Lambeth Planning Applications Committee

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Case Number: 17/04180/FUL Application Address: 157 Waterloo Road - SE1 8XA o o 9 t t 0 9 8 1 5 72 2 7 o The Old Vic 1 t 4 1 2 Play Area Recreation Ground 3 T 2 E o E t R 0 T 2 8 3 S 2 9 3 El D 1 1 Sub to to Sta 5 OR F 6 6 London F 1 3 U 7 City W PH W 5 F 1 E Mission 1 3 B o 1 B t SM E 0 R 6 1 G SM S o T 9 v R W e E A rn E TE m SM T E R 1 e S e 3 n O s L t 1 5 3 u O 3 O SM L 5 t C o O o ffi to H N R 1 c I 7 in 5 e L 3 t O 5 s P n A 1 A e D u 9 H Q C 3.8m 3 2.9m Sports Court 0 ames Court PH 27 S h T e E S l E h te R 2.7m e r T lt e S r Y Play Area A R 6 e G s 6 u Barons Place C 3 o O o H 8 RA t n o L 9 ti t ST n 2 R e 0 E u 1 6 ET Hotel Q 1 to 1 t vi o 2 1 E 8 4 dg 8 C 1 2 e A o H L 6 t ou P 2 2 s 3 e S o 8 W ' t 4 O N y R d O R B R 0 1 Quentin A 5 E B 1 B t L B o t House B d o E 2 1 n R 8 8 W 0 a 7 t C 1 6 s 8 Hotel 5 n 3.5m 9 o 1 C 9 1 D ro e 2 o la 20 B rc 4 h 6 H 48 o Legend 1 o t 9 5 e t 26 3 s o 4 u 2 o 1 0 o 9 t H 2 3 A 1 3 6 t 4 lg t 1 4 a o 2 e 2 r 2 e 2 H 5 r 0 o G 7 u se e s r c e Da t r 1 T an u a n to E ul e u 24 y 2 E b q 6 2 3 0 8 1 H R d 1 3 m 1 9 2 o T a 4 A 7 1 u s S e 5 1 e n 55 H 2 2 o o T 3 5 t t N 2 2 o d e E 4 3.5m A 1 44 c 4 0 3 W 4 n i E 8 4 3 O 2 0 M o v 1 2 r R 4 R R L 9 5 e T R LB A S 6 S E E 1 Y 7 B P 3 5 0 o 1 7 5 B t E 1 E 0255012.5 Scale: Meters Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2012.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA 100019338 ADDRESS: 157 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8XA

Application Number: 17/04180/FUL Case Officer: Sarah MacAvoy

Ward: Bishops Date Received: 25/08/2017

Proposal: Erection of a 5-storey extension above the service yard area to provide an additional 35 bedrooms for the existing hotel (Class C1)) and other associated works

Drawing numbers: A-025-005 Rev P0; A-000-002 P0; A-025-001 P0; A-025-002 P0; A-025- 003 P0; A-025-004 P0; A-025-0121 P0; A-025-110 P0; A-025-122 P0; A-025-123 P0; A-100-001 P1; A-100-002 P2; A-100-003 P2; A-100-005 P1; A-100-110 P1; A-100-121 P1; A-100-122 P1; A- 000-001 P0; A-100-123 P1; 2460 FRA1 Rev A Final

Documents: Operational Plan; Sustainability and Energy Statement; Townscape, Heritage & Visual Assessment; Daylight and sunlight report V3; Design and Access Statement August 2017; Parts 1-3; Sustainability and Energy Statement dated 20 October 2017; Transport for London Response Note dated October 2017; Transport Statement dated August 2017, Transport Response – Coach Parking dated March 2018

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the planning obligations listed in this report.

2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

• Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning, Transport and Development (in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair) considers reasonably necessary; and • Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms as the Director of Planning, Transport and Development (in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair) considers reasonably necessary.

3. That if the Section 106 Agreement is not signed by 1 December 2018 the Director of Planning, Transport and Development be given delegated powers to consider refusing the application in the absence of a legal agreement.

4. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

Applicant: Rising Star (Waterloo) Ltd Agent: Iceni Projects Ltd

SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations: Type of designation Applicable designation Central Activities Zone (CAZ) Waterloo Flood Zone 3

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area 0.24 hectares

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (Gross Internal Area) Existing C1 Hotel 10,764 square metres (sqm)

Proposed C1 Hotel 11,960 sqm (an additional 1,196sqm)

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Car Parking Bicycle Motorbike Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces (general) (Disabled) Existing 0 2 26 0 Proposed 0 2 26 0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is for a five storey extension to the existing hotel in the existing service yard, which would result in an increase of 35 rooms in addition to the existing 297. The proposed land use and quantum of development is considered to be appropriate in this central London location with excellent access to public transport facilities and nearby tourist attractions. Despite the proposed intensification of the existing hotel use at the site, this would not be at the expense of other land uses in the area locally. The proposed development would not impact unacceptably on neighbouring properties, the character of the area or the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and furthermore it would not impact unacceptably on local environmental conditions.

The proposed extension to the hotel is considered to be appropriate in its siting, scale, form and detailed design, noting that it would integrate well with the adjacent buildings and would cause no harm to any of the surrounding heritage assets.

The proposed development would provide an acceptable standard of hotel accommodation, and would not impact unacceptably on the neighbouring properties, local environmental conditions or the local transport system. Furthermore, the scheme would provide employment and training benefits for local people during the construction phase of the development and in the end use of the site.

Officers consider that the development would be in compliance with the Development Plan for the Borough. Officers are therefore recommending approval of the scheme, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

PLANNING OFFICER’S REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: The application is reported to the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with (1)(ii) of the Committee’s terms of reference as it relates to a major application for the creation of more than 1,000sqm of commercial floorspace.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site lies on the north-eastern side of Waterloo Road on a prominent corner plot at its junction with Gray Street, broadly opposite the junctions with Pearman Street and Morley Street. To the immediate rear of the site is Webber Street with Ufford Street located further to the north. A pub known as ‘The Stage Door’ is located to the rear of the site on the junction of Gray Street and Webber Street. Adjoining the site to the north-west is a large office block known as Wellington House.

1.2 The site comprises a large modern hotel (Use Class C1) operated by Hampton by Hilton with a total of 297 bedrooms. The building is part-nine, part-eight, part-five storey and drops down in height along Gray Street to correspond to the ‘low rise’ development to the rear. The site features a fairly large service yard to the rear which is accesses from a vehicular and pedestrian access on Gray Street. The site is immediately adjacent to the borough boundary with LB Southwark.

1.3 The host building is not listed. However the retained frontage to the adjoining Wellington House is Grade II listed. However it should be noted that the rear of Wellington House has been redevelopment as a large office block clad in reflective panels. The site is not located in a conservation area, however the Mitre Road and Ufford Street Conservation Area is located to the north and north-east of the site.

1.4 Waterloo Road is a busy thoroughfare forming one of the main vehicular routes from north to south. It forms part of the Transport for London maintained road network and is served very well by the local bus network with a number of bus stops in the immediate vicinity of the application site. This and the proximity to Waterloo Station ensures that the site benefits from a PTAL rating of 6a.

PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposed development would see a five storey extension to the existing hotel to provide an additional 35 bedrooms for the hotel at first, second, third, fourth and fifth floor level. The extension would be located within the rear service yard and would be subordinate to the existing hotel structure by 3 floors to which it would be attached via a link. The service yard would be retained at ground floor level to enable vehicles and servicing to keep on operating as it does currently. The extension would be constructed using pre cast concrete panel cladding to match the existing hotel rear façade.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

86/00325/PLANAP - Application Permitted - Decision date: 30.11.1987 Erection of a lift extension at roof level for access by the disabled to the 6th floor.

87/02053/PLANAP - Application Permitted - Decision date: 04.05.1988 Erection of a 6th floor extension to provide a staff recreation area.

00/01588/FUL - Application Permitted - Decision date: 26.07.2000 Application for the removal of condition pursuant to planning permission DC/RGH/ENK/12583 dated 19/4/85 relating to the personal occupancy of the building by church organisations.

08/02096/FUL - Application Withdrawn - Decision date: 29.08.2008 Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a 12 storey 327 bed hotel including ancillary restaurant, cafe/bar, meeting/conference facilities and dry gym along with cycle storage, disabled parking and associated landscaping.

08/04374/FUL - Application Permitted - Decision date: 16.02.2009 Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a part 9, part 8, part 5 storey plus basement 278 bed hotel including ancillary restaurant, cafe/bar, meeting/conference facilities and dry gym along with cycle storage, disabled parking and associated landscaping.

09/02914/FUL - Application Refused - Decision date: 08.12.2009 Erection of fencing to existing property on Gray Street and Waterloo Road. Reasons for refusal:

1. The proposed fence by means of its excessive height would create an adverse impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings as well as on the adjacent Mitre Road Ufford Street Conservation Area, contrary to Policies 36, 45 and 47 of the UDP (2007).

2. Due to a lack of information provided, the Local Planning Authority has not been able to fully assess the impact that the proposed works would have on the site, on the nearby listed buildings and on the adjacent conservation area.

10/00241/FUL - Application Permitted - Decision date: 28.04.2010 Erection of fencing to existing property on Gray Street and Waterloo Road.

13/01302/FUL - Application Permitted - Decision date: 29.05.2013 Installation of an external fire escape staircase to the North Elevation.

13/04248/NMC - Application Permitted - Decision date: 14.10.2013 Application for a Non-Material Amendment following a grant of planning permission 08/04374/FUL (Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a part 9, part 8, part 5 storey plus basement 278 bed hotel including ancillary restaurant, cafe/bar, meeting/conference facilities and dry gym along with cycle storage, disabled parking and associated landscaping) Granted on 16.02.2009.

Amendment Sought For 1) Relocation of hotel entrance from Waterloo Road to junction between Waterloo Road and Gray Street on the centre line of the curved facade, 2) Relocation of plant area from basement to service yard, 3) Omission of service yard roof at first floor, 4) Stair 2 frosted glass omitted, 5) Omission of recessed balconies to the curved facade on Waterloo Road, Gray Street elevations, 6) Additional external door at ground floor within the curtain walling.

13/04259/NMC - Application Permitted - Decision date: 15.10.2013 Application for a Non-Material Amendment following a grant of planning permission 08/04374/FUL (Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a part 9, part 8, part 5 storey plus basement 278 bed hotel including ancillary restaurant, cafe/bar, meeting/conference facilities and dry gym along with cycle storage, disabled parking and associated landscaping) Granted on 16.02.2009.

Amendment Sought For: 1) Condition 14 Omit vehicle turntable- the inclusion of a vehicle turntable is not considered suitable for hotel situation, 2) Condition 30- omit 'bio fuel' note- the use of bio fuels for CHP operation is no longer considered current.

13/04560/NMC - Application Permitted - Decision date: 30.10.2013 Application for a Non-Material Amendment following a grant of planning permission 08/04374/FUL (Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a part 9, part 8, part 5 storey plus basement 278 bed hotel including ancillary restaurant, cafe/bar, meeting/conference facilities and dry gym along with cycle storage, disabled parking and associated landscaping) Granted on 16.02.2009.

Amendment Sought For: Precast panels proposed to rear elevations at 8th floor.

13/06023/DET - Application Permitted - Decision date: 10.02.2014 Approval of details pursuant to condition 9 (means of access) of planning permission ref 08/04374/FUL (Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a part 9, part 8, part 5 storey plus basement 278 bed hotel including ancillary restaurant, cafe/bar, meeting/conference facilities and dry gym along with cycle storage, disabled parking and associated landscaping) Granted on 16.02.2009.

13/06106/DET - Application Permitted - Decision date: 18.02.2014 Approval of details pursuant to condition 18 (a) (BREEAM Certificate) of planning permission ref 08/04374/FUL (Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a part 9, part 8, part 5 storey plus basement 278 bed hotel including ancillary restaurant, cafe/bar, meeting/conference facilities and dry gym along with cycle storage, disabled parking and associated landscaping) Granted on 16.02.2009 (description as amended)

14/00846/NMC - Application Permitted - Decision date: 18.02.2014 Application for a Non-Material Amendment following a grant of planning permission 08/04374/FUL (Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a part 9, part 8, part 5 storey plus basement 278 bed hotel including ancillary restaurant, cafe/bar, meeting/conference facilities and dry gym along with cycle storage, disabled parking and associated landscaping) Granted on 16.02.2009.

Amendment Sought: amendments to condition 18 wording.

17/01474/FUL - Application Withdrawn - Decision date: 15.06.2017 Erection of an 8-storey extension above the service yard area to provide an additional 40 bedrooms for the existing hotel (Class C1) and other associated works.

CONSULATIONS

4.1 Statutory and Internal/External Consultees

4.1.1 Conservation and Design: No objection

4.1.2 Transport and Highways: No objections subject to a construction management plan condition and a Section 106 agreement required for 1 accessible car parking space and 1 taxi bay.

4.1.3 Transport for London (TfL):

Parking TfL welcome the additional information provided on parking. It is understood that 4 of the 35 additional hotel rooms will be for accessible use. Whilst it is understood that the 2 blue badge parking spaces will be retained, considering the number of additional accessible hotel bedrooms and the existing demand, TfL requests that an additional blue badge parking space is provided to meet the demand of use.

Construction It is understood that a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) will be secured by condition (prior to implementation).

Summary TfL considers the scheme to be broadly compliant with London Plan policy and the impacts (subject to conditions) can be managed on the public transport and highway networks. Further discussion is required regarding the allocation of funding towards strategic projects including City Hub.

4.14 Sustainability comments: The shortfall between the 35% target and the proposed 30.02% reduction proposed is equivalent to 99 tonnes of carbon could be overcome by a cash in lieu payment.

4.15 Veolia: Current refuse and recycling arrangements in place are approved for this development.

4.1.4 Thames Water:

Waste Comments Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application.

Water Comments Thames Water recommend the following informative be attached to this planning permission. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx. 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

On the basis of information provided, Thames Water would advise that with regard to water infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application.

4.1.7 Planning Policy - The officer must be satisfied that there is no unacceptable harm to the balance and mix of uses in the local area as required in ED12(a)(ii). It should be noted that there is already a high concentration of hotel rooms in the Waterloo area and moreover there are permissions for a further 3 hotels in Waterloo in the development pipeline (one of which was approved in September 2017). More information on the number of Hotels in Lambeth and those in the pipeline can be found within the Lambeth Hotels and Other Visitor Accommodation 2017 report, viewable on our website, within Section 4 of the Planning policy evidence page:

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy- evidencebase

The officer should carefully check that the proposed hotel extension would meet all of the provisions outlined in Policy ED12 parts a-d.

4.1.8 The Environment Agency – No objection subject to a condition requiring a flood response plan or flood warning/evacuation plan.

4.2 Other Consultees

4.3 Adjoining owners/occupiers

4.3.1 Letters were sent to immediately adjoining occupiers. Site notices were placed around the site on the 3rd of October 2017 and the application was advertised in the local paper. The statutory consultation period ended on 12.10.2017. In response to consultation, 2 letters of representation have been submitted.

4.3.2 2 letters of objection were received, a summary of the concerns raised is set out below:

Summary of objections Response

The proposal is contrary to Policies D4 The proposal has been assessed against and ED12 in the Lambeth Local Plan. all material planning considerations in the report below.

Transport It will have an impact on traffic safety The impact on highway safety has been and congestion in Gray Street. Despite assessed in the report below. the double lines in Gray Street, taxis regularly park in Gray Street to drop off and pick up hotel guests and this proposed extension will lead to an increase in the number of taxis making a current problem worse.

If granted, the new development should A taxi bay would be paid for by the be used as an opportunity to address a applicant as part of a section 106 current traffic problem by providing taxi agreement if this application is granted by drop off bays inset into the pavement the Planning Committee. outside the hotel in order that guests can be picked up and dropped off safely without causing traffic congestion.

Since the development of the hotel, the Noted. number of residents parking bays in Gray Street has been reduced from approximately 10 to 3. It is difficult to have more bays in the street as the larger vehicles servicing the hotel have difficulty turning into the hotel when there are parked cars adjacent to the service yard entrance.

The transport statement is incorrect as The inaccuracy in the transport statement it states that Gray Street has single line is noted but this inaccuracy has not markings and 3-4 on street parking affected the recommendation for this bays. This is incorrect as this road now application. has predominantly double lines and has parking restrictions applied with 3 residents parking bays.

The applicant is relying on historic The proposed development has been information. Taxi and Uber use has assessed by the Transport Officer and risen dramatically since the Thistle has been found to be acceptable in this Hotel study written 10 years ago which regard – subject to conditions and s106 states that most hotel guests will use contributions. This matter is discussed in public transport. Neighbour has noted depth in the report below. that most people using the hotel arrive by taxi or larger people carrier.

Waterloo Road is busy with a bus stop The proposed development to be and other street furniture close to the acceptable with regard to highway safety. junction with Gray Street. Neighbour This matter is discussed further in the has had to wait on Waterloo Road for report below. taxis to move before accessing Gray Street and people exiting taxis on the road – risk to highway safety and pedestrian safety.

Taxi and resident parking bays should This application does not result in further be inset into the pavement of Gray reduction of residents’ car parking bays. Street. There were 8-10 residents Given this and the high PTAL of the site, parking bays on Gray Street prior to the it would be unreasonable to request construction of the hotel. additional residents’ car parking bays as part of this proposal.

Delivery lorries needs to be addressed. Servicing will continue to take place off- street within the service yard as in the existing situation. This situation is considered to be acceptable and is supported by both the Transport Officer and Veolia, and this matter is discussed in depth in the report below.

POLICIES

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2015) (as amended by the Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2016), and the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

5.3 The National Planning Policy Framework was published in 2012. This document sets out the Government’s planning policies for England including the presumption in favour of sustainable development and is a material consideration in the determination of all applications.

5.4 The current planning application has been considered against all relevant national, regional and local planning policies as well as any relevant guidance. Set out below are those policies most relevant to the application, however, consideration is made against the development plan as a whole.

5.5 The London Plan (2016) - 2.10 Central Activities Zone – Strategic Priorities - 2.11 Central Activities Zone – Strategic Functions - 2.12 Central Activities Zone – Predominantly Local Activities - 4.3 Mixed Use Development and Offices - 4.5 London’s Visitor Infrastructure - 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation - 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions - 5.6 Decentralised Energy Networks - 5.7 Renewable Energy - 5.9 Overheating and Cooling - 5.15 Water Use and Supplies - 5.17 Waste Capacity - 5.21 Land Contamination - 6.8 Coaches - 6.9 Cycling - 6.10 Walking - 6.13 Parking - 7.3 Designing Out Crime - 7.6 Architecture - 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology - 7.12 Implementing the London View Management Framework - 7.14 Improving Air Quality - 7.15 Reducing and Managing Noise, Improving and Enhancing the Acoustic Environment and Promoting Appropriate Townscapes - 8.2 Planning Obligations - 8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy

5.6 Lambeth Local Plan 2015 - D4 Planning Obligations - ED2 Business, Industrial and Storage Uses Outside Key Industrial Business Areas (KIBAs) - ED12 Hotels and Other Visitor Accommodation - ED14 Employment and Training - EN4 Sustainable Design and Construction - EN5 Flood Risk - EN6 Sustainable Drainage Systems and Water Management - Q2 Amenity - Q3 Community Safety - Q5 Local Distinctiveness - Q7 Urban Design: New Development - Q9 Landscaping - Q12 Refuse/Recycling Storage - Q13 Cycle Storage - Q15 Boundary Treatments - Q20 Statutory Listed Buildings - Q22 Conservation Areas - Q23 Undesignated Heritage Assets: Local Heritage List - Q25 Views - T1 Sustainable Travel - T2 Walking - T3 Cycling - T6 Assessing Impacts of Development on Transport Capacity - T7 Parking - T8 Servicing

5.7 Regional Guidance - Accessible London: Achieving and Inclusive Environment SPG (2014) - The Control of Dust & Emissions During Construction & Demolition SPG (2014) - Character and Context SPG (2014) - Central Activities Zone SPG (2016) - Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014) - London View Management Framework SPG (2012) - Planning for Equality and Diversity in London SPG (2007) - Use of Planning Obligations in the Funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy SPG (2013)

5.8 Local Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs): - Advertisement & Signage Guidance - Parking Survey Guidance - Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide - Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements - Air Quality Planning Guidance Note - Lambeth Local Views Study - Employment and Skills SPD

ASSESSMENT

6.1 Principle and Land Use

6.1.1 The site contains a 297 bedroom hotel as existing. The proposed five storey extension above the ground floor service area would provide an additional 35 rooms to bring the total number of rooms in the hotel to 332 bedrooms.

6.1.2 London Plan Policy 4.5 states that there is a requirement to provide 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms by 2036, of which at least 10 per cent should be wheelchair accessible. The policy also states that there is a preference for new visitor accommodation to be located either within the CAZ or a town centre where there is good public transport access to central London. This requirement is reinforced by LLP Policy ED11.

6.1.3 In August 2013, the GLA published working paper 58 – ‘Understanding the demand for and supply of visitor accommodation in London to 2036’ which revised the potential additional rooms required across London from 40,000 to 42,900 by 2036. This paper sets out net additional room estimates from 2015 to 2035 that informed the target in the London Plan 2015.

6.1.4 This study by the GLA makes it clear that the figure for net additional rooms includes all serviced accommodation - hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, guesthouses and hostels.

6.1.5 The GLA study breaks the London wide target down to indicative estimates at borough level. The indicative estimate for Lambeth is 2,000 net additional serviced rooms between 2015 and 2036 (GLA Working Paper 2013, table S2-2). This indicative estimate is included as Monitoring Indicator 15 in the monitoring framework for the adopted LLP.

6.1.6 The baseline figure for monitoring progress in Lambeth against Local Plan Monitoring Indicator 15 is the overall number of serviced rooms in the borough in March 2015.

6.1.7 The Lambeth Hotels and Other Visitor Accommodation 2017 document provides the most up-to-date data regarding hotel accommodation within the borough. The figure for completed serviced rooms in May 2013 (as outlined in the 2013 Hotels and Other Visitor Accommodation in Lambeth document) was 3,856 serviced rooms (including Hostels). According to the London Development database, the figure for net increase in serviced rooms across the borough between May 2013 and March 2015 was 578 rooms. Therefore the monitoring baseline figure for March 2015 is 4,434 serviced rooms. 6.1.8 A total of 1,795 of additional serviced rooms have either been completed since the baseline figure was set in March 2015 or are in the pipeline. A further additional 212 serviced rooms are currently unimplemented or have planning permission pending a Section 106 Agreement. Were all of these to be completed, the indicative target of 2,000 additional serviced rooms within Lambeth between 2015 and 2036 would be exceeded by 7 rooms. The application proposes a net increase of 35 bedrooms, which (taking the above study into account) would not result in the indicative Borough-wide London Plan target being exceeded even were all of the unimplemented permissions and pending planning permissions to be built out. However, it is noted that other planning applications have been submitted since this assessment, which may result in the indicative target being exceeded if these schemes and the current scheme were to be built out. However, subject to an assessment on other matters, the fact that the indicative target for the Borough may be exceeded were all of these schemes to be built out is not considered to be a concern to Officers, given the existing hotel use of the site and as the Borough wide target is only an indicative target for a London-wide policy target, to which this scheme would contribute towards.

6.1.9 The site is located within the CAZ but outside the Waterloo Opportunity Area. As such, a new hotel in this location may not have been considered to be acceptable. However, as an existing hotel site in a central London location with excellent access to public transport, the proposed intensification of the hotel use on the site is acceptable, subject to a further assessment on other matters given in the remainder of the report including design, amenity and transport impacts.

6.1.10 Whilst there are other hotels located in the vicinity of the site, given the mixed character of the area and the existing land use of the site, it is considered that the proposals would not be contrary to the requirement to prevent an over concentration of uses within the CAZ.

6.1.11 In terms of assessing the application against Policy ED12 which relates to promoting new hotel accommodation it is considered that hotels will be supported in the CAZ subject to the following considerations:

(a) It must provide appropriate off-street pick-up and set-down points for taxis and coaches: The Council’s transport team have confirmed that there would be acceptable pick up and set down points for taxis as a result of this development. This is because part of the section 106 agreement should this application be granted requires the introduction of a taxi bay.

(ii) not unacceptably harm the balance and mix of uses in the area, including services for the local residential community. As described above, the existing use of the site is as a hotel and the proposed extension would be constructed in the courtyard. As such, it would have no impact on the mix of uses in the area or services.

(b) All new visitor accommodation should meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion. At least 10 per cent of new provision should be wheelchair accessible. The proposal would achieve this standard.

(c) New visitor accommodation should be of high quality design so that it may be accredited by the National Quality Assessment Scheme. The existing hotel on the site to which the extension is proposed is of a 3 star standard. The building would be constructed to match the materials used in the existing hotel and as such would be of a high quality design in keeping with the character of the area.

(d) Where development proposes to modify existing visitor accommodation, the proposal will be supported only if it provides standards of accessibility and design expected of new build accommodation, subject to feasibility and viability. The proposal would include existing rooms in the hotel being converted into accessible rooms. The proposed extension would be built to a high standard of design, including materials, sustainability and overall quality of the proposed hotel rooms. As such, the standards of accessibility and design are in line with the design of the existing hotel.

6.1.12 In summary, the principle of the proposed extension to the existing hotel is considered to be acceptable. All other material considerations are considered in the report below.

6.2 Conservation and Urban Design

6.2.1 This section of the report considers the conservation (heritage) and urban design matters arising from the Development.

6.2.2 The Council’s Conservation and Design Officer’s comments are cross-referred within the following sub-sections below where relevant.

(a) Scale, massing, layout and appearance

6.2.3 LLP Policy Q5 states that development should provide a positive response to the local context and historical character, and where proposals deviate from this, it should be demonstrated how the proposal clearly delivers design excellence and how it will make a positive contribution to its local and historic context.

6.2.4 LLP Policy Q7 seeks new development to be of a high quality design which has a bulk, scale, mass, siting, building line and orientation which adequately preserves or enhances the prevailing local character. It should be built of durable, robust and low- maintenance materials and have well considered fenestration.

6.2.5 157 Waterloo Road is a large hotel located on the corner of Gray Street and Waterloo Road, on the boundary of Lambeth and Southwark. Acting as a ‘gateway’ building to the Borough, it was granted permission in 2008 (08/04374/FUL) and curves the corner, wrapping around an internal service yard and stepping down in height to five storeys to be closer in scale to the adjoining three storey, red brick Stage Door Pub. To the rear of the building facing Webber Street is a large service courtyard which fronts onto gated vehicular and cycle parking for Wellington House.

6.2.6 Directly opposite the rear of the site across Webber Street sits Ufford Street, part of the Ufford Street and Mitre Road Conservation Area. This is a small conservation area which was laid out in the mid-1900s and is characterised by low scale, fine grain, stock brick buildings. Ufford Street itself is characterised by vernacular cottage style houses on the east side and three storey stock brick apartment buildings on the west side.

6.2.7 The Ufford Street and Mitre Road Conservation Area states that tall buildings are unlikely to be appropriate if they dominate or over shadow the Conservation Area.

6.2.8 Local Plan Policy Q7 states that new development will generally be supported if: it has a bulk, scale/mass, siting, building line and orientation, which adequately preserves or enhances the prevailing local character.

6.2.9 Local Plan Policy Q22 states that development proposals affecting conservation areas will be permitted where they preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation areas by… protecting the setting (including views in and out of the area).

6.2.5 This section sets out the legislative and national policy context for the officer assessment of the impact of the development proposal on the historic environment and its heritage assets.

Legislative Framework

6.2.6 The following legal commentary is provided:

6.2.7 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (“PLBCAA”) provides that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

6.2.8 Section 72(1) PLBCAA provides that in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of (amongst others) the planning Acts, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

6.2.9 The South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment case and the Barnwell Manor case (East Northamptonshire DC v SSCLG) establish that “preserving” in both s.66 and s.72 means “doing no harm’.

National Policy

6.2.10 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 “core planning principles” that should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. Those principles include the following:

“Planning should always seek to secure high quality design and should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generation”. 6.2.11 The NPPF defines a “heritage asset” as:

“A building, monument, site place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest”. 6.2.12 The definition includes both designated heritage assets (of which, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas are relevant here) and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)

6.2.13 “Significance” is defined within the NPPF as being:

“the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its “setting”. 6.2.14 Paragraph 129 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting its setting), taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. That assessment should then be taken into account when considering the impact of the proposal on the heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

6.2.15 Paragraphs 131 and 132 of the NPPF provide as follows:

131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

• the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

• the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

• the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 6.2.16 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF deals with substantial harm to or total loss of significance of significance of a designated heritage asset.

6.2.17 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF provides that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

6.2.18 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF deals with non-designated heritage assets as follows:

135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 6.2.19 Officers have also had regard to the Planning Practice Guidance in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Approach required

6.2.20 Turning to consider the application of the legislative and policy requirements set out above, the first step is for the decision-maker to consider each of the designated heritage assets (referred to hereafter simply as “heritage assets”) which would be affected by the proposed development in turn and assess whether the proposed development would result in any harm to the heritage asset.

6.2.21 The decision of the Court of Appeal in Barnwell Manor confirms that the assessment of the degree of harm to the heritage asset is a matter for the planning judgement of the decision-maker.

6.2.22 However, where the decision-maker concludes that there would be some harm to the heritage asset, in deciding whether that harm would be outweighed by the advantages of the proposed development (in the course of undertaking the analysis required by s.38(6) PCPA 2004) the decision-maker is not free to give the harm such weight as the decision-maker thinks appropriate. Rather, Barnwell Manor establishes that a finding of harm to a heritage asset is a consideration to which the decision maker must give considerable importance and weight in carrying out the balancing exercise.

6.2.23 There is therefore a “strong presumption” against granting planning permission for development which would harm a heritage asset. In the Forge Field case the High Court explained that the presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrefutable. It can be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so. But a local planning authority can only properly strike the balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation and if it demonstrably applies that presumption to the proposal it is considering.

6.2.24 The case-law also establishes that even where the harm identified is less than substantial (i.e. falls within paragraph 134 of the NPPF), that harm must still be given considerable importance and weight.

6.2.25 Where more than one heritage asset would be harmed by the proposed development, the decision-maker also needs to ensure that when the balancing exercise in undertaken, the cumulative effect of those several harms to individual assets is properly considered.

6.2.26 What follows is an Officer assessment of the extent of harm which would result from the Development to the scoped heritage assets provided by the applicant as part of its submission. This includes Conservation Areas, and neighbouring Listed Buildings. Officers agree with the scope of assessment provided by the applicants. Both an individual assessment against each heritage asset as well a cumulative assessment is provided. This is then followed by an assessment of the public benefits of the proposals.

6.2.27 In reaching their assessment, Officers have taken into account the Design Officer comments. Officers have also taken into account the judgements reached in the Applicant’s Townscape, Visual and Heritage Statement.

Impact on Conservation Areas

6.2.28 The existing service courtyard is generous in size and set back from the street frontage by Wellington Houses gated vehicular and cycle parking area. The extension would be adjacent to Wellington Houses large rear extension which is clad in reflective panels. Given the set back and the adjoining Wellington House, there is no objection in principle to an extension, subject to the scale and elevational treatment.

6.2.31 The rear elevation of the hotel is seen in the context of much quieter residential streets, with views along Ufford Street within the adjoining Conservation Area or Chaplin Close; an area characterised by smaller scale buildings. The hotel was designed to step down towards a more residential scale nearer the Stage Door Public House; this was a direct response to the immediate massing context and the requirement to bring an element of human scale, the proximity of Quentin House and the amenities of the existing residents. The aspirations of the original hotel scheme, was that any development on the site mediate between the monumental scale of the buildings on Waterloo Road and the more domestic scale of buildings on Gray Street and beyond.

6.2.32 The rear of the hotel provides a backdrop to the conservation area; a significant contributor to its setting and a locally listed public house. The 5th storey will be seen above the locally listed public house in the rendered view along Webber Street from Valentina Place and Ufford Street. It is seen within the context of existing taller development, and given the materiality this does not appear jarring as the proposed extension would have elevational treatment that would match that of the host building, consisting of precast concrete panels and PCC aluminium windows and would appear subordinate by 3 storeys to the existing hotel.

6.2.33 The Council’s Conservation and Design Officer has not objected to the application.

6.2.28 In conclusion, whilst the proposed development would be moderately visible in the setting of a number of heritage assets, noting the conclusions regarding the detailed design as explained above, it is considered that the development would result in no harm to the surrounding heritage assets.

6.3 Standard of Hotel Accommodation

6.3.1 In terms of the accessibility of the hotel against the policy requirement to provide rooms of which at least 10 per cent are wheelchair accessible. The proposal would involve a 5 storey extension with 40 new hotel rooms linking into the existing hotel where two standard hotel rooms would be joined together to form an accessible room at each level from 1st to 5th storey level (giving a total of 35 additional rooms to the hotel). Five new accessible rooms would be created in the hotel. The existing hotel currently provides 16 accessible hotel rooms, with the additional 5 accessible rooms from the proposed extension, 21 accessible rooms in total (a 31% increase) would be provided. The proposals are an extension to an existing hotel development whereby there are accessibility arrangements in place regarding wheelchair access. For example each floor has access to the lift. As such, on balance, the proposed 5 new accessible rooms being provided is more than 10% accessible hotel rooms of the additional 35 rooms, which is considered to be acceptable.

6.3.2 With regard to the standard of hotel accommodation, all rooms would have access to a window, and whilst other adjacent rooms in the existing hotel would experience a loss in light and outlook as a result of the proposed extension, given the rooms would be occupied on a short term basis, this is considered acceptable. The quality of the accommodation is considered to be in accordance with the requirement of LLP Policy ED12(c).

6.4 Amenity

6.4.1 The Development would increase the footprint, bulk and massing when compared to the existing building, as well as bringing about an intensification in the hotel use on the site. The surrounding area has a mix of building heights and uses. The following section provides a background to the surrounding properties closest to the Site.

6.4.2 Given the constraints of the site including the position of the existing flank wing of the hotel fronting Gray Street, the adjoining projection at Wellington House and the separation distance to the properties on Webber Street and Ufford Street to the rear it is unlikely that there would be a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of a loss of sunlight, daylight, outlook or privacy. However, this is assessed in the report in more detail below.

6.4.3 LLP Policy Q2 seeks to protect the amenity of existing neighbours and the visual amenity of the community as a whole. This is measured in terms of potential impacts in relation to outlook and privacy, daylight and sunlight, noise and vibration, microclimate-wind, air quality and impacts during construction. An assessment of the Development’s impact upon amenity is provided below.

Daylight and Sunlight

A Daylight/Sunlight Assessment has been undertaken by Point 2 Surveyors on behalf of the applicants.

Methodology 6.4.4 Two methods of measurement should be used to measure daylight impacts: (1) Vertical Sky Component (VSC); and (2) Daylight Distribution (DD). VSC assesses the quantum of skylight falling on a vertical window and DD (also referred to as No Sky Line) the distribution of direct skylight in a room space.

6.4.5 VSC is calculated from the centre of a window on the outward face and measures the amount of light available on a vertical wall or window following the introduction of visible barriers, such as buildings. The maximum VSC value is almost 40% for a completely unobstructed vertical wall or window. The British Research Establishment (BRE) guidance suggests that if the VSC is greater than 27%, enough sky light should still be reaching the window of the existing building. Any reduction below this level should be kept to a minimum.

6.4.6 Should the VSC with development be both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value, occupants of the existing building shall notice a reduction in the amount of skylight they receive. The guide says: “the area lit by the window is likely to appear gloomier, and electric lighting will be needed more of the time”.

6.4.7 The DD method is a measure of the distribution of daylight at the ‘working plane’ within a room. For the DD assessment the ‘working plane’ means a horizontal ‘desktop’ plane 0.85m in height for residential properties. The DD divides those areas of the working plane which can receive direct sky light from those which cannot. If a significant area of the working plane receives no direct sky light, then the distribution of daylight in the room will be poor and supplementary electric lighting may be required. The BRE Guidelines state that if the area of a room that does receive direct sky light is reduced by more than 20% of its former value, then this would be noticeable to its occupants.

6.4.8 For the benefit of the reader, it should be noted that the number of points of assessment vary between the two differing methods of measurements. VSC looks at windows, of which there can be more than one serving a room. DD looks at rooms only.

6.4.9 Typically, it is recommended that VSC and DD are utilised for consideration on daylight losses resulting from the proposal to existing neighbouring residential since it is a comparative test.

6.4.10 The BRE Guide advice is not mandatory since ‘although it gives numerical guidelines, these should be interpreted flexibly since natural lighting is only one of many factors in site layout design’. Whilst the BRE Guide does not categorise levels of impact beyond ‘noticeable’, standardised EIA terminology can be utilised to consider classification of the impacts on neighbouring properties, especially in respect of impacts of ‘minor adverse effect’, ‘moderate adverse effect’ and ‘major adverse effect’ with definitions including as follows below.

6.4.11 Factors tending towards minor adverse impact include:

- Only a small number of windows or limited area of open space are affected; - The loss of light is only marginally outside the guidelines; - An affected room has other sources of skylight or sunlight; - The affected building or open space only has a low level requirement for skylight or sunlight; - There are particular reasons why an alternative less stringent guideline should be applied (such as the mirror scenario).

6.4.12 Factors tending towards a major adverse impact include:

- A large number of windows or large area of open space are affected; - Where loss of light is greater than 50% of guideline levels; - All the windows in a particular property are affected; - The affected indoor or outdoor spaces have a particularly strong requirement for skylight or sunlight (e.g. living room in a dwelling or a children’s playground).

6.4.13 Sunlight is measured using Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH). Sunlight is measured using a sun indicator which contains 100 spots, each representing 1% of APSH. Where no obstruction exists, the total APSH would amount to 1486 hours and therefore each spot equates to 14.86 hours (for London) of the total annual sunlight hours. The number of spots is calculated for the Baseline and Proposed Development scenarios during the whole year and also during the winter period and a comparison made between the two. This provides a percentage of APSH for each of the time periods for each window assessed.

6.4.14 The 2011 BRE Guidelines note that: 6.4.15 “In housing, the main requirement for sunlight is in living rooms, where it is valued at any time of day, but especially in the afternoon…It is viewed as less important in bedrooms and in kitchens, where people prefer it in the morning rather than the afternoon”

6.4.16 “all main living rooms of dwellings…should be checked if they have a window facing within 90° of due south. Kitchens and bedrooms are less important, although care should be taken not to block too much sun”; and

6.4.17 “If the main living room to a dwelling has a main window facing within 90° of due north, but a secondary window facing within 90° of due south, sunlight to the secondary window should be checked.”

6.4.18 “…a south facing window will, in general, receive most sunlight, while a north facing one will receive it only on a handful of occasions. East and west facing windows will receive sunlight only at certain times of day”.

6.4.19 “Balconies and overhangs above an existing window tend to block sunlight, especially in summer. Even a modest obstruction opposite may result in a large relative impact on the sunlight received”.

6.4.20 With regard to existing surrounding receptors, the BRE Guidelines provide that a window may be adversely affected if a point at the centre of the window receives

- Less than 25% of the APSH during the whole year, of which 5% APSH must be in the winter period; and

- Receives less than 0.8 times its former sunlight hours in either time period; and

- Has a reduction in sunlight for the whole year more than 4% APSH.

6.4.21 Overshadowing: The transient overshadowing plots illustrate the extent of the gardens and amenity spaces assessed that will receive direct sunlight as existing and proposed at a given time. The transient overshadowing plots comprise an illustrative tool showing the changing levels of direct sunlight received by amenity space throughout the day on the dates assessed.

6.4.22 The BRE ‘test’ for a development’s overshadowing impacts relates to the area of an amenity space that receives more than two hours of sunlight on 21 March (the Spring Equinox). The guide states: “…for it to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March. If, as a result of new development, an existing garden or amenity area does not meet the above, and the area which can receive two hours of sun on 21 March is less than 0.8 times its former value, then the loss of sunlight is likely to be noticeable”. 6.4.23 As a minimum the assessment has therefore considered the area of amenity the gardens and amenity spaces assessed that can receive more than two hours of direct sunlight on this date.

Scope of the assessment 6.4.24 Residential windows and rooms of the following properties have been assessed for the purposes of daylight and sunlight impacts as a result of the Development:

1) 1-8 Gray Street Quentin House 2) 9-36 Gray Street Quentin House 3) 30 Webber Street 4) 1 Chaplin Close 5) 1-4 Ufford Street

6.4.22 Assessment of the Results – Daylight to existing residential buildings 6.4.25 The assessment provided demonstrates that the Development would adhere to BRE Guide target criteria with regard to daylight for all of the surrounding properties tested.

6.4.26 In terms of the Vertical Sky Component (VSC), reductions in daylight to neighbouring properties from the effect of the Development adhere closely to the BRE Guide target criteria with reductions not being greater than 20%.

6.4.27 For sunlight, the results of the APSH analysis highlight full BRE compliance with every window (and room) within 90° of due south meeting the recommended BRE standards.

6.4.28 Overall, the daylight and sunlight position associated with the implementation of the proposed scheme is BRE complaint to every residential window and room surrounding the development.

6.4.29 The development does result in minor reductions in daylight and sunlight. However, in consideration of the Daylight and Sunlight Report prepared by Point 2 Surveyors, such reductions adhere to the target criteria within the BRE Guide and in consideration of the urban context, on that basis, are reasonable.

Outlook and Sense of Enclosure

6.4.30 Due to the proposal being sited approximately 30m from the nearest residential boundary, it is not considered that there would be any unacceptable impact on outlook or sense of enclosure as a result of the proposal. As well as this, the existing situation consists of the adjacent offices and the existing hotel building which is taller than the extension proposed.

Privacy

6.4.31 The proposal would retain similar separation distances to surrounding properties as per the existing building. The proposed extension would be located above the existing service yard and surrounded by the existing hotel and a large office block known as Wellington House to the north-west. Officers consider that there would be limited opportunities for any direct overlooking to occur given the orientation of the proposed building in relation to the surrounding buildings, and where this would occur, the distance of the opposite buildings and is considered to be sufficient (more than 30m to the closest residential site at 1 Chaplin Close). The proposal would be obscured from the block of flats on Gray Street by the existing hotel wing on Gray Street. As such, it is considered that the proposal would have no unacceptable impact on the privacy of any neighbouring site.

6.5 Transport

6.5.1 LLP Policy T1 states that the Council will promote a sustainable pattern of development in the Borough, minimising the need to travel and reducing dependence on the private car.

Access

6.5.1 The proposed extension will utilise the hotel’s existing accesses, comprising of the main pedestrian entrance on Waterloo Road / Gray Street and the vehicle access to the service yard on Gray Street. A new emergency access / egress stairwell is proposed which would be located in the service yard and would serve the ground floor to the upper levels.

Trip Generation

6.5.2 Trip generation analysis using the TRAVL and TRICS outputs has been produced. It is considered that the increase in trips associated with the proposal can be accommodated on the existing road network.

Car Parking

6.5.2 The Site would not provide any car parking but would have excellent access to public transport. This is supported by Officers given the other methods of transport available to users of the Development to arrive to and leave from the Site. Furthermore, as the Site is located within a CPZ, it would not be possible for staff or visitors to park within the surrounding streets during the restricted hours of the CPZ.

6.5.3 A parking utilisation survey was conducted. The bays are used almost all the time, however there doesn’t appear to be particular pattern associated with the existing usage. As requested by the Council’s Transport Officer, one additional blue badge parking bay will be required.

Cycle Parking

6.5.4 Cycle parking is currently provided within the existing hotel in the form of Sheffield stands in a safe and secure location, with ready access via a gate on Gray Street. A total of 26 cycle parking spaces are provided. This is considered to be acceptable.

Coach Parking

6.5.5 In accordance with London Plan Policy 6.13, the Development needs to accommodate for both short-stay coach parking and overnight coach parking.

6.5.6 A draft coach parking document including coach parking locations has been submitted during the course of this application. The Council’s Highways Engineer is satisfied with this document.

Taxi Pick up and Drop off

6.5.7 A Section 106 agreement for this application would be required should it be granted to secure a taxi bay, which is currently a disused ambulance bay. The location is outside 187 – 191, Waterloo Road (south-western corner of Grey Street).

Deliveries and Servicing

6.5.4 Servicing will continue to take place off-street within the service yard as in the existing situation. Although the proposed rear extension passes over part of the service yard, it will not materially affect the type of vehicle able to service the site. Vehicle track plots for medium refuse vehicles and 7.5T vehicles have been provided and are considered acceptable. The majority of deliveries, according to the transport assessment, utilise small to medium sized vehicles e.g. a transit van. The refuse would be stored in the service area. This situation is considered to be acceptable and is supported by both the Transport Officer and Veolia.

Construction Management

6.5.5 A construction management plan has been requested as a pre-commencement condition of development. Subject to this condition, the proposal would not have any unacceptable impact on highway safety or parking during the construction phase.

Travel Plan

6.5.8 The hotel has an existing Travel Plan which the Council is monitoring and will continue to monitor.

6.6 Sustainable Design and Construction

6.6.1 The London Plan sets out the Mayor’s vision for London to become: “a world leader in improving the environment locally and globally, taking the lead in tackling climate change, reducing pollution, developing a low carbon economy and consuming fewer resources and using them more effectively”. LLP Policy EN4 requires development to meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction feasible, relating to the scale, nature and form of the proposal. The LLP also requires major non-residential developments to accord with BREEAM requirements, where at least BREEAM ‘Excellent’ should be achieved, unless it is demonstrated that it is not technically feasible or viable to do so, in which case proposals should demonstrate a ‘Very Good’ rating with a minimum score of 63%.

6.6.2 London Plan Policy 5.2 states that development proposals should make the fullest contributions to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the following energy hierarchy:

1. Be lean: use less energy 2. Be clean: supply energy efficiently 3. Be green: use renewable energy

6.6.3 The Development as a whole is anticipated to achieve a 30.02% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over Building Regulations requirements, which falls short of the London Plan requirements. The proposal includes the following aspects in order to achieve this CO2 reduction:

- Low U-values would be used throughout the development’s external elements to reduce heat demand and losses; - Limited fenestration to the south façade to limit solar gain is proposed; and - A sedum roof is proposed to contribute to urban cooling and reducing energy demand, through insulation of the property. 6.6.4 However, the Council’s Sustainability Officer is satisfied with a cash in lieu payment of £6008 to make up for the shortfall.

6.6.5 The BREEAM New Construction pre-assessment indicates that the building cannot achieve a BREEAM ‘excellent’ rating and the Council’s sustainability team have not disputed this. The proposal would achieve a ‘Very Good’ rating with a score of 64%, which meets the London Plan requirements of 63%, which is considered to be acceptable by the Council’s sustainability team. A condition has been recommended on this application requiring a BREEAM post construction and summary sheet to be submitted to and approved by the LPA to ensure that at least BREEAM of very good with a score of 63% has been met.

6.7 Flood Risk

6.7.1 The Site is located within Environment Agency Flood Zone 3, and therefore considered to have a high risk of fluvial flooding. However, it should be noted that this risk is reduced by the flood defence systems along the River Thames. The Development is considered acceptable in this respect given that it would be built above the existing service yard and would have no ground floor or basement level accommodation. The proposal would have a green roof which would further reduce surface flooding on the site.

6.7.2 The Environment Agency have not objected to the application. However, they have requested a condition requiring a flood response plan (or flood warning and evacuation plan).

6.8 Employment and Training

6.8.1 LLP Policy ED14 seeks to use planning obligations that secure employment opportunities and apprenticeships during the construction phase of major developments and during the operation of the end use, so that local residents are given access to the right skills training so that they can take advantage of opportunities created by new development. The Employment and Skills SPD requires major developments to commit to providing a minimum of 25% of all jobs created by the development to local people. A Site specific Employment and Skills Plan is also required as a S106 obligation.

6.8.2 The Development would provide a wide variety of employment opportunities through the construction phase. Furthermore, the hotel currently employs 70 full time staff and 38 part time staff; it is anticipated that this would increase to 80 full time staff and 43 part time staff (employed in manual and clerical roles) following the Development, a total increase of 15 staff.

6.8.3 As part of a clause in the Section 106 Agreement, the Council would require the applicant to commit to obligations to employ local people in the end use. The clause will also require a completed ‘Employment and Skills Plan’ document, setting out how the Development will aim to achieve these targets. It is noted that as part of the original application, no details were secured within the Section 106 Agreement regarding the employment of local people for the end use of the building. However, given the Development is only for an extension to the existing hotel, the Section 106 Agreement for the current application would only be able to require the applicant to employ an agreed percentage of local people in relation to the jobs that would be created by the extension itself.

6.8.4 A financial contribution would also be required towards Employment and Training, which would be secured through obligations contained within the Section 106 Agreement.

6.9 Planning Obligations and CIL

6.9.1 LLP Policy D4 and Annex 10 sets out the Council’s policy in relation to seeking planning obligations and the charging approaches for various types of obligation. For contributions that are not covered by Annex 10, the Council’s approach to calculating contributions is guided by its July 2013 revised draft S106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) produced for consultation. The July 2013 revised draft S106 Planning Obligations SPD arose from a review of the S106 Planning Obligations SPD that was adopted in 2012.

6.9.2 The planning obligations that are proposed are considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in kind and in scale to the development. They are therefore compliant with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

6.9.3 The proposed obligations to be secured through the S106 Agreement are as follows:

Obligation:

Securing the conversion of one on-street parking bay in close vicinity to the site to a blue badge bay, with a financial contribution of £10,000 required to pay for the conversion, paid to the Council.

Securing the conversion of the disused ambulance bay outside 187 – 191, Waterloo Road to a taxi bay, with a financial contribution of £10,000 required to pay for the conversion, paid to the Council.

Securing an Employment and Training financial obligation of £28,828.58

Securing an Employment and Skills Plan to secure employment and training opportunities including apprenticeships, procurement, training and brokerage arrangements, both through the construction phase of the development and in the end use of the building.

Monitoring fee of up to 5% of total financial contributions.

Securing a cash payment in lieu to make up for the shortfall in the carbon reduction of £6008. 6.9.4 If the application is approved and the development is implemented, a liability to pay the Lambeth and Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will arise. The Council’s CIL Team will confirm with the applicant the required CIL payment following the granting of planning permission, but it is envisaged that the Development will generate a Lambeth CIL liability of £11,960.00 and a Mayoral CIL liability of £41,860.00.

6.9.5 Allocation of CIL monies to particular infrastructure projects is not a matter for consideration in the determination of planning applications. Separate governance arrangements are being put in place for Borough Infrastructure needs, and locally through the Cooperative Local Investment Plan initiative.

6.10 Other Planning Issues

Secured by Design

6.10.1 Development is required to minimise the risks of opportunistic crime, anti-social behaviour and fear of crime in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.3 and LLP Policy Q3.

6.10.2 The proposals would provide for an extension to the existing hotel over the service yard area, where the access to the service yard would remain as existing. It is therefore considered that the Development would not result in a material impact on the operation of the hotel and as such is acceptable in this respect.

Land Contamination

6.10.3 Paragraph 120 of the NPPF requires development requires development to prevent unacceptable risks from land contamination. This is reaffirmed by London Plan Policy 5.21. As the proposal would be located above an existing service area of the hotel, limited ground works would be required. As such, it is considered that there would be no unacceptable contamination risk as a result of the proposal.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed redevelopment of the Site would provide an additional 35 rooms to the existing hotel.

7.2 The land uses and quantum of development is considered to be appropriate in this central London location with excellent access to public transport facilities and nearby tourist attractions. Despite the proposed intensification of the existing hotel use at the Site, this would not be at the expense of other land uses in the area locally. The Development would not impact unacceptably on neighbouring properties, and furthermore it would not impact unacceptably on local environmental conditions.

7.3 The proposed hotel extension is considered to be appropriate in its siting, scale, form and detailed design and would cause no harm to any of the surrounding heritage assets.

7.4 The Development would provide acceptable standards of hotel accommodation, and would not impact unacceptably on the local transport system. Furthermore, the scheme would provide employment and training benefits for local people during the construction phase of the development and in the end use of the site.

7.5 Officers consider that the development would be in compliance with the Development Plan for the Borough. Officers are therefore recommending approval of the scheme, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to any direction that may be received following referral to the Mayor of London and subject to completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the planning obligations listed in this report.

8.2 Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

8.3 That if the Section 106 Agreement is not signed by 1 September 2018 the Director of Planning, Transport and Development be given delegated powers to consider refusing the application in the absence of a legal agreement.

8.4 In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

9 CONDITIONS

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

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice, other than where those details are altered pursuant to the requirements of the conditions of this planning permission.

Reason: Otherwise than as set out in the decision and conditions, it is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. The materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent work with regards to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile, unless the prior written approval of the local planning authority is obtained to any variation, or except where otherwise stated on the approved drawings.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the conservation area (Policies Q5 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure other than those shown on the approved plans (including those which may be agreed pursuant to other conditions of this consent) shall be erected at the site without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the Local Planning Authority suitable control over the details of the development (Policy Q15 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

5. Five existing hotel rooms shall be converted to wheelchair accessible or be readily adaptable to be wheelchair accessible as shown on the approved plans.

Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, in accordance with Policy 4.5 of the London Plan (2016).

6. No non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) shall be used on the site unless it is compliant with the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements (or any superseding requirements) and until it has been registered for use on the site on the NRMM register (or any superseding register).

Reason: To ensure that air quality is not adversely affected by the development in line with Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (2016) and the Mayor’s SPG: The Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction and Demolition.

7. No development shall commence until full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Construction Method Statement, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding:

a) The notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; b) Advance notification of road closures; c) Details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; d) Details regarding dust mitigation; e) Details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway; and f) Any other measures to mitigate the impact of construction upon the amenity of the area and the function and safety of the highway network.

No development shall commence until provision has been made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, offloading, parking and turning within the site or otherwise during the construction period in accordance with the approved details. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details and measures approved in the Method of Construction Statement.

Reason: Development must not commence before this condition is discharged to avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and to safeguard residential amenity from the start of the construction process (Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (2016); and London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan 2015 Policies T6 and T8).

8. The development shall be constructed and operated thereafter to ‘Secured by Design Standards’. A certificate of accreditation to Secured by Design Standards shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to the occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development maintains and enhances community safety (Policy Q3 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

9. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Sustainability and Energy Statement dated 20 October 2017 and shall not commence until full Design Stage calculations under the National Calculation Method have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show that the development will be constructed in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy and achieve at least a 30.02% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Prior to first occupation of the building(s) evidence (e.g. photographs, installation contracts and as-built certificates under the National Calculation Method) should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that the development has been constructed in accordance with approved Energy Strategy and achieved at least a 30.02% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with Policy 5.2 of the London Plan (2016) and Policy EN3 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

10. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy.

11. Within 3 months of work starting on site a BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) Design Stage certificate and summary score sheet must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show that a ‘VERY GOOD’ rating of at least 63% will be achieved.

Within 3 months of first occupation of the building(s) a BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) Post Construction Review certificate and summary score sheet must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show that an Excellent rating has been achieved. All the measures integrated shall be retained for as long as the development is in existence.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy EN4 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

12. Details of an extensive green roof which shall be compliant with GRO Green Roof Code 2011 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the implementation of the relevant part of the development hereby approved.

The submission must provide/comprise the following information:

a) Details on materials used in the design, construction and installation of the green roof based on the Green Roof Code and the use of biodiversity based extensive/semi-intensive soils; b) Details on substrate and plants used in the green roof, based on a commercial brick-based aggregate or equivalent with a varied substrate depth of 80 - 150mm planted with 50% locally native herbs/wildflowers in addition to a variety of sedum species; c) Details on additional features to the proposed green roof, such as areas of bare shingle, areas of sand for burrowing invertebrates and individual logs or log piles; d) An ecological management and maintenance plan including landscape features and a cross section of the green roof.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the green roof details approved, shall be maintained as such thereafter and no alterations to the approved scheme shall be permitted without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to first occupation of the building(s) evidence that the green roof has been installed in accordance with the approved details should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy EN4 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

13. Prior to use of the proposed hotel accommodation, a flood response plan (or flood warning and evacuation plan) shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the emergency procedures in relation to any flood event are appropriate and achievable in accordance with Policy EN5 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan 2015.

10 INFORMATIVES

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

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

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

4. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of The Party Wall Act 1996 in relation to the rights of adjoining owners regarding party walls etc. These rights are a matter for civil enforcement and you may wish to consult a surveyor or architect.

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

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

7. You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of illuminated advertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from the Local Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

8. The Environment Agency strongly recommends that the applicant consults their Pollution Prevention Guidance notes (PPGs). These are aimed at a wide range of industries and activities that have the potential to cause pollution. They can be downloaded from their website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

9. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

10. The Environment Agency recommends that flood resistant and resilient measures are incorporated in to the design and construction of the development proposals, where necessary, using guidance contained within the Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) document ‘Improving the flood performance of new buildings: flood resilient construction’.

11. The Environment Agency advises that the owners and operators of the proposed development register with their Floodline Warnings Direct service, in order that they may prepare themselves and any users or occupants in the case of a flood event.