b
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
Date and Time: Tuesday 24 April 2012 7.00 pm
Venue : Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Contact for enquiries: Website: Nigel Harvey www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee Democratic Services Officer Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 3136 Lambeth Council – Democracy Live Fax: 020 7926 2361 on Facebook Email: [email protected] http://www.facebook.com/
Governance and Democracy @LBLdemocracy on Twitter Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy London, SW2 1RW To tweet about Council agendas, minutes or meetings use #Lambeth Despatched: Friday 13 April 2012
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Councillors BRADLEY, BRATHWAITE, EDBROOKE, LING (Vice-Chair), MEMERY, MORRIS (Chair) and PALMER
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors AMINU, CLYNE, GIESS, HASELDEN, J.WHELAN, MALLEY, NOSEGBE, PICKARD and Vacancy
Membership subject to confirmation at the Annual Meeting of Council on 18 April 2012.
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
Page Nos. 1. Declarations of Interest
2. Minutes 1 - 8
To agree minutes of the meeting held on 3 April 2012.
Town & Country Planning Act (1990), The Planning & Compensations Act (1991), The Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations (1992), The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990), The Town & Country Planning General Regulations (1990), The Rush Common Act 1806 and related legislation: Applications
For information on documents used in the preparation of the reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.
3. Bedwell House, Stockwell Park Road, SW9 0UH (Ferndale Ward) 9 - 22 (11/04169/FUL)
Recommendation: Grant Conditional Planning Permission
4. 604 -610 Streatham High Road, London, S W16 (Streatham South 23 - 86 Ward) (11/02196/FUL)
Recommendation: Grant Conditional Permission subject to Section 106 Agreement.
5. Hitherfield Primary School, Leigham Vale, SW16 2JQ (Streatham 87 - 114 Wells Ward) (12/00048/RG3)
Recommendation: Refuse Planning Permission
6. 1 Palace Road London SW2 3DY (Streatham Hill Ward) 115 - 178 (11/03906/FUL)
Recommendation: Grant planning permission subjection to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section106 agreement.
7. St Thomas' Hospital 249 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 179 - 190 7EH (Bishop's Ward) (11/04574/FUL)
Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to conditions
8. 4 - 14 Bromell's Road Lon don SW4 0BG (Clapham Town Ward) 191 - 210 (11/02966/FUL)
Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to conditions
9. Ashmole Housing Estate (Oval Ward) a) (12/00378/FUL) 211 - 222
Recommendation: Grant planning permission for the variation of Condition 9 of 11/00129/FUL subject to a Deed of Variation b) (12/00112/FUL) 223 - 232
Recommendation: Grant planning permission for the variation of Condition 2 of 11/00129/FUL subject to a Deed of Variation.
10. County Hall Riverside Building, Westminster Bridge Road, SE1 233 - 248 7PB (Bishop's Ward) (12/00296/FUL and 12/00297/LB)
Recommendations: a) Grant permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement b) Grant Listed Building Consent
11. Land Rear Of 121 Bedford Road London SW4 (Ferndale Ward) 249 - 274 (11/03522/FUL)
Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
PUBLIC INFORMATION QR CODES (for use with smart mobile phones)
Dates of future meetings, the agenda management timetable and details of past meetings can be found on the Council’s website, if you are viewing this online http://tinyurl.com/pacdates
Access Information: • Lambeth Town Hall is on the corner of Acre Lane and Brixton Hill, 200 metres south of Brixton tube station (Victoria Line) – turn left on leaving the station and look for the clock tower. • If you are viewing this online, http://tinyurl.com/lambethtownhallmap
Facilities for disabled people:
Access for people with mobility difficulties, please ring the bell (marked with the disabled access symbol) on the right-hand side of the Acre Lane entrance.
Sound enhancement system available in meeting room. Please contact the officer shown on the front page of this agenda to discuss your needs. .
Adapted toilets on the premises.
Meeting papers are available in large print and other formats on request.
For further assistance please contact the officer listed on the front page Audio/Visual Recording of meetings
Everyone is welcome to record meetings of the Council and its Committees using whatever, non-disruptive, methods you think are suitable. If you have any questions about this please contact Democratic Services (members of the press please contact the Press Office). Please note that the Chair of the meeting has the discretion to halt any recording for a number of reasons including disruption caused by the filming or the nature of the business being conducted.
Anyone filming a meeting is asked to only focus on those actively participating but please also be aware that you may be filmed whilst attending a council meeting and that attendance at the meeting signifies your agreement to this.
Persons making recordings are requested not to put undue restrictions on
the material produced so that it can be reused and edited by all local people and organisations on a non-commercial basis.
Queries on reports: Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The name, email address and telephone number of the report author is shown on the front page of each report.
Other en quiries: Please contact the officer shown on the front page to obtain any other information concerning the agenda or meeting.
Accessing Agendas, Reports and Minutes All public committee papers are available for inspection at Lambeth libraries, and also on the internet from the day of publication in the following manner which you can access by logging onto www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee
Or
• Log on to www.lambeth.gov.uk • Click on Council and Democracy in the menu on the left hand side • Then click on the third main item in the body of the page– Committee reports, minutes and agendas, and then Council meetings and decisions pages . Click on the relevant committee in the list and then the meeting you require.
If you are unable to locate the document you require, please contact the officer shown on the front page above.
Representation:
Ward Councillors (details via the website www.lambeth.gov.uk or phone 020 7926 2131) may be contacted at their surgeries or through Party Group offices to represent your views to the Council: (Liberal Democrats 020 7926 2028) (Conservatives 020 7926 2213) (Labour 020 7926 1166).
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE (PAC)
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
1 Who sits on the PAC?
The Council has established a Planning Applications Committees. Which consists of five Councillors (elected members).
2 Where and when do PAC meetings take place?
Meetings are usually held in Room 8 at Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW. They normally meet on a Tuesday evening .and are held 1 or 2 times a month and are listed on the Council’s calendar of meetings at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgCalendarMonthView.asp?GL= 1&bcr=1
3 Can I attend PAC meetings?
Yes. All PAC meetings are open to the press and public although on rare occasions the Committee may discuss a matter in private.
4 How can I get a copy of any reports to be considered by PAC?
The officer reports on applications to be considered are circulated to PAC Members and published on the Council’s website a week before the meeting. Papers for meetings can be viewed at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/uuCoverPage.asp?bcr=1 . Hard copies are also available from Democratic Services at the meeting.
5 Can I make written representations to the PAC meeting?
Yes. Written representations, including any letters, petitions or photos should be: • Sent to the relevant case officer listed on the front page of the officer report preferably by email. • Sent by 12 noon 2 clear working days before the meeting.
The meetings are normally on a Tuesday, so the deadline would be 12 noon by the Thursday before the meeting.
6 Can I speak at PAC meetings?
Yes. Up to three supporters (including applicants), three objectors and Ward Members can address the meeting at the Committee’s discretion for a maximum of 3 minutes each.
You must register your wish to speak on any application by telephoning Democratic Services on 020 7926 2170 or emailing [email protected] by 12 noon on the last working day before the meeting
7 Does the PAC consider applications in the order listed on the agenda?
Not necessarily. The order of business is determined at the meeting taking into consideration: (a) Whether an application has been withdrawn or officers are recommending deferral
(b) Whether an application has been deferred from a previous meeting or has been the subject of a site visit.
(c) The level of interest on an application.
(d) Whether applicants/supporters/objectors/Ward Members have any special requirements
8 What is the process for considering an application at the meeting?
Officers will introduce each application with a brief Powerpoint presentation which will usually include drawings and photographs of the application site. The Committee will then hear from and question all interested parties. The merits of the application are considered taking into account the views of the interested parties and planning officers before the committee reaches a decision.
9 What time does the meeting come to an end?
The meeting will be conducted in a business like fashion and the Committee will endeavour to deal with reports as quickly as possible.
However if there is a lot of outstanding business at 9.00 pm the Chair will advise the meeting if and how the timetable for the meeting has to be revised, in order to deal with remaining business and finish the meeting at 10.00 pm. At 10.00 pm the meeting will decide which business can be completed by 10.45 pm and any business not reached by that time will be deferred to the next meeting.
10 What are site visits?
Site visits are arranged by Planning Officers to allow the Committee and Ward Members to view the site and its surroundings and to seek clarification. However, the merits of the application are not discussed.
11 When do site visits take place?
Site visits usually take place on the Saturday morning immediately preceding the committee at which the application is to be considered. If you have already made written representations to the Planning Service about the application, you will be notified of the date and time of the site visit. The site visit is a good opportunity for any interested parties to explain the impact of the development.
12 If I am unable to attend the PAC meeting, how can I find out the decision?
You can find out the decision by contacting Democratic Services the day after the meeting. The minutes from the meeting will also be available on the Council’s website 5 clear working days after the meeting. Planning officers will send the applicant and any interested parties who have made written representations formal notification of the Committee decision.
13 Where can I get further information or advice?
If you would like further information or advice, please contact: (a) Town Planning Advice Desk: Tel: 020 7926 1180, Email: [email protected] (b) Town Planning Webpage: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/HousingPlanning/Planning/ (c) Democratic Services: Tel: 020 7926 2170, Email: [email protected]
This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 2
PAC b
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
Tuesday 3 April 2012 at 7.00 pm
MINUTES
PRESENT: Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite, Councillor Ruth Ling (Vice- Chair), Councillor Julia Memery, Councillor Diana Morris (Chair) and Councillor Brian Palmer
APOLOGIES:
ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Jack Hopkins and Councillor David Malley
Action required by
1. DECLARATIONS OF INTE REST Councillor Diana Morris declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8 (Hungerford Coach Park) as in a previous year she had accepted an invitation to attend a performance however she did not consider this to be prejudicial.
2. MINUTES RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 13 and 20 March 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.
3. 360 NORWOOD ROAD LON DON SE27 9AA (KNIGH T'S HILL WARD) (11/03526/FUL) (Application no 11/03526/FUL) (Agenda item 3, page 15 of the agenda)
The addendum was noted.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was: Page 2
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY :
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the subsequent addendum.
4. FORMER SITE OF ADARE CENTRE ADARE WALK LO NDON SW16 2PW (STREATHAM WELLS WARD) (11/04440/DET) (Application no 11/04440/FUL) (Agenda item 4, page 33 of the agenda)
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY :
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.
5. 278 STREATHAM HIGH R OAD, LONDON, SW16 6H E (ST. LEONARD'S WARD) (11/04139/FUL) (Application no 11/04139/FUL) (Agenda item 5, page 39 of the agenda)
The addendum was noted. It was also noted that the proposed rear door was to be for emergency access only.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY :
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the subsequent addendum.
6. CHIVAS DISTILLERY 20 MONTFORD PLACE LONDO N SE11 5DE (OVAL WARD) (11/01009/FUL) (Application no 11/01009/FUL) (Agenda item 10, page 131 of the agenda)
David Boardman, Kennington Association Planning Forum, addressed the committee and made a number of points including that: • The benefits outweighed the risks even allowing for the Health and Safety Executive’s concerns. • There were employment and leisure benefits. Page 3
• The conditions would protect the amenity and safety of residents.
• He supported the application. Members examined the concerns expressed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). In discussion a number of Members expressed the view that the report presented a very thorough examination of the HSE’s concerns and that it demonstrated clearly why it was appropriate to approve the application. In relation to this Members also discussed recent applications where the HSE had expressed concerns such as at the Oval Cricket Ground and Ram Brewery. The implications of going against the HSE’s recommendation were also discussed.
The Committee also examined other issues, including: • The design of the stairwell including decoration. • Whether the HSE could call-in the decision.
• The general lack of opposition recorded from residents apart from representations regarding transport matters.
• Transport issues and access arrangements including the transport management plan.
• The need to guard against a gradual reduction in industrial production on the site and the need not to set a precedent in respect of on-compliant uses on Key Industrial Business Area (KIBA) land. MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling and it was:
RESOLVED :
That the application be approved subject to the conditions and a Section 106 agreement as outlined in the report and with the addition of an informative confirming the ancillary nature of the development being approved in relation to the main industrial use of the site.
Voting: For – 4 Against – 0 Abstain – 1
7. 128 HERNE HILL LONDO N SE24 9QH (HERNE HI LL WARD) (11/04511/FUL) (Application no 11/04511/FUL) (Agenda item 9, page 97 of the agenda)
During the officer introduction Members attention was drawn to the Page 4 addendum to the report including some possible changes to conditions.
David Taylor, Herne Hill Forum, addressed the Committee. He reported that a number of concerns had been expressed by residents but that these had in general been dealt with through changes to the scheme and so he now supported the application. However, he requested that the allocation of Section 106 monies be re-examined and for residents to be involved in discussions. He further noted that the Forum still wished to raise the issue of the bus stop location with Transport for London but that this was not specifically part of this application.
The applicants addressed the Committee and highlighted a number of issues including: • The consultation processes that had taken place and the positive responses from residents. • The new pedestrian link and public realm improvements.
• A request that the servicing hours be extended.
• That the number of disabled parking spaces met the requirement and was adequate.
• The roof terrace and privacy and noise issues relating to the roof access. Responding to questions the Conservation Officer confirmed her view that the design was appropriate for a Conservation Area.
Members discussed the application and looked at the Section 106 allocations including whether it would be appropriate to re-allocate some of the funding towards local library provision and also whether Brockwell Passage did not in fact need any funding and also that Section 106 monies were designed to mitigate the specific impact of the development. They also discussed issues around the delivery times and the potential impact on students living on the site.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY :
That the application be approved subject to: • The conditions in the report • The changes to conditions listed in the addendum
• Completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement with the specific reference to Brockwell Passage being excluded
• A further revision to Condition 27 (as renumbered) as proposed by the applicant Page 5
• Delegation to the Head of Development Management to decide whether some or all of the public art contribution in the proposed Section 106 be spent on local library facilities and on the nature of appropriate public realm improvements after consulting residents, local groups, the developers and Ward Councillors.
8. 53 GLENISTER PARK RO AD LONDON SW16 5DS (STREATHAM SOUTH WARD) (11/04437/FUL) (Application no 11/04437/FUL) (Agenda item 6, page 55 of the agenda)
Councillor Dave Malley, Ward Councillor for Streatham South Ward, addressed the Committee on behalf of a number of residents objecting to the application. He raised a number of issues including: • A large number of residents had objected. • Concerns over increases in anti-social behaviour, crime, noise and related issues.
• The area already suffered from various anti-social behaviour issues.
• There was no assurance as to the applicants’ qualifications to run this sort of establishment.
• There were similar institutions nearby.
• A temporary permission would allow the situation to be monitored.
• The staff to resident ratio seemed reasonable if kept to but how would that be monitored. The applicants addressed the committee and raised a number of points including: • They had worked in the area for a number of years. • The property was only designed to take three residents and would have staff on site 24 hours a day.
• They were happy to accept a temporary permission and did not foresee any problems arising.
• They had the appropriate experience and qualifications to run the establishment.
• This was a good opportunity to help support people looking to improve their lives and if successful could be replicated elsewhere. Members discussed the application including the possibility of a temporary permission however concern was expressed that this would have a negative impact on the aims of the service to provide Page 6
stability for the residents. Members also discussed securing a limit to the number of residents on site at any one time.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY :
That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and with an additional condition that no more than three residents (not including staff) be permitted on site at any one time.
9. HUNGERFORD COACH PAR K AT SOUTH BANK (BIS HOP'S WARD) (12/00162/FUL) In discussing the application Members noted the addendum and that the application was for a longer time period than in the past and some Members felt that if this had not been a special year with the Olympics and the Queen’s Jubilee then they may not have been minded to approve the application.
Members looked at a number of other issues including: • The lack of objections from residents. • That the site was a car park on Metropolitan Open Land and any potential damage to the land.
• The training opportunities for young people.
• The lack of problems in previous years. MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer and it was:
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY :
That the application be approved subject to: • The conditions in the report • The revision to condition 1 as set out in the addendum and a further revision ensuring that the protection of Metropolitan Open Land was included in the reasons for the condition.
• A new condition ensuring that the car park be re-instated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
• An informative stating that approval of the extended period (six months) and increase in size reflected the special circumstances of a London Olympic year.
10. 170 -174 AND 176 -188 ACRE LANE LONDON SW2 5UL (FERNDALE WARD) (11/04465/FUL) Page 7
In discussing the application Members noted concern that if the residential properties were built before the flue requirement was determined it could cause problems. The applicants risked not being able to produce a design that provided adequate protection for residents’ amenity and whether retaining the existing condition would provide useful protection.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Jennifer Brathwaite and it was:
RESOLVED :
That the application be approved subject to a completed Deed of Variation and that officers write to the developers impressing upon them the need to seek early resolution of the issues warning that the Council would refuse the details for any flues that would impact on existing and future residents’ amenity.
Voting: For – 4 Against – 1 Abstain – 0
CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting ended at 9.32 pm CHAIR PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Tuesday 24 April 2012
Date of Despatch : Friday 13 April 2012 Contact for Enquiries : Nigel Harvey Tel: 020 7926 3136 Fax: (020) 7926 2361 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk
The action column is for officers' use only and does not form a part of the formal record.
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank Page 9 Agenda Item 3
Page 10
Location Bedwell House Stockwell Park Road London SW9 0UH
Ward Ferndale Proposal
Proposed refurbishment of Bedwell House with the formation of additional office space in the undercroft of the existing building, creation of new double height entrances with the removal of 3 bedsits, new bin chute areas linked to new refuse strategy, replacement windows and doors, new roof along with associated landscaping.
Application Type Full Planning Permission
Application No 11/04169/FUL
Applicant Mr Tim Goodwin
Agent Ms Anjali Kale 146-148 Eltham Hill London SE9 5DY United Kingdom
Date Valid 14 December 2011
Approved Plans
PL50 REV B, PL52, REV B, PL53 REV B, PL 54 REV B, PL55 REV B, PL56 REV B, PL57 REV B, PL58 REV B, PL59 REV B, PL60 REV B, PL61 REV B, PL62 REVD, PL63 REV F, PL64 REV D, PL65 REV C, PL66 REV B, PL67 REV B, PL70 REV C, PL71 REV E, PL72 REV D, PL73 REV D, PL74, PL80 REV D, PL81 REV C, PL82, PL85 REV A, 007.004_030, 007.004_032, Design and Access Statement, Landscape Design and Access Statement
Recommendation Grant Conditional Planning Permission
Page 11
Officer Report
1 Summary of Main Issues
1.1 The acceptability of the scheme in terms of land use;
1.2 The character and design of the refurbished blocks;
1.3 Amenity impacts on existing and future residents and
1.4 Transport and Highways concerns.
2 Site Description
2.1 Bedwell House is a purpose built residential block (Use Class C3) which forms part of the Stockwell Park Estate. The existing building is currently three to four storeys in height and is arranged in a horse shoe formation. The main access to the site is via Brixton Road and Stockwell Park Road. However, the building is also accessible from Winans Walk. The existing building has been constructed from yellow- stock brick which is a predominant material used within the buildings of the estate.
2.2 Bedwell House does not fall within a Conservation Area nor is it listed. However, the existing building is in the setting of a Grade II Listed Building, 340 Brixton Road.
3 Planning History
3.1 Planning permission (reference 06/01769/OUT was granted on 27.11.2006 for the principle of layout, scale and access for the demolition of the existing buildings (Redmayne, Cumnor/Lidcote, Thrayle, Albemarle and garages at corner of Robsart Street and Thornton Street) together with alteration and refurbishment to residential buildings (491 dwellings) at Wayland House, Norton House, Nos 7,13 & 15 Sidney Road, Nos 1-7 Aytoun Road, Aytoun Court, Dudley House, Denchworth House, Lambert House, Bedwell House, Tyler House, Barret House and Nos 2, 6a & 8 Knowle Close and the erection of new buildings and an extension of Wayland House, with buildings ranging between 3 and 15 storeys in height to provide up to 542 new dwellings. (For the New Albemarle buildings the principle of access is to be determined only).
Refurbishment and extension of the Stockwell Park Community Centre to provide 1,300m2 of Class D1 floorspace in total (300m2 of which Class D1 and/or B1). The provision of 1,240m2 of flexible Retail (Class A1)/Financial and Professional Services (Class A2), Cafe and Restaurants (Class A3), Drinking Establishments (Class A4), Office (Class B1) and/or Health Facility or Community use (Class D1), the Page 12
provision of 760m2 of flexible Retail (Class A1)/Financial and Professional Services (Class A2), Office (Class B1) and/or Health Facility or Community use (Class D1), and the provision of 213m2 of new Security Office floorspace, together with alterations and refurbishment of part of the ground floor of Barret House to provide 560m2 of workshops (Class B1). Other works including improvements to existing streets, pedestrian routes and open spaces, together with the provision of ancillary car and cycle parking spaces.
4 Scheme Details
4.1 The current planning application is for the refurbishment of Bedwell House with the formation of additional office space in the undercroft of the existing building, creation of new double height entrances with the removal of 3 bedsits, new bin chute areas linked to new refuse strategy, replacement windows and doors, new roof along with associated landscaping.
4.2 The proposed new office accommodation (used for employees who provide maintenance for Stockwell Park Housing Estate) would be created at ground floor level. This area would be 148 square metres (sqm). Towards the Stockwell Park Road elevation, continuing at ground level there would be a series of doors to the offices, new entrance doors to the residential accommodation, replacement of brick panelling for the existing car parking area. Towards the rear of the site there would be new bin doors installed, new access entrance doors/ fire escapes, new metal staircase, access ramp, bin storage areas along with the replacement of existing railings to the parking areas.
4.3 There would be the removal of three bedsits at first floor level, which would facilitate the creation of high-level entrance points to the residential flats on both the ground and upper floors. These would apply to the entrance points on Brixton Road, Winans Walk and Stockwell Park Road.
4.4 At first floor level the application proposes new steel planters with metal railings. There would also be the replacement of windows and doors to the first floor flats. The application proposes internal floor layouts which would add a bedroom to these units. There would be new metal railings and trespa screening installed along Brixton Road, with the removal of brick parapets in part towards the Winans Walk elevation.
4.5 At third floor level the application proposes a series of new steel planters with railings. This is continued on the fourth floor. There would be alterations at roof level through the installation of new pitched roofs.
4.6 There would be the installation of a new staircase, which would be situated adjacent to 340 Brixton Road a Grade II Listed Building. The Page 13
proposed staircase would be constructed from steel and would be painted black.
4.7 The application proposes to landscape the existing open spaces surrounding Bedwell House. This would involve the installation of both soft and hard landscaping, a new play area for under 5’s would be created and private gardens for some of the ground floor units.
5 Consultation and Responses Received
5.1 A total of 223 consultation letters were sent out to local residents on Peckford Place, Boatemah Walk, Brixton Road, Stockwell Park Road and Knowle Close,
5.2 In addition 2 site notices were posted in the estate and the application was advertised in the local press.
5.3 The following internal departments were consulted in relation to the reserve matters application:
Conservation and Design: Comments raised in relation to the proposed refurbishment and have requested the applicant to make alternative further amendments, which have been submitted for approval. Therefore officers raise no objection to the proposed scheme.
Lambeth Transport: Comments received raising no objection.
Lambeth Noise and Pollution: To date no comments received.
Arboricultural Officer: Comments received raising no objection subject to condition being imposed in relation to the type of hard and soft landscaping.
Housing: To date no comments received.
Lambeth Crime Prevention: Comments received raising no objection to the proposed development. However, officers have requested that certain mitigation measures are used to reduce crime within the development. Conditions and informatives have been attached to this effect.
English Heritage: Comments received raising no objection.
English Heritage (Archaeology): Comments received raising no objection.
5.4 The following external consultees were consulted in relation to the reserve matters application: Page 14
Environment Agency: Comments received stating that officers are unable to provide comments on the proposed development at the present time.
Brixton Society: To date no comments received.
Clapham Society: To date no comments received.
Brixton Business Forum: To date no comments received.
Acre Lane Residents Association: To date no comments received.
5.5 One letter of objection was received in relation to the proposed development. Responses to the objection letter are addressed within the table below:
Material planning Objection Response Assistance in removing and re- This is not a planning consideration planting my plants carefully. but a matter between the applicant and the neighbour. Worry of fraud through the use An informative has been attached of communal post boxes within requesting the applicant to use the development. separate mail boxes for each unit within Bedwell House.
6 Planning Considerations
6.1 Relevant Policies
6.1.1 National Planning Policy:
National Planning Policy Framework is a key part of reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth.
6.1.2 Unitary Development Plan (Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010):
The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (Policies Saved beyond 05 August 2010) are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 15: Additional Housing Page 15
Policy 31: Streets, character and layout Policy 32: Community Safety/ Designing Out Crime Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 39: Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 45: Listed Buildings
6.1.3 Core Strategy Adopted January 2011:
The following policies of the Core Strategy are also considered to be relevant:
Policy S1: Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2: Housing Policy S4: Transport Policy S7: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment
6.1.4 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008), the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.
6.2 Land Use
6.2.1 The existing use of Bedwell House is currently residential (Use Class C3). The same use class would be maintained within the current application. The application proposes to convert the existing undercroft parking to office accommodation which would be used by maintenance workers (cleaners, gardeners and so on). These employees would be employed for maintenance purposes of Stockwell Park Estate. Furthermore, this area would be used as ancillary office accommodation for the functionality of the estate. There would be no net loss of residential floorspace, as this area would be used ancillary to the estate. A condition has been imposed restricting the use of this area to be used solely for the purpose of Stockwell Park Estate and not for any other use outside this remit.
6.2.2 The application proposes the loss of three residential bedsits within Bedwell House, which are required to improve the entrance points for residents to the building. The existing appearance is unwelcoming which creates an unsafe and hostile environment to existing residents of Bedwell House. However, there is a net loss of residential floospace, which is contrary to policy S2 of the Core Strategy which Page 16
aims to maintain housing stock in order to support mixed and sustainable communities. The applicant is aware of this loss and they have confirmed that the loss of residential units would be replaced in other residential blocks which are part of the housing strategy for Stockwell Park Estate. Given that the units would be replaced elsewhere, officers raise no objection to the proposed loss of the residential floorspace.
6.2.3 In this instance it is considered that there would be no objection to the proposed development in land use grounds.
6.3 Conservation and Design
6.3.1 Saved UDP Policy 31 (Streets, character and layout) states that development should respond to and enhance the architectural character of the area having regard to its overall urban and suburban characteristics. Development must maximise pedestrian accessibility and layouts should promote community safety and be designed around movement by foot, cycle and public transport.
6.3.2 Policy 33 (Building, Scale and Design) states that developments should respond to the context and sensitivity of the site and area. New development should be disciplined by, amongst other things, the building lines and scale of the area; heights, massing, rhythm and roofscape of adjoining buildings and; characteristic building plot widths in the area. The density and scale of a new residential development should reflect an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of the land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents.
6.3.3 Policy 36 (Alterations and extensions) seeks to ensure that alterations and extensions are subordinate to the original building.
6.3.4 Policy 39 (Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design) requires that attention should be paid to the design of the areas between buildings as well as to the buildings themselves.
6.3.5 Policy S9 of the Council’s Core Strategy states that the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment by seeking the highest quality of design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions.
6.3.6 The main design changes to the existing building are outlined within section 4 of this report. Officers consider that these changes would be an improvement to what is currently present especially the main entrance points to the buildings which are in a poor condition and offer a very unfriendly entrance point to Bedwell House. The removal of three existing bedsits and the increase in height of the entrance lobbies would improve both the visual amenity of the building, together with the Page 17
safety of the residents using these access points. Officers welcome this change.
6.3.7 The proposed removal of brick parapets to the Stockwell Park Road and Brixton Road elevations and replacing these areas with metal railings would break up the solid presence of the existing building and improve the visual surveillance of the existing undercroft parking. There would be a series of trespa screening installed along the Brixton Road elevation. The proposed character and design change to this elevation would be an improvement to the tired rundown façade. In this instance no objection is raised.
6.3.8 The alterations concerning the replacement of doors to the existing bin stores and the replacement of windows to the residential units on the upper floors are welcomed. The installation of new doors to the office accommodation at ground level would be acceptable as the proposed changes would be sympathetic to the existing building.
6.3.9 The application proposes the installation of a steel staircase, fronting Brixton Road, which would be positioned adjacent to 340 Brixton Road, which is Grade II Listed. Policy 45 states that the development should not adversely affect the setting of listed buildings. The proposed staircase would be set in from the Brixton Road elevation (Bedwell House) and would be positioned 1.5m away from 340 Brixton Road. Officers consider due to the extent of the alteration along this elevation, there would be limited impact to the setting of the listed building.
6.3.10 The scheme proposes landscaping to a portion of land situated within the centre of Bedwell House. This would involve a mixture of soft planting consisting of shrubs, trees, grass mounds, new grass areas and hedges. The scheme also proposes hard landscaping consisting of concrete paving, cobbled areas and wet-pour safety surfaces. The Lambeth Council tree officer raised no objection to the submitted plans. Two conditions have been imposed requesting that planting of the landscaping are maintained throughout the duration of the use. New play equipment would be installed for the use by toddlers. Officers raise no objection to the play equipment as this would be used ancillary with Bedwell House residents.
6.3.11 The submitted scheme proposed cladding at roof level which was considered unacceptable by design officers. Officers requested that the original appearance of brick to remain at this level. The applicant has revised the plans for approval. Officers raise no objection to the proposed scheme.
6.3.12 Lambeth Conservation and Urban Design team have commented on the application raising no objection to the proposal. However, officers have requested that conditions are imposed relating to brick pointing, schedule of materials and details of the stair core/ enclosure. These conditions have been imposed. Page 18
6.3.13 In summary the proposed redevelopment of the site complies with policies 31, 33, 36, 39 and 45 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
6.4 Amenity
6.4.1 Saved UDP Policy 7 requires that the scale and design of development shall be controlled in relation to residential uses to protect residential amenity. Policy 32 promotes community safety within the development. Policy 33 draws attention to the need for residents to have their amenity protected, with particular regard for privacy, overlooking, daylight and sunlight and sense of enclosure.
6.4.2 The proposed alterations in terms of the design changes/ improvements to the building would not give rise to amenity concerns to surrounding neighbours. Officers consider these changes would improve the safety of residents of Bedwell House, enhancing community safety. Lambeth Crime officers have commented on the scheme raising no objection to the proposed development, however, they have suggested security measures to be used to maintain safety of residents of the block. These relate to doors and glazing to be used. Both conditions and informatives have been imposed to this effect.
6.4.3 In summary the proposed refurbishment of the block would not give rise to any residential amenity concerns. As such the scheme complies with policies 32 and 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan.
6.5 Transport and Highways
6.5.1 Saved UDP Policy 9 requires the Council to assess the transport implications of development proposals. Policy 14 sets out maximum parking levels and minimum cycle parking standards. Policy S4 of the Core Strategy will achieve transport objectives.
6.5.2 The application involves the loss of an area of undercroft parking at ground floor level, which is currently locked up and disused. The applicant states that this area is disused due to safety concerns and for this reason residents do not park their vehicles within this location. The application proposes to use this space as ancillary office accommodation which would be used by maintenance workers for Stockwell Park Estate. Lambeth Transport and Highways team have assessed the scheme and officers have raised no objection to the proposed development.
6.5.3 As such the development complies with policies 9 and 14 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy S4 of the Core Strategy.
Page 19
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 The proposed introduction of ancillary office accommodation into the disused undercroft parking area would not compromise the on-going use of the building as residential accommodation.
7.2 The proposed refurbishment works would be an improvement to both the visual amenity of the existing building and surrounding buildings on the Stockwell Park Estate.
7.3 There would be minimal impact in terms of the historic interest of the listed building situated at 340 Brixton Road.
7.4 The application would not give rise to residential amenity concerns for both existing and proposed residents of Bedwell House.
7.5 Finally the application would not give rise to any transport and highways issues.
7.6 As such the development complies with policies 7, 9, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 45 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policies S2, S4 and S9 of the Core Strategy.
8.0 Recommendation
8.1 Grant Conditional Planning Permission.
Conditions:
1. Time Period
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.
2. Accordance with approved drawings
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Page 20
3. Details
Prior to commencement of development, detailed drawings, samples (where applicable), and a schedule of materials, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given on the approved plans and in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the details approved in writing unless otherwise agreed in writing with local planning authority. The following details will be required.
(i) Detailed schedule of materials; (ii) Details and sample of cladding; (iii) Details of the stair core/ enclosure; (iv) Details of bin stores; (v) Details of boundary treatment; (vi) Details of gates.
Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the existing building and surrounding buildings on the Stockwell Park Estate in accordance with policies 31, 33, 36, 39 and 45 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
4. The proposed brick and pointing shall match the existing appearance of the building. All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the existing building having regard to the 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 area. (Policies 31, 33, 36 and 39 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with Policy S9 of the Core Strategy).
5. Crime Prevention
Prior to commencement of building works, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following:
(i) All doors to be rated to BS PAS 24 (ii) Communal entry doors to have audio visual panels and be zoned fob controlled and magna locks fitted rated to 2000lbs holding force. (iii) Glazing on the ground floor to be laminated to 6.4mm thickness (iv) Windows on the ground floor to be rated to BS 7950 or the new BS Pas 24 2012 standard – all windows should have opening restrictors fitted Page 21
(v) Lighting must achieve average uniformity minimum values of 0.25 or 25% - the underground car park may require slightly higher levels.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).
6. Method of Construction
Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant must submit a Method of Construction Statement for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development commencing and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 9 and 31 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)
7. Hard and Soft Landscaping
All soft and hard landscape works shall be completed in full accordance with the Approved Plan Dwg No: 007.004_030 (Bedwell Courtyard - Landscape Proposals) within the first planting season following completion of the development hereby approved, or in accordance with a programme of works agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure new planting in the interests of the amenity of the area of an appropriate specification in relation to the size and scale of development (Policy 39 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan (2007).
8. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development in accordance with Policy 39 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan (2007).
Page 22
Informatives
1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation, which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.
3 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.
4 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Street Care team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities.
5 The office accommodation hereby approved is considered to be ancillary to the primary residential use of the building. Should the office accommodation cease to be ancillary an application for a change of used would be required.
Page 23 Agenda Item 4
Section 1 – Site Location Map
Page 24 Section 2 – Application Summary
Location 604-610 Streatham High Road London SW16 3QJ
Ward Streatham South Proposal Demolition of 14 existing garages and four existing semi-detached Application houses and the erection of two new buildings comprising of a 4- storey building fronting Streatham High Road to provide 11 flats and a terrace of six 2-storey houses to the rear of the site (17 residential units in total), together with 2 car parking space including two new vehicular crossovers to Streatham High Road, a new pedestrian access, associated landscaping and children's play space area, cycle parking and refuse and recycling storage.
Applicant AGM Property
Agent Mr Greg Dowden, c/o Indigo Planning Swan Court, Worple Road, London SW19 4JS
Date valid 7 July 2011 Case Officer Mr Robert O'Sullivan
Application 11/02196/FUL Reference
Recommendation(s) Grant Planning Permission subject to S106 legal agreement
Advert Publication 10th February 2012 Date
Site Notice pos ted 10th February 2012 on
Drawing nos. 2008/204/00, 2008/204/01, 2008/204/02, 2008/204/03, 2008/204/04, 2008/204/05 Rev A, 2008/204/06 Rev A, 2008/204/07 Rev A, 2008/204/08, 2008/204/09, 2008/204/10, 2008/204/11, 2008/204/12, 2008/204/13, 2008/204/14, 2008/204/15 Rev A, 2008/204/16 Rev A, 2008/204/17 Rev A, 2008/204/18, 2008/204/19, 2008/204/20, 2008/204/21 Rev A, 2008/204/22, 2008/204/23, 2008/204/24 Rev A, 2008/204/25, 2008/204/26, 2008/204/27, MS-3413, SHR-PLN-001 Rev E, SHR-PLN-002 Rev D, SHR-PLN-003 Rev C Design and Access Statement received 09 January 2012, Planning Statement (Indigo Planning) received 27 June 2011 and Vehicle Tracking Diagram (2131-TR-01A) received 4 April 2012
Page 25
1.0 Main Issues
1.1 The main issues pertaining to this application are:
• The principle of redevelopment and intensification of the site for residential purposes;
• The acceptability of the dwelling mix and provision of affordable housing;
• The standard of proposed residential accommodation;
• The impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties;
• The acceptability of the design of the proposal and its impact upon surrounding townscape;
• The highways and parking implications of the proposal;
• Sustainability and renewable energy issues;
• Whether the development would increase opportunities for crime;
• Waste storage and collection;
• Planning obligations; and
• Whether the proposal has overcome the previous reasons for refusal.
2.0 Site and Surrounding Area
2.1 The 0.2ha site is situated on the western side of Streatham High Road. Existing upon the site are 14 vacant garages and two pairs of semi detached dwellings (Nos. 604-610), comprising 4 dwellings in total. The vacant garages are accessed via a driveway to the south-east of the site in between the adjoining Shirley Court and Marqueen Towers. The garages are single storey in height (approx 2.1m) and the houses are part single and part 2 storeys in height (maximum ridge height of 8.1m).
2.2 The site is made up of five plots of land, forming a U-shape site which wraps around the adjoining property at Nos. 612-618 Streatham High Road (Marqueen Towers). Four of the plots are existing residential dwellings with large rear gardens (approx 37m in length). The fifth plot is L-shaped and contains the 14 vacant garages and accessway from Streatham High Road.
2.3 For assessment purposes it is noted that these plots comprise of a mix of previously developed (brownfield) and greenfield land. The garage Page 26
plot, access road and the existing building footprints are brownfield. The rear gardens to the four properties are greenfield land.
2.4 The adjoining property to the east at Nos. 612-618 Streatham High Road is occupied by a 5 storey residential property containing ten residential flats and known as Marqueen Towers. This property has a communal amenity space to the rear, which shares a boundary with the site.
2.5 To the south-east is Shirley Court which is a 3 storey building. Shirley Court is situated on the corner of Streatham High Road and Colmer Road and this property is in commercial use at ground floor and residential use on the two upper floors. Adjoining the site to the south is a terrace of two storey houses which front Colmer Road.
2.6 To the west are eight no. two-storey terrace properties in residential use (Nos. 2-16 Danbrook Road (evens)). To the north of the site are 7 no. two-storey houses which front Rochester Close (Nos. 1-7) and a detached house at No. 602 Streatham High Road. No. 600 Streatham High Road is on the Council’s register of locally listed buildings.
2.7 The site is situated within an Archaeological Priority Area and is situated on Streatham High Road which forms part of a Transport for London red route (A23). The site is not situated in a Conservation Area, and is not listed.
2.8 The site has good access to public transport (PTAL 4) with Norbury Rail Station located approx 600m to the south of the site. The site and surrounding streets are not included within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) meaning that there are no on-street parking restrictions.
2.9 The borough boundary with the London Borough of Croydon is located close to the south of the site. The application site lies adjacent to the Norbury District Centre Edge area.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.0 08/03663/FUL – Planning application for ‘Demolition of 14 existing garages and 4 existing semi detached houses and the erection of two new buildings (1 x 5 storey plus basement building and 1 x part 2 and part 3 building plus a double basement) to provide 34 residential units (10 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 7x 3 bed and 2 x 4 bed) with 26 sub basement parking spaces, 3 disabled parking spaces and 34 cycle parking spaces together with 2 new vehicular crossovers on Streatham High Road.’ was refused on 11 February 2009 for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, height, bulk and detailed design, would result in a development that is out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings which would have a detrimental Page 27
impact on visual amenity. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 31 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
2. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, height and detailed design, would result in the direct overlooking and a subsequent loss of privacy to the occupiers of adjoining residential properties in Colmer Road, Danbrook Road and Rochester Close and to the amenity space to the rear of Marqueen Tower. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 15 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
3. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, height and bulk, would create an undue sense of enclosure to the adjoining residential properties in Colmer Road, Danbrook Road and Rochester Close which would adversely affect the amenity of the existing occupiers. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 15 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
4. The proposed development would, by virtue of the inclusion of undersized units and undersized rooms, insufficient provision of children and young people’s play space, overlooking between the front and rear blocks and the failure of the applicant to demonstrate the proposed units would receive adequate sunlight and daylight, result in sub-standard residential accommodation, adversely affecting the amenity of future occupiers. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 15 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.
5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposed development would achieve at least a 10% reduction in carbon dioxide emission from expected energy use, by virtue of insufficient detail on the biomass boiler. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 34 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
6. The proposed development would, by virtue of the excessive number of car parking spaces proposed; the applicant’s failure to include measures to discourage car ownership and reduce on street car parking and the inaccurate trip generation figures submitted, fail to encourage more sustainable modes of transport and would have a detrimental impact on the safety and function of the adjoining highway network. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies1, 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
7. The proposed development, by virtue of the narrowness of the first 6 metres of the access to the lower basement car park and the siting of the vehicular crossovers for on site servicing, would have a detrimental impact on the safety and function of the adjoining Page 28
highway network. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
8. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation under s106 of the Act, the application fails to provide the affordable housing proposed in perpetuity; fails to include commitments to a car share club and monitoring as part of a Travel Plan; and fails to include suitable mitigation against the development’s impact upon the local infrastructure. In the circumstances the development is contrary to policies 9, 14, 16, 23, 26, 50, 53 and 57 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
3.1 11/00018/FUL - Planning application for ‘Demolition of 14 existing garages and four existing semi-detached houses and the erection of two new buildings comprising of a 4-storey building fronting Streatham High Road to provide 11 flats and a terrace of seven 2-storey houses with accommodation in roofspace to the rear of the site (18 residential units in total), together with 2 car parking space including a new vehicular crossover to Streatham High Road, a new pedestrian access, associated landscaping and children's play space area, cycle parking and refuse and recycling storage’ was refused on 19 April 2011 for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale, height, massing and detailed design, would represent an unneighbourly form of over development that would appear visually intrusive and overbearing to the detriment of the residential amenity of the occupiers of adjoining properties in Colmer Road, Danbrook Road and Rochester Close. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
2. The proposed development, by virtue of its detailed design and external materials, would fail to provide buildings of sufficient design quality and therefore would fail to adequately complement the Streatham High Road streetscene and surrounding area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
3. In the absence of a Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking the application proposal would result in additional burden on local infrastructure which would not be satisfactorily mitigated. In this respect the proposal is contrary to Policy 26 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the requirements of the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘S106 Planning Obligations’ (July 2008). Page 29
Relevant planning history of adjoining properties
3.2 06/04282/FUL – Planning permission for ‘ Redevelopment of the site, involving the erection of part 2, part 3 and part 4 storey building to provide 56 flats comprising 11 x 1 bed and 45 x 2 bed, together with provision of 12 car parking spaces, cycle storage, landscaping and boundary treatment. ’ at Nos. 417-419 Streatham High Road (William Court) to the south-east of the application site was granted on 5 April 2007.
4.0 PROPOSAL
4.1 This is a resubmission following refusal of a previous planning application (ref: 11/00018/FUL) on 19 April 2011.
4.2 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of 14 existing garages and four existing semi-detached houses and the erection of two new buildings comprising of a 4-storey building fronting Streatham High Road to provide 11 flats and a terrace of six 2-storey houses to the rear of the site (17 residential units in total), together with 2 car parking space including two new vehicular crossovers to Streatham High Road, a new pedestrian access, associated landscaping and children's play space area, cycle parking and refuse and recycling storage.
4.3 The 17 units within the proposal would comprise the following dwelling mix:
Frontage Block: 1 x one-bedroom apartment; 5 x two-bedroom apartments; 3 x three-bedroom apartments; and 2 x four-bedroom apartments.
Rear Terrace: 6 x three-bedroom townhouses located parallel with the rear boundary of the site.
4.4 The four-storey frontage block facing onto Streatham High Road would have a maximum height of 11.2m and would include a 1.2m setback at fourth floor (roof level). The rear terrace of townhouses would have a maximum height of 6.0m.
4.5 The design approach is contemporary in nature. The proposed material palette would be a mix of render and timber veneer cladding panels. The roof would be a flat sedum roof and the doors/windows would be aluminium with colour coated finish.
4.6 Pedestrian and vehicular access would be via Streatham High Road. The proposal would require the blocking up of the existing vehicular crossover to the south-east corner and the installation of two new vehicular crossovers to the north-east corner facing onto Streatham High Road. Servicing of the development by refuse and delivery vehicles would take place within the front forecourt area of the development and would be accessed from Streatham High Road. Page 30
4.7 Refuse storage for the frontage block would be provided in the forecourt area in between the front block and Streatham High Road. One parking space for a car club bay and one disabled car parking space would also be provided within this hard surfaced area. Cycle parking and refuse storage for the 7 terraced houses would be provided within the curtilage of each dwelling, with a communal refuse collection area provided at the Streatham High Road entrance adjacent to the southern boundary.
4.8 The site would be landscaped and a communal amenity area incorporating children’s play space would be provided between the front building and the rear terrace.
4.9 The applicant has advised that in the event of public subsidy being provided the 6 houses and the 2 ground floor 4-bedroom flats in the frontage block would be affordable housing, and if public subsidy is not available then the 6 houses to the rear terrace and one of the ground floor 4-bedroom flats in the frontage block would be provided as affordable housing. The proposed affordable housing provision and tenure mix is shown in the following table:
Table 1: Proposed Affordable Housing Provision
Affordable Housing Provision
Without public subsidy With public subsidy
Social 5 units (5 x 3-bed 5 units (5 x 3-bed Rented townhouses) townhouses) 2 units 3 units Intermediate (1 x 3-bed townhouse (1 x 3-bed townhouse and and 1 x 4-bed flat) 2 x 4-bed flats)
Tenure Split 71% : 29% 63% : 37%
Total 7 units (41% of total units) 8 units (47% of total units)
4.10 Renewable energy technology would be installed in the form of a combined photovoltaic and solar thermal system to the roofs of the buildings.
Key difference with previously refused application Ref: 11/00018/FUL
4.11 The following is an overview of the key differences between the previously refused scheme and the current proposal: Page 31
• Reduction in total number of units from 18 to 17 facilitated by a reduction in the number of units to the rear terrace from 7 no. four-bedroom houses to 6 no. three-bedroom houses
• The rear terrace of townhouses has been reduced in height, bulk and scale by the removal of a dual pitched roof and front dormer. The proposed townhouses are now two-storey with a flat roof and a maximum height of 6.0m. The previous scheme had a maximum ridge height of 8.6m.
• The footprint of the rear terrace has been reduced and sited further away from the northern and southern boundaries. There is a proposed separation distance of 6.2m with the northern boundary (previously 3.8m) and a proposed separation distance of 6.0m with the southern boundary (previously 3.8m).
• The design of the frontage block has been amended through the introduction of render as a second finishing material and two projecting bays.
• Servicing of the site by refuse and delivery vehicles would be from within the front forecourt area.
5.0 CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Letters were sent to 131 property addresses including adjoining properties on Streatham High Road, Colmer Road, Danbrook Road, Rochester Close and Hepworth Road.
5.2 The application was also advertised by way of 6 site notices displayed adjacent to the site on 29 th July 2011 and a press advert published on 29 th July 2011. A second consultation was carried out on 10 th February 2012 following receipt of amended drawings showing design alterations to the frontage block.
5.3 The following local interest groups were notified and both raised objection to the proposal:
The Streatham Society
Colmer and Danbrook Road Residents Association
5.4 At the time of writing 29 responses (from 22 individual properties) were received in response to the public consultation, all of which raised objection to the proposal.
5.5 The three Streatham Hill Ward Councillors (Cllr Mark Bennett, Cllr John Kazantzis and Cllr David Malley) were notified. Councillors Kazantzis and Malley have both objected to the proposal. Councillor Malley has requested that the application comes to Planning Application Committee for determination. Page 32
5.6 A correspondence has been received from Chukka Umunna MP (Member of Parliament for Streatham). Mr Umunna writes on behalf of two local residents on Colmer Road who raise objection to the proposed development. The objections and an officer response are detailed in section 5.7 of this officer report.
5.7 The objections received from the public consultation are summarised in the following section, with an officer response to those comments contained within the right hand column.
Objection Officer Response (A) LAND USE The derelict garages should be The Council can only assess the application refurbished for use by local submitted for consideration. Alternative land residents or made into a more uses are not a matter for consideration. appropriate land use such as an allotment. (B) RESIDENTIAL AMENITY Intensification of use would result The site is in a location well served by public in increased noise disturbance to transport and local amenities, and located adjoining residential properties adjacent to a key arterial traffic route. In such locations higher densities of development are encouraged by national and local planning policies. The land use is also in conformity with the prevailing pattern of development.
It is officer consideration that the intensification of use to provide residential accommodation would not result in an unacceptable increase in noise disturbance to the detriment of the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers.
No objection has been raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Noise Pollution team. Loss of sunlight/daylight to A daylight an d sunlight study assessing adjoining residential properties potential impact upon adjoining residential properties has been submitted with the application. The report concludes that there would be no material impacts upon adjoining properties. The proposal is considered to be policy compliant in this regard and no objection is raised. Increased artificial light pollution. Due to its proposed residential use the development would be expected to generate Loss of night-time darkness to artificial light levels similar to those already adjoining properties. found in the surrounding area. This is considered reasonable within such an urban Page 33
setting.
Details of external lighting of communal areas and access paths within the development could be conditioned to ensure that light spillage from these areas is managed and mitigated where necessary. Loss of privacy and unacceptable Section 7.4 of this officer report provides a overlooking to adjoining detailed assessment of privacy issues to residential properties. adjoining residential properties. It concludes that the proposal would not adversely impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining residential properties subject to a condition to ensure that obscure glazing is provided (and retained) with the first floor windows to the rear of the terrace of townhouses. Creation of undue sense of Section 7.4 of this officer report provides a enclosure and visual intrusiveness detailed assessment of sense of enclosure to neighbouring properties issues to adjoining residential properties. It concludes that the proposal has overcome the previous reason for refusal relating to sense of enclosure and visual intrusiveness to the properties on Danbrook Road, Colmer Road and Rochester Close by providing a reduced number of terrace houses of lower density and height, and set back from these neighbouring properties and is now compliant with Saved Policies 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy in this regard. The proposed frontage block, The rear of the proposed frontage block when considered in tandem with would be located approx 32 metres from the the existing 5-storey Marqueen boundary with the closest Danbrook Road Tower, would form a visually property, and approx 44 metres from the intrusive building mass when closest rear elevation within Danbrook Road. viewed from the rear of the These separation distances are considered to Danbrook properties. adequately safeguard residential amenity of adjoining occupiers in Danbrook Road from visual intrusion or increased sense of enclosure. (C) DESIGN Unacceptable loss of residential Section 7.1 of this officer report provides a (Greenfield) land contrary to detailed assessment of the principle of National Planning Guidance. building on the existing rear gardens of Nos. 604-610. It concludes that the redevelopment and intensification of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in land use terms and policy compliant. Over-development of the site. Section 7.1 of this officer report provides a detailed assessment of density. It concludes Page 34
Excessive Density that the previous objection relating to density and overdevelopment of the site has now been overcome. The proposed density of development sought is acceptable in land use terms and policy compliant. Objection to loss of 4 period The existing dwellings do not have any houses (Nos. 602-610). statutory protection or designation under the local development plan, and as such there is no objection raised to the principle of their demolition. Frontage block out of keeping w ith Section 7.5 of this officer report provides a neighbouring buildings due to its detailed assessment of the design of the siting, bulk, height and massing. proposal. It notes that the Urban Design Officer has raised no objection to the siting, Detrimental impact on visual bulk, height or massing of the proposal. The amenity. design of the proposal is considered to be compliant with relevant development plan policies. Choice of timber cladding to The proposal would be finished with frontage block is out of character. composite timber panels with a natural wood veneer. This gives the appearance of timber Already examples o f where it without any of the associated maintenance hasn’t worked in close proximity issues. The Urban Design Officer supports due to deterioration and the use of this material as it overcomes the maintenance issues. identified failings with natural wood finishes used within other developments in the borough. Rear terrace of townhouses would Development plan policies do not preclude be located within an enclosed development within backland locations area and thereby fails to address subject to compliance with a number of a street with its frontages and requirements including those detailed within entrances. Saved Policy 38(c) of the UDP. Backland development would by its very nature fail to address a street with its frontages and this is not considered to be a justification for refusing the proposal.
The proposal is considered to comply with development plan requirements including Saved Policy 38(c) and no objection is therefore raised. The cycle and refuse storage Officers agree that the cycle storage structure structures to front forecourt would would be unaccepta ble to the site frontage. look cluttered and be detrimental Details showing revised siting of the cycle to visual amenity and streetscene. storage could be sought through a planning condition in the event of planning permission being granted.
It is considered that a refuse storage could be sited within the front forecourt subject to Page 35
acceptable design, siting and visual subordination. (D) QUALITY OF PROPOSED ACCOMMODATION Poor quality living The proposal complies with the unit/room size accommodation, including poor and amenity space requirements of the level of green landscaping. Council’s SPD ‘Housing Development and House Conversions’. Proposed townhouses are of The townhouses comply with Adopted SPD limited size and not suitable for Standards for three bedroom units. family housing. Officers are mindful of retaining adequate This will result in demand for separation distances and of the requirement additional extensions, thereby to ensure that adequate amenity space reducing the separation distance provision is maintained for the townhouses. It to the Danbrook Road properties is considered reasonable to remove permitted development rights for the townhouses, thereby requiring planning permission for any extensions or erection of outbuildings in the rear gardens of the townhouses. This would allow an assessment of residential amenity impacts and potential loss of private garden space. (E) TRANSPORT/HIGHWAYS/ ACCESS/PARKING Increased parking stress on Section 7.7 of this officer report provides a surrounding roads from future detailed assessment of the highways and occupiers and visitors to the transport impacts of the proposal. development. The Council’s Transport Planner concludes that on balance the proposal is acceptable in policy terms subject to a series of mitigation measures to address the issue of parking stress. Proposal would add to general Transport for London has assessed the traffic congestion and free flow of proposal as the Statutory Highway Authority traffic on Streatham High Road for Streatham High Road, with the Council’s and within surrounding area. Transport Planner also assessing the proposal for all surrounding roads not under the control of TFL. Both parties are satisfied that the proposal would not unacceptably add to general traffic congestion or unduly impact on the free flow of traffic on surrounding roads. Access for emergency vehicles to Fire access arrangements is a matter for the rear terrace would be consideration under Part B (Fire Safety) of unacceptable and pose a safety Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2000 hazard to future residents and the (as amended), and therefore isn’t a planning local community. matter. Access and parking arrangements It is noted that the site currently has Page 36
are unsafe due to proximity to unauthorised parking to the front of 604/610 signalised junction. Streatham High Road as well as 14 garages to the rear of the site. The proposed development would reduce the level of on- site parking to two vehicles.
Transport for London has assessed the proposal and has raised no objections to the access and parking arrangements. (F) CRIME PREVENTION/DESIGNING OUT CRIME The proposal would give rise to Section 7.8 of this officer report provides a anti-social behaviour issues and detailed assessment of the crime crime risk and would be contrary prevention/designing out crime issues relating to Policy 32 of the UDP. to this development.
The siting of the children’s play The Crime Prevention Design Advisor has area in a backland location not been consulted and does not object to the visible from the street would be principle of the proposed development, contrary to Policy 32 of the UDP. subject to compliance with Secured by Design standards. A condition is Proposal would exacerbate recommended to this effect. existing anti-social behaviour issues in the surrounding area, such as in Rochester Close and would allow local youths to congregate on the site. Security to neighbouring A number of objectors have raised concerns properties would be compromised. with previous anti -social behaviour arising from within the site (including squatters). It is considered that the proposal would increase security to neighbouring properties by bringing this vacant site into use and ensuring that a secure boundary treatment is provided to restrict access to the rear gardens of adjoining properties. (G) OTHER Waste provision doesn’t appear to The proposal would be required to provide be adequate, which could result in adequate waste and recycling storage in line increased litter in the surrounding with the Council’s adopted gui dance. Further area. details, including a waste management plan, could be secured by condition in the event that planning permission is granted. Imbalance of flats in the The application site is located on a key surrounding area due to recent arterial traffic route with a good level of public developments such as William transport availability. Higher density Court to the east of the site and developments which include a range of unit the LIDL development site, which sizes are fully supported by development plan adjoins the borough boundary policies. Page 37
although it is located within the adjoining London Borough of The Council’s Housing Division has been Croydon. consulted and fully supports the proposed dwelling mix and the quantum of affordable housing offered. Engagement with neighbouring At the time of submission there was no properties in advance of the statutory or legislative requirement to engage application submission was in pre-application consultation with inadequate. neighbouring properties.
Notwithstanding, the Council has carried out a full consultation exercise in compliance with legislative requirements. The proposed development would A ful l officer assessment of the proposal is infringe the quality of life of given in Section 7 of this report. It is officer adjoining residents and therefore consideration that the proposal would not be contrary to the Human Rights unacceptability infringe upon the quality of life Act 1998. of adjoining residents. The submitted site plan is The submitted site plan (drawing no. inaccurate and misleading. The 2008/204/04 - scale 1:200) shows a site dimensions of the proposal would depth of app rox 61m from the site frontage on not fit within the site. In reality this Streatham High Road to the rear boundary would mean that the rear terrace with the Danbrook Road properties. would be sited closer to Danbrook Road properties. Officers have measured the site using the Council’s electronic mapping system and can confirm that this is an accurate representation of the site dimensions. No inaccuracies are noted and the drawings are not considered to be misleading.
Internal Consultees
5.8 The following Consultees within the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:
• Transport and Highways - No objection to the application subject to identified conditions being placed on a grant of planning permission and to the provision of a travel plan, provision of a car club bay on-site and free membership for future residents for a period of 2 years.
• Implementation Team (S106) – Advised that planning obligations are required in order to comply with the requirements of the Council’s SPD on Planning Obligations and to mitigate the potential impact of the development. Page 38
• Conservation and Design – No objection in principle to the proposal. Should planning approval be granted it is recommended that a number of conditions are included to require further details of the materials and detailed design of the scheme.
• Performance, Strategy & Regeneration – No response received at the time of finalising this report.
• Arboricultural Officer – Has reviewed the proposed layout and landscaping scheme and is satisfied that an appropriate level of soft landscaping can be secured. No objection raised subject to the inclusion of appropriately worded conditions if planning approval granted.
• Regulatory Service (Noise Pollution) – No objections to the development. Should planning approval be granted it is recommended that a condition is included to address potential environmental noise impact arising from Streatham High Road.
• Housing – No objection to the proposal. The scheme should provide 50% of the units to be affordable (assuming public subsidy).
• Crime Prevention Design Advisor – No in principle objection. A condition to ensure the development is built to Secure by Design standards is recommended.
• Streetcare – No objection is raised to the proposed refuse collection arrangements, which would allow refuse vehicles to collect from the front forecourt area and not from Streatham High Road as previously indicated.
• Planning Policy – Advises that the principle of residential development is supported by the Core Strategy and the UDP. Further comments provided in relation to affordable housing, dwelling mix, lifetime homes, wheelchair housing, transport impact, flood risk, amenity space provision and renewable energy provision.
• Building Control – Verbal comments provided advising that the issue of fire access would be controlled under non-planning legislation through the technical guidance contained in Part B (Approved Document B) of schedule 1 of the Building Regulations. It covers the requirements with respect to fire safety.
External Consultees
5.9 The following Consultees external to the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows: Page 39
• English Heritage (Archaeology) – Recommend approval of the submitted archaeological desk-based assessment report. It is concluded that there is potential for archaeological remains to occur on site and specifically in the western portion of the site. Archaeological position should be reserved by condition to any grant of planning permission.
• TFL Road Network – Proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact to the Transport for London Road Network subject to the imposition of a number of suggested conditions and a S106 legal agreement to any grant of planning permission. These are discussed further in the main body of the report.
• Bus Priority and Traffic Unit – No response received at the time of finalising this report.
• Environment Agency – The application has been assessed as having a low environmental risk. Unfortunately, due to workload prioritisation the EA is unable to make a response.
• Thames Water – No objection raised with regards to water or sewage infrastructure. Developer should be advised to contact Thames Water with regards to surface water drainage in the event of a planning approval.
• London Borough of Croydon – No objection raised following consideration at the Council’s Delegated Business meeting.
6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
6.1 National Guidance
6.1.1 Central Government guidance is contained the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was published on the 27 th March 2012. This sets out the current Government’s planning policies for England and replaces all existing Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs).
6.1.2 The NPPF must now be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
6.2 London Plan (2011)
6.2.1 The London Plan was adopted in July 2011. The London Plan is the Mayor's development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region. Page 40
6.2.2 It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and, proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport.
6.2.3 All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
6.2.4 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:
Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 2.9 Inner London Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments Policy 3.6 Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation Facilities Policy 3.8 Housing Choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and Balanced Communities Policy 3.10 Definition of Affordable Housing Policy 3.11 Affordable Housing Targets Policy 3.12 Negotiating Affordable Housing on Individual Private Residential and Mixed Use Schemes Policy 3.13 Affordable Housing Thresholds Policy 3.14 Existing Housing Policy 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy Policy 5.11 Green Roofs and Development Site Environs Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management Policy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage Policy 5.14 Water Quality and Wastewater Infrastructure Policy 5.21 Contaminated Land Policy 6.3 Assessing Effect of Development on Transport Capacity Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s Neighbourhoods and Communities Policy 7.2 An Inclusive Environment Policy 7.3 Designing Out Crime Policy 7.4 Local Character Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology Policy 8.2 Planning Obligations
6.2.5 The Mayor of London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance – Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (March 2008) is also of relevance to the consideration of amenity space provision.
6.3 Local Development Plan Policies Page 41
6.3.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy (January 2011) January 2011’. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.
6.3.2 The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 15 Additional Housing; Policy 16 Affordable Housing; Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime; Policy 33 Building Scale and Design; Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction; Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas; Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design;
6.3.3 The following policies of the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) are considered relevant to this application
Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 Housing Policy S3 Economic Development Policy S4 Transport Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10 Planning Obligations
6.4 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
6.4.1 The following adopted SPDs are relevant:
• SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions
• SPD: Safer Built Environments
• SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction
• SPD: S106 Planning Obligations Page 42
6.4.2 The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is also considered relevant.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 LAND USE
7.1.1 The existing application site comprises of two distinct elements, both of which would be demolished and/or redeveloped to facilitate the 17 residential unit development scheme as proposed. These two elements are:
(i) Four dwelling houses (Nos. 604-610) and ancillary rear gardens.
(ii) 14 vacant garages and access driveway from Streatham High Road.
(a) Demolition of existing dwellings
7.1.2 Policy S2(b) of the Core Strategy seeks to prevent the net loss of existing housing. In this instance the 4 dwellings proposed for demolition would be replaced with 17 new dwellings, and in this regard there would be no net loss of current housing stock and no objection is therefore raised. It is noted that the existing dwellings do not have any statutory protection or designation under the local development plan, and as such there is no objection raised to the principle of their demolition.
(b) Principle of development on residential garden land
7.1.3 It is noted that neighbouring residents raised several objections to the proposed development on the grounds that it would represent a loss of residential garden space (referred to as ‘garden grabbing’). It was stated that residential gardens are protected from development in National Planning Policy Guidance, with this guidance excluding residential gardens from the definition of ‘previously developed land’.
7.1.4 The application site comprises of a mix of previously developed (brownfield) and greenfield land. The garage plot, access driveway and the existing building footprints are brownfield. The rear gardens to the four properties are greenfield land and therefore the principle of redevelopment of this land requires further consideration.
7.1.5 For clarification purposes, it should be noted that guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not place a blanket ban on any development taking place on residential gardens. Every development proposal on residential land must still be assessed on its Page 43
own merits in the context of development plan policies and other material considerations.
7.1.6 Lambeth planning policy contained with Saved Policy 33 states that “the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of new residential development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that are appropriate to their site characteristics, setting, civic function and/or importance and location in the townscape”. This design led approach does not distinguish between previously developed (‘brownfield’) land and undeveloped (‘greenfield’) land and therefore the recently adopted NPPF does not alter the policy position in Lambeth. An assessment of the design merits of the proposal, neighbouring residential amenity and the provision of amenity space for the proposed development is detailed further on in this report. In summary, the proposal is considered to be policy complaint in regards to each of these elements, and no objection is therefore raised to redevelopment of the rear gardens.
7.1.7 It is noted that no objection was raised by the Council on land use grounds in refusing the previous planning application.
(c) Loss of garages
7.1.8 Section 17 [Core Planning Principles] of the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. The garages are classified as previously developed land and are not of high environmental value. Therefore no objection is raised to their redevelopment.
(d) Principle of intensification of residential use
7.1.9 With respect to the intensification of residential use on the site, Core Strategy Policy S2(a) seeks the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/11 and 2016/17 in line with London Plan targets, and a further 8,800 more homes by 2024/25 subject to London Plan targets for that period.
7.1.10 The application site is surrounded by residential development and the use of the site for residential accommodation would be compatible with the surrounding land use. Therefore in land use terms the provision of additional dwellings (also Class C3 use) would be in accordance with this aspect of Policy S2 of the Core Strategy, subject to compliance with other development plan policies and other material considerations.
7.1.11 The proposal would positively contribute to the annual target for housing delivery within the Borough, as identified by the London Plan and the Core Strategy. Page 44
(e) Density of development
7.1.12 Policy 3.4 of the London Plan states that development should optimise housing output taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 of the London Plan and public transport capacity. Reference is also made to indicative density ranges for different types of locations contained within Table 3.2 of the Plan.
7.1.13 Saved UDP Policy 33 states that the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of new residential development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Proposals for higher densities than that prevalent in the surrounding area will be encouraged in appropriate locations, which include areas of good, very good or exceptional public transport accessibility. Schemes that under-develop a site will be refused. In all cases, however, development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding development or harm residential amenity. Illustrations of densities that can be achieved are given within the supporting text to the Policy. This indicates that densities of 450-700 Habitable Rooms per Hectare (HRH) are achievable in urban areas with moderate to high levels of public transport accessibility and within walking distance of a town centre.
7.1.14 Policy S2(g) of the Core Strategy seeks levels of residential density consistent with London Plan guidelines, having regard to the provision of other uses on the site, availability of local services, access to and capacity of public transport, urban design context, quality of design and impact on existing and future residents.
7.1.15 The site lies within an urban location, because it is located along a main traffic artery and lies within 800m of a designated town centre (Norbury Town Centre as designated within the hierarchy of Centres within the LB of Croydon UDP). The site has a PTAL of 4, and the surrounding area is characterised by terraced houses or blocks with medium building footprints and buildings of typically two to four storey in height. The density of the proposed development is 85 units per hectare or 430 habitable rooms per hectare which is just below the density range set out within Policy 33 of the UDP.
7.1.16 However, it must be recognised that the density ranges given in both the London Plan and the Local Development Plan are indicative and that policy is very clear that the existing site context must be considered in applying these ranges. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP expressly states that development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding development or harm residential amenity.
7.1.17 Officers consider that whilst the density falls just below the target density range, the resulting density of the scheme makes best use of the site whilst taking into account surrounding development. The applicant has demonstrated that the density level sought can be Page 45
accommodated on this constrained part-backland site without compromising the residential amenity of existing neighbouring properties. This has been achieved through a reduction in the number of units/habitable rooms and a scaling back of the rear terrace of townhouses, which was the principle concern with the previous refused scheme.
7.1.18 The previous reason for refusal relating to density and overdevelopment of the site has now been overcome. In reaching this conclusion full account has been taken of London Plan and Local Development Plan policies and other material planning considerations including recent planning permissions granted for adjoining sites and referred to in the applicant’s supporting statement.
7.2 STANDARD OF PROPOSED ACCOMMODATION
7.2.1 Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community. Saved Policy 33 states that all development should be of a high design quality that makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of potential residents. In terms of the quality of residential units to be provided, Saved Policies 15 and 33 are also supplemented by the Council’s SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.
7.2.2 The SPD advises on requirements such as minimum unit and room sizes and space standards, floor to ceiling heights, amenity space requirements, daylight/sunlight provision, privacy and spacing between buildings.
(a) Size of units/rooms
7.2.3 A schedule of all room sizes contained within the development is set out at Appendix 7 of the Planning Statement. Additionally, each of the principle habitable rooms and the overall units sizes have been measured and compared against the Council’s minimum units and room size requirements in Figures 1 and 2 of the SPD respectively. The scheme would comply with the overall unit and room size requirements for each flat/house.
7.2.4 The SPD provides further advice on the requisite floorspace and states that each unit should have storage space and sufficient circulation space to allow unimpeded access between habitable rooms. The submitted floorplans shows that each of the units would have adequate storage space or room to provide storage space, and would provide sufficient circulation space.
7.2.5 Each of the units would achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.3m. Page 46
7.2.6 The stacking of the proposed units is considered acceptable and all units would need to be constructed in accordance with the soundproofing requirements under the Building Regulations.
(b) Natural lighting (Sunlight/Daylight)
7.2.7 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight.
7.2.8 A daylight and sunlight study for proposed rooms within the development has been commissioned and submitted as Appendix 6 of the planning statement. This advises that the proposed design satisfies all of the requirements set out in the BRE guide ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’. The proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy 33 in this regard and no objection is raised.
(c) Outlook
7.2.9 It is considered that each of the habitable rooms within the frontage block would provide adequate outlook for future occupants. Within the rear terrace it is considered that the primary living space and the east facing bedroom at first floor level would be provided with adequate outlook.
7.2.10 In order to overcome a potential loss of privacy issue to neighbouring properties (discussed further on in this report) it is proposed to install obscure glazed oriel windows in the two bedrooms at first floor level, which face towards the rear elevations and gardens of properties on Danbrook Road. Whilst this would partially restrict the outlook from these bedrooms it is noted that there would be clear glazing at 1.7m above finished floor level and the side panels within these oriel windows would also be clear glazed. This is considered a necessary design solution to address overlooking issue to neighbouring properties. Officers consider that whilst the reduced level of outlook to these secondary bedrooms is regrettable, it is not considered sufficient grounds to warrant a refusal. This is a design approach that has been utilised on other schemes within the borough without objection being raised.
7.2.11 A planning condition is recommended to require details of the obscure glazing and to ensure that the glazing is installed before first occupation of the townhouses and permanently retained for the duration of the use of the properties.
(d) Privacy
7.2.12 The previous scheme refused in February 2009 was considered to result in substandard accommodation, due in part to mutual overlooking and loss of privacy between proposed residential units Page 47
within the scheme, namely between the frontage block and the rear terrace of dwellings.
7.2.13 The current proposal would introduce a 16.0m (approx) separation between the rear elevation of the frontage block and the rear terrace of dwellings, which is considered satisfactory within an urban location such as Streatham. In addition, no windows would be used within the ground floor elevation of the front block and defensive planting would be utilised to the ground floor elevations of the rear terrace to provide a natural barrier between the residential units and the proposed communal amenity space (including children’s playspace). The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has advised that further demarcation between the communal area and the ground floor windows of the rear terrace could be reserved through the introduction of planting as part of a scheme of soft landscaping. Having considered these factors, there is no objection raised on the grounds of mutual overlooking within the development. In fact, the overlooking of communal amenity space is welcomed as a design feature with the Council’s SPD.
(e) Amenity Space/Children’s Play Space
7.2.14 In carrying out an assessment of amenity space provision there are two aspects to be looked at. Firstly there is the total amenity space provision, which is calculated on the basis of the number of units to be provided. Secondly, there is children’s play space provision which is based on the child yield for the development.
(a) Total amenity space provision
7.2.15 The requirement for amenity space provision as part of new residential developments is detailed both in the London Plan and the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(h) of the Core Strategy requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by, where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.
7.2.16 This is expanded on in Section 2 of the Council’s Adopted SPD (Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions) which seeks to ensure that new housing developments provide an appropriate standard of useable amenity space for occupiers, both private and communal space.
7.2.17 With respect to the proposed flats, the SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions sets out that for new flatted development, shared amenity space of at least 50sqm per scheme should be provided. A further 10sqm per flat should also be provided, either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal space. The minimum requirement for the block of 11 flats is therefore 160sqm. It is noted that the 2 ground floor 4-bedroom flats would each have private amenity space of approx 41sqm and 45 sqm respectively. Page 48
Therefore a requirement for 140sqm would be required for the remaining 9 flats. The proposal provides 280sqm (approx) of communal amenity space between the front block and the rear terrace adjoining the northern boundary of the site. In addition, there is a proposed 130sqm (approx) area of communal amenity space adjoining the southern boundary, which has been marked out for use as a communal garden/vegetable patch/sitting out area. This provision is far in excess of the required 140sqm of communal amenity space and no objection is raised to the amenity space provision.
7.2.18 With respect to the proposed housing, the SPD minimum requirement is 30sqm per dwelling. All 7 of the proposed terrace dwellinghouses would benefit from west facing rear gardens that meet this figure and therefore would be compliant with policy. Two of the townhouses would have private amenity space of 130sqm and 140sqm respectively.
Children’s play space provision
7.2.19 In respect to Children’s play space, UDP Policy 50 (i) and the associated Housing Development SPD set out that the provision of suitable play areas for pre-school and junior children will be sought, where appropriate, in residential developments of 10 or more units, or on sites of 0.1 Ha or more, or in large mixed use developments. Play areas should be easily accessible, overlooked by habitable rooms and enclosed either through fencing, railings or other safety features. Appropriate play equipment that complies with current safety standards should be installed. Further guidance on the amount of provision is provided in the GLA’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (adopted March 2008) . This indicates that new residential development generating more than 10 children (as determined by the application of child occupancy assessments) should provide suitable play space as
part of the development scheme. It states that provision should be based on 10sqm per child and that the provision should be considered as part of the overall open space provision rather than ‘over and above’ the requirements for private or shared amenity space as set out above.
7.2.20 The plans show an area of children’s play space set aside between the frontage block and rear terrace, adjacent to the northern boundary with Rochester Close. The expected child yield for this 17 unit scheme has been calculated at 12 using the Council’s Adopted S106 SPD, which would amount to an expected 120 sqm provision in accordance with the requirements set out in the GLA’s SPG and the Council’s SPD requirements. It should be noted that the child yield figure would normally vary depending on the tenure mix and level of affordable housing. In this instance the exact level of affordable housing provision has yet to be confirmed as details of whether public subsidy is achievable has not been provided. However, the Council’s S106 toolkit calculator shows that both the 41% affordable housing scheme (7 affordable housing units) and the 47% affordable housing scheme (8 Page 49
affordable housing units) would generate a similar child yield figure when rounded off.
7.2.21 The actual area of communal play space shown on the drawings would exceed this minimum requirement as previously detailed in paragraph 7.2.17. Should planning permission be granted officers recommend that further detailed drawings of the playspace, the boundary treatment and the type of equipment to be provided be secured by way of planning condition in order to ensure compliance with adopted Council policy. This would ensure the appropriate provision of either railings, fencing or other safety features as required by the Adopted SPD.
7.2.22 In summary the level and nature of amenity space is considered acceptable and would not prejudice the aims of the SPD. In the event of planning permission being granted it is recommended that a landscape management and maintenance plan for the communal amenity space and children’s’ play space be secured by condition.
(f) Noise Impact
7.2.23 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF advises that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.
7.2.24 It is noted that 8 of the 11 flats within the frontage block would have habitable windows facing towards Streatham High Road, which is a busy traffic artery providing links to and from Central London. A number of recent residential developments have been granted in close proximity to the site on Streatham High Road (e.g. Nos. 417-419, Sinclair Court) and the proposal would have a setback of approximately 10m from the site frontage.
7.2.25 The Council’s Environmental Health team (Noise Pollution) has raised no objection to the scheme. A condition has been recommended to limit internal noise levels to living rooms and bedrooms to prevent environmental noise impact from the road.
7.2.26 In light of these issues it is officer consideration that the residential amenity of potential residents could be safeguarded in the event of planning permission being granted.
7.3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING/DWELLING MIX
Affordable Housing Provision
7.3.1 Core Strategy S2 seeks affordable housing on all sites over 0.1 of a hectare or capable of providing 10 or more units, and as such affordable housing is required on this site. The policy requirements are for 50% (40% without public subsidy) of units to be affordable with a tenure split of 70% social rented and 30% intermediate. Page 50
7.3.2 Paragraph 4.9 and the accompanying Table 1 of this report outlines the affordable housing provision offered by the applicant.
7.3.3 The figures proposed are broadly considered to be in compliance with housing policy objectives and with Saved Policy 16 of the UDP, Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and the provisions of the London Plan. This would need to be secured by way of a Section 106 legal agreement.
Dwelling mix
7.3.4 Policy S2(d) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of the community including through applying lifetime homes and Building for Life Standards and providing wheelchair accessible housing.
Table 2: Proposed dwelling mix
No. of units Percentage of units
1-bed flat 1 6.0%
2-bed flat 5 29.0%
3-bed flat 3 18%
4-bed flat 2 12.0%
3-bed house 6 35.0%
7.3.5 Table 2 shows the proposed dwelling mix. This complies with Policy S2 by providing a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community, including a number of family homes for which there is an identified demand within the borough. On this basis there is no policy objection to the proposed dwelling mix.
Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair accessible housing
7.3.6 Policy 3.8 of the London Plan, Saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(d) of the Core Strategy provide guidance on Lifetime Homes and wheelchair accessible housing. This is further expanded on in Section 7 of the Adopted SPD ‘Guidance and standards for housing development and house conversions’. This requires Lambeth to ensure that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes. In addition, within a development, ten per cent of all new homes should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. Page 51
7.3.7 The submitted planning statement advises that the development is compliant with Lifetime Homes standards. This could be secured by planning condition in the event of planning approval.
7.3.8 The submitted planning statement also advises that the proposed scheme promotes inclusive design with 100% of units being designed to be capable of accommodating the needs of wheelchair users. The requirement to secure 10% of units as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users could be secured by planning condition in the event that planning approval is granted.
7.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
7.4.1 Saved Policies 7, 33, 36 and 38 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with regards to amenity related matters. The application site is constrained both by its physical layout and by the proximity of adjoining occupiers on all shared boundaries. This section assesses the design proposal’s impact on privacy, sense of enclosure, outlook, daylight/sunlight and noise to adjoining properties.
(a) Sense of Enclosure/Overbearing impact/Visual intrusion
7.4.2 Policy 33 requires that proposed development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding properties resulting in an unacceptable sense of enclosure.
7.4.3 In assessing this resubmission it should be noted that both previous schemes were refused on the basis of the creation of an unacceptable sense of enclosure from the rear terrace of townhouses that would adversely affect the amenity of adjoining property occupiers.
7.4.4 This clearly identifies the constraints of developing this part-backland site, especially due to the proximity of adjoining properties on Colmer Road, Danbrook Road and Rochester Close. In attempting to overcome the previous reason for refusal the design of the rear terrace has been amended with a reduction in the number of units from 7 to 6 and the removal of a dual pitched roof and front dormer and replacement with a two storey building with a flat roof. This has reduced the maximum height of the townhouses from 8.6m to 6.0m.
7.4.5 In addition the footprint of the rear terrace has been reduced and sited further away from the northern boundary with Rochester Close and southern boundary with Colmer Road. There is a proposed separation distance of approx 6.2m with the northern boundary (previously 3.8m) and a proposed separation distance of approx 6.0m with the southern boundary (previously 3.8m).
7.4.6 The relationship of the rear terrace with each of the adjoining property boundaries is now assessed: Page 52
Colmer Road (to the southern boundary)
7.4.7 In assessing the previous application it was considered that the proximity of the proposed terrace of townhouses coupled with the overall ridge height, would result in an overbearing relationship and cause unacceptable visual intrusiveness to adjoining properties in Colmer Road. The current proposal seeks to address this concern by reducing the overall height of the terrace and increasing the setback.
7.4.8 The separation distance between the proposed rear terrace and the Colmer Road properties has been increased due to a shifting of the proposed terrace away from the shared boundary wall by approximately 2.2 metres. It is considered that the properties that would be most affected would be Nos. 4 & 6 Colmer Road which would directly face onto the side flank wall of the proposed terrace. The closest distance would be approximately 14.2m between the side flank wall of the proposed terrace and the closest rear elevation (of No. 4 Colmer Road). This is an increased separation distance of approximately 6.0m over the first refused scheme, which had proposed a side flank wall to be built flush with the shared boundary at ground and first floor level with a second floor setback of 5.4m.
7.4.9 In light of these changes to the previously refused scheme, it is considered that the siting, bulk and height of the proposed development within the backland site would be acceptable and would not result in an overbearing relationship or cause unacceptable visual intrusiveness with adjoining properties in Colmer Road.
Danbrook Road (to the western boundary)
7.4.10 The site is bounded to the west by a row of two-storey terraced properties (Nos. 2-16 Danbrook Road). These properties have an angled relationship with the shared western boundary wall meaning that the separation distance increases moving northwards from No.2 towards No. 16. The closest distance between the Danbrook Road elevations and the proposed terrace would be approximately 15.8m to No.2 Danbrook Road rising to approximately 20.0m to No. 16 Danbrook Road. In considering this relationship it is also noted that the garden depth between the shared western boundary wall and the rear elevation of the proposed terrace would vary between 5.4m and 7.0m.
7.4.11 Having considered the various amendments to the scheme and in light of site visit observations including to No. 16 Danbrook Road, it is considered that the changes to the siting, bulk, length, detailed design and height of the proposed terrace have addressed previous concerns. The proposal would not result in an overbearing relationship or cause unacceptable visual intrusiveness to adjoining properties in Danbrook Road. As such the previous reason for refusal has been overcome.
Rochester Close (to the north) Page 53
7.4.12 With respect to the Rochester Close properties, it is observed that the properties most likely to be affected would be Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The flank wall of the proposed terrace would be approximately 6.2m from the shared northern boundary wall (previously 3.8), with an approximate separation distance of 14.2m to the rear windows of ground floor living rooms within the Rochester Close properties.
7.4.13 In light of these changes to the previously refused scheme, it is considered that the siting, bulk and height of the proposed development within the backland site would be acceptable and would not result in an overbearing relationship or cause unacceptable visual intrusiveness with adjoining properties in Rochester Close.
7.4.14 No objection is raised with regards to sense of enclosure or visual intrusiveness to other adjoining properties to the east or north on Streatham High Road or south-east within Shirley Court.
7.4.15 Having regard to the above considerations, it is considered that the proposal has overcome the previous reason for refusal relating to sense of enclosure and visual intrusiveness to the properties on Danbrook Road, Colmer Road and Rochester Close by providing a reduced number of terrace houses of lower density and height, and set back from these neighbouring properties and is now compliant with Saved Policies 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy in this regard.
(b) Loss of Privacy/Overlooking
7.4.16 Saved Policy 33(d) requires that the scale and design of new buildings should respect standards of privacy and not create unacceptable overlooking to neighbouring properties.
7.4.17 In terms of the frontage block, it is considered that the proposed building has been designed to ensure that there would be no direct overlooking into windows of adjoining residential properties on Rochester Close. Potential overlooking into rear gardens may occur at an oblique angle, but this form of overlooking is to be expected in an urban setting such as that surrounding the application site.
7.4.18 The flank walls of the rear terrace would be blank, and therefore there would be no issue of overlooking to properties that face Rochester Close or Colmer Road. The high level walkways that were a feature of a previous scheme have been omitted in the current proposal.
7.4.19 The rear of the proposed terrace of 7 houses would face onto the rear of the properties on Danbrook Road, with a distance from elevation to elevation ranging from approx 15.8m with No.2 Danbrook Road up to a distance of approx 20.0m with No. 16 Danbrook Road. The applicant envisages that the existing perimeter wall around the site would be retained, thereby maintaining appropriate levels of privacy to rear gardens of neighbouring dwellings at ground floor level. Full details of Page 54
boundary treatment could be reserved by planning condition in the event of planning approval being granted.
7.4.20 At first floor level the proposal would utilise oriel windows to serve the two rear bedrooms. These oriel windows form a box which projects from the face of the rear elevation, the sides of which would be clear glazed while the rear part of the window facing Danbrook Road would be obscure glazed up to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level. The obscure glass would allow light through but not allow any direct or significant views into the Danbrook Road properties or rear gardens. Oblique views may be possible but would be restricted to the clear glazed sides and top of the oriel window, which would allow a reasonable balance to be struck between protecting the privacy of the properties at Danbrook Road while providing a degree of outlook for the occupiers of the proposed bedrooms. This approach has been used within other development schemes within the borough and it is officer consideration that it would adequately address privacy concerns.
7.4.21 An objection was also previously made within the first refused scheme that the upper floors of the terraced house would be able to overlook the communal garden of Marqueen Tower immediately abutting the eastern boundary of the application site. It is acknowledged that there would be potential for overlooking from the first floor bedroom and corridor. However, this has been balanced against the removal of the raised walkways and front doors that were at first floor level in the first refused scheme, the removal of the habitable rooms and front facing dormer within the roofspace, the use of these proposed east facing rooms for bedroom purposes and the quasi-public character of the adjoining space. It is also acknowledged that the adjoining communal gardens are already overlooked to a considerable degree by other properties in the vicinity, in particular by the properties at Shirley Court. In light of this information it is officer consideration that a reason for refusal on the grounds of loss of privacy to the Marqueen Tower communal garden could not be sustained at appeal and is therefore not maintained.
7.4.22 Overall, the proposed layout and positioning of windows, coupled with proposed mitigation measures, is considered acceptable and would be sufficient to achieve adequate privacy and outlook.
(c) Impact upon natural light (Sunlight and daylight)
7.4.23 Saved Policy 33(d) requires that new buildings should be of a scale and design that protects residential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers by having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight. In assessing daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development upon residential neighbours, Saved Policy 33 states that regard will be had to the Building Research Establishment Page 55
(BRE) guidelines ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice’.
7.4.24 A daylight and sunlight study in respect of potential impact upon adjoining properties has been commissioned and submitted as Appendix 5 of the planning statement. This advises that the proposed design satisfies all of the requirements set out in the BRE guide ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’. The report concludes that there would be no material impacts upon adjoining properties.
7.4.25 With respect to the potential for overshadowing of neighbouring gardens, the applicant has submitted an overshadowing report as part of the BRE study. The BRE guide recommends that for an open space to appear adequately lit throughout the year, no more than 40% and preferably no more than 25% of its area should be prevented from receiving any sunlight at all on 21 st March. If the garden can receive some sun on 21 March, then it will receive some sunlight all summer.
7.4.26 The submitted report concludes that the proposed development would comply with the above requirements. The proposed development therefore passes the BRE overshadowing to gardens and open spaces test.
(d) Noise/Light disturbance
7.4.27 It is accepted that the site would be more intensively occupied, especially relative to the vacant garages and underutilised residential dwellings on site at present. However, the site is in a location well served by public transport and local amenities. In such locations higher densities of development are encouraged by national and local planning policies. Matters of noise nuisance are more appropriately dealt with under environmental health legislation if and when it occurs. Matters of noise transmission between properties are more appropriately a consideration of building regulations and there is no evidence to suggest that the future occupiers would be a source of unacceptable noise or disturbance.
7.4.28 The Council’s Environmental Health (Noise Pollution) team has provided comments and has not raised an objection to the proposal on noise grounds.
7.4.29 In the circumstances there is no reason to suggest that the proposed nature and intensity of residential use of the site would cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of the vicinity and the proposal is considered to comply with Saved Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy.
7.4.30 The issue of disturbance to adjoining residents from light pollution has also been raised by a number of objectors. In assessing this issue it is observed that the application site is located with an urban setting typified by a tight urban grain. The siting of the proposed terrace, and Page 56
in particular windows, would be at an adequate separation distance and would not be out of keeping with existing layouts elsewhere in the surrounding area. As such there is no reason to believe that the proposed development would lead to unacceptable levels of light pollution.
7.4.31 Details of external lighting of communal areas and access paths within the development could be conditioned to ensure that light spillage from these areas is managed and mitigated where necessary.
7.5 DESIGN AND TOWNSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS
7.5.1 A high quality standard of design is an integral requirement for all new build schemes, which is clearly reflected in National, Regional and Local level policies and guidance.
7.5.2 The design approach is contemporary in nature which follows on from the previously refused scheme. It is noted that the previous proposal was refused on design and visual amenity grounds for the following reason:
“The proposed development, by virtue of its detailed design and external materials, would fail to provide buildings of sufficient design quality and therefore would fail to adequately complement the Streatham High Road streetscene and surrounding area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)”.
7.5.3 In refusing the previous application the Local Planning Authority raised specific objection to the unusual shape of the timber veneer cladding system, which was felt to contradict the angular proportions and detailing of the building. There was also concern that the panelling due to its size could appear quite flat, lacking texture and interest. Concerns were also expressed by the Council’s Urban Design Officer with the use of a single material for the external facades of the building. The design of the current proposal has been developed in light of these concerns.
Building Form, Scale, and Height
7.5.4 Saved Policy 33(b) states that all development should be of an appropriate scale, massing and height appropriate to the site characteristics. Saved Policy 38 states that backland development should be subordinate to the frontage housing.
7.5.5 This part of Streatham High Road is generally between two to four storeys in height. Properties located off of the main High Road are suburban in character typically two storey Victorian and interwar homes. The properties along the High Road tend to be elevated in Page 57
height (three to four storeys) in comparison to the residential hinterland beyond. Marqueen Tower to the east is uncharacteristic of neighbouring buildings being five storeys in height with a fifth storey set back. It is also noted that a number of buildings have recently been constructed along the High Road including William Court (No. 417-419 Streatham High Road), Sinclair Court and the new Lidl development within the adjoining LB of Croydon and have a maximum height of four storeys.
7.5.6 The terrace in which the development is sited does not have a consistent height and ranges from two to five storeys. The scheme proposes a front block with a height of four storeys with the fourth storey set back from the building frontage. The proposal’s height is a storey lower than Marqueen Tower and approximately a storey and a half higher than the adjoining No. 602 Streatham High Road. In design terms it is considered that the proposal provides an acceptable transition between the differing scale of neighbouring properties.
7.5.7 In assessing the proposed rear terrace, it is worth reiterating that the residential hinterland off of Streatham High Road consists of mainly low scale residential properties generally two storey in height with pitched or hipped roofs. The proposed terrace to the rear would be two storey in height with a flat roof.
7.5.8 In providing comments on the previous refused application the Council’s Urban Design officer commented that in her opinion the rear terrace would benefit from removing the fourth bedroom in the roof, leaving a flat roof proposal. These comments have been taken on board and incorporated into the current proposal.
7.5.9 On this basis the proposed rear terrace is considered to be visually subordinate to the properties surrounding it, and therefore complies with Saved Policy 38 of the UDP. No objection is raised to the proposal’s scale, bulk or height.
Layout
7.5.10 The proposal for the frontage block follows the common building line along Streatham High Road which is acceptable.
7.5.11 The Council’s Urban Design Officer considers the proposed site layout to be broadly acceptable. However, this is subject to addressing design/layout concerns with the front forecourt, in particular the potential visual impact/dominance of large structures for cycle and refuses storage for the flats within the frontage block. It is officer consideration that the cycle storage area could be relocated into the communal garden. It is also considered that the forecourt has an excessive amount of hard surfacing, which could be addressed through the incorporation of more soft landscaping and greater depth of perimeter planting. These design revisions could be secured through planning conditions. Page 58
Appearance & materials
7.5.12 Saved Policy 33 (Building scale and design) states that all development should be of high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area. In addition Saved Policy 33(a) states that developments should be compatible with the colour, type, source and texture of local materials.
7.5.13 The proposal takes a contemporary approach in its design and materials. The proposed material palette for the frontage block would be a mix of render and timber veneer cladding panels. A sample of a dark red/brown colour Prodex cladding panel has been submitted, which is a composite panels with a natural wood veneer. The applicant has advised that these panels give the appearance of timber without any of the associated maintenance issues.
7.5.14 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has not raised an objection to the use of dark red/brown timber veneer cladding panels and has commented that the colour resonates with many developments within the area. Further advice states that the quality of the cladding is largely dependent on the fixing mechanism, which should utilise a concealed fixing with no visible screws. Details of the method of fixing along with the size of profile of the cladding could be controlled through planning condition.
7.5.15 The doors/windows would be aluminium with a polyester powder coated finish. A stainless steel balustrade would be installed on the top floor set back with glazed laminated panels to the north and south ends. Frameless glass balustrades are proposed for the units above ground floor level. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has advised that these should be clear glazed rather than the coloured glazing suggested by the applicant. The rear terrace of 6 townhouses would be a mix of white insulated render and timber veneer cladding panels. The roofs would be a flat sedum roof. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has advised that window detailing would benefit from simplification and has recommended that further details be sought by way of planning condition.
7.5.16 The previous scheme has been amended through the introduction of a second facing material, two projecting rendered bays to the front elevation and design alterations to the side flank walls. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has provided the following comments regarding the design amendments to address the previous design reason for refusal:
“The frontage block front elevation has regular openings and displays balance and symmetry. The revised scheme incorporates Sto white render bays to the front elevations, the contrast between the dark red/brown cladding and white render serve to break up the large areas of cladding whilst the Page 59
projection of the bays brings relief and depth to the façade which results in a more visually interesting façade. The side elevations have also been amended and now include render and cladding which through the arrangement of materials results in a more interesting elevation. The material arrangement also reduces the perceived mass of the building. The rear block is simply articulated clad in Sto white render with Prodex [timber cladding] accents to the front entrance, ground floor rear window infill panel and projecting first floor rear window bay surround which is acceptable.”
7.5.17 No. 600 Streatham High Road is locally listed. Officers consider that the proposal would not unacceptably impact upon the setting of this locally listed building.
7.5.18 In summary, the proposed development has overcome the design concerns noted within the previously refused scheme. Subject to the approval of further design details by way of planning conditions it is officer consideration the proposal would provide a scheme of acceptable design quality that complements the Streatham High Road streetscene and surrounding area. As such the proposal is compliant with Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
Trees
7.5.19 A number of objections have been raised to the felling of trees that previously existed on the site. This is not a matter for consideration as the trees did not benefit from any statutory protection and the applicant was entitled to remove them from this private property without the requirement to seek approval from the Local Planning Authority. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has reaffirmed this point.
Landscaping
7.5.20 Saved Policy 39 of the UDP states that development should include landscape design that enhances the area. Details of the proposed landscaping treatment have been provided within the submitted Design and Access statement and the accompanying application drawings. The intention is to provide a comprehensive proposal for landscaping around the two buildings. Trees and shrubs would be planted in front of the building fronting Streatham High Road and also throughout the communal garden.
7.5.21 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has raised no objection to the indicative layout but has requested that further details of a scheme of final scheme of soft and hard landscaping as well as a planting schedule be reserved by condition in the event of a planning approval. The landscaping scheme should also be amended to address the Page 60
earlier concerns relating to the treatment of the front forecourt area and relocation of the cycle storage.
7.5.22 In light of these comments, it is officer consideration that an acceptable landscaping strategy and management plan could be secured in the event of planning approval that would comply with the intentions of Saved Policy 39 of the UDP.
Loss of wildlife/Protection of the natural environment
7.5.23 Policy 5.3 of the London Plan seeks to protect and promote biodiversity and nature conservation. Given the existing use of the site, both in terms of the unmanaged rear gardens and the vacant garages site, it is unlikely that the application site would contain residual biodiversity interest. It is acknowledged that the proposal would introduce managed soft landscaping, including gardens and communal amenity space, to a site that is currently uncared for and unmanaged. There are no implications in terms of protected landscapes, sites of wildlife importance or access to and use of existing open space.
7.5.24 However, it is noted that the garages are currently vacant and are not currently accessible due to the erection of a boundary wall along the access driveway. In the absence of activity on this part of the site it is not inconceivable for some wildlife to be present on the site. Officers therefore consider it appropriate to seek an ecological survey before works commence on site to establish if there are any legally protected species or habitats which might be present on the application site, and to detail appropriate mitigation measures in the event that such species are present.
Archaeological matters
7.5.25 The application site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area. Policy S9(b) of the Core Strategy states that the Council has a responsibility to safeguard and promote the borough’s heritage assets, including marking appropriate provision for assets of archaeological value.
7.5.26 The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Statement which has been reviewed and commented upon by English Heritage Archaeology. Advice has been received that there is potential for archaeological remains to occur on site and specifically in the western portion of the site. It has advised that the archaeological position should be reserved by attaching a condition to any grant of planning permission to prevent any development works commencing before further investigative works have been undertaken to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
7.6 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES Page 61
7.6.1 Policy S7(a) of the Core Strategy requires all major developments to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in line with London Plan targets. This adopts a presumption that developments will achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation [Policy 4A.7 Renewable Energy]. Saved Policy 35 sets out that all development proposals should show how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles.
7.6.2 The applicant has submitted an Energy Statement by Southfacing Services Ltd enclosed as Appendix 11 of the Planning Statement. This states that consideration had been given to a range of potential solutions to achieve a 20% CO2 reduction through the use of renewable technologies. Five possible renewable technologies were investigated by the Sustainability consultants. These are Solar Thermal, Ground Source Heat Pumps (gSHP), Biomass Boilers, Photovoltaic cells (PV) and rooftop integrated wind turbines.
7.6.3 Four of these were found to achieve a reduction of 20% of the total carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the Council’s requirements, with the wind turbines option discounted. Of the four options, a standalone biomass system proves to have the lowest installed cost, but would require additional plant space, communal distribution system and a fuel store. The combined PV and Solar Thermal array has been chosen as the preferred solution because it would require minimal additional space within the scheme compared to biomass. Additionally this option would incur lower maintenance overheads and be eligible for the Feed in Tarriff (FIT). The submitted energy statement indicates that the installation of 125sqm of panels on the roofs would achieve a carbon dioxide reduction of 22.25%.
7.6.4 It is considered that in the event of planning approval, policy compliance could be secured by way of a condition requiring further details of the preferred solution to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This would also allow the Local Planning Authority to address any potential design or amenity issues arising from the renewable technology equipment.
7.6.5 With reference to Saved Policy 35, all development proposals should show, by means of a Sustainability Assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. The sustainability assessment should detail how a proposed development incorporate the sustainability principles set out in the UDP and as expanded on in the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. The SPD sets out that the Council’s preferred method of environmental certification for residential development is the Code for Sustainable Homes. The Council seeks the achievement of Code Level 3 as a minimum standard although it aspires to Code Level 4 in the majority of developments.
7.6.6 The applicant has submitted a Code for Sustainable Homes Pre- assessment report by Southfacing Services Ltd enclosed as Appendix 10 of the Planning Statement. This indicates that based on the current Page 62
design the proposal would achieve a score of 70.86%, which places the development within Code Level 4 in excess of the Council’s minimum requirement. If planning permission is granted it is recommended that a condition is attached stating that no dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.
7.7 HIGHWAYS AND PARKING ISSUES
7.7.1 Saved Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with respect to Transportation and Highways matters. These policies seek to ensure that proposals for development have a minimal impact on the performance and safety of the highway network and that sufficient and appropriate car parking and cycle storage is provided whilst meeting objectives to encourage sustainable transport and to reduce reliance on the private car.
7.7.2 The site is located within an area of good public transport (PTAL score of 4) and is not within a Controlled Parking Zone. The site is located on the A23 Streatham High Road which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network.
7.7.3 The proposal would not provide any on-site parking with the exception of one parking space for a car club bay and one disabled car parking space within this hard stand area to the site frontage onto Streatham High Road.
Trip Generation
7.7.4 The site currently contains 14 garages which although currently vacant could be used for off-street car parking. The applicant has suggested that combined with the four existing houses, the existing site has the potential to generate approximately 34 two way vehicle trips per day. The proposed development of 17 residential units is likely to generate 28 two way vehicle trips to the site per day meaning a reduction of 6 two way trips per day. The Council’s Transport Planner is satisfied that there would not be any significant increase in vehicle trips as a result of the proposal.
Vehicle Access
7.7.5 A number of objections have been received from local residents with regards to the pedestrian and vehicular safety at the site entrance and on Streatham High Road, especially at its junctions with Colmer Road and Green Lane. The proposal would involve the installation of two new vehicular crossovers to Streatham High Road to facilitate access to the proposed front forecourt area for the two designated parking bays and for refuse and delivery vehicles. Both Transport for London and the Council’s Transport Planner have been consulted and no objection has been raised with this arrangement. TfL has requested that a S106 obligation be imposed to require that the developer enters Page 63
into S278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980 with TFL for the removal of redundant crossovers/reinstatement and making good the footway on Streatham High Road and also to provide the two proposed vehicle crossovers. If planning permission is granted it is recommended that this be included within the s106 legal agreement.
Car parking
7.7.6 Policy 14(g) states that car free developments are encouraged in areas of good, very good and exceptional public transport accessibility (with reference to PTAL score). In these areas, especially where there is presently severe parking stress or there would be a significant increase in parking stress following development, development will be secured as car-free (no on-site parking) and/or permit-free (where the eligibility of occupiers for Council parking permits is prohibited), and/or be part of/contribute towards a city car club.
7.7.7 The site has a PTAL of 4 which indicates good accessibility and therefore the principle of low car parking provision, in this instance a total of 2 spaces for a disabled user bay and for a city car club within the site, is acceptable. However, it is inevitable that additional on-street car parking would occur and therefore it is necessary to look at the impact of this. The applicant has undertaken an overnight parking survey in the surrounding area which confirms the Council’s Transport Planner’s view that parking stress in the area is currently at a very high level with little spare capacity remaining.
7.7.8 In order to estimate what impact the proposed development would have on parking levels in the area it is necessary to calculate how many vehicles are likely to be owned by future residents. The most accurate method of doing this is by referring to car ownership data from the 2001 Census. This shows that 63.4% of households in this area own one or more vehicles, which is the highest level of car ownership of any ward in Lambeth.
7.7.9 The development proposes a total of 17 units so using the Census data it would be expected that 14 cars would be owned by residents of the development, with 8 dwellings owning 1 car and 3 flats owing 2 cars. When these additional cars (less the one on-site disabled parking bay) are added to the overall parking stress for both restricted and unrestricted lengths of road, an overall stress of 74% is reached. This level is 92% when unrestricted on-street parking is assessed. The Council’s Transport Planner considers this to be high and has requested that a series of mitigation measures are put in place to address this issue. These include:
• Provision of a minimum of 30 cycle spaces to be secured by planning condition in the event of planning approval. • Designation of an on-site car club bay and membership to be secured for residents of the development for a 2 year period with Page 64
£25 of driving credit per member to be secured by S106 in the event of planning approval. • Securing of a travel plan through a S106 in order to promote sustainable modes of transport for future occupiers.
7.7.10 On balance and taking into account the proposed mitigation measures and the Good PTAL rating of 4 the Council’s Transport Planner considers that subject to conditions and a S106 legal agreement the proposal is acceptable in transport/highways terms.
7.7.11 It is noted that Transport for London has advised that the car parking provision is in accordance with the standards set out in the London Plan. A parking management plan, to be secured through a condition, is considered appropriate in this instance to demonstrate measures to be taken to restrict parking to the two designated resident parking bays within the front forecourt.
Construction Management Plan
7.7.12 Transport for London (TFL) has been consulted as the appointed highways authority for Streatham High Road. TFL requests that a Construction Logistics Plan, as referred to in the London Freight Plan, which identifies efficiency and sustainability measures to be undertaken whiles developments are being built, is submitted to and approved by the LB of Lambeth in conjunction with TfL before construction work commences on site. This could be secured by planning condition in the event of a planning approval.
Cycle Parking Provision
7.7.13 Cycle parking is shown to be provided in connection with the development. A total of 24 cycle spaces are proposed for the entire development with 12 provided in a secure communal structure located in front of the site for use by occupiers of the flats and a further 12 provided for the houses. This would have been sufficient according to Lambeth UDP standards, however these have not been saved under the Core Strategy. London Plan standards are now used which require one space per 1 or 2 bed unit but 2 spaces for every 3+ bed unit. This being the case the applicant should provide a total of 28 cycle spaces.
7.7.14 The Transport Planning Officer has advised that further details including manufacturer’s specification could be requested by way of planning condition should planning approval be granted. It is also noted that the Council’s Urban Design Officer has raised concerns with the siting of the communal cycle storage structure in the front forecourt area. In the event of planning approval this could be reserved by way of planning condition.
7.7.15 It follows that the development, subject to appropriate conditions and s.106 obligations, has addressed the previous transport/highways Page 65
reason for refusal and is acceptable in the context of Transportation and Highways related Policies; namely Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).
7.8 DESIGNING OUT CRIME
7.8.1 Saved Policy 32 of the UDP requires that development should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. Policy S9(f) of the Core Strategy requires the Council to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability by creating safe and secure environments that reduce the scope for crime, fear of crime, anti-social behaviour and fire, having regard to Secured by Design standards.
7.8.2 A number of objections have been received from local residents raising concerns in terms of potential increased crime risk and anti-social behaviour resulting from the development. In addition, objection was previously received from Sergeant Mark Brindley on behalf of the Streatham South Safer Neighbourhood Team (c/o Streatham Policy Station). The following concerns were raised:
• The proposal would give rise to anti-social behaviour issues and crime risk and would be contrary to Policy 32 of the UPD. • The siting of the children’s play area in a backland location not visible from the street would be contrary to Policy 32 of the UPD. • Proposal would exacerbate existing anti-social behaviour issues in the surrounding area, such as in Rochester Close and would allow local youths to congregate on the site. • Affordable housing units could end up on Lambeth’s Housing Register and fail to contribute positively to the surrounding area based on existing precedents in the area such as the adjoining Marqueen Tower.
7.8.3 The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Officer (CPDA) was consulted on the scheme at pre-application stage and has confirmed a visit to the site to discuss the proposal with the applicant’s planning consultant. The CPDA has also been provided with a copy of the concerns raised by Sgt Brindley before providing her comments.
7.8.4 The CPDA has advised that the main crime issues that affect this area are groups of youth loitering, with some committing street crime, drug related offences and anti-social behaviour. It is essential that this proposed development is well designed to mitigate these potential risks and include good boundary fencing all round with effective lighting and good quality audio visual access control at the communal entrance points. The narrow entrance to the houses requires particular attention to ensure a safe access point along the gardens of Marqueen Towers. Page 66
7.8.5 The CPDA has not raised an in principle objection to the scheme, but instead has made a number of recommendations to address potential crime generation/anti-social behaviour issues including a requirement that the development should be required to achieve ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation. It is officer consideration that this could be addressed by way of a planning condition in the event of planning approval being granted.
7.8.6 The CPDA has also raised the issue of whether it may be appropriate to consider securing financial contributions through a S106 legal agreement for local youth facilities provision due to the potential introduction of further youths into the area, and the pre-existing issues arising from local youths congregating in the vicinity of the site.
7.8.7 Officers consider that such an obligation would not be suitable in this instance, and would fail to meet the tests for planning obligations as set out in Government Circular 05/2005 (Planning Obligations). Firstly, this planning application is not a suitable mechanism to address pre- existing issues with anti-social behaviour in the surrounding area. There are other legislative measures and potential funding streams to deal with this problem. Secondly, no evidence has been put forward to indicate that the proposed development would intensify this existing anti-social behaviour issue. The scheme provides an acceptable quantum of amenity space in line with adopted SPD requirements for all target age groups. A financial contribution is therefore considered unreasonable and wouldn’t be necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning term.
7.8.8 It is also noted that a sum of £9,749.65 would be secured by way of planning obligation towards the provision and upkeep of sports and leisure facilities within the borough (see para 7.10.4 of this report). This would be used to maintain sports and leisure facilities within the borough, which would be available to users of the proposed development.
7.8.9 The CPDA has also requested that the boundaries between the proposed development and the side access/rear garden of Marqueen Tower be improved to ensure the safety and security of residents. In the event of planning approval this could be secured by way of planning condition.
7.8.10 It follows that the development, subject to appropriate conditions, is acceptable in the context of crime prevention/Designing out crime related policies; namely Policy 32 of the UDP and Policy S9(f) of the Core Strategy.
7.9 REFUSE/RECYCLING STORAGE
7.9.1 Policy S8 of the Core Strategy places a requirement on developments to contribute to the sustainable management of waste. Specific Page 67
guidance is set out within the Council’s ‘Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements’ guidance (2006).
7.9.2 It is proposed to provide separate waste and recycling facilities for the rear terrace of 6 dwellinghouses and the frontage block containing 11 flats. The 4 storey frontage block would have a purpose built storage structure located within the front forecourt area adjoining the two vehicle parking spaces. The 11 flats contain a total of 28 bedrooms. The required capacity for the communal storage is 1,680 litres (to be provided by 2 x 1,100 litre waste bins) and 840 litres (to be provided by 1 x 1,280 litre recycling bin).
7.9.3 The rear terrace of 6 dwellinghouses would have one 360 litre bin for waste for each house, along with a recycling box to be provided by the Council. A communal storage area would also be provided within the access pathway between Marqueen Towers and Shirley Court. This would be located behind secure access gates.
7.9.4 In the event of planning approval a condition could be attached to any planning permission requiring the agreement of a refuse management plan with the Council which would ensure that appropriate refuse and recycling storage arrangements are put in place upon completion of the development.
7.9.5 It is noted that objections have been raised on traffic/highways ground to the requirement for refuse collection vehicles to park on Streatham High Road when servicing the development, especially in light of its proximity to the junction with Green Lane. In response to this the scheme has been amended to provide refuse collection arrangements within the front forecourt area. This has been facilitated through the provision of a second vehicle crossover.
7.9.6 A tracking diagram has been submitted by the applicant, which demonstrates that an 8 metre refuse vehicle could safely access and exit the site in a forward gear, whilst retaining the two designated parking spaces. The Council’s Streetcare team has been consulted and has raised no objection to the servicing arrangements. In addition, Transport for London (TfL) has been consulted as the highways authority for Streatham High Road and has supported this approach. As such no objection is raised on transport/highways grounds.
7.9.7 It follows that subject to condition, the development need not conflict with Policy S8 of the Core Strategy (January 2011). Details of the revised front forecourt treatment would be requested through a planning condition in the event of planning approval being granted.
7.10 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLICATIONS/S.106 REQUIREMENTS
7.10.1 Policy 16 of the UDP and Policy S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), supplemented by the other policies of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and UDP and the SPD on s106 planning obligations, Page 68
sets out the circumstances in which the Council will seek planning obligations from a developer to mitigate against the potential impacts of a scheme.
7.10.2 As already stated, the scheme proposes 41% affordable housing based on units. This provision would comprise 6 no. three-bedroom townhouses and 1 no. four-bedroom apartment. It is proposed that 5 of the townhouses be social rented with the 2 remaining units for intermediate housing. This would equate to a 71%:29% tenure split. This would need to be secured by way of a Section 106 legal agreement. No details have been provided regarding whether grant funding would be available. It is further recommended that any S106 agreement should require uplift in the event that grant funding does become available to secure one additional affordable unit.
7.10.3 In order to mitigate the Transport/Highways impacts of the development, one of the 2 off-street bays within the front forecourt is proposed to be designated as a Car Club Bay. The applicant has submitted details of a potential agreement with Streetcar to operate this bay. This should be secured by way of planning obligation along with a requirement that provision of membership to the car club is provided for all of the residential units for a minimum period of 2 years. As previously mentioned, a S106 obligation is also recommended to require that the developer enters into S278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980 with TFL for the removal of redundant crossovers/reinstatement and making good the footway on Streatham High Road and to provide two new vehicle crossovers.
7.10.4 Further to this, it is considered that financial contributions should be secured by way of S106 to mitigate against the development’s impact as follows:
• Education £75,873.65 • Health £13,599.50 • Libraries £2,614.14 • Sports and Leisure £9,749.65 • Parks and Open Spaces £27,380.80 • Public Art £23,525.00 • Revenue Contributions £2,738.00 • Travel Plan £1,000 • Local Labour in Construction £5,881.25 • Monitoring Fee (5%) £8,118.09
7.10.5 The above contributions come to a total of £170,480.09 Page 69
7.10.6 It is considered that the above provisions, once secured under S106 of the Act, would appropriately mitigate against any potentially harmful impacts of the development in accordance with Policies 9, 14, and 16 of the UDP, Policies S2 and S10 of the Core Strategy and with the Council’s associated SPD on S106 obligations.
7.11 FLOOD RISK
7.11.1 Policy S6 of the Core Strategy advises that the Council will work in partnership with the Environment Agency in order to manage and mitigate flood risk. The site lies within an area that is categorised by the Environment Agency as having a low environmental risk from flooding. It follows that the site and development does not pose an unacceptable risk in terms of river or sea flooding or flooding from alternative sources.
7.11.2 In terms of managing surface water drainage and run-off, the submitted design and access statement advises that paving throughout the site would be permeable to allow natural drainage. A condition is recommended which would require further details on how the proposal would address surface water runoff and peak flow to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7.12 CONTAMINATED LAND
7.12.1 A Phase 1 Environmental desk study report relating to potential land contamination at the site has been submitted with the application. The findings did not reveal any significant existing sources of ground contamination. However, based on the desk study information, some contamination issues associated with the potential risk to groundwater and surface water may be present. The main potential sources of contamination are potential made ground beneath the site, the residential garages on the site and the former petrol filling station some 15m to the east of the site.
7.12.2 The study report suggests further works that could reasonably be secured by condition were the development considered acceptable in all other respects. This would take the form of a Phase II intrusive site investigation and assessment. Should this recommendation be fulfilled, with the inclusion of suitable mitigation measures should the results demonstrate inappropriate levels of contamination, then the site’s history need not be a barrier to the provision of an acceptable living environment for future residential properties. A condition of consent is recommended in this respect.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 The development as proposed optimises the potential of a part brownfield and part greenfield site located within an area of good public transport accessibility Page 70
8.2 The proposed redevelopment of the site is acceptable in that it would be of an appropriate design; it would provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers; it would not prejudice the amenity of neighbouring properties; it would not harm conditions of on-street parking or prejudice conditions of the free flow of traffic and highway safety; and would not unacceptably impact upon local infrastructure.
8.3 Furthermore, provisions are to be secured under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure the delivery of an appropriate quantum of affordable housing in accordance with policy requirements and to mitigate the impact of the development.
8.4 This report details that the proposed development has overcome the three reasons for refusal given by the Local Planning Authority in refusing the previous application on the site (ref: 11/00018/FUL).
8.5 It is therefore considered that the development is compliant with the planning policies of the development plan and that no other material planning considerations of sufficient weight exist that would dictate that the application should nevertheless be refused.
9 RECOMMENDATION
A. Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Obligation (Heads of Terms set out in section 7.10 of this report) and the attached conditions; or
B. It is further recommended that, in the event that the committee is minded to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, that delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a Section 106 agreement with the appellants in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision Policies 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth's adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies S1, S2, S3, S4, S7, S8, S9 and S10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) were relevant.
Page 71
CONDITIONS
STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
DESIGN/HERITAGE 3. No development shall commence until detailed drawings, samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations and roofs within the scheme hereby permitted are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. This shall include details of size and method of fixing of the timber cladding panels. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
4. No development shall commence until detailed drawings (scale of 1:20) to confirm the detailed design and materials of the:
i) new metal work including railings, gates, ballustrades and balconies, ii) window and door systems (including technical details, elevations, plans and cross sections) iii) front entrances for both front and rear blocks (including surrounds) iv) roof structure (including sections) v) rain water pipes (including material and colour) are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Page 72
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
5. All window reveals on the external faces of the development hereby permitted shall be set within 112mm (minimum) reveals from the face of the building unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
6. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme for the siting and design of all walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings for the whole site (including details of those existing which are to be retained and of those proposed). The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and such walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the development and be permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and to ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenity is provided (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
7. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a revised site layout plan showing the relocation of the communal cycle storage structure from the front forecourt to the rear of the site. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details before the initial occupation of the development and be permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.
Page 73
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and to ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenity is provided (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
8. No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of the buildings.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
9. No development (including demolition) shall take place within the site until the applicant, their agent or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme pursuant to this condition. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigation before any archaeological remains may be affected by the development (Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2011) and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011))
10. No development shall commence until full revised details of the refuse and recyclables storage area(s) for the approved scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies 9, 33, 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S8 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
11. No development shall commence until a Waste Management Strategy outlining the operation and management of waste storage and collection has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Page 74
Reason: To ensure adequate arrangements are put in place for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area and the safe operation of the adjacent public highway (Policies 9, 33, 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4, S8 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
SUSTAINABILITY/BIODIVERSITY 12. The development hereby approved shall achieve a Final BREEAM minimum of Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the relevant BREEAM scheme (Code for Sustainable Homes) or subsequent superseding equivalent BREEAM scheme. No development shall take place until a relevant BREEAM Certificate demonstrating the proposal’s achievement of the minimum Level 3 rating has been submitted to and approved by the Council. Within 4 months of the first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, an issued Final BREEAM Certificate stating the BREEAM Level achieved (minimum Level 3) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
13. Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on the approved drawings or supporting information, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until further details on how the proposal will address surface water runoff and peak flow has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
14. Prior to the commencement of development details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority detailing how renewable technologies will be used on site to deliver a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions. The equipment for renewable power generation shall be provided before first occupation of the development and permanently retained as such in accordance with the approved details unless the Page 75
written approval is obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development and in order to control the overall design standard of the development (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1, S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
15. Prior to first occupation of the development a scheme showing the siting, size, number and design of the solar thermal and photo voltaic array including cross sections of the roof of each building showing the panels in-situ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be sited so as to minimise its visual impact upon the external appearance of the buildings. The development shall thereafter be completed in strict accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such for the duration of use.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development and in order to control the overall design standard of the development (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1, S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
16. All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained.
Reason: In order that the development is made more accessible to all (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policy S2(d) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the related Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008)).
17. No development (or demolition) shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed statement of the development’s impact upon any legally protected species or habitats which might be present on the application Page 76
site, and any mitigation measures to be implemented should any protected habitats or species be found on the application site. The details of mitigation as are approved shall thereafter be implemented as part of the development and, if appropriate, shall be retained thereafter for the duration of the permitted use of the site.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development minimises its impact with respect to protected wildlife species that may be present on site or on adjacent properties, particularly bats, in accordance with Policy 5.3 of the London Plan.
TRANSPORT 18. Prior to the first occupation of the development, all existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and reinstating the footway verge and highways boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.
Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of highway users (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
19. Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of the proposed new vehicular access points shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access have been sited, laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access. (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
20. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development site hereby permitted, a Parking Management Plan for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details of measures to deter parking of vehicles in non- designated parking bays within the front forecourt area. Thereafter, the parking management plan shall be implemented and operated for the duration of the permitted use in accordance with approved scheme. Reason: To prevent the designated parking areas becoming obstructed, to enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway and to ensure that pedestrian and vehicular safety is not prejudiced (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 Page 77
and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
21. Signage reading ‘No reversing into street’ and ‘Turn left only’ shall be erected in a prominent position adjoining the vehicular exit before the use commences and shall thereafter be retained in the approved position for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to user of the public highway (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
22. No development shall commence before full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Demolition and Construction Statement, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Demolition and Construction Statement shall include details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures including details of the phasing of construction, and details of parking, deliveries and storage to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area and the safe operation of the public highway. The details of the approved Method of Demolition and Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process.
Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway. (Policies 7, 9, 31, and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
23. Notwithstanding the approved plans, detailed drawings and material samples of the cycle storage areas including elevational appearance, layout, and manufacturer’s specification shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before first occupation of the development. Sheltered and secure provision shall be provided for a minimum of 28 cycles. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details and retained as such for the duration of the use.
Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site, to promote sustainable modes of transport and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area (Policies 9, 14, 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not Page 78
superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
LANDSCAPING 24. No development shall commence until a specification of all proposed soft and hard landscaping and tree planting (including the sedum roofs) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of all street furniture and the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. In addition all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 and current Arboricultural best practice.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity (Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
25. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development (Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
26. Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans, prior to the residential occupation of the development full details of the children’s playspace provision to include details of layout, boundary and surface treatment and specifications for the proposed play equipment and the communal amenity area, including a landscape, management and maintenance plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as approved shall be implemented Page 79
and operated prior to the residential occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers, particularly with regard to families and children (Policy 50(i) of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011), the Council's Supplementary Planning Document: "Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions" (2008), and Policy 3.6 of The London Plan and the Mayor of London's associated Supplementary Planning Guidance "Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation").
NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 27. No roof terraces shall be provided on the roof areas of any of the buildings hereby approved. No areas of flat roof shall be used as a sitting out area or be used for any other recreational purposes whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development and the occupiers of adjoining residential properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
28. The proposed buildings shall be built to the ground levels and heights as shown on the approved drawings or lower and if the indicated existing heights and levels of the neighbouring properties should prove to be erroneous, then the heights of the proposed building shall be no higher than the relative height difference(s) between the heights of the neighbouring properties and proposed buildings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development is built to the heights relative to adjoining properties as shown on the approved drawings in the interests of visual and residential amenity (Policies 7, 33, and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
29. The first floor windows in the western elevation of the terrace of townhouses hereby permitted shall be:
(i) obscure-glazed up to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed to a glazing Page 80
specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and (ii) non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed,
and shall be permanently retained as such for the duration of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)).
30. The residential accommodation hereby approved shall be constructed to include at least 2 of the units as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users and permanently retained as such for the duration of the use.
Reason: To ensure that an adequate proportion of units are wheelchair accessible or adaptable for wheelchair use (Policy 3.8 of The London Plan, Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011), and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008)).
31. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the further investigations (namely a Phase II intrusive site investigation and assessment) recommended in the Phase 1 Environmental desk study report submitted with the application shall be undertaken. The finding of the investigations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with evidence that where the investigations demonstrated inappropriate levels of contamination that suitable mitigation measures have been undertaken to alleviate these matters before first occupation of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the site is not hazardous and to address the risk of pollution in the interest of the amenity of future residents and the wider environment in accordance with Policy 5.21 of the London Plan (2011).
32. The development hereby permitted shall meet 'Secured by Design Standards', consistent with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 2005.
Reason: To ensure the safety and security of future occupiers and adjoining properties and prevent crime and disorder occurring within and Page 81
in the immediate vicinity of the site, in the interest of public safety (Policy 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document, Safer Built Environments).
33. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D & E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of, or to, any dwellinghouse the subject of this permission shall be carried out without planning permission having first been obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority; nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed on any part of the land covered by this permission without such planning permission having been obtained.
Reason: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the nature and density of the layout requires strict control over the form of any additional development which may be proposed in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory residential environment having regard to Policies 7, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
34. Noise levels within habitable rooms within the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the following levels:
Living rooms 35dB(A) Leq 18 hour 07:00hrs to 23:00hrs; Bedrooms 30dB(A) Leq 8 hours + no individual noise event to exceed 45dB(A) max (measured with F time weighting) – 23:00hrs to 07:00hrs.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of future occupiers of the development by reason of potential noise disturbance (Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework).
35. No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a strategy for the exterior lighting of the site including the lighting of all public/communal areas. The details approved shall be implemented prior to the commencement of use of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use, unless the written approval is received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.
Page 82
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, the security of the site and in order to minimise its impact with respect to protected wildlife species, especially bats. (Policy 5.3 of the London Plan (2011), Policies 7, 32, and 33 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 refer, Policies S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document, Safer Built Environments).
36. No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water or sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the relevant water or sewerage undertaker. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.
Reason: In order to mitigate the potential impact of the development on local underground water and sewerage utility infrastructure (Policy 5.14 of the London Plan (2011)).
Notes to Applicants:
1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.
3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements for the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health Division.
4. You are advised all conditions which require further details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority need to be accompanied by an application form and a fee. The application form and fee schedule can be viewed at www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning .
5. It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for Page 83
any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.
6. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities. The London Borough of Lambeth’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (May 2006) is available on the planning pages of the Council’s website: www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning
7. As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following: - name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building
This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below. Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected] tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9104
8. It is the view of Lambeth Council that the proposed development has scope for the provision of recycling and/or composting facilities. For advice on incorporation of such facilities please contact:
Jason Searles/ Dean Parry 3rd Floor, Blue Star House 234-244 Stockwell Rd London SW9 9SP 0207 926 2624 [email protected]
9. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
Page 84
10. With regards to Condition 3, the Council’s Urban Design Officer has advised that the quality of cladding is largely dependent on the fixing mechanism, which the Council would insist is a concealed fixing with no visible screws.
11. With regards to Condition 4, the Council’s Urban Design Officer has advised that the balcony details should be revised to omit any coloured glazing.
12. With regards to Condition 9, please note that the site lies within an area where archaeological remains have been identified and any archaeological remains therein should be retrieved or recorded before they are damaged or destroyed due to the development hereby permitted. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with appropriate English Heritage guidelines.
You are advised to contact English Heritage’s Archaeological Officer (Mr Mark Stevenson 020 7073 3000) to discuss the submission of details required to discharge the archaeological condition.
13. With regards to Condition 22 (Method of Construction Statement), Transport for London has advised that no skips or construction material shall be kept on the footway or carriageway on the Transport for London Road Network at any time.
14. With regards to Condition 24, the Council’s Urban Design Officer considers the proposed site layout to be broadly acceptable. However, this is subject to addressing design/layout concerns with the front forecourt, in particular the potential visual impact/dominance of large structures for cycle and refuse storage for the flats within the frontage block. It is officer consideration that the cycle storage area could be relocated into the communal garden. It is also considered that the forecourt has an excessive amount of hard surfacing, which could be addressed through the incorporation of more soft landscaping and greater depth of perimeter planting.
15. With respect to internal noise standards detailed within Condition 34 the Council’s Environmental Health (Noise Pollution) team has provided the following comments:
BS8233:1000 gives guidance for internal noise levels in rooms for residential purposes for environmental noise to maintain appropriate resting and sleeping conditions. The publication provides noise levels for ‘good’ and ‘reasonable’ standards to be aimed for within dwellings. The ‘good’ standard being in compliance with the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) standards on Community Noise. WHO advises that as well as considering average noise levels (LaEQ metric) the individual single event LaMax level should be considered as well as the LaEQ where there are distinctive events. Page 85
Both WHO and BS8233:1999 also recommends that any individual noise event at night should not normally exceed 45dB(A) max. This standard is designed to minimise sleep disturbance and, by necessity, precludes ventilation through open windows. These schemes often require some form of forced ventilation to allow for rapid ventilation.
It is highly important that a sound insulation scheme with noise attenuated ventilation provision is incorporated.
16. With respect to Condition 32 (Secured by Design), it is advisable that the design and type of external doors, windows, glazing and entrances to the new buildings, the design of the cycles stores and the access areas from Streatham High Road, and any boundary treatment and defensive planting along the boundaries of the site and to flats, shall meet ‘Secured by Design’ consistent with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 2005. This is in order to address the safety and security of future occupiers and neighbouring properties and to aid with the prevention of crime and disorder occurring within the immediate vicinity of the site.
17. With regard to condition 35, the scheme of exterior lighting should adhere to BS5489. White light is preferred for areas where CCTV is used and elsewhere high pressure sodium is acceptable. A lighting engineer should be consulted to provide a well designed scheme. This should be in vandal resistant housing providing even light with no shadows or voids and minimal light pollution. A minimum uniformity rating of 25% and above with a colour rendition index rating of 60.
The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor has commented that the weakest area of the site is the remote driveway that will lead down to the houses at the rear. Therefore a good level of effective lighting is important.
18. In addition the scheme of exterior lighting should be designed in order to minimise its impact with respect to protected wildlife species, especially bats. Existing guidance provided by recognised bodies such as the Bat Conservation Trust (www.bats.org.uk, BCT), Institute of Lighting Engineers (www.ile.org.uk) or Natural England (www.naturalengland.org.uk) should be followed in the selection, installation and maintenance of lighting units and lamps. If lighting sources that have a high UV emission potential, e.g. mercury or metal halide, are used in lighting units, then appropriate UV filters should be installed, such as glass screens or faces fitted to luminaires, and each unit should be correctly positioned and maintained to minimise light spill or leakage.
19. With respect to boundary treatment, the Crime Prevention Design Advisor has recommended that the rear perimeter fence/wall be a minimum of 2.2m in height and be designed to resist climbing, preferably incorporating a trellis topping.
Page 86
20. With regards to Condition 36 (Piling Method Statement), the applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0845 8502777 to discuss the contents of the statement.
21. Thames Water recommended that the following informatives be added to this planning decision.
(a) With regards to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required on 0845 80 2777.
(b) Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation. Groundwater permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water’s Risk Management Team by telephoning 020 85074890 or by e-mailing [email protected] . Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality . Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.
(c) Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (Approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water’s pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.
Page 87 Agenda Item 5
Section 1 – Site Location Map
Page 88
Section 2 – Application Summary
Location Hitherfield Primary School Leigham Vale London SW16 2JQ
Ward Streatham Wells
Proposal Redevelopment of the existing school site, involving Application demolition of existing caretaker's house, kitchen building, dining hall, temporary staff accommodation, and cycle storage. Temporary relocation of existing temporary classrooms; and the erection of two no. 3 storey extensions to existing Junior building, a two storey building with linkage structure and a new temporary kitchen building along with the provision of new cycle and refuse storage, landscaping works including extension of grassed sports field, relocation of principle access to Leigham Vale frontage with associated works to site frontage.
Applicant Mr Alfred Akpo-Teye c/o Lambeth Children and Young People’s Service
Agent Mr Nigel Greenhill: Greenhill Jenner Architects Greenhill Jenner Architects 9 Northburgh Street London EC1V 0AH
Date valid 26 January 2012 Case O fficer Mrs Sarah Lowes
Application 12/00048/RG3 Reference
Recommendation(s) Refuse Planning Permission
Constraints Streets Under Conversion Stress
Drawing Numbers 762/L001 PA2, 762/L002 PA2, 762/L03/09 PA2, 762/L010 PA2, 762/L017 PA2, 762/L011 PA2, 762/L012 PA2, 762/L013 PA2, 762/L014 PAc2, 762/L015 PA2, 762/L016 PA2, 762/LO38 PA2, 762/LO35/36 PA3, 762/LO33/34 PA3, 762/L020 PA2, 762/LO23 PA2, 762/LO19 PA4, 762/A001 PA2, 762/LO18 PA4, 762/A40 PA4, 762/A41 PA4 and Design and Access Statement Part 1 of 2 and Part 2 of 2. Page 89
Section 3 - Planning Considerations
1.0 Summary of Main Issues
1.1 The main issues involved in this application are: -
• The acceptability of the land use of the proposed development;
• Whether the scale, height, siting, layout, appearance and landscaping of the development would relate satisfactorily to site, local context and surrounding area;
• The impact of the development upon the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, having particular regard to the scale and location of development and activities associated with the school;
• The implications of the development upon the function of the surrounding road network, conditions of on-street parking, highway safety and public transport capacity;
• The acceptability of the limited tree felling necessary to facilitate the development;
• The sustainability of the development;
• The ecological implications of the development; and
• Whether the development would include suitable measures to minimise opportunities for crime and anti social behaviour.
2.0 Site Description
2.1 The 1.9ha application site is an area of land to the rear of residential properties on Leigham Vale and Hitherfield Road. To the south of the site is a railway line and a Site of Borough Nature Conservation Importance (SINC) to the north of the site off Leigham Vale. The site is currently used as a primary school with a two form of entry system. The site has two access points both pedestrian and vehicular, one on Hitherfield Road and one on Leigham Vale. The main access to the site is currently from Hitherfield Road with the Leigham Vale access as the secondary access point.
2.2 The site currently consists of a children’s centre to the north-west of the site and two original school buildings, namely the infant school and junior school buildings. In addition to this there are six temporary buildings on the site, serving as classrooms, dining room, and kitchen and staff room. In addition to this on the Leigham Vale frontage is the 2-storey detached caretaker’s house, which is currently vacant and used for storage. There is currently 3189m2 of internal floor space Page 90
within the school site. To the north east of the site adjacent to a railway line is a nature trail area which is soft landscaped with a large number of trees. In addition, in the centre of the site in between the two original school buildings there is a sports field.
2.3 The site is located adjacent to a Site of Borough Nature Conservation Importance, the railway sidings at Leigham Vale and Tulse Hill Junctions. The site has no other designations as set out in the Local Development Framework Proposal Map. The site is not located within a Conservation Area nor are any of the buildings within or adjacent to the site Listed.
2.4 The site is adjoined on the east/south-east boundary by residential properties on Leigham Vale, on the south-western boundary by residential properties on Hitherfield Road and to the north and west the site is bound by the railway sidings and tracks. The site does not have a prominent site frontage, with only the two entrances providing an indication of the schools location. The junior school building can be viewed from Leigham Vale, however the rest of the buildings are obscured by the residential properties on Hitherfield Road and Leigham Vale.
2.5 There are no car parking spaces on site and currently there are 24 cycle parking spaces. There are 430 pupils currently on site and 75 existing staff.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 Planning Application (11/01016/RG3) Granted for the Redevelopment of the existing school site, involving demolition of existing caretaker's house, kitchen building, dining hall, temporary classroom and cycle storage; temporary relocation of existing staff accommodation building; and the erection of two no. 3 storey extensions to existing Junior building, a single storey building with linkage structure and a new temporary kitchen building along with the provision of new cycle and refuse storage, landscaping works including extension of grassed sports field, relocation of principle access to Leigham Vale frontage with associated works to site frontage subject to conditions by the Planning Applications Committee on the 5 th October 2011.
3.2 Planning Application (09/01626/FUL) Granted for the Replacement of existing gates and fencing with mesh fencing, new pedestrian and vehicular entrance gate on Hitherfield Road on 21 st July 2009
3.3 Planning Application (08/02264/RG3) Granted for the Demolition of existing metal frame shelter and replacement with 2 single storey re- locatable building to provide 3 classrooms on the 3 rd November 2008.
3.4 Planning Application (07/04276/RG3) Granted for the Demolition of existing toilet block, nursery and music room buildings and the erection of a children's centre and nursery building on the 21st December 2007. Page 91
3.5 Planning Application (07/01523/RG3) Granted for the Demolition of existing toilet block, nursery, music room buildings and the erection of a children's centre and nursery building on the 29 th June 2009
3.6 Planning Application (05/01679/RG3) Granted for the Removal and replacement of existing corrugated asbestos roof covering on the 10 th August 2005.
3.7 Planning Application (00/01110/FUL) Granted for the Erection of single-storey extension with a pitched roof to the infant’s school building at Hitherfield School on the 21 st June 2000.
4.0 Scheme Details
4.1 The application has been submitted by Lambeth Children & Young People’s Service and seeks permission for the redevelopment of the existing school site, involving demolition of existing caretaker's house, kitchen building, dining hall, temporary classroom and cycle storage; temporary relocation of existing staff accommodation building; and the erection of two no. 3 storey extensions to existing Junior building, a two storey building with linkage structure and a new temporary kitchen building along with the provision of new cycle and refuse storage, landscaping works including extension of grassed sports field, relocation of principle access to Leigham Vale frontage with associated works to site frontage.
Key differences to the previously approved application
4.2 The application is a revised application following an approval for the redevelopment of the site (Ref: 11/01016/RG3). The key differences between the approved application and the current application are as follows:
• Increased height of the pavilion building from single storey (3.8m) to a two storey building (6.9m)
• Increased height of the glazed link structure from 3.1m to 6.3m and width from 2.4m to 3.7m.
• Increased overall floor area of the proposed extensions from 1917m2 as previously approved to 2086m2 as proposed.
• Increase overall ground floor footprint of the pavilion building from 148m2 within the approved scheme to 191m2 as proposed.
The proposal
4.3 The development would enable the school to increase from being able to accept two classes of 30 pupils each year (two form entry) to being able to accept three classes of 30 pupils each year (three form entry). The redevelopment would enable the school to provide accommodation Page 92
for three classes within each of the year groups from reception to year 6.
4.4 The main element of the works would involve extension to the existing junior school building. The works include 2 three storey extensions with one, to each flank elevation (east and west) of the building and a two storey building to the front of the junior building with a two storey glazed linkage structure. The main junior school building would remain; the later extensions (toilet blocks) to the building would be removed. The proposal would result in two additional wings being added to the original junior building. The two wings would be identical at 20.9m in depth and 16.2m in length, three storey in height at 10.8m with a flat roof. The two wings would serve as classroom accommodation, and three classrooms for each year group would be located on each floor, with the original junior building being used as a school hall and kitchen/servery at ground floor level and on the upper floor level as the additional teaching areas. To the north, east and west of the proposed additional wing extensions it is proposed to provide external teaching spaces and a performance/play space at ground floor level.
4.5 The proposed 3-storey west wing would be attached to an additional two storey extension which would be sited in front of the junior building within the existing playground and connected by a two storey glazed link. The proposed two storey extension would serve as the reception, office and staff accommodation for the school. The proposed two storey building at ground floor would be 14.9m wide by 12.85m deep and at first floor level 14.9m wide and 11.5m deep. The maximum height of the two storey extension would be 6.9m. The glazed link between the main school and the two storey reception building would be 3.7m wide and 3.9m deep and 6.3m high. The pavilion extension would be constructed of glazed panels and render.
4.6 The proposed 3 storey wing extensions would be contemporary in their design and the external appearance of the proposed materials would include a palette of yellow brick, glazing panels and aluminium windows and doors. The proposed roofing materials would include concrete coping stone to the parapet of the brick walls. Glazed curtain walling would link the original junior building to the proposed 3 storey wing extensions and be used for the link structure between the two storey extension and proposed west wing.
4.7 The works would also involve the removal of a number of the existing temporary buildings on site. The dinner hall, staff accommodation and kitchen building on the west boundary would all be removed, and one of the temporary classrooms on the southern boundary adjacent to 62 Leigham Vale.
4.8 Demolition works to the Leigham Vale access to the site are also proposed, this would involve the removal of the caretaker’s house. The Leigham Vale access would serve as the main pedestrian access to the site. The pedestrian access would be adjacent to 58 Leigham Vale Page 93
with boundary treatment separating this from the vehicular access. It is proposed that gates and fence would be erected to serve the new entrance.
4.9 The proposed development would allow the creation of a new refuse storage area on the south-eastern boundary of the site in close proximity to the Leigham Vale access. In addition a new cycle parking area would be created on the western boundary adjacent to the boundary with properties on Hitherfield Road.
4.10 No external alterations are proposed to the infant building to the northwest of the site however internal alterations are proposed in order to create three reception classrooms. No alterations are proposed to the existing Children’s Centre or the Hitherfield Road access.
4.11 The proposal would allow the school to accept three forms of entry each school year seeing an increase from the two forms it can currently accept. This would result in an increase in pupil numbers from approximately 430 currently to 630 and increase staff numbers from 75 to approximately 100.
5.0 Consultation Responses
5.1 Letters were sent to 157 neighbouring property addresses in the vicinity of site
All addresses (including flats) at: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 and 42 Hitherfield Road and Hitherfield Baptist Church.
All addresses (including flats) at: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90-91 Leigham Vale.
5.2 The following local interest groups were notified: • The Streatham Society – No response to date
5.3 Response
No. Letters sent No. of Objections No. in support No. of comments
157 3 1 0
5.4 One letter of support was received in regard to the application, the comments are as below:
• The proposal would provide much needed educational benefits for the borough. The additional storey would provide additional Page 94
floor space to allow the school to provide a library and breakfast club and remove temporary buildings on the site thereby freeing up more external space.
5.5 Assessment
Objecti ons/Comments Response
The school extension given the Officers considered that the two storey extra storey would no longer be pavilion extension when viewed subservient to the original buildings. cumulatively with the other proposed extension would appear overly dominant Due consideration should be given and would fail to respect the character and to ensure the west extension is in symmetry of the host building. Officers are keeping with the style of the main recommending that the application be building. refused on these grounds. The additional storey would affect The proposed two storey pavilion views and aspect from windows extension would be located within 7m of within houses on Hitherfield Road. the boundary with 2 Hitherfield Road and 58 Leigham Vale, at a maximum height of 6.9m. In line with the extant permission tree planting is proposed along this boundary to provide screening. Given the distance between the residential properties and the proposed two storey extension and the proposed tree screening, it is considered that the proposal would not result in harm to outlook from the properties on Hitherfield Road. The proposed two storey building The proposed 3 storey west wing would block sunlight to properties extension would pass the British Research on Hitherfield Road. Establishments (first Stage 25 degree) test which is indicative that the proposed two storey pavilion building would not result in undue harm to daylight/sunlight levels. This is discussed further within the daylight/sunlight section of the report below. Objecting to the demolition of the The demolition of the caretaker’s house caretaker’s house and questioned has been approved within the original why this can not be incorporated extant permission on the site; therefore no within the proposals. objection is raised.
An informative was added to the original permission requiring that the Mural plaques located on the Caretaker’s house should be carefully removed prior to the demolition of that building and preserved for installation on the external surface of a suitable building within the school site. Page 95
Increased traffic and parking The Council’s Transport Planner has been problems not addressed. consulted and reviewed all the information submitted with the application. The Council’s Transport Planner raised no objections to the proposal and considers that there is sufficient on street parking to support the increase in pupil/staff numbers within the school.
5.6 The application has been called into Planning Applications Committee by Councillor Judy Best, ward councillor for Streatham Wells.
5.7 The following consultations with bodies external to the Council have been undertaken and their responses are summarised as follows:
Sport England
No objections to the proposed development
Thames Water
No objection to the proposed development
Environment Agency
No objections to the proposed development
5.8 The following Consultees within the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:
Crime Prevention Design Advisor
No objections in principle, subject to the inclusion of measures to ‘design out crime’. In particular it is recommended that this development be required to achieve SBD for schools.
Conservation and Urban Design
Objections raised to the two storey extensions to the front of the junior school building. These are further expanded on in section 7.2 of this officer report.
Education (Asset Management)
No response to date
Environmental Health – Noise and Pollution
No objections to the proposal
Parks and Greenspaces Page 96
Response stated no objection to the works in terms of the impact on ecology and biodiversity however a number of conditions have been suggested in order to minimise any impact on the nearby Site of Borough Nature Conservation Importance.
Planning Policy
No objections to the proposed intensification of the use of the site for school purposes (D1 use Class).
Transport Planning
No objections to the proposals, subject to the imposition of a number of recommended planning conditions (discussed in Transport section of report).
6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
6.1 London Plan (2011)
6.1.1. The new London Plan was adopted on the 22 nd July 2011. The London Plan is the Mayor's development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
6.1.2 The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are:
Policy 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure Policy 3.18 Education facilities Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.10 Walking Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.3 Designing out crime Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature
6.2 Local Planning Policy
6.2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (adopted 22 nd July 2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’. Material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework. Page 97
6.2.2 The following saved Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5 th August 2010 are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 26 Community Facilities; Policy 31 Street, character and Layout Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime; Policy 33 Building Scale and Design; Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction; Policy 36 Alterations and Extensions Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design;
6.2.3 The following Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies (January 2011) are also considered relevant:
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S3 – Economic Development Policy S4 – Transport Policy S6 – Flood Risk Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment
6.4 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
6.4.1 The following adopted SPDs are relevant:
• SPD: Safer Built Environments • SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Land Use Implications
7.1.1 The London Plan Policy 3.18 promotes the provision of additional educational facilities within the London. Paragraph 3.103 of the supporting text states that ‘ Land already in educational use should be safeguarded’ .
7.1.2 The Saved Unitary Development Plan Policy 26 (i) is supportive of new or improved education facilities, provided that the site or buildings are appropriate for their intended use, and that the nature and scale of the proposal, including hours of operation, do not unacceptably harm the amenities of the area through noise, disturbance, or traffic generation.
7.1.3 The spatial vision of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy seeks the growth in the borough to 2025 supported by approximately Page 98
5,460 additional primary school places, 650 additional nursery class places and 2,294 additional secondary school places, additional childcare, play and youth provision, a network of new Neighbourhood Resource Centres for primary health care, reconfigured hospital and further education premises and facilities for policing across the borough.
7.1.4 Core Strategy Policy S1 advises that the Council will deliver the spatial vision and strategic objectives of the Core Strategy by safeguarding and improving essential physical, green and social infrastructure and working in partnership with service providers to ensure the delivery of the additional infrastructure required to meet community needs and support development (see Annex 2). Annex 2 of the Core Strategy includes the Infrastructure programme and schedule and sets out the requirement for additional school places and expansion of existing schools.
7.1.5 The proposed application seeks to extend the existing primary school function on the site and increase the pupil numbers. The proposal would allow the school to move from two form entry to three form entry. Pupil numbers would increase by approximately 200 children from an existing figure of 430 to 630. It is noted that there would be a corresponding increase in staff numbers from approximately 75 to 100.
7.1.6 The extant permission, approved under planning permission (11/01016/RG3), on site approved 1917m2 of additional floor space as part of the redevelopment of the site. The current scheme includes the same extensions as previously approved and in addition an enlarged pavilion building is proposed. No objections are raised in regard to the approved development and the additional floor space that is proposed and the education need that it fulfils.
7.1.7 The current application seeks to increase the additional floor area proposed to 2086m2. The school has provided details on the educational need for this additional floor space on site, which is shown on the drawings to provide staff accommodation.
7.1.8 The educational need for the additional floor space is a material consideration within the assessment of the application. The school has stated that the additional floor space within the entrance pavilion would allow the staff accommodation to be moved from within the upper floors of the original junior school building to the 1 st floor of the entrance pavilion and the upper floors of the original junior building used for an additional hall studio, library and room for a breakfast and afternoon clubs. In this case the urban design considerations (which are discussed in detail in section 7.2) are considered to have significant weight. Whilst an educational need for this additional floor space, in addition to what has already been approved is noted, the urban design concerns in regard to the siting, footprint, scale and height of the proposed two storey pavilion building and glazed structure are on Page 99
balance are considered to outweigh the educational need for the increase floor space proposed by the current application.
7.2 Conservation and Urban Design Considerations
7.2.1 LDF Core Strategy (2011) policy S9 relates to the quality of the built environment and states ‘ The Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability, in order to sustain stable communities, by :
‘Seeking the highest quality of design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions and the public realm. Innovation in design will be supported and encouraged, particularly where this contributes to local distinctiveness, enhances the existing built environment and heritage, reflects the cultural diversity of the borough and creates new high quality areas of public realm. ’
7.2.2 Saved Policy 36 of the UDP states that alterations and extension should be subordinate to the original building(s) and be designed to respect and be in keeping with the original architectural composition of the building(s).
7.2.3 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP is relevant in as far as it sets out that all development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area. Saved Policy 33 goes further to state that Major development should relate satisfactorily to adjacent townscape taking into account its scale, character, historic street layout and uses; improve the sense of place and legibility, and define edges by retaining characterful buildings, appropriate building lines and extending frontages; and provide servicing and parking that is sensitively sited and designed.
7.2.4 Saved Policy 31 of the UDP adds to this further by stating development should respond to and enhance the architectural character of the area, having regard to its overall urban or suburban characteristics, particularly in conversation areas and other areas of townscape of significant quality.
7.2.5 The proposed development would involve the erection of two no. three storey wings to the west and east elevations of the existing junior building and a two storey building with linkage structure sited to the southwest of the original junior building. The three storey wings are as previously approved within application reference 11/01016/RG3.
7.2.6 In addition the proposal (as within the previous application) would include the removal of a number of temporary buildings on site and the demolition of the existing Caretakers House on the Leigham Vale frontage. The original buildings on site are late 19 th century Victorian buildings, later additions have been added to the existing buildings and a number of temporary buildings have been sited within the school grounds. The only difference between the current application and the Page 100
previously approved application is the current application includes a two storey entrance pavilion and two storey linkage structures replacing the single storey entrance building and linkage structure within the approved application.
7.2.7 The original assessment in regards to the approved extensions remains as the previous officer report. The assessment of the extension previous approved and the additional extension proposed within the current application will be assessed separately below.
Previously approved extensions
7.2.8 The proposed three storey wing extensions are contemporary in their design, with the use of brick, large glazing panels and glazed curtain walling. Saved Policy 36 of the UDP states ‘ Well executed contemporary designs which offer a visual contrast to the original building may sometimes complement the original building. To achieve this however, they should be subordinate to and not unbalance the character of the building .’
7.2.9 The existing junior building is a large four storey building located centrally within the site. The proposal seeks to add two wings to this building at three storeys, through a minimal contemporary design and a height of 10.8m (which is 3.7m below the maximum height of the original building), the proposed wings are considered to appear subordinate to the original building. The design of the three storey wings alone are considered to complement the original building and would not detract from the character and appearance of the host property or the site as a whole, in addition it is considered the two wings would not unbalance the symmetry of the host building. The use of glazed curtain wall as linkage structures between the original building and the proposed extensions allows a greater integration and separation between the original building and proposed new additions.
Additional extensions proposed within the current scheme
7.2.10 The footprint and height of the proposed pavilion building has increased from the extant permission. The entrance pavilion in the current application is two storey with a two storey linkage building. This is increased from the single storey structures within the approved application. The following set out the key difference between the approved and current applications:
• Increased height of the pavilion building from single storey (3.8m) to a two storey building (6.9m)
• Increased height of the glazed link structure from 3.1m to 6.3m and increased width from 2.4m to 3.7m. Page 101
• The overall ground floor footprint of the pavilion building has increased from 148m2 within the approved scheme to 191m2 as proposed.
7.2.11 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has reviewed the submission and has raised objections to this element of the application. The depth and height of a two storey extension within this location was questioned within the original pre-application advice given by officers. The following comments on the current application have been provided:
‘Initial pre-application advice raised concerns regarding the scale and depth of a two storey building in this location, these concerns are still relevant.
It is considered that a two storey building would be seen as substantial building due to its footprint and height. The approved extensions to the existing Junior Building in combination with the two storey Pavilion building would overwhelm the existing building in terms of scale. The Pavilion building would not be sufficiently subservient and as such would compromise and detract from the prominence of the ‘Junior Building’.
Symmetry is a key part of the character of the Junior Building and the approved wing extensions serve to support this character. The pavilion building would disrupt the symmetry of the Junior Building and would be detrimental to the contribution the 3 storey wing extensions make to reinforce the symmetry of the Junior Building.
The two storey extension is considered to be contrary to Policy 36 ‘Alterations and Extensions’.
7.2.12 Given these concerns it is considered that the proposed two storey pavilion building would appear as an overly dominant and visually intrusive addition to the junior school building when considered in tandem with the other proposed extensions. Symmetry is a key part of the character of the Junior Building and the approved 3 storey wing extensions serve to support this character. The pavilion building would disrupt the symmetry of the Junior Building and would be detrimental to the contribution that the 3 storey wing extensions make to reinforcing the symmetry of the Junior Building. The combination of the three storey wing extensions and the two storey pavilion extension and two storey linkage structure would appear overbearing and detract from the visual prominence of the junior school building.
7.2.13 Officers therefore considered that the proposed two storey pavilion building would fail to be subordinate, appear visually intrusive and result in harm to the architectural integrity, symmetry and character of the junior school building. Whilst it is noted that there is an educational need for the additional floor space, the urban design concerns are Page 102
considered to outweigh this need. On balance the harm which would be created by the additional bulk and scale and the additional floor space is considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host building and school site it may be possible to accommodate the Additional floor space within the upper floors of the original junior school building without compromising the architectural integrity of the host building.
7.2.14 It is considered that the proposal fail to comply with Saved Policy 36 of the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy in terms of design.
Materials
7.2.15 The proposed materials shown with the application are considered to be significant to the integration and acceptability of the proposal. Through the use of similar materials, a pale yellow brick and glazing it is considered that the proposal allows the visual dominance of the original building to remain, the use of glazing between the host property and extensions allows the perception of visual separation. The linkage building and two storey pavilion building would again use glazing panel along with the use of red render. It is considered that the colour of the render could add to the visual dominance of the two storey building; however the colour of the render could be conditioned and no objection is raised in principle to the use of this material.
Demolition works
7.2.16The development would also include the demolition of the existing caretaker’s house on the Leigham Vale frontage. This building was original ancillary staff accommodation on the site. This is to allow this access to become the primary entrance to the site. This building has been vacant for a number of years and is not utilised by the school. Its loss would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the site and would aid the improvement of the existing primary school. The loss of this building is considered to be acceptable.
7.2.17 In addition to this the proposal would involve the removal of four temporary buildings on the site. However during a phased construction period, the works would involve the re-siting of a number of buildings, namely the staff accommodation building which would be moved from a location on the western boundary of the site to within the existing sports field. In regards to this Sport England have been consulted and have not raised any objections. Once the works have been completed all four temporary buildings (kitchen, dining room, staff accommodation and one temporary classroom) would be removed from the site. These works are considered to be acceptable and would not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the application site.
Works to the access off Leigham Vale Page 103
7.2.18 The proposal involves works to the access to the site off Leigham Vale. These works are facilitated by the demolition of the existing caretaker’s house. The development seeks to reconfigure the access from Leigham Vale to become the primary access to the site. Separate pedestrian and vehicle accesses would be created separated by fencing. In terms of design the works to this access are considered to be acceptable. Limited details have been provided in regard to the proposed fencing and gates; however it is considered that this could be dealt with by way of condition.
7.2.19 In conclusion it is considered that the siting, height and mass of the proposed two storey pavilion building and linkage structure would represent an overly dominant form of development which would appear visually intrusive. The development would result in detrimental harm to the character, symmetry and architectural integrity of the host building. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 36 of the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
7.3. Landscaping/Trees
7.3.1 Saved Policy 39 of the UDP sets out that as much attention should be paid to the design of the areas between buildings as to buildings themselves. Development should provide or enhance an uncluttered, consistent, simple, accessible and co-ordinated public realm, with robust and appropriate materials and landscape design which enhances the setting, connections and spaces between buildings. Trees of high amenity value will be protected. Policy S5 of the Core Strategy relates to open space and seeks to improve the quality of open space through its biodiversity and nature conservation value.
7.3.2 The proposal involves the removal of the seven trees within the site. Five of the trees for removal are to facilitate the erection of the two three storey wings to the existing junior building; four are located on the eastern side of the building and one on the south-western side. Of the other two trees, one is located on the Leigham Vale access and would need to be removed to allow an enhanced primary access from Leigham Vale. The last tree is located between the infant and junior buildings and is to allow the extended sport field. Of the seven trees proposed for removal two are classified as category R (trees that should be removed) and five are category C (Trees of low quality and value). The loss of these trees is considered to be acceptable and no objection was previously raised. The development would not result in harm to the ecology and biodiversity of the site and would comply with saved Policy 39 of the UDP and Policy S5 of the Core Strategy.
7.3.3 The proposal would retain a large number of trees on the site which would require protection during site works and this matter could be condition if the application was recommended for approved. In line with the extant permission on site, the application would include tree planting along the western boundary of the site to provide a form of Page 104
screening between the proposed development and residential properties on Hitherfield Road.
7.4 Sustainability
7.4.1 Policy S7 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that all future development achieves the highest standards of sustainable design and construction. Saved Policy 35 of the UDP sets out that all development proposals should show, by means of a Sustainability Assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. Both of these policies are supplemented by the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document entitled Sustainable Design and Construction (2008).
7.4.2 The applicant has provided the BREEAM for schools pre-assessment which indicates that the proposal would score a rating of very good. The Council’s SPD Sustainable Design and Construction requires a minimum of a very good rating. In this regard it is considered that the proposal would comply with Saved Policy 35 of the UDP and Policy S7 of the Core Strategy. Details of compliance with BREEAM would be condition if the application was recommended for approval.
7.5 Neighbouring Amenity
7.5.1 Saved Policies 7, 26, 33 and 36 of the UDP are relevant with regards to the impact of the development upon residential amenity.
7.5.2 Saved Policy 7 of the UDP sets out that the right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their homes will be respected.
7.5.3 Saved Policy 26 sets out that proposals for new or improved education facilities will be permitted provided that, amongst other things, the nature and scale of the proposal, including hours of operation, do not unacceptably harm the amenities of the area through noise, disturbance, or traffic generation. It is however important to note that Policy 26 is also encouraging of the utilisation of school facilities for the benefit of the wider community.
7.5.4 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP sets out that building scale and design should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by having an acceptable standard of privacy; having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight; not creating unacceptable overlooking; not creating an undue sense of enclosure; and where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.
7.5.5 The nearest residential properties to the application site are on Hitherfield Road and Leigham Vale. 58 Leigham Vale adjoins the site adjacent to the existing caretaker’s house. The rest of the properties on Leigham Vale are located at least 2.5m from the boundary. The rear elevations of properties on Hitherfield Road are located approximately 18m from the western boundary of the school site, nos 2-8 would be Page 105
located closest to the proposed works. It should be noted that there are existing single storey temporary building located on the boundary with the rear of the properties on Hitherfield Road.
7.5.6 To the north and north-east of the site, there are no residential properties due to the proximity of the railway sidings. Therefore the works to the north-east of the junior school building would not result in any harm to residential amenity, in terms of impacts on daylight/sunlight, privacy and sense of enclosure. The proposed west wing to the junior building and the two storey entrance pavilion extension would be located within close proximity to residential properties on Leigham Vale and Hitherfield Road and therefore requires a thorough assessment.
Daylight/Sunlight
7.5.7 The development proposal includes a three storey 10.8m high building located approximately 10m from the western boundary of the site and a 6.9m high building within 7m of the same boundary. Residential properties on Hitherfield Road back onto this boundary wall and their rear elevations would be located approximately 28m from the side elevation of the proposed west wing and 23m from the side elevation of the two storey pavilion building.
7.5.8 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP seeks to protect residential amenity which includes levels of daylight and sunlight received in existing and proposed residential units. The supporting paragraphs to this policy states in addressing daylight and sunlight regards will be had to the BRE (British Research Establishments) guide to good practice.
7.5.9 The application supporting documents does not include a BRE daylight/sunlight study; however the BRE’s recommended first stage 25 degree test has been carried out by the applicant and is shown on the submitted drawing numbers 762/L022 Rev PA1 and 762/L021 Rev PA1. This has also been carried out by the Planning Officer and the proposal would pass this test. The proposal is well within the 25 degree line as set out within the BRE guidance and indicates that the proposed extensions would not result in any unacceptable harm impacts to the daylight/sunlight levels of any of the properties on Hitherfield Road. In addition the submitted drawing show for 6-8 Hitherfield Road a 17 degree line subtending from the centre of the windows within their rear elevations to the highest part of the roof of the proposed west wing extension. These drawing indicate that the proposal would not result in any harmful impact in terms of daylight/sunlight to residential properties on Hitherfield Road from the proposed west wing extension to the junior building.
7.5.10 In terms of the proposed east wing extension this is sited away from any residential properties within the central part of the site adjacent to the railway sidings. Give the siting of this extension, there would be no impacts on light level of surrounding residential properties. Further to Page 106
this the proposed two storey extension and linkage structure given its height, siting and the existing 2m high boundary treatment of the rear boundaries of the properties on Hitherfield Road would not result in any detrimental impacts on daylight/sunlight of properties on Hitherfield Road or Leigham Vale.
7.5.11 The initial 25 degree test BRE test has indicated that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact to the living conditions of neighbouring and surrounding residential properties in terms of daylight/sunlight. In addition the proposal would not result in an unacceptable degree of overshadowing to the rear gardens of properties on Hitherfield Road.
Privacy and overlooking
7.5.12 The application site is an existing school. There are three existing buildings which are sited on the boundary with properties on Hitherfield Road. The proposal would see the temporary buildings removed and the erection of two three storey wings to the east and west of the original junior building. On the western boundary the proposed west wing would be located approximately 10m from the rear boundary of properties on Hitherfield Road and the two storey pavilion extension would be approximately 7m from this boundary. The proposal would result in a 10.8m high building being located within 10m of the rear boundary of properties of Hitherfield Road, all windows within this elevation would be obscurely glazed and fixed shut. In addition the glazed stairwell and windows within the western elevation of the two storey pavilion would also be obscurely glazed.
7.5.13 Given the school use of the site, is it considered that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on privacy levels. The rear elevation of the properties on Hitherfield Road would be located approximately 28m from the side elevation of the west wing. This combined with the proposed nature and use, along with obscure glazing to all windows of the western elevations of the proposed extensions is considered to indication that there would not be an adverse impact on the privacy levels through overlooking to residential properties on Hitherfield Road.
7.5.14 The proposed east wing three storey extension given its siting is not located within close proximity of any residential properties and therefore would not result in any detrimental impacts on privacy or overlooking to neighbouring and surrounding residential properties.
Sense of enclosure and overbearing impact
7.5.15 The west wing extension of the proposed development would be located 10m from the rear boundaries of the residential properties on Hitherfield Road (nos.2-10) and the two storey pavilion would be approximately 7m from the boundary with 2 Hitherfield Road and 58 Leigham Vale. A number of objectors have raised concern that the Page 107
proposal would result in a development that would appear overbearing and visually intrusive. The proposed west wing extension would be located approximately 10m from the rear boundaries of these properties and approximately 28m from the closest rear elevation. The proposed west wing extension would be sited closer to nos.2-10 Hitherfield Road than the existing building which is located 34.7m from their rear elevations. It is worth noting a number of single storey temporary buildings (kitchen, dining room and staff accommodation) are currently located approximately 1.6m from the rear boundaries of properties 6-18 Hitherfield Road. Within the proposed development these building would be removed with the kitchen building being temporarily re-sited within the site before its removal.
7.5.16 The 3 storey element of the proposal would be approximately 10.8m in height which would clearly represent an increase from the single storey temporary buildings currently sited on the boundary of the residential properties on Hitherfield Road. The proposed west wing extension, whilst three storeys in height would be approximately 10m from the rear boundary. This distance alone is considered to significantly minimise any potential impacts. The proposal would result in an impact on the outlook for the residents on Hitherfield Road however it is considered to not be significant and would not result in an un- neighbourly form of development. Whilst views across the site might be partially obscured by the proposed development it is considered that this would not be to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of Hitherfield Road. In line with the extant permission on site tree planting would be provided along this boundary to minimise the harm to the outlook of existing residential properties. The proposed west wing extension is not considered to create an undue sense of enclosure or an overbearing development harmful to visual amenity.
7.5.17 In regards to the east wing extension, as previously stated this extension is sited away from any residential properties and would not result in any undue sense of enclosure or create any visual intrusion harmful to residential amenity. This is also true of the proposed works to the Leigham Vale access the nature of the works would not result in any harm to residential amenity.
7.5.18 Finally in regard to the two storey pavilion building and glazed link, this building would be located the closest to the residential boundaries of both Hitherfield Road and Leigham Vale at approximately 7m from the rear boundaries of 2 Hitherfield Road and 58 Leigham Vale. However given the height of the extension, a maximum height of 6.9m and the 2m high boundary fencing of these properties it is considered that this would limit any harmful impacts in terms of sense of enclosure. In addition the proposed two storey extension has been considered cumulatively with the three storey west wing extension, however given the distance from the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties it is considered this element of the proposal would not appear overbearing nor would it create any harmful visual intrusion which would be Page 108
detrimental to the amenity of existing occupiers. This building would also be screened by the proposed tree planting which is proposed along the western boundary of the site, which would be secured by way of condition if the application was considered acceptable.
Noise and Disturbance
7.5.19 The site is currently in use as a school. The proposal would see an increase in the number of pupils and intensification of the use of the site. There would be approximately 200 additional children and 25 additional staff. Whilst it is noted there would be an increase of pupils and staff on the school site it is considered that the school site is existing and majority of the school facilities are away from the residential properties located on the east/south-eastern side of the site. While there may be a slight increase in noise, it is considered this would not be detrimental to residential amenity. The pupils are only on site between 8am and 3.30pm, therefore it is considered that the proposed intensification of the use of the site would increase noise levels however this would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring and surrounding residents. Given this it is considered that the proposal would comply with saved policies 7, 26 and 33 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy.
Amenity Conclusion
7.5.20 It is therefore considered that the development proposed, subject to the recommended conditions in that event, would not unacceptably impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residential properties to such a degree that would contradict the objectives of saved policies 7, 26 and 33 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy.
7.6 Transport Matters
7.6.1 Saved Policy 9 of the UDP sets out that planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts upon highway safety, upon the environment and the road network and upon all transport modes, including public transport (in particular, the impact on the demand for and the operation of public transport), walking and cycling.
7.6.2 Saved Policy 14 of the UDP relates to parking and traffic restraint. Both PPG13 (Transport) and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy seek to ensure that on-site car parking at new developments is the minimum necessary and that there is no over-provision that could undermine the use of more sustainable non-car modes of travel.
7.6.3 The application site is currently accessed from both Hitherfield Road and Leigham Vale. The site has a PTAL score of 2, which is considered ‘poor’. Therefore staff and parents may be more likely to rely on the car to reach the school. Page 109
Access
7.6.4 There are two existing pedestrian and vehicular entrances on Hitherfield Road and Leigham Vale. The proposals would reconfigure the entrance on Leigham Vale to create the main entrance, with a dedicated pedestrian walkway to the school reception, and a segregated driveway for emergency/ maintenance purposes. A secondary access would also be retained on Hitherfield Road, but in order to aid pedestrian movement it is proposed to remove the existing vehicular access and replace it with a footway crossover arrangement to maintain emergency access only. The proposed amendments are considered an improvement on the existing access arrangements and are welcomed.
Traffic Impacts
7.6.5 The proposed expansion will allow the school to expand from two forms of entry to three, expanding the school roll from 420 pupils and 80 staff, to 630 pupils and 100 staff. However, it is understood that 60 additional pupils and 6 additional staff are already accommodated on site, so the net increase in pupils and staff would be 150 and 14, respectively.
7.6.6 The Council’s Transport Planner has provide the following comments in regards to the potential traffic impacts of the development and increase pupil and staff levels on site.
‘The most up to date modal split information is from the 2009 Travel Plan review which found that 75% of pupils walk to school, 18% are driven and 4% cycle, with the remainder using the bus. A 2011 staff survey found that 26% of staff drive to the school. Translated into the additional pupil and staff numbers this would equate to 27 additional pupil cars, and 4 additional staff cars. It is considered reasonable to apply the existing modal split to the additional pupils given that the school’s catchment area is expected to remain broadly the same .’
Car Parking
7.6.7 There is no existing formal car parking on site, and no additional car parking is proposed. A survey of parking conditions on surrounding streets, conducted in February 2011 during the AM peak, has been included in the Transport Statement. An average parking stress of 77% within 200m walk of the school’s entrances was observed between 08:30-09:15, with 52 spare spaces available. Given that only four additional staff cars are expected to be generated by the proposals, there is considered to be sufficient capacity on street to accommodate these vehicles throughout the day.
Pick up and Drop Off Page 110
7.6.8 The biggest impact on traffic congestion and parking associated with primary schools tends to be the impact of parents dropping off and picking up pupils at the start and end of the school day. Assuming all potential 27 additional car trips arrive during a peak 30min period at the beginning and end of the school day this would equate to less than one additional car per minute. The additional vehicles generated by the proposals would inevitably exacerbate existing pressure for short term parking in the vicinity of the school but the impact of these additional vehicles is considered manageable, given levels of existing parking stress, and the short-term nature of the impacts. However, to ensure that congestion is minimised in the vicinity of the school the School’s Travel Plan should be updated, and include additional measures to discourage parents from dropping off and picking up schoolchildren in the immediate vicinity of the site, if the application was considered to be acceptable this could be secured by way of condition.
Road Safety
7.6.9 School Keep Clear markings are in place outside the Hitherfield Road and Leigham Vale entrances, restricting parking at the beginning and end of the school day to protect pedestrians arriving at the school site. In addition a raised table treatment is in place outside the Leigham Vale access to slow traffic and highlight the school access. Traffic calming measures are also in place on Leigham Vale, further restraining traffic speeds in the vicinity.
7.6.10 The Transport Statement includes an accident analysis which identified four minor accidents which occurred during the school run hours and involved a pedestrian of primary school age within the past three years. There is not considered to be a pattern linking these accidents to highway layout, but three of the accidents did involve children stepping out from behind a bus. This type of accident is considered best tackled through the education of schoolchildren on crossing roads near bus stops, and the Council’s Road Danger Reduction Manager has been informed of the pattern.
Cycle Parking
7.6.11 The TfL standard for schools is for 1 cycle space for every 10 staff / pupils. However, the proposals would provide an additional 12 cycle parking spaces, increasing provision on site from 24 to 36 spaces, which is approximately half the TfL standard. The latest travel surveys suggest that currently some 22 staff and pupils’ cycle to work, and the extension would increase cycle usage to 28. The proposed level of cycle parking would therefore accommodate the likely demand, but in order to meet possible future demand sufficient area within the site should be set aside to accommodate cycle parking to TfL standards, if required.
Page 111
7.7 Ecology
7.7.1 Saved Policy 39 of the UDP sets out that landscape design will be expected to include, amongst other things, the protection of valuable existing habitats and should maximise opportunities to create or add to wildlife habitats. Policy S5 of the Core Strategy seek to protect and improve the quality of open space through nature conservation, ecology and biodiversity
7.7.2 The application is accompanied by an Extended Phase I Habitat Report. The assessment sets out that overall, the survey area is of negligible ecological value. The site is located adjacent to a Site of Borough Nature Conservation Importance (SINC’s) grade I. The survey submitted stated that the development proposed should not affect the application site or the SINC in terms of ecology and biodiversity.
7.7.3 The report sets out considerations and recommendations in relation to the ecology of the site and adjacent habitats, so as to ensure that adverse impacts upon ecology are minimised and/or mitigated and so as to maximise the potential for increasing bio-diversity and ecology on the site. In terms of limiting the impact of the development upon the existing ecological interest of the site, the recommendations relate to the clearance of vegetation and the demolition of buildings and include measures regarding the undertaking of appropriate checks, the supervision of works and the timings of works. A number of these recommendation would be secured by way of condition should the application be approved.
7.7.4 The Council’s Parks and Greenspaces team have consulted on the application and have provided comments in regards ecology and biodiversity, stating
‘Proposals to use additional areas of the school grounds for educational purposes, including outdoor play and other activities, appear to be appropriate and realistic, and offer positive uses to areas of the site of limited sports, greenspace and ecological interest, whilst not adversely impacting other adjacent areas of existing landscape or wildlife value.’
7.7.5 The site has an existing nature garden and trip trail on site adjacent to the SINC which allows the trees and landscaping to overlap from the railway sidings to the school site. The proposed development would not include any alterations to this part of the site. This element would remain.
7.7.6 In the circumstances it is considered that the development, subject to conditions, would suitably protect existing habitats and would retain existing features on site for wildlife and promotion of local biodiversity. The application is considered to comply with saved Policy 39 of the UDP, Policy S5 of the Core Strategy, and PPS9 in terms of its ecological implications. Page 112
7.8 Crime
7.8.1 Saved Policy 32 of the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy states that development should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.
7.8.2 The application submissions set out that the development will be designed and constructed to meet Secure by Design standards and this would be ensured by way of planning condition. The CPDA has been involved with the development of the scheme and considered that the proposal is in compliance with saved policy 32 of the UDP: Policies as saved beyond the 5 th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
7.9 Waste
7.9.1 The proposed development should provide adequate provision for refuse and recycling to comply with Policy S8 of the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy. This policy seeks to provide sustainable waste management and recycling provision. The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) supplements Policy S8.
7.9.2 The refuse and recycling collection arrangement currently in place at the school is to be retained. A new refuse storage area would be created adjacent to the Leigham Vale access for the junior building however the collections arrangement would remain unaltered. A condition would require the refuse and recycling provision to be provided as per the application drawings should the application be granted permission.
7.9.3 In addition it is proposed to retain the existing servicing arrangement whereby vehicles load/unload in the school keep clear markings outside of their hours of operation. It is unlikely that the proposed extension would result in a significant increase in servicing trips to the school but further details on frequency and type of vehicle would be required by providing a Servicing/Delivery Management Strategy, to be secured via condition should the application be considered acceptable.
7.9.4 Given the details submitted with the application is it considered that an adequate waste management plan is already in place at the school and the proposal would enhance the existing arrangement. The proposal is considered to be in compliance with Policy S8 of the Core Strategy.
8.0 CONCLUSION:
8.1 The proposed development would provide additional floor space for the existing primary school allowing the school to increase their pupil numbers and move from a two form mode of entry to a three form entry school as within the extant permission. The current application seeks Page 113
permission for the redevelopment of the school site which is supported in principle and is demonstrated by the granting of permission for the previous application. The current application would provide additional floor space over and above the extant permission. This would be within the entrance building to the front of the original junior school building. Whilst the educational need for the additional floor space has been considered, urban design considerations also need to be taken into account. The extant permission allows extensive extensions to the site, which are included within the current application, two three storey wings and a single storey link and entrance building.
8.2 It is considered that the additional floor space proposed within the current application would provide additional bulk and mass which would result in an extension which would appear overly dominant and fail to respect the character and symmetry of the host building. In addition the combination of all of the extensions within this application would detract from the visual superiority of the original junior school building and result in harm to its character and architectural integrity and composition. In light of these concerns and in considering the extant permission on site, the urban design considerations on balance are considered to outweigh the need for this additional floor space within the application site. As such it is considered that the application should be refused on design ground as the development is contrary to Saved Policy 36 of the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
9.0 Recommendation
Refuse Planning Permission for the following reason:
Reasons
1. The proposed development, by reason of the siting, height and massing of the two storey pavilion building, would represent a visually intrusive and overly dominant form of extension. This would fail to respect the visual prominence, symmetry, character and architectural integrity of the host property, particularly when viewed in tandem with the three storey wing extensions, and would unbalance its architectural composition. The proposed development is considered to fail to comply with Saved Policy 36 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
Page 114
This page is intentionally left blank Page 115 Agenda Item 6
Section 1 – Site Location Map
Page 116 Section 2 – Application Summary
Location 1 Palace Road London SW2 3DY
Ward Streatham Hill
Proposal Demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site Application involving the erection of a part 2/part 3/part 4 storey building to provide a healthcare centre (Use Class D1) on ground and first floor levels, a pharmacy (Use Class A1) at ground floor level and 14 residential dwellings (comprising 13 apartments on second and third floor levels and a 4 bedroom townhouse) with pedestrian access from Palace Road, together with provision of communal and private amenity space, hard and soft landscaping, refuse and recycling storage, cycle parking and the formation of two dropped kerbs to Palace Road.
Applicant The Abode Partnership
Agent Mr Philip Allard 24 Bruton Place London W1J 6NE
Date valid 4 November 2011 Case Officer Mr Andrew Mulindwa
Application 11/03906/FUL Reference Drawing Numbers A2111 010 P2; A211 098 P1; A211 095 P1; A2111 096 P1; A2111 097 P1; 08121E1; A2111 099 P15; A2111 100 P33; A2111 101 P26; A2111 102 P22; A2111 103 P22; A2111 105 P24; A2111 213 P8; A2111 203 P11; A2111 201 P14; A2111 211 P11; A2111 202 P14; A2111 212 P11; A2111 200 P13; A2111 210 P10; A2111 300 P9; A2111 301 P8; A2111 214 P4 and A2111 215 P3; Energy Statement by Hoare Lea dated 12.10.2011; Energy/Sustainability Statement Addendum by Hoare Lea (received 20.02.2012); Sustainability Statement by Hoare Lea dated 12.10.2011; Design and Access Statement by Assael (received 04.11.2011); Historic environment appraisal and justification proposals by KM Heritage dated October 2011; Arboricultural Implications Report dated 5 th October 2011; Daylight and Sunlight Report (received 04.11.2011); Transport Statement dated November 2011; Statement of Community Involvement dated October 2011 and; Planning Statement (received 04.11.2011).
Recommendation(s) Grant planning permission subjection to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a s106 agreement Constraints Adjacent to Grade I listed Christ Church and Grade II listed boundary walls and pylons to the church; adjacent to the Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area. Area Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
Page 117 Advert Date 16th December 2011
Site Notice Date 2nd December 2011 Page 118
1.0 Main Issues
1.1 The main planning issues raised by this application are:
• The principle of redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development including the need for a local healthcare centre and the quantum of the residential scheme;
• The standard of residential accommodation;
• Affordable housing and dwelling mix;
• The impact of the development upon the amenity of neighbouring properties;
• The scale and design of the proposal and its impact upon the setting of the adjoining Listed buildings and Conservation Area;
• Impact on the existing trees and ecological value of the site;
• Sustainability and renewable energy considerations;
• Transport and highway implications of the proposal;
• Community safety implications;
• Provision for waste and refuse/recycling storage;
• Planning obligations and;
• Whether the current proposals have over come the reasons for refusal of the previous application
2.0 Application Site
2.0 The application site is an elongated triangular plot of land located between Palace Road and Christchurch Road, with its apex to the northwest where the two roads meet. At the eastern end of the site is a three storey villa; the remainder of the site comprising a large garden to the villa. The villa was constructed in the 1890’s as part of the last phase of the Roupell Park Estate development and was previously known as ‘Clinton House’.
2.1 The property was last used as a 6-bedroom single family dwelling but is now vacant and, is in a poor state of repair. It has not been occupied or maintained for some time, and has suffered considerable damage from weather ingress and vandalism. The property and access drive to it have therefore been boarded up to prevent unauthorised access.
2.2 The site contains a large number of mature trees, located principally along the boundaries to Palace Road and Christchurch Road, which give it a verdant appearance. All the trees on site are protected by an Area Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The topography of the site slopes downward from east to west towards the junction of Palace and Christchurch Road. Page 119
2.3 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and contains a varying mix of architectural styles and eras. To the east the site shares a boundary with a number of residential properties. No. 4 Christchurch Road is a 3 storey building containing 6 self-contained flats whilst Nos.1a/1b Palace Road comprises two flats located in a converted 2-storey coach house immediately adjacent to the southeast corner of the site. Flat 1a is located on ground floor with Flat 1b on first floor with a rear elevation containing north-facing windows towards the application site.
2.4 To the south on the opposite side of Palace Road, are a number of large 3- storey semi-detached properties as well as a 3-storey block of flats at the junction with Daysbrook Road. This area to the south is predominantly characterised by Victorian and Edwardian houses set within ample plots with deep front and rear gardens. To the north across Christchurch Road, is a linear 4-storey block of flats, known as Holbrook House, which is set back from the road frontage by approximately 30 metres due to a wide expanse of lawn.
2.5 To the northwest of the site in Christchurch Road and diagonally opposite the site, is the Grade I listed Christ Church, circa 1840-42. The forecourt boundary walls and pylons of the church are separately listed at Grade II. The listed church is at the extreme south-eastern corner of the adjacent Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area. The conservation area boundary returns west along Christchurch Road and extends northwards. The site itself does not form part of the conservation area.
2.6 Christchurch Road is a section of the A205 South Circular Road and forms part of the Transport for London Road Network, with Red route parking restrictions. Palace Road is a lightly trafficked cul-de-sac, blocked off to traffic at its western end, and has no parking restrictions. A local cycle route runs directly outside the site.
3.0 Relevant Planning History
3.0 In 2002, two outline planning applications; one for a three storey block of 9 residential units within the grounds of the existing house and the other for the provision of 12 residential units in a four storey building following the demolition of the existing house were refused on various grounds including design, loss of residential amenity, loss of mature trees and impact on the highway. These carry limited weight as they pre-date the adoption of the London Plan and the most recent versions of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan.
3.1 In August 2009 a planning application for redeveloping the site involving demolition of the existing building and the erections of a part 3/part 5 storeys and part 3/part 4 storey building to provide 33 self-contained flats was withdrawn by the applicant (ref 09/01804/FUL).
3.2 Following discussions with officers, a further application was submitted in November 2009 for the ‘Demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site involving the erection of a part 3/part 5 storey building and a part 3/part 4 storey building to provide 33 self-contained residential units (Class C3) together with solar panels to the roof, associated pedestrian access from Palace Road, communal and private amenity space, hard and soft landscaping, refuse and recycling storage and cycle parking”(ref 09/03779/FUL). Page 120
3.3 The application was refused by the Planning Applications Committee on the 2 nd February 2010 against officers’ recommendation. The application was refused for the following reasons:
1 The proposed development would, by reason of its footprint, scale, bulk, massing and detailed design, represent a visually dominant overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental to visual amenity, and adversely affect the setting of the neighbouring Grade I Listed Building and fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the adjoining Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies 31, 33, 38, 45 and 47 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
2 The proposed development would, by virtue of its siting, height, scale and bulk, result in a loss of outlook and an undue sense of enclosure to the adjacent ground floor flat at 1a Palace Road, detrimentally affecting the residential amenity of existing and future occupiers. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies 15 and 33 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
3.4 A subsequent appeal against the Council’s decision was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on the 02.08.2010 (APP/N5660/A/10/2123355). The Inspector’s decision is included within Appendix 1 of this report.
3.5 The Inspector considered that the proposal, by reason of its height and footprint would result in a substantial mass that would appear out of keeping with the surroundings. In particular, the build-up in the massing of the proposal towards the church would, from some positions in Christchurch Road, visually compete with the church and obscure views of the church from Palace Road. He concluded that for this reason the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the listed buildings and also that of the adjacent Conservation Area. However, the Inspector considered the design acceptable noting that the detailed architecture of the proposal “responds to the context and is appropriate in this relatively mixed area”.
3.6 The appeal was also dismissed on the grounds that by reason of its height and proximity to the boundary, the proposal would result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure to the gardens of the adjoining properties at Nos. 1a and 1b Palace Road and, would appear overbearing when viewed from the gardens.
3.7 It should be noted that a Prior Approval Notice to demolish the existing building was granted by the Council in August 2010 (ref 10/02583/GDPO11). The existing house can therefore be demolished without further reference to the Council.
4.0 The Current Proposal
4.0 The current planning application seeks permission to redevelop the site to provide a mixed-use scheme of healthcare related uses (Use Class D1) and a pharmacy (Use Class A1) as well as 14 dwellings (Use Class C3).
4.1 This would involve the erection of a part 2/part 3/part 4 storey building with the formation of new pedestrian access points (dropped kerbs) from Palace Road Page 121
for wheelchair users, the provision of communal and private amenity space for the residential elements, hard and soft landscaping around the parts of the site not covered by the building together with facilities for refuse and recycling storage and cycle parking and storage.
4.2 The healthcare related uses would be located at ground and first floor levels and would include a GP Surgery with consulting rooms, treatment rooms, office, staffroom, library, administration room, reception/administration area, interview room, multi-purpose room, record storage room, waiting area and other patient support and/or service facilities. In addition there would be provision of counselling rooms and administration and staff rooms for use by the South London and Maudsely NHS Trust (SLAM), which are proposed to be located at first floor level only. An ancillary pharmacy (Use Class A1) would be provided at ground floor level.
4.3 The new healthcare premises would constitute approximately 1,018sqm of new floor space (Gross Internal Area - GIA) including 100sqm of ancillary pharmacy trading floorspace. The new premises would replace the existing GP Practice at 3 Palace Road (the Palace Road Surgery), which is housed in a converted detached Victorian house with some 300sqm at ground and first floor levels and as well as a SLAM facility (100sqm) located on the second floor of the building. The existing surgery would remain open until the new surgery is complete.
4.4 It is proposed that the GP surgery would open from 7.30am to 8.00pm, Monday to Friday and between 7.30am and 1.00pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and bank/public holidays. The pharmacy proposes to open from 7.00am to 9.00pm, Monday to Saturday and from 8.00am to 4.00pm on Sundays and bank/public holidays. The extended opening times and day are intended to offer a local alternative to other pharmacies, located in Streatham town centre. Officers consider a 8.00am opening of the pharmacy on Sundays and Bank/Public holidays in appropriate on residential amenity grounds and have recommended a 10.00am opening instead.
4.5 The proposals for the residential scheme would consist of the following dwellings: 7 one bedroom flats and 6 two bedroom flats located over the healthcare centre at second and third floor levels and an attached three storey 4 bedroom townhouse. The 13 flats would be for market housing and the 4 bedroom house is proposed as affordable housing for social rent. This equates to 7% of the residential units on the site.
4.6 A financial viability assessment has been submitted in support of the application and has been independently validated by the Council’s consultants. The conclusions and recommendations by the consultants are reported in section 7.3 of this report.
4.7 The proposed development would consist of a predominantly 4-storey red-brick building stepping down to 2 storeys on the western end and to 3 storeys on the eastern end. The building would have pitched and hipped roof forms with gable ends presenting to both street elevations as well as several flat roof sections, including over the townhouse.
4.8 The 3-storey flat roof elements to the east would present a height of approximately 9m to Palace Road. The townhouse would be set back from the Page 122
Palace Road street elevation and would rise to a maximum roof height of 8.5m. The flank elevation of the townhouse would be approximately 6.8m away from the garden site boundary to 1a/b Palace Road.
4.9 The north western end of the proposed building would be two storeys in height. This would present a 6.5m gable-end elevation to the communal residential garden, stepped back to rise to a maximum ridge height of 9m. The gable-end elevation would contain French doors, opening onto a first floor balcony. This gable end wall would be located some 30m away from the apex of the site on Christchurch, across the expanse of the proposed communal garden.
4.10 The highest aspects of the building would occupy the mid-section, comprising a series of stepped elevations, presenting gable ends containing French doors to balconies on all floors facing onto both Christchurch Road and Palace Road frontages. The maximum ridge height of this section of the building would be approximately 14m.
4.11 The proposed material palette includes high quality stack-bonded buff red brick, which is intended to be complementary to the surrounding buildings, in particular the adjacent Victorian red brick mansions on the opposite side of Palace Road. Window and door frames would be dark-grey powder coated aluminium and balustrades to balconies and entrance gates would be dark-grey powder painted steel.
4.12 The proposed development would contain a total of approximately 481sqm of private and communal residential amenity space together with amenity space associated with the healthcare centre. Of this 252sqm would be shared amenity space including a children’s play area of 96sqm for the residential element. The reminder would be in the form of private balconies to the flats on the upper floors (totalling 89.4sqm), a private garden to the dwelling house (approx.140sqm).
4.13 As part of the landscaping proposals, all trees of good amenity value would be retained and new planting is proposed to replace those to be removed to make way for the development. A plan of tree protection methods to be adopted on the site, which is appended within the applicants Arboricultural Implications Report, identifies the location and grade of the trees to be removed, pruned and/or protected. Proposals for hard and soft landscaping also include lawns and raised planters and durable, non-slip, texture and tactile surfaces for pathways and on the forecourt of the building.
4.14 No car parking would be provided on-site as part of the development, however 2 on-street ‘Blue badge’ parking bays and an Ambulance parking bay would be provided on the Palace Road frontage. Redundant crossovers would be removed and associated footways reinstated and new pedestrian crossovers provided. A plan showing the location of the bays together with Swept paths for ambulance access manoeuvre is appended within the applicant’s Transport Statement.
4.15 Separate covered and secure Sheffield Cycle Stands are proposed to accommodate 16 cycles for the residential scheme and 10 cycles for the healthcare staff as well as a provision for 14 cycle parking spaces for visitors to the healthcare centre. Refuse and recycling storage facilities would be provided Page 123
in covered areas located on the forecourt adjacent to the pharmacy, close to the entrances of the buildings.
4.16 Renewable energy technology would be installed on the appropriate roof sections of the building in the form of solar hot water heating panels as well as photovoltaic cell arrays.
Key differences with the appeal scheme (ref APP/N5660/A/10/2123355)
4.17 In response to Members’ and the planning inspector’s concerns over the previous application for development on this site, the following key changes have been made:
• The overall height of the development has been reduced from 5 storeys to 4 storeys and the western section reduced by 3 storeys from 5 storeys to 2 storeys.
• The footprint of the building has also reduced by the omission of one dwelling previously located closest to the boundary with 1a/1b Palace Road.
• A healthcare centre with GP surgery and SLAM counselling rooms and a pharmacy are incorporated within the scheme.
• The number of dwellings has been reduced from 33 to 14
5.0 Consultations
5.1 Letters were sent to 251 property addresses including adjoining properties on Palace Road, Christchurch Road, Daysbrook Road, Roupell Road, Challice Way and Claremont Close. This consultation also included all parties who had made representations in relation to the refused application including ward councillors. The issues raised and officers’ response to them are summarised in the Assessment Table 1 below.
5.2 The application was advertised by way of site notices displayed in the vicinity of the site on the 2 nd December 2011 and a press advert published within the Weekender Press on the 16 th December 2011.
Assessment Table 1
No. Letters sent No. of No. in support No. of comments objections
251 5 2 1
Objections/comments Officer Response
Proposal remains unacceptable The detailed architecture of the proposal in all respects. remains similar to the previously refused scheme; the planning inspector considered the design approach to respond to the context and appropriate in this relatively mixed area. The scheme has been reduced in height, massing and scale to address the inspector’s Page 124
concerns over its relationship with the setting of the adjacent listed buildings in Christchurch Road and the setting of the adjoining Conservation Area. The Council’s Design and Conservation officers are satisfied that the current proposal address those specific concerns.
This report details that the proposed development has overcome the two reasons for refusal given by the Local Planning Authority in refusing the previous application on the site and the planning inspector’s grounds for dismissing the subsequent appeal.
Loss of a building of significant English Heritage has carried out an architectural and historic assessment of the existing building on the interest/building should be site and has concluded that it is not of retained intrinsic interest, of sufficient architectural or historic merit or of definite quality of character to meet its adopted listing criteria. The Council’s Conservation and Design Team has not included the building on the local list of registered buildings and it considered it to be of little architectural interest.
A Prior Approval Notice to demolish the existing building was granted by the Council in August 2010 (ref 10/02583/GDPO11). The existing house can therefore be demolished without further reference to the Council.
The current application does not include the retention of the building or any part of it. In order to preserve the historic interest of the building as a home for the Author Dennis Wheatley, the applicant has been requested to consider installing a plaque acknowledging this historic link within the site. An informative to this effect is recommended.
Concern over future use of the The site of the existing surgery does not form site of the existing Palace Road part of the redline site pertaining to this Surgery (No. 3 Palace Road) application. The lawful use of the surgery site is for non-residential institution purposes within Class D1 of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). Any use of the site for purposes outside this class would require planning permission and a proposal put before the Council would be considered on its merits, having regard to adopted planning Page 125
policy and other material considerations including the extant permissions in the surrounding area. Any change of use with this class does not require planning permission and therefore falls outside of the control of the Council’s development plan policies.
Lack of off-street car parking A Transport Statement (TA) has been would increase parking stress in submitted with this application and, its Palace Road and adjoining findings have been reviewed by the Council’s streets Transport and Highway officer and Transport for London officers. Officers are satisfied that the area has sufficient on-street parking capacity to accommodate the additional parking demand that would be associated with the proposed development and that parking stress levels would remain within acceptable limits.
The area is rated as having a “Very Good” public transport accessibility level and this together with provision for cycle parking and a Travel Plan would encourage non-car based means of travel. The development would therefore not add excessively to demand for off-street car parking.
Loss and/or damage to trees The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has which act as a barrier to road reviewed the submitted report and tree survey noise from Christchurch Road and has advised that it is evident that many of the trees within the site are in poor structural and physiological condition having been neglected for a number of years.
The proposal seeks to selectively remove trees of inferior quality and to prune others thereby giving the retained trees opportunity for better growth. This together with the proposed new tree planting and other landscaping proposal would improve the amenity value of the trees. It is not considered that the landscaping proposals would diminish the noise barrier properties of the existing trees and instead the building would act as a stronger barrier to road noise to residents in Palace Road.
Loss of light to neighbouring The daylight and sunlight assessment properties. submitted with the application demonstrates that there will be no unacceptable effects upon the levels of daylight and sunlight received at neighbouring properties. The Page 126
development is compliant with the guidance set out in the BRE publication ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’ in this respect.
Adverse impact on value of This is not a material planning consideration neighbouring properties for this application.
5.3 The Streatham Society and the Streatham Conservation Association were notified of the application. No responses had been received at the time of writing this report.
5.4 The following departments/officials within the Council were consulted: Planning Policy; Implementation Team (s106); Crime Prevention Design Adviser; Transport and Highways; Arboricultural Officer; Conservation and Design; Performance Strategy and Regeneration and; street Care.
5.5 Responses have been received from the Planning Policy and Sustainability officers, the Transport and Highways officer, the Arboricultural Officer, the Crime Prevention Adviser, the s106 Implementation officer and the Conservation and Urban Design officer. No objection has been raised to the proposal; the responses received from these consultations have informed officers’ recommendation to members to approve this application and, are included in the relevant sections of the report and/or by way of conditions and informatives to the recommendation.
5.6 The following Consultees external to the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:
• English Heritage – Have advised that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice.
• Transport for London – No objection to the proposal but recommend a condition to secure a Construction Management Plan and to provide the requisite accommodation for cycle parking.
• Environment Agency – The application is deemed to have a low environmental risk although permission may be required from the Environment Agency in its role as a regulatory agency.
• Thames Water – In relation to surface water drainage Thames Water advises the applicant to ensure that storm water flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through off or onsite storage. In relation to discharge into public sewers the applicant is advised to have regard to recent changes The Water Industry Regulations 2011. These recommendations would be included as informatives to any consent. Page 127
• NHS South East London – NHS support the inclusion of a surgery in the proposed development to house the Palace Road Surgery. In relation to the pharmacy an application to open a new pharmacy on the site has been submitted to the NHS for consideration.
5.7 A petition containing some 105 signatures was submitted in support of the proposal to relocate the Palace Road Surgery within the development stating that the proposal would deliver a new and improved surgery for local people;
5.8 The applicant has submitted a Statement of Community Involvement, which provides details of its engagement strategy with Lambeth Councillors, local stakeholder groups, neighbours and with English Heritage.
6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
6.1 National Guidance
6.1.1 Central Government guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was published on the 27 th March 2012. This sets out the current Government’s planning policies for England and replaces all existing Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs).
6.1.2 The NPPF must now be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
6.2 Development Plan Policies
6.2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy (January 2011).
6.2.2 The following London Plan (2011) policies are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all Policy 3.2 Improving health and addressing health inequalities Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.10 Definition of affordable housing Policy 3.11 Affordable housing targets Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes Page 128
Policy 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds Policy 3.14 Existing housing Policy 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure Policy 3.17 Health and social facilities Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy Policy 5.10 Urban greening Policy 5.12 Flood risk management Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage Policy 5.16 Waste self-sufficiency Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity Policy 6.10 Walking Policy 6.11 Smoothing traffic flows and tackling congestion Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment
6.2.3 The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007 ): Policies Saved beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9 Transport Impact Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 16 Affordable Housing Policy 26 Community Facilities Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime Policy 33 Building Scale and Design Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 41 Views Policy 45 Listed Buildings Policy 47 Conservation Areas Policy 50 Open Space and Sports Facilities
6.2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011 ) are considered relevant to this application:
Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 Housing Policy S4 Transport Policy S5 Open Space Policy S6 Flood Risk Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment Page 129
Policy S10 Planning Obligations
6.3 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
6.3.1 The following adopted SPDs are considered relevant:
SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions SPD: Safer Built Environments SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction SPD: Planning Obligations
7.0 Planning Considerations
7.1 Principle of redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use scheme
7.1.1 Prior approval to demolish the existing dwellinghouse has been granted by the Council in accordance with Part 31, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (1995) as amended. The existing house can therefore be demolished without further reference to the Council other than the requirement under Building Regulations to submit to the Council a demolition notice prior to commencement of demolition works.
7.1.2 The principle of providing additional housing on the site was not contested by the Council during the consideration of the previous application for a wholly residential scheme (ref 09/03779FUL). The issue of building beyond the footprint of the existing dwelling to include part of the garden was also not contested by the council; the inspector concurred that the new development could extend over part of the curtilage garden.
7.1.3 However, in addition to providing additional housing on the site, the current proposal includes the provision of health care related uses including a GP Surgery, counselling rooms for use by SLAM and an ancillary retail pharmacy herein collectively referred to as a Healthcare Centre. The planning matter for consideration is therefore whether the redevelopment of the site to provide mixed residential and health related uses on the site is acceptable in land use terms.
7.1.4 Core Strategy Policy S1(e) states that community premises will be safeguarded and the development of and improvement to existing facilities supported in order to meet identified demand. Saved UDP Policy 26 supports the development of community facilities and requires that smaller community facilities serving a neighbourhood or district function should be located in or adjoining town or local centres. Where this is not possible, they should be located on a site with moderate or better public transport accessibility, which is easily and safely accessible by cycling and walking.
7.1.5 The new healthcare centre would be appropriately located; within close proximity to the Streatham Major town centre and Brixton Hill/New Park Road local centre. The site is rated as having a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 5, which is considered ‘Very Good’. The site is also easily and safely accessible by walking and cycling. Page 130
7.1.6 The proposal would therefore comply with saved UDP Policy 26 and Policy S1 of the Core Strategy by providing an improved medical practice and associated facilities in this area. It is also considered the location of the Healthcare Centre on this site is acceptable in land use terms as it would replace the Palace Road Surgery on the adjoining site, which is considered inadequate and not able to meet current and emerging standards for medical practices.
The need for a healthcare centre in the area
7.1.7 The report commissioned by the existing GP Surgery at 3 Palace Road (The Palace Road Surgery) in support of its proposed relocation to the new healthcare centre, suggests that the surgery needs to move into new premises that meet current medical practices standards and the emerging Care Quality Commission requirements.
7.1.8 The Palace Road Surgery is a 4 GP Practice with about 7400 patients on its register. The surgery operates from a detached converted 3 storey Victorian house. The report states that the existing premises are not suitable for the delivery of modern primary care services; the rooms are undersized, public and private areas are not properly delineated and there are no suitable support facilities, such as disabled WCs, lifts or utility rooms. In addition, whilst alterations and improvements have been carried out over the years, an application for planning to erect a single storey ground floor extension to increase the size of the premises was refused by the Council in October 2010 on grounds of its size. The existing property is therefore limited in size and is not capable of being extended to meet the envisaged accommodation needs of the GP Surgery.
7.1.9 According to the report, the minimum accommodation required at the application site in order to meet current healthcare Best Practice in terms of size and quality of accommodation must allow for the provision of 5 GP consulting rooms including a room for physiotherapy, 2 treatment rooms, dirty and clean utility rooms (not available in existing premises), waiting area, a reception/admin area, interview room (not available in existing premises), multi- purpose room (not available in existing premises), a practice manager’s office, an admin room, a library (not available in existing premises), staffroom, 3 patient toilets, cleaning cupboards, IT room (not dedicated in existing premises), a dedicated records storage space, and a lift (not available in existing premises).
7.1.10 Additional floor space is proposed over and above the minimum required to enable the new GP Surgery to increase its patient list by up to 2000. The additional space would enable the Surgery to extend the range of service on offer so as to meet the national and local NHS health care strategy, in particular bringing services closer to the community in a primary care setting. The additional services proposed include dietetic services, minor surgery, anti- coagulation clinic, scanning services, MSK services for long term conditions, training of medical students, and hosting community clinics.
7.1.11 The healthcare centre would also include provision for counselling and staff accommodation for use by the SLAM, which currently occupies the second floor level of the Palace Road Surgery (100sqm). The retail pharmacy at ground floor level would be ancillary to the GP and SLAM uses with internal linkages to the Page 131
surgery. The total healthcare related floor space proposed would amount to some 1018sqm.
7.1.12 The proposed development would meet an identified demand as illustrated by the petition of over 100 signatures, which has been submitted in support of the application. The application also has the support of the NHS South East London Estates management. The proposal therefore complies with Policy S1 of the Core Strategy and Saved Policy 26 of the UDP by providing a new community facility, which would replace the existing surgery on the adjoining site and, would represent a significantly improved offer of facilities and services in comparison to the existing medical premises at the Palace Road Surgery.
Proposed quantum of residential development on the site
7.1.13 With respect to the residential element of the scheme, the principle of intensifying development on this residential site including building over part of the garden was established as acceptable during consideration of the previous wholly residential scheme (ref. 09/03779/FUL).
7.1.14 The recently published Nation Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) pro-actively promotes housing developments in suitable locations and, requires local planning authorities to manage the supply of housing land in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land. Policy 3.3 (Increasing Housing Supply) of the London Plan seeks to ensure a minimum provision of 32,210 new additional homes across London with Lambeth allocated a target of 11,950 for the period 2011-20. Lambeth Core Strategy Policy S2 envisages the provision of at 7,700 net additional dwellings for the period 2010/11-2016/17.
7.1.15 The proposed 14 dwelling would contribute to these policy objectives. The matter for consideration in land use terms is whether the quantum of development in terms of density is appropriate for the size and location of the site.
7.1.16 Density is a measure of the intensity of development on a residential site (the number of dwellings per Net Residential Area, measured in Habitable Rooms per Hectare). Saved Policy 33(c) of the UDP states that the principal matter for consideration in determining the appropriate density (and scale) of development is whether a development proposal achieves an appropriate urban design, which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and future residents. This policy does not prescribe the density of development on a particular site but instead promotes a design-led approach, which encourages a more flexible and individual approach in the assessment of amenity issues. The design-led approach recognises that different densities are appropriate to different contexts.
7.1.17 To achieve the appropriate quantum of development on a site reference must be made to a range of urban design criteria including its location in relation to public transport. Table 10 contained in the Lambeth UDP (2007) provides a range of densities that can be achieved in the Borough using the design-led approach. On this basis and, given the location of the site in an urban location, close to a town centre with a very good public transport accessibility level, development on this site to a range of 450-700HRH would be permissible. Page 132
7.1.18 The current proposal of 14 dwellings would have a resulting density of 231 habitable rooms per hectare. This falls below the recommended range but is nevertheless considered acceptable due to the inclusion of the new health centre at ground and first floor levels. The provision of additional residential units with the scheme is also constrained by the size of the site and the character of the surrounding area. A higher residential provision would require a larger scale of development, which would fall foul to the previous reasons for refusal of planning permission on this site noted at paragraph 3.4 above.
7.1.19 In summary officers consider the proposed mixed use development comprising health care related uses within Uses Classes D1 and A1 and a residential scheme (Use Class C3) acceptable in land use terms.
7.2 Standard of proposed residential accommodation
7.2.1 Saved Policies 33 and 38 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy require all development to be of a high design quality that makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of future residents. The Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ expands on these policies and advises on requirements such as minimum room sizes and space standards, external amenity space requirements, daylight/sunlight requirements, privacy, spacing between buildings in relation to outlook, sense of enclosure and lifetimes homes standards.
Size of units/rooms
7.2.2 The quality of accommodation of the residential units proposed has been assessed having regard to the size of individual rooms, the floor-to-ceiling heights - especially in rooms with sloping roofs and the overall floorspace of each dwelling type as outlined in the SPD. In addition the requirement for each unit to have storage space and sufficient circulation space and layout to allow unimpeded access between habitable rooms has been taken into account. The Council’s adopted minimum overall floor areas and room sizes are contained in Figure 1 and Figure 2 , respectively of the SPD.
7.2.3 Against these prescribed standards, the overall floor area of each of the residential units within the scheme, including the dwellinghouse would exceed the minimum overall unit size requirements. The dwelling units would also meet or exceed the individual minimum room sizes prescribed by the SPD in all cases. The layout of each dwelling would provide appropriately apportioned living space with adequate light, circulation and storage space. In addition each of the units would achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.3m, or 50% of the floorspace with a floor to ceiling height of 2.0m in the residential units, which have sloping ceilings.
Natural lighting/Outlook/Privacy
7.2.4 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight; an acceptable standard of privacy; and sufficient outlook . Page 133
7.2.5 A daylight and sunlight assessment undertaken by consultants Brooke Vincent and Partners has been submitted with the application to provide an overview of potential lighting levels to be received within each dwelling. The report is based on the British Research Establishment (BRE) publication “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight, a guide to good practice”. The BRE Guide provides advice on site layout planning to achieve good sunlight and daylight within buildings and in the open spaces between them.
7.2.6 The report found that the development would receive sufficient levels of daylight and sunlight given the spatial relationship between the proposed development and neighbouring buildings in Palace Road and Christchurch Road. The impact of the existing boundary trees, which are to be retained and the additional trees to be planted was also assessed in relation to natural lighting within the development. The submitted drawings show that footprint of the proposed building would lie in close proximity to the trees in a number of instances, particularly along Christchurch Road.
7.2.7 Officers are satisfied that these trees would not result in an unacceptable impact upon natural lighting levels received to habitable rooms within the development including during the spring and summer months when the trees would be in bloom. A detailed assessment of sunlight and daylight impacts of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring residents is provided in section 7.4 below.
7.2.8 In terms of outlook and privacy within the development, each of the flats would be orientated to face either onto Palace Road or Christchurch Road, with appropriate separation distances to neighbouring properties. A separation distance of some 34m would be achieved to the closest properties across Palace Road, whilst a separation distance of 44m would be maintained across Christchurch Road and Holbrook House due to the wide expanse of lawn in front of this block of flats.
7.2.9 These distances are considered sufficient to ensure that adequate privacy and outlook for all units would be achieved. It is noted that the townhouse would face onto the entrance courtyard to the residential core. The courtyard elevation contains a window to a ground floor kitchen, which would be obscure glazed to protect the privacy of future occupiers of the property. Upper floor openings in the south eastern elevation of the building, which service corridors and the staircase core, would also be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking the new house. A condition to effect these requirements is recommended.
7.2.10 With regards to outlook from the townhouse principle views would be from ground floor openings to the living room; these open onto a rear garden. Upper floor windows would directly overlook the garden. The flats within the rest of the development would have largely unimpeded outlook at elevated levels across Christ Church Road and Palace Road.
Amenity Space/Children’s Play Space
7.2.11 Guidance on the appropriate level of amenity space and play space in relation to new residential development is contained with Policy S2 (h) of the Core Strategy, Saved policies 33 and 50 of the UDP and the Council’s SPD on standards for housing development and conversions. Page 134
7.2.12 For new flatted developments, shared amenity space of at least 50sqm is required plus a further 10sqm per flat provided either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated within the shared amenity space. For new houses the minimum requirement is 30sqm. Communal gardens are required to comply with the following standards: (i) receive natural light; (ii) be screened from parking areas; (iii) be easily accessible to all occupants; (iv)be overlooked by habitable rooms to ensure safety and surveillance; and (v) have a landscape, management and maintenance plan.
7.2.13 In this case the proposed development would provide a total of approximately 481sqm of private and communal residential amenity space together with amenity space associated with the healthcare centre. Of this 252sqm would be shared amenity space including a children’s play area of 96sqm for the residential element. The reminder would be in the form of private balconies to the flats on the upper floors (totalling 89.4sqm), a private garden to the dwelling house (approx.140sqm).
7.2.14 According to the SPD, the minimum amenity space requirement for a residential scheme of 13 flats and a house is 210sqm. The proposal therefore far exceeds the minimum requirement for amenity space associated with the residential element of the scheme.
7.2.15 The provision of a large family sized unit at ground floor level with direct access to a sizeable private garden adds weight to the quality of the residential environment within the scheme. Furthermore, the communal garden area is generously sized and would: (i) receive natural light; (ii) be away from parking areas; (iii) be easily accessible to all occupants; and (iv) be overlooked by windows to the healthcare centre and the residential units and as such would ensure safety via passive surveillance. A landscape, management and maintenance plan is reserved by condition.
7.2.16 With regard to the children’s play space, saved UDP Policy 50 and the SPD state that the provision of suitable play areas for pre-school and junior children will be sought, where appropriate. Play areas should be easily accessible, overlooked by habitable rooms and enclosed either through fencing, railings or other safety features. Appropriate play equipment that complies with current safety standards should be installed.
7.2.17 Further guidance on the amount of provision is provided in the GLA’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (adopted March 2008) . This indicates that new residential development generating a child yield of more than 10 (as determined by the application of child occupancy assessments) should provide
suitable play space as part of the development scheme. It states that provision should be based on 10sqm per child yield and that the provision should be considered as part of the overall open space provision rather than ‘over and above’ the requirements for private or shared amenity space as set out above.
7.2.18 The expected child yield for this 14 unit scheme has been calculated at 3 and as such the scheme is not required to provide a designated children’s play area. Nevertheless, the applicant has included 96sqm of the shared amenity space as children play area. In order to ensure that the play area is safe and appropriate for children, details of the layout of the play space, the boundary Page 135
treatment to it and the type of play equipment to be installed should be sought. A condition to this effect is recommended.
Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair accessible housing
7.2.19 Core Strategy Policy S2(d) and the Council’s SPD on standards for housing development and house conversions provide guidance on Lifetime Homes and wheelchair accessible housing. There is a requirement that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes Standards. In addition, within a development, 10% of all new homes should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair users.
7.2.20 The proposed development is designed so that all the flats and the townhouse will achieve Lifetime Homes Standards. Lifted access is provided to the flats in addition to a staircase core. This will ensure that the homes are flexible and able to meet the future needs of the residents. A condition of consent is recommended to secure this commitment. It is also proposed to provide two on- street parking bay for ‘Blue Badge’ holders on the Palace Road frontage. These and other highway works will be secured via a s278 agreement and will be included within the s106 legal agreement.
7.2.21 The standard of the proposed residential accommodation and the living environment within the scheme is therefore considered acceptable and meets the objectives of saved Policies 33, 38 and 50 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy as wells the Council’s housing standards as set out in the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008).
7.3 Provision of affordable housing and dwelling mix
Dwelling mix
7.3.1 With regards to dwelling mix, the requirement of Policy S2 (d) is for a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of different sections of the community. The policy does not prescribe a mix of units; rather it is informed by the priority and strategic housing market needs identified in regular housing assessments undertaken by the Council. Provision has regard to the particular location and nature of the individual site concerned.
7.3.2 In this case the proposed dwelling mix of 1 x4 bedroom house, 7 x2 bedroom and 6 x1 bedroom flats would provide an acceptable proportion of family sized units on the site suited to 2 person and 3 person households for which there a continuing demand in the borough. Officers consider the proposed dwelling mix acceptable and consistent with the objectives of Policy S2 of the Core Strategy.
Affordable Housing Provision
7.3.3 Saved Policy 16 of the UDP states that a range of unit sizes of affordable housing should be provided, having regard to local circumstances, site characteristics and the borough’s annual Housing Strategy. Core Strategy S2 seeks affordable housing on all sites over 0.1 of a hectare or capable of providing 10 or more units, and as such affordable housing is required on this site. The policy requirements are for at least 50% (40% without public subsidy) Page 136
of units to be affordable with a tenure split of 70% social rented and 30% intermediate.
7.3.4 The application proposes the provision of one affordable 4 bedroom townhouse, which equates to 7% of the total number of dwellings proposed the site. This falls far below the requirements of policy for at least 50% (40% without public subsidy) of units to be affordable. However, Policy S2 of the Core Strategy allows for a provision of affordable housing below the stated requirement, where independently validated evidence of non-viability of a scheme is submitted. This proviso is supported by the London Plan Policy 3.11 (Affordable Housing Targets), which requires local planning authorities to apply a flexible approach to the provision of affordable housing having regard to need to encourage rather than restrain residential development.
7.3.5 In addition, the NPPF states that the cost of any requirements likely to be applied to a development should “provide competitive returns to a willing Landowner and willing developer”. As such planning authorities are now required to be sensitive to the commercial implications of a development proposal.
7.3.6 The applicant states that the scheme cannot economically accommodate a greater provision of affordable housing. To support this claim, a financial appraisal undertaken by Jones Lang LaSalle (JJL) and based on the Greater London Authority’s Development Control Toolkit Model (DCTM) or ‘Three Dragons model’ has been submitted to illustrate the viability of the proposed development. The conclusion from the appraisal is that offer of one affordable housing unit represents the maximum reasonable quantum of affordable housing that can be provided without rendering the scheme unviable.
7.3.7 The appraisal has been independently reviewed by BNP Paribas who were commissioned by the Local Planning Authority with the instruction to independently test the applicant’s development appraisal with the view to determine whether there is any scope for an increase in the provision of on site affordable housing, or a commuted sum.
7.3.8 The initial review by BNP Paribas questioned the rationale of the higher than average build cost assumptions for the residential element of the scheme, which informed the applicant’s economic viability report. They recommended that a full build cost plan for the whole scheme should be undertaken by a cost consultant to independently verify the estimated build costs. The Council commissioned Synergy Construction and Property Consultants LLP (Synergy) to advise as to the reasonableness of the cost estimate produced by the applicant as part of the Economic Viability Appraisal Report Assessment.
7.3.9 Synergy has confirmed that the estimated cost indicated in the applicant’s economic viability appraisal report is reasonable despite being higher than the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) benchmarks. BCIS is the leading provider of cost information to the construction industry. The report considers that the “complicated profile of the roof and relatively high wall to floor ratio are factors that contribute to this, plus the cost of the balconies, site clearance and the ever increasing Building Regulations requirements, renewables and the like, which do not factor in all of the schemes on which the BCIS average is calculated”. Page 137
7.3.10 BNP Paribas has included these independently verified build costs into a further review of the applicant’s economic viability appraisal and has concluded that the costs applied by the applicant’s economic viability consultants are not overstated. “Therefore our revised conclusion is that the current affordable housing offer proposed by the Applicant has been maximised, in the current market conditions”.
7.3.11 Officers consider the proposal to be policy compliant, having regard to the proviso in Policy S2 of the Core Strategy, which allows a provision of affordable housing below the stated requirement where independently validated evidence of non-viability of a scheme is submitted. Housing officers have confirmed a preference for a 4 bedroom dwelling rather than smaller flats on the basis of the existing demand in the borough for family size affordable housing.
7.3.12 This initial offer is based upon current market conditions and is the amount that can currently viably be provided. However it is considered that should market conditions permit, additional affordable housing should be secured. It is therefore recommended that after one year from the point at which the Section 106 agreement is completed and in the event that development has not yet commenced, a new economic viability assessment in relation to affordable housing will have to be been undertaken by the applicant and independently validated. This would be a full review of all appraisal inputs to ensure that the maximum affordable housing can be secured.
7.3.13 In the event that this review indicates that an increased level of affordable housing should be provided this will be agreed and formally documented. Under no circumstance will the level of provision reduce to less than the one social rent unit, which comprises the baseline offer.
7.4 Neighbouring Amenity
7.4.1 Under Saved Policies 7, 33 and 38 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy, development should not unacceptably harm residential amenity. The policies seek to ensure that due consideration is given to protecting neighbouring residents in terms of visual intrusion, overbearing impact, loss of natural light, loss of privacy and noise and disturbance during the assessment of a development proposal.
Impact upon natural light (Sunlight and daylight)
7.4.2 Policy 33(d) requires that new buildings should be of a scale and design that protects residential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers by having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight.
7.4.3 In assessing daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development upon residential neighbours, Policy 33 states that regard will be had to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice’.
7.4.4 A BRE sunlight/daylight assessment was commissioned by the applicant in order to determine the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring buildings. The assessment has been carried out by Brooke Vincent & Partners in accordance with the BRE guidelines. The study included survey Page 138
based modelling and technical assessment of the site and concludes that residential properties adjoining the site will retain good levels of sunlight/daylight by reference to the BRE guidelines in an urban context.
7.4.5 These findings have been verified by officers and in all cases, neighbouring properties in Christchurch Road and Palace Road, including No. 1a/1b Palace Road and No 4 Christchurch Road, would not suffer a demonstrable loss of natural lighting. It should be noted that during consideration of the appeal scheme, which occupied a larger development envelope in terms of height, massing and layout and was located closer to the above two properties, the Inspector concurred with the technical findings of the sunlight and daylight report which accompanied that application; that there would be no material adverse impacts resulting from the proposal. Officers are satisfied that given the reduction in the footprint and scale of the proposed development these neighbouring properties would not suffer a material loss of natural light.
Privacy for residents in Palace Road and Christchurch Road
7.4.6 Policy 33(d) requires that the scale and design of new buildings should respect standards of privacy, not create unacceptable overlooking or a sense of enclosure to neighbouring properties or appear overbearing when viewed from neighbouring properties.
7.4.7 The adjoining properties to south/southeast (Nos. 1a/1b Palace Road) and to the east (No. 4 Christchurch Road) have windows facing directly into the application site. These openings have been taken into account in the layout of the new building and the treatment of any windows with potential to cause loss of privacy.
7.4.8 As a result the elevations facing directly onto these neighbouring properties contain no window or door openings above ground level, which service habitable rooms. Where there are windows in this elevation, they service circulation space, which would be obscure glazed and non-opening to a height of 1.7 metres to prevent overlooking and loss privacy. The other windows within this elevation, which service consulting rooms on the upper floors of the healthcare centre, face directly onto a blank flank wall of the adjoining property at Nos. 1a/1b Palace Road and as such would not cause overlooking concerns.
7.4.9 There are bay windows proposed within the front (south) and rear (north) elevations, which service bedrooms at first and second floors levels of the proposed townhouse. Views from this window directly overlook the residential entrance courtyard and are oblique in relation to No. 1a/1b Palace Road. However, it is recommended to install privacy screens to the one side of the balconies on the upper floors, which are located immediately adjacent to the townhouse to prevent overlooking of neighbouring residential gardens. Elsewhere all balconies are semi-enclosed and as such would not cause overlooking within or without the development.
Outlook and sense of enclosure
7.4.10 In relation to issues of outlook and sense of enclosure for neighbours, it is noted that the only property that stand to be affected by the proposal is Nos. 1a/1b Palace Road. No 4 Christchurch Road is sufficiently removed from the Page 139
application site so as not to suffer a loss of outlook or a sense of enclosure. The appeal scheme was in part refused on the grounds that the nearest of the two town houses previously proposed would lie within about 1m and along most of the side boundary of the rear garden to No. 1a/1b Palace Road. The Inspector opined that the location of this house in close proximity to this boundary would add to the sense of enclosure of the garden to Nos. 1a/1b Christchurch Road, which is already enclosed by the neighbouring property, No. 4 Christchurch Road.
7.4.11 In order to address this reason for refusal, this offending second townhouse has been omitted from the current scheme and the land given over to the private garden of the retained townhouse. As a result there would be a separation distance of 6.8m between the flank elevation of the townhouse and the rear garden wall to the No 1a/1b Palace Road. Given this and the three storey height of the townhouse, the garden to No. 1a/1b would not suffer undue loss of amenity from an overbearing relationship with the new building or a sense of enclosure.
Noise and Disturbance
7.4.12 All dwellings on site have habitable windows facing towards Palace Road and Christchurch Road. Christchurch Road is busy traffic artery and the development would be separated from it by between 9-10m, behind a brick boundary wall. This spatial relationship between the dwellings and a busy road is not different to that in many urban locations, including the dwelling over shops in Streatham High Road. In relation to Palace Road, which is a lightly trafficked road, the residential properties would a spatial relationship similar to the other residential properties in the street with the street.
7.4.13 The Council’s Environmental Health team (Noise Pollution) has raised no objection to the scheme. A condition has been recommended to limit internal noise levels to living rooms and bedrooms to prevent environmental noise impact from the road.
7.4.14 The noise and disturbance that may occur in relation to the healthcare centre and the flats on the upper flats would be regulated under the requirements of building regulations.
7.4.15 In light of these issues it is officer consideration that the residential amenity of potential residents would be adequately safeguarded.
7.5 Design and Conservation Considerations
7.5.1 A high quality of design is an integral requirement for all new build schemes. This is more so the case in areas located within Conservation Areas or their settings or where development would adjoin listed buildings. The policy objectives to achieve this are articulated in saved Policies 33, 38 and 47 of the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
Bulk, massing and scale
7.5.2 The application site is located at a prominent apex at the corner of Palace Road and Christchurch Road. The site is afforded long views when travelling Page 140
westwards along Christchurch Road and sits within a context set by nearby period buildings and the more contemporary 20 th redevelopment of the surrounding area, which were constructed during a process of amalgamation and redevelopment of individual plots in both Christchurch Road and Palace Road.
7.5.3 The period buildings in the area include the Grade I listed Christ Church, which is located to the northwest of the site on the opposite side of Christchurch Road. This dates from 1840-42; with its tall south-east campanile, which is modelled on St Mark’s in Venice, the church is a building of impressive appearance and is a heritage asset of the highest significance. The forecourt walls and pylons of the church are also considered of heritage importance and are separately listed at Grade II.
7.5.4 Few of the residential buildings in the immediate area, which were contemporaneous with the church, remain and those which do include Victorian and Edwardian villas situated to the south-west, south and east of the site on Palace Road. The 20 th redevelopment of much of the area includes the 4 storey post war blocks on the north side of Christchurch Road, which adjoin the church and the wholesale urban renewal on both sides of Christchurch Road, stretching eastwards from the Grade I listed church to Tulse Hill on the north side of Christchurch Road and from just east of Roupell Road to Hillside Road on the south side. Although they do not provide an immediate context, there are also residential blocks of 5/6 storeys further to the east of the site on Palace Road.
7.5.5 The listed church is at the extreme south-eastern corner of the adjacent Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area. The conservation area boundary returns west along Christchurch Road and extends northwards towards Brixton. The site itself does not form part of the conservation area. The site has a large number of trees especially along its edges, which lend it a green quality with the existing house set in spacious grounds.
7.5.6 The appeal scheme was for a predominantly 5 storey building with a stepped footprint narrowing towards the apex of the site. The inspector noted that appeal building would have been higher that the neighbouring 3 storey buildings in Palace Road and given its closer proximity to the street would have appeared significantly taller than them. Despite the tree cover afforded by existing trees, parts of the building would be exposed between and above the trees and, would have been visible within the setting of the church despite the separation afforded by Christchurch Road and the retained garden towards the apex of the site. He concluded that the combined height and footprint of the building would result in a substantial mass that would appear out of keeping with the surroundings and would detract from the setting of the adjoining listed buildings and character of the Conservation Area.
7.5.7 In order to address this issue, the current scheme has been reduced in height, massing and scale, by the following amendments: reducing the northwest section of the building facing the church from 5 storeys to 2 storeys; omitting one townhouse from the rear section of the building abutting the boundary with Nos. 1a/1b Palace Road; and reducing the overall height of the building from 5 storeys to 4 storeys by omitting one floor from the mid-section of the building. The resulting proposal is for a part 2, part 3 and part 4 building. Page 141
7.5.8 The footprint has been reduced by omitting one townhouse to the minimum necessary to accommodate the requirements of the healthcare centre, which occupiers the ground and upper floors. The proposal maintains a separation distance of between 40m and 45m from the building opposite on Palace Road and Christchurch Road including Christ Church. The building remains stepped from the Christchurch and Palace Road elevations, gradually narrowing towards the apex of the site from a maximum width of 22m at the eastern end of the building to 8m at north western end of the building. It would be set some 30m from the corner of the site, at the junction of Palace Road and Christchurch Road.
7.5.9 The stepped elevations would reduce the apparent massing of the building, lending it the appearance of a series or terrace of buildings rather than the monolithic appearance of a single mass. In addition, as a result of the overall reduction in height, particularly to the section of the building nearest to the church, the proposed building would sit well within the canopy of the existing trees and, where it would be exposed to street views, would be subordinate to or in keeping with the height and massing of the residential building in its immediate vicinity.
7.5.10 The inspector was particularly concerned about the scale and massing of the appeal scheme within the setting of the church. He was of the view that the 5 storey height and massing of the building would give the building prominence on the corner, eroding the appearance of the apex of the site as “a side green area in the foreground of the church”, when viewed on approaches to the site from the west along Christchurch Road. This green foil is mirrored on approaches to the site from the east along Christchurch Road.
7.5.11 Officers are satisfied that the reduction in height of the building from five to two storeys to this section of the building addresses the inspector’s concerns described above. It is considered that within the views of the church on approaches to the site from the east and west, the frontage of the building would sit well below the tree canopies that frame the edges of the proposed communal amenity space. The two storey end section of the building would not be readily seen behind the tree cover and boundary wall and as such would not appear to compete with views of the church or obscure its tall south-east campanile.
Layout
7.5.12 Saved Policy 31 of the UDP requires that new developments should, where possible, retain or contribute to a clear urban grain and follow appropriate block widths, gaps and spaces between buildings thereby helping to add to the connectivity of street blocks. Individual buildings should address the street with frontages and entrances and should create or enhance views and vistas.
7.5.13 The layout of the proposal follows the triangular or wedge shape of the site, with the main four storey building stepping back from the street boundaries towards the apex site thereby following established building lines in Palace Road whilst allowing the retention of the existing landscape and boundary treatment. With a 30m deep open amenity space retained as “a green area in the foreground of the church”, and garden space retained to on the east Page 142
boundary of the site, the proposed the layout would allow the building to present as series of terraced elevations rather than a monolithic block.
7.5.14 The building would address the street in Palace Road with the residential and healthcare entrances facing onto it. Pathways ways to the separate elements of the scheme would be clearly delineated with use of different materials. Communal, private and semi-private spaces would be defined by boundary treatment and gates.
7.5.15 It is therefore considered that the layout out would make a positive contribution to the streetscene in Palace and the steeped and articulated elevations would enhance views and vistas of the building from Christchurch Road in accordance with the objectives of Policy 31o the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
Detailed design and materials
7.5.16 Policy 33 of the UDP states that infill development should be compatible with: the site, context and historic development of the area; existing topology, landscape and boundary treatment; prevailing building lines and plot sizes; the height, massing and scale of neighbouring buildings; roof profiles and silhouettes of adjoining buildings; colour, type, source and texture of local materials; architectural compositions including patterns and rhythms and set pieces of townscape and established gaps and open spaces, views and skylines.
7.5.17 The design includes a number of defining elements found in the local architectural surroundings, with particular reference to the adjacent residential properties. This includes pitched and hipped roofs; gable ends; attic-storey accommodation; vertical emphasis to elevations; tall windows and; gardens with mature trees
7.5.18 The inspector found the detailed architecture of the previous proposal responsive to the context and considered it appropriate in this relatively mixed area. The design approach submitted in the appeal scheme has been retained as it was considered acceptable by the planning inspector. It reflects elements of the adjacent Victorian and Edwardian development in a modern form, with a brick finish and a series of gables to pitched roofs. The building is well articulated by balconies and detailed window arrangements.
7.5.19 The proposed material palette is also considered to take reference from the local context, in particular the Victorian red bricked terrace houses on Palace Road which are articulated with rendered accents and have grey slate roofs. The selection includes buff red brick for walls; dark grey PPC aluminium window and door frames; balustrades and gates in dark grey powder painted steel and dark grey standing seam zinc roof to match adjacent slate roofs. It is recommended that details of the materials including samples are reserved by condition.
7.5.20 The submitted roof plan shows that the solar panels would be sited principally within roof valleys and flat roofs and it is considered that these locations would have minimal visual impact from street level or from adjoining residential properties. In addition, the solar panels have been positioned as far as is possible away from the listed building or from views into the adjoining Page 143
Conservation Area. Notwithstanding this point, should planning approval be granted it is recommended that a condition be added requiring further details of the solar panels including manufacturer’s details and drawings showing their siting.
Impact on the adjoining Grade I/Grade II listed buildings
7.5.21 In relation to proposals for development located within the setting of a listed building Government advice in NPPF is that local authorities must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Saved Policy 45 of the UDP states that development, which adversely affects the setting of a listed building, or significant views of a listed building, will be refused.
7.5.22 As noted above the appeal inspector in the previous application, was particularly concerned about the scale and massing of the appeal scheme, when viewed within the setting of the church. He was of the opinion that the 5 storey height and massing of the building would, in some approaches to the site, compete with views of the listed church and therefore would harm its setting and the setting of the adjacent conservation area.
7.5.23 Approaching the site from the west along Christchurch Road, the main church building and/or tower can be seen within views of the application site in spite of the physical separation afforded by the road. The inspector considered that whilst the 5 storey appeal scheme was lower than the church, its height and massing would give it relative prominence in these views. He also considered that approaching from the site from the east, the 5 storey height of the appeal proposal would appear to compete with the church in spite of the physical separation afforded by the church. The inspector concluded that the 5 storey mass would, in these views (and within some views in Palace Road), intrude upon the setting of the church.
7.5.24 In response, the current scheme has been reduced from 5 to 2 storeys in height on the end of the site where the upper floors would be seen within the same views as the church. This two storey section of the building is 8m in depth and then rises to 4 storeys for the majority of the site instead of the 5 storeys of the appeal scheme. The two storey section would have a maximum height of 8.6m and the 4 storey section a maximum height of 14m when measured from the adjacent street level.
7.5.25 It should also be also noted that the footprint of the building has been pulled back on the end elevation facing onto the church by up to 3m and on the end elevation facing onto 1a/b Palace Road by 4m as a result of the omission of one of the two dwellinghouses in the appeal scheme.
7.5.26 The reduction in height and footprint of the building as described above combined with the retained stepped elevations on both Christchurch Road and Palace Road frontages would significantly reduce its massing within the views of the church from both the easterly and westerly approaches to the site in Christchurch Road. It is considered that as the mass and height of the end of the building closest to the church has been significantly reduced and the footprint set back from the east and northwest boundaries, the visual impact of the proposal on the setting of the church would be limited. Page 144
7.5.27 The Council’s Design and Conservation officer has advised that the development would not compete, in terms of scale and prominence, with the Grade I Christ Church and as such would not adversely affect its setting. The applicant’s Heritage consultant who reviewed the revised proposal reached the same conclusion. For this very same reason the current scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the adjoining Rush Common Brixton Hill Conservation Area. It is considered that even in winter time when the proposed building would not obscured by trees, the church and its tower would remain the dominant and prominent features within the streetscene. Therefore, it is officers’ considered opinion that the proposal overcomes the Inspector’s reason for dismissing the appeal scheme on these grounds.
7.5.28 In the event of approval it is recommended that conditions be attached with respect to samples of all materials, details of balconies, solar panels, window roof and main entrances details as well as the details for cycle and refuse storage.
Trees, landscaping and biodiversity
7.5.29 The site falls outside but is adjacent to a conservation area; all trees on site are protected by an Area Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Saved Policy 39 (d) of the UDP states that “trees of high amenity value will be protected, including during construction, through the use of planning conditions and Tree Preservation Orders”.
7.5.30 The proposal seeks permission for the removal of a number of trees that have been identified in the Arboricultural Implications Report and Tree Protection Plan dated 5 th October 2011, submitted with the application. Appendix 1 of that report includes a tree survey schedule and plan whilst Appendix 2 contains various tree protections methods to be adopted on the site. Table 1 of the report comprises a summary of tree works and states that all trees identified for removal have been selected because they are weak, defective and subordinate. Tree pruning would be limited and would apply to trees on the northerly and southerly boundaries.
7.5.31 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer, who has reviewed the submitted report, has confirmed that many of the trees within the site are in poor structural and physiological condition having been neglected for a number of years. As a consequence, the visual impact of the trees has suffered as they have not been maintained following storm damage and many of them (especially those situated in clusters) have become ivy clad and/or suppressed. The site has also recently been fly-tipped and some of the smaller trees have been damaged as a result.
7.5.32 In the circumstances, the select removal of the inferior trees as identified in the Arboricultural Report would be an opportunity to better enhance those tress that are to be retained as part of the development proposal. In addition the proposed pruning to the retained trees would accord with the recommendation of BS3998:1989. The pruning works are considered reasonable as they would provide a satisfactory distance between the canopy edges and the front/side elevations of the new build whilst not harming the amenity benefits that the trees provide to the locality and wider area. Page 145
7.5.33 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer advised the applicant’s Arboricultural consultant during pre-application consultantations and visited the site on a number of occasions and is satisfied that with appropriate conditions to any approval, all retained trees could be satisfactorily protected during the demolition works, ground-works, excavations for foundations and general construction works.
7.5.34 It should be noted that the planning inspector considered the removal and pruning of some trees on the site to be consistent with good Arboricultural practice and did not contest the proposal on these grounds.
7.5.35 The proposed soft and hard landscaping scheme includes paved areas on the Palace Road frontage of the site and along pathways; a communal area of amenity space including 96sqm of designated children play space within the western corner of the site; the retention and planting of replacement trees and; external lighting to the communal amenity space areas and pathways. Boundary treatment would consist of a brick boundary to the site as wells as tree planting together with gated and separate entrances to the residential and healthcare centre elements of the development.
7.5.36 The accompanying Design and Access Statement envisages the detailed landscaping proposals to promote ease of long-term maintenance and management including the use of durable, non-slip hard surfaces; the provision of pathways using high quality tactile and textured surfaces; the use of contrasting coloured materials and; lighting and signage to facilitate DDA compliant movement around the site.
7.5.37 Details of these matters, including any landscape furniture such as bins, benches, tree grilles, covered cycle racks together with seating within the shared garden and play equipment for the children’s play area and boundary treatment and gates are reserved by condition.
7.5.38 In relation to the potential for the presence of flora or fauna of ecological value on the site, reference is made to Policy 5.3 of the London Plan, which seeks to protect and promote biodiversity and nature conservation. New developments are required to provide opportunity to incorporate features for wildlife and local biodiversity.
7.5.39 Given its verdant nature and long term disuse, it is possible there is ecology present on the site, which might be of some interest. Officers therefore consider it prudent to seek an ecological assessment of the site before works commence to establish if there are any legally protected species or habitats which might be present, and to detail appropriate mitigation measures in the event that such species are present. A condition to this effect is recommended.
7.6 Sustainable Design & Construction and Renewables
7.6.1 Policy S7(a) of the Core Strategy requires all major developments to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in line with London Plan targets. The London Plan (Policy 5.2) sets a target of 25% reduction in carbon dioxide (Co2) emissions during the period 2010-2013 for both residential and non-residential buildings. For residential buildings this equates to Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 . There is a presumption that all major development will seek to reduce Page 146
Co2 emissions by at least 20% through the use of on-site renewable energy generation, where feasible (London Plan Policy 5.7). An application for a major development is required to demonstrate, through a detailed energy assessment, how these targets are to be met within the framework of the Mayor’s energy hierarchy.
7.6.2 The applicant has submitted an Energy Statement, which has been revised by addendum dated 20 th February 2012. The revised energy strategy proposes the installation of 2x 3.5sqm of solar thermal panels to part meet the hot water demand attributed to the townhouse and GP surgery. In addition, 54sqm of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels are proposed to be installed to generate electricity.
7.6.3 The proposed energy strategy achieves a 10.5% reduction in (regulated) carbon dioxide emissions through energy efficiency measures. A further 10.4% reduction in Co2 is achieved through renewable energy technologies (solar thermal and PV panels). The energy strategy therefore fails to achieve at least 20% through the use of on-site renewable energy generation as required under London Plan Policy 5.7 (Renewable Energy).
7.6.4 However it is noted that the above policy recognises that it will not always be feasible to achieve these target reduction in all major applications. The applicant has explored all available options which would be appropriate for the size, scale and type of development proposed including gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP), wind turbines, ground source heat pumps and biomass boilers.
7.6.5 The CHP is not considered appropriate on a development of this scale as it requires a constant base heat, which cam only be achieved by serving multiple end users. It also has associated complications with maintenance, operation and billing of end users and for this and other technical reasons was discounted. Wind turbines are not considered suitable to the built-up and urban location of the site and consequent low wind speeds in the area as well as well as potential adverse visual impacts. The applicant’s energy statement suggests that to achieve a reasonable output, they would have to be located some 10m higher than surrounding buildings and trees.
7.6.6 With regards to ground source heat pumps, the statement notes that the pumps work most efficiently with a good yearly heat balance. The absence of cooling provision within the residential scheme and the limited provision within the healthcare centre mean that the reasonable heat/cooling balance cannot be achieved in this scheme. In relation to biomass boilers, a feasible provision would require a centralised system, which is not appropriate for a small scale development and, would require regular fuel deliveries accommodation for large volumes of fuel storage.
7.6.7 Solar thermal panels and photovoltaic cells were therefore the only options considered feasible for the reasons stated above and, without rendering the scheme non-viable. Although the scheme fails to meet the Mayors 25% carbon reduction target under Policy 5.2 (Maximising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) or achieved the requisite 20% in Co2 emissions from renewable energy, it has been demonstrated that it would not be feasible to do so on within this development. Page 147
7.6.8 London Plan Policy 5.2 (E) allows for off-site provision or a cash-in-lieu contribution where the target is not met but only where there is an alternative proposal identified and delivery is certain or where funding can be pooled to support specific Co2 reductions projects or programmes. However, the Council does not yet have a mechanism in place for securing these provisions.
7.6.9 The Council Policy advisor on sustainability has reviewed the submitted energy statement and accompanying addendum and is satisfied that the proposal is in the circumstances acceptable. A condition requiring compliance with the details contained in the energy strategy and addendum is recommended.
7.6.10 Saved Policy 35 of the UDP states that all development proposals should show how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. The Council’s SPD on Sustainable Design and Construction states that all residential developments should achieve a minimum 3 star rating for the Code for Sustainable Homes, albeit that the Council aspires to 4 stars or more in the majority of developments.
7.6.11 A Sustainability Statement has been submitted with the planning application providing information on sustainable design matters. A Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment has been provided; this allows an evaluation of the potential rating achievable under a formal Code for Sustainable Homes Assessment. To meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3, developments are required to achieve a total percentage points score of (equal to or greater than) 57 points. The pre-assessment indicates that a score of 58.24 can be achieved, thereby meeting Code Level 3. If planning permission is granted it is recommended that a condition is attached stating that no dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.
7.6.12 A BREEAM Pre-Assessment has also been submitted, which gives an indicative BREEAM “Very Good” rating for the non-residential element of the development. In the event of approval it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring evidence to be submitted confirming that the development achieves a BREEAM New Construction (or such equivalent national measure of sustainability which replaces that scheme) rating of no less than 'Very Good’.
7.6.13 This should include (a) a design stage assessment, supported by relevant BRE interim certificate(s) (or, if this is not available, evidence that the development is registered with a BREEAM certification body and a pre-assessment report), to be submitted at pre-construction stage prior to commencement of superstructure works on site; and (b) a post-construction assessment, supported by a relevant BRE accreditation certificate (or other verification process agreed with the local planning authority), to be submitted following the practical completion and prior to the first occupation of the development.
7.7 Transportation Considerations
7.7.1 Saved Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with respect to Transportation and Highways matters. These policies seek to ensure that proposals for development have a limited impact on the performance and safety of the highway network and that Page 148
sufficient and appropriate car parking and cycle storage is provided whilst meeting objectives to encourage sustainable transport and to reduce reliance on the private car.
Accessibility and access arrangements
7.7.2 The site has a PTAL score of 5, which is considered ‘very good’. Increased housing density and community uses are encouraged within areas of good public transport accessibility. Palace Road is a lightly-trafficked cul-de-sac, blocked to vehicular traffic at its western end and, is not subject to parking controls. The London Cycle network (LCN) includes routes that run directly along Palace Road and Roupell Road. The site adjoins the A205 Christchurch Road (South Circular) which form part of the Transport for London Road Network. It is located within walking distance of a number of shops and services on Streatham Hill and bus routes along Streatham Hill (A23) and Christchurch Road, and is within walking distance of Streatham Hill Train Station.
7.7.3 Pedestrian access is proposed from Palace Road only. No vehicular access to the site is proposed; the two existing vehicular crossovers will be closed and the footway, kerbs and verge reinstated and two new smaller crossovers are proposed for wheelchair access. The cost of these works will be met by the applicant through a s287 agreement. This will be included in the s106 agreement.
Traffic and Parking Impacts
7.7.4 Apart from the red route restrictions on the A205 Christchurch Road to the rear of the site, there are no parking restrictions in place on local roads. The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement (TS), containing a parking survey, which indicates a maximum average daytime parking stress of 60% on surrounding streets, and 50% on Palace Road itself, with lower levels of parking stress overnight.
7.7.5 Whilst no car parking is proposed on site, two disabled bays and one ambulance bay are to be provided on Palace Road. The results of parking survey suggest that the loss of on-street associated with the proposed parking bays would be acceptable. The TS includes swept paths analyses, which demonstrate that ambulances would be able to turn to access and exit the bays without endangering highway safety.
7.7.6 The installation of all on-street bays including all associated footway works, the requisite Traffic Management Orders (TMOs), line marking, drainage works, signage, diversion of services and relocation of street furniture as may be necessary will be undertaken by the applicant through the s278 Agreement under the Highways Act 1980. This will also be included in the s106 agreement.
Impacts associated with the healthcare centre scheme
7.7.7 Saved Policy 14(g) of the UDP encourages car free developments in areas of good, very good or excellent public transport accessibility. In these areas, especially where there is severe parking stress or there would be a significant increase in parking stress following development, development will be secured Page 149
as car-free (no on-site parking) and/or permit-free (where the eligibility of occupiers for Council parking permits is prohibited), and/or be part of/contribute towards a city car club.
7.7.8 The proposal would likely increase car based trips. The new trips would be associated with the new pharmacy, the increased floor area for the GP Practice and SLAM rooms, and additional staff to be employed as well as potentially larger patient list. The trip generation analysis contained within the TS suggests that patient numbers would increase by around 25% in connection with the proposed increase of GPs on site from 4 to 5; this, it is stated, would result in some 10 additional vehicles being generated each day (assuming 21% of visitors drive to the site).
7.7.9 The TS suggests that the existing Palace Road surgery generates an average of 120 patient visits each day and a maximum of 180 on the exceptionally busy days. A surgery of comparable size within the Trip Rate Assessment Valid for London (TRAVL) database suggests that over 350 visits can be expected per day, which in this case would equate to roughly a doubling in the number of vehicular arrivals on site (from the estimated current 38 vehicle based visits to the Palace Road Surgery to 74 vehicle based visits at the healthcare centre).
7.7.10 Therefore, if these 74 vehicles were spread evenly across the proposed opening hours of the healthcare centre, this would equate to 5-6 additional vehicles being generated per hour. The TS has assumed a maximum hourly parking occupation of 15 vehicles including additional staff and visitors, which would be attributed to the propose new services including physiotherapy, dietetics, minor surgery, scanning services, community clinics and doctors’ training services. Transport officers consider this number to be a robust worst- case scenario; it has been used in the analysis of the cumulative impact of the proposal and other recently permitted developments in the surrounding area.
7.7.11 The cumulative impact analysis undertaken by the applicant’s Transport consultant has taken into account the impacts of permitted residential developments at the rear of Brixton bus garage on Daysbrook Road (expected to generate 11 additional vehicles requiring on-street parking), and at the rear of Wavertree Court (expected that at least 4 vehicles will require parking). Combining the impact of the loss of capacity due to the proposed bays outside the healthcare centre with the impact of the 15 additional vehicles from surrounding developments, the baseline parking stress associated with the healthcare centre would rise from 60% to 69% during the daytime peak periods.
Impacts associated with the residential scheme
7.7.12 In order to estimate what impact the proposed development would have on parking levels in the area it is necessary to calculate how many vehicles are likely to be owned by future residents. The most accurate method of doing this is by referring to car ownership data from the 2001 Census. Census car ownership data for the Streatham Hill ward suggests that the proposed number and size of residential units in this scheme would generate 7 vehicles requiring on-street parking.
7.7.13 As a worst-case scenario analysis, when these vehicles are added to the hourly average number of vehicles generated by the healthcare centre as well as Page 150
those associated with the permitted residential developments in the vicinity, parking stress would increase from existing levels of around 60% to future levels of around 81%. Whilst this is a significant increase, it remains below the 90% threshold applied by the Council in determining whether a scheme is acceptable or not on parking stress grounds. Officers are satisfied that there is sufficient on-street capacity to accommodate all the vehicles generated by the proposal as a whole.
7.7.14 Nevertheless, in order to mitigate against an increase in parking stress associated with the proposed pharmacy, it is a condition of this consent that the pharmacy shall be used for primarily in conjunction with the surgery. Its opening hours will also be closely linked to the surgery other than on weekends when it will be open to local passing trade. The amount of non-patient passing trade to the pharmacy is expected to be very small as there are well- established freestanding pharmacy shops in the nearby town centre. It is also noted that Palace Road is closed to traffic from Christchurch Road and as such the pharmacy is unlikely to attract vehicle based passing trading from the main road network.
Cycle parking provision
7.7.15 Cycle parking is provided for both elements of the development; 16 stands are proposed within a secure store for the residential units; additional cycle storage is shown adjacent to surgery entrance with 10 spaces provided for staff and 14 spaces for visitors. These provisions are considered sufficient and consistent with the minimum standards set in Transport for London (TfL’s cycle parking guidelines. The storage will be provided in Sheffield Cycle stand systems, which will be covered. Further details including manufacturer’s specification of these facilities are reserved by condition.
Waste Storage, Recycling and Servicing Strategies
7.7.16 Policy S8 of the Core Strategy places a requirement on developments to contribute to the sustainable management of waste. Specific guidance is set out within the Council’s ‘Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements’ guidance (2006). Saved Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) seek to ensure that proposals for waste collection and servicing strategies have a minimal impact on the performance and safety of the highway network.
7.7.17 Purpose-built and separate bin stores for the healthcare centre, the flats and the dwellinghouse are to be located at the southern frontage of the site adjacent to the access points on Palace Road. The bin stores would be 2m in height and screened by landscaping and boundary walls. The townhouse would have 2 refuse and recycling wheelie bins (240 litres each); the 13 flats would have 3 Euro bins refuse and recycling (1280 litres each) and the surgery and pharmacy would have 3 Euro bins refuse and recycling (3047 litres in total). These structures would mark the physical separation between the healthcare centre and the residential areas.
7.7.18 Since no vehicular access is proposed, all refuse collection and serving would be undertaken from Palace Road. Page 151
7.7.19 In relation to the healthcare centre, the applicant’s transport consultant has confirmed that the surgery would operate the same service strategy as currently operated at the existing GP Practice. This includes 4 ambulance Call Outs per year; stationery delivery once every three weeks; refuse and recycling collection once a week; specimen collection twice a day and; hazardous waste collection once a week. Whilst this delivery management is considered acceptable for the surgery, a condition is recommended to secure a comprehensive Delivery Management Strategy to cover both residential and health care related uses.
7.7.20 Transport for London (TfL) has been consulted as the appointed highways authority for Christchurch Road. TfL requests that a Construction Management Plan, which identifies efficiency and sustainability measures to be undertaken while developments are being built, is submitted to and approved by the LB of Lambeth in conjunction with TfL before construction work commences on site. A condition to this effect is recommended.
7.7.21 In light of the expected increase in pedestrian movements to the site (including wheelchair and buggy users) the applicant has agreed to meet the cost of works of “thinning out” the excess street furniture located at the western end of Palace Road. In addition, given the increased range of services offered by the new surgery, it is considered likely that the healthcare centre would attract clients from the wider area, who may not know the area well and who may benefit from the healthcare centred being advertised by way of new street signage. Furthermore, in order to improve safe and convenient access at various crossings into Palace Road, in particular at the junction with Daysbrook Road, informal pedestrian crossings to correspond with dropped kerbs at this junction are proposed. A contribution of £9,500 will be secured through the S106 to cover these works.
7.7.22 A Travel Plan will also be required in relation to both the health care related and residential uses on the site to ensure that measures are put in place to reduce a dependence upon the motor car and, to encourage more sustainable modes of transport. The travel plan will be secured by condition with £1000.secured via the s106 to monitor its implementation.
7.7.23 Officers are satisfied that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and mitigation measures to be secured through s.106 and s278 Agreements, the development would not have an adverse impact on the safe operation of the highway or the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposal therefore complies with the objectives of Saved Policies 7, 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policies S4 and S8 of the Core Strategy and the Council’s adopted guidance on waste and recycling.
7.8 Designing out crime
7.8.1 Saved Policy 32 of the UDP requires that development should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. Policy S9(f) of the Core Strategy requires the Council to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability by creating safe and secure environments that reduce the opportunities for crime, the fear of crime, anti-social behaviour, having regard to Secured by Design standards. Page 152
7.8.2 The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Officer (CPDA) was consulted during consideration of the revised scheme and, whilst concerned over potential conflict between the healthcare related uses and the residential use, suggested that appropriate conditions could be imposed to address these matters.
7.8.3 In the event of approval, the following conditions are recommended: ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation; submission for approval of a Risk Assessment and Management Plan detailing measures to mitigate dual usage conflicts and local crime trends and access control measures including the effective designation of private, semi-private and public spaces; BS 5489 compliant external lighting to footpaths and communal areas and; controlled opening hours for the healthcare centre uses; An informative will also be attached in relation to national guidelines for the storage of prescription drugs and hazardous materials.
7.8.4 It is officer consideration that subject to the conditions outlined above, the proposal is acceptable in the context of crime prevention/Designing out crime related to Policies 32 of the UDP and Policy S9 (f) of the Core Strategy.
7.9 Infrastructure implications/S.106 requirements
7.9.1 Policy 16 of the UDP and Policy S10 of the Core Strategy, supplemented by other local development plan policies and the Council’s SPD on s106 planning obligations, set out the circumstances in which the Council will seek planning obligations from a developer to mitigate against the potential impacts of a scheme.
7.9.2 The scheme proposes 7% affordable housing based on units. This provision would comprise 1 no. four-bedroom townhouse, which is offered for social rent. No intermediate housing is proposed as no further affordable housing is possible if the scheme is to remain viable. The affordable housing provision is to be secured via a s106 legal agreement.
7.9.3 It recommended that after one year from the point at which the Section 106 agreement is signed and in the event that development has not yet commenced, development will not be allowed to commence until a new economic viability assessment in relation to affordable housing has been undertaken by the applicant and independent validated. This will be a full review of all appraisal inputs.
7.9.4 In the event that this review indicates that an increased level of affordable housing should be provided this will be agreed and formally documented. Under no circumstance will the level of provision reduce to less than the one social rent, which comprises the baseline offer.
7.9.5 As already identified during consideration of the transport and highway implications of this proposal above, the installation of all on-street parking bays and ambulant compliant crossings including all associated footway works, the requisite Traffic Management Orders and line marking, drainage works, way- finding street signage, diversion of services and the relocation of street furniture as may be necessary will be undertaken by the applicant through the s278 Agreement. This will be included within the s106 agreement. Page 153
7.9.6 In addition the following financial contributions will be secured by way of s.106 to mitigate against the environmental and social impacts of the development:
• Streetscape - £9500.00 • Education - £26,111.47 • Libraries - £2,402.28 • Sport & Leisure - £8,959.37 • Parks & Open Spaces - £18,023.60 • Revenue Contribution - £2752.36 • Travel Plan monitoring - £1,000.00 • Local Labour in Construction - £8,875.00 • S106 Monitoring Fee – £3881.20
7.9.7 The above contributions come to a total of £81,505.28
7.9.8 It is considered that the above provisions, once secured under s278 agreement of the Highways Act 1980 and s106 agreement of the 1990 Act, would appropriately mitigate against any potentially harmful impacts of the development, in accordance with Policies 9, 14, and 16 of the UDP, Policies S4 and S10 of the Core Strategy and with the Council’s associated SPD on S106 obligations.
7.10 Other material planning considerations
7.10.1 Policy S6 of the Core Strategy advises that the Council will work in partnership with the Environment Agency in order to manage and mitigate flood risk. The site lies within an area that is deemed by the Environment Agency as having a low environmental risk from flooding. It follows that the site and development does not pose an unacceptable risk in terms of flooding.
7.10.2 Policy 5.13 (Sustainable drainage) of the London Plan states that development should utilise sustainable urban design drainage systems (SUDS) unless there are practice reasons not to do. Thames Water has been consulted and has advised that no objection is raised with regards to the impact of the proposed development upon either the sewerage infrastructure or the water infrastructure. Conditions are recommended requiring the submission of details on how the proposal would address surface water runoff and peak flows and in relation to any piling works so that damage is not caused to subsurface water or sewerage infrastructure.
7.10.3 An informative is recommended to remind the applicant of their responsibility to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer; the need to ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on-site or off-site storage in accordance with the London Plan drainage hierarchy.
8.0 Conclusions Page 154
8.1 The development as proposed makes the best use of previously developed land and part green-field site located within an area of good public transport accessibility.
8.2 The proposed redevelopment of the site is acceptable in that it would be of an appropriate design; it would provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers; it would provide a purpose-built healthcare centre with an ancillary pharmacy; it would not prejudice the amenity of neighbouring properties; it would not harm conditions of on-street parking or prejudice conditions of the free flow of traffic and highway safety; and it would not unacceptably impact upon local infrastructure.
8.3 The provision of a new healthcare centre and a 4 bedroom dwellinghouse for social rent would be a planning benefit. Financial viability is a key material consideration for affordable housing provision under the Council’s relevant development plan and the London Plan policies. The findings of the applicant’s financial appraisal have been validated by the Council’s independent financial expert via the GLA’s Three Dragon’s appraisal. It is officers’ consideration that the merits of developing the site as proposed outweigh other planning policy considerations including failure to provide the maximum affordable housing on the site.
8.4 Furthermore, provisions are to be secured under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure the delivery of an appropriate quantum of affordable housing in accordance with policy requirements and to mitigate the impact of the development on the local environment. Works undertaken via a s278 agreement will further mitigate the impact of the development on the local transport infrastructure.
8.5 This report details that the proposed development has overcome the two reasons for refusal given by the Local Planning Authority in refusing the previous application on the site and the planning inspector’s grounds for dismissing the subsequent appeal.
8.6 It is therefore considered that the development is compliant with the relevant policies of the development plan and that no other material planning considerations of sufficient weight exist that would dictate that the application should nevertheless be refused.
9 Recommendation
A. Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Obligation or; B. 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 Section 106 agreement with the appellants in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Page 155
Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below.
In reaching this decision Policies 7, 9, 16, 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, 41, 45, 47 and 50 of the London Borough of Lambeth's adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies S1, S2, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9 and S10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) were considered relevant.
CONDITIONS
STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
DESIGN/HERITAGE 3. No development shall commence until detailed drawings, samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations and roofs within the scheme hereby permitted are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality, the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and to preserve the setting of the adjacent listed statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
4. No development shall commence until drawings to a scale of not less than 1:20 and samples and/or manufacturer’s specifications of the design and construction details listed below are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
i) metal and/or wood work including railings, balustrades and balconies, ii) window and door systems (including technical details, elevations, reveal depths, plans and cross sections) iii) front door entrances (including surrounds) Page 156
iv) roofing details (including sections) v) solar panels and photovoltaic arrays on roofs (including sections) vi) rain water pipes (including material and colour)
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality, the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and to preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
5. All window reveals on the external faces of the development hereby permitted shall be set within 115mm (minimum) reveals from the face of the building unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality, the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and to preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
6. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no occupation of any part of the development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme for the siting and design of all walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings for the whole site (including details of those existing which are to be retained and of those proposed). The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and such walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the development and shall be permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.
Reason: In the interests of safety and to ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality, the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and to preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
7 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of the buildings.
To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality, the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and to preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Page 157
Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
SUSTAINABILITY/BIODIVERSITY 8 The dwellings hereby permitted shall achieve at least Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) (or such equivalent national measure of sustainability which replaces that scheme). No development shall take place until a design stage certificate with interim rating (or, if this is not available, evidence that the development is registered with a CSH certification body and a pre-assessment report) has been submitted indicating that the development can achieve the stipulated final CSH level. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate has been issued certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and achieve the agreed rating. The development shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
9 Evidence confirming that the development achieves a BREEAM New Construction (or such equivalent national measure of sustainability which replaces that scheme) rating of no less than 'Very Good’ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The evidence shall be provided in the following formats and at the following stages:
a) A design stage assessment, supported by relevant BRE interim certificate(s) (or, if this is not available, evidence that the development is registered with a BREEAM certification body and a pre-assessment report), shall be submitted at pre-construction stage prior to commencement of superstructure works on site; and
b) A post-construction assessment, supported by a relevant BRE accreditation certificate (or other verification process agreed with the local planning authority), shall be submitted following the practical completion of the development and prior to the first occupation.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and achieve the agreed rating. The development shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
Page 158
10 Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on the approved drawings or supporting information, no occupation of any part of the development shall take place until further details on how the proposal will address surface water runoff and peak flow has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
11 The renewable energy technology as detailed in the Energy Statement by Hoare Lea Consulting Engineers (received 4 th November 2011) and as amended by the Addendum submitted on 20 February 2012 shall be incorporated into the development and implemented prior to the first occupation of any part of the building hereby permitted. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval is obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
12 Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development, a scheme showing the siting, size, number and design of the solar thermal panels and photovoltaic (PV) arrays, including cross sections of the roof of the building with the equipment in situ, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be sited so as to minimise its visual impact upon the external appearance of the building. The development shall thereafter be completed in strict accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such for the duration of use.
Reason: In order to control the overall design standard of the development, safeguard the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
13 All the residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the superstructure works on the site. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained.
Page 159
Reason: In order that the development is made more accessible to all (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policy S2 (d) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the related Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008)).
14 No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed statement of the development’s impact upon any legally protected species or habitats which might be present on the application site, and any mitigation measures to be implemented should any protected habitats or species be found on the application site. The details of mitigation as are approved shall thereafter be implemented as part of the development and, if appropriate, shall be retained thereafter for the duration of the permitted use of the site.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development minimises its impact with respect to protected wildlife species that may be present on site or on adjacent properties, particularly bats, in accordance with Policy 5.3 of the London Plan.
TRANSPORT 15 There shall be no vehicular means of access to the site. Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development, all existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb(s) and reinstating the footway verge and highways boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.
Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of highway users (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
16 Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of the proposed ambulant compliant dropped kerbs for wheelchair users shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the new accesses have been sited, laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and to ensure access for all. (Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
17 No development shall commence until full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Demolition and Construction Statement, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Transport for London. The Method of Demolition and Construction Statement shall include details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures including details of Page 160
the phasing of construction, and details of parking, deliveries and storage to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area and the safe operation of the public highway. The details of the approved Method of Demolition and Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process.
Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway. (Policies 7, 9, 31, and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
18 No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until a strategy for the management of deliveries and servicing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Deliveries and servicing shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway. (Policies 9 and 31 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)).
19 A Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the use hereby permitted commencing. The measures approved in the travel plan shall be implemented prior to the housing and the healthcare related uses hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the local planning authority is obtained to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the development are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements, Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
20 Notwithstanding the approved plans, detailed drawings and material samples of the cycle storage areas including elevational appearance, layout, and manufacturer’s specification shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before first occupation of the development. Separate sheltered and secure storage areas for the residential scheme and healthcare centre shall be provided for a minimum of 40 cycles in total. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details and retained as such for the duration of the use.
Reason: To ensure that adequate cycle parking is available on site in order to promote sustainable modes of transport and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality, the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and to preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 9, 31, 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policies S1, S2, S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011). Page 161
WASTE STORAGE AND RECYCLING 21 Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, full details of the commercial/healthcare and domestic refuse and recyclables storage provision for the development, including elevation drawings at a scale of not less than 1:20 of the storage enclosures, together with a Waste Management Strategy outlining the operation and management of waste storage and collection for both the commercial/healthcare and residential uses shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter these provisions shall be maintained for the duration of the permitted use.
Reason: To ensure the adequate provision is made for the storage of waste and refuse on the site and its collection from the site and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality, the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and to preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 9, 33, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policies S1, S2, S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
LANDSCAPING 22 No development shall commence until a specification of all proposed soft and hard landscaping and tree planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. In addition all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 and current Arboricultural best practice.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity, to safeguard the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
23 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Page 162
Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development and to safeguard the character and appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area and preserve the setting of the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
24 No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Approved Plan drawing No. TPP4_PR Rev B as contained in Appendix 2 of the Arboricultural Report (prepared by ACS Consulting dated 5 th October 2011) shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality and are considered important to the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
25 All tree protection measures as outlined on the Approved Plan drawing No. TPP4_PR Rev B as contained in Appendix 2 of the Arboricultural Report (prepared by ACS Consulting dated 5 th October 2011) shall be implemented before the commencement of development works on any part of the development hereby approved. The tree protection measures shall remain in place for the duration of the construction of the development, and only be dismantled or removed following the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality and are considered important to the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
26 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of all proposed Tree Surgery Work required to facilitate development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998:1989. The development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality and are Page 163
considered important to the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
27 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an Arboricultural Method Statement in accordance with section 7 of the BS5837:2005 relating to the installation of pile foundations around the retained trees shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the Method Statement shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality and are considered important to the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
28 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of all Arboricultural Site Supervision that includes a pre-start site meeting and inspection of all installed / erected Tree Protection measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality and are considered important to the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and the adjacent statutory listed buildings Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
29 Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans, prior to the residential occupation of the development full details of the children’s play space provision to include details of layout, boundary and surface treatment and specifications for the proposed play equipment and the communal amenity area, including a landscape, management and maintenance plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as approved shall be implemented and operated prior to the residential occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers, particularly with regard to families and children (Policy 50(i) of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S2 Page 164
and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011), the Council's Supplementary Planning Document: "Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions" (2008), and Policy 3.6 of The London Plan and the Mayor of London's associated Supplementary Planning Guidance "Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation").
NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 30 No roof terraces shall be provided on the roof areas of any of the buildings hereby approved. No areas of flat roof shall be used as a sitting out area or be used for any other recreational purposes whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development and the occupiers of adjoining residential properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
31 The proposed building shall be built to the ground levels and heights as shown on the approved drawings or lower and if the indicated existing heights and levels of the neighbouring properties should prove to be erroneous, then the heights of the proposed building shall be no higher than the relative height difference(s) between the heights of the neighbouring properties and proposed buildings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development is built to the heights relative to adjoining properties as shown on the approved drawings in the interests of visual and residential amenity and to safeguard the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and the adjacent statutory listed buildings (Policies 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
32 The first, second and third floor windows, which service the staircase core and corridors in the south eastern elevation of the building hereby permitted shall be:
(i) obscure-glazed up to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level of the area in which the window is installed and; (ii) non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the area in which the window is installed,
and shall be permanently retained as such for the duration of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of the townhouse within the development and of the neighbouring properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Page 165
not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)).
33 Noise levels within habitable rooms within the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the following levels:
Living rooms 35dB(A) Leq 18 hour 07:00hrs to 23:00hrs; Bedrooms 30dB(A) Leq 8 hours + no individual noise event to exceed 45dB(A) max (measured with F time weighting) – 23:00hrs to 07:00hrs.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of future occupiers of the development by reason of potential noise disturbance (Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). and Policy Planning Guidance Note 24).
34 The balconies located on the north eastern corner of the building hereby approved situated at first, second and third floor levels shall be provided with privacy screens in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall be permanently retained as such for the duration of the development.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of the townhouse within the development and of the neighbouring properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)).
35 The residential accommodation hereby approved shall be constructed to include at least 2 of the units as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users and permanently retained as such for the duration of the use.
Reason: To ensure that an adequate proportion of units are wheelchair accessible or adaptable for wheelchair use (Policy 3.8 of The London Plan, Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011), and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008)).
COMMUNITY SAFETY/DESIGNING OUT CRIME 36 The development hereby permitted shall meet 'Secured by Design Standards', consistent with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 2005.
Reason: To ensure the safety and security of future occupiers and adjoining properties and prevent crime and disorder occurring within and in the immediate vicinity of the site, in the interest of public safety (Policy 32 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policy S9 of the Page 166
Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document, Safer Built Environments).
37 Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, a risk assessment and management plan, outlining how the approved scheme will protect community safety and prevent crime within the building and the surrounding area (including details of how the building shall be maintained and measures to mitigate dual usage conflicts and local crime trends as well as access measures to control access and monitor the private and semi-private and public spaces on the site) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved management plan shall be implemented and retained as operational thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development maintains and enhances community safety within and around the development in accordance with Policy 32 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
38 Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted drawings showing proposed lighting to external areas, CCTV, security to all gates and entrances to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting, CCTV and other security measures shall be installed prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained thereafter in good working condition for the duration of the permitted use.
Reason: In order to ensure the safety and security of the site in accordance with Policy 32 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
OPENING HOURS 39 The healthcare centre comprising the GP Surgery and SLAM counselling rooms (Use Class D1) located at ground and first floor levels shall not be open outside the following hours: 7.30am – 8.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 7.30am to 1.00pm on Saturdays and shall not open at any time on Sundays and Public/Bank Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers in accordance with Policies 7, 26, 33 and 38 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
40 The proposed pharmacy (Use Class A1) located at ground level shall not be open for customers outside the following hours: 7.00am – 9.00pm Mondays to Saturday and 10.00am to 4.00pm on Sundays and Public/Bank Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers in accordance with Policies 7, 26, 33 and 38 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
Page 167
MISCELLANEOUS 41 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order (1987) as amended, the pharmacy (Use Class A1) situated at ground floor level of the development hereby approved and shown on approved drawing No. A2111 100 Rev P33 shall only be used as a pharmacy and for no other purpose.
Reason: It is considered that any other use of this unit would not be compatible with the function and operation of the approved healthcare centre and would cause harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the site and neighbouring residential properties contrary to Policies 7, 33 and 38 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5 th August 2010 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
42 Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D & E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of, or to, any dwellinghouse the subject of this permission shall be carried out without planning permission having first been obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority; nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed on any part of the land covered by this permission without such planning permission having been obtained.
Reason: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the location of the site within the setting of a statutory listed building of the highest order and a conservation area as well as the nature and density of the layout requires strict control over the form of any additional development which may be proposed in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory residential environment having regard to Policies 7, 33, 38, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)
43 No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water or sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the relevant water or sewerage undertaker. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.
Reason: In order to mitigate the potential impact of the development on local underground water and sewerage utility infrastructure (Policy 5.14 of the London Plan (2011)).
NOTES TO THE APPLICANT
1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Page 168
2. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.
3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements for the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health Division.
4. You are advised that all conditions which require further details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority need to be accompanied by an application form and a fee. The application form and fee schedule can be viewed at www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning .
5. With respect to conditions 15 and 16 the applicant is advised that it is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.
6. The applicant is advised that the range of other highway works including the installation of all on-street bays and associated footway works, line marking and associated Traffic Management Orders (TMOs), drainage works, way finding street signage, the diversion of services and relocation of street furniture as may be necessary shall be carried out by the Council’s specifications at the cost to the applicant in accordance with the terms of a Section 278 agreement.
7. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities. The London Borough of Lambeth’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (May 2006) is available on the planning pages of the Council’s website: www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning
8. As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following: - name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building
This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below.
Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected] tel: 020 7926 2283 Page 169
fax: 020 7926 9104
9. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
10. With respect to external lighting of footpaths and communal areas the Crime Prevention Design Advisor has recommended that the lighting should comply with BS: 5489 with a minimum uniformity of 25%. The Crime Prevention Design Advisor also recommends that the pharmacy should comply with National Guidelines required for storage of prescription drugs and/or Hazardous Materials.
11. For further advice in relation to Conditions 36, 37 and 38 of this decision please contact the Council Crime Prevention Officer; PC Ann Burroughs at the London Borough of Lambeth Community Safety Unit phone 0207 926 2840 or 07972728578 and by E-mail: [email protected]
12. Thames Water recommended that the following informatives be added to this planning decision.
(a) With regards to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required on 0845 80 2777.
(b) Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation. Groundwater permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water’s Risk Management Team by telephoning 020 85074890 or by e-mailing [email protected] . Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality . Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.
(c) Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (Approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres per minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water’s pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.
Page 170
(d) There are large water mains adjacent to the proposed. Thames Water will not allow any building within 5 metres of them and will require 24 hours access for maintenance purposes. Please contact Thames Water Developer Services, Contact Centre on telephone No. 084508502777 for further information.
13. In order to preserve the historic interest of the building as a home for the Author Dennis Wheatley, the applicant should consider installing a blue plaque within the site to commemorate this historic link. You are advise to contact English Heritage Blue Plaques team at The Blue Plaques Team; English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London EC1N 2ST
Page 171
APPENDIX 1
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 179 Agenda Item 7
Section 1 – Site Location Map
1 Page 180 Section 2 – Application Summary
Location St Thomas' Hospital 249 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7EH Ward Bishops
Proposal Erection of a memorial statue dedicated to the life and work of Mary Application Seacole within the gardens of St Thomas Hospital. Applicant Lord Clive Soley
Agent Ms Philomena Davidson 4 Church Walk Bletchingley Redhill Surrey RH1 4PD
Date valid 31 January 2012 Case Officer Ms Seonaid Carr
Application 11/04574/FUL Reference
Recommendatio n(s) Grant planning permission subject to conditions
Constraints Conservation Area Environment Agency Flood Zone Opportunity Area Transport for London Road Network London Plan Thames Policy Area Protected Vistas
Advert Publication 23rd March 2012 Date
Site Notice posted 17th February 2012 on
Page 181
1. Summary Of Main Issues
1.1. The impact of the proposed statue on the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings.
1.2. Whether the proposed statue conflicts with the use of the public open space.
1.3. Whether the proposed statue would have an impact on the surrounding transport network.
1.4. The impact the proposed statue would have on community safety within the area of the site.
1.5. Whether the principle of the erection of public art is acceptable.
2. Site Description
2.1. The site is a small area of public space situated within the St Thomas’ hospital complex. It is located to the west of Gassiot House, south of Westminster Bridge Road and to the north of the North Wing of the hospital. To the west of the application site is an existing public space comprised of a pond with green space and public seating, further to the west is the River Thames and to the adjacent side of the Thames are the Houses of Parliament.
2.2. The site is located within the Environment Agency Flood Zone, London Plan Thames Policy Area, London Plan Opportunity Area and the South Bank Conservation Area the site is not listed however the South Wing of the hospital is Grade II Listed. The hospital complex is adjacent to Westminster Bridge Road which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network.
3. Planning History
3.1. The site has a lengthy planning history relating to varying developments within the hospital complex. The following applications relate to statues or public art within or in close proximity to the application site:
3.2. 11.03.2009 – Listed Building Consent granted for the relocation of the Statue of Edward VI from outside northern side of the northern entrance to the southern side of the northern entrance (09/00187/LB).
3.3. 20.04.2009 – Listed Building Consent granted for the relocation of the limestone statue of Edward V1 current positioned outside the entrance to the North Wing of St Thomas's Hospital to enable alterations to the ground floor of the building (09/00632/LB).
Page 182 4. Scheme Details
4.1. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a memorial statue of Mary Seacole. The development would involve re-landscaping a small section of the public space to accommodate the new statue. The proposed area would measure 9.8m wide and 11.9m in depth and would provide a new pedestrian link to the existing walkway to the front of Gassiot House. The new upstand wall which would surround the development would incorporate low level LED lighting.
4.2. The statue would be sited on a plinth measuring 4.2m wide by 5m in length rising some 0.4m above ground level. The statue of Mary Seacole would measure 3m in height from the plinth and stand before a disc with a diameter of 4.5m. To the base of the plinth would be an informative engraving. To the front of the statue would be a spotlight illuminating the statue. The spotlight would project only within the remit of the disc behind the statue and as such would not result in spillage beyond the disc to Gassiot House. To the rear of the statue would be a legend inlaid in the ground which would have another informative engraving.
4.3. The statue would be constructed with high quality materials including Portland Stone to the Plinth, the statue would be cast in bronze, as would the disc, the bronze disc would be cast from the earth in the Crimea and painted a paler colour than the figure to enhance the shadow thrown by the illuminated figure.
4.4. The applicant has advised that the proposed statue would be the first named statue of a black woman in the UK.
5. Consultation Responses
5.1. A site notice was erected within proximity of the location of the proposed statue and a press notice was issued, local amenity groups were also notified of the proposal.
5.2. To date we have received 15 letters of objection and 19 letters of support. The objections raised are outlined in the table below:
Objections: Council’s Response:
Development would result The proposed statue would not in loss of open space. restrict the open space function of the area within which it would be located and would be ancillary to the use of the open space. In accordance with Core Strategy Policy S5 the development would be improving the access to existing open space by introducing a new pedestrian link between the walkway to the front of Gassiot House and the location of the proposed statue facilitating more efficient pedestrian flow.
Page 183 Although the development would result in the loss of some open space due to the size of the plinth (21 square metres) this would be negligible in the context of the public space located to the front of Gassiot House and the to side of the North Wing which accounts to some 3710 square metres.
In light of the above the proposals would accord with the relevant policies of the Lambeth Development Plan. Not a suitable location for a Not a material planning statue of Mary Seacole, consideration. It is not the remit of Mary Seacole has no planning legislation to determine the connection with St Thomas’ content of the statue, we are only Hospital. assessing the planning implications of the proposal. Scale of development It is considered that the proposed dominate the open space, statue would not detract from the blocking views of the river character of the hospital complex and Palace of Westminster. within which it is located. When considering the proposed statue within the context of the site, firstly in its immediate context it is considered it would not detract from the public area within which it would be located and would in fact improve the connectivity between this public area and the walkway to the front of Gassiot House given the introduction of this new pedestrian access.
Views of the river are widely appreciated from the application site, it is considered that the proposed statue would not significantly detract from these views or prevent them when standing within the hospital complex. Issue of community safety The Councils Crime Prevention team given the disc would were consulted on the development provide structure to lurk and did not raise concern in regard behind. to the disc providing an opportunity for people to lurk behind. It was not considered that the development would pose a concern in respect of community safety. No consultation from the The Council has undertaken the Primary Health Care Trust relevant consultation, whatever who suggested the Statue. consultation was undertaken by the applicant prior to submitting the
Page 184 planning application is not relevant to the determination of this case.
There would be an impact The development would not result in on existing car parking any loss of car parking spaces. This spaces as a result of the comment is not applicable to this development. application. The statue would detract Not a material planning from Florence Nightingale’s consideration. real and evidenced contribution to nursing. Granting planning permission would send the wrong message as Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale very different people. People coming to view the The existing open space can be statue would cause utilised by any number of people, congestion and disturb there are no restrictions to who can patients and visitors’ quiet use this public space. enjoyment of the existing open space. The proposed statue would be located off the main walkway between the entrance to the hospital complex from Westminster Bridge Road and the hospital buildings. Due to its siting visitors would not significantly impede the pedestrian flow into the hospital buildings.
5.4 The following Council departments and statutory bodies were also consulted on the proposed scheme and their responses are summarised as follows:
Conservation and Design - No objection; Crime Prevention – No objection subject to condition regarding materials; Lambeth Arts – No objection raised; Planning Policy - No objection.
6. Planning Considerations
6.1. Relevant Policies
6.1.1. The following national guidance is considered relevant to the determination of this application:
National Planning Policy Framework
6.1.2. London Plan 2011
7.2 An Inclusive Environment 7.5 Public Realm 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology 7.29 The River Thames
Page 185
6.1.3. Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)
Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S4 Transport Policy S5 Open Space Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment
6.1.4. The Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy January 2011)
Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9 Transport Impact Policy 30 Arts and Culture Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 43 The River Thames Policy Area – Urban Design Policy 45 Listed Buildings Policy 47 Conservation Areas Policy 50 Open Space and Sports Facilities
6.2. Land Use
6.2.1. The proposed statue would be located on open space located within the St Thomas’ Hospital complex. This land is not designated as open space within the Council Development plan but is used by the public for their amenity.
6.2.2. When considering the proposed development against the objectives of Saved UDP Policy 50 and Core Strategy Policy S5, it is considered the proposal would accord with the objectives of these policies. The proposed statue would not prohibit the function of the area within which it would be located and would be ancillary to the use of the open space. In accordance with Core Strategy Policy S5 the development would be improving the access to existing open space by introducing a new pedestrian link between the walkway to the front of Gassiot House and the location of the proposed statue allowing people to flow more easily between the walkway and public area.
6.2.3. Although the development would result in the loss of some open space due to the size of the plinth (21 square metres) this would be negligible in the context of the public space located to the front of Gassiot House and the to side of the North Wing which accounts to some 3710 square metres.
6.2.4. Policy 30 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan seeks to secure and promote development that contributes to or increases the offer of arts and culture within the Borough. Arts and culture amongst other facilities refers to public art including statues. The supporting text to the policy promotes community involvement. This has taken place and it is considered that the erection of this statue would enrich the historical context of the location and the subject work.
Page 186 6.2.5. It is therefore concluded that there are no objections to the proposal on land use grounds and the development would not conflict in this respect with the Lambeth Development Plan.
6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations
6.3.1. Saved UDP Policy 39, seeks to ensure that development provides or enhances an uncluttered, consistent, simple, accessible and co-ordinated public realm, with robust and appropriate materials and landscape design, enhancing the setting, connections and spaces between buildings. The design of public spaces and the style and siting of street furniture should relate well to the surrounding urban context and character.
6.3.2. In relation to the public realm Policy S9 seeks to ensure the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability by seeking the highest quality of design.
6.3.3. Saved UDP Policy 47 seeks to ensure development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. Furthermore Policy 45 seeks to ensure development does not adversely affect the setting of a listed building.
6.3.4. It is considered that the proposed statue would not detract from the character of the hospital complex within which it is located. When considering the proposed statue within the context of the site, firstly in its immediate context it is considered it would not compromise the public area within which it would be located and would in fact improve the connectivity between this public area and the walkway to the front of Gassiot House given the introduction of this new pedestrian access.
6.3.5. Secondly, considering the proposed statue within the context of the hospital complex, it is considered the development would not detract from or dominate the character of the hospital complex. Furthermore it would not detract from the setting of the Listed buildings located on site to the south nor would the proposal cause harm to the character or appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area.
6.3.6. The Council’s Conservation officers were consulted on the development and raised no objection stating it would not harm the special interest of the nearby listed building or the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.3.7. The proposal would be constructed with high quality materials that would be appropriate for the location in respect of its siting within a Conservation Area.
6.3.8. In light of the above, no objection is raised to the proposed on design and conservation grounds and the proposed development would accord with the relevant policies of the Lambeth development plan.
6.4. Amenity Impact
6.4.1. Saved UDP Policy 7 seeks to protect residential amenity of neighbouring properties. Saved UDP Policy 33, also requires new development to protect residential amenity.
Page 187 6.4.2. Due to the location of the proposed statue within the boundaries of the hospital complex, not immediately adjacent or within close proximity of any residential units, there would be no amenity impact from this development.
6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues
6.5.1. Saved UDP Policy 9, states that development will be assessed for their transport impacts, including cumulative impacts on highway safety, the environment and road network, and on all transport modes.
6.5.2. Core Strategy Policy S4, states that the Council will achieve transport objectives by requiring development to be appropriate to the level of public transport accessibility and capacity in the area.
6.5.3. It is considered that due to the location of the proposed statue within an existing public space, some 40m from Westminster Bridge Road, the proposal would have no impact on highway safety or pedestrian flow within the hospital complex.
6.5.4. In respect of the illumination of the statue, this would be relatively low and is not designed to spill out with the realm of the statue. It is considered that the light emitted from the proposal statue would be greater than the ambient light levels within the surrounding area. As such it would not pose a concern with traffic on Westminster Bridge Road.
6.5.5. As such no objection is raised on highways and transport grounds.
6.6. Crime Prevention
6.6.1. Saved UDP Policy 32 aims to ensure that development does not increase opportunities for crime. The Council’s Crime Prevention officers were consulted on the proposals and have requested that tamper proof fixing are used to the elevated platform and that a liquid DNA marking such as Smart water is employed to reduce the risk of metal theft, such requirements can be secured via condition.
7. Conclusion
7.1. It is considered that the development is compliant with the planning policies of the Lambeth development plan and that no other material planning considerations of sufficient weight exist that would dictate that the application should be refused.
8. Recommendation
8.1. Grant planning permission subject to the attached conditions
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies were relevant:
Page 188 Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)
Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S4 Transport Policy S5 Open Space Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment
The Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy January 2011)
Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9 Transport Impact Policy 30 Arts and Culture Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 43 The River Thames Policy Area – Urban Design Policy 45 Listed Buildings Policy 47 Conservation Areas Policy 50 Open Space and Sports Facilities
Conditions
1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this decision notice.
Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved plans.
3 Notwithstanding the hereby approved plans, prior to the commencement of development details shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which show that a tamper proof fixing shall be used to the elevated platform and a liquid DNA marking such as Smart water shall be employed. These measures shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained as such.
Reason: In the interests of community safety in accordance with Policy 32 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
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
Page 189 legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.
3 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
Page 190
Section 4 – Decision Notice
Date of Application : 28.12.2011 Date of Decision :
In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of THREE years from the date hereof.
Proposed Development At : St Thomas' Hospital 249 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7EH
Page 191 Agenda Item 8
Page 192
Location 4 - 14 Bromell's Road London SW4 0BG
Ward Clapham Town
Proposal Change of use to children’s nursery (Use Class D1), involving Application the demolition of existing outbuilding to the rear elevation, extension to mezzanine level; alterations to the existing fenestration, erection of a single storey store to the rear play area, formation of a balcony at mezzanine level with an external stairwell. Provision of refuse/recycling storage and cycle parking
Applicant Casterbridge Nurseries Ltd
Agent Darren Page: Gerry Lytle Associates Ltd
Date valid 28 th October 2011 Case Officer Mr Kevin Tohill
Application 11/02966/FUL Reference
Recommendation(s) Grant planning permission subject to condition
Constraints Conservation Area Street Under Conversion Stress Archaeological Priority Areas
Advert Publication 18 th November 2011 Date
Site Notice posted 18 th November 2011 on
Page 193
1.0 Main Issues
1.1 The main issues pertaining to this application are:
• The visual impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, surrounding townscape;; • The impact of the proposal upon surrounding residential amenity; • The acceptability of the use in this location; • The impact of the development upon the highway network and conditions of highway safety; • The sustainability of the development; • Whether the development would increase opportunities for crime; and • Whether adequate refuse storage facilities would be provided for the development.
2.0 Application Site
2.1 The application site is situated to the southern side of Bromell’s Road and consists of a vacant three-storey building which was previously used as offices (Use Class B1). The site is broadly rectangular in shape and is bounded to the north by Bromell’s Road, to the east and west by properties and to the south by the rear of mixed use properties fronting The Pavement.
2.2 The existing building is a modern infill development most likely constructed in the 1970’s or 1980’s. Although the development lacks architectural merit, in townscape terms its scale and form along Bromell’s Road is such that it does not cause any harm to the surrounding conservation area and has a neutral impact on the Clapham conservation area.
Surrounding Area
2.3 The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of uses which consist of commercial and residential uses. To the east of the site the predominant uses on Bromell’s Road is residential (Use Class C3), however the building immediately adjacent is in use as residential flats whilst further west Bromell’s Road meets The Pavement which is characterised by properties with ground floor retail uses (A1 Use Class) with residential on the upper floors. The Pavement curves to the east to meet Clapham High Street where a variety of retail and other commercial uses are found.
2.4 Clapham Common is located 25m to the west of the site providing expansive amenity space totalling 89 hectares. Clapham Common Underground Station is located on The Pavement, approximately 180m from the site, whilst Clapham North Underground is located approximately 850m to the north east of the site.
Page 194
2.5 The site is located in the Clapham Common Conservation Area (CA1), on the southern side of Bromell’s Road close to the junction with The Pavement. The conservation area contains some fine historic buildings as well a range of modern buildings in a multitude of architectural styles. The buildings along Bromell’s Road are generally late 19th Century and early 20th Century including St Anne’s Hall, now the Clapham Community Centre, at the corner of Bromell’s Road and Venn Street which deserves particular attention. St Anne’s is an 1890’s late Victorian two and a half storey building constructed of London stock yellow brick which red brick accents. A site visit was undertaken on 8th December 2011 and the file contains a detailed site location plan and photographs.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 There had been no planning history until demolition and redevelopment of the site was applied for in 2010:
10/03714/FUL - Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of site involving the erection of a 4 storey building with a 5th storey set back, to provide 19 self contained units with associated landscaping, provision of cycle parking and refuse and recycling. (Refused planning permission, 24/2/2011)
10/03784/CON - Demolition of existing building. Refused planning permission, 24/2/2011.
4.0 Description of Proposal
4.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the existing building to a children’s nursery (Use Class D1), involving the demolition of existing outbuilding to the rear elevation, extension to mezzanine level, alterations to the existing fenestration, erection of a single storey store to the rear play area, formation of a balcony at mezzanine level with an external stairwell and the provision of refuse/recycling storage and cycle parking.
4.2 The removal of single storey elements to the rear of the site would provide provision of 113.75sqm of external play space and would include a balcony/walkway at mezzanine level and a maintenance balcony at first floor level.
4.3 The internal floorspace would provide approximately 498.7sqm at ground floor level which would include: the main lobby and reception, office, buggy store, gym, changing rooms, cycle (12 spaces) and refuse storage with direct access on Bromell’s Road. The proposed mezzanine floor would provide approximately 441sqm of floor space including: laundry, ICT room, baby’s rooms, three large halls and the infirmary. The first floor would provide approximately 434sqm of play rooms and space and include the staff room and kitchen. Page 195
4.4 The whole building would be facilitated by a main stair core to the west of the building with a fire escape stair core to the east and lift access to all levels. The development would not provide any off street car parking spaces however cycle parking would be provided at ground floor level.
4.5 The existing elevation will remain largely unaltered. The following alterations are proposed:
- The mezzanine single glazing is to be replaced with a new grey- framed curtain walling system which included clear glazing and translucent coloured panels in a random layout. This approach is also used on the rear elevation at mezzanine and first floor. - At first floor level the existing double glazed units are retained and overhauled to match the grey frames below. - The lift shaft will be re-clad with metal cladding. - Timber fins with grey frames are introduced along the curtain walling system to break out from the flat façade.
4.6 Following discussions with the applicant following receipt of neighbouring objections, the proposed infill of the corner to the rear of the site at first floor level have been removed. The amended plans can be found on the planning file.
5.0 Consultations
5.1 A site notice was displayed outside the site on the 18 th November 2011 and an advertisement was published in local press (The Weekender) on the same day.
5.2 A total 63 letters of consultation were sent out to occupiers in the surrounding area and other interested parties identified from the previous application on the 28 th October 2011.
5.3 To date we have received 2 objections raising the following issues:
Objections: Council’s Response:
Height, Scale and Mass
The extension at first floor level, Following the receipt of backing on to the rear of the objections and discussions with pavement would impact on light to the developer, the applicant has the rear of the Pavement removed the first floor extension properties. from the scheme and the building would remain as per existing arrangement.
Page 196
`Impact on Congestion
The change of use would increase The Councils transport officer did the amount of traffic in the street. raise concerns to the originally proposed internal drive through and drop off as it was considered that it would lead to cars waiting in the street for drop off access. This element of the proposal has now been removed and the existing dropped curb would be reinstated preventing people to pull in and park up for drop offs. As such the transport officers are satisfied that the development would not have an impact on street congestion subject to condition.
5.4 The following local amenity groups were consulted on the proposed scheme:
Clapham Society
No objections have been received to date.
5.5 The following Council departments and statutory bodies were also consulted on the proposed scheme and their responses are summarised as follows:
Crime Prevention - No objection subject to condition Conservation and Design - No objection subject to condition Transport - No objection subject to condition Planning Policy - No objection
6.0 Planning Considerations
6.1 Relevant Policies
6.2 The following guidance is considered relevant to the determination of this application:
6.3 London Plan 2011
London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region. Page 197
The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital over the next 20-25 years. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
The London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.
The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital over the next 20-25 years. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are:
Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 4.1 Developing London’s Economy Policy 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy Policy 5.18 Construction, Excavation and Demolition Waste Policy 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s Neighbourhoods and Communities Policy 7.3 Designing Out Crime Policy 7.4 Local Character Policy 7.5 Public Realm Policy 7.6 Architecture
6.4 The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (2011), and the remaining saved policies in the Lambeth UDP (2007). Material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Lambeth Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). The following shows the most relevant development plan policies and SPD guidance:
6.5 Lambeth LDF Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011)
The following policies within the Council’s Core Strategy are relevant to this application: Page 198
Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives - Complies Policy S3 Economic Development - Complies Policy S4 Transport - Complies Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction - Complies Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management - Complies Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment- Complies
6.6 London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’
The following policies within the Council’s UDP are relevant to this application:
Policy 4: Town Centres and Community Regeneration - Complies Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity - Complies Policy 9: Transport Impact - Complies Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint - Complies Policy 23: Protection and Location of other Employment uses - Complies Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout - Complies Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing out Crime - Complies Policy 33: Building Scale and Design - Complies Policy 36: Alterations and Extensions - Complies Policy 39: Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design - Complies Policy 47: Conservation Areas - Complies
7.0 Land Use
7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011), the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’ and the London Plan 2011. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.
7.2 4-14 Bromell’s Road is located just outside the Clapham District Centre boundary. It is a vacant building most recently in B1 use, with ancillary B8 use. It is not located in a Key Industrial and Business Area. The proposal is for the change of use of the existing building to a day nursery (use class D1).
7.3 Core Strategy Policy S3 (b) states that the council will maintain a stock of sites and premises outside KIBAs in commercial use across the Page 199
borough, subject to the suitability of the site and location. This policy is supported by saved UDP Policy 23, which sets out the detailed requirements for protection of B class land and floorspace and the exceptional circumstances in which change of use can be considered. As an exception to the normal requirements of the policy, change of use from B1/B8 can be allowed “where the proposal will result in … a community facility…for which there is a demonstrable need.” This exception does not apply to public houses, units in the core of town centres, listed buildings in their original use, modern units, sites necessary for environmentally acceptable neighbouring firms to expand, or to actively occupied sites. None of these circumstances applies in this case; the unit in question is not recently built so does not constitute a ‘modern unit’.
7.4 In order for the proposed change of use to be allowed in principle, the applicant must demonstrate that the development will provide a community facility for which there is a demonstrable need. The applicant has submitted a need’s assessment with the planning application which makes reference to the council’s latest Childcare Sufficiency Assessment. This assessment concludes that, although there is not a significant shortfall of day nursery provision within a one mile radius of the application site, parents have indicated the need for greater choice and flexibility in the range of provision available, particularly with regard to parents who work irregular hours. The applicant argues that the proposed nursery would help to meet this unmet demand. It is considered that, although Clapham Old Town does not have the highest level of unmet need for additional nursery provision in the borough`, the supporting evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to justify the change of use in this case.
7.5 Saved UDP Policy 26 sets out detailed criteria for the location of new community facilities. It states that community facilities serving a neighbourhood or district function should be located in or adjoining a town or local centre. This requirement is met in this case.
7.6 Core Strategy Policy S7 (a) requires all (non major) development proposals to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in carbon dioxide measures through energy efficient design, decentralised heat, cooling and power systems (where appropriate) and on-site renewable energy generation. All development proposals should show, by means of a Sustainability Assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles, as set out in saved UDP Policy 35 and expanded on in the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD.
7.7 Design and Conservation Considerations
7.8 Policy 36 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that alterations and extensions should be generally subordinate to the original building. It states that all service equipment should be located Page 200
in visually inconspicuous positions, on the least important elevations, and be of an acceptable design, positioning and visual impact, with minimal effect on local amenity.
7.9 Policy S9 of the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy states that the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability by seeking the highest quality of design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions and, of the public realm.
Building Scale
7.10 Policy 33 (c) – Building Scale and Design states that the scale, massing and height of proposed development should be appropriate to their site characteristics. The proposal includes the demolition of single storey extension to the rear to provide outdoor play space for the nursery is considered acceptable by the Councils Conservation and design team. The proposal originally included an increase in mass at first floor level in order to create staff facilities, however this element of the proposal has been removed following discussions with officers and as such the scale and mass are considered acceptable.
Appearance and Materials
7.11 The Councils Design department consider raise no objection to the contemporary interventions which are considered to provide some interest to a relatively uninspiring elevation. Whilst the main Bromell’s Road entrance is much improved there are concerns regarding the remaining ground floor treatment which will consist mainly of blank elevations and the treatment of the ground floor which could have visually permeable shutters rather than solid shutters. These elevational finished would be conditioned to provide further details to address the design officers concerns.
7.12 In design terms the scale is acceptable as is the general elevational approach.
7.13 Amenity Impact
7.14 Policy 7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan deals with the protection of residential amenity. It states that the right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their homes will be respected. It also states that in mixed use areas, the scale, design, layout, hours of use, intensity, concentration, and location of non-residential uses will be controlled in relation to residential uses in order to protect residential amenity.
7.15 Policy 7 of the Adopted UDP requires land uses not to have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Policy 33 requires new development to protect residential amenity.
Page 201
7.16 Adopted UDP Policy 36 (c) sets out criteria which new development should not unacceptably affect. These protected criteria are as follows: privacy; outlook and associated unacceptable sense of enclosure; and, sun/daylight. The above mentioned daylight and sunlight assessment confirms that there would be a minimal impact on neighbouring properties.
7.17 The site is surrounded by residential units however due to the removal of the originally proposed extension; the proposal would remain as per the existing arrangement and is therefore not considered to impact on neighbouring amenity.
7.18 The applicants seek to open the nursery at 7.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday and seek no opening hours Saturday or Sunday. The inclusion of an external play space to the rear of the site would increase the noise and disturbance to surrounding properties over the existing use, however the Councils noise team raised no objection to the proposal and the hours of operation proposed are not considered to conflict with the uses of the surrounding properties. As such the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of noise and disturbance.
7.19 Highways and Transportation Issues
7.20 Policy 9 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development will be assessed for their transport impacts, including cumulative impacts on highway safety, the environment and road network, and on all transport modes.
7.21 Policy S4 of the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy states that the Council will achieve transport objectives by requiring development to be appropriate to the level of public transport accessibility and capacity in the area.
Site and Accessibility
7.22 The site is located at the western end of Bromell’s Road close to its junction with The Pavement. There is No Entry in to Bromell’s Road from The Pavement with a one-way restriction westbound from its junction with Venn Street. The carriageway is narrow at 5m in width with double yellow lines running along on both sides and the footway running along the site is also very narrow at around 1.3m. However, there is a Highways improvement scheme underway which includes the resurfacing of both the carriageway and the footway, tree planting and the widening of footways, which outside the site would be widened to around 2.0m, narrowing the carriageway to 3.5m. The site has a PTAL score of 6a which is considered ‘excellent’, and therefore suitable for a community facility such as a nursery.
Trip Generation
Page 202
7.23 The proposed nursery would have a capacity of 130 children and 34 staff. A nursery of this size could have significant trip generating impacts at peak times. The Transport Statement includes a trip generation analysis based on surveys at an existing nursery in Tooting Bec. This analysis suggested that arrivals would be staggered between 07:30 and 10:00am, with the peak arrival time being 08:00-08:15 when 26% of all arrivals occurred, of which 37% were found to drive. Applying these patterns to the 130 children accommodated on site would equate to 34 arrivals between 08:00-08:15, of whom 13 would arrive by car, equating to around one car per minute.
Car Parking
7.24 The site is located within CPZ Clapham ‘L’ which is operational from 09:00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday. The Transport Statement does not include any analysis of on-street parking capacity but there is very limited on-street car parking available in the vicinity of the site, and there is known to be very little spare capacity available during the day or night. The lack of on street parking is considered and the double yellow lines surrounding the site, together with a robust Green travel Plan are considered to provide the best solution to the transport issues as the originally proposed in/out drop off which was considered to have had the potential to congest the road at the Pavement end of the street, as such the lack of parking is considered acceptable in this case.
Servicing
7.25 An appropriate refuse store is indicated on the plans. The Transport Statement suggests that some ten deliveries could be expected each week and the Councils transport department considered that the management of vehicles through the submission of a Travel plan are considered acceptable in dealing with servicing issues.
Cycle/Buggy Parking
7.26 A cycle store is shown on the plans, accessible via the Brommell’s Road. Further detail on the specification of this facility would be secured via condition. The buggy store shown on the plans is also accessible Brommell’s Road through the main entrance. Both the cycle and buggy stores have been increased in size through the removal of the in/out drop off area and as such the scheme provides sufficient parking space.
Travel Plan
7.27 The applicant is proposing to submit a final document for approval within 3 months of occupation of this element of the site and this is considered to be appropriate.
7.28 Waste and Recycling Page 203
7.29 Policy S8 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that residential, commercial and community development proposals, including changes of use include adequate provision within or as apart of the development for residual and re-cycled waster; in terms of facilities for refuse/ recycling containment, litter control and waste disposal. Further guidance on waste management is provided in "Council's Guidance for Architects and Developers- Waste and Recycling Storage and collection Requirements".
7.30 Refuse bins for all uses in site will be stored off the highway and not on the footways as per the current arrangement. The Councils Streetcare and Transport teams have raised no objection to the refuse arrangement. The proposals are therefore in accordance with Lambeth’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements Guidance for Architects and Developers.
7.31 Crime Prevention
7.32 Policy 32 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development should enhance community safety and will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.
7.33 The Council’s Crime Prevention Officer was consulted on the scheme from the pre application stage and the comments have been incorporated into this scheme. A condition is proposed should permission be granted to ensure compliance with the Secured by Design standards. In addition details of landscaping and the treatment of all areas not covered by building and of security lighting would be reserved by condition.
7.34 Sustainability and Renewable Energy
7.35 The Government has set a national target to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20% by 2010 and 60% by 2050. There is scope to achieve this target by ensuring that new buildings are designed to conserve fuel and power and sited to reduce the need to travel and, restraint measures are adopted to encourage more sustainable means of transport.
7.36 UDP Policies 34 and 35 encourage the use of energy-conservation technologies; use of renewable power sources; and design, layout and orientation of buildings to minimise energy use. Policy 35 states that development of this nature should show, by mean of a sustainability assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. This should include, among other things, utilising environmentally friendly specification and materials and specifying the use of sustainable sources.
Page 204
7.37 A condition would be placed on the development to achieve a BREEAM 'Very Good' commercial standard for the building.
8.0 Conclusions
8.1 The proposed scheme would be acceptable in land use terms, bringing back into use a vacant building with an alterative commercial use and considered to be acceptable in terms of its overall design, which would not alter the street-scene and could enhance the appearance of the conservation area in line with Policy 47. The proposed development would not give rise to residential amenity issues to neighbouring properties, would not be detrimental to highway safety and efficiency and would not give rise to refuse or recycling concerns.
9 Recommendation
9.1 Grant planning permission subject to the attached conditions.
Justification
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy (2011) were relevant.
Core Strategy Policies: Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S3 Economic Development Policy S4 Transport Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment
Unitary Development Plan Policies: Policy 4: Town Centres and Community Regeneration Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 23: Protection and Location of other Employment uses Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing Out Crime Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 36: Alterations and Extensions Policy 39: Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 47: Conservation Areas Page 205
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.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Prior to commencement of development, detailed drawings, samples, and a schedule of materials, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given on the approved plans and in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the details approved in writing unless otherwise agreed in writing with local planning authority. The following details will be required.
a) Details of all elevation finishes b) Details of balconies and balustrades for each balcony type (Scale 1:10) c) Details of all window and door reveals on the external faces of the development that shall be set within 115mm minimum reveals from the face of the building. (Scale 1:10) d) Details of boundary treatments (Scale 1:10) e) Details of shutter treatment (Scale 1:10)
Reason: To ensure the design and appearance of the building and would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality (Policy S9 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and Policies 33 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011) refer.))
4 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the external faces of the building.
Reason: Such works would detract from the appearance of the building and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality (Policy S9 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and Policies 33 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved Beyond 05 August Page 206
2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011) refer.))
5 Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant must submit a Construction Method Statement for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to commencing and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 9 and 31 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan)
6 Within one month of the new/altered access being brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level, detail and materials as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.
Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users (Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011) refer.))
7 A Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the use hereby permitted commencing. The measures approved in the Green Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the use hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the residential development are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements. (Policy 9 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)
8 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of the provision to be made for cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before commencement of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.
Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport (Policy S4 of the Core Strategy Page 207
(January 2011) and Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved Beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011) refer.
9 Notwithstanding the information shown on the approved plans, the refuse and recycling storage provision shall comply with the requirements of the Council's Guidance document for architects and developers 'Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements'. This provision shall be implemented before first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained permanently.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site in the interests of the amenities of the area.
10 The noise levels from the development hereby approved shall not be greater than 5 dB(A) above the existing background noise level when measured from the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises.
Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the locality. (Policy 7 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011).
11 The building hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum criterion of 'Very Good' for the BREEAM commercial standard. A BREEAM estimator assessment, indicating credits that are expected and how this will be achieved, shall be submitted for the Local Planning Authority's approval prior to the commencement of works on site. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with measures set out in the estimator assessment approved. Further to this, a post construction review shall be undertaken and a BREEAM certificate demonstrating that the development has achieved the prescribed minimum 'Very Good' standard (or above) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development.
Reason: In the interests of securing a sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Core Strategy policy S7 refer and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document for Sustainable Design and Construction 2007)
12 Prior to the commencement the development hereby approved, a hard landscape and areas within the curtilage of the site hereby approved scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This Strategy is to include, amongst other things, details of:
- Hard Landscaping - Soft Landscaping Page 208
- Details at 1:20 - Sample of Materials
Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping areas are of a high quality and for consistent treatment of the public realm. (Policies 33 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.
13 Prior to commencement of building works, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, gates to the basement car park, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, electronic access control, specifications of all external doors and all residential doors, windows and glazing and benches, seating, obelisk and cycle storage. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.
14 The development hereby approved shall only operate between the hours of 0730 and 1830 on Mondays to Friday.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers. (Policies 7 and 29 of the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010)
Informatives
1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.
3 Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings (B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled.
4 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities Page 209
5 It is the view of Lambeth Council that the proposed development has scope for the provision of recycling and/or composting facilities. For advice on incorporation of such facilities please contact:
Jason Searles/ Dean Parry 3rd Floor, Blue Star House 234-244 Stockwell Rd London SW9 9SP 020 7926 2624 [email protected]
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 Your attention is drawn to the condition relating to a crime prevention strategy of this planning consent. Please contact the Council Crime Prevention Officer. Details below: -
Pc Ann Burroughs. Crime Prevention Design Advisor. London Borough of Lambeth. Community Safety Unit. 205 Stockwell Road. Brixton. SW9 9SL. Mobile: 07974643842 Phone: 020 7926 2840 Page 210
Section 5 - Appendices
Appendix 1 - List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies And Local Amenity Groups Consulted.
Conservation & Design Lambeth Arts Association of Waterloo Groups Kennington Oval & Vauxhall Forum Lambeth Estates Residents Association South Bank Employers Group Waterloo Community Development Group Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association South Bank Management Company Ltd South Bank Board Worksheet
Page 211 Agenda Item 9a
Section 1 – Site Location Map
Page 212
Section 2 – Application Summary
Location Ashmole Housing Estate London
Ward Oval
Proposal Variation of condition 9 (Crime prevention strategy) of Application planning permission ref 11/00129/FUL (consisting of render and cladding to existing walls, repair and replacement of roofs, replacement of double glazed and polyester powder coated aluminium windows, replacement communal and dwelling entrance doors and entrance blocks, erection of new boundary treatment, new hardstanding to pavements, pedestrian crossings and roads, new lighting, replacement balustrading to balconies, replacement building fascias, replacement refuse and recycling storage facilities, cycle storages, hard and soft landscaping including trees, turf and planting, play areas, potting sheds, seating areas with canopies over, garages and new parking, allotments with sheds, extension to existing clubhouse, erection of full height boiler flues to Sirinham Point and Coney Way blocks, rainwater goods and repairs to existing brick work. Granted on 24.06.2011.Original wording:- No development shall take place until the a crime prevention strategy is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will demonstrate how the development meets Secured by Design standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, specifications of all external doors, windows and glazing. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter. Proposed wording:- Prior to completion of each block a crime prevention strategy should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will demonstrate how the development meets Secured by Design standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, specifications of all external doors, windows and glazing. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter. Applicant Metropolitan Housing Trust
Agent Mr David Foroham Hiltons Wharf 30 Norman Road London SE10 9QX
Page 213
Date valid 12 January 2012 Case Officer Mr Nicholas Linford
Application 12/00378/FUL Reference
Recommendation(s) Grant planning permission for the variation of Condition 9 of 11/00129/FUL subject to a Deed of Variation. Constraints Environment Agency Flood Zone
Advert Publication 24th February 2012 Date
Site Notice posted 24th February 2012 on
Page 214
1. Summary Of Main Issues
a. Whether the variation of the condition will enable the scheme to be implemented in a manner which preserves the ability of the previously approved scheme to attain community safety objectives.
2 Site Description
a. The application site consists of land and buildings known as the Ashmole Housing Estate. The application site encloses an area of land measuring 5.42ha (54,200sq.m) which is bounded to the north by Ebbisham Drive and Kennington Oval, to the east by the Claylands Road and part of Trigon Road, to the south in part by Meadow Mews and the rear of Fentiman Road and to the west by Meadow Road. The site encompasses 24 residential blocks varying in scale from low rise two storey terraces in Claylands Road, Ebbisham Drive and Carroun Road to more traditional 5 storey interwar brick construction blocks situated close to Kennington Oval together with two tall buildings (19 storeys).
b. The Oval Cricket Ground is situated to the north of the site in Kennington Oval. To the west of the site is St Peter’s Residence Care Home and Vauxhall Park. Clapham Road is situated approximately 500m to the east of the estate.
c. There are no listed buildings within the site. The application site lies outside of the boundaries of Conservation Areas. However the Vauxhall Conservation Area runs along the north and western boundaries of the application site and the St Mark’s Conservation Area runs alongside the southern and eastern boundaries of the application site.
d. Sirinham Point is a 19 storey tower block. The building is predominantly brick built with balconies on all four sides. The services are contained within the basement level. The building is accessed from Meadow Road to the front and from Coney Way to the rear.
3. Planning History
a. 04.07.2011 – Conditional planning permission was granted for the refurbishment of the Ashmole Estate…consisting of render and cladding to existing walls, repair and replacement of roofs, replacement of double glazed and polyester powder coated aluminium windows, replacement communal and dwelling entrance doors and entrance blocks, erection of new boundary treatment, new hardstanding to pavements, pedestrian crossings and roads, new lighting, replacement balustrading to balconies, replacement building fascias, replacement
Page 215
refuse and recycling storage facilities, cycle storages, hard and soft landscaping including trees, turf and planting, play areas, potting sheds, seating areas with canopies over, garages and new parking, allotments with sheds, extension to existing clubhouse, erection of full height boiler flues to Sirinham Point and Coney Way blocks, rainwater goods and repairs to existing brick work (11/00129/FUL).
4. Scheme Details
a. Planning permission is sought for the variation of Condition 9 which requires the submission of a site wide crime prevention strategy.
b. The wording of the original condition is stated below
No development shall take place until the a crime prevention strategy is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will demonstrate how the development meets Secured by Design standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, specifications of all external doors, windows and glazing. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007) – Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011) and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).
c. The amended condition would read as follows:
Prior to completion of each block/phase of work a crime prevention strategy should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will demonstrate how the development meets Secured by Design standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, specifications of all external doors, windows and glazing. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter.
d. This wording is proposed to be changed to enable this to be progressed in collaboration with the Secured By Design/Crime Prevention Design officer and for the strategy to be finalised prior to completion of the block(s) in that area.
Page 216
e. The permission is to be implemented in phases on a block by block programme to allow exact detailing to satisfy conditions for discharge to be secured.
5. Consultation Responses
a. The occupiers of 1094 addresses were notified of this application. Site notices were also erected around the estate. A press advertisement was also published.
b. The Council received three responses from neighbours. Two expressions of support were received and one objection was received.
c. The objection related to the necessity of the housing estate refurbishment. However, support was expressed in relation to measures to reduce crime on the estate. On this basis, the material consideration in relation to this application, there are no objections to the proposal to vary the condition relating to the crime prevention strategy
d. The Crime Prevention Design Officer supports the variation of the condition on the basis that the condition will enable the satisfactory compliance with the Secured by Design process.
6. Planning policy considerations
a. Relevant Policies
i. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (2011), and the remaining saved policies in the Lambeth UDP (2007). Material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Lambeth Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). The following shows the most relevant development plan policies and SPD guidance:
ii. Unitary Development Plan (2011)
• Policy 32: Community safety/Designing out crime
iii. Core Strategy
• Policy S1: Delivering the vision and objectives • Policy S9: Quality of the built environment
iv. London Plan (2011)
• Policy 7.3: Designing out crime
Page 217
b. Planning considerations
i. Planning permission is sought to vary the wording of Condition 9 of the original planning permission 11/00129/FUL, which was granted consent subject to a Section 106 by Planning Applications Committee on 24 May 2011.
ii. The original wording of Condition 9 is as follows:
No development shall take place until a crime prevention strategy is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will demonstrate how the development meets Secured by Design Standards and shall include how the development meets Secured by Design standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, specifications of all external doors, windows and glazing. The approve measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007) – Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).
iii. The condition is proposed to be re-worded as follows:
Prior to completion of each block/phase of work a crime prevention strategy should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will demonstrate how the development meets Secured by Design standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, specifications of all external doors, windows and glazing. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter.
iv. The reason for the variation relates to the fact that the site has a 5.4ha area within the red line boundary and the estate is comprised of distinct areas or blocks within it. Based on this fragmentation, the refurbishment of the estate is to be phased following the commencement of development and the implementation of the permission. Officers understand that contracts for each phase will be tendered and initiated separately in a phased process. As a result, a comprehensive approach to preparing a crime prevention strategy and ensuring compliance with Secured by Design would not be possible as some contractors would not yet be a stakeholder in the scheme.
v. Allowing for a phased agreement and introduction of the crime prevention strategy to take place will facilitate development to
Page 218
commence earlier and bring to fruition earlier, the benefits that would accrue from estate refurbishment.
vi. This has been recognised by the Crime Prevention Design Advisor who has been consulted on this application to vary the condition, and who is involved with ongoing discussions with the applicants. The officer also advises that the rewording of the condition will allow for Secured by Design principles to be met.
vii. Paragraph 14 of the Circular 11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission asserts that conditions should be imposed where they satisfy all of the following tests:
a) necessary; b) relevant to planning; c) relevant to the development to be permitted; d) enforceable e) precise; and f) reasonable in all other respects
viii. Officers consider that the amendment to the wording of the condition in the manner proposed would be appropriate, would satisfy the above tests and would not be prejudicial to the overall intention of the original condition. c. Section 106/Planning Obligations
i. A Section 106 agreement was completed in relation to 11/00129/FUL to secure financial contributions towards Traffic Orders across the Ashmole Estate.
ii. Instructions have been made to prepare and execute a deed of variation to the original Section 106 planning obligation as a result of this application to vary the condition.
7. Conclusion
a. The current application seeks variation of the condition 9 of planning permission 11/00129/FUL. On balance it is considered that the proposed revised wording is acceptable and satisfies the tests of Circular 11/95. It is considered that the proposed alterations to the conditions would not unacceptably undermine the reasons for imposing the conditions in the first place and would not act to dilute the quality of development that would result.
8. Recommendation
a. Subject to the satisfactory completion of a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 agreement it is recommended to VARY condition
Page 219
9 of the planning permission 11/00129/FUL so that its revised wording reads as follows:
Prior to completion of each block/phase of work a crime prevention strategy should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will demonstrate how the development meets Secured by Design standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, specifications of all external doors, windows and glazing. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007) – Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011) and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).
Summary of the Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Adopted LDF Core Strategy adopted January 2011 and Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011 were relevant.
LDF Core Strategy (2011)
Policy S1: Delivering the vision and objectives Policy S9: Quality of the built environment
UDP (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011
Policy 32: Community safety/Designing out crime
Conditions
1 Prior to completion of each block/phase of work a crime prevention strategy should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will demonstrate how the development meets Secured by Design standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, specifications of all external doors,
Page 220
windows and glazing. The approved measures are to be carried out in full and retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007) – Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011) and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).
Informatives
1 You are advised that if there is an existing agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in place in respect of this property it will be subject to a Deed of Variation
2 The applicant should note that all other conditions relating to the original permission (11/00129/FUL) should be discharged in line with current procedure. This decision relates solely to condition 9 and its variation.
Page 221
Section 4 – Decision Notice
Date of Application : 12.01.2012 Date of Decision :
In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of THREE years from the date hereof.
Proposed Development At : Ashmole Housing Estate London
Summary of the Reasons for Granting Planning Permission :
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Adopted LDF Core Strategy adopted January 2011 and Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011 were relevant.LDF Core Strategy (2011)Policy S1: Delivering the vision and objectivesPolicy S9: Quality of the built environmentUDP (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011Policy 32: Community safety/Designing out crime
Page 222
Section 5 - Appendices
Appendix 1 - List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies And Local Amenity Groups Consulted.
Conservation & Design Worksheet LBL Crime Prevention Unit
Page 223 Agenda Item 9b
1 Page 224 Section 2 – Application Summary
Location Ashmole Housing Estate London
Ward Oval
Proposal Variation of Condition 2 (The development hereby permitted shall be Application carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice) of planning permission 11/00129/FUL (Refurbishment of Ashmole Estate bounded by Kennington Oval, Claylands Road, Trigon Road, rear of Cottingham Road, Meadow Mews, Meadow Road and Ebbisham Drive comprising Bannerrman House, Stoddart House, Shrewsbury House, Wisden House, Sirinham Point, 2 - 57 Ebbisham Drive, 1 - 143 Cottingham Road (odd), 2 - 24 Cottingham Road (even), 39 - 113 Claylands Road, 1 - 43 Meadow Road, 11 - 31 (odd) Carroun Road, 18 - 30 Carroun Road (evens), 1 - 81 Coney Way (odd) and 4 - 16 Coney Way (even) consisting of render and cladding to existing walls, repair and replacement of roofs, replacement of double glazed and polyester powder coated aluminium windows, replacement communal and dwelling entrance doors and entrance blocks, erection of new boundary treatment, new hardstanding to pavements, pedestrian crossings and roads, new lighting, replacement balustrading to balconies, replacement building fascias, replacement refuse and recycling storage facilities, cycle storages, hard and soft landscaping including trees, turf and planting, play areas, potting sheds, seating areas with canopies over, garages and new parking, allotments with sheds, extension to existing clubhouse, erection of full height boiler flues to Sirinham Point and Coney Way blocks, rainwater goods and repairs to existing brick work) Granted 04.07.2011. Variation - to amend location of boiler from lower ground to roof tank room in Sirinham Point. Applicant Metropolitan Housing Trust
Agent Mr David Fordham Hiltons Wharf Norman Road London SE10 9QX Date valid 10 January 2012 Case Officer Mr Nicholas Linford
Application 12/00112/FUL Reference
Recommendation(s) Grant planning permission for the variation of Condition 2 of 11/00129/FUL subject to a Deed of Variation. Const raints Environment Agency Flood Zone
Advert Publication Date Site Notice posted 24th February 2012 on
Page 225
1. Summary Of Main Issues
a. The acceptability of the change to the appearance of the building.
b. Given the height of the building, the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the wider area.
c. The impact on residential amenity.
2. Site Description
a. The application site consists of land and buildings known as the Ashmole Housing Estate. The application site encloses an area of land measuring 5.42ha (54,200sq.m) which is bounded to the north by Ebbisham Drive and Kennington Oval, to the east by the Claylands Road and part of Trigon Road, to the south in part by Meadow Mews and the rear of Fentiman Road and to the west by Meadow Road. The site encompasses 24 residential blocks varying in scale from low rise two storey terraces in Claylands Road, Ebbisham Drive and Carroun Road to more traditional 5 storey interwar brick construction blocks situated close to Kennington Oval together with two tall buildings (19 storeys).
b. The Oval Cricket Ground is situated to the north of the site in Kennington Oval. To the west of the site is St Peter’s Residence Care Home and Vauxhall Park. Clapham Road is situated approximately 500m to the east of the estate.
c. There are no listed buildings within the site. The application site lies outside of the boundaries of Conservation Areas. However the Vauxhall Conservation Area runs along the north and western boundaries of the application site and the St Mark’s Conservation Area runs alongside the southern and eastern boundaries of the application site.
d. Sirinham Point is a 19 storey tower block. The building is predominantly brick built with balconies on all four sides. The services are contained within the basement level. The building is accessed from Meadow Road to the front and from Coney Way to the rear.
3. Planning History
a. 04.07.2011 – Conditional planning permission was granted for the refurbishment of the Ashmole Estate…consisting of render and cladding to existing walls, repair and replacement of roofs, replacement of double glazed and polyester powder coated aluminium windows, replacement communal and dwelling entrance doors and entrance blocks, erection of new boundary treatment, new hardstanding to pavements, pedestrian crossings and roads, new lighting, replacement balustrading to balconies, replacement building fascias, replacement refuse and recycling storage facilities, cycle storages, hard and soft landscaping including trees, turf and planting, play areas, potting sheds, seating areas with canopies over, garages and new parking, allotments with sheds, extension to existing
Page 226 clubhouse, erection of full height boiler flues to Sirinham Point and Coney Way blocks, rainwater goods and repairs to existing brick work (11/00129/FUL).
b. Condition 2 of the planning permission was imposed as follows:
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
4. Scheme Details
a. Planning permission is sought for the variation of Condition 2 which allows for the submission and approval of further amended plans to replace the original approved documents.
b. The proposed amendments have arisen from the objective to reconfigure the method and function of the internal heating within Sirinham Point. The scheme as approved by Planning Applications Committee on 24 May 2011 proposed the heating system to be supported by a large flue running the full length of the exterior of the southern elevation of the building.
c. The amended plans now show a 1.4m high boiler flue situated atop the roof plant structure. The reason that the full length flue has been discarded is that the boiler room has been relocated from the lower ground floor level to the existing roof level plant/tank room. The redesigned flue would be limited to the roof plant area only and would not travel internally within the residential accommodation.
5. Consultation Responses
a. The planning application has been advertised by way of the display of four site notices around Sirinham Point in Meadow Road, Claylands Road and Coney Way. No responses were received.
b. No responses were received from internal and external consultees in relation to this application.
6. Planning Considerations
a. Relevant Policies
i. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (2011), and the remaining saved policies in the Lambeth UDP (2007). Material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Lambeth Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). The following shows the most relevant development plan policies and SPD guidance:
ii. Unitary Development Plan (2011)
• Policy 33: Building Scale and design • Policy 36: Alterations and extensions
Page 227
iii. Core Strategy (2011)
• Policy S9: Quality of the built environment b. Design and Conservation Considerations
i. Planning permission is sought for the variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) to secure an amendment to the position of the boiler flue, proposed to be added to Sirinham Point. Approval of this application would result in new approved documents being added to the decision notice thereby superseding previously approved documents.
ii. Plans approved by Planning Applications Committee on 24 May 2011, indicated the position and course of the flue running up the external southern elevation of Sirinham Point serving the plant room at the lower ground floor level. The applicants have re-considered the operation of the internal heating system for the building and have proposed to relocate the boiler room from the lower ground floor level to the existing roof top plant room. This would negate the requirement for a full height flue to be constructed and added to the exterior of the building.
iii. The resulting flue would be limited to a flue projecting by 1.4m from the roof of the plant room above Sirinham Point. As a result, there would be no requirement for a full height flue to the southern elevation.
iv. Sirinham Point in conjunction with Bannerman House is one of the tallest structures in this part of the Borough and any alterations to the property particularly in relation to building services would be visually perceptible. The removal of the flue from the elevation, although supported by the resolution to grant planning permission in May 2011, would be a positive change to the scheme.
v. The replacement flue would by comparison be a discreet addition to the building and would not appear as an incongruous visual addition to the building and would constitute a material minor amendment. A material minor amendment is one whose scale and nature results in a development that is not substantially different from the one which has been approved. Due to the relocation and restricted height in contrast to its previous position the flue would have not impact on the character or appearance of the immediate building or area and would only be visible from longer distance views outside of the estate.
vi. Given the size, scale and scope of the permission previously granted, comprising nearly 5.4ha, the removal of a full height flue and the addition of a considerably shorter flue with lesser visual presence would successfully constitute a material minor amendment.
vii. The flue relocation is generated by the relocation of the boiler room from the lower ground floor level to the roof top plant room. All these works are internal and there is no external manifestation of these alterations.
Page 228 viii. The changes proposed would not be contrary to policies 33 and 36 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2011) or the Core Strategy (2011). c. Amenity Impact
i. It is considered that the proposed amendments to the approved scheme would not have an impact on residential amenity. The heating system within the building is fed by the proposed boiler, for which manufacturers’ details have been submitted to the Council. The boiler was previously proposed to be located within a room in the lower ground floor and will now be relocated to the roof top plant room. ii. The flue would only be restricted to the plant room and the flue would not travel internally through the length of the building. The provision of a new boiler or communal heating system was supported during the life time of the previous planning application. iii. The much restricted length of the flue should result in no impacts relating to noise and vibration being felt within the building. The noise impacts are limited to 56dBA at 1m distance and would not have an impact on the internal residential amenity inside the building. iv. It is considered therefore that the revised communal central heating system would, in conjunction with its limited visual impact, also have limited or no harmful residential amenity impact. As such, the proposed development would accord with policies 33 and 36 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy S9 of the Core Strategy. v. Paragraph 14 of the Circular 11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission asserts that conditions should be imposed where they satisfy all of the following tests:
a) necessary; b) relevant to planning; c) relevant to the development to be permitted; d) enforceable e) precise; and f) reasonable in all other respects
vi. Officers consider that the amendment to the wording of the condition in the manner proposed would be appropriate, would satisfy the above tests and would not be prejudicial to the overall intention of the original condition. d. Section 106/Planning Obligations
i. A Section 106 agreement was completed in relation to 11/00129/FUL to secure financial contributions towards Traffic Orders across the Ashmole Estate. ii. Instructions have been made to prepare and execute a deed of variation to the original Section 106 planning obligation as a result of this application to vary the condition.
Page 229 7. Conclusion
a. The application proposes the variation of Condition 2 (amended plans) to enable the submission and approval of amended replacement plans showing the removal of the full height flue and its replacement with a new shorter 1.4m building top flue.
b. The change is considered to be minor in proportion to the building, the permission and the wider area and would not give rise to a significant impact on the character and appearance of building, the area and the St Marks Conservation Area a short distance away from Sirinham Point.
c. The scheme would accord with policies 33 and 36 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2011) and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy (2011) and the condition should be varied.
8. Recommendation
a. Vary condition 2 (Accordance with approved plans) of planning permission reference (11/00129/FUL) issued on 4 July 2011 subject to the satisfactory completion of a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 agreement.
Summary of the reasons
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Adopted LDF Core Strategy adopted January 2011 and Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011 were relevant.
LDF Core Strategy (2011)
Policy S9: Quality of the Built Environment
UDP (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011
Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 36: Alterations and extensions
Conditions
1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Informatives
1 Approval of this application will result in the deletion of the following plans:
J10.148/D207 rev B
Page 230 J10.148/D210 rev B and their replacement with
J10.148/D207 rev C J10.148/D210 rev C
2 You are advised that if there is an existing agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in place in respect of this property it will be subject to a Deed of Variation
3 The applicant should note that all other conditions relating to the original permission (11/00129/FUL) should be discharged in line with current procedure. This decision relates solely to condition 2 and its variation.
Page 231
Section 4 – Decision Notice
Date of Application : 10.01.2012 Date of Decision :
In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of THREE years from the date hereof.
Proposed Development At : Ashmole Housing Estate London
Summary of the Reasons for Granting Planning Permission :
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Adopted LDF Core Strategy adopted January 2011 and Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011 were relevant.LDF Core Strategy (2011)Policy S9: Quality of the Built EnvironmentUDP (2007) Policies Saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011Policy 33: Building Scale and DesignPolicy 36: Alterations and extensions
Page 232
Section 5 - Appendices
Appendix 1 - List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies And Local Amenity Groups Consulted.
Performance, Strategy & Regeneration Kennington Association Kennington Oval & Vauxhall Forum Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association Regents Bridge Gardens Ltd Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum The Vauxhall Society Vision For Vauxhall Ashmole Estate Tenants Association Ashmole Tenants Assoc Worksheet Planning Policy
10 Page 233 Agenda Item 10
Section 1 – Site Location Map
Page 234
Location County Hall Riverside Building, Westminster Bridge Road, SE1 7PB
Ward Bishop’s
Proposal
Change of use of part of County Hall to Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure) and the creation of a bridge link and other minor external works. Alterations and refurbishment of part of County Hall including: external works comprising the replacement of and alterations to existing windows and doors, creation of an external bridge link and the removal of existing signage and installation of new signage; internal works including alterations to stairs, and the installation of door openings, lifts, themed circulation corridors, structural works to enable the insertion of rides, and reconfiguration of existing toilets.
Application Type A) Full Planning Permission B) Listed Building Consent
Application Nos A) 12/00296/FUL B) 12/00297/LB
Applicant Merlin Entertainments (Dungeons) Ltd
Agent Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London
Date Valid 24 January 2012
Considerations
South Bank Conservation Area, Grade II* Listed Building, Environment Agency Flood Zone Multiple, Opportunity Area London Plan Waterloo Opportunity Area, London Plan Central Activities Zone, London Plan Thames Policy Area
Approved Plans
3346-1000 Rev 2, 3346-1001 Rev 3, 3346-20 Rev 6, 3346-21 Rev 6, 3346-22 Rev 6, 3346-23, 3346-24 Rev 8 Rev 3, 3346-25 Rev 6, 3346-26 Rev 6, 3346-27 Rev 8, 3346-28 Rev 7, 3346-29 Rev 6, 3346-30 Rev 4, 3346-31 Rev 7, 3346-32 Rev 4, 3346-33 Rev 5, 3346-34 Rev 4, 3346-35 Rev 5, 3346-36 Rev 5, 3346-37 Rev 5, 3346-38 Rev 5, 3346-39 Rev 5, 3346-40 Rev 4, 3346-41 Rev 4, 3346-42 Rev 2, 3346-44 Rev 2, 3346-45 Rev 2, 3346-46 Rev 2, 3346-47 Rev 2, 3346-48 Rev 2, 3346-49 Rev 3, 3346-51 Rev 2, 3346-52 Rev 3, 3346-53 Rev 2, 3346-54 Rev 2, 3346-55 Rev 2, 3346-56 Rev 5 , 3346-58 Rev 2, 3346-59 Rev 3, 3346-60 Rev 2, 3346-61 Rev 2, 3346-62 Rev 2, 3346-63 Rev 4, 3346-64 Rev 3, 3346-65 Rev 3, 3346-66 Rev 4, 3346-67 Rev 4 , 3346-68 Rev 2, 3346-70 Rev 3, Transport Assessment, Noise Assessment, Sustainability Report, Design and Access
Page 235
Statement (incorporating a Site Management Plan), Operational Statement, Security Management Plan.
Recommendation a) Grant permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement
b) Grant Listed Building Consent
Officer Report
1.0 Summary Of Main Issues
1.1. The impact on the character of the listed building and conservation area.
1.2. The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
1.3. The impact on the surrounding road network and pedestrian flows.
2.0 Site Description
2.1 The applications relate to part of County Hall at ground floor level and the basement and sub-basement which is currently vacant. Part of the site was previously occupied by the Dali Universe Exhibition
2.2 County Hall is located within the Southbank Conservation area, comprising of an art and culture complex of international importance, including the Royal Festival Hall, the Queen Elizabeth Hall, the Hayward Gallery and the National Theatre complex. County Hall fronts the River Thames and is bounded by Chicheley Street, Belevedere Road and Westminster Bridge Road. To the rear of the front County Hall building lie the north/south/east/west blocks comprising commercial on the ground floor and residential above.
2.3 County Hall lies within the South Bank Conservation Area and is a Listed Building Grade II*. It lies within the London Plan Waterloo Opportunity Area, London Plan Thames Policy Area and the Environment Agency Flood Zone 3.
3.0 Planning History
3.1 The building has a long and complex history since the announcement by the Government, in 1986, of the abolishment of the GLC. In 1993, the Council granted planning permission and listed building consent for the change of use of the former GLC building into a hotel and ancillary uses involving certain alterations. In 1994, a further planning permission and listed building consent was granted for
Page 236
the change of use of part of the ground floor and basement and sub-basement to an aquarium. Planning and listed building permissions have also been granted for uses such as restaurants, a family entertainment centre, hotels, offices, exhibition centres, museums and recording studios. Part of County Hall is also used as offices for the London Eye. There are still large areas of County Hall which are vacant.
3.2 An application for advertisement consent has also been made for the removal of the existing signage on a section of the west elevation of County Hall and the installation of new entrance and exit signage. This application was pending at the time of drafting this report.
4.0 Scheme Details
4.1 This report considers two applications. Application A is for full planning permission; application B relates to listed building consent for the change of use of part of County Hall to Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure) and the creation of a bridge link and other minor external works. Alterations and refurbishment of part of County Hall including: external works comprising the replacement of and alterations to existing windows and doors, creation of an external bridge link and the removal of existing signage and installation of new signage; internal works including alterations to stairs, and the installation of door openings, lifts, themed circulation corridors, structural works to enable the insertion of rides, and reconfiguration of existing toilets.
4.2 The proposal would allow the relocation of the London Dungeon into County Hall. The works covered by these applications are summarised below.
4.3 Interior works On the ground floor, the stairs in the Moonlight Tea House and existing toilets would be removed, together with other minor alterations; to provide an entrance, ticket area, newly reconfigured toilets, a photo counter and exit. A large lift, stair and themed room would also be provided. To facilitate a ‘drop ride’, a section of floor would be removed. The two east-west wings and north wing that form part of the application site would provide themed rooms for the attraction and a new “floating” floor would be inserted. It is also proposed to remove the existing parquet floor. The flooring would be placed in storage for reinstatement in the future. Within the Basement it is proposed to insert a lift and new stairs, together with the removal of floors to facilitate a ‘ride’ and a ‘drop ride’. Within the Sub-Basement, elements of walling and ceilings would be removed to accommodate the new rides and the lift. All floors would be ‘themed’. In addition to the above, there are a limited number of instances within the application area where new doors would be created within existing walls or where existing doorways would be widened.
Page 237
4.4 Exterior works The existing doors to the Moonlight Tea House entrance on the Riverside West elevation would be replaced with the new London Dungeon entrance. This would consist of an open portcullis mounted beneath the existing entrance arch. The existing northern Aquarium window and wall below would be removed to form a new door opening. The proposal includes glazing to match the existing Aquarium entrance. This would provide access to the existing restaurant within County Hall. On the exterior of Courtyard 1 (North Elevation), it is proposed to remove a large ground floor window and replace this with louvers. A smaller ground floor window (and wall beneath) would also be removed to form a door opening. It is proposed to introduce an external light-weight walkway linking the north and west elevations. This would be aluminium faced with composite insulated panels on a steel frame, with a single ply membrane roof. Within Courtyard 1 (South Elevation) it is proposed to remove four basement windows and replace with louvers; and replace one area of louvers with a window. In Courtyard 1 (West Elevation) the existing steel casing and window would be removed and a door opening formed. This would accommodate the light-weight bridge link. Within Courtyard 2 (North Elevation) a basement window would be removed and replaced by louvers. All the original windows to be removed as part of the proposals would be placed in storage for replacement in future, if required.
5.0 Consultation
5.1 632 letters of consultation were sent to neighbouring occupiers. The development was advertised by means of site notice erected on the 9th March 2012 and a press notice was advertised on the 3rd March 2012. No comments were received.
5.2 The following amenity groups, external and internal consultees were also notified of the application:
Conservation and Design – raise no objections subject to conditions Planning Policy – raise no objections LBL Crime Prevention – raise no objections Streetcare – no response to date Transport/Highways Regulatory Services Noise/pollution – raise no objections Transport for London – raise no objections subject to conditions English Heritage – raise no objections subject to conditions Environment Agency – raise no objections subject to conditions Association of Waterloo Groups – no response to date Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall Forum – no response to date Lambeth Estates Residents Association – no response to date South Bank Employers Group – no response to date South Bank Management Company Ltd – no response to date Waterloo Community Development Group – no response to date
Page 238
County Hall Residents Association – no response to date Waterloo Quarter Business Area – no response to date Kennington Association – no response to date South Bank Board – no response to date
6.0 Planning Considerations
Relevant Policies
6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011), the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’ and the London Plan 2011. Material considerations include National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan.
6.2 The following policies of the National Planning Policy Framework are relevant:
Policy 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment
6.3 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:
Policy 4.5 states that the special characteristics of major clusters of visitor attractions in these areas should be promoted enhanced and protected.
Policy 4.6 also supports the continued success of London’s diverse range of arts, cultural, sport and entertainment provision. Policy 7.29 refers to the River Thames as a strategically important and iconic feature of London whose role should be protected and promoted. Policy 7.8 seeks to protect and enhance London's historic environment. Sub- section D states "Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail."
6.4 The following policies in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 are relevant:
Policy 7: Protection of residential amenity Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 26: Community Facilities Policy 28: Hotels and Tourism Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing out Crime Policy 45: Listed Building Policy 47: Conservation Areas
Page 239
6.5 The following policies in the LDF Core Strategy (January 2011) are considered relevant:
PN1: Waterloo S3: Economic Development S6: Flood Risk S7: Sustainable Design and Construction S8: Sustainable Waste Management
Planning Considerations
Land Use
6.6 County Hall is located within the London Plan Central Activities Zone and the London Plan Waterloo Opportunity Area. The existing use of the application site is D1 (principally for former Salvador Dali exhibition). The proposed use is D2 (proposed London Dungeon Experience).
6.7 Core Strategy Policy S3 Economic Development seeks to safeguard and improve leisure, recreation, arts and cultural facilities where they meet local and wider needs.
6.8 Core Strategy Policy PN1 Waterloo promotes the expansion of arts and cultural activities throughout Waterloo and seeks to enhance the South Bank/Riverside area (of which County Hall is a part) in its role as an international cultural and leisure centre and a London tourist destination through supporting the development of arts and cultural facilities, associated and supporting uses as well as improvements to the public realm and visitor related facilities.
6.9 UDP Policy 26 provides guidance on the appropriate locations for community facilities. In some cases, community facilities will fulfil more than a neighbourhood or district function. This would be a matter of fact and degree and would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. Where this is the case, under Policy 26(a) these facilities should locate in the first instance in town centres or in the Central Activities Zone. Where there are no suitable and available sites in town centres, then sites should be found in accordance with the sequential approach. In all cases, there is a requirement to protect residential amenity under Policy 7.
6.10 Given the location within the Central Activities Zone, it is considered that the location is appropriate. Residential amenity is discussed later in the report.
6.11 Policy 28 advises that large visitor attractions should contribute measures and strategies for the better management of visitors to alleviate problems such as from noise, queuing, crowding and visitor management and should ensure the amenity of residential occupiers is preserved as far as possible.
6.12 The applicant has proposed measures to ensure the protection of residential amenity and for visitor management (discussed later in this report). Conditions would also be attached to ensure compliance.
Page 240
6.13 Given the above, the proposed development is consistent with the strategic objectives for Waterloo and the South Bank set out in the London Plan, Lambeth Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy, and is therefore supported in principle from a land use policy perspective.
Urban Design and Conservation
6.14 Policy 45 states that the Council will preserve listed buildings for their special architectural or historical interest. Policy 45b of the Council’s UDP (2007) states that: -“Consent for alterations and extensions may be granted where the result preserves the special interest of the building. Where repairs, alterations or extensions are necessary, they must relate sensitively to the original building and will require craftsmanship and professional skills of a high standard. There will be a presumption in favour of the use of original materials and traditional repair and construction methods. All aspects of proposals should be necessary and should protect the architectural or historic integrity and detailing of the exterior of the buildings and valuable interiors, and should be in full accord with the period, style and detailing of the building. Where the existing original roof structure is of specific architectural or historic interest, it should be preserved”.
6.15 Policy 47 states that development within conservation areas should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.
6.16 Lambeth’s Design and Conservation Officer commented on the application and raised no objection to the principle of the application, subject to conditions. Having visited site, the officer noted that it is evident that little remains of historic fabric of interest in this part of the building. Where fireplaces, architraves and (hidden) panelling remain, the applicant seeks to retain these features. The main interior works will be to create the drop rides which will necessitate the removal of some areas of floor and ceiling. These works are minor and it is considered when evaluating the harm against the benefit to the building of being occupied and maintained, this is acceptable. 6.17 Externally, it is proposed to erect a small external bridge link inside the internal service courtyard. This fits underneath the modern (1970s) extension on the site and will not be visible other than from the internal yard. The impact of this on the special interest of the heritage asset is considered acceptable. The other minor external details to the fenestration are also considered acceptable, subject to detail. 6.18 In conclusion, the proposal brings back into use a large portion of the currently vacant parts of the building. The proposed internal works are mindful of the floorplan and any remaining features and causes minimal harm to the special interest of the building. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policy 45 of the Unitary Development Plan. 6.19 English Heritage raises no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. English Heritage further advises that the Secretary of State has considered the information and does not intend to require the application to be referred to him.
Page 241
6.20 Given the above it considered that the proposal complies with policies 45 and 47 of the UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy (January 2011).
Amenity
6.21 Policy 7 states that the right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their homes will be respected. In mixed-use areas, the scale, design, layout, hours-of-use, intensity, concentration, and location of non-residential uses, will be controlled in relation to residential uses to protect residential amenity.
6.22 The proposal would be located within part of County Hall which is not occupied by residential occupiers, and due to the nature of the area there is a relatively high level of background noise and pedestrian traffic. However it is acknowledged that there are residential uses within the rear County Hall building. 6.23 As part of the application documentation, a noise assessment was undertaken in accordance with BS4142. Based on the Noise Assessment findings, and their recommendations for mitigation and further work during the design and construction phases, the report concludes that there will be no impacts from noise. 6.24 The Councils Noise and Pollution Officer reviewed the noise assessment and concludes that there is no need to attach any conditions and that no objections are raised to the application. 6.25 Whilst the Council’s Noise Team do not propose conditions,; conditions relating to visitor management and delivery are attached to ensure that the amenity of surrounding residents is protected.
6.26 The application seeks permission to open from 9.30 - 2000 Daily. These hours are considered acceptable for the proposed use.
6.27 Given the above and other measures to be secured by conditions it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to loss of amenity in line with Policy 7.
Transport and Highways
6.28 Policy 9 of the UDP states that planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts on highway safety; on the environment and the road network; and on all transport modes, including public transport (in particular, the impact on demand for and the operation of public transport), walking and cycling. The policy goes on to state that any increase in traffic generated by development, should not increase levels of traffic congestion, lead to a situation where the condition of highway safety is reduced, cause material harm to the speed and/or reliability of bus and other public transport services or undermine traffic reduction and/or management measures.
6. 29 The Council’s Transport and Highways Officer was consulted and stated that subject to conditions requiring the submission of a Visitor Management Plan and a Delivery & Servicing Plan and to a financial contribution towards improvement to
Page 242
the public realm in the vicinity of the site, particularly on Belvedere Road and Chicheley Street to mitigate the impact of the increased number of visitors to the area generated by the proposals; that no objections are raised to the proposal. The appropriateness of the request and the financial contribution is to be discussed and agreed with the applicant and will be presented to Members at Planning Applications Committee. 6.30 TfL were consulted and do not believe that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).However, TfL recommend that a condition is placed on any consent which may be granted that prohibits queuing on the surrounding footway, as they experience high pedestrian flows and therefore they should be kept as free as possible to allow for pedestrians to walk along with a reasonable level of comfort. 6.31 Given the above it is considered that the proposal would comply with policy 9 of the UDP.
Community Safety
6.32 Policy 32 requires that development should enhance community safety. The policy states that development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. This requirement is consistent with Section 17 of The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which imposes an obligation on the local planning authority to consider crime and disorder reduction in the assessment of planning applications.
6.33 The Metropolitan Police have provided the applicant with advice in relation to the use of ‘safe/security’ glass for the entrances to the building. The Officer has been mindful of the listed status of the building and has provided advice accordingly.
6.34 The Metropolitan Police advise that the area between the Westminster Bridge steps and the London Eye is under the jurisdiction of the existing management and the proposed London Dungeon site will be managed and incorporated into the existing security plan for the area this includes CCTV, management of refuse and high visibility security. A similar crowd control strategy has been submitted as part of the application and will be implemented for the London Dungeon, and being a ticket only attraction that will be policed by security staff in a similar way to existing visitor attractions, no concern is raised. The proposal therefore complies with Policy 32.
Waste
6.35 Policy S8 seeks commercial/community developments should include adequate provision within or as part of the development for residual and recycled waste in terms of facilities for containment, litter control and waste disposal. Furthermore the 'Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers' (May 2006)’ provides further guidance.
6.36 A Site Waste Management Plan has been prepared and appended to the Design and Access Statement. This describes the regulation requirements and includes a pre-construction assessment. Further details will be worked up with the contractor
Page 243
in accordance with the regulations. A condition has been attached to ensure that these details are agreed, in compliance with Policy S8.
Flood Risk
6. 37 Core Strategy Policy S6 states that the Council will work in partnership with the Environment Agency in order to manage and mitigate flood risk.
6. 38 The Environment Agency was consulted and upon assessment of the proposed development has raised no objection based on the development being classed as less vulnerable (table D2 of Planning Policy Statement 25).
6. 39 However due to the increased amount of people now put at risk suggest that the LPA ensures the applicant provides a plan demonstrating how users of the attraction would access a safe refuge in the even of a breach/overtopping of the flood defences.
6.40 From the documents online and a subsequent site visit it is not believed that any part of this development would restrict the Environment Agency’s ability to carry out its responsibility of inspection and maintenance of the existing flood defences.
6.41 Given the above and subject to the proposed condition, it is considered that policy S6 will be met. Sustainable Design and Construction 6. 42 Core Strategy Policy S7 promotes sustainable design and construction and subsequent operation. Given the historic nature of the building, the sustainability measures which can be introduced as part of the development are constrained. The accompanying Sustainability Report sets out what measures can be achieved with regard to the future management and operation. They will result in a number of enhancements particularly with regard to the use of resources (including energy efficient lighting, heating and cooling).
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 The Council considers that the proposed works are appropriate and subject to information submitted and approved through condition would respect the setting of County Hall Grade II* listed building and the South Bank conservation area.
7.2 The Council further considers that the proposal will not have a detrimental affect on nearby residential occupiers or to the wider public in relation to noise, transport or crime considerations.
7.3 As such, the proposed development would be acceptable and would be in compliance with policies 7, 9, 26, 28, 32, 45 and 47 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and policies S3, S6, S7, S8 and PN1 of the Core strategy (2011).
7.4 The request for financial contributions will be discussed with the applicant prior to committee. The findings will be provided verbally at the meeting.
Page 244
8.0 Recommendation
8.1 (A) Grant planning permission (Ref: 12/00296/FUL) subject to conditions and to a S106. for financial contributions towards improvements to the public realm in the vicinity of the site, particularly on Belvedere Road and Chicheley Street to mitigate the impact of the increased number of visitors to the area generated by the proposals.
8.2 (B) Grant listed building consent (Ref: 12/00297/LB) subject to conditions
REASON FOR APPROVAL
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the development plan and all other relevant material considerations. The development plan in Lambeth is the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy adopted in January 2011’ and the London Plan (adopted July 2011). Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant:
London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011 and Core Strategy Policies January 2011:
Policy 7: Protection of residential amenity Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 26: Community Facilities Policy 28: Hotels and Tourism Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing out Crime Policy 45: Listed Building Policy 47: Conservation Areas PN1: Waterloo S3: Economic Development S6: Flood Risk S7: Sustainable Design and Construction S8: Sustainable Waste Management
CONDITIONS (APPLICATION A: 12/00296/FUL)
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.
Page 245
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.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning
3 No new plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, flues, vents or ductwork shall be fixed on the external faces of the building unless shown on the drawings hereby approved.
Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
4 No new grilles, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other appurtenances shall be fixed on the external faces of the building unless shown on the drawings hereby approved.
Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
5 All new external and internal works and finishes and works of making good to the retained fabric, shall match the existing adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved. Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)) 6 The new joinery work shall match the existing joinery work adjacent in respect of materials, dimensions and profiles, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved. Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)) 7 Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted plans; drawn details at a scale of no less than 1:20 in respect of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as local planning authority in consultation with English Heritage before relevant work is begun: a) Details of the proposed wall-mounted lanterns flanking the proposed main entrance, including details and method of fixing to the listed building
Page 246
b) Details of the proposed lanterns to be mounted on the existing stone balustrades of the proposed attraction exit, including details and methods of fixing Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)) 8 No queuing shall take place on the surrounding footway.
Reason: To ensure that footways are kept as free as possible to allow for pedestrians to walk along with a reasonable level of comfort (Policy 9 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy (January 2011)
9 A Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the opening of the attraction herein approved. Waste shall be dealt with in accordance with these details for the life of the use.
Reason: To ensure adequate provision within or as part of the development for commercial and recycled waste in terms of facilities for containment, litter control and waste disposal. (Policy S9 of the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
10 An Evacuation Plan demonstrating how users of the attraction would access a safe refuge in the even of a breach/overtopping of the flood defences shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the opening of the attraction herein approved. Evacuation of the building in this event shall be carried out in accordance with these details for the life of the use.
Reason: To ensure safe refuge in the even of a breach/overtopping of the flood defences. (Policy S6 of the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
11 A Visitor Management Plan, to include details on measures to ensure that the Queens Walk is not obstructed by visitors to the attraction and details of the management of coach parties to the venue shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the opening of the attraction herein approved. The use shall be carried out in accordance with these details for the life of the use.
Reason: To ensure that the Queens Walk is not obstructed by visitors to the attraction, and the management of coaches. (Policy 9 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy (January 2011)
12 A Delivery & Servicing Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the opening of the attraction herein approved. Deliveries and Servicing shall be carried out in accordance with these details for the life of the use.
Page 247
Reason: To ensure that deliveries and servicing comply with Policy 9 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy (January 2011)
CONDITIONS (APPLICATION B: 12/00297/LB)
1 The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 18(1)(a) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning
3 No new plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, flues, vents or ductwork shall be fixed on the external faces of the building unless shown on the drawings hereby approved.
Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
4 No new grilles, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other appurtenances shall be fixed on the external faces of the building unless shown on the drawings hereby approved.
Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
5 All new external and internal works and finishes and works of making good to the retained fabric, shall match the existing adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved. Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)) 6 The new joinery work shall match the existing joinery work adjacent in respect of materials, dimensions and profiles, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved. Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August
Page 248
2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)) 7 Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted plans; drawn details at a scale of no less than 1:20 in respect of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as local planning authority in consultation with English Heritage before relevant work is begun a) Details of the proposed wall-mounted lanterns flanking the proposed main entrance, including details and method of fixing to the listed building b) Details of the proposed lanterns to be mounted on the existing stone balustrades of the proposed attraction exit, including details and methods of fixing Reason: To safeguard the special interest of the listed building. (Policy 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
INFORMATIVES
1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.
3 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.
4 You are advised of the necessity to consult Transport for London's steward on 020 7358 2600, prior to the commencement of construction, in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
Page 249 Agenda Item 11
Section 1 – Site Location Map
Page 250 Section 2 – Application Summary
Location Land Rear Of 121 Bedford Road London SW4
Ward Ferndale
Proposal Erection of a two storey dwelling house (incorporating basement Application level) with green roof, together with the provision of cycle and refuse storage (AMENDED PLANS INCORPORATING OBSCURE GLAZED WINDOWS TO ELEVATION E-E). Applicant Miss Iliana Flade
Date valid 16 November 2011 Case Officer Ms Seonaid Carr
Application 11/03522/FUL Reference
Recommendatio n(s) Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
Constraints Streets Under Conversion Stress
Advert Publication Date
Site Notice posted 29th November 2011 on
Page 251
1. Summary Of Main Issues
1.1. The principle of the development of the site.
1.2. The acceptability of the design of the proposed dwelling.
1.3. The acceptability of the residential accommodation for future occupiers.
1.4. The impact of the proposal on existing neighbouring occupiers’ amenity.
1.5. The acceptability of the impact upon transport.
1.6. The impact the proposed development would have on community safety.
2. Site Description
2.1. The application site is located to the rear of No.121 Bedford Road, sited behind an existing garden used by the occupiers of 121A Bedford Road (the ground floor flat). No.121 Bedford Road is a four storey semi-detached property which has been sub-divided into three flats. The rear garden of the application site has been subdivided into two plots, providing a rear garden for the No.121A and a vacant plot not associated with one of the flats within No.121. The site is accessed via a road which also provides access to the allotments located to the rear of the application site.
2.2. The surrounding area is characterised by Victorian properties of brick construction some three to four storeys in height. The surrounding properties are characterised by long rear gardens.
2.3. The property is not situated within a Conservation Area, and is not listed.
2.4. The site is located within Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and falls within an area scored as PTAL 6a.
3. Planning History
3.1. The relevant planning history for the application site is outlined below: ••• 11/00004/FUL - Erection of a two storey dwelling house. Application refused for the following reasons: ••• The proposed two storey dwelling, by virtue of its bulky design, overdevelopment of the site, proposed material and scale would appear as an dominating development that would fail to harmonise with the architecture of the surrounding properties. The overall design of the dwelling given its boxed appearance would appear incongruous in the backland garden setting and as a result would harm the visual amenity of the surrounding area. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies 33 and 38 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’ and Policy S9 of the Lambeth Core Strategy (2011). ••• The proposed two storey dwelling, by virtue of its material, height and siting in relation to neighbouring properties would have an
Page 252 unduly harmful impact upon the living conditions of occupiers of numbers 119 and 121 Bedford Road, giving rise to an unacceptable sense of enclosure and a detrimental impact on the outlook enjoyed by the occupiers of these properties. Contrary to Policies 33 and 38 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’. ••• The proposed development, by virtue of the proposed windows at first floor level would give rise to a significant increase in the sense of being overlooked, to the detriment of the privacy of occupiers of No.117, 119, 123 and 125 Bedford Road. Contrary to Policy 33 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’. ••• The proposal contains insufficient information to demonstrate that there would not be a loss of daylight or sunlight to windows within the neighbouring properties at No.121 Bedford Road which would result in a detrimental impact on the living environment of neighbouring occupiers and therefore fails to fully satisfy Policy 33 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’.
3.2. The relevant planning history for No.121 Bedford Road is outlined below:
••• 1963 - Permission was granted for the erection of a double garage to the rear of No.121. ••• 1966 - Permission granted for the erection of a two storey addition. ••• 1978 - Permission granted for the erection of a side extension at first and second floor levels and the conversion of the property into three self-contained flats. ••• 1982 - Permission granted for the erection of a side extension at first and second floor levels and the conversion of the property into three self-contained flats.
3.3. The planning history for the land to the rear of the application site is outlined below: ••• 88/01879/PLANAP - Layout and use of existing derelict site as allotments and the erection of new boundary walls and gates. Application permitted and works implemented.
4. Scheme Details
4.1. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey dwellinghouse (incorporating basement level) with green roof, together with the provision of cycle parking and refuse storage.
4.2. The proposed dwelling would have a rectangular shaped footprint, sited towards the western portion of the site. The proposed building would occupy the full width of the application site at 6.8m and 8m in depth at ground floor level, to the basement level there would be an additional 3m wide and 3.9m deep section to the eastern side of the property which would lead onto a 3.75m wide and 3.55m deep lightwell which would be used as a patio area with steps leading to the ground level garden.
Page 253 4.3. The proposed dwelling would measure 3m in height above ground level with a basement level excavating 2.8m below ground level.
4.4. To the basement level would be two bedrooms, one of which would be en- suite, a bathroom, two dressing rooms and a front and rear lightwell. To the ground floor level would be an open plan kitchen/dining/living area and toilet. There would be a garden area to the east of the application site at ground floor level.
4.5. The property would be constructed with rendered walls and timber windows throughout. The proposal includes the erection of new timber fencing around the north, east and west boundaries of the site to a height of 1.9m with a 0.25m trellis above. To the southern boundary which faces onto the shared access way the site would be bounded by 1.1m high glass boundary treatment. The main entrance to the property would be located to the southern elevation and would be recessed from the front elevation by 0.6m with a glass canopy above.
4.6. Cycle and refuse storage would be provided within an area to the west of the proposed dwelling within the realm of the application site, an area of 4.8 square metres has been allocated for cycle provision and refuse storage.
5. Consultation Responses
5.1. A site notice was erected within proximity of the application site, local amenity groups and neighbouring residents were also notified of the proposal.
5.2. To date we have received 9 letters of objection which are outlined in the table below:
Objections: Council’s Response:
The applicant has not The Council has notified the relevant entered into dialogue with neighbours regarding the proposed any neighbours. development. Whatever dialogue the applicant undertook prior to submitting the application is not a material consideration for the determination of this case. The design does not have The surrounding properties are of 3- regard to the pattern and 4 storeys in height, the proposed development within the development which would be sited to surrounding area. a backland site would be subordinate in scale to the existing Inappropriate materials for development, in accordance with the the location affect the requirement of Policy 38. The visual amenity for development has paid regard to neighbouring properties. some aspects of the surrounding character such as the use of timber windows, render which is present to the property to the rear of No.133 and in parts along properties within
Page 254 Bedford Road.
It is considered that the development would appear as a modern and contrasting design in relation to the character of the surrounding area, it is considered its presence would not cause demonstrable harm to the character of the area.
Concerns regarding the It is recommended that a condition is access to the site, which is imposed on the application should it via an existing passageway be given planning permission from Bedford Road. Access requesting the applicant to provide a is not wide enough for a Construction Management Plan skip lorry, nor can a skip be which would outline how they sited to Bedford Road. proposed to build the development within the constraints of the site, the Council’s Transport Planner has agreed this would be appropriate for this application Concerns over ownership It is understood from the Council’s rights of the access way. Valuation and Asset Management Service that the Council does not own the access road but do own the allotments to the rear of the site and have rights along the passage way. The proposed development would be confined within the site as outlined on Drawing Ref:LAM/626/PL/03 and would not involve building onto the access road, as such it would not prohibit access to the rear allotments. Furthermore issues of land ownership and access rights are civil matters and not within the remit of planning legislation. Such disputes would have to be resolved in a civil manner. Object to the removal of The proposed development does not the existing access gates include the removal of the existing due to security access gates onto the access road to the south of the application site.
Within the Design and Access Statement the applicant has stated that ideally they would be removed to allow easy access however she is willing to take into account the safety concerns of the neighbouring property and is willing to compromise.
To address the concerns of the
Page 255 neighbours, an informative is recommended which would advise the applicant that should they want to replace the existing access gates they would be required to apply for planning permission. Access is not wide enough The access road measures 2.9m for emergency services. wide. This point has been referred to the Council’s Transport Planner who advised that the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) Guidance Note 29 suggests that an access road should be at least 3.7m wide to allow for their tenders to access a site, however this wouldn’t warrant a reason for refusal on this basis. Should emergency services need to access the site, there is the facility for them to park on Bedford Road and access the site from there. Objection to the removal of The proposed development would existing brick walls and the see the replacement of existing proposed erection of boundary treatments, to the north, fencing. Relates to walls east and west elevations the site now owned by the would be bounded by a 1.9m fence applicant. with a 0.25m high trellis. To the southern elevation would be the dwelling itself at 3m in height with a render wall together with 1.1m high glazed panelled fence.
In respect of the removal of the fencing and erection of new fencing the operation would be subject to Party Wall agreements between the applicant and the owners of the fences. The applicant will have to serve Party Wall notices to the owners of the fences. This is a civil matter and not something planning legislation controls. Use of the land was not for The use of the land would be storing building materials retained as C3 (dwellinghouses), the and equipment, land has development would not alter the use not previously been of the land. development only a shed on a concrete pad. The applicant has claimed within their Design and Access Statement Objection to loss of the was at one time used for storing garden space, use of land building materials and equipment, is not derelict; the land has this was never regularised via not been vacant for some planning permission. The lawful use 20 years as stated in the of the building is that of C3. Design and Access
Page 256 Statement.
Overdevelopment of the The proposed development would application site, leaving not impact on the level of garden inadequate garden space. space of existing properties. Furthermore the proposed development would result in an amenity area of some 50.05m2 which is considered acceptable for a new dwelling in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions. Basement level Thames Water has reviewed the development inappropriate application and raise no objection to where the water-table is the development. They have only a few feet below requested there are two informatives ground level. placed on the decision notice should the development be granted planning permission in respect of sewage infrastructure and water infrastructure. The flat roof of the dwelling This concern of the neighbours is could be used as an noted, to address their concerns a amenity space resulting in condition is recommended loss of privacy for prohibiting the use of the flat roof neighbouring properties. area as an outside amenity area with the purpose of protecting the neighbouring residents amenity. Development would cause The proposed development would inconvenience to not build onto the access road and neighbouring dwellings as such would not prohibit the access to their garage access to the rear of No.123 should located to the rear of this access be bought back into use, No.123. in its current form it has been built over with a timber fence. Increased light pollution The proposed development would and noise. result in an increase in light within the locality, given there is currently no light emitted within the application site. However it is considered given the scale of the proposed development the level of light and noise pollution that would be emitted from the site would not significant enough to cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents.
In addition issued of noise pollution are controlled via Environmental Health Legislation. The development will set a It is important to note that each precedent for development application is assessed on its owns
Page 257 for back gardens in the merits. The existing pattern of vicinity. development within the surrounding area does add to the character of the area. However it is not considered that this would be a bad precedent for future development. Detrimental impact on Sunlight/Daylight – The applicant amenity of neighbouring has provided a daylight and sunlight residents assessment which demonstrates that the proposed development would not impact on the levels of sunlight or daylight received into any of the neighbouring properties. There would be a slight impact to the overshadowing received by the garden of No.119 however this would be minimal and would not impact on the amenity of the occupiers of this property.
Outlook – In respect of the neighbouring properties on Bedford Road, the proposed dwelling would be sited some 11.5m from the rear of No.121 which is the closest property, given it would measure 3m in height from ground level, it is considered that the revised application would not cause detrimental harm to the outlook enjoyed and the sense of enclosure experienced by the properties along Bedford Road. With respect of the neighbouring on Hetherington Road, the development would be sited some 24m from the rear of these properties and as such would not cause harm to their outlook.
Privacy/Overlooking - The proposed development would rise only a single storey above ground level with windows located to the east, south and west elevations. The windows located to the south elevation are for visual amenity purposes and would be obscure glazed, as such these windows would not cause harm to the privacy enjoyed by neighbouring properties along Bedford Road(No.123 and southbound).
All windows to the proposed dwelling would be at ground or basement
Page 258 levels and as such would be separated from neighbouring residents by boundary treatments 2.15m in height, as such the development would not impact on the privacy enjoyed by neighbouring residents. Proposal will disrupt the The proposed development would rear garden areas of the impact on the character of the area, terrace. building upon a plot of land where there is an existing outbuilding. However it is considered that due to the proposed scale of the development it would not cause detrimental harm to the character of the surrounding area to an extent that would warrant a refusal of planning permission. Privacy of future occupier The siting of the proposed of the dwelling would be fenestration would not lead to the poor. future occupiers of the unit being easily overlooked. The windows to the eastern elevation would face onto the proposed garden which would be bounded to the rear by the existing allotments and sited some 24m from the rear of the neighbouring properties along Hetherington Road. As the windows to the southern elevation would be obscure glazed they would not provide an opportunity to look into the proposed dwelling. In terms of the windows to the western elevation given these would be at ground floor level and some 11.5m from the rear of No.121 it is considered they would not provide a significant opportunity to overlook this property from the existing neighbouring properties. Policy contravenes Policy Policy 36 is not relevant to this 36 as it will occupy an application it relates to alterations extensive portion of the and extensions to existing buildings rear garden. and not to new build development. Decrease the value of This is not a material planning neighbouring properties. consideration.
5.3. The following Council departments and statutory bodies were also consulted on the proposed scheme and their responses are summarised as follows:
Conservation and Design – Raised concerns in respect of siting, fenestration, render material amendments have been sought to address
Page 259 concerns of fenestration, other points will be explained within the design and conservation section of the report; Transport and Highways – No objection subject to conditions on cycle parking and provision of a Construction Management Plan; Crime Prevention – No objection; Planning Policy – Made no comment on the application
5.4. The Council’s Value Asset Management Services have objected to the proposal as the existing access way is unsuitable for construction traffic and deliveries as it is likely to impede the use of the access way by the licensees of the allotments during the construction period and the access way is too narrow to be accessed by the emergency services.
5.5. Thames Water have commented on the application and raise no objection, they have requested an informative is placed on the decision notice should planning permission be approved.
6. Planning Considerations
6.1. Relevant Policies
6.1.1. The following national guidance is considered relevant to the determination of this application:
National Planning Policy Framework
6.1.2. London Plan 2011
Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing development Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage Policy 5.17 Waste Capacity Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.3 Designing out crime Policy 7.4 Local Character
6.1.3. Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)
Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 Housing Policy S4 Transport Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment
6.1.4. The Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy January 2011)
Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9 Transport Impact Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint
Page 260 Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32 Designing out Crime Policy 33 Building Scale and Design Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/ Mixed use Areas
6.1.5. The following of the Local Planning Authority’s Supplementary Planning Documents are relevant:
Housing Development and House Conversions (adopted July 2008) Safer Built Environments (adopted April 2008) Sustainable Design and Construction (adopted July 2008)
6.2. Land Use
6.2.1. The key objective of the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) is to a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The core planning principles of the NPPF include the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided it is not of high environmental value.
6.2.2. Policy S2 of the Lambeth Core Strategy states that the Council will meet the borough’s housing need by the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/11 and 2016/17. This constitutes the Council’s contribution to meeting the Mayor’s minimum target for housing provision of 30,500 additional homes per year (London Plan Policy 3A.1 Increasing London's supply of housing). Policy S2 (d) seeks to secure a mix of housing sizes and types in order to meet the needs of the whole community.
6.2.3. It is important to note that within the previous application no reason for refusal was raised with regard to land use issues, in light of this it would be unreasonable for the Council to now refuse the application on this basis.
6.2.4. In land use terms the existing use of the site is that of C3 as it would have been used in association with the residential dwelling 121 Bedford Road, the proposed development would not alter this use. As such there would be no objections to the development on land use grounds.
6.2.5. Planning history of the property shows planning permission was granted in 1982 for the conversion of the property into three flats. It is unknown when this permission was implemented, however reviewing Council Tax records on the Valuation Officer Agency website, it is apparent that the units within the building have been paying Council Tax since at least 1993. It is evident from comments received from local residents that when the property was converted the application site was kept separate from the main dwelling and not associated with the converted flats and was sold on separately at a later date. As such it has not been in use as a garden area for some time.
Page 261
6.2.6. Whilst there is a presumption of a continued residential use on the site, the principle of intensifying the residential use of the site is dependent on the suitability of the residential environment for existing and future residents. The assessment that follows demonstrates that the proposed use of the land is acceptable on amenity and design grounds and does not constitute inappropriate overdevelopment.
6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations
6.3.1. Policy S9 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2011) states that the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the building environment by seeking the highest quality of design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions. Policies 33 and 38 of the UDP seek to ensure that new developments are of a high standard of design and layout and take into account the height, bulk, scale, materials, colour, character and amenities of the area.
6.3.2. Saved UDP Policy 33 seeks to ensure that buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that are appropriate to their site characteristics, setting and location in the townscape. Saved Policy 38 outlines that backland development should pay special regard to the density and height of the proposal ensuring it is subordinate to the frontage house.
6.3.3. The proposed building would be single storey above ground level in comparison to the properties along Bedford Road which are up to three storeys above ground level. Furthermore the footprint of the proposed dwelling would be much less than the footprint of the existing dwellings on Bedford Road. As such it is considered the proposed dwelling would appear subordinate in the context of the frontage housing.
6.3.4. The application was referred to the Council’s Urban Design officer who welcomes the reduced scale of the development, from the previously submitted application which was, 2 storeys above ground level. The proposal has also seen a reduction in the footprint of the building to reduced the site coverage of the dwelling. As such the reduced scale and footprint has overcome these aspects of the previous reason for refusal.
6.3.5. The Council’s Urban Design officer raised concern with respect of the siting of the dwelling, which it has been suggested should be sited more towards the eastern boundary of the site. However the applicant has explained that it has been sited in this area due to the amenity space to the rear garden of No.119 which have an existing outdoor amenity area. The applicant has also stated that they have taken into account development within the surrounding area including the new building to the rear of No.133 Bedford Road and an extension to No.115 Bedford Road which are located to the western perimeters of the sites. It is considered that the proposed siting of the dwelling would not cause significant harm to the character of the surrounding area and would given its single storey above ground level not significantly harm the visual amenity
Page 262 of the area anymore than existing development in back land areas within the vicinity.
6.3.6. Concern was raised by the Council with regard to the proposed fenestration, which when the application was original submitted has little relationship and consistency. In light of this an amendment was sought to reconfigure the fenestration and include the installation of some windows to the southern elevation so as not to read as a blank rendered wall. The revised plans have been re-consulted on and reviewed from the Council’s Urban Design officer who has not raised objection to the revised fenestrational detailing.
6.3.7. The Council’s Urban Design officer suggested it may be preferred if the dwelling were constructed with stock brick as oppose to render. Within dialogue with the applicant they have stated that render is in existence to the basement and ground floor level of properties within Bedford Road and would be the preferred material. It is considered that while the majority of the buildings within the vicinity are constructed with stock brick, render is in existence being present at a building located to the rear of No.133 Bedford Road and also being used to properties within Bedford Road, as such it would not appear as an incongruous material, but would in part appear contrasting to the existing brick built dwellings.
6.3.8. The previous application proposed the dwelling would be clad in timber, in light of this the use of render is considered a more appropriate material. Therefore it is considered the development would overcome this aspect of the previous reason for refusal.
6.3.9. The previous application was also refused in part on the basis that the boxed appearance of the dwelling would appear incongruous in the backland garden setting and as a result harm the visual amenity of the surrounding area. Given the proposed dwelling has been reduced from two storeys in height to a single storey above ground level with a basement level and the footprint of the dwelling has been reduced, the application has overcome this aspect of the previous reason for refusal. It is considered that the revised application would not cause significant harm to the visual amenity of the area given its single storey height.
6.3.10. In light of the above, it is considered that the revised application has overcome the previous reason for refusal with respect of development and would now constitute an acceptable form of development within this backland location.
6.4. Amenity Impact
6.4.1. Saved UDP Policy 33 seeks to ensure that development protects the residential amenity of existing and future occupiers by having an acceptable standard of privacy, and an acceptable impact on levels of daylight and sunlight. The development should also not create unacceptable overlooking nor should it create an undue sense of enclosure. Policy 38 also states that where backland
Page 263 development is proposed regard will be paid to the privacy and outlook from existing dwelling and, in particular gardens.
Quality of Residential Accommodation
6.4.2. Saved UDP Policy 33 sets out that the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of new residential development will be achieved by an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land that meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document entitled Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions, sets out standards aimed at securing an appropriate standard of living accommodation for existing and future residents.
6.4.3. All rooms exceed the minimum room size requirements outlined in Figure 2 of the above SPD. Furthermore the overall dwelling would far exceed the minimum size requirement for a 2 bedroom 3 person unit, which is set at 60m squared and the proposed dwelling would have an internal floorspace of 100.47m squared.
6.4.4. The SPD also states that all habitable rooms should have a minimum floor to ceiling height of at least 2.3 metres. This would be exceeded throughout the development and thus acceptable in this respect.
6.4.5. For a proposed new dwelling a minimum garden space of 30 sq. metres is required as noted within the above SPD. The application proposed a new garden area to the east of the application site at ground floor level which would measure 28.91m squared at basement level there would be a patio to the east and west elevations and would equate to 21.14m squared. As such the total outdoor amenity space would equate to 50.05m squared which would be acceptable in accordance with the above SPD.
6.4.6. Saved UDP Policy 33 (d), seeks that new development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents. With respect of outlook, to the ground floor level it is considered there would be sufficient openings within the eastern and western elevations to ensure the future occupiers of the unit received an acceptable level of outlook. There would be windows to the southern elevation however these would be obscure glazed and as such would provide almost no outlook. To the basement level would be bedrooms and shower rooms/bathrooms, the fenestration to the basement level would look out to the proposed patio areas at basement level and are considered acceptable in respect of the use of the rooms to the basement level. When considering the unit as a whole it is considered that the future occupiers of the dwelling would achieve an acceptable level of outlook as not to cause harm to their amenity.
6.4.7. With regard to privacy, it is considered that the siting of the proposed fenestration would not lead to the future occupiers of the unit being easily overlooked. The windows to the eastern elevation would face onto the proposed garden which would be bounded to the rear by the existing allotments and sited some 24m from the
Page 264 rear of the neighbouring properties along Hetherington Road. As the windows to the southern elevation would be obscure glazed they would not provide an opportunity to look into the proposed dwelling. In terms of the windows to the western elevation given these would be at ground floor level and some 11.5m from the rear of No.121 it is considered they would not provide a significant opportunity to overlook this property from the existing neighbouring properties.
6.4.8. The applicant has provided the Council with a Daylight and Sunlight assessment, within which it has been demonstrated that the all the rooms in the proposed dwelling would achieve a minimum of 2.3% average daylight factor (ADF) which is considered acceptable.
6.4.9. In terms of sunlight, the report concludes that the dwelling would be adequately sunlit in accordance with the requirements of the BRE report.
6.4.10. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan.
Privacy and Overlooking
6.4.11. The proposed development would rise only a single storey above ground level with windows located to the east, south and west elevations. The windows located to the south elevation are for visual amenity purposes and would be obscure glazed, as such these windows would not cause harm to the privacy enjoyed by neighbouring properties along Bedford Road.
6.4.12. In respect of the windows to the east elevation these would face onto the proposed garden of the site and eastern boundary wall, they would be sited some 24m from the rear of the properties along Hetherington Road at ground floor level. Therefore these windows would not provide an opportunity to overlook these neighbouring residents, furthermore the application site and the properties on Hetherington Road are separated by the existing allotments which would prohibit overlooking from the proposed dwelling to the properties along Hetherington Road.
6.4.13. In regard to the windows to the western elevation which would also be a ground floor level, given these would be separated by the neighbouring 121 Bedford Road by a boundary wall measuring 2.15m in height it is considered that these would not provide an opportunity to overlook the neighbouring residents.
6.4.14. Neighbours have raised concern with regard to the potential to use the flat roof of the proposed dwelling as a roof terrace. It is agreed that there is the potential for this to happen, however to prohibit this a condition is recommended to prevent the use of the flat roof as an outdoor amenity area in the interests of protecting the neighbouring residents amenity.
Page 265 6.4.15. In of light of the above, it is considered that given the reduced height of the revised application and the reposition of the windows, the revised application has made sufficient amendment as not to impact on the privacy enjoyed by neighbouring residents or lead to them being overlooked by the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. As such the applicant has made sufficient amendment to ensure the development would overcome the previous reason for refusal which related to windows at first floor level, which would no longer exist within the revised application.
Daylight and Sunlight
6.4.16. One of the previous reasons for refusal was based on the applicant failing to demonstrate that the development would not cause harm to the daylight and sunlight received to windows within the neighbouring properties at No.121 Bedford Road. Within the revised application, the applicant has provided a Daylight and Sunlight report.
6.4.17. Within the report, it has been demonstrated that the proposed dwelling would result in the occupiers of No.121 Bedford Road retaining a good level of daylight and sunlight. The calculations used within the report are based on the BRE guidelines.
6.4.18. In respect of the overshadowing experienced within the gardens of neighbouring properties, within the daylight and sunlight assessment it has been demonstrated that the rear garden of No.121 Bedford Road would be unaffected by the proposed development, as would the rear garden of No.123 given its siting to the south of the application site. In respect of No.119, this property would receive a slight increase of overshadowing to the rear garden which does not currently exist, however please note is does not impact on any of the rooms within No.119. It is considered that the impact on the garden would be minor and would not cause significant harm to the amenity of the occupiers of this neighbouring property.
6.4.19. In respect of the overshadowing of the allotments and properties along Hetherington Road, the daylight and sunlight assessment concludes that the proposals would increase the level of sunlight received into the allotments as the development would see a reduction in the height of the boundary wall which currently casts a shadow over the allotments during the afternoon, however the proposal would see the shadows shorten therefore increasing the sunlight to allotments.
6.4.20. It is therefore considered that the applicant has now provided sufficient information for the Council to determine that the development would not have a detrimental impact on the level of sunlight or daylight received by the neighbouring properties. As such the proposal would overcome the previous reason for refusal and would not cause detrimental harm to the sunlight or daylight received by the neighbouring properties.
Page 266 Outlook and Sense of Enclosure
6.4.21. In respect of the neighbouring properties on Bedford Road, the proposed dwelling would be sited some 11.5m from the rear of No.121 which is the closest property, given it would measure 3m in height from ground level, it is considered that the revised application would not cause detrimental harm to the outlook enjoyed and the sense of enclosure experienced by the properties along Bedford Road.
6.4.22. With regard to the neighbours to the east of the application site along Hetherington Road, the proposed dwelling would be sited some 24m from the rear of these properties and be separated from these by the existing allotments. It is considered that at 3m in height the scale of the proposal and its siting in relation to these dwellings would not cause harm to the outlook enjoyed of the sense of enclosure experienced to the residents along Hetherington Road.
6.4.23. It is therefore considered that the revised application has made sufficient amendment to no longer cause harm to the sense of enclosure experienced by the residents along Bedford Road which previously formed a reason for refusal.
Loss of Residential Amenity Space
6.4.24. The proposed development would not result in the loss of amenity space which is currently used by existing residential properties, as explained in the land use section above.
Conclusion
6.4.25. To summarise, it is considered that the revised application has made sufficient amendments to overcome the previous reasons for refusal and would not cause significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties in respect of sunlight, daylight, outlook, sense of enclosure or privacy and would therefore accord with the relevant policies of the development plan.
6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues
6.5.1. Saved UDP Policy 9 sets out a requirement for all applications to be assessed for their transport impact upon highway safety; the environment and the road network; and all transport modes. Saved UDP Policy 14 relates to parking and traffic restraint. Policy S4 of the Lambeth LDF Core Strategy relates to Transport issues. The policy seeks to minimise the need to travel and reduce reliance on the private car.
6.5.2. The application site is located to the rear of the rear garden of 121A Bedford Road and is sited before an allotment site. There is an existing access road which provides access to the allotments and at some point did provide access to a rear garden in the rear garden of No.123 Bedford Road, however this access has since been covered with a timber fence, but should this be removed it would be possible to access this property via this route.
Page 267
6.5.3. The application site is ideally located for public and sustainable transport and is contained with CPZ B. The PTAL score for the site is 6a, which indicates an excellent provision of public transport, the site is located close to a bus stop on Bedford Road and the Clapham North Underground Station. It is important to note that no parking is permitted on Bedford Road itself for most of the day and any vehicles that do need to park on-street would have to park on one of the neighbouring side streets.
6.5.4. The Council’s Transport Planner was consulted on the proposed development and considered that such a development would likely generate one car which could be accommodated within the existing highway network.
6.5.5. On initial consultation the Council’s Transport Planner sought clarification as to if the existing crossover would be retained to provide on site parking. It was confirmed by the application that the dropped kerb would be retained as they don’t own the allotment to the rear and as such can’t alter the kerb, the road will only be used for access purposes. Following this the Council’s Transport Planner confirmed that the application would not need to remove the crossover.
6.5.6. In respect of cycle parking, it is proposed to locate the cycle parking adjacent to the refused storage to the eastern elevation of the property at ground floor level, this would be accessed from the access road to the front of the house. The proposals provide for 2 cycle spaces which is considered sufficient for a development of this scale. Little detail has been provided in respect of the cycle storage itself as such should planning permission be approved a condition is recommended requesting further details of the proposed cycle storage.
6.5.7. Concern has been raised by neighbouring residents in respect of the ownership and access rights to the access road which lies adjacent to the application site. It is understood from the Council’s Valuation and Asset Management Service that they do not own the access road but do own the allotments to the rear of the site and have rights along the passage way. The proposed development would be confined within the site are outlined on Drawing Ref:LAM/626/PL/03 and would not involve building onto the access road, as such it would not prohibit access to the rear allotments. Furthermore issues of land ownership and access rights are civil matters and not within the remit of planning legislation. Such disputes would have to be resolved in a civil manner.
6.5.8. Some neighbours have objected to the proposals on the grounds that the access way is too narrow for construction vehicles to access the site during the building works and that there would not be sufficient space for a skip to be located. In light of this it is recommended that a condition is imposed on the application should it be given planning permission requesting the applicant to provide a Construction Management Plan which would outline how they proposed to build the development within the constraints of
Page 268 the site, the Council’s Transport Planner has agreed this would be appropriate for this application.
6.5.9. A number of neighbours have also objected to the development on the grounds that the access road which leads to the proposed dwelling would not be wide enough for emergency services to access the site. The access road measures 2.9m wide. This point has been referred to the Council’s Transport Planner who advised that the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) Guidance Note 29 suggests that an access road should be at least 3.7m wide to allow for their tenders to access a site, however this wouldn’t warrant a reason for refusal on this basis. Should emergency services need to access the site, there is the facility for them to park on Bedford Road and access the site from there.
6.5.10. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would accord with the objectives of the relevant policies and would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding transport network.
6.6. Designing Out Crime
6.6.1. Policy 32 of the UDP sets out that development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.
6.6.2. The application has been referred to the Council’s Crime Prevention officer who has not raised objection to the development subject to it meeting the Secure by Design minimum standards where possible, a condition is recommended requesting the applicant to provide a Crime Prevention Strategy which would outline how they intend to meet the Secure by Design standards.
6.6.3. It is considered that the proposed development would not increase the opportunity for crime within the locality of the site, it would not impact on the access to neighbouring properties for potential criminals.
6.6.4. A number of neighbouring residents have raised concern in respect of the removal of the existing access gates to the access road due to the security implications. The proposed development does not include the removal of the existing access gates onto the access road to the south of the application site.
6.6.5. Within the Design and Access Statement the applicant has stated that ideally they would be removed to allow easy access however she is willing to take into account the safety concerns of the neighbouring property and is willing to compromise.
6.6.6. To address the concerns of the neighbours, an informative is recommended which would advise the applicant that should they want to replace the existing access gates they would be required to apply for planning permission.
6.6.7. In light of the above it is considered that the development would not increase the opportunity for crime within the locality of the site.
Page 269
6.7. Refuse Storage
6.7.1. Policy S8 of the LDF Core Strategy relates to dealing with waste sustainably. The applicant has shown the siting of the refuse and recycling store for the proposed dwelling, these would be located to the western elevation, adjacent to the boundary with the rear garden of No.121A Bedford Road. It is considered that the area would be large enough to stow two single wheelie bins, further details of an enclosure could be secured by a condition should planning permission be forthcoming.
6.7.2. Within the previous application concern was raised in respect of the location of the refuse storage as this would have been to the front of the cycle store which would mean the bins would need to be moved to access the cycle storage, which would be undesirable. Within the revised scheme the refuse and cycle storage are alongside each other, allowing each to be accessed without affecting the other.
6.7.3. In light of the above, no objection is raised to the proposed refuse storage, however should planning permission be granted a condition is recommended requesting further details of the proposed storage unit.
6.8. Sustainability
6.8.1. Policy 35 of the UDP sets out that all development proposals should show how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. The Council’s SPD on Sustainable Design and Construction sets out that all residential development proposals should achieve a minimum 3 star rating under BREEAM Code for Sustainable Homes, albeit that the LPA aspires to code level 4 or more in the majority of developments.
6.8.2. During the course of the application, the applicant provided a report on the code for sustainable homes pre-assessment within which it is explained how the proposed dwelling would meet Code level 4.
6.8.3. In this instance, subject to a condition on sustainable design and construction it is considered that the proposal need not conflict with saved UDP Policy 35.
7. Conclusion
7.1. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of land use, design, residential amenity, community safety and transport and highways implications and would comply with the relevant policies of the Lambeth Development Plan.
7.2. The application site was visited by the case officer and the aims and objectives of the UDP policies, national and regional planning guidance
Page 270 and relevant planning history were taken into account in the assessment of the proposal.
7.3. In light of the above it is considered that conditional planning permission be granted.
8. Recommendation
8.1. Recommend planning permission subject to conditions
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies were relevant:
Lambeth Core Strategy (2011)
Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 Housing Policy S4 Transport Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment
The Unitary Development Plan 2007 (Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy January 2011)
Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9 Transport Impact Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32 Designing out Crime Policy 33 Building Scale and Design Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/ Mixed use Areas
Conditions
1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this decision notice.
Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved plans.
Page 271 3 Prior to the occupation of the new residential unit hereby permitted, detailed drawings of the provision to be made for waste and recycling storage including elevational treatment and materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The waste and recycling storage shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the residential unit hereby permitted is occupied and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.
Reason: To encourage the sustainable management of waste and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area. (Policies 33 and 38 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policies S8 and S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
4 All windows and doors of the development hereby permitted shall be timber, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area. (Policy 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
5 The dwelling hereby permitted shall achieve a minimum of Level 3 of the BREEAM Code for Sustainable Homes or subsequent superseding equivalent BREEAM scheme. The dwelling shall not be occupied until a final certificate of compliance has been issued certifying that Level 3 has been achieved.
Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S7 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
6 Prior to the installation of the green roof, a detailed specification of the green roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all elements of the green roof, together with an indication of their anticipated routine maintenance and protection. The green roof shall thereafter be installed solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area. (Policies 33 and 38 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
7 If within a period of five years following the installation or substantial completion of the green roof any planting forming part of the green roof shall die, be removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, this planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with planting of a similar size and species, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area. (Policies 33 and 38 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved
Page 272 beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policy S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011))
8 The flat roof area over the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, terrace, sitting out or other amenity area.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies 33 and 38 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011).
9 Prior to the commencement of works hereby permitted a Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway in accordance with Policies 9 and 14 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011.
10 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, a Crime Prevention Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Crime Prevention Strategy shall outline how the development would accord with the secure by design standards. The development shall then be provided in accordance with the approved details before the building hereby permitted is occupied and shall thereafter be retained as such.
Reason: In the interests of safeguarding community safety in accordance with Policy 32, of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011.
INFORMATIVES - PLANNING
1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.
3 Your attention is drawn to the 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.
4 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.
5 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the
Page 273 Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
6 It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.
7 You are minded that the hereby approved application does not include the removal of the existing access gates on the access road from Bedford Road, should you wish to replace these gates it is likely this would require a further submission of planning permission.
8 With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
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.
Page 274