planning report D&P/3259 30 April 2015 The Triangle, /Borough Road, SE1 in the Borough of planning application no. 14/AP/3130

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 Demolition of 69-76 and 83 Borough Road, 18-26, 38, 40-42, 44-46 and 56-62 Newington Causeway and warehouse buildings to the rear of 40-42 Newington Causeway; change of use of 82 Borough Road from Class D1 Use to Class A1 – A3/B1/D1 and D2 Uses and redevelopment to provide a mixed-use development comprising eight buildings ranging from 4 to 38 storeys in height (+22.820m - +123.850m AOD) providing 529 residential units (Use Class C3), 9,950.5 sq.m office (Use Class B1), 167 sq.m retail use (Use Class A1-A3), 2,029 sq.m flexible uses (Use Classes A1-A3, B1 or D1), 4,072 sq.m night club use (Sui Generis), 96 basement car parking spaces together with access, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works incidental to the development. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.

The applicant The applicant is Peabody (Services) Ltd and the architect is Stephen Marshall Architects.

Strategic issues The key strategic issues in this case include land use, housing, affordable housing, urban design, inclusive design, sustainable development, transportation.

Recommendation That Southwark be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 91 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies.

page 1 Context

1 On 21 January 2015 the Mayor of London received documents from Southwark Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor had until 3 March 2015 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. An extended deadline has been agreed with the borough. 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 application is referable under Category 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

“Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and flats.”

“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 … - (b) in Central London (other than the ) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres.”

“Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions -…(c) the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”

3 Once Southwark Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it 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.

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

6 The site comprises a triangular are of land approximately 1.07ha in size. It is bound to the north by Borough Road, by Newington Causeway to the east, and by a National Rail viaduct to the west. It is located within the London Borough of Southwark who has defined it as an important development opportunity in the context of its plans for the regeneration of the wider Elephant and Castle area.

7 The site currently contains a range of business and other uses including offices, workshops, a dance academy, a Baptist Chapel, the Institute of Optometry a café and a car repair/car wash/car retail business. The application site excludes the adjoining railway arches.

page 2 8 Two London Underground stations are accessible from the site with Northern Line services available at Borough station (approximately 480m to the north-east) and Bakerloo line services at Elephant and Castle Station (approximately 490m to the south-west) which also provides Northern Line services. Elephant and Castle also has National Rail (Thameslink) services providing connections including Central London, St. Albans, Bedford, Luton, Sevenoaks and Wimbledon. There are also numerous bus routes within walking distance of the site which serve a wide variety of destinations in central and greater London. The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 6b (on a scale of 1-6 where 6 is the highest).

Details of the proposal

9 The application seeks full planning permission to redevelop the site for a mixed use redevelopment. It would include 529 residential units, office, retail and community uses and leisure space for the Ministry of Sound night club. Case history

10 GLA officers reviewed the proposal at pre-application stage where principle of the mixed use residential led development was strongly supported. Issues relating to the layout and site permeability, housing, design, inclusive design, energy, noise, air quality and transport required further consideration. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

11 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Principle of development London Plan  Housing and affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG  Heritage London Plan; World Heritage Sites SPG  Tall buildings/views London Plan, London View Management Framework SPG  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG; Housing SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Inclusive design 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; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

12 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2011 Southwark Core Strategy, the ‘saved’ Policies of the 2007 Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).

13 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework, Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

page 3  The Elephant and Castle Supplementary Planning Document and Opportunity Area Planning Framework, (March 2012).  Draft New Southwark Plan.

Principle of development

14 The site is within the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area identified in the London Plan which aims to develop an indicative employment capacity of 5,000 new jobs and 5,000 new homes. The Elephant and Castle SPD/OAPF, places the site within the future ‘Enterprise Quarter’ of the Opportunity Area where the main priorities are to:

 continue to support the economic and business function of the area  ensure that development opportunities provide opportunities for existing and future SME businesses  promote active uses at ground floor, particularly on Newington Causeway and London Road  promote the redevelopment or refurbishment of underused land and buildings such as Newington Triangle and Eileen House for a more consistent landscape  promote a community campus in the heart of the Enterprise Quarter  provide active frontages wherever possible  transform the environment around Keyworth Street, Ontario Street, Thomas Doyle Street creating traffic free public spaces  improve the public realm to key gateways into the university  reinforce the character of main roads through tree planting and public realm improvements  improve linkages into neighbouring areas and join up with existing programmes  create new links through areas that integrate with existing public spaces  reinforce heritage of the area particularly around St George’s Circus  Enable a cluster of tall buildings on Newington Causeway, heights with diminishing moving northwards along Newington Causeway

15 The site has therefore been specifically identified for a residential lead mixed use development, which improves pedestrian movement around the site and includes a public open space.

Housing

16 The strategic development principle for the site being developed including residential units is in line with the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.3 which seeks increased housing supply and Policy 3.4 which seeks to optimise housing potential. It would assist in reaching Southwark’s London Plan housing target of 27,362 homes within the plan period, and the Opportunity Area homes target and is welcomed.

Commercial

17 The scheme proposes nearly 10,000 sq. m of B1 office space in addition to 167 sq.m of retail space and 2,029 sq.m of flexible A1-A3, B1 and D1 space. This would assist in job creation on the site, in line with the Opportunity Area aspirations. The site is also located within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) which constitutes the strategic location for commercial and leisure activities. The provision of commercial floorspace and the job creation associated with it would be a welcome addition to the CAZ.

page 4 18 Within the submission, the applicant has outlined the proposed commercial space would provide for approximately 607 jobs (net full time equivalent) and that some employment occupiers have been identified which include, the new Peabody Head Office, offices for the Ministry of Sound, the Institute of Optometry and new Baptist Chapel.

19 The inclusion of these uses would secure a mix of uses on the site, and subject to appropriate safeguards, would be complementary to the residential units proposed and will help to activate the site at different times of the day.

Nightclub (leisure use)

20 The proposal would potentially provide a permanent home for the Ministry of Sound club that is currently located on the adjacent site on the other side of the railway arches. The scheme includes a complete sound insulation solution for the club provided in a box underground. This could potentially release the land currently occupied by the Ministry of Sound and significantly improve the environment for local residents who are currently affected by noise from the club. In addition this would serve the long term future for the Ministry of Sound and further reinforces London’s cultural offer in line with Policy 4.9 of the London Plan. The principle of the inclusion of the club in this scheme is welcomed.

21 The application for residential development on the Eileen House site (D&P/1100a), which also proposed tall residential buildings in close proximity to the Ministry of Sound site, was taken over by the Mayor who held a representation hearing on the proposal. The assessment of the case raised a number of issues in relation to residential uses in close proximity to the nightclub which will also be pertinent for this scheme.

22 It is not clear from the submission how the relationship between the site and Ministry of Sound has been, or will be, secured. GLA officers require further details of the mechanism for securing the Ministry of Sound to relocate to this site and further certainty on the future of the existing Ministry of Sound site. This will have knock on effects on the noise, energy and detailed design elements for the site, as demonstrated in the Eileen House case. The applicant should confirm that all scenarios for the noise generators around the site, including a ‘two club’ scenario, have been fully investigated and assessed. Housing

Mix

23 London Plan Policy 3.8, together with the Mayor’s Housing SPG seeks to promote housing choice and seek a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments, with particular focus on affordable family homes. The proposal provides a range of different sized units including family sized units as outlined in the table below:

Tenure/unit size 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom Total

Private 105 210 40 355 (67%)

Intermediate 43 39 14 96 (18%)

Affordable rent 22 35 21 78 (15%)

Total 170 (32%) 284 (54%) 75 (14%) 529

page 5 24 This mix would provide a range of home sizes across all tenures. GLA officers particularly welcome the increase in the proportion of larger units proposed from the pre-application scheme. The proposed mix would be broadly in accordance with Policy 3.8.

Affordable housing

25 Given the strategic policy afforded to maximising affordable housing delivery in London Plan Policy 3.12, any proposed affordable housing contribution should represent the maximum reasonable amount having regard to, amongst other things, affordable housing targets adopted by the borough. Southwark’s Core Strategy Policy 6 sets out that at least 35% of new residential units should be affordable and at least 35% should be private. The policy states that for developments of 15 or more units, affordable housing is calculated as a percentage of the habitable rooms rather than total number of units and in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4.5 of the Southwark Plan, for every affordable unit which compiles with the wheelchair design standards, one less affordable habitable room will be required.

26 In this case the scheme would deliver 174 affordable homes, which would equate to 35%, taking into account the affordable wheelchair credit. This is welcomed and would assist in achieving the affordable housing targets for the borough.

Tenure

27 London Plan Policy 3.11 establishes a strategic tenure mix for affordable housing of 60% social rent to 40% intermediate housing. The Southwark Core Strategy outlines that within the Elephant and Castle Opportunity area, affordable housing should be provided at 50% intermediate and 50% social (affordable) rented. The proposal broadly proposes a 50:50 split of affordable housing between the tenures. Given the locally identified need for this split, the proposals would be line with the intent of Policy 3.11.

Children’s play space

28 London Plan Policy 3.6 outlines that all proposals which include housing should make adequate provision for play and informal recreation based on the expected child population generated by the scheme. The submission confirms that a total of 3,507 sq.m of play space would be provided in the scheme, of which 2,510 sq.m would be provided within the courtyard and 997 sq.m at roof levels. This would meet the requirements of Policy 3.6 and is welcome.

Density

29 The site has a high PTAL of 6b is classified as being central in character. The London Plan requires density to be considered in line with the overall quality of the development including townscape, local character, spaces between buildings and public/private amenity spaces. The London Plan density matrix (Table 3.2 in support of London Plan Policy 3.4) suggests a residential density of between 650 and 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare is suitable for a site such as this. The submission confirms the development would have a density of 1,771 habitable rooms per hectare. While this sits outside the density matrix parameters, given the central location of the site within a Zone 1 Opportunity Area, and that it doesn’t demonstrate any of the usual sights of overdevelopment, a density of this level is considered acceptable providing the development provides the highest quality of design and meets appropriate planning standards.

page 6 Heritage

30 The proposal site does not contain any designated heritage assets that would require assessment attains the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or the requirements of the NPPF, but is visible from surrounding conservation areas and there are listed buildings which surrounding the site. In addition, there are a number of buildings that are considered to have townscape value including:

 The Institute of Optometry (58-62 Newington Causeway)

 Dairy House (77-81 Borough Road)

 Deeper Life Bible Church (82 Borough Road)

 The London School of Musical Theatre (83 Borough Road)

31 The submission includes a Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment (THVIA) which has reviewed the quality of all the existing buildings on site concluding that they are all low heritage value. Notwithstanding this, the scheme does propose to retain those buildings on Borough Road. This is strongly welcomed and would assist in providing a strong historical continuity and rich character for the site. However, the Institute of Optometry is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new building. While officers note that this building is not listed, and that the use would be re-provided in the proposed scheme, the building is of significant townscape interest and worthy of retention. Officers are unconvinced at this stage by the justification for the loss of this building and this part of the scheme should be reconsidered. Tall buildings / views

32 London Plan Policy 7.7 sets out that tall buildings should be part of a plan-led approach to changing or developing an area and should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on their surroundings. The Elephant and Castle SPD/OAPF outlines the height strategy for the area. A number of nearby tall buildings have been constructed or approved planning permission within the Opportunity Area, including the nearby Eileen House site at 41 storeys (D&P/1100a), 89-93 Newington Causeway at 22 storeys (D&P/2270) amongst others. The site is accepted at the strategic level, as suitable for a building of height and prominence. Therefore, the scale of development on site raises no strategic issue.

33 London Plan Policy 7.11 and 7.12 establish the London View Management Framework (LVMF), which seeks to designate, protect and manage 27 views of London and some of its major landmarks and the LVMF SPG seeks to provide a method to understand and protect the characteristics. In accordance with Policy 7.12 new development is expected to make a positive contribution to the characteristics and composition of the designated views. The submitted THVIA provides accurate visualisations from all relevant points set out in the LVMF SPG, together with assessments on the potential impact on the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate the strategically important landmarks(s).

page 7 34 The application site lies in the London panorama from assessment point 1A.2 from Alexandra Palace to St Paul’s Cathedral, but not in the landmark viewing corridor of the protected view of St Paul’s Cathedral. It would be within the river prospects from Westminster Bridge (18A.3) and Waterloo Bridge (15B.1), and Townscape Views from the north side of Parliament Square (27B.1 and 27B.2), and from the bridge of the Serpentine at Hyde Park (23A.1), but not in the landmark viewing corridor of the protected vista of the Palace of Westminster in the view. The impact on the designated views would not be significant and no identified views would be significantly affected by the proposal. Urban design

35 Good design is critical to delivering the objectives of the London Plan. Its policies and supplementary guidance set out specific requirements for the design of all developments in London. Policy 3.5 of the London Plan includes requirements relating to residential design; Chapter 7 sets out policies on lifetime neighbourhoods (7.1), inclusivity (7.2), crime (7.3), character (7.4), public realm (7.5) and architecture (7.6).

36 The design of the proposed development was discussed at pre-application stage which highlighted the following three elements that needed further consideration: the role of the internal courtyard; the quality of the north south route along the railway line; and the strategy for what buildings were retained and which were to be demolished.

37 Officers are satisfied that proposed courtyard would act well as a residents amenity space. Public access to this space during daytime is accepted as this can be easily controlled if this undermines the use of the space for the residents or encourages anti-social behaviour due to its secluded nature.

38 Officers are concerned that the proposed north-south route is severely compromised at its northern end by a combination of factors such as the narrowness of the northern entrance resultant from the retention of the cafe (86-87 Borough Road), the excessive amount of blank frontage as a result of the agglomeration of servicing and back of house uses at the northern end of this route associated with the night club, and the irregular building line which creates a number of blind corners likely to encourage anti-social behaviour. Combined, these factors will create a space that lacks overlooking or activity critical to make the northern route safe, welcoming and inviting which is a serious concern.

39 To respond to this issue the applicant is asked to reconsider the servicing bay at the north of this route. Servicing for the night club could utilise the pull in bay identified on the plan as a form off street servicing, rather than requiring the full turning head of the area behind the Ministry of Sound. This route could become a one way route for servicing vehicles only. This would then allow the applicant to review the treatment of the rear elevation of the club, perhaps providing an interaction with the public space, an alternative entrance to the residential core, or reconfiguring the layout of substations to provide an additional active use in this area. These options would give a clearer purpose to this space and ensuring better levels of activity along it.

40 While officers appreciate the difficulty and complexity of ownership issues, and wouldn’t want the scheme to jeopardised as a result, the incorporation of the existing 86-87 Borough Road site into the scheme would also significantly improve the quality of the northern part of the new route.

41 Other aspects of the scheme are generally supported. The residential quality is high, with all units meeting minimum space standards, a high proportion of dual aspect units and most cores accessed directly from the public realm which is welcome. The site is accepted at strategic

page 8 and local levels as being suitable for tall buildings and the architecture and materials present no strategic concern. However, as outlined above, any development of this height and scale needs to be of an outstanding quality, and the issues related to the quality of the public realm at the northern end of the proposed route undermine this and needs to be addressed for its design to be acceptable.

Inclusive design

42 London Plan Policy 7.2 together with the Accessible London SPG aim to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum). Inclusive design principles, if embedded into the development and design process from the outset help to ensure that all of us, including older people, disabled and Deaf people, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity.

43 All units would meet Lifetime Homes standards and 10% of all units would be easily wheelchair adaptable. The applicant should confirm where the wheelchair adaptable homes are located in the site to confirm that they are secured across a range of tenure and unit sizes.

44 The access statement submitted by the applicant confirms that all connections to surrounding pedestrian routes will have level access. The exterior approaches to commercial entrances will be level, or with gradients gentler than 1:20. All shared spaces at upper levels will be directly accessible by lift. Sustainable development

Energy

45 In accordance with the principles of Policy 5.2 the applicant has submitted an energy strategy for the development which sets out how the scheme proposes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the London Plan energy hierarchy.

46 In relation to the ‘lean’ stage of the hierarchy, a range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed. These would achieve an estimated reduction of 107 tonnes per annum (10%) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters would be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include mechanical ventilation heat recovery and low energy lighting.

47 The applicant has stated that the design includes high performance junction details with a y-value of 0.04 W/m2 K which is welcomed. However, the applicant should explain the processes in place to ensure that achieving this challenging performance level will be possible, including whether any standard details will be used and confirmation that they are applicable to the proposed construction methods.

48 In relation to overheating, the applicant has confirmed that the dwellings would perform using UKCiP 2013 Medium Emissions 90th Percentile scenario weather files, which is welcomed, but further information on this modelling, including results should be provided. The sample SAPs identified that the risk of overheating is ‘Medium’ under Part L compliance, which is significant. Additional passive measures should be included to alleviate the risk. Given the size and nature of the development, in line with Policy 5.9, the applicant should carry out overheating analysis (following CIBSE guidance TM52 and TM49) on some sample dwellings to ensure the passive design measures chosen are sufficient to avoid overheating risk (and consequently cooling demand) now and in the future. The submission should be clear that these studies have taken plans with account to relevant noise receptors around the site.

page 9 49 In relation to the ‘clean’ stage the applicant has identified that there are no existing or planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development, noting that the neighbouring Scovell Estate’s system does not have spare capacity. The application should provide evidence of correspondence with the operators of this network to confirm this is the case. The applicant should commit to ensuring that the development is designed to allow for future connection to a district heating network should one become available. The applicant should detail how this would be achieved.

50 A site heat network is proposed that all buildings would be connected to. However, confirmation should be provided that all non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. The site network would be supplied from a single energy centre measuring 426sq.m and located in the basement of block B with chilling plant on the roof of block B. This is welcomed.

51 The applicant is also proposing to install a 100 kWe gas fired CHP unit as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP has been sized to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a proportion of the space heating, however, further information should be provided on its sizing as it appears relatively small for the size of the development. Monthly load profiles (in KWh/month) should be provided which show the proportion of the load to be met by CHP and proposed running hours. Currently, this stage would result in a reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 126 tonnes per annum (14%).

52 Further information should be provided on the sizing of the CHP as a 100kWe engine appears relatively small for the size of the development.

53 The final ‘green’ stage of the hierarchy is proposed to be addressed with the installation of

868 sq.m photovoltaic panels on the roof. This would provide a reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 63 tonnes per annum (8%).

54 Overall, a reduction in 296 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, which is equivalent to an overall saving of 29%. This falls short of the targets within London Plan Policy 5.2. While it is accepted that there is little further potential for carbon dioxide reductions onsite, in liaison with the borough, the applicant should ensure the short fall in reductions is met off-site.

Noise

55 London Plan Policy 7.15 states that policies throughout the London Plan will be implemented in order to reduce and manage noise to improve health and quality of life. The inclusion of space for a nightclub in the scheme is likely to raise noise issues and the borough should confirm that the noise emitted from the use would not compromise living conditions of existing and future occupiers. The impact of the railway and all adjoining roads and activities should also be considered.

56 In addition, in its current location, the Ministry of Sound club has a 24 hour licence to operate a nightclub on its site seven days a week. It has a small outdoor courtyard, and patrons queue along Gaunt Street and Newington Causeway to gain entry. The terms of its licence allow for ‘late-night refreshment’ in the outdoor courtyard, but no not allow any other outside licensable activities (including live performances or playing music) after 22:30. Unless the future of this site can be confirmed and secured, the assessment of the case should include an assessment of the residential quality with the club in situ.

page 10 57 Notwithstanding this, any mitigation required as a result of the inclusion of a club on the site to ensure the future units experience adequate level of noise, such as the club dispersal policy, or construction methods of the club, should be secured by condition or legal agreement as necessary.

Waste

58 London Plan Policy 5.16 requires the submission of a site waste management plan outlining how waste will be minimised, reused and recycled during construction. The applicant has outlined the way waste would be mitigated and handled during the construction which is welcomed.

59 In relation to the operation phase, adequate storage should meet at least code for Sustainable Homes or BS:5906:2005 requirements and details should be included on a plan. Dedicated internal storage for recyclables in new residential developments and business units should make it easy for occupants to separate materials for recycling. Storage points should be easily accessible by occupants and for collection and regularly cleaned and maintained to the highest hygiene standards. The use of separate chute systems and/or waste compactors may be appropriate. Adequate space should also be provided for storage of bulky waste and reuse items. Officers recommend early engagement with Southwark’s waste department to align with their waste development plan and recycling collection services.

Water

60 The site is within flood risk zone 3a and a flood risk assessment (FRA) has been undertaken. The assessment confirms that the site is defended to 1 in 1000 year protection by the Thames Tidal Defences. Furthermore the FRA states that the site is unlikely to be affected by likely flood level following a breach to those tidal defences and would have at least 6 hours’ notice of any potential flood.

61 The FRA suggests a number of mitigation measures for emergency situations and these should be secured in any permission. Overall, the flood risk has been appropriately considered and the proposal is in line with London Plan Policy 5.12.

62 The FRA states that the development would reduce surface water run-off by at least 50%, through the inclusion of a 610m2 green roof, 755m2 landscaping and 2 attenuation tanks totalling 285m3. This is in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.13 and should be secured by condition.

Air quality

63 London Plan Policy 7.14 and the Control of dust and emissions SPG seek to ensure a reduction in pollutant emissions and minimise public exposer to pollution. The submission does not appear to have taken account of the latest CHP emission limits, air quality neutral benchmarks, up to date dust assessment and possible need for more monitoring and compliance with the Mayor’s Ultra Low Emission Zone. These issues should be addressed by the applicant.

page 11 Transport

Car parking

64 The application proposes a residential parking provision of 0.17 spaces per unit. 53 of these would be for disabled drivers, equating to one per accessible unit, in line with London Plan Policy. A car parking management plan should be secured in any approval which includes how the spaces are allocated, particularly for people who take up the accessible units across the life of the scheme. The provision of electric vehicle charging points (EVCPs) to London Plan standards is welcome and their allocation and management should be secured in the car parking management plan.

65 Local standards for residential uses in the CAZ require ‘car free’ development, which is supported by London Plan Policy 6.13. Officers believe this development should be car free, given that only 37 standard parking spaces are proposed, the site has the highest PTAL and that it has the potential for expanded car club provision.

66 Six spaces are proposed for the commercial element, which would be operational bays for Peabody. Further information and justification of these spaces is required and the applicant should investigate the opportunity for sharing these spaces with the residential uses in a ‘car pool’ or as car club spaces. This could be managed through the car parking management plan. TfL expects that all residents and commercial occupiers would be exempt from applying for parking permits in the surrounding controlled parking zone.

Cycle parking

67 The cycle parking does not accord with the current London Plan standards or the higher targets set out in the draft New Southwark Plan. The arguments in the transport assessment for the shortfall in the non-residential cycle standards is not accepted by TfL particularly given that the provision only falls short of the London Plan standards by a relatively small amount (for example 16 spaces for the Peabody office, which is the biggest shortfall). There is no mention of the shortfall in residential standards. A reduction in car parking would make space for the required increase in cycle parking.

68 The shortfall in cycling is of particular concern in this location given its extremely high potential for cycling. The site is adjacent to Cycle Superhighway 7 and the proposed Southwark Spine, as well as well as being close to the forthcoming North-South Superhighway and the Council’s emerging Quietway network. The 20 minute cycle catchment as shown in the transport assessment covers much of central and inner south London. Given the size of the size and the basement proposed, the applicant should be providing current London Plan cycle parking standards, as a minimum.

69 In relation to visitor cycle parking, the residential element exceeds London Plan standards, but the non-residential provision appears to only be allocated to the church. This should be reviewed to provide a London Plan compliant provision.

70 Access to some of the long stay cycle parking is proposed via stairs with a gully. This is contrary to the London cycle design standards (LCDS) and must be reconsidered, for example by provided a cycle land on the basement access ramp or a bike lift sized in line with LCDS. The number of doors required to access bike stores should be minimised and should be appropriate width and easy to open with a bike, and there should be a variety of spaces sizes to accommodate larger bikes.

page 12 Cycle hire

71 A 25 docking point cycle hire station is proposed on Newington Causeway. While this is welcome, the minimum size of docking station is 27 docking points, and for the scale of development, a 30 docking point station would be more appropriate. Therefore, a contribution of £200,000 towards the delivery of a station is required to be secured through the section 106 agreement. The exact location of the station will need to be agreed with TfL and the borough, as the location on the submission may not be deliverable.

Impact on transport network

72 The mode share prediction for National Rails services is high, but TfL question if this is an overestimate. This may have resulted in underestimation of bus mode effects which should be addressed. In addition, the transport assessment distributes bus trips over the whole Elephant and Castle area, over a 640m walk radius, whereas TfL considers a 400m walk radius more reflective of bus passenger behaviour. As the most attractive routes directly passing the site on Newington Causeway are very busy or at capacity at peak hours, £950,000 is sought through the section 106 agreement to provide extra bus capacity on this corridor.

73 The expanded and relocated Ministry of Sound creates a higher than usual night bus demand, particularly with departures occurring after 3am when London Underground and national rail are closed. The N35 which runs along Newington Causeway and serves London Bridge, Shoreditch and Hoxton, is overcapacity, so £550,000 is sought through the section 106 agreement to provide extra night bus capacity on this corridor.

74 The proposal includes the relocation of the northbound bus stop on Newington Causeway which should be undertaken in consultation with TfL Buses Infrastructure team. It is likely that the relocation would offer the opportunity to upgrade the shelter, and given the heavy use of the southbound stop, a provision for a shelter at the southbound route should also be secured though the section 106.

75 TfL requires further discussion on the impacts on, and options for Borough Road. There is concern about the effect of the entrance to the Ministry of Sound given that it is directly adjacent to the bus stands on the southern footway of Borough Road, and given the requirement for a taxi rank to support this use (see below), further consideration should be given to this arrangement. Funding for any relocated of bus stands would need to be secured thought the section 106.

76 In line with Policy 6.7, this proposal offers an opportunity to provide driver facilities to support the bus stands. TfL would be keen to discuss this further with the applicant and the Council.

77 The development would contribute towards TfL’s major improvement projects at the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout and Northern Line ticket hall by way of the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy.

Public realm

78 Given the new routes proposed through the site, Legible London signage should be included to improve wayfinding and encourage walking. TfL requests a contribution of £18,676 towards upgrading existing signs and installing new signs infrastructure.

page 13 Taxis and private hire vehicles

79 The uses on the site, particularly the Ministry of Sound club, mean there would be a high demand for taxis in and around the site. The submission suggests the majority of the pick-ups will happen on , however, there is no rank there and it forms part of a Cycle Superhighway. Therefore, a taxi rank should be provided on site to provide for serving of the Ministry of Sound customers and allow nearside loading for disabled passengers. TfL is keen to discuss options and designs for this rank, along with the bus stands noted above. Funding for the delivery of the taxi rank will need to be secured through the section 106 agreement. There is also a requirement to submit a taxi and private higher vehicle management plan for the Ministry of Sound as part of the wider management plan for the site, to be agreed with TfL and the Council.

Travel plans

80 The road and public transport networks in this part of inner London is at or over capacity at peak times. Therefore, it is important for the travel plan to be effective, with stretching mode shift targets, primarily away from private vehicles but also encouraging walking and cycling. Travel plans covering each land use and developed in line with TfL guidance, should be secured in the section 106 agreement. The travel plans should be supported by measures to deliver target mode shift and have a commitment from the applicant to regularly monitor and review. Incentives such as free cycle hire or car club membership should be considered. The Council should also consider a financial ‘bond’, secured through the section 106 for further mitigation/incentives that is payable should mode shift targets not be met.

Servicing

81 Notwithstanding the comments above in relation to layout, servicing is proposed to take place off the existing highway which is supported in principle by TfL. Any temporary on-street servicing facilities should ensure there is no impact on current of future bus stands or taxi ranks discussed above.

82 To avoid conflict with deliveries and servicing for the onsite uses, including Ministry of Sound servicing on New Road, a deliveries and servicing plan, developed in line with TfL guidance should be secured through condition or section 106 agreement.

Construction

83 Given the level of development in Elephant and Caste, TfL’s Network Impact Management Team is coordinating management of construction traffic in the area. The information they hold (including routes being uses and frequent flow of vehicles) can be used to better plan for adverse impacts and identify programme risks. A construction logistics plan should be secured through condition which includes a commitment for the developer to input into the Network Impact Management Team and should include the following information:

 Date of construction phases  Average daily vehicle numbers  Vehicle frequency  Origin, route and destination for each type of material movement  Measures to maximise the use of FORS contractors  Measures to protect pedestrians and cyclists  Impacts on bus infrastructure

page 14 84 The Northern Line tunnels run under Newington Causeway, so detailing of piling and suchlike will need to be discussed and agreed with London Underground Infrastructure Protection. A condition requiring this should be placed on any approval. Community Infrastructure Levy

85 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and it will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater London that was granted planning permission on or after that date. The Mayor's CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail.

86 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for is £35/sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and Council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised. See the 2010 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents as amended by the 2011 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made.

87 London borough councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Southwark has adopted a scheme. See the Council’s website for more details. Local planning authority’s position

88 The local authority is currently considering the application but the committee date has not yet been set. Legal considerations

89 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

90 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

91 London Plan policies on land use, housing, affordable housing, heritage, tall buildings and views, urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport are relevant to this application. While the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, on balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan. The following changes, however, may remedy the current deficiencies:

page 15  Mix of uses: Further details of the mechanism for securing the relocation of the Ministry of Sound to this site and further certainty on the future of the existing Ministry of Sound site should be prioritised given the potential impact on environmental assessment in a ‘dual club’ scenario.

 Housing: The entrance to the residential units should be reviewed maximising the ability for residents to access from the street.

 Heritage: While the retention of the buildings of townscape value on Borough Road is welcomed, GLA officers require further details of the Institute of Optometry building cannot be retained and incorporated into the scheme.

 Urban design: The layout of the scheme should be reviewed. Of particular concern is the servicing area to the rear of the Ministry of Sound and the effect this has on the activation of the route along the railway and the safety of this for future users.

 Inclusive design: Further details should be provided that demonstrate the location, tenure and size of the wheelchair adaptable units to ensure they provided for all needs.

 Sustainable development: Further details of the high performance junction details with a y-value of 0.04 W/m2 K are required. Officers believe further passive design measures will be required to reduce overheating, and that an overheating analysis is required (following CIBSE guidance TM52 and TM49) on some sample dwellings to ensure the passive design measures chosen are sufficient to avoid overheating risk.

Evidence of correspondence with the operators of the local district network should be provided, along with details of how the site would be fitted out to connect to a district site in the future. Confirmation should be provided that the non-domestic uses would also be connected to the site heat network.

Monthly load profiles and details of the running proposals for the CHP unit should be provided to confirm that it has been sized appropriately for the development. The proposal does not currently meet the reduction target in Policy 5.2 and mitigation should be discussed with the borough.

Further information is required in relation to air quality, noise and waste.

 Transport: Further justification is required on why the scheme is not ‘car free’ and a car parking management plan is required which includes management of spaces and EVCP spaces. Cycle parking needs to be provided in line with London Plan Policy. The applicant should investigate the inclusion of a bus driver toilet in the development off Borough Road. A delivery and service manage plan and construction logistics plan should be secured, including funding for initial cycle hire and car club membership. A condition should also be secured to consult with London Underground Infrastructure Protection.

Section 106 payments are required for the cycle hire expansion, Legible London signage, bus service capacity enhancements, relocation and upgrade of shelter/provision or new shelter for the bus stops on Newington Causeway. In addition, bus standing in Borough Road and provision of appropriate facilities for taxis and private hire vehicles to serve Ministry of Sound will need to be discussed and agreed.

page 16

for further information, contact GLA Planning Decision Unit (Developments and 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 Scannell, Senior Strategic Planner (Case Officer) 020 7983 5852 email [email protected]

page 17