by Acre Lane to the north, Buckner Road to the east, residential terraced properties, and the Press, to the south, and Porden Road to the west. The site sits within Brixton town centre, and lies within Brixton Conservation Area, as designated by the Council. The primary function of the existing building is for council offices, totalling 3,354 sq.m.

page 12  The Press: a single-storey building bound by Ivor House to the north, Buckner Road to the east and south, and residential terraced properties to the west. The primary function of the existing building is as a mailroom and printing facility for the Council, totalling 955 sq.m.

Olive Morris House

11 Located approximately 200 metres south of the Triangle Site, the 0.26 hectare Olive Morris House site is bound by Sudbourne Road to the north, Brixton Hill to the east, Hayter Road to the south and residential terraced properties to the west. The site lies within Brixton town centre, at its southern most boundary, and adjoins, but is not within, Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area. The site comprises a six-storey building, whose primary function is for council offices, including a customer service centre, totalling 7,229 sq.m. Details of the proposal

12 Muse Developments Ltd, in a joint venture with Lambeth Council, is seeking full planning permission for the redevelopment of the Triangle Site and Olive Morris House, in a development referred to as ‘Your New Town Hall’. Taking each element in turn, across both application sites, the proposal comprises the following key elements:

The Triangle Site

 Lambeth Town Hall: refurbishment and alterations to the Grade II listed Building to provide new office and community uses, totalling 8,503 sq.m. of civic floorspace (sui generis use class).

 1 Town Hall Parade and 2-7 Town Hall Parade: demolition of existing buildings, and erection of a six-storey building, comprising 11,084 sq.m. of office floorspace.

 Hambrook House: demolition of the existing building, and erection of a part-ten, part- fourteen storey building, comprising 94 residential units together with 162 sq.m. basement and ground-floor commercial floorspace (A1 and A3 use class).

 Ivor House: change of use, and extension and alterations to, the existing office building to residential, comprising 26 units, together with 1,131 sq.m. basement and ground-floor commercial floorspace (A1 and A3 use class).

 The Press: internal alterations and change of use to provide a cycle hub comprising 218 cycle spaces, together with 185 sq.m. ground-floor commercial floorspace (A1 and A3 use class).

 Public realm works: further to the above built development, and alterations to retained buildings, the proposal for the Triangle Site also includes public realm improvements to Buckner Road, which comprise hard and soft landscaping, and provision of parking and cycle stands.

Olive Morris House

 Demolition of existing building and erection of a part-six, part seven-storey building, comprising 74 residential units, together with 1,240 sq.m. of commercial and leisure floorspace (A1/B1/D1 and D2 use class).

page 13 Case history

13 The application considered here was subject to pre-planning application discussions with GLA officers, with two formal meetings being held on 8 December 2014 and 22 January 2015. A pre-planning presentation to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for Planning was also held on 5 March 2015. GLA officers welcomed the opportunity to proactively engage with the applicant at an early stage in the development process, and strongly supported the consolidation of Lambeth Council office functions within Brixton town centre, together with the delivery of housing. However, there were a number of outstanding issues relating to housing, urban design and heritage, sustainable development, and transport. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Town centre uses London Plan; Town Centres SPG  Historic Environment London Plan; World Heritage Sites SPG;  Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Housing Standards MALP; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Housing Standards MALP  Density London Plan; Housing SPG  Urban design and heritage London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG; Housing SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG;  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; Parking Standards MALP  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail and the Mayoral Community infrastructure levy SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

15 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is Lambeth Council’s Core Strategy (2011) and saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies, and the 2015 London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011.

16 The following are also relevant material considerations:

 Minor Alterations to the London Plan: Housing Standards and Parking Standards (consultation draft).

 The National Planning Policy Framework, Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

 Lambeth Local Plan (examination stage version January 2015).

 Brixton Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

page 14 Principle of development

New civic offices

17 London Plan Policy 4.2 supports the renewal and modernisation of existing office stock in viable locations to improve its quality and flexibility. The Mayor’s Town Centres Supplementary Planning Guidance encourages the retention and relocation of civic facilities within town centres, recognising the role that public facilities can have in town centre regeneration. The Council’s Brixton Supplementary Planning Document supports the refurbishment and redevelopment of the existing buildings “ …to enable Council services to be more focussed in one location, acting as a catalyst to support mixed uses in the area”…”This strengthens the Council's administrative role and concentrates its functions in this key focal point for Brixton”.

18 The Council has a total of 18,184 sq.m. of existing office floorspace across both application sites, not including the existing town hall building. The existing facilities are scattered across six individual elements, a number of which are vacant, and raise issues with regards to inefficient internal arrangements, and poor functionality. Whilst within the town centre boundary, Olive Morris House is, at its southern edge, distinctly separate from the town centre core area. The disparate nature of the existing facilities therefore results in the lack of a coherent centre for borough services within Brixton.

19 The proposals include the provision of a single-office building comprising 11,084 sq.m. of office floorspace, which will act as the Council’s civic office in partnership with the retained town hall, and consolidates council functions currently spread both across the town centre sites, and elsewhere within the borough. A total of 2,500 employees will be based within the new civic centre. Whilst the proposal represents a quantitative reduction in office floorspace, the qualitative improvements delivered as a result of this proposal fully accord with strategic and local policy, and are strongly supported. It should also be noted, as set out in paragraph 24, the proposals also include the provision of a range of commercial uses, providing active frontages and a mix of uses, comprising a total of 2,668 sq.m.

Existing town hall

20 London Plan Policy 7.8 requires development to identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets. The Council, in its Brixton SPD, makes clear that “Given the area's strong historic character and the number of historic assets, it will be important for heritage-led improvements to be explored”.

21 Lambeth town hall is one of the finest civic structures in London, with its iconic Flemish- style tower and striking triangular form at a highly visible town centre intersection. The existing town hall building is Grade II listed, and its primary functions are council offices, committee chambers, and meeting rooms. It is identified within the Council’s SPD as a key landmark building and heritage asset. The proposed retention and refurbishment of this building is therefore strongly supported. An assessment of the proposed works to the town hall is provided in paragraph 64 of this report.

Housing

22 London Plan Policy 3.3 provides explicit strategic support for the provision of housing within London, and sets a target for the Council to deliver a minimum of 15,594 homes in the Plan period 2015-2025. Policy 4.3 supports mixed-use development, which is further supported by the Mayor’s Town Centres SPG. The Council’s Brixton SPD also supports the provision of residential development within the town centre as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the town hall site.

page 15 23 The two applications include the provision of 194 residential units across three sites within the town centre. This is strongly supported in accordance with strategic and local policy. It is understood that the redevelopment of 1 Town Hall Parade, as part of the Triangle Site application, would result in the loss of 120 sq.m. of residential floorspace. Whilst the loss of this floorspace is off-set by the provision of 194 residential units, and therefore accords with London Plan Policy 3.14, the applicant should provide further information on the nature and occupancy of this existing floorspace.

Other town centre uses

24 London Plan policies 4.7 and 4.8, together with the Mayor’s Town Centres SPG seek to support and promote a diverse range of uses within town centres. This is further supported by Policy 4.3 which supports mixed-use development. In this context, the provision of ground-floor commercial floorspace, in addition to the office and civic floorpsace, and housing, is supported, and will help to provide a vibrant mix of uses, active frontages, and additional employment provision within the town centre.

25 Brixton is identified within the London Plan as having a vibrant night-time economy of regional/sub-regional importance. London Plan Policy 4.6 seeks to support the continued success of London’s diverse range of cultural and entertainment uses. The importance of live music venues in nurturing cultural and social interaction in town centres is also reflected in the Mayor’s Town Centres SPG. The application site does not include the Electric Brixton music venue, which forms an important part of Brixton’s night-time economy offer, and is also locally listed, but the venue’s location within the urban block requires careful consideration to ensure that the operations of the Electric can continue. The Council should ensure that any potential conflicts between the long- term operation of the venue and the proposed development have been fully addressed as part of this application. In addition to the need to appropriately protect the venue’s long-term operation, its location within the urban block also requires careful consideration to ensure that the current poor environment to the rear of this building does not adversely impact on the quality of the public realm proposed as part of this development. Further discussion is therefore required with the applicant and the Council regarding how the necessary works can be appropriately secured. The issue of public realm is also discussed in detail in paragraph 49 of this report.

26 The redevelopment of 1 Town Hall Parade includes the loss of the existing club/bar known as the Fridge Bar (sui generis use class). As set out above, the night-time economy is an important element in the diversity of town centres. However, there is no strategic or local policy which protects sui generis club/bar uses. The proposals include the provision of a range of ground-floor commercial cafe and restaurant uses, which will provide for an element of night-time activity within the development. As such the loss of this unit does not raise strategic concern. However, the Council should satisfy itself that the loss of this unit is acceptable in the context of promoting and supporting the night-time economy within Brixton.

Summary

27 The principle of the consolidation of Lambeth Council services within Brixton Town Centre, which includes the retention of the existing town hall building for civic purposes, is strongly supported, and fully accords with strategic policy. The proposals will result in significant qualitative improvements to the office functions within Brixton, which is identified as a major centre in the London Plan, as well as delivering much needed housing in a highly accessible town centre location. The inclusion of a range of ground-floor commercial uses provides active frontage and helps contribute to the diversity of uses on this town centre site.

page 16 28 The applicant should provide further information on the nature and occupancy of the existing residential floorspace on the site. Further discussion with the applicant and the Council regarding the relationship of the development to the retained Electric Brixton music venue is also required to ensure its long-term operation, and its relationship to the proposed public realm improvements. Housing

29 A total of 194 residential units are proposed across both application sites. A detailed housing schedule is provided below: unit type market social rent intermediate total one-bed 57 7 11 75 two-bed 59 22 12 93 three-bed 0 26 0 26 total 116 55 23 194

Affordable housing

30 London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. The proposal currently includes 78 affordable units across the three residential elements, which represents 40% of overall housing provision (48% when measured by habitable room). Whilst it is acknowledged that the proportion of affordable housing is in accordance with Lambeth Council’s policy, given the nature of the development, the applicant has submitted a financial viability report in support of its proposals, which is being independently assessed by the Council.

31 London Plan Policy 3.11 establishes a strategic target that 60% of affordable housing provision be for social housing (comprising affordable rent and social rent), and 40% for intermediate provision. The Council, in its Local Plan, requires proposals to provide affordable housing on a 70:30 social housing to intermediate housing split. Across the three residential elements, the affordable housing is currently split 70:30 when measured by units. A breakdown of the tenure split by site is provided below: unit type market social rent intermediate total Hambrook 46 34 14 94 House Ivor House 26 0 0 26 Olive Morris 44 21 9 74 House total 116 55 23 194

32 Olive Morris House and Hambrook House both deliver on-site affordable housing at a tenure split of broadly 70:30. Ivor House comprises solely market units. London Plan Policy 3.12 makes clear that affordable housing should normally be provided on-site. However, it is acknowledged that Ivor House is a retained building, which would severely constrain a Registered Provider’s ability to bring forward a dual-tenure development. It is further acknowledged that both new-build residential elements include on-site affordable housing at a tenure split broadly in accordance with strategic and local policy. In that context, the tenure split of the development, and the approach taken to affordable housing distribution, is in broad accordance with strategic and local policy, and is therefore acceptable.

page 17 Housing choice

33 London Plan Policy 3.8, together with the Mayor’s Housing SPG, and the draft Revised Housing Strategy, seek to promote housing choice and a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments. London Plan Policy 3.11 establishes that strategic priority be afforded to the provision of affordable family homes. The proposal includes 26 family units across all three residential elements, equating to 13% of overall housing provision. In accordance with strategic policy, the applicant has prioritised family affordable provision, and as such all 26 of the family units are identified as affordable, equating to 47% of total social housing provision.

Density

34 The density of the residential aspects of the Triangle Site development is 1,163 habitable rooms per hectare (former Hambrook House), and 795 habitable rooms per hectare (converted Ivor House). The density of Olive Morris House is 842 habitable rooms per hectare. All residential elements are therefore broadly within the London Plan guidance range of 650 to 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare for central sites with a public transport accessibility level of six, as set out in London Plan Policy 3.4.

35 The density broadly falls within the guidance range of the London Plan, and is therefore acceptable in principle. However, the applicant should note comments made in paragraphs 36 and 37, and 54 and 55 of this report regarding housing quality, and the concerns raised regarding urban design below.

Housing quality and design

36 London Plan Policy 3.5 promotes quality in new housing provision, with further guidance provided by the Mayor’s Housing SPG. Key factors such as floor-to-ceiling heights, orientation, maximising ground–floor individual access points, and number of units per core, are all essential to achieving high residential quality, and are of particular importance when assessing residential quality. The Mayor’s Minor Alterations to the London Plan: Housing Standards (consultation draft) provides updated minimum space standards for new development, which largely follow those set out in the London Plan.

37 As detailed in the urban design section below, the overall residential quality of all elements is high. However, the issues raised in paragraphs 54 and 55 regarding the close proximity of Hambrook House with the new civic building, and its impact on the residential outlook, privacy, and quality of those units within the tower element should be addressed. The applicant should also confirm that all units are designed to achieve a minimum of 2,600mm floor to ceiling height.

Children’s play space and amenity

38 London Plan Policy 3.6 seeks to ensure that development proposals include suitable provision for play and recreation. Further detail is provided in the Mayor’s Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation Supplementary Planning Guidance. Using the methodology within the Mayor’s SPG, 55 children are expected within the former Hambrook House development, 26 of which are expected to be under five years old; two within the converted Ivor House; and 38 within the Olive Morris House redevelopment, of which 16 are expected to be under five years old. In accordance with the Mayor’s SPG, the development will need to provide, as a minimum, 10 sq.m. of door-stop play provision for every child under-five, and identify facilities for older children.

page 18 39 The residential development on the Hambrook House site includes the provision of three communal garden and terraced areas, which collectively deliver 425 sq.m. of shared external space (comprising 220 sq.m. at ground floor, 120 sq.m. at fifth floor, and 85 sq.m. at tenth floor). The design of these spaces include the provision of play for the under five’s in accordance with the Mayor’s Shaping Neighborhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG, in addition to general residential amenity.

40 The residential development on the Olive Morris House site includes the provision of a ground-level communal garden, comprising a total of 358 sq.m. of play opportunities, and general residential amenity.

41 The overall approach to play and recreation has sought to maximise provision in a constrained site context. Provision at Olive Morris House and Hambrook House exceeds the requirements set out in the Mayor’s Shaping Neighborhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG, and it is acknowledged that given the retention of the existing building, and the limited expected child population, no play space will be provided within Ivor House. The applicant has identified Rush Common for use by all residents, providing a total of 16,950 sq.m. of open space within fifty metres of the site, and has agreed to a financial contribution towards improvements to play provision within the common. On balance, the play and recreation strategy proposed accords with strategic policy, and is acceptable.

Urban design and heritage

42 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan, and given the scale of development proposed, and its heritage context, its design needs to be of an outstanding quality. Whilst many aspects of the scheme are generally well thought out, and the applicant has responded positively as part of the pre-planning application process, there remain a number of outstanding design concerns which should be addressed, as set out below. Comment is provided on each element in turn, addressing heritage elements where appropriate.

Context

43 Lambeth Town Hall is one of the borough’s finest heritage assets and has been a symbol of the borough for over a century. The listed building lies within the southern part of Brixton Conservation Area, which also contains the Grade II* listed St Matthew’s Church, the central library and the Ritzy Cinema (both listed Grade II), as well as the Budd Mausoleum (Grade II* listed), all grouped around the St Matthew’s churchyard gardens, and the Brixton Oval. This scheme also affects views from two adjacent conservation areas; Rush Common and Brixton Hill to the south, and Trinity Gardens to the north-west. Ivor House is a locally listed former department store built in 1930.

44 The retention and refurbishment of Lambeth’s Grade II listed Edwardian town hall is welcomed, as is the strategy to relocate most council services back at the heart of the borough within an expanded civic centre. The key heritage issues are the impact of the remodelling of the town hall upon its Grade II listed significance; the impact of the extension of Ivor House on its locally listed significance; the demolition of the historic buildings on Town Hall Parade, which lie within the Brixton Conservation Area; the impact of both the new civic offices and the adjacent new residential building (including a fourteen-storey tower) on the character of Brixton Conservation Area, and the setting of the heritage assets in the vicinity (and on the adjacent Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area), and the impact of the redevelopment of 18 Brixton Hill on the immediately adjoining Brixton Hill and Rush Common Conservation Area.

page 19 Proposed civic building – Town Hall Parade

45 Town Hall Parade, comprising an Edwardian terrace together with a 1950s corner building, make a positive contribution to Brixton Conservation Area. GLA officers agree with the applicant and Council in acknowledging that, in relation to the 1900s terrace, this positive contribution is primarily confined to the top half of the facades, the lower half having been modernized in the c1970s to create a housing advice centre. Whilst the loss of historic buildings in a conservation area is usually regrettable, in this instance a convincing case has been made for their redevelopment in order to make way for new civic offices, which will in turn reinforce and consolidate the position of the listed town hall, support its refurbishment and extend its life as the civic focus for the borough. The applicant’s conclusion that the degree of harm to the conservation area in relation to this element of the proposal is, on balance, less than substantial, is therefore accepted.

46 The proposed civic building is designed utilise the full extent of the site, resulting in three public facing edges to the building. The Brixton Hill frontage maintains the existing building line and introduces a principal point of entry at the corner of Brixton Hill/Porden Road, in order to mitigate the level change, and provide level access from the street. The corner of the block is set-back at ground-floor to define the entrance point, and provide a legible and sheltered transition area, which is welcomed. Servicing and plant frontages are located along the Porden Road frontage, which enables the amount of active frontage and passive surveillance along Buckner Road to be maximised. However, the applicant should explore means of further reducing the amount of service related frontage, in tandem with mitigating its appearance, through the use of appropriate cladding materials, so as not to detract from the quality of residential amenity

47 The simple and ordered architectural language is broadly supported, implementing a regimented reconstituted stone framework to all edges of the building, based on the classical proportions of the neighbouring town hall and St Matthew’s Church. It is a symmetrical design with two wings composed of a reconstituted stone frame either side of a glazed central bay, the south and north-facing return elevations having red brick panels echoing the facing material of the town hall to the north, and the interwar mansion blocks to the south.

48 The height of the building, at six storeys with a seventh-storey setback, steps up in scale in relation to the town hall building, and represent a considerable increase in the height and scale of Town Hall Parade (and would be significantly taller than the predominantly three to four storey scale of buildings within this historic town centre overall). However, its refined massing and appearance enables it to appear recessive in oblique views along Brixton Hill, whilst mediating between the scale of Hambrook House and the town hall, and the views submitted present a convincing case that it will not cause significant harm to the settings of the town hall or St Matthew’s Church, or to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The gridded frame is infilled with brick panels at varying points along the less prominent north and south elevations, adding a degree of visual complexity and providing a visual link to the brickwork of the town hall building. The Council is encouraged to secure details of brickwork through conditions to ensure an appropriate tonal balance is achieved in relation to the town hall building. The Council is also strongly encouraged to ensure that the 1950s balustrade and borough arms on No.7 Town Hall Parade is incorporated within the new civic offices.

page 20 49 GLA officers welcome the intention to open up and activate Buckner Road as a through route, linking the reconfigured town hall with the western entrance to the civic building. This link has the potential to provide an important functional role for council staff while introducing improved permeability for pedestrians and cyclists between Acre Lane and Brixton Hill. As discussed with the applicant at pre-planning stage, the future success of this link will be heavily dependent on the provision of high quality public realm, and including opportunities for defined areas of communal amenity space, with active frontages, to enable passive surveillance and encourage activity along the length of the link. The applicant has included a visual of the proposed entrance area to the Press cycle hub, which is welcomed, and gives an indication of the intention to provide a shared surface along Buckner Road, defined by tree planting and seating areas. However, the applicant should provide further details on this critical element as part of a wider landscaping strategy for the site, to include details of how the pedestrian route will be physically delineated from vehicular/servicing and cycle routes, to secure a safe and fully inclusive pedestrian environment.

Hambrook House

50 Hambrook House is an unexceptional commercial office building of the early 1960s, with a few features of interest, such as the ACE lettering at high-level, in addition to the top floor balcony. However, it makes a neutral contribution to the conservation area. The principle of its redevelopment is therefore acceptable as having a potentially beneficial impact upon the conservation area, and listed buildings in the vicinity.

51 The ground-floor layout has been developed through consultation with GLA officers, resulting in a consistent building line defining the southern edge of Buckner Road. Individual entrances to ground-floor units have also been included following discussions with GLA and Council officers, which is welcomed, and will align with residential properties further to the west, along Porden Road, as well as enhancing street based activity. Entrances to cores are located in prominent locations so as to be clearly legible from the public realm. As discussed during the pre- application stage, some concern is raised with regards to the extent of cycle and refuse store frontage along the northern frontage of the link between the tower and mansion block elements. It is noted that the applicant has sought to mitigate this through the inclusion of an area of communal amenity space, secured by a boundary fence. Whilst this contributes to providing a consistent edge to Buckner Road, careful consideration should be given to the treatment and materiality of the fence to ensure it is designed to respond successfully to the wider landscaping strategy, and does not read as a continuous blank frontage.

52 The building comprises a tower element rising to part-ten, part-fourteen storeys, representing a doubling in height of the existing building, becoming the tallest building in the conservation area. GLA officers raised concerns regarding this element of the proposal at pre- application stage, and whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant has reduced this element from the original concept design, which is welcomed, some concern remains as to the impact of the tall building upon the setting of the Grade II* listed St Matthew’s Church, and the Grade II listed town hall clocktower. Additional views should be provided to demonstrate how the massing and scale of the tall building will impact in background views of the listed church from within the churchyard and along Effra Road.

page 21 53 A relatively minor reduction in height of this taller element to ten or eleven storeys would ensure that this element would sit far more comfortably within its historic context and this part of the conservation area. A reduction to ten/eleven storeys would also better respond to the heights of the 1960s and 2000s residential blocks to the east of Rush Common on the St Matthew’s Estate (which are seven to eight storeys) and in view fifteen, would bring down the top of the new tower to the ‘shoulder-height’ of the tower to the Grade II* St Matthew’s Church. It would also provide a ‘book-end’ closer in height to the taller element currently under construction as part of The Junction residential scheme at the northern gateway to Brixton Conservation Area, on the corner of Brixton Road and Stockwell Park Walk. It is recognised that this would slightly reduce the total number of residential units provided by this scheme, and impact on viability, but would bring benefit to the historic environment would be considerable. Further discussion regarding this element of the proposal would therefore be welcomed.

54 As discussed at pre-application stage, the applicant is advised to explore means of pairing back the northern edge of the tower element to align with the building line of the lower, linear block of Hambrook House. This would result in an improved and more open spatial relationship with the principal entrance to the civic block, whilst avoiding a secluded area to the rear of the commercial unit, and an overbearing ‘canyon’ effect created by the combined scale of the tower and civic building. It would also provide greater distance between the upper levels of the tower, and the flank wall of the civic building, thereby optimising daylight/sunlight levels to north-facing units, whilst helping to alleviate overlooking and privacy issues. Increasing the distance between Hambrook House and the civic building would also provide an improved and more sympathetic massing and townscape configuration along Brixton Hill.

55 The proposal demonstrates a relatively high level of residential quality, with the inclusion of 80 per cent dual-aspect units, and efficient core to unit ratios. All units are designed to meet the Mayor’s minimum space standards and balcony amenity space within the tower is recessed to provide a level of shelter from the noise and traffic along Brixton Hill. The applicant should provide confirmation that all units are designed to achieve a minimum of 2,600mm floor to ceiling height to ensure acceptable levels of daylight/sunlight penetration are achieved, particularly for single- aspect units facing onto the rear of the civic building, which have a predominantly north-facing aspect. As discussed above, the proximity of the southern edge of the civic building in relation to the northern edge of the residential tower is likely to impact on privacy levels of the balcony amenity spaces, and the applicant should consider how privacy screening can be designed into the overall appearance of the tower to avoid the need for makeshift screens that could detract from its appearance once the building is occupied.

56 The western end of the block forms a consistent level of enclosure to Buckner Road and implements a mansion block typology which is broadly aligned with the scale of the civic building. This approach is supported.

57 Notwithstanding the above, the simple and refined architectural response is supported, and provides a clean-lined frontage which is setback along the eastern edge to enable the public entrance to the civic building to appear legible on the approach from the south. The use of contrasting facing materials is supported in principle; however, the applicant should be mindful of aligning the materiality of the fourteen-storey element too closely with that of the civic building, which currently results in highlighting the collective massing impact of the two buildings. The applicant should explore a more varied and muted tone of facing material to avoid this effect, and thereby provide a greater visual delineation between residential and civic related uses.

page 22 Olive Morris House

58 Olive Morris House, at 18 Brixton Hill, is a good example of civic office architecture of the Ted Hollamby era of Lambeth architecture, and is a distinctive local landmark on Brixton Hill, with its strong horizontal layered design of red brick, and continuous linear fenestration. Therefore, its demolition is regrettable. However, it is acknowledged that the building lies outside the Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area, and is not locally listed. In this context, the key issue in terms of the impact upon the historic environment is the impact of the proposed replacement residential building upon the setting of the adjacent conservation area.

59 The proposal is broadly aligned with the massing extent of the existing building, while drawing on the height and massing of neighbouring six-storey interwar apartment buildings, and as such supported. The applicant has responded positively to concerns raised by GLA officers relating to the potentially overbearing massing effect resulting from the previous iteration of the scheme, which treated the building as one continuous massing element. The introduction of a central setback, with recessed balconies, is successful in breaking the main frontage into two distinct elements, which in turn are more aligned with the proportions of projecting bays to neighbouring mansion blocks. This provides an improved and more successful streetscape and this is further enhanced through the use of high-quality brickwork, and a simple, clean-lined roof line. It has a simple red-brick elevation, well-articulated with recessed elements forming both inset and projecting balconies. The new development is therefore considered to respect the scale and massing of older mansion blocks within the conservation area (and indeed recent residential blocks on the east side of Rush Common), and exert a neutral impact upon the setting of this conservation area.

60 The proposal broadly utilises the existing building’s footprint and includes a high proportion of active frontage to public facing edges, with access to servicing and basement parking contained towards the rear of the block. This approach is supported.

61 Residential quality generally appears of a high standard, with entrances to cores positioned along each public facing edge of the block, and the inclusion of through units at the upper levels, contributing towards a high proportion of dual-aspect units, which is welcomed. The applicant was advised at pre-planning application stage to explore introducing deck access along the rear of the building, in order to maximise the number of dual-aspect units, and GLA officers remain of the view that this would be an effective means of optimising residential quality in this context. Whilst the potential impact of deck access on the existing residential properties to the west of the building was raised by the applicant as a barrier to a deck-access approach, GLA officers consider that this could have been successfully mitigated through good design. However, whilst it is disappointing that this option has not been carried forward, it is acknowledged that overall residential quality of this element of the proposal remains high, and there remains potential for cross ventilating street facing single-aspect units through the communal corridor, and as such the current layout is acceptable.

Ivor House

62 The proposed extension of the original mansard roof to create a double-storey mansard will change the character of this locally listed asset. However, there are numerous examples of double- height mansards to buildings of this era, and the careful incorporation and replication of existing heritage features should result in a completed scheme that does not exert harm and represents a sympathetic conversion and extension of this fine historic building.

page 23 63 The applicant has successfully worked within the constraints imposed by retaining the existing building to achieve a high-standard of residential accommodation, with the core positioned at the centre of the plan to provide two separate communal corridors, resulting in efficient core to unit ratios. It is understood that the existing building envelope and the need to preserve the principle frontages means that there is limited scope for providing private amenity space to all units within the block. This has been addressed by utilising the rear setback area for the introduction of projecting balconies and shared ground-floor amenity space. Flats with aspects along the main frontage are designed to exceed the minimum space standards, therefore addressing the shortfall of required amenity floorspace. This approach is supported.

Town Hall

64 As outlined above, the continued use of the town hall in its original purpose is warmly welcomed. The internal remodelling and refurbishment is appropriate, and the external changes are largely confined to introducing a new atrium structure in the apex behind the clocktower; landscaping of the rear yard; creation of green roofs on the 1930s top-floor additions; removal of insensitive post-war accretions and alterations, such as the frosted glass to the council chamber modern partitioning and unsympathetic servicing. The new ETFE roof over the atrium will be a modern intervention, but this has been used recently at the Treasury and Crystal Palace Station (both listed), and should only be visible from the far side of Windrush Square. Original features will be cleaned, repaired or reinstated where required. The refurbishment of the listed town hall is therefore supported as a significant enhancement of this heritage asset.

Conclusion

65 The proposal comprises a number of distinct elements, and the comprehensive approach taken by the applicant team to the redevelopment of this large town centre site is strongly supported. A substantial proportion of the overall development is supported, and responds positively to London Plan policies. The impact of the tower element on important heritage assets will need to be assessed by both the GLA and the Council against the overall benefits of both applications, which as detailed throughout this report are significant. However GLA officers would welcome further discussions with the applicant regarding the taller element of the proposal.

66 As detailed above, further consideration should also be given to increasing the distance between Hambrook House and the new civic building; the public realm and landscaping design of Buckner Road; and further reducing the amount of service related frontage of Hambrook House. The applicant should also confirm that all units are designed to achieve a minimum of 2,600mm floor to ceiling height. Finally, the Council is encouraged to secure details of brickwork through conditions to ensure an appropriate tonal balance is achieved, and ensure that the 1950s balustrade and borough arms on No.7 Town Hall Parade is incorporated within the new civic offices. Inclusive design

67 In accordance with London Plan Policy 3.8, the applicant has confirmed that all of the residential units will meet Lifetime Homes standards, and that 10% of the units will be capable of easy adaptation for wheelchair users, distributed across tenures and unit sizes. This requirement should be secured by the Council through condition.

68 The provision of a fully accessible route linking the existing town hall to the new civic building is fully supported in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.2. However, as detailed in paragraph 49 of this report, the design of this route needs to be carefully considered, and the needs of disabled and less-ambient users should be fully addressed, particularly in the context of shared surfaces, cyclists, and on-site parking provision.

page 24 Climate change - adaptation

69 The proposal includes a number of measures in response to strategic policies regarding climate change adaptation, including use of low energy lighting and energy efficient appliances, metering, high levels of insulation, low water use sanitary-ware and fittings, in addition to biodiverse roofs.

70 There are areas of significant surface water flood risk in relatively close proximity to the Brixton town hall site. Surface water from the site is likely to exacerbate this risk. Therefore it is important that the London Plan sustainable drainage hierarchy, contained within London Plan Policy 5.13, is implemented as part of the redevelopment proposals.

71 The Council has been one of the leading London boroughs in trialling and promoting sustainable drainage solutions, and the Council’s drainage team is well placed to advise on appropriate techniques. It is acknowledged that, given the nature and location of the proposals, there may be some limitations on the range of techniques available. However, green roofs, permeable pavements, raingardens and potentially a rainwater harvesting system are likely to be viable options.

72 The applicant has included green roofs as part of the design of the new civic building, but other techniques have been dismissed in the submission documents. In light of the surface water flood risk, the applicant should ensure that appropriate sustainable drainage measures are incorporated into the development’s design. These measures should be appropriately secured by the Council.

73 London Plan Policy 5.10 seeks to encourage urban greening, including tree planting. There are a number of existing street trees on Brixton Hill. As detailed in paragraph 94 of this report, further information on the impact of the proposed development on the existing trees is required, in addition to any mitigation measures. Climate change - mitigation

74 The applicant has broadly followed the London Plan energy hierarchy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, further revisions and additional information is required before the strategy can be assessed, and compliance with the London Plan verified.

Energy efficiency

75 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include mechanical ventilation heat recovery, and low energy lighting. The applicant is also proposing energy efficiency measures for the retained elements including, low energy lighting and improvements to the facade where applicable, which is welcomed.

76 The reported efficiency of the proposed gas boiler appears high. The applicant should provide a manufacturer data sheet to demonstrate that this high efficiency is achievable. The applicant should also note that the system efficiencies of heating systems used in the energy assessment should be based on gross values, and update the modelling where necessary.

77 The demand for cooling will be minimised through openable windows, solar control glazing, and external shading. The applicant has undertaken a modelling analysis which shows that the solar radiation is reduced through the incorporation of the above design features. The applicant has also provided Part L compliance data sheets of the sample dwellings, which indicate that there is only a slight risk of high summer temperatures for the Part L assessment. The applicant should also provide the BRUKL worksheets demonstrating compliance with Part L solar gain limits.

page 25 78 The development is estimated to comply with 2013 Building Regulations through energy efficiency measures alone for the new build elements. However, carbon emissions in tonnes per annum for all the new build elements within the application should be provided in table format in accordance with GLA assessment guidance (https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ GLA%20guidance%20on%20preparing%20energy%20assessments%20April%202015.pdf). The applicant should also note that the carbon emissions of the retained elements should be presented separately from the new build total emission figures.

79 The reported carbon reductions quoted for the ‘be lean’ element of the hierarchy appear high for the measures proposed in the energy statement. The applicant should provide sample SAP sheets (both DER and TER sheets) and BRUKL sheets for efficiency measures alone (i.e. before combined heat and power, and photovoltaics) to support the savings claimed.

District heating and renewables

80 The applicant should carry out an investigation into whether there are any existing or planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development. The London Heat Map indicates that the development is on the border of a district heating opportunity area. The applicant should therefore contact the local borough energy officer to determine the current situation of this opportunity area; evidence of any correspondence should be provided. Should there be no connection opportunities, the applicant should provide a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network.

81 The applicant is proposing to install a site-wide heat-network, connecting all buildings, with the exception of Olive Morris House. The applicant should confirm that all apartments and non- domestic building uses will be connected to the site-wide heat-network. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided. The applicant should also investigate the viability of connecting the Olive Morris House site to the Triangle Site heat network, rather than implement a standalone system.

82 The site-wide heat-network will be supplied from a single energy centre. Further information on the floor area and location of the energy centre should be provided. The applicant should provide a layout drawing of the energy centre including space allocated for a future connection to a district heating, such as heat exchangers and pumps.

Summary

83 It is not possible to determine at this stage whether the proposal accords with London Plan energy policies. Further information on energy efficiency, the proposed heating system, overheating, heat-network, and the proposed energy centre is required. The applicant should prioritise a future connection with any planned district heating network, and commit to delivering a site-wide heat-network linking all uses and buildings, which should include an assessment of the feasibility of linking both application sites. Finally, the applicant should provide the carbon emissions in tonnes per annum for all the new build elements in table format, in accordance with GLA assessment guidance, to allow for a full assessment of the proposal against London Plan Policy 5.2. Once agreed, the Council should appropriately secure the final energy strategy, and specifically the delivery of a site-wide heat-network.

page 26 Transport

Car and cycle parking

84 The office element of the Triangle Site is car-free, with the exception of six Blue Badge parking spaces to be provided on Buckner Road for staff of the new civic office, which is strongly supported. Whilst TfL also supports the car-free nature of the residential elements, there is concern that only one Blue Badge parking space is proposed. Blue Badge parking should be provided for up to 10% of units, if required, in line with London Plan standards for accessible homes. This provision does not necessarily need to be on-site, although if off-site provision is proposed their location should be identified and secured. Two car-club bays are proposed on Porden Road, which is supported. Car club membership for occupants of the development should form part of the travel planning measures to be secured in the section 106 agreement. Furthermore, TfL expects all future residents be exempt from eligibility for car parking permits in the surrounding area. This should also be secured by planning condition, or through the section 106 agreement.

85 The applicant has not identified provision for taxis within the development. Adequate provision should be considered through the transport assessment, with safe and legal points for taxis to pick-up and drop-off identified and secured.

86 Cycle parking provision for both the office and residential elements of the development is in line with London Plan cycle parking requirements and should be appropriately secured by the Council through condition. All cycle parking spaces should be easily accessible from adjacent cycle routes, and appropriate signage, preferably using the Legible London system, should be provided.

Trip generation and public transport

87 TfL has a number of outstanding issues concerning the trip generation methodology used by the applicant, and therefore further discussion is required to ensure a robust approach is agreed, and any appropriate mitigation measures identified and secured.

88 At this stage, the trip generation assessment indicates that the development is predicted to generate an additional 211 two-way bus trips in the AM peak hour, and a further 138 in the PM peak hour. As highlighted above, once the trip generation assessment has been agreed, TfL will advise whether a contribution for additional bus services, and any other necessary mitigation measures, is required.

89 As part of pre-application discussions, the applicant requested the relocation of a bus stop on the Transport for London Road Network, and TfL has been working with the applicant to agree the location and design of the repositioned stop. Whilst the application documents do not refer to the relocation of the bus stop, if the relocation is still proposed all associated costs would need to be funded by the applicant; this requirement will need to be appropriately secured by the Council through the section 106 agreement.

Travel planning

90 ATTrBuTe compliant residential and workplace travel plans have been provided. The full travel plans, and any necessary measures or financial requirements, should be secured, enforced, funded, and monitored as part of a section 106 agreement.

91 TfL are in ongoing discussion with the applicant concerning construction vehicle access to the site. A construction logistics plan, including phasing and implementation plans, should be produced and secured by condition. The construction logistics plan should be drafted in line with TfL’s new guidance available at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/freight/ planning/construction- logistics-plans?intcmp=7830, and promote road safety in line with current good practice (http://www.clocs.org.uk/).

page 27 92 TfL should be consulted on the discharge of the construction logistics plan at the earliest opportunity. This will allow the assessment of cumulative impacts. TfL would welcome firm proposals to monitor the construction logistics plan, and provide reporting to the local planning authorities. Monitoring and regular re-evaluation of performance against objectives would ensure that the construction logistics plan remains fit-for-purpose.

93 A delivery and servicing plan has been produced, which is welcomed. The plan should be secured by condition.

Trees

94 As part of pre-application discussions with the applicant, TfL has raised concerns regarding the loss of mature trees on the Transport for London Road Network. However, the application documents do not refer to loss of trees. If any removal is still proposed it should be noted that TfL will require further discussions, and would require detailed justification and approval by TfL’s Director of Asset Management.

Summary

95 In summary, the application does not currently comply with the London Plan with regards to transport. Further discussions are therefore required concerning trip generation, Blue Badge car parking, trees, bus infrastructure, and construction access routes. Community Infrastructure Levy

96 In accordance with Policy 8.3 of the London Plan, the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into effect on 1st April 2012. All new developments that create 100 sq.m. or more of additional floor space are liable to pay the Mayoral CIL. The levy is charged at £35 per square metre of additional floor space in the London Borough of Lambeth. Local planning authority’s position

97 The Council has yet to consider a report on this application at its planning committee. Legal considerations

98 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

99 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

page 28 Conclusion

100 London Plan policies on town centres, housing, urban design and heritage assets, inclusive design, climate change, and transport are relevant to this application. Whilst the principle of the consolidation of Lambeth Council offices within Brixton town centre, in addition to the delivery of housing, is strongly supported, a number of strategic concerns are raised, and consequently the application does not accord with London Plan Policy:

 Principle of development: The principle of both applications fully accord with London Plan policies and are strongly supported. The applicant should provide further information on the nature and occupancy of the existing residential floorspace on the site. Further discussion with the applicant and the Council regarding the relationship of the development to the retained Electric Brixton music venue is also required to ensure its long-term operation, and its relationship to the proposed public realm improvements.

 Housing: the proportion of affordable housing responds positively to local policy. The applicant’s viability appraisal is being independently assessed, and the results not known at this stage.

 Urban design and heritage: the overall development is strongly supported, and responds positively to London Plan policies. The impact of the tower element on important heritage assets will need to be assessed by both the GLA and the Council against the overall benefits of both applications. GLA officers would welcome further discussion with the applicant regarding a modest reduction in the tower, which could fully address all concerns raised with regards to heritage assets, without significant impact on the overall development. Further consideration should also be given to increasing the distance between Hambrook House and the new civic building; the public realm and landscaping design of Buckner Road; and further reducing the amount of service related frontage of Hambrook House. The applicant should also confirm that all units are designed to achieve a minimum of 2,600mm floor to ceiling height. Finally, the Council is encouraged to secure details of brickwork through conditions to ensure an appropriate tonal balance is achieved, and ensure that the 1950s balustrade and borough arms on No.7 Town Hall Parade is incorporated within the new civic offices.

 Climate change – adaptation: the application raises concerns with regards to surface water flood risk. The applicant should therefore ensure that the London Plan sustainable drainage hierarchy, contained within London Plan Policy 5.13, is implemented as part of the redevelopment proposals. Further information is also required regarding existing street trees.

 Climate change – mitigation: it is not possible to determine at this stage whether the proposal accords with London Plan energy policies. Further information on energy efficiency, the proposed heating system, overheating, heat-network, and the proposed energy centre is required. The applicant should prioritise a future connection with any planned district heating network, and commit to delivering a site-wide heat-network linking all uses and buildings, which should include an assessment of the feasibility of linking both application sites. Finally, the applicant should provide the carbon emissions in tonnes per annum for all the new build elements in table format, in accordance with GLA assessment guidance, to allow for a full assessment of the proposal against London Plan Policy 5.2. Once agreed, the Council should appropriately secure the final energy strategy, and specifically the delivery of a site-wide heat-network.

 Transport: the application does not currently comply with the London Plan with regards to transport. Further discussions are therefore required concerning trip generation, blue badge car parking, trees, bus infrastructure, and construction access routes.

page 29

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Sarah Considine, Principal Strategic Planner, case officer 020 7983 5751 email [email protected]

page 30