Rebuttal Evidence Robert Fourt Bsc (Hons) Msc FRICS

PINS Reference APP/V5570/A/14/2227656

Rebuttal Evidence Robert Fourt BSc (Hons) MSc FRICS

Land at: Former Territorial Army Centre 65-69 Parkhurst Road, London, N7

London Borough of Islington

On behalf of: Parkhurst Road Limited

In response to Proof of Evidence for Public Inquiry Commencing on 14 July 2015 prepared by Andrew Jones BSc MRICS

July 2015

72 Welbeck Street London W1G 0AY Tel. +44 (0)20 7493 3338 © copyright reserved 2015 Gerald Eve LLP www.geraldeve.com

Contents Page

1 Introduction 3 2 Determining Site Value 4 3 Approach to affordable housing 11 4 RICS Knowledge Provision 12 5 Other Issues 13 6 Statement of Truth and Declaration 16

Appendix 1 – RICS Valuation Information Paper 12

Appendix 2 – King Street Appeal Decision

Appendix 3 – Factors determining Site Value

Appendix 4 – Savills Planning Note on AMR Data

Appendix 5 – Urban Land Prices under Uncertainty by Sheridan Titman (Paper from The American Economic Review - June 1985)

Appendix 6 – RICS Knowledge Provision Definitions

Appendix 7 – RICS Guidance Note – Valuation of individual new-build homes

Appendix 8 – Officers Report to Development Control Committee in respect of 32 Lawn Road

1 Introduction

1.1 I have been provided with the Proof of Evidence prepared by Andrew Jones BSc MRICS on behalf of London Borough of Islington, concerning affordable housing and financial viability matters by Parkhurst Road Limited.

1.2 I have been instructed to provide a response to Mr Jones’ Proof of Evidence. I refer in certain instances to my Proof of Evidence dated June 2015.

1.3 I set out my response under the following sections:

2. Determining Site Value;

3. Approach to affordable housing;

4. RICS Knowledge Provision;

5. Other Issues; and

6. Statement of Truth and Declaration.

1.4 Where I do not provide any specific comment in respect of any of the statements made by Mr Jones in his report it should not be taken that I agree or disagree with what has been said.

2 Determining Site Value

Residual Approach

2.1 Mr Jones does not appear to have arrived at an opinion of Site Value, but has instead used the residual appraisal approach (adopting my inputs and the Appeal Scheme) to suggest that the Site Value should be no more than £7.8 million. The approach Mr Jones adopts is first introduced at para 3.14 and referred to as a ‘Site Specific Residual Appraisal’. Mr Jones does not come to a conclusion on a suitable benchmark but simply uses the residual appraisals to generate a wide range of Site Value outputs, ranging from £3.8 million to £7.8 million (a range of 105%).

2.2 I note in following this approach that the inputs to Mr Jones’ appraisal are based on the inputs of my June 2014 FVA and the Appeal Scheme, Mr Jones does not independently test the Site Values he derives in order to assess whether they provide a competitive return to the willing seller.

2.3 The RICS Guidance Note ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ (RICS GN) outlines that residual appraisals are used to compare the output (either a residual value or a return) against a benchmark as opposed to informing an input (in this case Site Value). This is also consistent with Valuation Information Paper 12 produced by the RICS in respect of the valuation of development land which I attach as Appendix 1.

2.4 A central tenet of government policy and the RICS GN is that the determination of Site Value is separate from and different to the assessment of a specific scheme: “The guidance note separates the two key components of development: land delivery and viable development. This is in accordance with the NPPF” (RICS GN, p4). Mr Jones has intrinsically linked

these two components. This is an error of approach.

Appeal Decisions

2.5 At para 3.15 Mr Jones justifies the use of the residual method by reference to historic appeal decisions (paras 2.39 – 2.46). I note that the extracts Mr Jones quotes are from historic appeal decisions, which pre-date the NPPF, PPG and RICS GN.

2.6 A more recent (2014) appeal decision at King Street (APP/H5390/A/13/2209347) attached at Appendix 2, rejects using the residual appraisal method. In addition a landowner would not be incentivised to release their land for housing development given the market signals based on transactions elsewhere and upon the offers received for the appeal site. The Inspector in respect of the King Street appeal concludes that the residual approach for Site Value determination is limited and significantly out of kilter with other evidence provided, including valuations and offers for the site.

Interpretation of the PPG

2.7 I note at para 2.6 Mr Jones’ interpretation of the PPG on viability and decision making, in relation to land value (paragraph 023) focuses on the need to reflect policy requirements and planning obligations without proper consideration given to the other two factors in the PPG i.e. providing a competitive return and being informed by comparable and market-based evidence. This is set out at paragraph 7.17 of my evidence.

2.8 In relation to the third factor, Mr Jones has not presented any independent market-based evidence to inform his opinion of Site Value at all.

Market Evidence

2.9 At para 1.9 Mr Jones states that “there is no basis for a developer acting reasonably and in full knowledge of the relevant policy and guidance to offer in excess of £7,800,000 for this Site”. I disagree with this statement, given a variety of market evidence to the contrary including:

• comparable land transactions;

• an independent valuation of the Site;

• an unconditional offer for the Site from a reputable developer active in the area; and

• other bids that were received by the MoD when the Site was marketed for sale.

2.10 Mr Jones has not had regard to any “comparable, market based evidence as stated at para 2.6” in support of his assessment of Site Value, which is contrary to PPG and RICS GN. Indeed even applying Mr Jones’ singular residual approach different inputs could lead to a higher Site Value.

2.11 At para 3.51 Mr Jones states that “Gerald Eve sought in both its submissions to justify their assessment of Site Value solely by reference to limited analysis of other property transactions”. This is incorrect for the reasons given above and also contradicts Mr Jones’ at para 3.39 which states that I have also had regard to purchase price. Further to this my Proof of Evidence now also includes two additional elements; a third party valuation and an offer recently received for the site from a major housebuilder.

Factors influencing the determination of Site Value

2.12 Mr Jones’ proof of evidence focuses on the impact of affordable housing levels on Site Value yet ignores the much broader range of considerations taken into account by the

market in order to ensure a competitive return to a willing seller of land. I set out in Appendix 3 the factors, which a willing seller would take into account. This should not be viewed as an exhaustive list, but is indicative of the variety of factors that when considered as a whole will influence the level of Site Value.

Hierarchy of Comparable Evidence

2.13 There are key similarities between the residential development land and the residential property markets, in particular the new-build market. The RICS have produced a Guidance Note on the Valuation of individual new-build homes (2009, 2nd edition) provided at Appendix 4; Section 9 of this document provides guidance on the weighting to be applied to market evidence. It is stated at paragraph 9.4.2 that “a hierarchy of evidence should be applied when weighting the evidence” and sets out a typical hierarchy representing “an acceptable ranking when faced with a wide range of evidence:

• completed transactions of identical property for which full, accurate and verifiable information is available;

• completed transactions of similar property for which full, accurate and verifiable information is available, including from the resale market;

• completed transactions of similar property for which full data may not be available, but from which some reasonably reliable data may be obtained, including the resale market;

• verifiable information from public sources and the media;

• information from incomplete (but agreed) or unverifiable transactions of similar property

• asking prices;

• indices and other information derived from an automated valuation model (AVM).”

2.14 It can be noted from the above that information derived from an automated valuation models, such as Argus Developer or Argus Valuation is considered to be at the bottom of the typical hierarchy of evidence, ranked below comparable transactions including those that are unverifiable. Notwithstanding this Mr Jones has used an automated valuation model as the sole method of determining Site Value and has inferred this is more appropriate than comparable transactional and other evidence.

Gerald Eve Approach

2.15 At para 3.39 Mr Jones States that the December 2013 FVA Site Value of £13 million was “effectively reflecting the purchase price paid by the Appellant of £13.25m”. This is incorrect as the Site Value adopted reflects a range of evidence, including land transactions, the purchase price, under-bids received, the Market Value of the Site in its current use and the public sector approach to valuing underutilised sites and best consideration.

2.16 At para 3.43, in relation to our June 2014 FVA, Mr Jones states that “Gerald Eve effectively argues that their analysis of other site sales is the sole determinant of land value”. This is also incorrect for the reasons outlined above.

2.17 At para 3.72 Mr Jones states that the “conclusions drawn by Gerald Eve appear to be subjective and do not in my opinion provide a reliable basis from which to establish an accurate view of land value. At best they provide a rough price guide by establishing some very wide site value parameters”. Firstly, I do not agree with statement for the reasons set out above. Secondly, with regard to the comment about “very wide site value parameters”, Mr Jones’ February 2014 report suggests a Site Value of £2.8 million, whereas Mr Jones’ latest

Proof suggests a maximum Site Value of £7.8 million. This is a range of £5 million or an increase of 179%. I have been consistent in my approach to Site Value throughout, with only £0.26 million difference between the Site Value figures that have been provided which equates to a variance of just 2%.

2.18 I agree with Mr Jones’ statement at para 3.73 which states that a variety of methods should be used to establish Site Value. This is consistent with the RICS GN and RICS Valuation Information Paper 12. Whilst Mr Jones advocates this approach he himself has not adopted it in his evidence, instead relying solely on the residual approach using the inputs of my June 2014 FVA.

2.19 In accordance with Mr Jones’ statement at para 3.73 and both government policy and RICS GN, I rely upon a variety of evidence to determine an appropriate benchmark including purchase price, competing bids, a third party valuation, comparable evidence and a recent offer for the Site.

Land owner optionality (i.e. option, hold, sell or develop)

2.20 Finally Mr Jones in his evidence ignores the inherent optionality of owning land and continuing to do so and not releasing for development. In essence the landowner will only deliver a site to the market when they consider the market will pay a competitive return. That in turn will be influenced by the market cycle, maximisation of the site’s potential and by reference to transactions elsewhere.

2.21 The option to defer a scheme has value where the optimal time for executing the development may not be at the present time. Development can therefore be postponed to some point into the future when it can either be implemented or

abandoned (through disposal of the asset). I attach as Appendix 5 a seminal academic paper from 1985 by Sheridan Titman where he states:

“The fact that investors choose to keep valuable land vacant or under-utilised for prolonged periods of time suggests that the land is more valuable as a potential site for development in the future than it is as a site for constructing any particular building at the present time…However valuing vacant land as a potential building site is not as straightforward (as at current time) since the type of building that will eventually be built on the land, as well as the future real estate prices are uncertain”

2.22 An investor (developer) who defers investment in developing a site or landowner holding a site is seeking to maximise the opportunity to construct at the most appropriate time subject to economic and other factors. Building now may not capture future changes and therefore optimise the investment opportunity or value (competitive return to a willing seller) in delivering the site to the market.

2.23 The RICS GN fully reflects this optionality for the willing seller of land in terms of alternative uses to that which is current (RICS GN Appendix E: E.1.12 to E.1.13) and the pricing of development land (RICS GN Appendix E: E.1.14) in arriving at Site Value. Site Value in equating to the competitive return for a willing seller of land therefore fully takes account of this inherent optionality to the landowner in order for land to be released and therefore delivered for development.

3 Approach to affordable housing

Islington Annual Monitoring Reports

3.1 At paras 3.23 – 3.32 Mr Jones provides analysis of Islington’s Annual Monitoring Reports on various bases in order to determine a level of affordable housing that should be used to determine Site Value.

3.2 Mr Jones determines that a level of 32% affordable housing is appropriate in order to assess the Site Value, based on the “most recent available figure across all sites”. Whilst I agree that this information could be useful there are a number of flaws with using this approach to determine an appropriate level of affordable housing across sites in Islington, including:

• This information used by Mr Jones is not currently publicly available;

• It is not clear who the developers are and whether they have received any grant funding;

• The location, size, density and type of development is not known; and

• It is based on completions therefore, the permission would have been granted when economic conditions were different and when planning policies were different.

3.3 Further detail is provided in the note prepared by Savills, which is provided at Appendix 6.

4 RICS Knowledge Provision

RICS Research Paper

4.1 At para 2.26 Mr Jones references a research paper, ‘Financial Viability Appraisal in Planning Decisions: Theory and Practice’ published (though not written) by the RICS for discussion. This has subsequently been referred to throughout Mr Jones’ Proof of Evidence. I consider the use of the document, which does not constitute policy or guidance to be misleading.

4.2 This is a paper that has been published for discussion and not written by the RICS; it does not constitute guidance and has not been subject to consultation or peer review. It is essentially an academic piece of work based upon a review of a limited number of planning appeals. I consider little or no weight can be given to this document and therefore the extent to which Mr Jones has referenced this document and the reliance he has placed upon it to discredit the use of purchase price is wholly inappropriate.

4.3 I attach as Appendix 7 the RICS Knowledge Provision Definitions which provides clarity on the hierarchy of RICS Knowledge Provision.

5 Other Issues

Site Specific Circumstances

5.1 Mr Jones states as paras 3.20 – 3.22 “that there are no material factors that would adversely affect the viability of the appeal site”. I have provided a list of site specific factors that impact the Site’s viability at para 9.29 of my proof.

Conditionality of Sale

5.2 Mr Jones at Paras 3.17 – 3.18 notes the conditionality of the sale and the fact that the site remains unsold. I clarify this position in my evidence (para 8.35) and reference should be had to the Howard Kennedy letter, submitted as an exhibit (RF10).

Impact of Proposed Quantum of Site Value

5.3 Mr Jones at paras 3.39 – 3.44 states that the Site Value should reduce in line with the reduction in quantum of the proposed planning application at the Site. Determination of Site Value should however be independent of any specific application scheme as this only provides one option for the Site and in reality the market will come up with a range of options.

Impact of CIL on Site Value

5.4 Mr Jones at paras 3.45 – 3.49 suggests that the Site Value should reflect the introduction of CIL. My opinion of Site Value does implicitly reflect the introduction of CIL, which is balanced against wider market factors and other relevant considerations.

Outturn Sales Values

5.5 At para 3.16 Mr Jones states that “there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the likely outturn sales values where I am of the view there is scope to deliver higher values”. This is already accounted for in my Proof of Evidence through indexing of sales values and sensitivity analysis.

Risk of Section 106 BA

5.6 At para 3.50 Mr Jones highlights the risk of the landowner challenging the level of affordable housing through a Section 106 BA, given the current low level return in the our FVA. I note that the level of return is higher in the latest appraisal (16.5% profit on cost) and sensitivity analysis shows that the target return is potentially achievable.

Use of Land Indices

5.7 At para 3.58 Mr Jones states that the Savills Development Land Index was questioned at appeal with reference to Gun Wharf (Ref: APP/E5900/A/10/2127467). Having read the appeal decision, I agree with the comments made by the Inspector in that the “index provides a useful guide to movements in the market, but does not relate to the specifics of the site”.

Existing Use Value (EUV)

5.8 At paras 3.9 – 3.13 Mr Jones notes that the appeal site’s EUV is very low and that as a consequence this approach it has not been relied upon (para 3.13); however, in later sections of Mr Jones’ evidence the site’s EUV is used as a justification for a Site Value of no more than £7.8 million being appropriate (para 3.32).

Purchase Price

5.9 At paras 3.1 – 3.8 Mr Jones rejects the purchase price as a method for deriving Site Value and he makes no reference to the MoD’s requirement to achieve “best consideration”. I consider Mr Jones’ reasoning for placing “only limited weight” (para 3.7) on the bids received and then subsequently rejecting the whole approach is not justifiable given the nature of the marketing and bid process (openly marketed and by way of competitive tender). It also represents market based evidence (as per PPG) and has been verified by a third party (GVA).

5.10 Mr Jones has accepted the use of purchase price elsewhere, for example at 32 Lawn Road, NW3 2XU in the London Borough of Camden (Application Ref. 2014/6903/P); the Officer’s report which includes BPS redacted report as an appendix is provided at Appendix 7. The site was formally Council land, where the Council were similarly under an obligation to secure best consideration. In this case it follows that Mr Jones should also acknowledge the Ministry of Defence’s statutory duty to achieve best consideration.

Sensitivity Analysis

5.11 Mr Jones does not undertake any sensitivity analysis, which is contrary to the RICS GN, which states that it “is appropriate and strongly recommended…for some form of sensitivity analysis to be undertaken” (para 2.4.3).

6 Statement of Truth and Declaration

Statement of truth

I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this Evidence are within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.

Declaration

I confirm that my Evidence has drawn attention to all material facts which are relevant and have affected my professional opinion.

I confirm that I understand and have complied with my duty as an expert witness which overrides any duty to those instructing or paying me, that I have given my evidence impartially and objectively, and that I will continue to comply with that duty as required.

I confirm that I am not instructed under any conditional or other success-based fee arrangement.

I confirm that I have no conflicts of interest.

I confirm that my proof of evidence complies with the requirements of the RICS – Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, as set down in the RICS practice statement Surveyors acting as expert witnesses.

Appendix 1 – RICS Valuation Information Paper 12

Valuation Information Paper 12

Valuation of development land Valuation Information Paper No. 12

Valuation of development land This Valuation Information Paper is effective from March 2008.

Published by The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Surveyor Court Westwood Business Park Coventry CV4 8JE UK www.ricsbooks.com No responsibility for loss or damage caused to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of the material included in this publication can be accepted by the author, publisher or RICS. ISBN 978 1 84219 401 0

© RICS March 2008. Copyright in all or part of this publication rests with RICS, and save by prior consent of RICS, no part or parts shall be reproduced by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, now known or to be devised.

Typeset in Great Britain by Columns Design Ltd, Reading Valuation Information Papers

This is a Valuation Information Paper. Valuation Information Papers are intended to provide information and to outline current practice for RICS members. The function of this paper is to discuss valuation methodology and the regulatory context and thus give an indication on the approach to issues that may arise in the subject to which it relates. Valuation Information Papers are relevant to professional competence and in order to keep up-to-date valuers should have informed themselves of their content within a reasonable time of their promulgation. No responsibility for loss or damage caused to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of the material included in this publication can be accepted by the author, publisher or RICS.

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 | iii Contents

Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Establishing the facts 3 3. Assessing the development potential 5 4. Valuing by the comparison method 7 5. Valuing by the residual method 8 6. The residual method 9 7. Assessing the land value 16 8. Reporting the valuation 17 9. Conclusion 18

iv | VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 1 Introduction

1.1 A valuation of property that is considered to be suitable for development, or redevelopment, may be required for many reasons. These may include advice on loan security, acquisition, sale, valuation of options, capital taxes, planning purposes and appraisals.

1.2 This Information Paper discusses the approach to the valuation of property where the proposed development is of a cleared, or greenfield site, or the site is to be redeveloped by removing all, or substantially all, of the existing buildings and constructing new buildings. These various scenarios are referred to throughout as ‘development land’.

1.3 This Information Paper does not apply to redevelopment based on a refurbishment of existing buildings, with limited demolition. For instance, the conversion of a multi storey commercial property to residential use where the original structure is retained. It does not specifically relate to valuations for land in the course of development which is covered in UK Appendix 1.2, para. 3.8. However, the principles are similar and this Information Paper may be of assistance in the approach to such valuations.

1.4 Development schemes can vary from single or multiple residential schemes to industrial estates, a shopping centre or a New Town. Although there may be differences between, say, a valuation prepared for a proposed acquisition or sale and an appraisal by a developer in connection with its own business model it is considered that the principles are the same. This Valuation Information Paper deals with the principles underlying the valuation approach.

1.5 There are two approaches to the valuation of development land: + comparison with the sale price of land for comparable development; or + assessment of the value of the scheme as completed and deduction of the costs of development (including developer’s profit) to arrive at the underlying land value. This is known as the residual method. In practice it is likely that a valuation would utilise both approaches, and the degree to which either, or both, are relevant depends upon the nature of the development being considered, and the complexity of the issues.

1.6 Valuation by comparison is essentially objective, in that it is based on an analysis of the price achieved for sites with broadly similar development characteristics. The residual method, in contrast, relies on an approach that is a combination of comparison and cost and it requires the valuer to make a number of assumptions – any of which can affect the outcome in varying degrees.

1.7 The aim of this Information Paper is to assist the valuer in the approach to development land valuations which are site specific and unique. However, these types of valuation can be very complex and relate to specialised markets. Therefore they require a high level of expertise. Valuers are reminded that PS 1.5 (Knowledge and skills) states that they must possess the skills and knowledge to undertake the valuation competently, and recognise that assistance may be needed from other professionals.

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |1 1.8 In accepting instructions the valuer will need to include in the terms of engagement (see PS 2.1) an indication of the large number of matters to be agreed.

1.9 This Information Paper has been written specifically with regard to practice in the United Kingdom. However, members operating in other states may find the process of valuation discussed helpful and capable of adaptation to their local circumstances.

1.10 To reflect the approach to this type of valuation this Information Paper has been divided into the following sections: + Establishing the facts; + Assessing the development potential; + Valuation by the comparison method; + Valuation by the residual method; + The residual method; + Assessing the land value; + Reporting the valuation.

2|VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 2 Establishing the facts

2.1 To judge the certainty of the outcome of the valuation, and the processes involved, it is essential that the valuer has an awareness of the characteristics of the existing site and an adequate knowledge of each of the development components. The level of detail that is appropriate when assessing development potential varies according to the purpose of the valuation. Judgement is required as to what is appropriate in each case.

2.2 The level of information available for a residual valuation is determined by the stage at which the valuation is being prepared. For example, a valuation in advance of an acquisition is based on less certain estimates than if the land has been held whilst planning has been progressed, or the valuation is at a date where the redevelopment has commenced. It may therefore be necessary to review the valuation as more detailed information becomes available. Inspection and site specific information

2.3 Valuers are reminded that sites for potential development may contain many hazards. A guide to personal safety at work, Surveying safely, has been published by RICS and is available from www.rics.org in the knowledge zone.

2.4 Physical inspection of the site, and related enquiries, will reveal site specific information. Such information, either positive or negative, could include the following, which are not intended to be exhaustive or to apply to every case: + extent of the site – in order to ascertain frontage, width and depth, gross and developable areas; + shape of the site and ground contours – ideally in the form of a topographical survey; + history of previous, and risk of future, flooding; + sizes of any existing buildings. Where buildings are to be retained it is recommended that measurements are taken in accordance with the RICS Code of Measuring Practice, available from www.rics.org. + existing building height and that of adjoining properties; + efficiency of existing building(s) (if to be retained); + any matters that may result in excessive abnormal costs (such as constrained site conditions, and poor or limited access), from development and occupational perspectives. + party wall, boundary and rights of light issues; + geotechnical conditions; + evidence of, or potential for, contamination; + availability and capacity of infrastructure (such as roads, public transport, mains drainage, water, gas, electricity and telephony); + evidence of other head or occupational interests in the property, whether actual or implied by law; + physical evidence of the existence of rights of way, easements, encumbrances, overhead power lines, open water courses, mineral workings, tunnels, filling, tipping, etc.;

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |3 + an assumption may be made that the land is owned by the client. Where other ownership arrangements are revealed, for instance in joint ventures, the valuer needs to establish the full details and agree with the client how the valuation is to be reported (see para 8.1); + where there have been preliminary legal investigations, information may be provided by the client concerning details of easements not apparent on inspection (for instance underground utility easements), restrictive covenants, rights of way, rights to light, drainage or support, registered charges, etc.; + the presence of archaeological features. These may be evident, or there may be a high probability of their presence due to the site location (for instance, close to city centres); + evidence of waste management obligations and whether those obligations have been fulfilled; and + water or mineral extraction rights that may be available.

2.5 Existing planning matters The planning regimes in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have differing legislative and regulatory controls. The extent of the enquiries that are necessary and appropriate vary in each case but the following matters may need investigation: + in England and Wales: The Local Development Framework (LDF) and the Regional Spatial Strategy. Also, where a LDF has not been fully implemented the extant Structure Plans, Local Plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance; + in Scotland: Local Development Plans and Strategic Development Plans. Where these have not been developed the extant Structure Plans and local plans are also required; + in Northern Ireland: Area Plans, Regional Development Strategy and Planning Policy Statements; + the existence of a current planning permission. This may be outline or full and may include conditions or reserved matters; + where the permission is time limited it is necessary to establish if it is still valid and, if close to expiry, if a similar permission would be granted again; + regulations that specify the extent to which development of the site might be permissible without the need for a planning application or consent; + the permitted use of existing buildings (if to be retained), or the possibility of identifying an established use; + legally binding agreements that have been, or are to be, documented, in order to secure the grant of planning permission; + any special controls that may apply to the site or buildings included (for example, conservation area designation, green belt, tree preservation orders, listed buildings, etc.); + requirements to protect or enhance environmentally sensitive features such as SSSIs or water courses, and to comply with the relevant environmental protection legislation; and + any requirements for view corridors, sight lines or buffer zones.

4|VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 3 Assessing the development potential

3.1 Where the current permission(s) is not considered to be the optimum permission for which there is a reasonable prospect, having regard to the applicable planning regime, it may be necessary to form a view as to what permission is likely to be obtained and the associated planning agreements that would be required to obtain that consent. This includes consideration of published planning policies recognising that they heavily influence future additions to the supply of particular types of building. Emerging consultative planning policies may also be relevant, including national or regional guidance that may be taken into account when deciding planning applications and, in the longer term, may influence the supply of competing space or otherwise affect the value of the completed scheme.

3.2 An accurate assessment of the form and extent of physical development that can be accommodated on the site is essential having regard to the site characteristics, the characteristics of the surrounding area, and the likelihood of obtaining permission. In more complex cases it is recommended that this assessment is undertaken in consultation with appointed project consultants, such as architects, quantity surveyors, and environmental and planning consultants.

3.3 Matters that may be considered include: + the period estimated to complete the new buildings; + achieving a high efficiency ratio (net internal area expressed as a percentage of the gross external area), which may be affected by car parking standards, without compromising quality; + environmental issues that may have a material bearing on the success of the project (sufficient enquiries need to be made to establish whether the presence of on-site or neighbouring environmental features influence the development process, the density or even the viability of the scheme); + the extent to which the planning system is being used to help deliver climate change obligations. (Some planning authorities employ policies stipulating the minimum amount of energy that must either be produced on-site or else obtained from renewable sources. This may be evidenced by the incorporation of conditions incorporating renewable and/or low carbon measures as standard requirements.)

3.4 Although the valuation is required of the actual site there may be a possibility of increasing the development potential by acquisition of, or merger with, adjacent land. Conversely it may be necessary to acquire adjacent land, or rights over adjacent land, before the proposed development could take place. The likelihood of resolving such matters and whether such matters are to be reflected in the valuation require discussion with the client.

3.5 The valuer needs to liaise closely with both the appropriate planning authorities and the client to ensure that the appraisal reflects fully the various aspects of the proposed development.

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |5 The development programme

3.6 An outline programme may be provided but its achievability needs to be assessed. It might include the following components: + the pre-construction period; – site assembly, obtaining vacant possession, negotiations with adjoining owners, extinguishing easements, or removing restrictive covenants, rights of light etc, negotiating the planning process, agreeing architectural and engineering design and/or solutions, soil investigations, the building contract tender period, etc.; and – negotiating the form, extent and value of the building contract(s), including demolition and any necessary site preparation (it may be appropriate to seek advice from an environmental, quantity or, building surveyor, mechanical engineer or architect); + the principal construction period; – site preparation (certain enabling works may be necessary in complex cases – these may include an archaeological dig, demolition, de-contamination or the provision of infrastructure prior to the main works commencing); and – main build , which may reflect phasing; and + the post-construction period; – usually understood to be the period from completion of the construction contract until one of : the full letting , sale or re-finance of the completed development; and – any defects liability period. Analysing the market

3.7 In considering the development potential it is necessary to establish the potential demand for the optimum alternative forms of development that may be possible. Clearly it would not be appropriate to consider building a high specification office block in an area where there is no, or limited, demand for such a property. Matters to be considered could include, but not exclusively: + an owner occupier’s preferences for particular design features, building layouts and specifications ( that is, the degree of specialisation and its impact on marketability); + investors’ requirements; + the location; + access and the availability of transport routes; + car parking facilities; + amenities attractive to tenants and/or purchasers; + the scale of the development in terms of sale or lettable packages; + the form of the development; and + market supply, including actual or proposed competing developments.

6|VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 4 Valuing by the comparison method

4.1 Valuation by comparison is only reliable if evidence of sales can be found and analysed on a common unit basis, such as site area, developable area or habitable room. Although comparable sales can be analysed in unit terms there are many other factors that determine the price paid and unit comparison may not, in a particular case, be the most significant. Enquiries may also reveal recent marketing, or even transactions, of the site. Even where reliable information is not available the comparison method can provide a useful check of a valuation prepared using the residual method.

4.2 Typically, comparison may be appropriate where there is an active market and a relatively straightforward low density form of development is proposed (for example, if the land is greenfield within a rural economy where infrastructure costs are consistent and not excessive, or small residential developments, and small industrial estates), and it is likely that the density, form and unit cost of the development will be similar. Less frequently, it may be possible to compare larger sites for housing developments on this basis.

4.3 In comparing sites the following factors, which are not exclusive, may be relevant: + values may differ considerably within a small geographical area; + the condition of the site and associated remediation costs are very site specific and could differ significantly between greenfield and brownfield, and between brownfield, sites; + site and construction costs, for example, in terms of infrastructure and service requirements differ; + the type of the development will vary and may reflect a requirement to provide affordable housing. In the case of residential developments the density achieved can also affect the price; + the price may be affected by planning obligations; and + in a rapidly changing market, the date of the sale of the comparable is relevant.

4.4 Generally, high density or complex developments, urban sites and existing buildings with development potential, do not easily lend themselves to valuation by comparison. The differences from site to site (for example in terms of development potential or construction cost) may be sufficient to make the analysis of transactions problematical. The higher the number of variables and adjustments for assumptions the less useful the comparison. Comparison is rarely appropriate where construction has begun.

4.5 Where the comparative method is used it is assumed that the valuer adopts standard valuation techniques. However, some of the elements of a residual valuation may also be relevant to a valuation on this method.

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |7 5 Valuing by the residual method

5.1 Where the nature of the development is such that there are no (or limited) transactions to use for the comparative method, the residual method provides an alternative valuation approach. However, even limited analysis of comparable sales can provide a useful check as to the reasonableness of a residual valuation.

5.2 The residual method requires the input of a large amount of data, which is rarely absolute or precise, coupled with making a large number of assumptions. Small changes in any of the inputs can cumulatively lead to a large change in the land value. Some of these inputs can be assessed with reasonable objectivity, but others present great difficulty. For example, the profit margin, or return required, varies dependent upon whether the client is a developer, a contractor, an owner occupier, an investor or a lender, as well as with the passage of time and the risks associated with the development.

5.3 The client’s instruction may ask for advice taking into account the client’s specific circumstances. For instance, in recommending how much to bid for the purchase of a site based on the construction costs that can be delivered by the client as a contractor. Such opinions may be a calculation of worth (see PS 3.4 and the reporting requirements in the commentary) and will not represent Market Value. For more information about the calculation of worth for assets in general see the RICS Information Paper Calculation of Worth which is available from www.rics.org in the knowledge zone.

8|VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 6 The residual method

6.1 Having established the development potential a residual valuation can be expressed as a simple equation: (value of completed development) – (development costs + developers profit) = land value Each element of this equation is discussed in the following paragraphs. Value of completed development

6.2 The value to be adopted is the Market Value of the proposed development assessed on the special assumption that the development is complete as at the date of valuation in the market conditions prevailing at that date. This is widely referred to as the Gross Development Value (GDV).

6.3 For some developments, particularly residential, the approach may be to adopt the total of the values of the individual properties. In other cases an additional special assumption may be that the completed development is let and income producing rather than available for sale or letting.

6.4 As the GDV does not incorporate an allowance for purchaser’s costs the net proceeds are more often aligned to the Net Development Value, which reflects the transaction costs that would be incurred if the completed development was sold, again, on the date of valuation.

6.5 The finance costs, notional or actual, are included in the residual value calculation and therefore there is no need to adjust the GDV to reflect these. Development costs

Obtaining planning permissions and associated matters

6.6 Where there is no existing planning permission for the project it is necessary to allow for the costs of obtaining that permission. Where the development may be contentious allowances may be made for the potential additional costs, including delays caused by appeals and/or inquiries, (these include fees and additional holding costs and may extend to creating models, lobbying, etc.). This heading would not normally include any deferment of the scheme as a whole due to the contentious nature of the development as such matters would properly be reflected in the final assessment of the land value, (see para. 7).

6.7 The impact of legally binding agreements linked with the grant of planning permission has to be considered. The obligations usually, but not always, are deliverable on-site but, for instance, in the provision of local, or wider, highways provision could be elsewhere. The requirements might be for a cash payment, the provision of community facilities, affordable housing or providing enhanced public transport. Also the timing of the payments, or the fulfilling of the obligations, may be relevant in these cases.

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |9 6.8 There are various matters relating to statutory and regulatory obligations that may have to be considered. Such matters, which could incur significant costs, could include: + listed building consents and associated negotiations with English Heritage, Historic Scotland, or similar bodies. ); + the accommodation of archaeological surveys or digs; + environmental protection during demolition and construction; + obtaining necessary approvals under Building Regulations; and + inspections of residential development related to new-build insurance schemes.

Acquisition costs

6.9 These include agents’ fees, legal costs and stamp duty land tax that would be incurred on the acquisition of the land prior to the commencement of the development.

Site-related costs

6.10 It is necessary to consider the costs to be incurred before the main construction activity can proceed. These include: + the cost of meeting any environmental issues. (Whilst this can relate to any remedial works it can also reflect important conservation or flood protection requirements. Such costs have to be provided by an appropriate expert); + there may be an obligation to remove contamination, and the consequential waste management obligations, and special environmental provisions to abate noise or control emissions; + there may be ground improvement works needed before the main construction period begins to make the site safe for development (liaison with a civil and/or structural engineer may be necessary); + any archaeological investigation costs may be borne before the main contract is let (the time to undertake such work and its cost needs to be understood); + diversion of essential services and highway works and other off-site infrastructure costs; + creating the site establishment and the erection of hoardings; + the costs of conforming to appropriate health and safety regulations during the course of the development; and + there may also be issues surrounding sustainability that may have a direct bearing on the site (in England this can include the provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) and site specific transport plans).

6.11 If appropriate, it may be necessary to estimate the costs incurred in securing vacant possession, acquiring necessary interests in the subject site or adjacent property, extinguishing easements or removing restrictive covenants, rights of light compensation, party wall agreements, etc. Realistic allowances have to be made, reflecting that the other parties expect to share in the development value generated.

10 | VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 6.12 The letting out of advertising space on hoardings or the securing of short-term tenancies (for example, surface car parking) can help to offset finance costs before and during the development phase.

Phasing of the development

6.13 Larger schemes are likely to be phased over time. Phasing of the infrastructure provision or distinct elements of a complex development site may be as a result of planning requirements. For example, that the car parking provision and highways improvements are complete prior to occupancy, or to maximise cost savings in labour or materials. These are reflected in the developers’ cash flows when formulating their bids and are likewise be reflected in any valuation of such property. In such cases it would be appropriate to reflect the deferment of some of costs, listed in the following paragraphs, to a date when it might be reasonable to expect them to be incurred. Similarly, not all receipts occur simultaneously.

6.14 In many cases where individual buildings or units may be sold, particularly where the development includes residential properties, the sales may be achieved over a period that may start before the development is completed and be phased over a long period of time. In these circumstances the income is to be recognised in the cash-flow at the appropriate time and the incidence of the relevant costs needs to reflect the actual timing of such payments.

Building costs

6.15 A reasonably accurate estimation of the building costs, at the valuation date, of the development is a major component in a residual valuation. In other than the most straightforward schemes it is recommended that the costs be estimated with the assistance of an appropriately qualified expert. Detailed costings are conventionally based on the Gross Internal Area (GIA) (see the RICS Code of Measuring Practice) and are usually recorded on this basis in reference books. Care is to be taken to check that calculations provided by other professionals are on the basis of GIA.

6.16 The residual method is very sensitive to variations in the estimated costs and the accuracy with which costs can be assessed may vary greatly according to the specific site characteristics or the requirement, or plan, to retain specific structures, any unusual building specifications and the extent to which a new building has to reflect relevant sustainability policies. Therefore, the use of reference books, and websites, including the BCIS website, are considered to be only guides and undue reliance on them can compromise the accuracy of the valuation.

6.17 The choice of procurement route imposes differing responsibilities on the parties and is a key consideration in determining the building cost. Reference is often made to a fixed price contract. Whilst this does allow for inflation it is only fixed to the extent of the works outlined in the contract. A contractor can amend the pricing if any variations to the specification are made, or unforeseen events occur.

6.18 It is essential that the valuer understands which route has been, or is likely to be, chosen. The suitability for the particular development and the implications

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |11 of that choice on the relevant elements of the residual calculation may require recourse to other surveying disciplines.

6.19 In all cases the inclusion of a contingency allowance to cater for the unexpected is essential. The quantum which is usually reflected as a percentage of the building contract sum is dependent upon the nature of the development, the procurement method and the perceived accuracy of the information obtained.

Fees and expenses

6.20 The incidence of fees and expenses can vary significantly according to the size and complexity of the development. The following items may need consideration: + professional consultants to design, cost and project manage the development – The development team normally includes: an environmental and/or planning consultant, an architect, a quantity surveyor and a civil and/or structural engineer. Additional specialist services may be supplied as appropriate by mechanical and electrical engineers, landscape architects, traffic engineers, acoustic consultants, project managers and other disciplines, depending on the nature of the development; + fees may be incurred in negotiating or conforming to statutory (for example Building Regulations) or planning agreements; + the costs of conforming to the relevant health and safety regulations during the course of the development; + legal advice and representation at any stage of the project; + lettings and sales expenses – where the development is not pre-sold, or fully pre-let, as a single unit this item includes incentives, promotion costs and agents commissions. The costs of creating a show unit in a residential development may also be appropriate; + rent free periods, whether as an incentive or recognising the tenants fitting out period. These may be reflected by either: – continuing interest charges on the land and development costs until rent commencement. This approach is usually favoured by the financing arrangers; or – taking account of the costs in the valuation of the completed development. This approach is usually favoured by investors because there is an assumption that market conditions will not change; + costs related to the raising of development finance (these can include the lender’s monitoring surveyor’s fees and legal fees); and + in some cases the prospective tenant/purchaser may incur fees on monitoring the development (these may have to be reflected as an expense where they would normally be incurred by the developer).

Interest or financing costs

6.21 Interest is incurred on land and development costs. It is either paid when due or deferred (rolled up) throughout the projected programme during the pre-contract, contract, and post-contract stages. An allowance is to be made to reflect the opportunity cost of the monies, even if the developer is funding the project internally, on the assumption that the completed fully let and income

12 | VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 producing development is to be sold, or long-term finance obtained on its transfer to the developer’s investment portfolio. This allowance is also included where the development is to be owner occupied.

6.22 It is usual for interest to be treated as a development cost up to the assumed letting date of the last unit, unless a forward sale agreement dictates otherwise. In the case of residential developments the sales of individual units may occur at various stages during the development and appropriate assumptions have to be made regarding cash flow, both inward and outward. The rate of interest adopted reflects the levels adopted in the market for the type of scheme involved.

6.23 The approximate timings for the pre-construction, principal construction and post construction periods have to be determined. The valuer is recommended to liaise with the client, such professionals as might be appointed, or colleagues with relevant experience, to assess an appropriate, realistic time frame for each of the phases.

6.24 Conventionally the chosen interest rate is usually compounded, either quarterly or annually in line with the current market practice.

6.25 In applying interest two approaches are commonly used: Straight line: This assumes that the preliminary costs are incurred at the valuation date and the principal development costs are incurred in equal tranches and at regular and equal intervals throughout the development. The post development costs are assumed to be incurred at the start of that period. S-curve: The weighting of the build costs be may be incurred early in a scheme, (for instance in industrial development), or at a later stage, (for instance hotels and high value residential development). The purpose of an s-curve is to reflect more accurately the incidence of the costs in a particular scheme. This approach is sophisticated and specialised, and, if used without the necessary expertise, is as likely to produce less accurate values as it is to produce accurate assessments.

Holding costs

6.26 The attendant costs (excluding interest) in holding the completed building up to the assumed date of the final letting or sale, including such items as insurance, security, cleaning and fuel. A proportion of the service charge on partially let properties may have to be included together with any potential liability for empty rates.

Tax relief and grants

6.27 In some areas and on some properties special allowances, or grants, may be available to the developer. These may relate to the cost of remediation of contaminated land, promotion of job creation, or assistance to ensure that a scheme proceeds. The availability of such funds needs to be established with the relevant government office and the possibility of their availability being changed, or withdrawn at short notice, is to be recognised.

6.28 Capital allowances might be available on the cost of plant and equipment and certain buildings. They are available as an expense of the business being carried

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |13 on by the property owner, whether that is as an owner occupier or an investor. They are not available to developers, unless the property is to be retained as an investment.

6.29 The worth of capital allowances is not assessable by way of a formula as they are dependent on the particular circumstances of the property owner. They are not usually explicitly included in development appraisals, but their potential availability may be reflected in the price offered by certain clients.

Value added tax

6.30 The decision as to the inclusion of VAT is best resolved by discussion with the client but, in the absence of explicit instructions, the Valuer may have regard to current practice in respect of the election to tax for the type and location of property concerned. In more complex developments it may be necessary to explicitly include the incidence of both payments and recoveries of VAT. Any assumptions made are to be stated in the report.

Developer’s profit

6.31 The nature of the development, and the prevailing practice in the market for the sector, helps to determine the selection of the profit margin, or rate of return, and the percentage to be adopted varies for each case.

6.32 It is usual to assume that the developer seeks either a capital profit expressed as a percentage of the total development cost (including interest) or of GDV. The former approach is more common. The latter derives from the traditional financing of commercial developments where the completed property is sold to a long-term investor. Although the valuer has to exercise judgement on the figure to be incorporated, it may be helpful to obtain the client’s views.

6.33 It is also common practice for development companies who retain completed schemes in their investment portfolios to judge the success of a scheme in terms of the enhancement of the balance sheet (net asset value (NAV)) rather than the profit and loss account (income).

6.34 There are, however, other criteria that are sometimes adopted. These include: + Initial yield on cost – The net rental return calculated as the initial full annual rental on completion of letting expressed as a percentage of the total development cost. This criterion may be significant in establishing whether the developer could service a long-term mortgage loan, or for evaluating the effect of the development scheme on the profit and loss account of the company; + Cash-on-cash (or Equity Yield) – The capital uplift or (more usually) net income (after interest charges on any long-term mortgage loan) expressed as a percentage of the long-term equity finance provided by the developer; + Interest on capital employed – A technique that has regard to the rate of return on actual costs expended calculated net of interest and corporation tax; + Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) methods – The income stream is projected with explicit assumptions about rental growth and discounted back to a net present value (NPV) using an appropriate discount rate; the scheme is deemed viable if NPV exceeds the total development costs. The discount

14 | VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 rate includes an allowance (profit margin) for the management requirements and risk of investing in a development project rather than an existing fully let property. This approach is particularly appropriate for large, phased schemes; + Equated yield (or Internal Rate of Return (IRR)) – A variant of DCF in which the yield is defined as the discount rate which equates NPV with total development cost. For further information on the DCF method see the RICS Information Paper Commercial property valuation methods available from www.rics.org in the knowledge zone; + Amount of cover – The extent to which the rent or sale price can be reduced, or the letting or sale period extended (often expressed as a number of months of rolled-up interest or loss of rent) without suffering an overall loss on the scheme.

6.35 The appropriate level of profit to be assumed in the appraisal cannot be specified in this Paper as market requirements vary from project to project and from time to time. Evidence may be deduced (with difficulty) by analysing transactions, but it is better obtained from the valuer’s knowledge of the market or of developers’ requirements.

6.36 In any event, the appropriate profit to be expected from a particular development may be influenced by a number of factors which might lead to the departure from the market ‘norm’. High amongst these is the certainty of the information available to the valuer, and the general risk profile (for example, whether the interest rate is fixed, whether the scheme is pre-let or pre-sold) but the scale of development, the amount of financial exposure and the timescale are also relevant.

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |15 7 Assessing the land value

7.1 Where a comparative approach has been followed the land value is determined at an early stage. However the valuer may wish to check the result against a simplified residual valuation, or consider if any of the factors explicit within a residual valuation, (such as specific planning or site characteristics), have not been appropriately reflected in any adjustments that the valuer has made to the comparables.

7.2 Where a residual approach has been followed the valuer draws together the various elements and, having established the completed value, by deduction of the various costs determines the residual land value.

7.3 The residual value is not necessarily the same as the value of the land as it has to be considered in the context of the valuation as a whole. The following matters may have an impact on the residual value and need to be addressed before the final conclusion is reached: + Some elements of the calculations may be very sensitive to adjustments and, although these may be reflected in the cost calculations, such sensitivities may also be reflected in an adjustment to the residual value. A sensitivity analysis, for instance a ‘Monte Carlo’ simulation, may be undertaken and the results incorporated into the report; + If at all possible an attempt can be made to compare the result with such market evidence as may exist because the residual method sometimes produces theoretical results that are out of line with prices being achieved in the market. For example, in a large, phased scheme (such as a major residential development) cash-flow constraints may prevent the theoretical value being realised (that is, there may be a quantum discount that applies in the market). Similarly, in some circumstances, for instance where site remediation costs are very high, the residual appraisal may produce a negative figure. There is plentiful experience of sites finding buyers even though a residual valuation shows a nil, or negative, value. This does not negate the requirement in PS 6.8 that negative values should be reported if appropriate.

16 | VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 8 Reporting the valuation

8.1 The precise nature of the report depends upon the instructions given and its purpose but regard must be had to the requirements of PS 6.1 (a) to (s) and in particular: + the basis of valuation must be clearly stated. Where a basis other than Market Value is adopted this must be fully explained. (PS 6.1(f)); + all the assumptions made must be stated and, where appropriate, comment made on the effect of those assumptions where they are material. (PS 6.1 (k)); and + the statement requiring comment on the valuation approach is particularly important in these valuations (PS 6.1 (q)).

8.2 It may be appropriate to present an appraisal based on provable values alongside a sensitivity analysis to show the effect on the land value of differing assumptions as to the future rent and yield. The aim is to assist the client in assessing the likely land value by reference to present and future market trends, and the likely shifts in supply and demand. Wherever possible, the treatment and presentation of these issues is to be discussed with the client.

8.3 In some cases the client may request the valuer to identify any hope value that may be reflected in the valuation. Hope value is the popular term for the element of the difference between the value of the land with the benefit of the current planning consent and the value with an enhanced, assumed, consent that is reflected in the Market Value of the land. The proportion that can be properly reflected in the reported value is almost entirely subjective, being based upon comparables and the valuer’s experience and knowledge of the market. In common with all other valuation exercises valuers need to be transparent about their approach and, particularly when reporting for loan security purposes, this element of the reported value is to be identified as a separate figure.

8.4 Should the land have a negative value, even if it is not to be developed, the negative value must be reported in accordance with PS 6.8.

8.5 Where the purpose of the valuation is not one where a single figure valuation is required it is acceptable to agree with the client that a range of values be reported, particularly where the report includes a sensitivity analysis, with an explanation of the reasons for the range adopted.

EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 |17 9 Conclusion

9.1 The aim of this Information Paper is to assist the valuer in the more complex cases by providing a framework within which a consistent approach to the valuation of development land is adopted. It does not advise the valuer how to undertake this type of valuation – that is a matter of professional expertise – but, by following the principles, the valuer may have confidence that the significant factors relevant to this type of valuation have been considered.

18 | VALUATION INFORMATION PAPER NO. 12 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 MARCH 2008 Valuation Information Paper 12

www.rics.org

Appendix 2 – King Street Appeal Decision

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 2, 3 and 4 July 2014 Site visits made on 2 and 3 July 2014 by Karen Baker DipTP MA DipMP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 6 August 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/A/13/2209347 271-281 King Street, London W6 9LZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Linden Limited against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. • The application Ref. 2013/02238/FUL, dated 15 July 2013, was refused by notice dated 21 October 2013. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing buildings and the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use scheme ranging in height from 7 storeys on King Street, 5 storeys on Vencourt Place and 2-3 storeys on Beavor Lane and comprising 51 residential apartments, 4 x 3 bed houses and 2 commercial units (Class A1-A3, B1) at ground floor level fronting on to King Street with associated storage areas, plant, cycle parking, servicing and landscaping.

Procedural Matters

1. The Inquiry sat for 3 days between 2 and 4 July 2014. It was adjourned on 4 July 2014 to allow the main parties to submit their closing submissions in writing. The Inquiry was then closed in writing on 10 July 2014.

2. A completed Section 106 Agreement was submitted by the appellants on 8 July 2014. This document includes obligations relating to a number of matters including financial contributions towards the provision of CCTV, cycle hire, education, economic regeneration, healthcare, parks, pedestrian and cycling improvements, sports facilities, trees and highway works, along with the preparation of a Residential Travel Plan and a Commercial Travel Plan, the imposition of a restriction placed on future occupiers to prevent them from applying for a parking permit, the provision of wheelchair accessible units and affordable housing within the proposed development and the preparation of an Energy Statement for the development, along with the provision of a carbon offset contribution if the development fails to provide a 40% reduction in carbon emissions over Part L of the Building Regulations on site. I have had regard to this Section 106 Agreement during my consideration of this appeal.

Decision

3. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing buildings and the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use scheme ranging in height from 7 storeys on King Street, 5 storeys on Vencourt Place and 2-3 storeys on Beavor Lane and comprising 51 residential apartments, 4 x 3 bed houses and 2 commercial units (Class A1-A3,

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

B1) at ground floor level fronting on to King Street with associated storage areas, plant, cycle parking, servicing and landscaping at 271-281 King Street, London W6 9LZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 2013/02238/FUL, dated 15 July 2013, subject to the conditions in Appendix 1.

Main Issues

4. The main issues in this appeal are:

a) whether or not the proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site, with particular reference to residential density;

b) whether or not the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers of the dwellings with particular regard to outlook, private amenity space, communal open space, privacy, noise and disturbance, sunlight and adaptability for future needs; and,

c) whether or not the proposed development should include an element of affordable housing.

Reasons

Overdevelopment of the Site

5. The appeal site, which is around 0.194 hectares (ha), is located on the southern side of King Street, around 300m to the west of the Hammersmith Town Centre boundary, as designated within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Local Development Framework Core Strategy, adopted in October 2011, and described as a Major Town Centre in The London Plan, adopted in July 2011. There are currently 2 principal buildings on the appeal site. The first, London House, is a 4 storey late Victorian building located at Nos. 271-273 King Street, which also has a frontage of around 50m onto Vencourt Place. The second is a 1960s building at Nos. 275-281 King Street consisting of 6 storeys (5 storeys plus one set back) on to King Street, which also extends for around 16m along Beavor Lane, before its height reduces to 3 storeys for a further 20m towards Palco House to the south.

6. King Street is a main thoroughfare, with wide footways on either side of the road which benefit from tree planting. Most of the ground floor frontages to King Street are commercial, with a mix of residential and office space above. A mix of architectural styles and building heights exists along this part of King Street. Although the general height of buildings along this part of King Street is 3-4 storeys, other building heights are evident. Indeed, to the east of the appeal site, on the other side of Vencourt Place is the 2 storey Ravenscourt Arms Public House and the 14 storey 119 bedroom Premier Inn hotel. To the west of the appeal site, on the other side of Beavor Lane is a 4 storey Victorian red brick terrace. Further along King Street to the west is Kings Court, a 10 storey residential block, with a further 8 storey residential block above a supermarket opposite, on the corner of Standish Road.

7. To the north of the appeal site, on the other side of King Street, is Ravenscourt Park. To the east and south of the appeal site, along Vencourt Place, are 2 residential 3 storey blocks known as Court Mansions, beyond which is the Royal Mail Delivery Office and a courtyard development of loft style offices. To the west and south of the appeal site, along Beavor Lane, is the recent residential development at Chambon Place, which comprises 2-2.5 storey terraced houses

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

and a 3 storey block of flats, and Palco House, which is currently being redeveloped to provide 8 four storey town houses and one 4 storey office building. Further along Beavor Lane between the appeal site and the A4 Great West Road is St Peter’s Primary School and Riverview House (up to 6 storeys in height) which has planning permission for conversion from offices to student accommodation (Ref. 2011/03093/FUL).

8. The proposed development would include the demolition of the existing buildings on the appeal site and the construction of 2 commercial units at ground floor level, fronting onto King Street, and 51 residential apartments, 4 townhouses and associated storage areas, plant, cycle parking, servicing and landscaping. The scheme would range in height from 7 storeys on King Street, 5 storeys on Vencourt Place to 2-3 storeys on Beavor Lane. The Council and the appellants agree1 that the correct calculation of the residential density of the scheme, based on net residential site area, is 888 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha) or 362 units per hectare (u/ha). It is also agreed2 that the majority of the appeal site is located within an area of Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) 4, with part of the site within PTAL 5. The appeal site is also around 250m from Ravenscourt Park Underground Station and within 300m of Hammersmith Town Centre boundary.

9. Policy DM A2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Development Management Local Plan, adopted in July 2013, says, amongst other things, that in assessing the appropriate density of a housing or mixed use scheme that includes housing, the Core Strategy and The London Plan policies and guidance relating to residential density will be applied. Furthermore, Borough Wide Strategy Policy H3 of the Core Strategy, says that housing development will be expected to respect the local setting and context, provide a high quality residential environment, be well designed and energy efficient in line with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes, meet satisfactory internal and external space standards, and (subject to the size of the scheme) provide a good range of housing types and sizes. It goes on to say that acceptable housing density will be dependent primarily on an assessment of these factors, taking account of The London Plan policies and subject to public transport and highway impact and capacity.

10. Policy 3.4 of The London Plan says that taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. It goes on to say that development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted. Table 3.2 of The London Plan sets out the sustainable residential quality density matrix which identifies the appropriate density ranges for each setting (suburban, urban and central), in terms of location, existing building form and massing, and the PTAL. The Council considers that the appeal site is located within an urban setting, which is defined as areas with predominantly dense development such as, for example, terraced houses, mansion blocks, a mix of different uses, medium building footprints and typically buildings of 2 to 4 storeys, located within 800m walking distance of a District centre or, along main arterial routes. The appellants, on the other hand, consider that the appeal site displays a number of the characteristics associated with a central

1 Paragraph 6.2 of the Statement of Common Ground 2 Paragraph 6.7 of the Statement of Common Ground www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

setting, which is defined as areas with very dense development, a mix of different uses, large building footprints and typically buildings of 4 to 6 storeys, located within 800m walking distance of an International, Metropolitan or Major Town Centre. Within urban and central settings, Table 3.2 advises that a density range of 200-700hr/ha and 650-1,100hr/ha, respectively, would be appropriate.

11. It was apparent from my site visit and the evidence presented to the Inquiry that the location of the appeal site demonstrates some of the characteristics of a central location. Indeed, it is sited well within 800m of a Major Town Centre, being some 300m from the boundary of Hammersmith Town Centre, it is surrounded by a mix of different uses, including residential (Use Class C3), retail (A1), office (B1), public house (A4) and hotel (C1), and buildings typically of 3-4 storeys, with some taller examples in the local area. Paragraph 3.28 of The London Plan says that a rigorous appreciation of housing density is crucial to realising the optimum potential of sites, but it is only the start of planning housing development, not the end. It goes on to say that it is not appropriate to apply Table 3.2 mechanistically. Its density ranges for particular types of location being broad, enabling account to be taken of other factors relevant to optimising potential – local context, design and transport capacity are particularly important.

12. I acknowledge paragraph 4.12 of the reasoned justification to Policy DM A2 in the Development Management Local Plan which says that although most of Hammersmith and Fulham is within 800m of a Metropolitan or Major Town Centre, only limited areas meet the remaining criteria of the central areas definition. It goes on to say that much of the development in the Borough, including within and around the town centres, is primarily residential with small building footprints and buildings of less than 4 storeys. Therefore, it says, the higher density ranges of The London Plan central setting will only be appropriate in those parts of the Regeneration Areas identified in the Core Strategy as being suitable for higher density development. The appeal site is not within such an area.

13. Although the density proposed at the appeal site would exceed that for a development falling within an urban setting, in my opinion, given the location of the appeal site, in an area which demonstrates many of the characteristics associated with a central location, in particular its close proximity to Hammersmith Town Centre and the presence of some tall buildings along this part of King Street, along with its PTAL of 4/5 and being around 250m from Ravenscourt Park Underground station, the proposed density of 888hr/ha would be appropriate to its setting and would be consistent with the Government’s requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). Furthermore, I note that the Council has no concerns relating to the height, bulk, mass or scale of the proposed development, or its impact on views into or out of the adjacent Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area or its setting.

14. I conclude, therefore, that the residential density proposed would not, in principle, represent an overdevelopment of the site. As such, it would not be contrary to Core Strategy Policy H3, Development Management Local Plan Policy DM A2 and Policy 3.4 of The London Plan, in this respect.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

Living Conditions of Future Occupiers

15. The Council is concerned that the proposed development would not provide satisfactory living conditions for some future occupiers of the proposed dwellings with particular reference to outlook (Units 1-06, 1-07, 1-08, 1-09, 1- 10, 1-11 and 1-13), private amenity space (Units G-01, G-02, G-03 and G-04), communal open space, privacy (Units G-05, G-06, G-07 and G-08), noise and disturbance (Units G-05, G-06, G-07 and G-08), sunlight (Units 1-03, 2-03, 3- 03, 4-02 and 4-03 and Units 1-06, 1-07, 1-08, 1-09, 1-10 and 1-11) and adaptability for future needs (Units 1-12, 1-13, 3-09, 4-02, 4-03 and 4-10). The Council indicated at the Inquiry, however, that some of these concerns could be addressed by the imposition of appropriate conditions on any approval. Nevertheless, I shall examine each matter in turn.

Outlook

16. The development plan does not include a policy which deals specifically with the outlook from new dwellings. The Council has referred to SPD Housing Policy 8 in the Council’s Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), July 2013, which seeks to protect the outlook of existing occupiers from the overbearing and dominant effect of new development.

17. The windows which would open into the main habitable rooms within Units 1- 06, 1-07, 1-08, 1-09, 1-10, 1-11 and 1-13 would be sited around 4.5m from the rear, 2 storey, wall of Units G-01, G-02, G-03 and G-04, which front onto Beavor Lane. The intervening area would be used as private courtyards associated with Units 1-06, 1-07, 1-08, 1-09, 1-10, 1-11 and 1-13. Given that the Council’s concern relates to the impact of part of the new building on the outlook of occupiers from another part, I concur with the appellants’ view that SPD Housing Policy 8 is not directly applicable in this instance, given that it seeks to protect the outlook of existing occupiers. Rather, an assessment needs to be made as to whether or not the layout of these units would provide acceptable living conditions for their future occupiers in terms of outlook.

18. Units 1-06, 1-07, 1-08, 1-09, 1-10 and 1-11 would be set over 2 floors, with the main living area and courtyard at first floor level and 2 bedrooms, a bathroom and balcony at second floor level. The living area, along with the mezzanine bedroom above, would be west facing with a view out onto the private enclosed courtyard through double floor height glazing. I note the artist’s impressions3 provided by the appellants which show the likely views out of the living rooms and bedrooms within these units, along with appropriate planting. Although the rear wall of the units on Beavor Lane would be sited in close proximity to the western elevation of Units 1-06, 1-07, 1-08, 1-09, 1-10 and 1-11, I do not consider that it would appear overbearing and dominant to future occupiers of these units from within their dwellings, given the double floor height glazing and set back nature of the upper floor mezzanine bedroom. Unit 1-13 is a single storey first floor dwelling, with its only windows facing onto the private enclosed courtyard. I am satisfied that, given the larger courtyard associated with this unit, along with its siting at the southern end of the building, which would enable glimpsed views from within this dwelling to the south, the rear wall to Units G-01, G-02, G-03 and G-04 would not appear oppressive or dominant to future occupiers from within this dwelling.

3 Figures 6.1f and 6.1g of Mr Sandilands’ Proof of Evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

Furthermore, from within these courtyards, future occupiers would benefit from views to the north and south across neighbouring courtyards and to beyond the development to the south. As such, the proposed development would provide a satisfactory outlook for the residents of these units.

Private Amenity Space

19. Baseline Standard 4.10.1 of The London Plan 2011 Implementation Framework Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), November 2012, says that a minimum of 5sqm of private outdoor space should be provided for 1-2 person dwellings and an extra 1sqm should be provided for each additional occupant. Paragraph 2.3.25 of the reasoned justification to this standard says that minimum private open space standards have been established in the same way as the internal space standards, by considering the spaces required for furniture, access and activities in relation to the number of occupants. Paragraph 2.3.27 says that dwellings on upper floors should all have access to a terrace, roof garden, winter garden, courtyard garden or balcony. Houses and ground floor flats should preferably have private gardens.

20. Policy DM A9 of the Development Management Local Plan says that to achieve a high standard of design a number of considerations need to be taken into account, including amenity and garden space provision. It goes on to say that the Council has prepared an SPD that provides further guidance on these and other residential amenity issues. Paragraph 4.35 of the reasoned justification to this policy says that once the principle of residential development has been established through land use policies, there is a need to assess planning applications against detailed standards to ensure that a development is of high quality, amongst other things. It goes on to say that these standards are often subject to on site judgement, but a departure from the standards needs to be justified by the circumstances of a particular case.

21. SPD Housing Policy 1 in the Council’s Planning Guidance SPD says that all new dwellings should have access to an area of amenity space, appropriate to the type of housing being provided. It goes on to say that every new family dwelling should have access to amenity or garden space of not less than 36sqm. Dwellings with accommodation at ground floor level should have at least one area of private open space with direct access to it from the dwelling. For family dwellings on upper floors this space may be provided either as a balcony or terrace and/or communally within the building’s curtilage. Paragraph 3.7 of the reasoned justification to this policy says that in relation to the provision of private gardens and amenity space the Council will expect to see a more generous provision of outdoor amenity space than the minimum provision standards 4.10.1/2/3 in the Housing SPG accompanying The London Plan.

22. Units G-01, G-02, G-03 and G-04 are family dwellings which would be spread over 3 floors at ground, first and second floor level within the proposed development. Each unit would have around 22sqm of private amenity space, which would include a terrace of around 14-16sqm on the second floor, with a direct and separate access to it from the dwelling. Although this is below the figure of 36sqm included in the Council’s SPD, it considerably exceeds the minimum requirement of 9sqm for a 3 bedroom/6 person unit set out in the Housing SPG accompanying The London Plan and, as such, in my opinion,

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

would provide sufficient private amenity space to meet the needs of future occupiers of these units.

Communal Open Space

23. The proposed development would not provide any communal open space within it for the use of future occupiers. Nevertheless, it was apparent from my site visit and from evidence given to the Inquiry that Ravenscourt Park is sited close to the appeal site, with an entrance to it located immediately opposite the appeal site on the other side of King Street. A pedestrian crossing located between the appeal site and Ravenscourt Park across King Street would enable relatively easy access to the park from the proposed development. The park itself offers around 13ha of public open space with a good range of facilities including dedicated sports pitches, children’s play areas, paddling pool, sand pit and an area managed as a nature reserve. The Council has planned and costed improvement works to local parks amounting to £975,000, with the majority of this money to be spent within Ravenscourt Park. A financial contribution of £150,000 towards the improvements proposed within Ravenscourt Park is included within the Section 106 Agreement. In my opinion, given the close proximity of the appeal site to Ravenscourt Park, along with the range of facilities available, it is likely that future occupiers would use the park for recreation. As such, I am satisfied that sufficient open space would be provided close by to serve the needs of future occupiers.

Privacy and Noise and Disturbance

24. Baseline Standard 5.1.1 of the Housing SPG, accompanying The London Plan, says that design proposals should demonstrate how habitable rooms within each dwelling are provided with an adequate level of privacy in relation to neighbouring property, the street and other public spaces. The Council is concerned that Units G-05, G-06, G-07 and G-08, which would have bedrooms on the ground floor facing directly on to the pavement along Vencourt Place, would provide unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupiers because of the potential for noise and disturbance from passers-by and an uncomfortable intrusion of privacy.

25. Vencourt Place is a cul-de-sac which provides access to the residential flats within Court Mansions, the Royal Mail Delivery Office and a courtyard development of loft style offices. At the time of my site visit this road was relatively quiet, with little pedestrian and vehicular traffic along it. The front elevations of Court Mansions, which include habitable room windows, abut the footway on either side of Vencourt Place. It was apparent from my site visits that other residential properties have similar relationships to the footway, including the new properties located along Banim Street. The proposed development would include the widening of the western footway along Vencourt Place, immediately outside the proposed development. I note the suggested condition that would require that part of this footway be landscaped in order to prevent noise and disturbance to, and overlooking of, the future occupiers of these units within their dwellings. I also acknowledge that the living accommodation currently proposed on the first floor could be provided on the ground floor, with the bedrooms above. This matter could also be controlled by a suggested condition.

26. I consider that visitors to the commercial properties and the Royal Mail Delivery Office would be most likely to travel along Vencourt Place during the day.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

Furthermore, given the nature of Vencourt Place, it is likely that there would be little pedestrian and vehicular traffic during the evening and overnight. I am satisfied, therefore, that the occupiers of these units would not be subject to significant levels of noise and disturbance or overlooking in their bedrooms. Indeed, given the nature of the rooms, the existing arrangement would provide a satisfactory level of amenity for future occupiers. As such, I do not consider that the suggested conditions put forward in these respects would be necessary.

27. The Council is also concerned that the proposed development, which would include 13 dwellings (three 1 bedroom/2 person (1b/2p) units and ten 2b/4p units) accessed from the circulation core on the first floor; 14 dwellings (eleven 1b/2p units, two 2b/4p units and one 3b/5p unit) on the third floor; and, 10 dwellings (ten 1b/2p units) on the fourth floor, would not accord with the Good Practice Standard 3.2.1 in the Housing SPG, accompanying The London Plan, which says that the number of dwellings accessed from a single core should not exceed 8 per floor, subject to dwelling size mix. Paragraph 2.3.5 of the Housing SPG says that important considerations for shared circulation include the number of people sharing a circulation core and landing, which both affect how intensively the space will be used. For example, 8 family sized (over 2 bedrooms) units/core is normally a maximum, but up to 12 single person units/core may be acceptable. A condition has been suggested which would require the provision of additional internal doors dividing corridors on the first, third and fourth floors. In my opinion, given the number and mix of dwellings within these areas, it would be likely that a large number of people would be using the circulation cores on each of these floors. The imposition of the suggested condition on any approval, however, would lessen the noise and disturbance experienced by future occupiers of the proposed units which would ensure that their living conditions in this respect would be acceptable.

Sunlight

28. Baseline Standard 5.2.1 of the Housing SPG, accompanying The London Plan, says that developments should avoid single aspect dwellings that are north facing, amongst other things. In addition, paragraph 2.3.32 of the reasoned justification to this baseline standard says that north facing single aspect dwellings should be avoided wherever possible. Furthermore, Housing Policy 8 in the Council’s Planning Guidance SPD says that north facing units should be avoided wherever possible. The proposed development would contain 3 units which would be solely north facing (Units 1-03, 2-03 and 3-03) and 2 other units which would have secondary windows to bedrooms facing in a non- northerly direction (Units 4-02 and 4-03).

29. I acknowledge that Mr Sandilands accepted in cross examination that single aspect north facing apartments could be avoided through a different design and thus such units have not been avoided wherever possible. However, I also note the difficulties in designing such units as part of a suitable scheme for the appeal site. Paragraph 2.3.31 of the Housing SPG says that a home with opening windows on at least 2 sides has many inherent benefits, including better daylight, a greater chance of direct sunlight for longer periods, natural cross ventilation, mitigating pollution, offering a choice of views, access to a quiet side of the building, greater flexibility in the use of the rooms and more potential for future adaptability by altering the use of rooms. It goes on to say

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

that where possible the provision of dual aspect dwellings should be maximised in a development proposal.

30. The proposed development before me would contain 3 units which would be single aspect north facing units. These units would account for around 5.5% of the total unit provision. Although this would not be ideal, I acknowledge that the King Street frontage is around 28.8m in length and in order to ensure an efficient plan arrangement it would not be unreasonable to expect that a small number of units would be north facing. Furthermore, these units would each benefit from a large balcony of around 10 or 11qm and would each achieve in excess of the 1.5% recommended average daylight for the living rooms in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Guidelines. Added to this, these units would each benefit from excellent views over Ravenscourt Park. Despite them being single aspect north facing units, which would receive no direct sunlight, I consider that, on balance, they would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.

31. With regards to Units 4-02 and 4-03, they would not be single aspect units as each would benefit from a secondary window in the bedroom. The appellants have suggested that the internal arrangement4 of these units could be revised so that the kitchen/dining/living room is swapped with the bedroom/bathroom/utilities/entrance hall, to enable the living accommodation to benefit from the dual aspect windows. Although the Council considers that this would be an appropriate solution, I am not satisfied that it would be necessary as I consider that the existing layout would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers of the flats in terms of sunlight, given its dual aspect.

32. The Council is concerned that the courtyards to Units 1-06, 1-07, 1-08, 1-09, 1-10 and 1-11, would receive insufficient sunlight and has sought advice from BRE5 who have undertaken an assessment of whether the courtyards to these units would receive adequate sunlight and whether the second floor east facing balconies to the same units would receive sunlight in view of being overshadowed by the building above. BRE says that courtyards would be anticipated to be covered by the BRE Report: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice. In particular it refers to paragraph 3.3.2 which says that the sunlit nature of a site can be enhanced by using some of the techniques described in Section 3.1. It goes on to say that this could include siting low-rise, low density housing to the south, with taller, higher density housing to the north of a site; and by opening out courtyards to the southern half of the sky. Finally it says that special care needs to be taken in the design of courtyards as often they can turn out to be sunless and unappealing. BRE has calculated the sunlight received by each of the first floor courtyards as ranging between 2.2% and 3.3% by having regard to the appellants’ Drawing No. 1452-65 which plots the sunlight received by each courtyard in question. These results fall a long way short of the recommended 50% and BRE says that the position of the sunlit areas next to the entrances to these courtyards would not be sufficient to prevent them being gloomy and sunless for large parts of the year. With regards to the sunlight received by the proposed second floor balconies, BRE says that given the reasonable amount of sunlight reaching the front of the balconies, it is therefore

4 Figure 6.2i of Mr Sandilands’ Proof of Evidence 5 Document 21 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

anticipated that the horizontal plane of the balconies would receive reasonable amounts of sunlight in the morning hours.

33. The appellants have provided a response from their consultants CHP Surveyors Limited to the BRE assessment6. This refers to paragraph 3.3.3 of the BRE guidance which sets out the extent of the application of the guidance in terms of the availability of sunlight for all open spaces where it will be required. It goes on to say that this would normally include, amongst other places, gardens, usually the main back garden of a house. The appellants contend that the enclosed private inner courtyards proposed in this appeal are different to the categories of spaces included within paragraph 3.3.3. I note that the BRE guidance is a national document which is advisory in nature and is not specific to amenity space in the context of London. Indeed, I acknowledge the appellants’ statement that they are unaware of any London authorities that seek to apply the advice to private enclosed inner courtyards, in particular given the specific guidance contained in the Housing SPG, accompanying The London Plan, which sets out a specific guide on what would be appropriate in London. The appellants also refer to the significant level of private amenity space provision attached to these units, being around 14sqm above the minimum requirement in the Housing SPG.

34. In my opinion, given the amount of private amenity space proposed for these units, along with the level of sunlight available within the proposed balconies, future occupiers of these dwellings would benefit from sufficient sunlight. Although sunlight would be restricted within the proposed courtyards, I do not consider that this would render these units as unsatisfactory, given their dual aspect. Indeed, I consider that the courtyards would be seen by future occupiers as a substantial benefit, over and above what would normally be associated with units of this size in London.

Adaptability for Future Needs

35. Borough Wide Strategic Policy H4 of the Core Strategy says that the Council will work with house builders to increase the supply and choice of high quality residential accommodation that meets the local residents’ needs and aspirations and market demand. In order to deliver this it says, amongst other things, that all new build dwellings should be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards with 10% to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents that are wheelchair users. Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan says that new build development will be permitted if it is of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting. It goes on to say that all proposals must be designed to respect, amongst other things, the principles of accessible and inclusive design. Policy DM A4 says that in developments providing 10 or more residential units 10% of all new housing, in proportion to the tenure mix of the development, should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.

36. The Council says that 18 out of the 55 units proposed on this site (including the townhouses) would have internal stairs, which means that these units would have to be adapted by the addition of a through floor lift to become step free. In addition, 4 of the units (Units G-05, G-06, G-07 and G-08), which would front onto Vencourt Place, would also have entry level steps. The appellants

6 Document 22 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

say that the decision to introduce a larger number of duplex units was driven primarily by the desire to improve the quality of accommodation by creating a ‘scissor’ arrangement, which would provide the benefit of dual aspect to the east and west, which also would provide a greater variety of layouts with improved choice for the market. In addition I note that the 3 storey townhouses along Chambon Place were designed to respond to the rhythm and scale of the dwellings on the other side of this highway. In my opinion, the mix of styles and designs of properties within the proposed development adds interest and would offer choice to prospective purchasers. Furthermore, I acknowledge the Lifetime Homes Criteria 12a and 12b, which refer to the installation of a stair lift and wheelchair accessible through the floor lift respectively within properties of 2 or more storeys. Finally, the appellants confirmed at the Inquiry that the 4 ground floor duplex units along Vencourt Place could be modified in order to accord with the guidance. This matter could be controlled by the imposition of an appropriate planning condition.

37. The Council is also concerned that the 6 units which have been designed to be adaptable for wheelchair users (Units 1-12, 1-13, 3-09, 4-02, 4-03 and 4-10) would be too constrained to be considered as such. As part of the appeal process, the appellants have revised the locations for the 6 wheelchair accessible units, with detailed internal unit arrangements7 having been drawn for these to ensure that they would be fully compliant with the Best Practice Guidance for Wheelchair Accessible Housing contained in Annex 2 of the Housing SPG, accompanying The London Plan. The units now identified as wheelchair accessible are Units 1-13, 2-05, 4-01, 4-02, 4-04 and 5-05. The Council stated at the Inquiry that these amendments would satisfy its concerns in this respect.

38. Given the amendments proposed to the scheme, which could be controlled by the imposition of an appropriate planning condition, I consider that the proposed units would be sufficiently adaptable to satisfy the accessibility needs of future occupiers.

39. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers of the dwellings with particular regard to outlook, private amenity space, communal open space, privacy, noise and disturbance, sunlight and adaptability for future needs. As such, it would not be contrary to Policies DM A4, DM A9 and DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan and Policy H4 of the Core Strategy and would accord with guidance in the Council’s Planning Guidance SPD and the Housing SPG, accompanying The London Plan.

Affordable Housing

40. As part of the planning application, the appellants submitted a Viability Statement (CD 21) which concluded that, on the basis of current day costs and values, viability is marginal and the ability of the scheme to make contributions towards Section 106 and Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) are constrained. Furthermore, the appraisal model suggests that, in the current market, even if higher sales values are assumed the viability justifies a nil contribution towards affordable housing.

7 Figures 6.5g, 6.5h, 6.5i, 6.5j and 6.5k in Mr Sandilands’ Proof of Evidence. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

41. During its consideration of the planning application, the Council instructed GVA to undertake an assessment of the viability of the residential development proposed. This Development Viability Analysis (CD 4) concluded that affordable housing could be provided.

42. Both assessments were updated for the Inquiry and it was confirmed that the remaining matters in dispute between the parties are Base Land Value (BLV); residential sales prices; and whether or not the costs of the appeal and empty rates costs should be taken into account. I consider each of these matters below.

Base Land Value

43. The appellants consider that the market value of the appeal site is around £12m. The Council, however, consider that its value is around £7.64m.

44. To support their suggested market value the appellants put forward a number of matters. These include a Red Book Valuation; the purchase price of the appeal site; 2 formal unconditional offers to purchase the appeal site from third parties; along with an analysis of recent London transactions in the Class D1 market.

45. As the BLV was a matter in dispute between the main parties, the appellants obtained an official Red Book Valuation, carried out by Frost Meadowcroft in April 2014, of the value of the existing buildings on the appeal site, which was presented in evidence to the Inquiry8. The valuation approach adopted was the consideration of the market value of the buildings with vacant possession, ignoring any hope value for a change of use to residential or a mixed use scheme including residential. The valuation was prepared in accordance with normal practice taking into account comparable evidence and current market conditions. In determining market value consideration was given to both the comparison method of valuation and the identification of a market rent being capitalised at an appropriate yield. Research and enquiries were carried out, including discussions with local and specialist sector agents. Furthermore, existing market commentaries and data were analysed in determining value. The valuation concluded that the market value of the appeal site on 10 April 2014 was £12m.

46. I note Miss Dickinson’s statement at the Inquiry that an earlier Red Book Valuation, carried out in January 2014 for the appellants’ own purposes, valued the site, on the same basis, at £11.15m. However, this was prior to the West London Free School transaction and a rise in the general tone of land values in the area, which can be explained by the higher value in the more recent Red Book Valuation. I acknowledge that both Red Book Valuations were the subject of high order, basic cross check residual valuations, which, although not necessary elements of a Red Book Valuation, particularly where there is a good supply of comparables, provide a useful sense check of the analysis.

47. The appellants purchased the majority of the appeal site on 1 July 2013 for £10.35m, with the remainder (land to the east of Beavor Lane) purchased on 17 September 2013 for £0.7m, giving a total cost of £11.05m. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ (RICS) Professional Guidance: Financial Viability in Planning, First Edition says, in paragraph 3.6.1.1, that site purchase

8 Appendix 14 to Miss Dickinson’s Proof of Evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

price may or may not be material in arriving at a Site Value for the assessment of financial viability. It goes on to say that the Site Value should always be reviewed at the date of assessment and compared with the purchase price and associated holding costs and the specific circumstances in each case.

48. The appellants have received 2 unconditional offers9 for the purchase of the appeal site of £12m and £13.25m, made on 19 and 20 June 2014 respectively. The appellants confirmed at the Inquiry that the former is for a potential Class D1 use, while the latter is for serviced apartments. Finally, at the Inquiry, the appellants submitted evidence of purchases for Class D1 use in London10 which indicates an average price of around £356/sqft.

49. On behalf of the Council, GVA established a potential BLV as being the appeal scheme with a policy compliant level of affordable housing. GVA’s report assesses the BLV of the site using a residual valuation approach. The report examines the residual valuations for office refurbishment and for the redevelopment of the appeal site for such uses. Neither produced a land value in excess of £3m. It was on this basis, therefore, that GVA assessed the BLV as being the appeal scheme, with 40% affordable housing.

50. The evidence supplied by the appellants in support of a BLV of £12m is, in my opinion, wholly consistent. Not only have they provided a Red Book Valuation of the existing buildings on the site of £12m, but the purchase price of £11m, made around 12 months ago, and the 2 unconditional offers all support this position. The BLV put forward by the appellants has been informed by comparable, market based evidence as advised by paragraph 023 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and paragraph 3.4.7 of the RICS Professional Guidance, which includes other potential users which are operating in the market, in addition to office and residential. The Council’s evidence, on the other hand, is based on the residual based analyses of an office occupier development and a housing scheme, with 40% affordable housing. This approach, ignores other potentially higher land values including Class D1 use, student accommodation and serviced apartments, none of which would be required to provide affordable housing and all of which could potentially be achieved on the appeal site. No residual appraisals of such uses have been undertaken in determining the BLV put forward by the Council.

51. Furthermore, I have other concerns about the approach undertaken by the Council to determine BLV. Firstly, it assumes that a 40% level of affordable housing is the only level of policy compliant provision. Borough Wide Strategic Policy H2 in the Core Strategy makes it clear that this is a Boroughwide target, but that in negotiating for affordable housing account will be taken of a number of factors, including the availability of public subsidy, none of which is available in this case. Secondly, in areas such as this, where demand for land and buildings is high, there may be several potential users within the same Use Class bidding against one another, as well as against residential and office providers. As such, a landowner would not be incentivised to release their land for housing development at a 40% affordable housing level, when there is competition from other land users for a more valuable use of that land, as disclosed by the market signals based on transactions elsewhere and upon the offers received for the appeal site.

9 Appendices 5 and 6 to Miss Dickinson’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence 10 Document 12 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

52. To my mind, the use of the limited residual approach put forward by the Council is not an appropriate method to determine the BLV in this instance and is significantly out of kilter with the independent Red Book Valuation, the actual purchase price, and the 2 offers received by the appellants which, although much of the information has been redacted for business confidentiality, clearly show that a BLV of £12m is a more appropriate and realistic figure that could be achieved in the current market. I am satisfied, therefore, that the appellants’ BLV of £12m should be used in any assessment of viability.

Residential Sales Values

53. The appellants consider that an average residential sales value of £832/sqft should be used in the assessment. The Council, on the other hand, considers that an average residential sales value of £943/sqft would be more appropriate.

54. At the time of the planning application, the appellants considered that the average sales value of the proposed units would be around £707/sqft, which were priced by a local agent, Marsh and Parsons. The appellants say this was entirely consistent at that time with the evidence of sales from another development in the local area, for which they are the developer, known as Ashlar Court. GVA’s assessment of the viability of the proposed residential development, carried out on behalf of the Council, includes local agents’ views on the range of achievable values at the property in Table 17. It was agreed at the Inquiry that the range of values set out in that table, which was informed by 4 local agents, was £708-£816/sqft. The GVA Analysis, however, goes on to say that the price paid be the appellants for the property suggests that they must have adopted sales values of at least £880/sqft, and possibly higher. It also says that whilst not suggesting that the figures put forward by Marsh and Parsons are wrong, they clearly cannot reflect the figures used by developers, which it says are backed by experience of other residential developments. It therefore concluded that the appropriate private sales value to adopt was £880/sqft at that time.

55. It was agreed at the Inquiry that if the appellants’ figure of £707/sqft, from May 2013, is inflated to reflect the house inflation to May 2014, as advocated by the Council, then this figure would become £829/sqft. Furthermore, the appellants re-instructed Marsh and Parsons to re-price each individual unit within the proposed development, having regard to the local market, for the purposes of the Inquiry. This analysis11 indicates that a blended average sales value of £832/sqft would be achievable and realistic. Furthermore, the appellants sought a second independent opinion from Savills, who also produced a dwelling by dwelling analysis, which indicated that a blended average sales value of £839/sqft was realistic and indicative of the current market levels in the Hammersmith area. Finally, the appellants included a bespoke Developer Pricing Analysis Report by Hometrack12 which assesses the potential value ranges by reference to market information, site sales history and mortgage valuations. The report includes details of up to 156 comparables during the last 12 months and concludes on a potential supportable value range of £500/sqft to £864/sqft depending on property type and size.

11 Appendix 9 to Miss Dickinson’s Proof of Evidence 12 Appendix 13 to Miss Dickinson’s Proof of Evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

56. GVA, on behalf of the Council, having regard to advice provided by local agent, Douglas and Gordon, considers that the blended average sales value for the appeal scheme should be £943/sqft, which it states is informed by comparable new developments at Ashlar Court, St Peter’s Place and Banim Street. The Council identified the blended average sales value for Ashlar Court as £986/sqft and for St Peter’s Place as £991/sqft. For Banim Street, the Council supplied the sale price and the sale price/sqft of each unit, along with the under offer price and under offer price/sqft of 3 of the 6 units within this scheme, and confirmed at the Inquiry that the average sales price is £949/sqft.

57. The appellants raised a number of concerns with each of these comparable developments. Firstly, with regards to Ashlar Court, which the appellants are responsible for developing, they set out a number of differences between it and the development proposed at appeal site. The appellants refer to the location and nature of the area which surrounds the 2 sites. The appeal site is located in a higher density mixed use urban environment, whereas Ashlar Court is sited within a residential neighbourhood comprising Victorian mansion style buildings and quiet wide streets. The development at Ashlar Court involves the conversion of a Grade II listed former hospital building rather than the construction of a new building. The common areas and facilities at Ashlar Court are of a superior quality and specification to those proposed at the appeal site and the internal specification of Ashlar Court is higher than that proposed at the appeal site. Future home owners at Ashlar Court will benefit from a concierge service, access to extensive grounds, including manicured gardens, and the majority of private homes are sold with a secure gated and underground car parking space, none of which would be the case in the proposed development.

58. Secondly, the appellants say that the pricing information provided in the Council’s evidence is incorrect. Savills were appointed as sales agent by Linden Homes for the Ashlar Court development and they confirm in a letter13, dated 24 June 2014, that the average agreed sales price of these homes is £875/sqft, rather than £986/sqft used by GVA. Finally, the appellants say that no reference is made in the Council’s assessment of these comparables to the impact of car parking on sales prices. The GVA Development Viability Analysis, draft dated October 2013, says that one agent commented that, without car parking, units would be approximately £50,000 lower in value. This was accepted by the Council at the Inquiry as a reasonable adjustment to make in respect of the lack of car parking spaces proposed within the appeal scheme. As such, when adjusted for accuracy and the absence of a dedicated car parking space, the appellants consider that the correct like for like blended average sales value for Ashlar Court should be £858.51/sqft.

59. The Council considers that inflation should be added to all comparables, which if applied to the adjusted figure, taking into account the correct pricing information and absence of a dedicated car parking space, would increase the average sales value from £858/sqft to £921/sqft. The appellants disagree with this approach, which they say is not usual practice and advise that care should be taken in doing so, especially as the most recent uncontested evidence available suggests that there has in fact been an actual fall in values as at today’s dates even below the uninflated blended average levels. Indeed, the

13 Appendix 1 to Miss Dickinson’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

appellants confirm that the actual current day asking prices are £889/sqft, with an anticipated average sales value of £789/sqft.

60. At the Inquiry, the appellants stated that they consider that a further adjustment would be necessary to reflect the numerous other material differences between the scheme at Ashlar Court and that proposed at the appeal site. The appellants consider that such a reduction should be in the range of around 10-20%. However, the Council stated at the Inquiry that a reduction in the region of around £20/sqft would be more appropriate.

61. With regards to St Peter’s Place, the appellants refer to the Council’s use of asking prices from a sample of 9 units. They also refer to Knight Frank, the agent in respect of these properties, who advise that the information relied upon by the Council is incorrect as only one unit achieved the asking price and confirm that the blended average sales value for St Peter’s Place was £916/sqft (including a car parking space). The appellants state that when an allowance is made for excluding the car parking space this reduces to £838.50/sqft. Furthermore, the appellants consider that the St Peter’s Place development is in a superior location to the appeal site and, as such, a further adjustment should be made to these figures. The Council considers, however, that the sales prices for flats, excluding car parking and inflated to today, would give a figure of between £940/sqft and £957/sqft.

62. Government Guidance in paragraph 021 of the PPG says that wherever possible, specific evidence from comparable developments should be used after adjustment to take into account types of land use, form of property, scale, location, rents and yields. It was apparent from my site visit and evidence presented to the Inquiry that the comparable sites referred to by the Council differ significantly from the appeal site. The Ashlar Court development is set within a Grade II listed building, which retains many original features and benefits from attractive, extensive grounds, within a quiet residential street, close to Ravenscourt Park. As well as an extensive concierge service, the units are of a superior quality and specification to those proposed at the appeal site. Although part of the St Peter’s Place development faces on to King Street, it is in a more attractive and superior location to the appeal site, given its close proximity to St Peter’s Square, which is one of the most sought after streets in the area, with quiet residential streets surrounding it being highly sought after. Similarly the Banim Street development is a small scheme located on a quiet residential street, in close proximity to Brackenbury Village, another highly sought after location.

63. I acknowledge the views of local agent Marsh and Parsons14 in this regard, who say, in their letter dated 11 April 2014, that the appeal site is in a less desirable location when compared to sites at St Peter’s Place and Ashlar Court, given that King Street is a very busy road and consists of mostly commercial shops and offices. I also note the comments made by Savills15, in their letter dated 24 June 2014, which says that there is a clear differential between the appeal scheme and that at Ashlar Court, which is a higher specification, in a superior location and within a Grade II listed building which brings with it a kudos. In my opinion, as well as the agreed adjustment made for car parking within the Ashlar Court and St Peter’s Place developments, an appropriate adjustment would need to be made to reflect the material differences between

14 Appendix 10 to Miss Dickinson’s Proof of Evidence 15 Appendix 1 to Miss Dickinson’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

each of these comparable schemes and the appeal site. I consider, therefore, that the residential sales value of the appeal scheme should be materially less than those within the comparable schemes. Indeed, the figure of between 10 and 20% put forward by the appellants would, to my mind, better reflect these differences than the £20/sqft (or 2%) favoured by the Council.

64. The development at Banim Street is clearly in a very different market area. Very little transactional evidence is available and I concur with the appellants’ view that asking prices are inappropriate as reliable evidence, particularly given the small scale and nature of the scheme.

65. With regards to the prices per square foot put forward for each of the comparable schemes, it is clear from the evidence before me that the figures which are most certain are those from the Ashlar Court development. If the lower adjustment of 10% is applied to the blended average sales value for Ashlar Court (£858.51/sqft) this would reduce to £829/sqft, which is not dissimilar to the residential sales value of £832/sqft relied upon by the appellants. Furthermore, the values used in the appraisals by the appellants are consistent with the original valuations, with inflation added, and with the opinions of Savills and Marsh and Parsons, while being higher than Hometrack suggests would be appropriate and lower than the anticipated sales prices for the remaining units at Ashlar Court. In my opinion, therefore, the figure of £832/sqft is robust and supported by substantial evidence and would be the most appropriate figure to be used in any assessment of viability.

Appeal Costs

66. The appellants consider that the professional fees associated with the appeal (around £226,500) should be included in the viability appraisal. The Council, however, disagrees. Appendix C of the RICS Guidance sets out an indicative outline of what to include in a viability assessment. In terms of costs, this includes planning costs and professional fees. To my mind it would be reasonable to include the costs of the professional fees incurred in pursuing a planning appeal, as these are actual costs associated with bringing forward the proposed development through the planning process. I consider therefore that the professional fees relating to the appeal should be included in any assessment of viability.

Business Rate Costs

67. The appellants consider that the business rate costs (£426,259.52, but potentially increasing to around £507,334.61) incurred since the purchase of the appeal site in July 2013 and up until the start of demolition, the earliest target date of which is 1 October 2014, assuming a favourable appeal decision by mid-August 2014, should be included in the viability appraisal. The Council, however, disagrees.

68. Appendix C of the RICS Guidance includes vacant possession costs within the indicative outline of what to include in a viability assessment. G35 in Appendix G of the RICS Guidance, which sets out Frequently Asked Questions for users of viability assessments, indicates that such costs are incurred by a developer in order to be able to implement a development by agreeing terms to vacate by existing tenants. Paragraph 3.6.2.1 of the RICS Guidance says that the site will be valued at the date of assessment. It goes on to say that holding costs attributable to the purchase of the site should therefore not normally be

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

allowed, as the site value will be updated. Paragraph 3.6.2.2 says that other relevant costs subsequent to purchase, including professional fees and other costs incurred in bringing the application forward, and holding the site including remediation measures, should be reflected in the development appraisal as appropriate and reasonable. Appendix F to the RICS Guidance defines holding cost as the cost involved in owning a site or property, which may include such items as interest on finance used to acquire the asset, maintenance costs, empty rates etc.

69. In my opinion, although the value of the appeal site has been updated for the purposes of this appeal from the date of the original assessment submitted with the planning application, I consider that the inclusion of the empty business rates as a holding cost associated with the appeal site from the date of purchase through to the demolition of the buildings upon it would be reasonable in this case as it is an actual cost of holding the site prior to the commencement of development. I consider therefore that the business rate costs associated with the appeal site should be included in any assessment of viability.

Contribution towards Affordable Housing

70. It is apparent from the evidence before me that the appeal site has a high benchmark market value, given its location and the competing demands of alternative uses for the site. I am satisfied that with an average blended sales value of £832/sqft, against a benchmark value of £12m, the appellants have demonstrated that the provision of any affordable housing on this site would render the proposed development unviable, with the effect that housing provision would be restrained. This would run counter to the Government’s requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing and the aims and objectives of the development plan.

71. I conclude, therefore, that, having regard to financial viability, the individual circumstances of the appeal site and the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development, the proposed development should not include an element of affordable housing. As such, it would not be contrary to Core Strategy Policy H2 and Policies 3.11 and 3.12 of The London Plan and would accord with guidance in The Framework.

Other Matters

72. The Hammersmith Society and the Residents of Beavor Lane and Chambon Place, along with local residents, are concerned about the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the nearby Ravenscourt and Starch Green and Westcroft Square Conservation Areas. I am satisfied, however, that given the design, scale, height and mass of the proposed building, it would be appropriate for its location and would not harm the setting or character of the adjacent Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area.

73. A number of third parties including The Hammersmith Society and the Residents of Beavor Lane and Chambon Place have expressed concern about the impact of the development on on-street parking in the local area. The proposed development would be car parking free and car permit free. However, I note that cars, including visitors to the development, could park on the street during the evenings and weekends. Disabled residents of the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

proposed development with a blue badge would also be eligible to park on the street. I acknowledge the results of the Council’s recent parking surveys, however, and, as such, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptable on-street parking pressure at any time.

74. The Hammersmith Society and the Residents of Beavor Lane and Chambon Place, along with local residents, have raised concerns about the potential highway safety impacts, particularly conflict with existing pedestrians and cyclists on Beavor Lane and the surrounding streets, including children from nearby schools. Given that the development would be car free, the number of car trips associated with the residential use would be low. Furthermore, the Transport Assessment submitted by the appellants indicates that the number of deliveries generated by the commercial and residential uses would be less than those expected for the previous office use at the appeal site. As such, I consider that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety.

75. I have considered all the other matters raised by the Council and third parties including the loss of the existing building; the impact on neighbouring properties and their occupiers; the consultation process and its outcomes; loss of the B1 units; and the impact on the environment, but none changes my overall conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.

Conditions

76. The main parties submitted a list of agreed conditions at the Inquiry. In addition to the standard time limit condition, the agreed list includes 43 conditions. In addition, The Hammersmith Society has suggested an additional condition specifically restricting the permanent infilling of terraces and balconies. I have had regard to the advice in the PPG16 when considering these conditions. A condition which sets out the approved plans would be reasonable for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. The submission of samples of materials to be used in all external faces of the buildings and all surface treatments, along with detailed drawings of typical bays of the development, would be necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. A condition which prevents the use of mirrored, painted or otherwise obscured window glass in the shopfronts fronting onto King Street, would be reasonable to safeguard the character and appearance of the streetscene.

77. The submission and approval of details of the signage for the commercial units would be necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Conditions which require the submission and approval of landscaping details and their implementation, and the protection of trees surrounding the site, would be reasonable to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Restrictions on the opening hours of the commercial units would be necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The removal of permitted development rights from the residential properties in respect of extensions/enlargement of the dwellings, erection of porches, outbuildings, hardstandings, storage tanks, gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure, aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment, would be reasonable to safeguard the appearance of the proposed building and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. I consider that

16 Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions has been largely superseded by the Planning Practice Guidance, with the exception of Appendix A (Model Conditions) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 19 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

these conditions would adequately address the concerns raised by The Hammersmith Society in respect of the infilling of terraces and balconies.

78. Conditions requiring the submission of full details of the refuse and recycling storage for both the commercial and residential properties would be necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents and in the interests of highway safety. A requirement that the bicycle parking spaces for residents and employees be provided prior to the first occupation of the development would be reasonable in the interests of providing a sustainable development. A condition requiring that a statement be submitted and approved detailing how Secured by Design requirements would be achieved would be reasonable to provide a safe and secure environment for future occupiers. The submission and approval of a scheme of sound insulation of the building envelope and of silenced mechanical ventilation, along with details of the sound insulation of the floor/ceiling/walls separating the commercial and communal parts of the premises, and the plant room, from dwellings, and the floor/ceiling/walls separating different room types in separate dwellings would be necessary to ensure satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.

79. The submission of details of the external noise level emitted from plant/machinery/equipment, along with appropriate mitigation measures, and the submission of details of anti-vibration measures, would be necessary to ensure that the living conditions of neighbouring residents is safeguarded. Conditions requiring the submission of a Demolition Management Plan and Demolition Logistics Plan, along with a Construction Management Plan and a Construction Logistics Plan, would be necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Conditions relating to the preparation of a preliminary risk assessment, site investigation scheme, quantitative risk assessment, remediation method statement, its implementation and the production of a verification report, and an onward long term monitoring methodology report, in order to assess, identify, remediate and monitor any contamination found on the site, would be necessary to safeguard the environment and future occupiers of the proposed development.

80. A requirement that the development shall be constructed in accordance with the measures outlined in the submitted Sustainability Strategy and to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 would be necessary to ensure the construction of a sustainable development. The submission of a revised Energy Strategy for the development would be reasonable to ensure an energy efficient development. A condition requiring the submission of details of a surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles, would be reasonable to prevent any increased risk of flooding and to ensure the satisfactory storage/disposal of surface water. The submission of details of the final position and number of photovoltaic panels would be reasonable to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. The submission of a Servicing and Delivery Management Plan for the commercial units would be necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

81. The submission of an Air Quality Assessment would be necessary to ensure that the living conditions of future occupants would be satisfactory. A condition requiring the submission of full details of the proposed flood resilience measures would be necessary to safeguard the development from flooding. A requirement that the dwellings shall be designed to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards would be reasonable to meet the needs of future occupiers of the proposed

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 20 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

development. A condition requiring the implementation of the recommendations set out in the Noise Assessment report would be reasonable to ensure that the living conditions of future occupiers would be satisfactory. A requirement that prior to the commencement of any A3 use within the development, details shall be submitted relating to the installation, operation and maintenance of any odour abatement equipment and extraction system, would be necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

82. A condition requiring the submission or revised drawings in respect of the entrance arrangements to the units accessed off Vencourt Place and the internal arrangements of Units 1-13, 2-05, 4-01, 4-02, 4-04 and 5-05, would be necessary to ensure an accessible development. A requirement for the provision of additional internal doors dividing corridors on the first, third and fourth floors would be necessary to ensure that future occupiers would not suffer from undue noise and disturbance within their homes. A condition requiring the submission of revised drawings showing the provision of an additional lift to all floors would be necessary in the interests of ensuring an accessible development.

83. I do not consider that conditions requiring the submission of revised drawings showing details of a buffer zone and boundary treatment to the units accessed off Vencourt Place and a revised room layout to Units 4-02 and 4-03 would be necessary to provide adequate privacy and sunlight levels, respectively, for future occupiers. A condition requiring the submission of revised drawings showing the revised main entrance detail on King Street would not be necessary. However, a condition requiring that this entrance be constructed in accordance with the submitted amended plan would be reasonable to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

Section 106 Agreement

84. The appellants submitted an Agreement17 under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 at the Inquiry, which includes a number of obligations to come into effect if planning permission is granted. I have considered these in the light of the statutory tests contained in Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010. I have also had regard to the justification18 for the proposed Section 106 items (without prejudice) arising from the scheme, submitted at the Inquiry by the Council, along with the associated documentation.

85. Borough Wide Strategic Policy CF1 in the Core Strategy says that the Council will work with its strategic partners to provide Boroughwide high quality accessible and inclusive facilities and services for the community by, amongst other things, requiring developments that increase the demand for community facilities and services to make contributions towards, or provide for, new or improved facilities. The obligations within the Section 106 Agreement relate to the following matters:

86. CCTV: Development Management Local Plan Policy DM G1 requires new development to be of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting. It goes on to say that

17 Document 26 18 Document 19 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 21 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

all proposals must be designed to respect the principles of Secured by Design. The Council plans to erect a CCTV camera directly outside the proposed development on King Street, with a further CCTV camera proposed to be erected to the west of the appeal site, further down King Street. The cost of each camera is around £20,000 which is to be funded by Section 106 Agreement contributions. Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement includes a financial contribution of £25,000 towards the provision and maintenance of 2 CCTV cameras on King Street. The CCTV cameras would improve the safety and security of pedestrians along this part of King Street, including future occupiers of the proposed development. I consider therefore that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

87. Cycle Hire: Policy DM J5 of the Development Management Local Plan encourages increased bicycle use by seeking, amongst other things, developer contributions for improvements to cycling infrastructure, including contributions to the extension of the Mayor of London’s Cycle Hire Scheme. Furthermore, SPD Transport Policy 14 of the Council’s Planning Guidance SPD says that contribution will be sought from developments located near to the proposed extension of the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme. The Council has committed to contribute £2 million to Transport for London for the provision of the existing and planned docking stations, which is being recovered via Section 106 contributions from new developments. The Council is seeking a contribution towards the £200,000 cost of a docking station in the vicinity of the appeal site. Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement includes a financial contribution of £50,000 towards the Mayor of London’s Cycle Hire Scheme. Given that the proposed development would be car free I consider that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

88. Education: Policy DM D1 of the Development Management Local Plan says that the provision of new or expanded community uses should be provided as part of the necessary supporting social infrastructure for significant new housing and other development proposals. It goes on to say that where it is not appropriate to provide community uses on site or in total as part of a development scheme, a contribution to new and/or enhanced uses in the locality will be sought. The Council confirmed at the Inquiry that a contribution would be required for the primary school aged children only within the scheme due to a shortfall of places within local schools within this age group. The Council expects that the development would generate the need for 3 additional primary school places. Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement includes a financial contribution of £45,000 towards education facilities and initiatives within the Borough. Given the need for additional primary school places generated by the proposed development, along with the current shortfall in provision, I am satisfied that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

89. Economic Regeneration: Policy DM B3 of the Development Management Local Plan seeks appropriate employment and training initiatives for local people of all abilities in the construction of major developments and in larger employment generating developments, including visitor accommodation and facilities when these are completed. The Council’s Employment and Skills Code sets out the actions required to secure local employment and skills benefits and to maximise the opportunities available to local residents in the Borough from all property developments of over 1000sqm of gross internal floor space taking place in the Borough both during and after the construction phase. It goes on to say that the level of contribution towards employment and training will be

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 22 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

related to the scale of the development. Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement includes a financial contribution of £110,000 towards economic regeneration initiatives including training and recruitment, provision of apprentices and construction jobs. Given the nature and scale of the development, I am satisfied that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

90. Healthcare: Development Management Local Plan Policy DM D1 says that the provision of new or expanded community uses should be provided as part of the necessary supporting social infrastructure for significant new housing and other development proposals. It goes on to say that where it is not appropriate to provide community uses on site or in total as part of a development scheme, a contribution to new and/or enhanced uses in the locality will be sought. An assessment of the implications of the proposed development on healthcare provision concludes that a total capital planning contribution of £56,811 would be required, at a rate of £1,033 per unit. Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement includes a financial contribution of £55,000 towards healthcare facilities and healthcare and wellbeing in the Borough. Given the anticipated impact of the proposed development on healthcare provision, I consider that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

91. Parks: Policy DM E1 of the Development Management Local Plan seeks to reduce open space deficiency and to improve the quality of, and access to, existing open space by, amongst other things, seeking improvements to and/or monies for improvement to existing open space where appropriate and when development proposals impact upon provision. The proposed development would provide no public open space or play space within the appeal site. Given this and the proximity of Ravenscourt Park, it is likely that occupiers of the proposed development would heavily use the facilities within this park, along with other parks in the locality. The Council has planned and costed improvement works to local parks amounting to £975,000, with the majority of this money to be spent within Ravenscourt Park. The Council is seeking a financial contribution of £150,000 towards the improvements proposed within Ravenscourt Park, which is included within Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement. Given the lack of any public open space or play space within the proposed development, the close proximity of Ravenscourt Park and the likely demand for the use of the facilities within this park by future occupiers of the proposed dwellings, I consider that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

92. Pedestrian and Cycle: Policy DM J5 of the Development Management Local Plan encourages increased bicycle use by seeking, amongst other things, developer contributions for improvements to cycling infrastructure. Furthermore, SPD Transport Policy 15 of the Council’s Planning Guidance SPD says that a contribution will be sought from developments located near to the proposed Cycle Superhighway routes. The Council is seeking a contribution towards highways initiatives in the area which would improve the pedestrian environment and safety of cyclists in the vicinity of the appeal site, in particular the Hammersmith Town Centre Neighbourhood Scheme and planned works to the junction of King Street/Goldhawk Road. Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement includes a financial contribution of £30,000 towards pedestrian and cycle environment improvement schemes in King Street. Given that the proposed development would be car free and residents of the development

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 23 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

would be likely to use other forms of transport including cycling and walking, I consider that this obligation would pass the statutory tests

93. Sports Facility: Policy DM D2 of the Development Management Local Plan supports the enhancement of arts, culture, entertainment, leisure, recreation and sport uses by, amongst other things, requiring provision of new facilities as part of major development proposals, where appropriate and viable. The Council is seeking a contribution towards sports and leisure facilities within the Borough, based on Sport England’s facility calculator for the Borough, which provides a calculation of required sports provision in terms of population. This would require a contribution of £545 per person. Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement includes a financial contribution of £55,000 towards sporting and leisure facilities within the Borough. Given the likely future demand for the use of sports and leisure facilities from occupiers of the proposed development, I am satisfied that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

94. Trees: Policy DM E4 of the Development Management Local Plan seeks to enhance biodiversity and green infrastructure in the Borough by, amongst other things, seeking green roofs and other planting as part of new development and seeking the provision of new trees on development sites. The Council is seeking a financial contribution towards the provision of 2-4 trees to be planted within the street in order to improve the visual amenity of the area and mitigate against the impact of the proposed building. Schedule 2 of the Section 106 Agreement includes a contribution of £14,000 towards the provision of street trees within the vicinity of the site. I consider that the planting of additional street trees along this part of King Street and Beavor Lane would soften the proposed building and ease its assimilation into the streetscene. As such, I consider that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

95. Highway Works: SPD Transport Policy 24 of the Council’s Planning Guidance SPD says that, in relation to works on the public highway, the developer will be required to pay for any works that the Council or Transport for London, in their capacity as highway authority, has the power to carry out and that are necessary as a result of new development. Highway works required as part of the proposed development include the removal of the existing vehicular access on Beavor Lane and its reinstatement to footway level; repaving the footway along the Beavor Lane frontage; alterations to the highway boundary with additional areas becoming public highway on King Street; and landscaping works to the King Street frontage. Schedule 3 of the Section 106 Agreement sets out the agreement of the owner to pay to the Council the reasonable and proper costs of carrying out the highway works. Given that these works would be carried out as a direct result of the proposed development, I am satisfied that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

96. Transport Policy: Policy DM J1 of the Development Management Local Plan says that all development proposals will be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion, particularly on bus routes and on the primary route network, and against the existing and potential availability of public transport, and its capacity to meet increased demand. It goes on to say that a Travel Pan will be required where a development is expected to generate more than a specified number of trips or during peak hours. Policy DM J3 says that market and intermediate housing with zero or reduced parking will only be considered in areas with good levels of public transport accessibility, where the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 24 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

occupants are unlikely to need a car and where quality of life criteria such as access to shops is justified. SPD Transport Policy 2 of the Council’s Planning Guidance SPD says that a Travel Plan will be secured by a Section 106 Agreement in the first instance. The Council is seeking the submission of Commercial and Residential Travel Plans, in the interests of reducing car use and ensuring sustainable patterns of travel. Furthermore, given that the development would not include on site car parking and is in an area with good public accessibility levels, the Council is seeking that future occupiers shall be restricted from applying for residents’ parking permits, in order to prevent an unacceptable impact on local parking conditions. Schedule 4 of the Section 106 Agreement sets out the agreement of the owner to submit both a Residential Travel Plan and a Commercial Travel Plan for the Council’s approval, along with a sum of £2,000 in respect of each Travel Plan for its monitoring. The Residential Travel Plan would, amongst other things, discourage use of single car occupancy by occupiers and visitors to the residential units of the development. Schedule 4 of the S106 Agreement also sets out the restriction placed on future occupiers (other than Blue Badge Holders) to prevent them from applying for a parking permit, along with the method of notification to occupiers and the provision for the surrender of any permit which is wrongly granted. Given the nature and location of the proposed development, I consider that these obligations would pass the statutory tests.

97. Wheelchair Accessible Units: Core Strategy Policy H4 says that the Council will work with housebuilders to increase the supply and choice of high quality residential accommodation that meets the local residents’ needs and aspirations and market demand. In order to deliver this it goes on to say, amongst other things, that all new build dwellings should be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards with 10% to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents that are wheelchair users. Policy DM A4 of the Development Management Local Plan says that all new housing should be built to accessible ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards and in developments of 10 or more residential units, 10% of all new housing, in proportion to the tenure mix of the development, should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. Schedule 5 of the Section 106 Agreement sets out the timing of the construction of the wheelchair accessible units, their marketing for initial sales, the provision of additional units, retention of the internal design and their marketing for re-sales. The proposed development would include 6 wheelchair accessible units (10%). Given this, I am satisfied that the obligations included within the Section 106 Agreement in respect of these units would pass the statutory tests.

98. Affordable Housing: Core Strategy Policy H2 says that housing development should help achieve more mixed and balanced communities and reduce social and economic polarisation by improving the mix of affordable housing in the Borough for those who cannot afford market housing. It goes on to say that on sites with the capacity for 10 or more self-contained dwellings affordable housing should be provided having regard to a number of criteria including a Boroughwide target that at least 40% of all additional dwellings built between 2011-21 should be affordable. Schedule 6 of the Section 106 Agreement includes the provision of 7 affordable housing units for discount market sale. The Council does not consider that 7 units would be satisfactory in this case. However, for the reasons given previously in respect of the viability of the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 25 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

scheme, in my opinion, to provide 7 units would make the scheme unviable, with the result being that the site would be unlikely to come forward for housing. As such, I do not consider that this obligation would pass the statutory tests.

99. Sustainable Energy: The London Plan Policy 5.2 says that major developments should meet the set targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction in buildings. The target for 2013-2016 is a 40% improvement on the 2010 Building Regulations. It goes on to say that major development proposals should include a detailed energy assessment to demonstrate how the targets for carbon dioxide emissions are to be met. These targets should be met on site. However, where it is clearly demonstrated that the specific targets cannot be fully achieved on site, any shortfall may be provided off site or through a cash in lieu contribution to secure delivery of carbon dioxide savings elsewhere. The Council is seeking the preparation and approval of an Energy Statement for this development, along with the provision of a carbon offset contribution if the development fails to provide a 40% reduction in carbon emissions over Part L of the Building Regulations on site. Schedule 7 of the Section 106 Agreement includes such obligations. Given the nature and scale of the development proposed I consider that these obligations would pass the statutory tests. Karen Baker

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 26 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Richard Turney of Counsel He called Ms Katherine Wood Acting Principal Planning Officer, Development BA(Hons) MA Management Mr Charles Trustram- Director of GVA Grimley Limited Eve MRICS

FOR THE APPELLANTS:

Mr Russell Harris QC He called Mr Paul Sandilands Director of Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands BArch(Hons) BA(Hons) RIBA Ms Claire Dickinson BSc Director of Quod DipCRP Mr Jon Roshier Director of Rolfe Judd Planning Limited BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI

FOR THE HAMMERSMITH SOCIETY:

Mr Tom Ryland DipAA RIBA Vice Chairman

FOR THE RESIDENTS OF BEAVOR LANE AND CHAMBON PLACE :

Councillor Lucy Ivimy

INTERESTED PERSONS: (Conditions and Section 106 Agreement Session only) Ms Catherine Smyth Area Team Leader (North), Development BA(MOD)(DUB) MRUP Management, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Ms Adesuwa Omoregie Solicitor, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Mr Philip Dunphy Rolfe Judd Planning

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY

1 Schedule of appearances/advocates and barristers, submitted by the appellants 2 Opening submissions on behalf of the appellants 3 Opening submissions on behalf of the Council 4 Statement of Common Ground, incorporating the Core Documents, Parts 1 and 2, submitted by the appellants 5 Table showing the effect of the average sales value price per square foot on affordable housing viability, submitted by the appellants 6 London Plan 2011 Implementation Framework: Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, November 2012, submitted by the appellants

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 27 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

7 Draft planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, submitted by the Council 8 Draft list of suggested conditions, submitted by the Council 9 London Plan 2011 Implementation Framework: London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 10, 2012-13, March 2014, submitted by the appellants 10 Summary of Financial Appraisal Sensitivity Testing, 4 July 2014, submitted by the appellants 11 Sales Values: Summary, submitted by the appellants 12 Evidence of purchases for D1 use, submitted by the appellants 13 Valuation Information Paper No. 12: Valuation of development land, March 2008, submitted by the appellants 14 Extract from Housing Design Standards, Evidence Summary, July 2010, Summary of evidence on proposed housing design standards for the Examination in Public of the draft replacement London Plan, submitted by the appellants 15 Draft list of suggested conditions, submitted by the Council 16 Justification for proposed S106 items (without prejudice) arising from the scheme at 271-281 King Street – Ref. APP/H5390/A/13/2209347, submitted by the Council 17 Draft planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, submitted by the Council 18 The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, July 2011, submitted by the Council 19 Justification for proposed S106 items (without prejudice) arising from the scheme at 271-281 King Street – Ref. APP/H5390/A/13/2209347, including the relevant policies, submitted by the Council 20 Agreed list of suggested conditions, submitted by the Council 21 Letter from BRE, dated 26 June 2014, submitted by the Council 22 Response to letter from BRE, prepared by CHP Surveyors, dated 3 July 2014, submitted by the appellants 23 Closing Statement on behalf of the Residents of Beavor Lane and Chambon Place, submitted by Councillor Lucy Ivimy 24 Closing Statement on behalf of The Hammersmith Society, including a correction, submitted by Mr Tom Ryland 25 Closing Statement on behalf of the Council, submitted by Mr Richard Turney, Counsel for the Council 26 Section 106 Agreement, submitted by the appellants 27 Closing Submissions of the appellants, submitted by Mr Russell Harris QC, Counsel for the appellants

PLANS

A1/1 Existing Site Location Plan (Drawing No. X1001) A1/2 Existing Site Context Elevations (Drawing No. X1002) A1/3 Existing North Elevation (Drawing No. X1003) A1/4 Existing West Elevation (Drawing No. X1004) A1/5 Existing East Elevation (Drawing No. X1005) A1/6 Proposed Site Location Plan (Drawing No. P1001) A1/7 Proposed Site Context Elevations (Drawing No. P1002) A1/8 Proposed Site Context Section (Drawing No. P1003) A1/9 Proposed Ground Floor Plan (Drawing No. P1101) A1/10 Proposed First Floor Plan (Drawing No. P1102) A1/11 Proposed Second Floor Plan (Drawing No. P1103)

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 28 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

A1/12 Proposed Third Floor Plan (Drawing No. P1104) A1/13 Proposed Fourth Floor Plan (Drawing No. P1105) A1/14 Proposed Fifth Floor Plan (Drawing No. P1106) A1/15 Proposed Sixth Floor Plan (Drawing No. P1107) A1/16 Proposed Roof Plan (Drawing No. P1108) A1/17 Proposed North Elevation (Drawing No. P1301) A1/18 Proposed West Elevation (Drawing No. P1302) A1/ 19 Proposed East Elevation (Drawing No. P1303) A1/20 Proposed Section AA and South Elevation (Park-Facing Building) (Drawing No. P1304) A1/21 Proposed South Elevation (Drawing No. P1305) A1/22 Proposed Section BB and West Elevation (Vencourt Place Building) (Drawing No. P1306) A1/23 Proposed Park-Facing Building Detail Part Elevation (North) (Drawing No. P1401) A1/24 Proposed Park-Facing Building Detail Part Elevation (West) (Drawing No. P1402) A1/25 Proposed Beavor Lane Building Detail Part Elevation (Drawing No. P1403) A1/26 Proposed Vencourt Place Building Detail Part Elevation (Drawing No. P1404) A1/27 Retail Frontage Detail Plan (Drawing No. P2001) A1/28 Retail Frontage Detail Section (Drawing No. P2002) A1/29 North Elevation Typical Window Detail Plan (Drawing No. P2003) A1/30 North Elevation Typical Window Detail Section (Drawing No. P2004) A1/31 North Elevation Typical Opening Detail Plan With Brick Recess (Drawing No. P2005) A1/32 North Elevation Typical Opening and Parapet Detail Section (Drawing No. P2006) A1/33 North Elevation Recessed Balcony Detail Plan (Drawing No. P2007) A1/34 North Elevation Recessed Balcony Detail Section (Drawing No. P2008) A1/35 North Elevation Corner Recessed Balcony Detail Plan (Drawing No. P2009) A1/36 North Elevation Recessed Bay Detail Section (Drawing No. P2010) A1/37 North Elevation Projecting Window Detail Plan (Drawing No. P2011) A1/38 North Elevation Projecting Window Detail Section (Drawing No. P2012) A1/39 North Elevation Roof Parapet Detail Section (Drawing No. P2013) A1/40 West Elevation Typical Bay Section Ground (Drawing No. P2014) A1/41 West Elevation Typical Bay Section Roof Terrace (Drawing No. P2015) A1/42 East Elevation Recessed Balcony Detail Section (Drawing No. P2016) A1/43 East Elevation Terrace Detail Section (Drawing No. P2017) A1/44 Typical Unit Layouts (Sheet 01) (Drawing No. P3001) A1/45 Typical Unit Layouts (Sheet 02) (Drawing No. P3002) A1/46 Typical Unit Layouts (Sheet 03) (Drawing No. P3003) A1/47 Typical Unit Layouts (Sheet 04) (Drawing No. P3004)

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 29 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

Appendix 1 – Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) Save as otherwise provided for by these details, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: X1001; X1002; X1003; X1004; X1005; P1001; P1002; P1003; P1101; P1102; P1103; P1104; P1105; P1106; P1107; P1108; P1301; P1302; P1303; P1304; P1305; P1306; P1401; P1402; P1403; P1404; P2001; P2002; P2003; P2004; P2005; P2006; P2007; P2008; P2009; P2010; P2011; P2012; P2013; P2014; P2015; P2016; P2017; P3001; P3002; P3003; and P3004. 3) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until particulars and samples of materials to be used in all external faces of the buildings, and all surface treatments, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and thereafter permanently retained in this form. 4) The development shall not commence until detailed drawings of typical bays of the development at a scale no less than 1:20 in plan section and elevation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and thereafter permanently retained in this form. 5) The window glass of the shopfronts fronting on to King Street, Beavor Lane and Vencourt Place shall not be mirrored, painted or otherwise obscured. 6) The commercial units shall not be occupied until details of the signage to the units (notwithstanding any requirement for separate advertisement consent), are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation and shall thereafter be permanently retained. 7) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied before details of the landscaping of all areas external to the buildings, including planting, paving, boundary walls, fences, gates and other means of enclosure, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The hard landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, before the occupation or use of any part of the development hereby permitted. 8) All planting, seeding and turfing approved as part of the agreed soft landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting or seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or shrubs which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of the date of the initial planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 9) No trees surrounding the site shall be topped, lopped, felled or wilfully destroyed without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 30 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

10) The commercial units hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times: 0700 hours to 2300 hours (Monday to Saturday); and, 0800 hours to 2230 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 11) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order) no extensions or other form of enlargement to the residential development hereby permitted, nor erection of porches, outbuildings, hardstandings, storage tanks, gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure, shall take place without the prior permission of the local planning authority. 12) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any external part of the approved buildings, without planning permission first being obtained. 13) The commercial units shall not be occupied until full details of refuse and recycling storage, specific to the requirements of the proposed occupier, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall demonstrate that the refuse stores will be fitted with self-closing doors, and that refuse will be stored in lidded containers. The details shall also include a management plan indicating where refuse will be placed on collection days and who will be responsible for removing and returning bins from the refuse stores to the collection points. Such details as approved shall be provided prior to occupation of the commercial unit(s) and thereafter be permanently retained. 14) The residential development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of refuse storage, including provision for the storage of recyclable materials, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall demonstrate that the refuse stores will be fitted with self-closing doors, and that refuse will be stored in lidded containers. The details shall also include a management plan indicating where refuse will be placed on collection days and who will be responsible for removing and returning bins from the refuse stores to the collection points. Such details as approved shall be implemented prior to occupation of the residential development, and thereafter be permanently retained. 15) Prior to the occupation of the residential development hereby permitted, the 68 cycle parking spaces for residents and the 6 cycle parking spaces for employees of the commercial units shown on Drawing No. P1101 shall be provided. The cycle parking shall be permanently accessible for the storage of bicycles for all residents and employees and shall be permanently retained. 16) No development shall commence until a statement of how Secured by Design requirements are to be achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 31 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

shall be carried out before any use of that part of the development to which the approved details relate. 17) Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority of a scheme of sound insulation of the building envelope and of silenced mechanical ventilation, as necessary, to achieve 'Good' internal room noise standards in accordance with the criteria of BS8233:1999. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained. 18) Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, of the sound insulation of the floor/ceiling/walls separating the commercial and communal parts of the premises, and the plant room, from dwellings, and the floor/ceiling/walls separating different room types (bedrooms/kitchen-living rooms) in separate dwellings. Details shall

demonstrate that the sound insulation value DnT1w is sufficiently enhanced and, where necessary, additional mitigation measures are implemented to contain commercial noise within the commercial premises and to achieve the 'Good' criteria of BS8233:1999 within the dwellings/noise sensitive premises. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained. 19) Prior to use of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, of the external noise level emitted from plant/machinery/equipment and mitigation measures as appropriate. The measures shall ensure that the external noise level emitted from plant, machinery/equipment will be lower than the lowest existing background noise level by at least 10dBA, as assessed according to BS4142:1997 at the nearest and/or most affected noise sensitive premises, with all machinery operating together at maximum capacity. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation/use of the development and thereafter be permanently retained. 20) Prior to use of the development, details of anti-vibration measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures shall ensure that machinery, plant/equipment, extract/ventilation system and ducting are mounted with proprietary anti- vibration isolators and fan motors are vibration isolated from the casing and adequately silenced. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation/use of the development and thereafter be permanently retained. 21) No demolition works shall commence until a Demolition Management Plan and a Demolition Logistics Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include contractors' method statements, waste classification and disposal procedures and locations, suitable site hoarding/enclosure, dust and noise monitoring and control, provisions within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the demolition works are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the highway, and other matters relating to traffic management to be agreed. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. No part of the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 32 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site shall be used for the display of advertisement hoardings. 22) No construction works shall take place until a Construction Management Plan and a Construction Logistics Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include any external illumination of the site during construction, contractors' method statements, waste classification and disposal procedures and locations, suitable site hoarding/enclosure, dust and noise monitoring and control, provisions within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction works are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the highway, the numbers, size and routing of construction vehicles and other matters relating to traffic management to be agreed. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. No part of the temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site shall be used for the display of advertisement hoardings. 23) No development shall commence until a preliminary risk assessment report is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This report shall comprise: a desktop study which identifies all current and previous uses at the site and surrounding area as well as the potential contaminants associated with those uses; a site reconnaissance; and a conceptual model indicating potential pollutant linkages between sources, pathways and receptors, including those in the surrounding area and those planned at the site; and a qualitative risk assessment of any potentially unacceptable risks arising from the identified pollutant linkages to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment including ecological receptors and building materials. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing. 24) No development shall commence until a site investigation scheme is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This scheme shall be based upon and target the risks identified in the approved preliminary risk assessment and shall provide provisions for, where relevant, the sampling of soil, soil vapour, ground gas, surface and groundwater. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing. 25) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority that a set extent of development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until, following a site investigation undertaken in compliance with the approved site investigation scheme, a quantitative risk assessment report is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This report shall: assess the degree and nature of any contamination identified on the site through the site investigation; include a revised conceptual site model from the preliminary risk assessment based on the information gathered through the site investigation to confirm the existence of any remaining pollutant linkages and determine the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 33 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

environment. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing. 26) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority that a set extent of development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until, a remediation method statement is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This statement shall detail any required remediation works and shall be designed to mitigate any remaining risks identified in the approved quantitative risk assessment. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing. 27) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority that a set extent of development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until the approved remediation method statement has been carried out in full and a verification report confirming these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. This report shall include: details of the remediation works carried out; results of any verification sampling, testing or monitoring including the analysis of any imported soil; all waste management documentation showing the classification of waste, its treatment, movement and disposal; and the validation of gas membrane placement. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, the local planning authority is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority) shall be carried out until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. Any required remediation shall be detailed in an amendment to the remediation statement and verification of these works included in the verification report. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing. 28) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority that a set extent of development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until an onward long- term monitoring methodology report is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority where further monitoring is required past the completion of development works to verify the success of the remediation undertaken. A verification report of these monitoring works shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority when it may be demonstrated that no residual adverse risks exist. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 34 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

29) The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the measures outlined in the submitted Sustainability Strategy and shall be constructed to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. 30) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a revised Energy Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, which shall outline the measures to be implemented in aiming to meet the 40% carbon reduction target set in The London Plan Policies 5.2 and 4.7, and Policy CC1 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM H1 of the Development Management Local Plan. Such measures as are agreed shall be implemented prior to use/occupation and thereafter be permanently retained as such. 31) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation/use of the development hereby permitted, and thereafter be permanently retained. 32) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, of the final position and number of the proposed photovoltaic panels, to be provided as part of the approved development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and permanently retained as such. 33) The occupation of the commercial units hereby approved shall not commence until a Servicing and Delivery Management Plan, specific to the proposed use within the units, is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall specify the number of weekly deliveries and size of vehicles to be used, as well as the times for deliveries. The commercial units shall only be occupied in accordance with the details approved as part of the Service Management Plan. 34) Development shall not commence until an Air Quality Assessment, outlining the exposure of future occupants of the units to air borne pollutants and mitigation measures as necessary (including details of any mechanical ventilation system and location/appearance of air intakes), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation/use of the development and thereafter permanently retained. 35) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until full details of the proposed flood resilience measures to be incorporated within the development are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied/used until the agreed details have been implemented, and they shall thereafter be permanently retained. 36) The dwellings shall be designed to conform to Lifetime Homes standards and shall be constructed accordingly. Prior to development commencing, a statement on how Lifetime Homes standards have been achieved within the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 35 Appeal Decision APP/H5390/A/13/2209347

37) All recommendations in the Noise Assessment report by Clement Acoustics (Ref: NEA-01 Rev B, dated 21 May 2013), shall be implemented into the development's design and construction and approved details shall be permanently retained thereafter. 38) Prior to commencement of any Class A3 use within the development, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, of the installation, operation, and maintenance of the odour abatement equipment and extraction system, including the height of the extraction duct and vertical discharge outlet, in accordance with the ‘Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems’ January 2005 by DEFRA. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the use and thereafter be permanently retained. 39) Prior to the commencement of the development, revised drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, showing revised entrance arrangements to Units G-05, G-06, G-07 and G-08, accessed off Vencourt Place, and the revised internal arrangement of Units 1-13, 2-05, 4-01, 4-02, 4-04 and 5-05. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved revised drawings and permanently retained as such thereafter. 40) Prior to the commencement of the development, revised drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, showing additional internal doors dividing corridors on first, third and fourth floor levels. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and permanently retained as such thereafter. 41) Notwithstanding the approved plans, the main entrance to the residential development which fronts onto King Street shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted plan (Residential Entrance Component Drawing (Drawing No. SK04470)) and permanently retained as such thereafter. 42) Prior to the commencement of the development, revised drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, showing the provision of an additional lift to all floor levels, and details of the operation of the lift and the floor levels it serves. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and permanently retained as such thereafter.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 36

Appendix 3 – Factors determining Site Value

Appendix 3 – Factors Determining Site Value

Factors a willing seller and a purchaser would consider when selling or acquiring residential development land:

 Market conditions both in respect of the land market and the housing market with an emphasis on comparable evidence;  Housing market forecasts and anticipated market demand;  Political environment;  London, UK and global economic conditions;  Availability of finance;  Title issues e.g. restrictive covenants;  Vacant possession;  Current and alternative use values;  Proximity to key transport nodes;  Acceptability of the principle of residential development of the site in planning terms including design, environmental sustainability and site specific policies;  Site capacity including taking into account adjoining building heights and daylight sunlight considerations and density guidelines;  The maximum reasonable level of affordable housing having reference to recent planning decisions in a borough;  Local and regional Annual Monitoring Reports;  Section 106 costs and Community Infrastructure Levy;  Land assembly, if required;  Ground conditions and land contamination;  Rights of Light;  Build costs and availability of labour and materials;  Access and highways;  Whether the existing buildings on the site are statutorily listed;  Whether the site is situated within a conservation area.

Appendix 4 – Savills Planning Note on AMR Data

Appeal at 65 – 69 Parkhurst Road, Islington, London

Planning Note on AMR Data

This note has been prepared to address two questions which relate to the evidence of Andrew Jones, of BPS Chartered Surveyors. Mr Jones provides evidence on behalf of the London Borough of Islington in relation to development viability.

The questions have arisen following a review of his evidence, and focus on the data he has used in relation to affordable housing.

1. Why does the Savills Planning research differ from that in Andrew Jones’ evidence?

At paragraph 1.9 of his Proof of Evidence, Andrew Jones refers to a 32% delivery of affordable housing overall, across all sites including sites under 10 units where there is no policy requirement for affordable housing. The footnote confirms that this is based on Preliminary Data for Islington’s Annual Monitoring Report 2014. This data is not currently publically available; however, we have been informed that it will be published on the Council’s website week commencing 6th July.

Looking at the data in the Council’s previous Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR), the figure is understood to be based on completions in the reporting period rather than recent grants of planning permission. For example, the 2013 AMR was based on homes completed in the reporting period which were granted planning permission between Feb 2008 and Jan 2012.

It is noted that our affordable housing schedule is based on planning permissions granted rather than completions. It also focuses on permissions from July 2013, when pre-application discussions started on the Parkhurst Road site, to the end of April 2015. It does not take account of schemes of under 10 units. As such, our data, and that of the AMR are not directly comparable.

2. Should the AMR, or recent permissions, be given greater weight?

There are two key reasons why we are of the opinion that recent permissions should be given greater weight over the AMR, and these are considered below.

Market Conditions

As noted the AMR data refers to affordable housing completions in the reporting year, and are therefore based on permissions granted historically, in some cases several years ago. When these historic planning permissions were granted market conditions would have been different.

Build costs and sales values, for example, can fluctuate significantly over time, and will have an impact on the ability of schemes to deliver certain planning obligations. The funding arrangements

with banks and investors may also have been different; therefore, this would have impacted on how viability was assessed at the time. Furthermore, funding streams available to subsidise affordable housing can vary from year to year, and may be more readily available in some circumstances than others. This therefore also has an impact on the level of affordable housing schemes can provide.

Planning Policy

Planning policy and technical standards also evolve and change over time. The national, regional can local authority requirements in terms of things like sustainability, energy performance, space standards, CIL, planning obligations including affordable housing provision will change as policies are reviewed and development plans are updated. Changes in Government also impact on planning policy, and can refocus priorities. For example, the NPPF was adopted in 2012, and many of the housing completed in the previous AMR period would have been granted prior to the publication of this.

Site Specific Circumstances

Each scheme is different and you have to consider the site specific circumstances to properly assess viability. For example, one scheme may have disproportionate site clearance and preparation costs because of existing buildings on the site or contamination issues, another scheme may have disproportionate build costs due to the proposed design and materials which will be influenced by local context. A mixed use scheme may have different costs to a purely residential scheme. Some schemes may have benefited from funding, either from the government, or from their own funding streams (for example Housing Associations).

Summary

In summary, to compare the AMR data, and the levels of affordable housing achieved, to current market and policy conditions in the particular circumstances of this site and scheme, would therefore not be appropriate. It is therefore not possible to rely upon overall average percentages as Andrew Jones has done in his’ evidence. This does not provide an indication of what is viable in “today’s circumstances”.

It can therefore only be concluded that limited weight can be given to the AMR for the purposes of assessing viability on this site for this scheme.

Appendix 5 – Urban Land Prices under Uncertainty by Sheridan Titman (Article from The American Economic Review - June 1985)

Appendix 6 – RICS Knowledge Provision Definitions

RICS Knowledge provision definitions

RICS currently provides a variety of different and potentially confusing mandatory and non-mandatory standards, statements, guidance and rules found in different places across the organisation. The table below aims to simplify the terminology used and focusses on outcomes required while also highlighting which documents are regulated by RICS Regulation. Therefore, it should now be simple for staff, stakeholders and members of a particular discipline to understand what mandatory standards, rules, information etc. apply to them, and be able to find this one place.

Type of document Definition Status Examples Target audience

1. RICS Mandatory Regulated International Standard An international high level principle based Mandatory, subject to IPMS All professional groups, standard developed in regulation. governments, users, clients, collaboration/coalition with other relevant stakeholders bodies.

2. RICS Mandatory Regulated RICS Professional Statements Document that provides members with Mandatory, subject to Red Book RICS Members (RICS Professional Statements term mandatory requirements. A rule a member regulation. to replace Practice Statements, Red or a firm is expected to adhere to. Book Professional Standards; Global Valuation Practice Statements; Regulatory Rules; Rules of Conduct; Government Codes of Practice; Ethical Standards.)

3. RICS Guidance Not regulated

3.1 RICS Guidance Note (GN) Document that provides users with Recommended best Design and RICS Members but also all (RICS Guidance Note term to also recommendations or approach for accepted practice. Not regulated specification professionals, governments, users, replace Help Sheet and Policy good practice as followed by competent and but usual principles GN clients, stakeholders Statement) conscientious practitioners. apply in cases of negligence if best practice is not followed.

3.2 RICS Information Paper (IP) Practice based information that provides Information and/or Managing RICS Members (particularly used in users with the latest technical information, recommended good communication the Valuation PG) but also all knowledge or common findings from practice. Not regulated, s IP professionals, governments, users, Regulatory Reviews but usual principles clients, stakeholders apply in cases of negligence if technical 1 Valid as of April 2015

information is known in the market

3.3 RICS Insights Issues based information that provides Information only. Not From market RICS Members but also all users with the latest information – including regulated. value to natural professionals, governments, former Thought Leadership papers, market value paper markets, clients, public. All persons updates, topical items of interest, white interested in subject matter papers, futures, reports, news alerts.

3.4 Economic reports Document that usually based on a survey of Information only. Not Construction RICS Members but also all members; or a document highlighting regulated. market survey professionals, governments, economic trends. markets, clients, public.

3.5 Consumer guides Document designed solely for use by Information only. Not Buying and Public consumers providing some limited technical regulated. selling property advice.

3.6 Research An independent peer reviewed arm’s length Information only. Not Public-Private RICS Members but also all research document designed to inform the regulated. Partnership professionals, governments, members, market professionals, end users markets, clients, public. and stakeholders.

3.7 Policy Policy document that is developed in Information only. Not UK Residential RICS Members but also all consultation with expert members who regulated. Policy professionals, governments, understand the issues affecting their markets, clients, public. sector and can provide practical solutions.

Appendix 7 - RICS Guidance Note: Valuation of individual new-build homes

Part of the RICS Valuation – Professional Standards GN 52/2012 rics.org RICS Professional Guidance, UK

RICS HQ Advancing standards in land, property and construction. Valuation of individual Parliament Square London SW1P 3AD RICS is the world’s leading qualifi cation when it comes to United Kingdom professional standards in land, property and construction. new-build homes Worldwide media In a world where more and more people, governments, banks and enquiries: 2nd edition, guidance note commercial organisations demand greater certainty of professional e pressoffi [email protected] standards and ethics, attaining RICS status is the recognised Contact Centre: mark of property professionalism. e [email protected] t +44 (0)870 333 1600 Over 100 000 property professionals working in the major established f +44 (0)20 7334 3811 and emerging economies of the world have already recognised the importance of securing RICS status by becoming members. RICS is an independent professional body originally established in the UK by Royal Charter. Since 1868, RICS has been committed to setting and upholding the highest standards of excellence and integrity – providing impartial, authoritative advice on key issues affecting businesses and society. RICS is a regulator of both its individual members and fi rms enabling it to maintain the highest standards and providing the basis for unparalleled client confi dence in the sector. RICS has a worldwide network. For further information simply contact the relevant RICS offi ce or our Contact Centre.

Europe Asia Americas (excluding United Room 2203 One Grand Central Place Kingdom and Ireland) Hopewell Centre 60 East 42nd Street Rue Ducale 67 183 Queen’s Road East Suite 2810 1000 Brussels Wanchai New York 10165 – 2811 Belgium Hong Kong USA t +32 2 733 10 19 t +852 2537 7117 t +1 212 847 7400 f +32 2 742 97 48 f +852 2537 2756 f +1 212 847 7401 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

United Kingdom Africa Ireland rics.org/standards Parliament Square PO Box 3400 38 Merrion Square London SW1P 3AD Witkoppen 2068 Dublin 2 United Kingdom South Africa Ireland t +44 (0)870 333 1600 t +27 11 467 2857 t +353 1 644 5500 f +44 (0)207 334 3811 f +27 86 514 0655 f +353 1 661 1797 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Oceania Middle East India Suite 2, Level 16 Ofﬁ ce G14, Block 3 48 & 49 Centrum Plaza 1 Castlereagh Street Knowledge Village Sector Road Sydney, NSW 2000 Dubai Sector 53, Gurgaon – 122002 Australia United Arab Emirates India t +61 2 9216 2333 t +971 4 375 3074 t +91 124 459 5400 f +61 2 9232 5591 f +971 4 427 2498 f +91 124 459 5402 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Valuation of individual new-build homes

RICS guidance note

2nd edition (GN 52/2012) Acknowledgment © Cover image courtesy of Philip Santo

Published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Surveyor Court Westwood Business Park Coventry CV4 8JE UK www.ricsbooks.com No responsibility for loss or damage caused to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of the material included in this publication can be accepted by the authors or RICS. Produced by the Residential Professional Group of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. First edition published 2009 ISBN 978 1 84219 778 3 © Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) June 2012. Copyright in all or part of this publication rests with RICS. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means including graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or Web distribution, without the written permission of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or in line with the rules of an existing licence. Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland. Joint copyright is acknowledged with the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland for the Disclosure of Incentives Form in Appendix 1 of this document. Printed in Great Britain by Page Bros, Norwich Contents

Acknowledgments v RICS Valuation – Professional Standards (the ‘Red Book’) vi RICS guidance notes 1 1 Introduction 2 1.1 The valuation standards 2 1.2 Application of this guidance note 2 2 The new-build market 3 2.1 General 3 2.2 New-build attributes 3 2.3 Assessing a new-build premium 3 2.4 Incentives 4 2.5 Resale comparable evidence 4 3 Client instructions 5 3.1 Determining your client 5 3.2 Third parties 5 3.3 The lender/borrower relationship 5 3.4 Estate agents 5 4 Reviewing the instructions 6 4.1 Instructions where the client is a mortgage lender 6 4.2 Instructions where the client is the purchaser 6 4.3 Time constraints 6 4.4 Pre-site appraisals 6 5 Inspection and restricted inspections 7 5.1 Health and safety on site 7 5.2 Risk assessment 7 5.3 Access limitations 7 5.4 Plot characteristics, site plans and identification 8 6 Assumptions, special assumptions, planning and Building Regulations 9 6.1 General 9 6.2 Assumptions within Red Book UK appendix 10 9 6.3 Special assumptions in addition to Red Book UK appendix 10 9 6.4 Where the client is the purchaser and not a lender 10 6.5 Planning and Building Regulations 10

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | iii 7 Assessing the property and the development 11 7.1 Incomplete construction 11 7.2 Show houses 11 7.3 Completed developments 11 7.4 Other considerations during the assessment 12 7.5 Disclosure of Incentives Form 12 7.6 Marketing literature 12 8 Analysing the market 14 8.1 The economic cycle 14 8.2 Local demand and supply 14 8.3 Speculative market movement 14 8.4 Market turbulence 15 9 Weighing the evidence 16 9.1 Market value 16 9.2 Assessing the impact of incentives 16 9.3 Analysing the incentives 17 9.4 Analysing comparable evidence 17 9.5 Analysing off-site comparables 18 9.6 Reflecting the comparables in the valuation 18 9.7 Justifying the valuation 18 10 The valuation 20 10.1 Reporting the value 20 10.2 Reporting market rent 20 10.3 Reporting incentives 20 10.4 Unusual market activity 21 10.5 Builders’ warranties and assurance schemes 21 10.6 Re-inspections 21 10.7 Defective workmanship 21 10.8 Stage payments 21 Appendix 1: CML Disclosure of Incentives Form 23

iv | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES Acknowledgments

RICS would like to thank the following for their contributions to this guidance note:

Chair of working group Patrick Sawdon, MRICS

Working group • Paul Cutbill, FRICS (Chairman of the RICS Residential Survey and Valuation Property Professional Group Board, Countrywide Surveyors) • Philip Santo, FRICS (Professional Practice Consultant, RICS Residential Professional Group; Director of Philip Santo & Co) • Barry Hall, FRICS MCIArb • Nicholas Swinburne (Nationwide Building Society) • David House, FRICS (Head of Property Risk, Santander UK) • David Dalby, FRICS (Residential Professional Group Director)

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | v RICS Valuation – Professional Standards (the ‘Red Book’)

RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) is Members who qualify as valuers are entitled to the leading organisation of its kind in the world for use the designation ‘chartered valuation surveyor’ professionals in property, land, construction and and, in addition to compliance with the general related environmental issues. As part of our role we rules of conduct applicable to all members, must help to set, maintain and regulate standards – as also comply with the RICS Valuation – Professional well as providing impartial advice to governments Standards, generally referred to as the ‘Red Book’. and policymakers. RICS has in place a regulatory framework. Where To ensure that our members are able to provide a valuer undertakes work that has to comply with the quality of advice and level of integrity required the Red Book that valuer is also required to register by the market, RICS qualifications are only with RICS. Registration enables RICS to monitor awarded to individuals who meet the most rigorous compliance with the valuation standards and requirements for both education and experience, take appropriate action where breaches of those and who are prepared to maintain high standards in standards have been identified. For further details, the public interest. please see www.rics.org/vrs.

vi | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES RICS guidance notes

This is a guidance note. Where However, where members do not comply with the recommendations are made for specific practice recommended in this note, they should professional tasks, these are intended to do so only for a good reason. In the event of a represent ‘best practice’, i.e. recommendations legal dispute, a court or tribunal may require them which in the opinion of RICS meet a high to explain why they decided not to adopt the standard of professional competence. recommended practice. Also, if members have not followed this guidance, and their actions are Although members are not required to follow the questioned in an RICS disciplinary case, they will recommendations contained in the note, they be asked to explain the actions they did take and should take into account the following points. this may be taken into account by the Panel. When an allegation of professional negligence In addition, guidance notes are relevant to is made against a surveyor, a court or tribunal professional competence in that each member may take account of the contents of any relevant should be up to date and should have knowledge guidance notes published by RICS in deciding of guidance notes within a reasonable time of their whether or not the member had acted with coming into effect. reasonable competence. It is the member’s responsibility to be aware of In the opinion of RICS, a member conforming to the changes in case law and legislation since the date practices recommended in this note should have at of publication. least a partial defence to an allegation of negligence if they have followed those practices. However, Document status defined members have the responsibility of deciding when it is inappropriate to follow the guidance. RICS produces a range of standards products. It is for each surveyor to decide on the appropriate These have been defined in the table below. This procedure to follow in any professional task. document is a guidance note.

Type of document Definition Status RICS practice statement Document that provides members with mandatory Mandatory requirements under Rule 4 of the Rules of Conduct for members RICS code of practice Standard approved by RICS, and endorsed by Mandatory or another professional body that provides users with recommended good recommendations for accepted good practice as practice (will be confirmed followed by conscientious practitioners in the document itself) RICS guidance note Document that provides users with Recommended good recommendations for accepted good practice practice as followed by competent and conscientious practitioners RICS information paper Practice based information that provides users with Information and/or the latest information and/or research explanatory commentary

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 1 1 Introduction

1.1 The valuation standards 1.2.4 The guidance note is not intended to apply fully to the following circumstances. However, many of the concepts and considerations given 1.1.1 Valuers working in the UK are reminded of may be applicable in the following valuation the mortgage valuation specification for residential exercises: property. The specification has been agreed with the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) and • purchase reports for corporate and business the Building Societies Association (BSA), and is clients purchasing residential portfolios for set out in UKVS 3.1 and UK appendix 10 of the investment purposes current edition of the RICS Valuation – Professional • valuations of housing stock (e.g. for registered Standards (the ‘Red Book’). social landlords) for local and central government, or for inclusion in financial 1.2 Application of this guidance note statements • valuations where the current or intended 1.2.1 The aim of this guidance note is to assist use means that the property will qualify the valuer in approaching the valuation of a as a household in multiple occupation new-build property in a logical and systematic (HMO). way. It is written specificallyfor use within the UK, however, members operating in other countries 1.2.5 This guidance note discusses the approach may find the processes of valuation discussed to the valuation of a new-build residential helpful and capable of adaptation to their local property. This property may be one unit on a large, circumstances. part-developed site, a one-off new home or a conversion of a former building. For all these types 1.2.2 This guidance note is intended for property of property, the approach to the valuation will be that has yet to be occupied for the first time,or at broadly similar for the valuer. least occupied for the first time in a new form. This may be because the property is a new construction, 1.2.6 The area within which the new home a conversion or a renovation from an earlier use. is located may or may not have already been identified as suitable for the development of 1.2.3 The valuation of a new-build home may be new homes of similar style. Equally, the local required for many reasons. These may include: market may or may not have adjusted to the • for owner-occupation, with or without a style and types of accommodation now being mortgage valuation for loan purposes for an introduced. intended owner-occupier 1.2.7 Where the valuation is intended for • as a private purchase valuation commercial secured lending, the Red Book VS 4.2 • as a buy-to-let investment. and Appendix 5 will apply.

2 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES 2 The new-build market

2.1 General to additional value arising from physical attributes that will remain after first occupation and which may add value on subsequent re-sale. Examples of 2.1.1 The valuation of individual new-build attributes that are not part of a new-build premium homes requires an understanding of issues that are better build and design, the use of modern are unique to this sector of the residential market. materials, lower maintenance costs, a superior Such issues range from an appreciation of the layout and improved energy efficiency. physical attributes of new property that may add value above similar property in the resale market, 2.3.2 Approaches to the assessment of any new- to an awareness of marketing techniques within build premium vary, and there is certainly no defined the sector and the impact these might have on the percentage of the selling price that can be ascribed selling price of a new-build home. with any confidence. It is for the valuer to approach the issue with care and judgment. Sales evidence 2.2 New-build attributes of sold and ‘sold subject to contract’ properties can be collected from the development itself, from other 2.2.1 Demand for new-build property will be new developments in the area with properties of driven by a range of factors. It is important for similar style and from the resale market. valuers to be alert to changing attitudes to issues 2.3.3 The existence of a new-build premium will such as the environmental impact of buildings, be linked to supply and demand for new properties efforts to reduce carbon emissions, the use in the locality. The valuer should thus be aware of of innovative forms of construction, Building market conditions for that area. Where the supply Regulation requirements, improved specifications, of the type of property being valued substantially incentives, and what is often described as a ‘new- exceeds demand, it is conceivable that the value of build premium’ (see section 2.5). Where public any premium will be negligible or non-existent. In perception on these matters is reflected in market contrast, where the supply of the type of property demand, the new-build property may, and often being valued does not meet demand, then the will, attract added value in comparison with the new-build premium could be significantly higher, second-hand market. depending on the imbalance between supply and 2.2.2 Typically, the price of a new-build property demand. may include elements attributable to: 2.3.4 The valuation of new-build property in • improved build specification accordance with the definition of market value in • the ‘brand new’ factor, in the form of a ‘new- the Red Book VS 3.2 includes any element of value build premium’ attributable to a new-build premium. Mortgage • incentives to purchase as detailed in the CML lenders broadly understand the principle of this Disclosure of Incentives Form (DIF). type of premium, and that such a premium ceases to exist upon first occupation and will not be 2.3 Assessing a new-build premium realised on resale. 2.3.5 It should be noted that some lenders may 2.3.1 The term ‘new-build premium’ is used to wish to exclude value that is derived from a new- indicate any additional sum that a purchaser is build premium by way of a special assumption. The prepared to pay for a residential property that has special assumption will be stated in their terms of not previously been occupied. It is not universally engagement (and included as a statement in the found, though is relatively common in particular valuation report, where the reporting format permits sectors or locations, and relates entirely to the first when using standard proformas). It may extend to occupation of a property. Care should be exercised related matters, such as excluding new-build sales in the understanding and use of this term. While evidence because it could include a new-build a component of market value, it does not relate premium.

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 3 2.3.6 Buyers of new homes may intuitively available to the valuer. However, it is the valuer’s understand the existence of a new-build premium, responsibility to seek and establish any incentives. but may not appreciate the implications for the The valuer should differentiate between sales value of the new home in the first months or years incentives that do not add value to the property of ownership. It is for this reason that Red Book UK and those tangible attributes of new-build appendix 10 recommends a statement in the report properties that may enhance value. that warns of the consequences of reselling shortly after purchase. 2.4.5 A valuation entirely derived from new-build comparable evidence that has been adjusted to exclude the value of incentives may still include 2.4 Incentives an element of value attributable to a new-build premium, if one exists. 2.4.1 The price of a new-build property may typically include an element attributable to 2.5 Resale comparable evidence incentives to purchase, as detailed in the DIF (see section 7). Incentives do not add value to the property itself, but facilitate the transaction for the 2.5.1 Evidence of directly comparable resale individual buyer. property can provide an insight into the market value of a new-build property, when suitably 2.4.2 Adjustments should be made to reflect adjusted to reflect those tangible attributes of the these incentives when analysing varying new property that add value. comparables. Comparable evidence of new-build transactions requires adjustment to assess any 2.5.2 Having obtained evidence of resales and sale price element that is attributable exclusively to made adjustments for relative differences in size, sales incentives. accommodation and location, the valuer should then take into account the benefits of the tangible 2.4.3 Incentives have become increasingly new-build attributes. innovative and sophisticated. They may differ between development sites, the types of property 2.5.3 The difference between the adjusted value being sold and the types of purchaser being derived from resales and the selling price of the attracted by the seller (see also paragraph 9.2.1). subject property may also reflect any new-build premium and any sales incentives included in the 2.4.4 It is acknowledged that the detail of the transaction. The valuer will identify the new-build incentives included in the sale of comparable premium after accounting for the impact of any new-build properties may not always be readily incentives in the price.

4 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES 3 Client instructions

3.1 Determining your client 3.2.4 Once the valuation has been reported, challenges from a third party to amend a valuation should be resisted, unless there is additional 3.1.1 Where the property is being purchased comparable evidence persuading the valuer that without the benefit of a loan, the client isthe he or she is justified in making a change to the purchaser. valuation. The submission of an amended valuation 3.1.2 Where a valuation is required for mortgage should only be made in accordance with the purposes, the client is a lender and the purchaser valuer/client contractual relationship. is a third party to the lender/valuer contractual relationship (see paragraph 3.3.1). 3.3 The lender/borrower relationship

3.2 Third parties 3.3.1 The valuation is prepared to assist the lender in making a lending decision, but commonly 3.2.1 Instructions can be sent to the valuer by a a copy of the report is also provided to the number of parties acting as agents for the end-user borrower. The borrower pays for the valuation, lender. Third parties include packagers, brokers either directly as part of the arrangement fees for and panel managers, and, in Scotland, professional the loan, or indirectly as part of the overall costs of advisers. the loan through interest payments. The borrower is not the valuer’s client, but the valuer has a duty of 3.2.2 Third parties may pay the fee to the valuer. care to the borrower, as defined in case law. This does not give them the right to amend the terms of engagement between the valuer and client, 3.4 Estate agents or to influence the valuer’s professional judgment. The valuer should at all times be aware of conflicts 3.4.1 Estate agents and other third parties also of interest, and of his or her obligations to the client. play a role in the process, but generally they are 3.2.3 Panel managers may be appointed by acting on behalf of the seller. There is therefore no a lender to act on its behalf. Their actions may contractual obligation to such parties, even when include maintaining and issuing guidance notes on the estate agents have arranged the borrower’s the completion of the lender’s reports. loan application.

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 5 4 Reviewing the instructions

4.1 Instructions where the client is a 4.2.2 Any departures from the Red Book must mortgage lender be agreed as part of the terms and conditions of instruction to act (see also section 6 of this guidance note). 4.1.1 Red Book UK appendix 10 is a specification agreed with the CML and BSA. It sets out the basis on which the valuer must carry out the valuation. 4.3 Time constraints

4.1.2 Lenders mostly provide their own valuation 4.3.1 The valuer should act professionally at all forms and guidance notes explaining their policy times and ensure that sufficient time is allocated on how the valuer should carry out the valuation on to the research, inspection and preparation of their behalf. the valuation. Sometimes the valuer must 4.1.3 The client may request the valuer to depart operate under time constraints, but these should from the Red Book. In such cases, regard must not undermine his or her ability to provide an be had to Red Book VS 1.2, where departures are accurate and professional service. Shortage defined. of time is not a defence against a charge of negligence. 4.2 Instructions where the client is the purchaser 4.4 Pre-site appraisals

4.2.1 In the case of instructions where the client 4.4.1 Pre-site appraisals normally constitute is the purchaser and not the mortgage lender, Red marketing advice and, as such, are covered under Book UK appendix 10 will not apply, unless agreed the exception excluding valuations provided in otherwise. However, the valuer must comply with connection to certain agency or brokerage work, as the other requirements of the Red Book. stated in the Red Book VS 1.1.

6 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES 5 Inspection and restricted inspections

5.1 Health and safety on site consideration of those matters that could cause harm to a person (the ‘hazards’), the likelihood of harm being caused (the ‘risk’) and the preventative 5.1.1 Sites where building work is in progress measures necessary to reduce the likelihood of present a number of health and safety hazards harm occurring and its severity. derived, for example, from: 5.2.3 Using these basic principles and a general • construction traffic moving around the site knowledge of construction sites, the valuer is • the possibility of falling objects where builders expected to be able to undertake a dynamic are working at height risk assessment both before commencing the • issues related to incomplete buildings inspection and during it. At all times, however, • noise, fumes and dust from machinery and the valuer should follow instructions from the specialist equipment contractor or agent responsible for the site, and comply with the site’s health and safety rules. • slip, trip and fall hazards caused by mud and debris. 5.3 Access limitations 5.1.2 Valuers therefore need to take particular care when visiting such sites and should be 5.3.1 In some instances, a developer may prohibit extremely mindful of their own health and safety. access to all or part of a site for health and safety Reference should be made to the current edition or other reasons, thus preventing an inspection of of the RICS guidance note, Surveying safely, for the subject property or the specific plot where the further information. property is to be constructed. In other situations, a valuer may conclude that it would be inappropriate 5.1.3 It is essential that valuers liaise with the from a health and safety perspective to inspect the contractor or agent responsible for the site to property. ensure that their conduct does not breach the developer’s own site health and safety rules. In 5.3.2 In such cases, it is imperative to comply many cases, this discussion may take place in the with Red Book VS 5 and VS 6.1. The restriction site office or showh ome. is to be clearly stated in the mortgage valuation report, where the reporting format allows this. The 5.1.4 Appropriate personal protective equipment valuer must also outline the various assumptions should be worn at all times. This may include as to accommodation, specification and other strengthened boots, a hard helmet and a high- relevant matters, as well as the source of such visibility jacket, as well as gloves, a face mask, ear assumptions (for example, the developer’s literature defenders and eye protection. In some cases, the and plans). developer may be able to provide such equipment, although valuers are recommended to carry their 5.3.3 Where the valuer considers it appropriate to own. provide a valuation on the basis of a limited access inspection, reliance can be placed on reviewing the 5.2 Risk assessment following:

• construction site plan (not the marketing 5.2.1 A developer will normally have completed a material) health and safety risk assessment on a particular • specification or drawing of the subject unit site prior to works commencing, and should therefore be able to explain any hazards and risks • show home of the unit to the valuer. • similar partly or fully completed unit.

5.2.2 Risk assessment principles are based In the absence of access to the subject unit, and on common sense. An assessment involves the without access to all of the foregoing information,

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 7 the valuer may decide to decline to provide a development. Such characteristics could affect the valuation and refer the instruction back to the value of the subject property and should be taken client. into account by the valuer.

5.3.4 Any site restrictions should be clearly 5.4.3 It is recommended that a copy of the recorded in the site notes and filed with other site plan showing the plot number and the site documentation as a record of events at the time of characteristics and features is inspected. This the inspection. should be supplemented by enquiries made to the sales agent or developer, especially where access 5.4 Plot characteristics, site plans to the specificproperty or plot in question is not and identification possible. 5.4.4 Red Book VS 6.1 requires the subject 5.4.1 Across a particular site, there may be a of the valuation to be identified. Every effort variety of different plot characteristics that could should be made to ensure that the unit inspected affect the value of a property, such as the close corresponds with the address of the unit within the proximity of a railway line, road or overhead terms of engagement. A site plan or sketch record electricity wires or pylons. should be kept with other documentation to show the location of the unit that has been valued. 5.4.2 A site may also contain a variety of styles and types of property, which may include a mixture 5.4.5 Where there is reason to question whether of private and public-sector housing, retirement the unit under inspection is the unit to be valued, or sheltered housing, commercial and live/work the valuer should refer the matter to the client properties. These might be concentrated in one and should withhold a valuation until the former is area of the site, or ‘pepper-potted’ throughout the satisfied regarding the identity of the unit.

8 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES 6 Assumptions, special assumptions, planning and Building Regulations

6.1 General However, if the limited inspection indicates that there are such materials, this must be reported and further investigations requested. 6.1.1 Valuers should review the requirements in the Red Book to agree assumptions and special • The valuer will assume that the site is assumptions with the client before providing the not contaminated and is free from other valuation. environmental hazards. No enquires regarding contamination or other environmental hazards 6.1.2 Assumptions that are deemed to be included are to be made, but if a problem is suspected, in the terms of engagement with lenders, where the valuer should recommend further there is an agreement to follow that specification, investigation. are set out in Red Book UK appendix 10. • The valuer will assume that the contents of the 6.1.3 Special assumptions may be used CML DIF provide full disclosure of the financial to illustrate the potential effect of changed aspects of the sale (see section 7.5). circumstances on the value of the property as a security: for example, the potential loss of the new- 6.3 Special assumptions in addition to build premium once a property is occupied or the Red Book UK appendix 10 possible non-completion of a key attribute (such as a leisure complex in a flat development; see paragraph 2.3.5). 6.3.1 Special assumptions in respect of new-build valuations are in addition to those included in the 6.2 Assumptions within Red Book Red Book UK appendix 10 and should be agreed and confirmed with the client prior to submission of UK appendix 10 the valuation. These special assumptions should be included in the valuation report where the client’s 6.2.1 It should be specifically noted in respect reporting format permits. There are a number of of new-build property that unless instructed special assumptions that may have an impact on otherwise, the valuer will act as follows. market value. These may include the following:

• In the case of a building that has not yet been • that certain facilities (such as leisure constructed, the valuer will, unless instructed complexes, swimming pools and communal otherwise, provide a valuation on a special provisions) are completed assumption that the development of that • that certain planned transport links, building has been satisfactorily completed, as infrastructure provisions and other at the date of the inspection, in accordance constructions (such as retail units as part of a with planning permission and other statutory larger scheme) are completed requirements. • on the valuation of a new-build property, that it • In the case of a newly constructed property, the has already been occupied. If a lender requests valuer will provide a valuation on the assumption this, or a similar, special assumption to be that it has been built under a recognised adopted, guidance should be obtained from the builders’ warranty or insurance scheme lender specifying how this instruction is to be approved by the lender, or has been supervised interpreted. by a professional consultant capable of fully completing the CML Professional Consultant The valuer will assume that where the development Certificate acceptable to the lender. is within a recognised flood plain, there are no • The valuer will assume that no hazardous unusual insurance requirements that may affect the materials have been used in construction. marketability of the property.

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 9 6.4 Where the client is the purchaser • arranging for a final inspection prior to legal and not a lender completion.

6.4.1 Where the valuation is for a private 6.5 Planning and Building Regulations purchaser and Red Book UK appendix 10 does not automatically apply, then such assumptions 6.5.1 Red Book UK appendix 10 advises the as noted are in that appendix. Any additional valuer regarding the approach to be taken to special assumptions should be clearly agreed planning enquiries. In brief, it states that these are and confirmed before submitting the valuation. to be left to the legal adviser. Appropriate terms of engagement should also be 6.5.2 The valuer should be mindful of any agreed with the client. possible impact on value relating to energy- 6.4.2 The valuer should also advise the client efficient design, or to the sustainability of material to ensure that a number of checks are made, and construction relating to the property or including, among others: development.

• confirming that all the planning, Building 6.5.3 Section 106 Agreements (Section 75 Regulation and warranty requirements are Agreements in Scotland) are individual to properly checked by the legal adviser, together developments. They are likely to have an impact on with all other normal pre-contract enquiries the value of any property inspected that is subject prior to any legal commitment to purchase to such agreements.

10 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES 7 Assessing the property and the development

7.1 Incomplete construction 7.2 Show houses

7.1.1 In the majority of cases, the assessment 7.2.1 Show houses or apartments are an of a new-build property will be based on an attempt by a builder or developer to provide uncompleted construction. At one extreme, an example of a finished home for prospective the valuer may view an empty site, part of a buyers. Sales offices often utilise show units, or garden or a pegged building site on a larger parts of them, during the selling period. Some development, with a set of plans and drawings. builders provide a parade of several homes, At the other extreme, the property may be very usually partly or fully furnished, to display near to, or may have reached, practical building the different types and styles offered on the completion. development.

7.1.2 Caution should be exercised in identifying 7.2.2 With flat developments, the builder the unit to be valued where construction is or developer may be limited to providing a incomplete. Where the valuer is unable to identify temporary ‘marketing suite’ attached to the and record the location of the unit, the instruction sales office, giving an idea of the layout offered should be referred back to the lender and further in the apartment block under construction. information requested (see section 5.4). This requires the valuer to interpret the access arrangements and views available from the 7.1.3 The plans offered to the valuer may home by studying the sales details and plans also vary, from a rough outline drawing and list available. of anticipated accommodation, to copies of formal submitted drawings with planning and 7.3 Completed developments building control approval date stamps, and detailed constructional specifications and measurements. 7.3.1 Valuers should exercise their judgment based on the details obtained during their 7.1.4 Some incomplete developments (for inspection and reflect their interpretation of the example, of flats) can be particularly difficult to final scheme or project. The quality of materials inspect, as physical site access may be severely and standard of finish may be unknown, but the restricted. Ground works may not be any more than valuer is expected to make appropriate enquiries a set of piled foundations, or a concrete and steel to the builder or developer. The valuer is obliged frame sub-structure. to make assumptions about the build quality of the subject property and the relative merits of the 7.1.5 Redevelopment schemes may present finished development. particular challenges, as an existing building will often undergo partial demolition before 7.3.2 Where the home is at, or near, renovation starts, leaving in many cases no more physical completion, the inspecting valuer than a shell structure to view in the early stages can check for any outstanding items against of the project. the specification and for any deviations from the planned build. 7.1.6 When a finished home is viewed, the quality and all the physical aspects of the property 7.3.3 The majority of mortgage lenders do not can be more fully appreciated and evaluated, even require a ‘final inspection’ by the valuer when the if the development site has not been completed, home has been physically completed, but will rely or road and infrastructure remain unfinished and on a local authority completion certificate being unadopted. provided to the legal adviser.

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 11 7.4 Other considerations during the 7.5.3 The DIF is required to be completed by the assessment seller, initially via the selling agent staff or site sales team, and is to be made available, on request, to the valuer attending to view a property. 7.4.1 Parking, garaging and the use of any shared facilities are to be considered after enquiry on site 7.5.4 The form provides details of the buyer, and inspection of the layout of the development. any purchase scheme utilised in the transaction, details of the seller and data relating to the site 7.4.2 In the course of an inspection the valuer will development. It also includes a note of any need to be alert to the increasing use of sustainable introductory or finder’s fees agreed in the sale, as technologies in the construction of new-build well as both the list/asking price and the agreed properties. The current edition of the RICS selling price. information paper, Sustainability and residential property valuation, provides further detail. The 7.5.5 The seller is required to include details of all valuer should collect, record and retain with the site incentives offered in the sale of the home, together notes any information on the existence or use of with part-exchange information where this is being any sustainable technologies. used in the sale.

7.4.3 The location of any affordable or social 7.5.6 The valuer should obtain a copy of this housing, retirement or sheltered housing, form and retain a copy for inclusion with the site commercial and live/work properties on the site notes. The information should be kept secure, in should be identified on any site layout plans accordance with data protection requirements, and presented. If none are identified, then a direct is for discussion with the contractual parties to the enquiry should be made as to whether there are any valuation only. to be built on the development as part of a Section 106 Agreement with the local authority, and precisely 7.5.7 The lender’s legal adviser will receive a copy where their construction is planned. Site notes of the DIF with all the usual contractual paperwork. should record details of this enquiry so that any By this stage the form will have been signed by an future changes to the location of such units, which authorised signatory for the seller that has legal may have an impact on value, can be assessed. responsibility for the accuracy of the form’s content.

7.4.4 Some lenders may require the ‘stage 7.5.8 Between the valuation date and the release’ of mortgage advances during the building completion of the mortgage, there is the possibility period. This is normally associated with self-build that further incentives may be negotiated in projects (see section 10.8). addition to those initially disclosed at the time of the valuation inspection. The lender’s policies will 7.5 Disclosure of Incentives Form define the circumstances when such changes should be referred back to the valuer.

7.5.1 In 2008 agreement was reached between 7.5.9 The DIF is prepared for the solicitor or the Home Builders Federation (HBF), Homes for conveyancer and the valuer when acting on behalf Scotland and the CML to formalise the process of of a lender. Where the DIF is not available because capturing information on sales incentives and the the valuer is not acting on behalf of a lender, the price agreed for a property being sold on a new valuer should carry out sufficient investigation of development, or as a renovation or conversion. all available information to ensure that he or she This was subsequently adopted by the BSA. The understands all financial aspects of the sale. This information document is known as the DIF, and it information should be recorded and retained within may be revised from time to time. the site notes. 7.5.2 A copy of the CML DIF, along with a supporting document covering CML DIF frequently 7.6 Marketing literature asked questions, can be found on the CML website at www.cml.org.uk/cml/handbook/form. 7.6.1 The sales brochures produced by the A reproduction of the form is also supplied in builder, developer or selling agent can be a useful Appendix 1. aid to the valuer. These documents may include

12 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES room measurements, room layout diagrams information in the sales brochure should always be and some specification details. They often also regarded as illustrative only and treated with caution. contain a depiction of the home using an artist’s impression, a computerised image or a photograph 7.6.4 Sales literature for larger developments from another development site. may show only part of the site layout. It should be clarified on site as to whether the layout indicates a 7.6.2 In ideal circumstances, the valuer would be final site boundary, or only a phase in the proposed provided with a pack including a site plan, a floor development. This may be particularly important plan, details of construction, unit specification, in relation to the outlook from the property being a sales brochure, a current price list, details of valued, and for the location of any planned historic sales including incentives and extras, and a social housing, retirement or sheltered housing, reservation form. commercial and live/work properties.

7.6.3 Trading standards and legislation have 7.6.5 Valuers should be mindful that different generally assisted in monitoring the information specifications may apply to different plots. In such depicted in such publications throughout the home- circumstances, details should be recorded and, if building and estate agency industry. However, the appropriate, reflected in the valuation.

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 13 8 Analysing the market

8.1 The economic cycle the result of either genuinely increasing values or, conversely, giving an artificially inflated impression of true values. 8.1.1 All valuations are carried out in the context of the wider economic cycle. At any given time 8.3.2 Previously undesirable localities (for example, the economic climate might be characterised former dockland areas) can become fashionable as booming, stable or depressed. The valuer is and attract wealthy purchasers following speculative expected to have an awareness of the national redevelopment, thus creating new markets and economy and market trends, but it is important permanent increases in value. Over-development, to ensure that the valuation reflects the market however, can run the risk of rapid falls in values in conditions only at the specific valuation date. the event of a market downturn.

8.1.2 The valuation is a ‘snapshot in time’, 8.3.3 Circumstances can arise where purchasers and it is not appropriate to anticipate possible identify opportunities for profit by purchasing future movements in values, whether upwards or new-build properties. In times of rapid house-price downwards, even when the national economy is growth, for example, speculators may commit particularly dynamic. When providing a valuation, themselves to purchases at an early stage of the valuer does not create the market, but follows construction – typically buying ‘off-plan’ before it. construction of a property has even begun. This requires payment of only a deposit, with a view to 8.2 Local demand and supply reselling at a profit immediately after construction has been completed and before the balance of the 8.2.1 Valuations typically reflect the market in the purchase price to the builder is due. The original immediate locality of the subject property. However, speculator purchaser’s intentions are unlikely to be the long-established pattern of a stable local declared, so mortgage valuations may be required market may experience some adjustment while it at either end of this process. absorbs a significant stock of new-build properties. The use of pre-development resales as comparable 8.3.4 Bulk purchases of multiple units on a site evidence when assessing new-build values may may enable an investment purchaser to negotiate a require particular caution in such circumstances. significant discount on the price of each unit. This discounted price may not fairly reflect the value of 8.2.2 The establishment of a large residential individually sold units. development in a relatively small market town, or the designation by a local authority of a particular 8.3.5 It is important to consider the risks locality for residential expansion, for example, associated with the commoditisation of some may create market conditions which were not parts of this market, for example, property typically historically shared by properties in the surrounding associated with buy-to-let investments. Where areas. Hence, such conditions are not to be the level of investment purchasing becomes reflected in their values when these are used as disproportionate, this can lead to short-term comparables, but need to be considered. substantial increases in value above the levels at which (mostly first-time) owner-occupier buyers 8.3 Speculative market movement can afford to enter the market. This in turn can change the social mix of a development, lead to empty properties if rental demand is not sustained 8.3.1 Even when the ‘normal’ influences on the and, ultimately, result in a fall in values. value of a property have been identified, the valuer is reminded that potential purchasers with a special 8.3.6 While the valuer is valuing at a specific interest may be present in the market and that point in time, the cycle of speculative investment their activities may not always be readily apparent. purchases should be recognised. Caution is Depending on the circumstances, this might have required in circumstances where investors’

14 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES opinions of the worth attached to a residential genuine residential purchaser market and artificially investment can unrealistically inflate value. In these raise prices. circumstances, it might be necessary to make clear in the report that investors, rather than owner- 8.4 Market turbulence occupiers, are the dominant purchasers.

8.3.7 Builders/developers may purchase, often 8.4.1 Periodically, the market will experience using third parties or separate companies, the first unusual turbulence, and the compilation of units of a development themselves to establish comparable evidence can become especially a ‘level’ of prices on a development. Rigorous difficult. Not all sectors of the market are enquiry may be necessary to identify that such equally affected, and available evidence may be purchases are not open-market transactions contradictory. The valuer is recommended to draw when valuers are requested to report on them for on all possible resources to understand the various mortgage purposes, or when these transactions influences on the market and, as far as possible are later offered as comparable evidence for should endeavour to identify consistent strands subsequent sales. and patterns in the available information.

8.3.8 Enquiries at the time of valuation and 8.4.2 The supporting justification for valuations information provided in the DIF (see section 7.5) in rapidly changing conditions may need to be will assist in identifying such circumstances. particularly detailed. More explanatory background However, ultimately the valuer can only ensure that information than usual may be required at such the valuation reflects the market conditions and times and should be clearly recorded. The comparable evidence at the relevant date. There prevailing market sentiments may not otherwise should be a constant awareness that a significant be readily apparent if valuation decisions are later proportion of speculative purchases may distort the subjected to retrospective examination.

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 15 9 Weighing the evidence

9.1 Market value valuer should carefully consider the impact of any such premium price paid for the part-exchange property, the details of which will be noted in the 9.1.1 Red Book UK appendix 10 states the DIF. Comparables of sales involving part-exchange following: may have to be ignored if insufficient detail of the The valuation of a new-build property should bought-in property transaction is known. be approached in the same way as any The valuer will need to distinguish between other valuation. There are, however, specific 9.2.4 incentives that are property-related (such as higher aspects of the new-build residential market specification permanent fixtures) but have little that have led certain mortgage lenders to impact on value, and incentives that are non- require an alternative approach to valuation. property-related (such as subsidised rents or cash In all instances, the notified sales price must incentives), in the absence of which the price would be treated with caution. be significantly lower.

9.2 Assessing the impact of 9.2.5 The data collected in DIFs throughout the incentives life of a development may help to indicate how market forces have operated over time through 9.2.1 Developers may offer incentives to purchase the level of discounts and incentives offered to new properties, and occasionally on non-new- purchasers. build property, to achieve quicker sales and give 9.2.6 The valuer should take full notice of all the appearance of high sale prices. Incentives take the information in the DIF, which should include many forms and may include: the name of the representative and company and • payment of legal and surveying fees the date on which the information was provided. This disclosed information can be relied upon by • reimbursement of the deposit on signing the valuer during deliberation over value. A copy contracts should be retained in the site note file for the • guaranteed rents for a number of years valuation. • discounts or reductions if more than one 9.2.7 The valuer will have regard to incentives property is acquired in arriving at the valuation on the defined basis, • purchase of the buyer’s existing property but will not reflect them purely as an arithmetical • payment of the mortgage for a specified period exercise starting with the notified sale price or a • high-level material gifts (for example, a new car) selected comparable. The valuer should exercise professional judgment in the light of all the • cashbacks after completion information and evidence available. • furnishings and electrical goods. 9.2.8 Mortgage products supported by This list is not exhaustive. Any such information indemnities or financial guarantees, which are not should have been included in the DIF (see section in themselves builders’ incentives, might from time 7.5). to time be offered through lenders and/or builders. 9.2.2 Cash incentives are probably the easiest for Valuers need to be aware of the availability of such the valuer to consider, as they typically indicate a schemes and should record their existence. They reduction in the selling price. More difficult to take should make appropriate enquiries on their use into account are the non-cash incentives, such as within a particular development as part of their buy-back guarantees. analysis of comparable data, and consider any effect they may have on market conditions and on 9.2.3 Part-exchange involved in a sale is a market value. Part of that analysis should be to particular example of a sales incentive. The consider whether or not such products positively

16 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES discriminate in favour of the new-build market to assure him or herself that the discounted price has the extent that they might lead to unsustainable not in fact become the norm. market and price distortions. 9.3.7 Special mortgage products, though not in themselves builder’s incentives, may be offered 9.3 Analysing the incentives from time to time by lenders and/or builders. It may be that such products positively discriminate in 9.3.1 Comparable evidence of new-build favour of the new-build market and that, in some transactions requires adjustment by assessing the market conditions, it could lead to market and impact of any incentives. price distortions. The valuer should be aware of the availability of such schemes, record their existence 9.3.2 Comparables may be available from sales and consider their effect on market conditions and resales on a development, but these may not within the analysis of comparable evidence and be reliable if considered in isolation. They should be production of market value. considered in the context of any incentives that were available and could have influenced the price paid. Other factors that should be taken into account are 9.4 Analysing comparable evidence the market in the area, prices realised for similar new properties on other developments, the resale market 9.4.1 The valuer should seek to rely on a range and other information considered relevant by the of comparable evidence when valuing a residential valuer. Adjustments will be necessary to reflect any property that has not yet been occupied for the improvements in the design or layout of the subject first time. This might typically include evidence property, the ease of maintenance during the early from similar new-build developments within the years and any other factors that may influence the vicinity of the subject site or property, as well as decisions of purchasers. transactional evidence from properties that are not new but are a result of the resale market. 9.3.3 As in any valuation, the best comparable is the one that most directly matches the 9.4.2 The ability to rank the evidence collected subject property, with all adjustments made according to its applicability is an essential part for any incentives, discounts or other financial of the valuation process for newly built property. inducements. A hierarchy of evidence should be applied when weighing the evidence. While not intended to 9.3.4 When utilising comparable evidence, the be prescriptive, the following might typically be valuer should firstly be aware of the source and considered to represent an acceptable ranking integrity of the data. Secondly, the valuer should be when faced with a wide range of evidence: alert to the fact that earlier valuations or sale price information recorded in comparable data may have • completed transactions of identical property for been reflective of the specific circumstances of that which full, accurate and verifiable information is transaction. Examples include taking into account available Section 106 Agreements, shared ownership/equity • completed transactions of similar property for schemes and special assumptions used for specific which full, accurate and verifiable information is lenders). available, including from the resale market 9.3.5 It is possible for a site to be especially • completed transactions of similar property for attractive to buy-to-let investors. The valuer which full data may not be available, but from should attempt to verify the proportion of sales which some reasonably reliable data may be to investors, as this can affect the market for the obtained, including from the resale market finished properties. The valuer should have regard • verifiable information from public sources and to the nature of transactions on the site, which may the media perhaps include a small number of bulk purchases • information from incomplete (but agreed) or or a large number of individual transactions, and unverifiable transactions of similar property should weigh the comparable evidence accordingly. • asking prices 9.3.6 A valuer should also have regard to the • indices and other information derived from an nature of any ‘discounting’ on a development and automated valuation model (AVM).

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 17 9.4.3 The date of the sale transaction of any reference point for the additional value attributable comparable will be an important consideration, as to the ‘new-build premium’ (see section 2.3). will the number of units that were released into the market and the prevailing market condition at that 9.6 Reflecting the comparables in the time in the area (see section 8). valuation 9.4.4 It is acknowledged that the details regarding incentives for some comparables may 9.6.1 Similar style properties selling in the not always be readily available to the valuer, resale market should be compared against the unless the properties were valued on an earlier advantages of a newly built home. Apart from the occasion, in which case the details will be part ‘newness’ of unblemished fittings and surfaces, of that valuer’s knowledge of the development. If these value-added advantages may include: the valuer chooses to rely on comparable on-site sales evidence, he or she must apply considerable • use of better-quality building materials rigour in establishing the details of the sales of • improved design and layout of accommodation those comparables. In cases where this evidence is • reduced early maintenance requirements unobtainable, a lower weighting should be applied • use of sustainable housing elements or to the comparable. improved energy efficiency. 9.5 Analysing off-site comparables The RICS Information paper, Sustainability and residential property valuation, provides further information on this matter. The valuer should 9.5.1 There are two principal types of ‘off-site’ collect, record and retain with site notes any comparable that a valuer will search for and information gained in this respect. consider during the valuation process. The first is a similar type of property on a similar new-build site 9.6.2 Care should also be taken if resale property nearby, selling at the same time as the valuation. being used as a comparable has aspects of The second is a similar type of property selling in added value, such as period or architectural merit the resale market. associated with a listed building.

9.5.2 New-build comparables on different 9.6.3 Having gained evidence of resales and development sites will require a similar level of made adjustments for relative differences in size, scrutiny as the subject property. Care should be accommodation and location, the valuer can take taken to consider the different sales discounts and into account the benefits of the more tangible incentives that may be operating there. ‘newly built’ advantages and any additional new- build premium. 9.5.3 The mix of property type, unit size, finish, accommodation and target market (older people 9.6.4 The use of comparable evidence that or young professionals being two examples) simply substantiates the purchase price, but varies should also be compared between the subject and dramatically from the balance of evidence in the comparable sites. wider market, is to be avoided.

9.5.4 The size and location of the comparable 9.6.5 Equally, a simple valuation of the property developments should be considered, together with in line with the lowest comparable evidence the immediate neighbourhood and factors such in the range of market evidence available is as school catchment areas. In addition, the valuer unsatisfactory. should include other locational and socio-economic factors, such as location in a conservation area, or 9.7 Justifying the valuation relative proximity to transport and shopping.

9.5.5 The value of directly comparable resale 9.7.1 The valuer’s justification should form part properties can provide an insight into the market of the site notes. In addition, it should show the value of the subject property. Resale value is not reasoning behind the valuation, demonstrating the usually regarded as the value of the new property, relative merits of the subject property in relation to but it can underpin the valuation and provide a the comparables.

18 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES 9.7.2 The justification should also include comment on the general tone of the market and on the context of the valuation in the market, to reflect a balance of the evidence.

9.7.3 The justification could record the opinions of other professionals whose views are trusted.

9.7.4 The justification is to be a reasoned argument that leads to the conclusion of the valuation itself.

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 19 10 The valuation

10.1 Reporting the value 10.3 Reporting incentives

10.1.1 In most cases, reports will be made 10.3.1 Where a lender advises the valuer of on the lender’s standard report form. However, changes to any incentives, and the valuer considers care should be taken to ensure that any unusual that variations from the incentives originally matters identified by the valuer are brought to disclosed have a material effect on the original the lender’s attention – either on the form or in an valuation, the valuer should submit a revised accompanying letter. All reports must comply with valuation to reflect the new information. Red Book VS 6.1. 10.3.2 Lenders have different approaches 10.1.2 Where reports may be seen and to dealing with builders’ incentives. Their own relied upon by prospective purchasers, it is underwriting teams may have a view of the risk recommended that the valuer considers including a they are taking in the loan, which depends on the statement to the following effect: overall value of the disclosed incentives in relation to the selling price or the market value provided in It should be appreciated that the valuation the valuer’s mortgage valuation report. This is for provided is for the property as new. It may lenders, and not the valuer, to decide. not be possible to obtain the valuation figure if the property is resold as second-hand, 10.3.3 It is recommended that the valuer uses especially if comparable new property is on statements to the following effect where they can offer at the same time. be accommodated in the lender’s reporting format: Sales incentives of [list the incentives 10.1.3 Where a market value is being produced disclosed by the seller/builder/developer in prior to or during construction, the valuation the sale] have been disclosed on this sale supplied should reflect the evidence and market and should be confirmed by the lender’s legal condition prevailing at the valuation date, not at an adviser in accordance with the CML Lenders’ assumed date of completion. Handbook. The effect of these on the selling price has been taken into account in the 10.2 Reporting market rent valuation. or: 10.2.1 When carrying out a valuation for a lender, No information regarding disclosed sales the valuer should refer to the requirements of Red incentives was available at the time of Book UK appendix 11 on ‘buy to let’. inspection, and the valuation is based on the understanding that no sales incentives 10.2.2 When reporting for a lender using the are offered on this property. This should lender’s pro-forma, it will not be necessary to be confirmed by the lender’s legal adviser confirm the basis of value or any assumptions if in accordance with the CML Lenders’ the lender has previously supplied documented Handbook. guidance as to its specific policy and reporting requirements, and if these form part of the terms of Information about the CML Lenders’ Handbook can engagement. be found on the CML website at www.cml.org.uk/ cml/handbook/form. 10.2.3 Where the client is a purchaser and not a lender, the valuer should provide confirmation 10.3.4 When reporting for a client who is the of the basis of value, and any assumptions made purchaser and not the mortgage lender, the regarding the nature of the actual or implied valuation report should include details of any tenancy, in the terms of engagement and the incentives that are known to be included in the sale report. and their impact on value.

20 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES 10.4 Unusual market activity the purpose of the re-inspection should be confirmed in the report.

10.4.1 Market value of the subject property is 10.6.2 Re-inspections may be simply to assessed in relation to the related market. There confirm the completion of construction. However, may be aspects of that specific market leading the information gleaned by the valuer on re-inspection valuer to provide a market value that reasonably may affect a previous valuation where the varies from a ‘normal’ tone of value for otherwise physical evidence varies from previously supplied comparable locations. If this is the case, an information or assumptions. Any material impact explanation should be provided. Relevant activity on value should be brought to the client’s attention. might include the activities of special purchasers or Further information is given in the ‘Re-inspections’ elements of public policy. section of Red Book UK appendix 11. 10.4.2 New-build transactions, in common with other sectors of the housing market that are 10.7 Defective workmanship difficult to value, may be targeted by criminals. Valuers should always be vigilant for signs of 10.7.1 A valuation is not a survey and should not potential criminal activity, such as fraud and be considered as a detailed commentary on the money-laundering, and should understand their quality of workmanship displayed by contractors. responsibilities for recognising and reporting However, if any significant defects affecting value suspicious activity. Familiarity with any guidance are recorded during the course of the valuation issued by mortgage lenders and by RICS to inspection, these should be commented on and its members at www.rics.org/financialcrime is reflected in the valuation. recommended.

10.5 Builders’ warranties and 10.8 Stage payments assurance schemes 10.8.1 Stage payments tend to be confined to small developments or self-build projects. 10.5.1 When valuing for lenders, the assumptions regarding builders’ warranties and assurance 10.8.2 The purpose of such payments is usually schemes are laid out in section 6, subject to any to release payments to contractors, either from specific lender instructions. the client’s own resources or by the drawing down of funds from lenders, often based on a pre- 10.5.2 Where the client is a purchaser and not a commencement assessment of market value on lender, the valuer should report the existence of any completion. known builders’ warranties or assurance schemes, and, if possible, give a summary of the cover 10.8.3 The number of stages may be defined provided. in the contract between the client and builder, or 10.5.3 If the valuer is unable to confirm the the policies of individual lenders. In each case, existence of such warranties or assurance schemes, the requirements of the client and lender are to be the client, whether lender or purchaser, should be understood and reported accordingly. advised to make specific enquiries of the vendor. 10.8.4 Within the context of Red Book UK 10.5.4 The absence of warranties or assurance appendices 10 and 11, it is recognised that the schemes, particularly for recently constructed valuer is not usually supervising construction and dwellings, may limit mortgagability and consequently is not generally a quantity surveyor. The valuation affect the assessment of value. In such cases, the provided at the stages specified is an estimate of valuer’s assumptions are to be stated. the market value of the property at the specified date, not an assessment of cost.

10.6 Re-inspections 10.8.5 The existence of the required statutory approvals for the construction work can generally 10.6.1 Re-inspections may be requested by be assumed to have been verified by the lender’s lenders or intending purchasers. Where possible, legal advisers. However, when undertaking the

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 21 stage inspection, it should be established whether the design of the property has changed from that originally approved. Any plans inspected should be the latest versions.

10.8.6 Where material changes which affect the assessment of value are identified,this information should be reported.

22 | VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES Appendix 1: CML Disclosure of Incentives Form

The CML Disclosure of Incentives Form is available This version of the CML Disclosure of Incentives as an accompanying PDF that can be found on Form is current at the time of publication, but the the same page as this guidance note. This official form is subject to periodic revision. The latest version of the form allows users to fill out the fields applicable version is freely available from the electronically and print, however, it does not allow website of the Council of Mortgage Lenders any doctoring of the form itself. (www.cml.org.uk).

VALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEW-BUILD HOMES | 23 rics.org

RICS HQ Advancing standards in land, property and construction. Parliament Square London SW1P 3AD RICS is the world’s leading qualification when it comes to United Kingdom professional standards in land, property and construction. Worldwide media In a world where more and more people, governments, banks and enquiries: commercial organisations demand greater certainty of professional e [email protected] standards and ethics, attaining RICS status is the recognised Contact Centre: mark of property professionalism. e [email protected] t +44 (0)870 333 1600 Over 100 000 property professionals working in the major established f +44 (0)20 7334 3811 and emerging economies of the world have already recognised the importance of securing RICS status by becoming members. RICS is an independent professional body originally established in the UK by Royal Charter. Since 1868, RICS has been committed to setting and upholding the highest standards of excellence and integrity – providing impartial, authoritative advice on key issues affecting businesses and society. RICS is a regulator of both its individual members and firms enabling it to maintain the highest standards and providing the basis for unparalleled client confidence in the sector. RICS has a worldwide network. For further information simply contact the relevant RICS office or our Contact Centre.

United Kingdom Africa Ireland Parliament Square PO Box 3400 38 Merrion Square London SW1P 3AD Witkoppen 2068 Dublin 2 United Kingdom South Africa Ireland t +44 (0)870 333 1600 t +27 11 467 2857 t +353 1 644 5500 f +44 (0)207 334 3811 f +27 86 514 0655 f +353 1 661 1797 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Oceania Middle East India Suite 2, Level 16 Office G14, Block 3 48 & 49 Centrum Plaza 1 Castlereagh Street Knowledge Village Sector Road Sydney, NSW 2000 Dubai Sector 53, Gurgaon – 122002 Australia United Arab Emirates India t +61 2 9216 2333 t +971 4 375 3074 t +91 124 459 5400 f +61 2 9232 5591 f +971 4 427 2498 f +91 124 459 5402 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Appendix 8 – Officers Report to Development Control Committee in respect of 32 Lawn Road Agenda Item 7(3)

32 Lawn Road Address: London NW3 2XU Application 2014/6903/P Officer: Michael Cassidy Number: 3 Ward: Gospel Oak Date Received: 31/10/2014

Proposal:

Erection of part 5, part 7 storey building comprising 72 flats (Class C3) (25 x 1 bed, 33 x 2 bed and 14 x 3-bed) with associated amenity space and landscaping, following demolition of existing buildings containing car parking, employment floorspace and rooftop, and community centre.

Drawing Numbers:

1406-100 Location Plan; 1406-200 Rev A Site Plan Ground Level; 1406-210 Rev A Level 0 - Ground Level; 1406-211 Rev A Level 1; 1406-212 Rev A Level 2; 1406-213 Rev A Level 3; 1406-214 Rev A Level 4; 1406-215 Rev B Level 5; 1406-216 Rev B Level 6; 1406-217 Rev B Level 7 Roof Plan; 1406-250 Rev A Waste Storage + Management Plan; 1406-400 Rev B Proposed Streetscenes; 1406-450 Rev B West Elevation - Lawn Road; 1406-451 Rev B East Elevation - Upper Park Road; 1406-452 Rev B South Elevation - Garnett House Courtyard; 1406-453 Rev A North Elevation; 1406-454 Rev BSite Sections AA + BB; 1406-455 Rev B Site Section CC; 1406-456 Rev A Site Section DD + EE; 1406-500 Rev A Lifetime Homes Compliance - Typical 1 Bed Flat; 1406-501 Rev A Lifetime Homes Compliance - Typical 2 Bed Flat; 1406-502 Rev A Lifetime Homes Compliance - Typical 3 Bed Flat; 1406-503 Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plots 14 + 27; 1406-504 Rev A Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 6; 1406-505 Rev A Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 2; 1406-506 Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 3; 1406-507 Rev A Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 10; 1406-508Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 19; 1406-600 Rev BBay Study - Entrance 32A; 1406-601 Rev B Bay Study - Entrance 32B; 1406-602 Rev B Bay Study - Entrance 32C; 1406-603 Rev B Bay Study - Entrance 32D; 1406-604 Rev A Bay Study - Prow Balconies; 1406-610 Rev A Typical Details; 1406-611 Rev A Material Images; MCA FNH413 LS01 Rev A Landscape Masterplan; DAT/9.0/Planning Rev A Site Survey; FNH413-P-201 Rev A Existing Plans & Elevations – Workshop; FNH413- P-202 Rev A Existing Plans & Elevations - Community Centre; and FNH413-P-203 Drainage Plan.

Supporting documents:

Page 111 Landscaping Design Strategy, prepared by MCA Landscape Architects; Transport Statement (Volumes 1-3) including Travel Plan and Servicing Management Strategy, prepared by URS; Statement of Community Involvement, prepared by Curtin & Co; Energy Statement, prepared by Silver Energy Management Solutions Limited; Sustainability Statement, prepared by Silver Energy Management Solutions Limited; Construction Logistics Plan, prepared by Fairview; Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Statement, prepared by Infrastructure Design Limited; Noise Assessment and Noise Response to EHO comments, prepared by Grant Acoustics; Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report, prepared by CHP Surveyors Limited; Air Quality Assessment prepared by MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd; Air Quality Impact Assessment for Combined Heat and Power Plant, prepared by The Airshed; Arboricultural Development Statement prepared by CBA; Ecology Assessment, prepared by Ecology Solutions; and Wind Assessment, prepared by RWDI.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:

Grant conditional permission subject to S106 Legal Agreement

Applicant: Agent: Fairview Estates (Housing) Ltd Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners 50 Lancaster Road 14 Regents Wharf, Enfield All Saints Street Middlesex LONDON EN2 0BY N1 9RL

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

Land Use Details: Floorspace Use Class Use Description (GIA sq.m) Office (Class B1a) and light industrial (Class B1c) 2059 Existing Assembly and Leisure (Class D2) 108 TOTAL 2167 Residential (Class C3) 6060.3 Proposed TOTAL 6060.3

Residential Use Details: Residential No. of Bedrooms per Unit Type 1 2 3 4 Total All Flat 25 32 15 - 72 Affordable (rented) Flat 2 4 4 - 10 Affordable (shared Ownership) Flat 5 - 1 - 6

Page 112 Parking Details: Parking Spaces (General) Parking Spaces (Disabled) Existing 43 0 Proposed 0 4 on-street

Page 113 OFFICERS’ REPORT

Reason for Referral to Committee: Major development involving the construction of more than 10 new dwellings or more than 1000 sq. metres of non-residential floorspace [clause 3(i)]; and which is subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement for matters which the Director of Culture and Environment does not have delegated authority [clause 3(vi)].

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 The Council was the freehold owner of the application site up until early 2014. In 2012, the Council decided to sell the site as part of its Community Investment Programme (CIP), intended to raise funds for investment in Camden’s schools, affordable homes and community facilities through the sale of underutilised Council assets. On 17 March 2014, the Council agreed an unconditional sale of the site to Fairview Estates for £11.2m for its redevelopment for housing.

1.2 The sale followed a series of decisions made by the Council to dispose of the site to raise funds for its CIP. A report to Cabinet in July 2011 identified the development of the 32 Lawn Road site as key to “unlocking funding and development potential” and to enabling regeneration plans for Gospel Oak to be progressed. At this point, the Council identified the need to vacate the pre- fabricated community building on the site to facilitate disposal.

1.3 In April 2012, the site was presented to the Council’s Cabinet as an “opportunity to generate a capital receipt from an underutilised asset to help fund the wider programme which in turn will assist in enabling the wider regeneration currently being discussed in Gospel Oak”. The site was also defined as “pivotal” to providing investment in Gospel Oak regeneration and in the wider CIP programme, which would also secure investment in local schools.

1.4 The Cabinet agreed that the site had become surplus to the Council’s requirements and that its sale should be progressed. In July 2012, the Council approved the relocation of the Queen’s Crescent Community Association (QCCA) from the Lawn Road site to the Weedington Road Centre, to enable the re-provision of similar community facilities nearby and to allow vacant possession of the community building.

1.5 The site was transferred to Fairview Estates in Spring 2014, with the community building and car parking areas vacated (the QCCA’s use having been relocated), and with the commercial units part-occupied. On recommending the sale, the Council’s report to the Director of Finance notes the substantial payment that would be made available to CIP projects. It goes on to state that: “The nearby residents and the community are expected to benefit from the proposed high specification development and amenities that will replace the existing run-down, underutilised site. The existing mosaic will be sympathetically relocated in consultation with the community. Garnett House residents will be re-provided with a new community garden, where they will be consulted on its design, working with a landscape architect. They will benefit from a much improved emergency and fire brigade access to their own building and re-provision of parking spaces.”

Page 114 2 SITE

2.1 The application site is located on the eastern side and at the northernmost end of Lawn Road, just south of its junction with Fleet Road. It is broadly triangular in shape tapering to its northern end, with a long curved frontage onto Lawn Road to the west. To the east, the site backs onto Upper Park Road with its northern boundary being defined by the junction of Lawn Road with Fleet Road and a small area of open space with a large Ash tree. The southern side of the site is formed by its boundary with the courtyard area of Garnett House.

2.2 The site covers approximately 0.25ha and comprises 2 existing vacant buildings. The former Fleet Community Centre (Class D2) located towards the northern part of the site is a small, single storey, flat roofed building, finished in brick. Part of its northern elevation has a prominent colourful mosaic by a community artist. The other larger building is a concrete framed, three-storey structure, with a ramped entrance off Lawn Road. The open sided undercroft at lower ground floor level contains a vacant car park (34 car parking spaces) with 7 vacant employment units, last occupied by a mix of office and light industrial uses (Class B1a), above at first floor level. The brick sided roof has a concrete surface and is open to the elements. It was previously used informally as a play pitch connected to the Community Centre, but has no markings and appears to have been disused for some years.

2.3 There are a number of trees along the site boundaries, of varying degrees of maturity and quality, which are detailed in the Tree Survey Schedule appended within the Arboricultural Statement submitted. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) has been placed on 4 of these trees (2 Tree of Heaven, 1 Common Ash and 1 Silver Birch) located close to the larger building along the western boundary of the site with Lawn Road.

Page 115 2.4 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character comprising a mixture of building types, styles and heights, from the larger 15 storey council estate buildings, Palgrave House and Cayford House, that flank the site to its east and west, to the 5- storey Garnett House to the south and the 2/3 storey Victorian terraces and interwar dwellings.

2.5 To the north of the application site is the small area of green open space referred to above, beyond which is the junction of Lawn Road and Fleet Road, marked by a prominent three-storey, black-painted public house called ‘The Stag’. At this point, Fleet Road contains a number of local shops and services, with Fleet Primary School to the east. Properties to the north of Fleet Road are predominantly 3 to 4 storeys and terraced.

2.6 Upper Park Road, a cul-de-sac that terminates at Palgrave House, defines the eastern boundary of the site. Opposite the site at its north-eastern end is the 15-storey Palgrave House, which is a residential tower block. South of Palgrave House, directly east of the site, is a terrace of 3-4 storey houses backing onto Upper Park Road and a block of 4 storey flats. To the south, the site boundary adjoins the courtyard of Garnett House, a 5 storey block of flats, separated from the site by a fence line with trees planted along the edge of the courtyard. These flats are accessed from the courtyard space.

2.7 The western boundary of the site is defined by Lawn Road. Immediately to the west is Cayford House, a similar 15 storey tower block to Palgrave House. To the north west of the site, and south of The Stag, is an entrance to the Royal Free Hospital campus. The campus beyond contains a number of large modern hospital buildings, which provide a backdrop to the buildings on Lawn Road and Fleet Road. To the south of the hospital entrance is a distinctive 2 storey Victorian building set back from Lawn Road behind railings, a garden and mature trees. Formerly part of the Royal Free Hospital, this is now an Education Centre. To the south west of the site, and south of Cayford House, is Du Maurier House, a five storey block of flats, to the rear of which is Belsize Wood.

Page 116 2.8 The application site is not within a Conservation Area and is undesignated within the Council’s Development Plan. It does, however, lie between the Mansfield Conservation Area to the north, principally beyond Fleet Road but also including The Stag public house and the Education Centre, and Parkhill and Upper Park Conservation Area to the south of the site beyond Garnett House and Garnett Road and including Belsize Wood, a public open space, to the rear of Du Maurier House.

2.9 There are no statutory or locally listed buildings within the site. There are, however, various listed buildings within the vicinity of the site, most notably the Grade I Listed Isokon building, the ‘white’ concrete finished 1930’s modernist block of flats designed by Wells Coates, located approximately 50m away to the south west beyond Garnett House and the dense trees of Belsize Wood. There are also the Barn Field residences on Upper Park Road and the Dunboyne Road Estate, both of which are Grade II listed.

2.10 There are footways around the perimeter of the site on Lawn Road and Upper Park Road, although formal footpaths are interrupted on the western side of Upper Park Road adjacent to the site. There is presently a public right of way route through the site between the former Fleet Community Building and the car park. Existing vehicular access to and from the site is currently provided through two access points on Lawn Road and Upper Park Road.

2.11 The site is highly accessible, with a PTAL rating of 4 (Good) on Upper Park Road and 5 (Very Good) on Lawn Road. The nearest underground station, Belsize Park, is within 400m of the site with the nearest railway station, Hampstead Heath Railway Station, being 460m from the site. There are also several existing bus routes, including 24, 46, and C11, operating on Fleet Road with bus stops within close walking distance being 126m from the site.

2.12 The site is located within the Belsize (CA-B) controlled parking zone (CPZ). It is also within Flood Zone 1, where there is a low probability of flooding occurring, and within a hydrogeological constraint area due to its slope stability and ground water flow.

3 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing buildings, containing car parking, employment floorspace and rooftop, and community centre, and the erection of a part 5 storey, part 7 storey residential building comprising 72 flats (Class C3) (25 x 1 bedroom, 33 x 2 bedroom and 14 x 3-bedroom). Of these, 16 units would be provided as affordable housing (22.22% of the total), split between 10 affordable rent and 6 shared ownership, comprising 62.5% and 37.5% by unit number respectively.

3.2 The proposed housing mix would therefore be:

Market housing Affordable Rent Shared Total Ownership 1-bed 18 2 5 25 2-bed 28 4 1 33

Page 117 3-bed 10 4 0 14 Total 56 10 6 72

3.3 The building would be broadly ‘L’ shaped, with the north-south element extending southwards from a curved ‘prow’, following the curved line of the Lawn Road frontage. The east-west section would then run between Lawn and Upper Park Roads close to the southern boundary with Garnett House. The proposed sixth floor attic storey would lie predominantly on the north-south Lawn Road wing, with one section (comprising one 1-bedroom unit) on the south eastern corner fronting Upper Park Road. The seventh floor attic storey would be set centrally within the Lawn Road wing.

Proposed Site Plan

3.4 The remainder of the site would be landscaped, with gardens fronting Lawn Road, and a substantial private landscaped ‘courtyard’ garden of 634sq.m fronting Upper Park Road with a line of new trees curving around the site boundary, under-planted with low hedgerows, winding walkways, seating and a doorstep play area for the ‘Under 5s’. Private balconies and roof terraces would be provided on the upper floors of the building. The Lawn Road elevation would be punctuated with three circulation cores along its length, and interspersed with large, deep-set window openings. The frontage would be set back 3.5 metres from the edge of the pavement providing space for gardens and landscaping.

Page 118 3.5 The southern elevation of the building would mirror the arrangement of Garnett House, the central elevation set between two wings creating a new courtyard space with Garnett House. The height line of the building at this end would reflect the height of Garnett House, with a set-back sixth floor attic storey at the eastern and western sides.

3.6 The southern wing of the building would front onto Upper Park Road, with the existing mosaic re-located on this façade. The main elevations would be of light- coloured grey buff stock brick articulated with a regular rhythm of large window openings with deep reveals with aluminium window frames and balconies and metal cladding to the stair cores. The roof areas would be utilised for a combination of private terraces and photovoltaic panels.

3.7 It is proposed that the building would accommodate approximately 6,060.3sq.m (GIA) of floorspace.

3.8 Since its original submission, the proposal has been amended to incorporate the following key changes:

1) Removal of the fifth floor unit on the south east corner of the proposed building, such that the south east façade facing directly on to Upper Park Road and Garnett House is five storeys, reducing the scale of building on this corner. 2) Increased modelling and articulation of the upper ‘attic’ storeys at fifth and six floors, with all building corners to be rounded, and increased set-backs from the lower floors and a recess introduced on the courtyard façade 3) The previously proposed light render finish on the upper attic storeys is to be replaced with a brick finish of a different tone to the lower brick elevations. 4) The central stair tower facing Lawn Road has been re-modelled to create a semi-circular glazed structure, with vertical aluminium mullions, so forming a lighter, more transparent feature. 5) Greater articulation and detailing has been introduced to the facades, including the introduction of a vertical recess adjacent to the stair tower on Lawn Road at 3rd and 4th floor, and the increased use of recessed balconies in this façade; variation of brickwork, for example, through the use of alternate projecting brick courses around windows; the inclusion of recessed downpipes; and the introduction of a dropped recess to the courtyard façade. 6) Entrances are to be finished with curved mosaic tiles, in place of the metal finished previously proposed, to highlight entrances and to integrate with the relocated mosaic. 7) The refuse store to the southern ‘block’ will be set into the main building, to increase courtyard space and open-up the entrance. 3.9 Pedestrian access to the building would be via 4 ‘main’ entrances and circulation cores, 3 on Lawn Road and 1 on Upper Park Road. There would be other secondary entrances to individual apartments around the building, including direct ground floor access to one of the wheelchair units (Plot 10). All refuse storage would be provided within the building, at ground floor level. Servicing would be largely undertaken from the street, and principally via Upper Park Road.

Page 119 3.10 The proposal would be a car-free scheme with no general car parking spaces being provided. Provision for 4 on-street disabled parking bays is proposed, with 3 spaces created on Lawn Road and 1 on Upper Park Road adjacent to the site entrance. For cycle storage, the scheme would provide 1 cycle space for 1 and 2 bedroom units, and 2 spaces for 3 bedroom units all internally within the building, plus 2 courtyard spaces for visitors. In total, 88 cycle spaces would be provided within the building, plus 2 external visitor spaces.

4 RELEVANT HISTORY

4.1 The following site history is relevant to the application site:

P9602857 - Partial rebuilding of perimeter wall with new brickwork - Council’s own permission under regulation 3 granted 05/11/1996.

PE9900934 - The erection of 2.2m high boundary railings with pedestrian access gates, including the renewal of the door entry system - Council’s own permission under regulation 3 granted 07/06/2000.

PEX0100326 - Variation of condition No.5 of planning permission granted 22/04/1983 to enable use of the B1 premises as a 24 hours operation - Council’s own permission under regulation 3 granted 16/08/2001.

2003/1766/P - Replacement of railings around car park - Council’s own permission under regulation 3 granted 02/10/2003.

5 CONSULTATION SUMMARY

Statutory

5.1 Environment Agency

No objection to the proposal. A ‘Grampian Style’ drainage system must be installed before development can take place.

5.2 Transport for London

The site will not have a detrimental impact on the Strategic Road Network, Transport for London (TfL) Road Network or the local public transport network. TfL welcomes that the development will be car free and notes that 4 Blue Badge spaces will be provided on street locally. It should be noted however that the London Plan Housing SPG requires for each wheelchair accessible unit to have access to a dedicated Blue Badge bay. This could equate to up to 7 spaces being required however it is accepted by TfL that this could be difficult to accommodate on the local street network.

The cycle parking will need to be increased in line with the March 2015 London Plan which requires one space for the one beds and studios and two spaces for all other units. On that basis the provision will need to be increased to 121 spaces. The

Page 120 ground floor plan shows the location of the cycle parking however it is not clear how the main body of cycle parking is accessed (those within the northern element of the scheme) and it should also be noted that cyclist may need to go through 3 doorways to access the parking and this should be avoided.

5.3 London Underground Ltd

No comments to make on the application.

5.4 Thames Water

No objection. Flood risk is the only constraint and is remedied with a sustainable surface water management system.

5.5 Metropolitan Police - Crime Prevention Design Advisor

No objection. Keen to see railings at 1.8m in height and the ability for natural surveillance. Full comments have been set out in the Security section below.

Local groups

5.6 Palgrave House Tenants and Residents Association

Support for the application. Request the off-site landscape and renovation improvement works be secured by the Council. Consider the proposed design is of high quality and materiality. Keen for a clear construction management plan. Support the change to the Public Right of Way.

5.7 South End Green Association

Objection to the proposal on the following grounds:

Loss of employment Loss of community centre Loss of public right of way.

Adjoining Occupiers

Number of letters/emails sent 317 Total number of individual responses received 41 Total number of objection petition signatures 284 Number in support 10 Number of objections 315 5.8 A site notice was displayed from 8th January 2015 to 29th January 2015 and a press advert was placed in the Ham & High on 8th January 2015 and was re-advertised on 14th January 2015.

Representations Summary

Page 121 5.9 Ten responses of support and a petition of objection with 284 signatures has been received raising the following concerns:

This massive development would create darkness and force the closure of a long established right of way. Impact on physical infrastructure, such as drainage, sewerage and water supply and underground canal. Increase in population density impact on local resources, schools, transport and parking. Disregard for the impact on surrounding conservation area. Removal of several healthy trees. Greatly increased wind in an already windy area. A loss of sunlight on the only public green space. Loss of sunlight and privacy to nearby residential blocks. Increased parking and traffic on already congested streets. A substantial enlarged footprint that will encroach upon the pavement and green space. 3-5 years of construction, dust, debris and noise.

5.10 Thirty one individual objections have also been received raising the following concerns:

Loss of employment use Loss of community centre Excessive density Overcrowding The height and bulk of the building is excessive Unsympathetic design Inappropriate siting and scale of development The proposal will impact on the neighbouring conservation area Impact on traffic Insufficient car parking Lack of affordable housing Lack of green space Sewerage concerns Flooding and drainage concerns Loss of public right of way Disruption during construction Loss of privacy Loss of sunlight and daylight Further pressure on local infrastructure

5.11 The above issues raised are considered in the relevant section of this report below. 6 POLICIES

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

6.2 The London Plan (July 2011)

Page 122 Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA) 2013 Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) January 2014 to March 2015.

6.3 Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance

6.4 LDF Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010

LDF Core Strategy

CS1 Distribution of growth CS3 Other highly accessible areas CS4 Areas of More Limited Change CS5 Managing the impact of growth and development CS6 Providing quality homes CS8 Promoting a successful and inclusive Camden economy CS10 Supporting community facilities and services CS11 Promoting Sustainable and efficient travel CS13 Tackling climate change through promoting higher environmental standards CS14 Promoting high quality places and conserving our heritage CS15 Protecting and Improving our Parks and Open Spaces & encouraging biodiversity CS16 Improving Camden’s health and wellbeing CS17 Making Camden a safer place CS18 Dealing with our waste and encouraging recycling CS19 Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy

LDF Development Policies

DP2 Making full use of Camden’s capacity for housing DP3 Contributions to the supply of affordable housing DP5 Homes of different sizes DP6 Lifetimes homes and wheelchair housing DP13 Employment premises and sites DP15 Community and leisure uses DP16 The transport implications of development DP17 Walking, cycling and public transport DP18 Parking standards and limiting the availability of car parking DP19 Managing the impact of parking DP20 Movement of goods and materials DP21 Development connecting to the highway network DP22 Promoting sustainable design and construction DP23 Water DP24 Securing high quality design DP25 Conserving Camden’s heritage DP26 Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours DP28 Noise and vibration DP29 Improving access DP31 Provision of, and improvements to, open space and outdoor sport and recreation facilities

6.5 Supplementary Planning Policies

Page 123 Camden Planning Guidance (2013)

CPG 1 Design CPG 2 Housing CPG 3 Sustainability CPG 5 Town centres, retail and employment CPG 6 Amenity CPG 7 Transport CPG 8 Planning obligations

7 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The principal considerations material to the determination of this application are considered in the following sections of this report:

8 Land use principles Loss of existing employment floorspace Loss of existing community facilities Loss of recreation use Proposed residential use 9 Density and infrastructure 10 Tenure, affordable housing and residential unit size mix Tenure mix and affordable rent levels Viability and affordable housing Mix of units 11 Standard of Accommodation Unit sizes Access and inclusive design Daylight, sunlight, privacy and aspect Noise and vibration External amenity space Public open space 12 Design, conservation and heritage 13 Trees and landscaping 14 Impact on neighbouring amenity Daylight and sunlight Outlook, Overlooking and loss of privacy Noise and disturbance 15 Air quality 16 Sustainable design and construction Energy Efficiency Sustainability Strategy 17 Flood risk and drainage 18 Nature conservation and biodiversity 19 Transport Trip generation Travel planning Public right of way

Page 124 Car parking Cycle parking Delivery and Servicing Management of construction impacts on the public highway in the local area Highways contribution 20 Security 21 Refuse and recycling 22 Planning obligations 23 Mayor of London’s Crossrail CIL 24 Conclusion 25 Recommendation 26 Legal comments 27 Conditions 28 Informatives

8 Land use principles

8.1 The land use principle considerations are as follows:

Loss of existing employment floorspace Loss of existing Community facilities Loss of recreation use Proposed residential use

Loss of existing employment floorspace

8.2 Policy CS8 seeks to safeguard existing employment sites and premises in the Borough where these “meet the needs of modern industry and other employers” and protects the Borough's main Industry Area. It also expects the provision for a mix of employment facilities and types.

8.3 Policy DP13 further aims to retain business uses and will resist a change to non- business use unless:

It can be demonstrated to the Council that a site or building is no longer suitable for its existing business use; and

There is evidence that the possibility of retaining, reusing or redeveloping the site or building for a similar or alternative business use has been fully explored over an appropriate period of time.

8.4 There are currently 7 vacant employment units, last occupied by a mix of office (Class B1a) and light industrial uses (Class B1c), on the site with a gross internal floor area of 2,059sq.m. Under the proposal, the whole site would be redeveloped for residential use and these units would be lost.

8.5 In support of the application, an Employment Floorspace Assessment (EFA) has been submitted. The EFA provides a detailed assessment of the quality of the

Page 125 existing accommodation and a consideration of the appropriateness of the site and its location for continued employment use.

8.6 With regard to the requirement for marketing, the site was marketed for residential development prior to its sale by the Council. The applicant has not undertaken any further marketing for prospective business users. They assert that given its recent purchase, this is not regarded as either desirable or pragmatic, particularly in the context of the NPPF’s encouragement for changes from commercial to residential use. The EFA advises that marketing of the existing employment units would be of no value as the units are in poor structural condition and nearing the end of their useful life.

8.7 To meet the requirements set out in Policies CS8 and DP13 (and the NPPF test that there is no “strong economic reason” for retaining commercial uses on site), the potential for continued employment use on the site has been fully considered by commercial agents as set out in the EFA.

8.8 In summary, the EFA establishes that:

The existing building and employment units are of low quality by reference to the categories in Camden Planning Guidance 5 (the site is identified as Category 3 space requiring significant investment if it is to continue in its current use). They are in a poor state of repair, with serious structural issues. They currently lie part vacant, with other units in rental arrears.

Their quality and condition, and upcoming changes in regulatory standards, means that the units are, or will shortly be, unfit for purpose.

Evidence shows that the market for office and light industrial uses in the area is weak, attracting very low rental returns. The site’s location in a primarily residential area and away from other employment clusters seriously compromises its attractiveness to potential future occupiers.

8.9 As a result, new employment space would only be capable of being let at sub- economic rents, and the expectation is that they could be subject to long periods of vacancy. This would be detrimental to the overall contribution of the development to the area.

8.10 The evidence set out within the EFA demonstrates that the site is no longer viable or suitable for business use, based on a full exploration of the site and market conditions in line with Council policy. Coupled with the policy of the NPPF, which supports change of use to residential from commercial uses where there is a need for housing and there are not strong economic reasons why it would be inappropriate, the loss of the existing employment floorspace is considered to be acceptable and would be in accordance with Policies CS8 and DP13.

8.11 The Council’s Economic Development Section has raised no objection to the proposal and agrees with the findings of the EFA. They consider it reasonable to describe the site as a less than ideal location for business, surrounded as it is by residential uses. Given the constraints of the site, they consider it reasonable to

Page 126 conclude that it would be difficult to build small business workspace of the size and quality that would generate rents at a viable level.

8.12 If the application were to be approved, the Economic Development Section have requested that the following be secured by way of a S106 legal agreement:

A training and employment contribution of £68,750 to mitigate the loss of employment opportunities for Camden residents in accordance with Policy CPG8, Paragraph 8.14.

A requirement to work to a target of 20% local recruitment.

All construction vacancies and work placement opportunities be advertised exclusively with the Kings Cross Construction Skills Centre for a period of 1 week before marketing more widely.

A specified number (to be agreed) of construction work experience placement opportunities of not less than 2 weeks each, be undertaken over the course of the development, to be recruited through the Council’s Kings Cross Construction Skills Centre.

1 construction apprentice per £3million of build costs, and the payment of a support fee of £1,500 per apprentice to the Council as per Clause 8.17 of CPG8. Recruitment of construction apprentices would be conducted through the Council’s Kings Cross Construction Skills Centre.

Sign up to the Camden Local Procurement Code, as per Section 8.19 of CPG8. In addition, a minimum of 2 Meet the Buyer Event / Supplier Workshops to support local suppliers to bid for tenders should be organised and funded with the events being delivered in partnership with the Economic Development Team.

A local employment, skills and local supply plan setting out a plan for delivering the above requirements in advance of commencement on site.

8.13 Subject to the above being secured, the loss of the existing commercial units is considered to be acceptable.

Loss of existing community facilities

8.14 Policy DP15 protects “existing community facilities” by resisting their loss unless “a replacement facility that meets the needs of the local population is provided”; or the specific community use is no longer required.

8.15 It is recognised that the site no longer contains a community facility. As set out in Section 1 Background above, in advance of selling the site, the Council relocated the principal use of the Community Centre, operated by the QCCA, to the Weedington Centre nearby and the former building was sold with vacant possession.

8.16 The Cabinet Report, dated April 2012, investigated the use of the community centre, finding that, “on a daily basis the community centre is only used at 8-30% of its

Page 127 capacity for regular activity, although it is unclear how much one off hire takes place”. Only 11 groups had, it states, regular bookings of the Centre.

8.17 The report also highlighted the occasional use of the Centre by tenants’ and residents’ groups in the vicinity of the site. On agreeing to proceed towards the sale of the site, the Council agreed that: “the receipt would fund the re-provision of the existing tenant meeting facility as partial replacement of the D1 use on the site, and that it is anticipated that there is sufficient capacity nearby that means that the loss of the community centre on the site would not lead to a shortfall in provision in the area.”

8.18 At the time, the Council sought to consolidate and re-provide the existing community uses elsewhere to facilitate the sale of the site for a future housing development as part of the CIP. In July 2012, the relocation of the QCCA was approved by the Council.

8.19 The above records show that there was a history of low usage of the Community Centre and that the Council considered on vacating the community centre that there is sufficient capacity elsewhere in the vicinity to meet local needs. This addresses the requirement within Policy DP15 that “the specific community facility is no longer required in its current use”.

8.20 The principal operator and uses were also relocated, now operating from facilities focussed around Ashdown Crescent and Weedington Road some 10-15 minutes’ walk from the site. In this location, the QCCA offers a range of services across a variety of venues, which include support and social groups for families, children and the elderly, youth and training services, and sports groups and facilities. A variety of halls are also available to local groups for public hire in this location.

8.21 On this basis, it is therefore considered that a replacement facility that meets the needs of the local population has been provided and the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DP15.

Loss of recreation use

8.22 Policy DP15 protects existing recreation uses unless adequate facilities are available in the area.

8.23 The roof of the larger building on the site was not designed or laid out at as a sports pitch, although it has been used as such by youth groups that were based at the former Community Centre. This use was connected with the QCCA’s operations and Council records indicate that it has not been used as such for 4-5 years.

8.24 The Cabinet report, dated April 2012, decided that “as the play area has remained unused for some time and is poor in quality it is not considered necessary to re- provide this public play area.”

8.25 In this regard, it is therefore considered that the application would not result in any loss of a recreation facility. In should also be noted that the QCCA operate two multi- use games pitches at Malden Road nearby, which are accessible to local residents’. As such, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DP15.

Page 128 Proposed residential use

8.26 The application proposes 72 new residential units (25 x 1 bedroom, 33 x 2 bedroom and 14 x 3-bedroom). The principle of additional residential floorspace within the Borough is strongly supported by Policies CS6 and DP2, which identify housing as the priority land use for the Borough and highlight the need to maximise the supply of housing.

8.27 The NPPF also attaches great importance to significantly boosting the supply of new housing. Policy 3.3 of the London Plan further seeks to increase housing supply across the Capital, with minimum housing targets set out in Table 3.1. For Camden, the minimum ten year target is 6,650 units or 665 a year; the current draft Further Alterations to the London Plan proposes an increase in housing delivery in Camden to 8,892 additional dwellings between 2015 and 2025, an annual target of 889 dwellings.

8.28 Policy CS6 seeks to meet or exceed a target of 8,925 new homes across the Borough between 2010 and 2025, with Annual Monitoring Reports including a reliance on a number of small sites and windfall sites. Policy DP2 further expects the maximum appropriate contribution to supply of housing on sites that are underused or vacant, taking into account any other uses that are needed on the site.

8.29 The site is in a sustainable location, with a good/very good PTAL level and access to local services and amenities. The development proposes the re-use of an existing underutilised, part vacant brownfield site, making the best use of the Borough’s limited land. This approach accords with the core principles of the NPPF, which encourages the re-use of previously developed land, and Policy CS1.

8.30 Policies CS1 and CS4 also support development which makes the best use of land in areas of more limited change which are outside of the growth areas. The key test set out in Policy CS4 is that development in these areas ‘respects the character of its surroundings, conserves heritage and other important features and provides environmental improvements and other local benefits where appropriate’. An assessment of these issues is outlined in further detail below.

8.31 In light of the loss of the existing uses being justified and the priority given to the delivery of significant number of new dwellings (particularly on underused brownfield sites), the principle of the redevelopment of the site for housing is supported and would fully comply with Council policy.

9 Density and infrastructure

9.1 The site is located in an ‘Urban’ setting and has a PTAL of 4 to 5 (Good to Very good). The London Plan Density Matrix prescribes a density of 45-260 units per hectare or 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare for this location. The proposal has a density of 288 units per hectare and 832 habitable rooms per hectare, which exceeds the above range. Regard has been given to the density ranges linked to the above London Plan policy, recognising, however, that housing density should not be

Page 129 used as a tool in isolation to drive the nature of a housing development or to judge its appropriateness. Rather, density is an outcome of the design and development process that takes into account a variety of factors, including accessibility, context, relationship with neighbours, provision of appropriate internal and external space, quality of design, viability etc.

9.2 Paragraph 3.28 of the London Plan states that “it is not appropriate to apply Table 3.2 mechanistically. Its density ranges for particular types of location are broad, enabling account to be taken of other factors relevant to optimising potential - local context, design and transport capacity are particularly important, as well as social infrastructure (Policy 3.16), open space (Policy 7.17) and play (Policy 3.6).”

9.3 The Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), at paragraph 1.3.12, further states that the density ranges should be “used as a guide and not an absolute rule, so as to also take proper account of other objectives”. It does not preclude developments with a density above the suggested ranges, but requires that they “must be tested rigorously” (para.1.3.14). This will include an examination of factors relating to different aspect of “liveability” of a proposal (dwelling mix, design and quality), access to services, management of communal areas and a scheme’s contribution to ‘place shaping’. The impact of massing, scale and character in relation to nearby uses will be particularly important – and “design should be exemplary”.

9.4 The SPG also considers the opportunities and constraints with regards to density on small sites (para.1.3.39). Responding to existing streetscape, massing and design of the surrounding built environment should be given special attention – where existing density is high, for example, higher density can be justified. Paragraph 1.3.40 notes that small sites require little land for internal infrastructure, and as such, it is appropriate for density to reflect this. These factors are all relevant to the development of the application site.

9.5 Taking account of the above, the proposed residential development as set out below has been designed to deliver new homes within a building that responds to its local context, taking into account both the physical constraints of the site and its relationship with neighbouring properties and the nearby townscape.

9.6 The proposed development exceeds London density range. This is, however, justified by the quality of the design and its response to context, and the rigour the applicant has applied to assessing the acceptability of the scheme within these parameters. It delivers on London Plan policy by optimising additional housing on an underutilised brownfield site in an accessible location.

9.7 Given the site’s good/very good PTAL rating, its location close to 2 stations as well as bus links and nearby local amenities, it is considered that the density proposed is acceptable.

9.8 Contributions towards community facilities, health and public open space are to be included in the S106 agreement as set out below.

10 Tenure, affordable housing and residential unit size mix

10.1 The considerations with regard to tenure and unit size and mix are as follows:

Page 130 Tenure mix and affordable rent levels Viability and affordable housing Mix of residential units

Tenure mix and affordable rent levels

10.2 Under London Plan Policies 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12, Camden Policies CS6 and DP3 and CPG2 (Housing), 50% of housing provision should be affordable. The split of the affordable housing provided should be 60% social rented and 40% intermediate.

10.3 The proposal provides 72 units in total, with 56 units (18 x 1 bedroom, 28 x 2 bedroom and 10 x 3 bedroom) being for market housing. The remaining 16 units would be provided as affordable housing (22.22% of the total), split between 10 affordable rent (2 x 1-bed, 4 x 2-bed & 4 x 3-bed - Plots 9, 10, 22, 23, 35, 36, 48, 49, 60 & 61) and 6 shared ownership (5 x 1-bed & 1 x 3-bed - Plots 7, 8, 17, 18, 20 and 33), comprising a split of 62.5% and 37.5% by unit number respectively. The affordable rent units are intended for those Camden residents on the housing waiting list who are most in need of housing.

10.4 The Council’s preferred approach to tenure mix and affordable rent levels is as follows: -

(i) Preference is for all rental units to be let at target rents. (ii) Capped rent units – no more than 50% of market rent including service charges for 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. Target rent for 3 bedroom units and above. (iii) Discounted rent units – no more than 65% of market rent including service charges for 1bed and 2bed units. Target rent for 3 bedroom units and above. (iv) S106 Agreements would include that the above rents must not exceed the Local Housing Allowance for the area and also not to exceed the market rents for similar units in the area.

10.5 The applicant has stated that the rents they have assumed are as follows: -

(i) 1 bedroom – the figure of £240 represents 69% of current market rent and includes a service charge of £20 per week and is below the Local Housing Allowance rate of £258.06.

(ii) 2 bedroom - the figure of £260 represents 57% of current market rent and includes a service charge of £20 per week and is below the Local Housing Allowance rate of £299.34.

(iii) 3 bedroom – The figure of £190 per week is inclusive of a service charge of £20 per week so the net start rent figure for £170 per week for units to be completed during the financial year 2017/18.

10.6 The Council’s Housing Section has raised no objection to the proposal and has confirmed that although the rental levels being offered for the 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom Affordable Rent units (£240 and £260 per week respectively) are higher than the Council’s draft framework, they are still within the Local housing allowance

Page 131 rates and less than market rent. The net rents (i.e. net of service charges) proposed by the applicant are circa £170 per week which is higher than the Council’s target rent of £142 per week. In this case, the Council would require that all 4 rented 3 bedroom flats are at target rents. According to the Council’s independent viability assessor, reducing the rents of these units would have a minimal impact on the viability of the proposal – a reduction of circa £88,000. The target rents would be secured via a S106 legal agreement, which would state that the rent should be no more than the 69% and 57% respectively with specific clauses outlining that the units will be provided at target rent levels in perpetuity.

Viability and affordable housing

10.7 Policies CS6 and DP3 and Camden Planning Guidance 2 (Housing) and 8 (Planning Obligations) require a contribution towards affordable housing in development schemes providing 10 or more units.

10.8 Policy DP3 states that the Council will negotiate the development of individual sites to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on the basis of an affordable housing target of 50% of the total addition to housing floorspace, on sites of 50 units of more. The Council, in considering the contribution to affordable housing, will take into account the economics and financial viability of the development including any particular costs associated with it.

10.9 Policy 3.12 of the London Plan seeks the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual housing schemes but states that the objective is to encourage rather than restrain residential development. Paragraph 173 of the NPPF imposes an obligation on Councils to ensure viability when setting requirements for affordable housing.

10.10 The application is accompanied by a financial viability assessment, which has been submitted on a confidential basis in connection with the proposed scheme to justify not providing a policy-compliant level of affordable housing (50%). The HCA’s Economic Appraisal Tool has been used in order to test scheme viability. The appraisal assumes delivery of 22% of the units (16 in total) as affordable housing, comprising of 10 affordable rent units and 6 shared ownership units as set out above. The residual value generated by this appraisal is £11.30m, which when compared to a benchmark land value of £11.20m, indicates that the scheme is marginally viable with the currently offered level of affordable housing delivery.

10.11 The viability assessment has been independently assessed by a viability expert (BPS) for the Council. BPS considers the £11.2m paid by the applicant for the site represents a realistic benchmark land value. This is further supported by the following Savills’ Market Value estimate figures submitted, which provide evidence of comparable land transactions:

Former Hampstead Police Station, 26 Rosslyn Hill, NW3. 0.48 acres (0.19 hectares) and was sold subject to a 50% overage provision. The site sold in June 2014 for £14,105,000, which is £29.4m per Ha.

Page 132 12/12a South Grove & 108/108A Swains Lane N6 6BJ. A 0.086 hectare site (5,242 sq. ft.), sold for £3,750,000 (£43.6m). This site had prospects for residential development. The sale equates to £43.6m per hectare.

Garage Site to the rear of 21-28 Barnsbury Square, Barnsbury N1 1JP, is a 0.068 hectare site which sold for £2,170,000 (£31.9m per Ha). Savills consider the hope value to be lower for this site than for the Lawn Road site, as the latter had more planning information and greater certainty over the potential for securing consent for redevelopment. BPS accept the logic of this, and consider that, all other things being equal, a higher Market Value per Ha could be expected for the Lawn Road site.

10.12 Having examined the costs and values of the proposed scheme, the independent assessor confirms that the scheme is unable to viably deliver affordable housing at 50%. BPS is of the view that the affordable housing offer made by the applicant represents the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing delivery from this scheme consistent with its viability. On this basis, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Council policy. A redacted copy of BPS’s report is appended to this report.

Mix of residential units

10.13 The 72 unit proposal would provide a mix of units (25 x 1 bedroom, 33 x 2 bedroom and 14 x 3-bedroom) to meet a variety of demands across the Borough in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.8 and Camden Policies CS6 and DP5. In particular, it would respond to the Dwelling Size Priority Table accompanying Policy DP5, which identifies two bedroom market units as being of ‘Very High Priority’ (the aim is identified at 40%) - the scheme meets this at 45% provision.

11 Standard of Accommodation

11.1 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan promotes high quality design of housing development that takes into account its physical context, local character, density, tenure and land use mix and relationship with, and provision for public, communal and open spaces taking into account the needs of children and older people.

11.2 New development should conform with the minimum space standards set out in Table 3.3 of the London Plan above and Camden Planning Guidance 2 - Housing. Policy 3.8 of the London Plan further recognises that a genuine choice of homes should be provided in terms of both tenure and size and provision should also be made for affordable family housing, wheelchair accessible housing and ensuring all new housing is built to ‘The Lifetime Homes’ standards. This is reflected in Camden Policies CS6, DP6 and DP29, which seek a diverse range of housing products to provide a range of homes accessible across the spectrum of household incomes, the promotion of inclusive design and for all new homes to comply with ‘Lifetime Homes’ criteria as far as practically possible.

Unit sizes

Page 133 11.3 Camden Planning Guidance 2 (CPG2) states that new self-contained dwellings should satisfy the following minimum areas for overall floorspace (excluding communal lobbies and staircases):

Number of persons 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minimum floorspace (m2) 32 48 61 75 84 93

11.4 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (Table 3.3) also stipulates the following minimum GIA minimum space standards for the proposed development:

Dwelling Type GIA (sq.m) (bedroom (b) / persons-bedspaces (p)) 1p 37 1b2p 50 2b3p 61 2b4p 70 3b4p 74 3b5p 86

11.5 The 25 x 1 bedroom units would have GIA’s of between 40 and 84sq.m. The 33 x 2 bedroom units would have GIA’s of between 61 and 91sq.m and the 14 x 3- bedroom units would have GIA’s of between 86 and 91sq.m. All of the proposed units would meet both Camden’s floorspace standards and the London Plan standards in terms of overall size and bedroom size.

Access and inclusive design

11.6 Pedestrian access to the building would be via 4 ‘main’ entrances and circulation cores, 3 on Lawn Road and 1 on Upper Park Road. There would be other secondary entrances to individual apartments around the building, including direct ground floor access to one of the wheelchair units (Plot 10).

11.7 All of the proposed residential units would fully comply with the space standards set out in the London Plan providing level or gently sloping entrances, doorways and entrances of an appropriate width, adequate circulation and internal space and an entrance level WC for wheelchair users. A condition is recommended to secure ‘Lifetime Homes’ compliance.

11.8 10% of the flats (7 units) have also been designed to comply with Wheelchair Accessible Design Guidance Standards. These include Plot 10 (affordable rent unit), located at ground floor level on the south eastern corner of the building closest to Upper Park Road, a 1 bedroom fully wheelchair compliant unit in accordance with Camden’s Wheelchair Housing Design Brief 2013 and Plots 2, 3, 6, 14, 19 and 27 (market units), located at ground, first and second floor levels (Plots 2 and 3 would have private ground floor entrances leading onto Lawn Road with the remaining plots having internal lift access within the building) 2 bedroom wheelchair accessible units in accordance with the Mayor of London’s ‘Wheelchair Accessible Housing’ best practice guidance.

Page 134 11.9 The Council’s Access Officer has raised no objection to the application. The proposal would be compliant with London Plan Policy 3.8, and Camden Policies DP6 and CPG2, which require all residential units to meet Lifetime Homes Standard and 10% of homes to be designed, built and fitted out to meet wheelchair housing standards. A head of term would be included within any S106 legal agreement requiring that the proposed wheelchair unit is fully adapted for wheelchair users, with the costs for adaption borne by the Developer.

Daylight, sunlight, privacy and aspect

11.10 The majority of the flats would be dual aspect with the exception of 19 units, 17 of which are 1 bedroom (Plots 4, 5, 7, 16, 17, 18, 20, 29, 30, 31, 33, 42, 43, 44, 46, 55, 57 and 62) and 2 are 2 bedroom (Plots 56 and 59) units. A Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report has been submitted with the application, which considers the level of daylight the proposed flats will achieve and the level of sunlight the proposed amenity space will enjoy with reference to the guidance set out in both the Building Research Establishment’s publication “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice, 2011 (BRE Guidelines) and the Mayor of London’s Housing SPG.

11.11 The analysis provided demonstrates that all of the 215 habitable rooms being provided should either achieve or exceed the recommended minimum Average Daylight Factor (these levels depend on the room use with a factor of 2% being applied for kitchens, 1.5% for living rooms and 1% for bedrooms) as set out in both the BRE Guidelines and the Mayor of London’s Housing SPG. In addition, more than 50% of the communal amenity space would enjoy at least 2 hours of sunlight on the 21st March. The design ensures that all rooms will achieve the recommended minimum Average Daylight Factor and that the amenity space will achieve the recommended minimum level of sunlight. The proposed flats are therefore considered acceptable in terms of daylight and sunlight.

11.12 The proposal would also provide a good level of aspect for all future residents with appropriate setbacks from the boundaries of the site and spacing in front of proposed windows being provided. With respect to the possible implications on amenity by way of overlooking and impacts on privacy, this has been addressed through careful positioning of windows and balconies to minimise the potential for overlooking.

Noise and vibration

11.13 A noise assessment has been submitted with the application which assesses the predicted noise conditions within the proposed residential development. It responds to Policy DP28 and the associated thresholds that establish the noise levels at which planning permission is unlikely to be granted for residential development, and the levels at which attenuation measures will be required. The assessment also takes into account other standards, policy and guidance, including British Standard BS8233:2014.

11.14 The assessment is based on a noise monitoring survey and establishes that the noise environment around the application site is appropriate for residential development. Mitigation measures will, however, be required for residential units at

Page 135 the northern end of the site, closest to Fleet Road, in line with Policy DP28. Whilst the remaining units do not require specific mitigation by reference to the thresholds set out in connection with Policy DP28, mitigation is proposed to meet relevant internal noise criteria.

11.15 The mitigation measures suggested consist of enhanced glazing and/or acoustic ventilation for habitable rooms closest to Fleet Road. All other plots would have standard glazing and trickle ventilation in habitable rooms. The assessment concludes that appropriate mitigation can be provided to ensure internal noise levels are acceptable across the development. External amenity noise levels are predicted to fall within the recommended criteria for the majority of plots. Where amenity noise levels exceed the criterion, there are areas of the communal garden that offer a quieter alternative.

11.16 The Council’s Environmental Health Section has reviewed the noise report and has raised no objection in principle to the proposal. The submitted report does not, however, mention the potential noise impact of the railway line in the vicinity or the potential disruptive noise from the emergencies and accidents from the hospital nearby. This has the potential to have a major disruptive effect to those residents on the higher floors and the mitigation measures currently suggested might be insufficient to achieve the recommended noise levels. The report also does not cover either vibration from road traffic or railway.

11.17 In response to these points, the applicant has made the following comments:

With respect to the hospital nearby, the audio recordings over the night time period showed that two sirens were used only at 0650hrs which is nearly day time hours. It also worth noting that the emergency A&E entrance is off the B158 (Constantine Road) and as such is highly unlikely to elect to approach or leave the hospital via the back road that is Lawn Road. It is therefore considered that sirens at night will not have a major disruptive effect on the proposed development due to their limited use.

Environmental Health has requested that noise from the rail network be assessed to upper floors of the proposed development 15 years on and also to include the impact of maintenance along the track. The proposed site is at its closest location approximately 350m south of the Network Rail passenger line between Gospel Oak and Hampstead Heath, with considerable screening from existing buildings. Passenger rail services on the Network Rail line between Kentish Town and West Hampstead are operated by Thames Link. The closest track in the open is approximately 300m from the site and is within a cutting. There are two 5 storey buildings and a 15 storey tower block between the development site and the closest track which provide screening as well as other multi storey height buildings. With the proposed development being up to 7 storeys high, it is unlikely that there will be a line of sight to the trains, particularly as they are in a cutting which then enters a tunnel.

Based upon predictions associated with the Network Rail line for passenger train noise undertaken along with worst-case maintenance noise taken into account and the distance and screening to the proposed development site, it is

Page 136 predicted that maximum noise levels will be in the region of 35dB(A) externally. This is significantly below those experienced from road traffic and therefore any mitigation proposed for road traffic will mitigate against railway noise. It is concluded that due to distance and screening from the railway lines to the proposed development site, road traffic is dominant and any mitigation proposed for road traffic will be adequate for railway noise.

11.18 To address these points, it is considered appropriate that a condition be attached to any permission granted requiring a further and more representative noise survey at different heights be carried out to ascertain the noise levels including weekends (Saturdays/Sundays) when the emergencies and accidents services from the hospital are likely to be operating at their highest capacity. Conditions relating to noise protection and vibration, as suggested by the Council’s Environmental Health Section, would also be attached to any permission granted to ensure that future occupiers of the development would be appropriately protected from noise and vibration in accordance with Council policy.

External amenity space

11.19 Camden Planning Guidance 2 - Housing states that all new dwellings should provide access to private outdoor amenity space, e.g. balconies, roof terraces or communal gardens. It cross refers to the Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, which will be a material consideration in determining the application. This requires that all units have access to private amenity space that will meet or exceed the Mayor’s Housing SPG requirement of a minimum of 5sq.m of private outdoor space for each 1-2 person dwellings and an extra 1sq.m for each additional occupant. This should include a private landscaped courtyard, private roof terraces and balconies.

11.20 The proposal includes the provision of 634m2 of private landscaped courtyard, plus residential gardens fronting Lawn Road, and private balconies and roof terraces for each of the proposed residential units in accordance with the requirements of Camden Planning Guidance 2 – Housing and the Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Public Open Space

11.21 Policy DP31 requires an ‘appropriate contribution’ to open space, with priority given to publicly accessible open space. The scheme falls beneath the threshold for the provision of on-site public open space (100 units). It would, however, exceed the threshold above which the Council will seek an on-site doorstep play space and natural and semi-natural green space; the scheme will meet this policy requirement through the provision of the landscaped courtyard, including a play space. 11.22 The courtyard space within the development has been designed to provide a high quality and biodiverse landscaping for the private use of future residents of the development. It would ensure that the privacy and security of the residents are maintained, particularly those at ground floor level, and that it is a safe and secure environment that can be well kept, managed and maintained. The new landscape courtyard will have a significant positive contribution to greening the City in this location, and to the attractiveness of the townscape and views from the surrounding area.

Page 137 11.23 Whilst the development does not exceed the Policy threshold for the provision of on- site public open space, Policy DP31 requires that development that is likely to lead to an increased use of public open space should make an appropriate contribution to the supply of open space. Camden Planning Guidance 6 makes provision for such contributions. The proposal would secure a contribution to Public Open Space of £96,908 by way of a S106 legal agreement.

12 Design, conservation and heritage

12.1 The NPPF (paragraphs 56 and 57), the London Plan (Policies 7.1 to 7.8) and Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, and Camden’s Core Strategy (Policies CS14, CS17), Development Policies (DP24) and Camden Planning Guidance 1 (CPG1) place great emphasis on the importance of good design. CPG 1 seeks “excellence in design” in Camden. Policy at all levels requires buildings, streets and spaces to respond in a manner which promotes inclusive and sustainable development and contributes positively to the relationship between urban and natural environments and the general character of the location.

12.2 Policy 7.1 of the London Plan further emphasises the need for a good quality environment, with the design of new buildings supporting character and legibility of a neighbourhood. Policy 7.4 also requires development to have regard to the form, function and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. Architectural design criteria are set out at Policy 7.6.

12.3 Camden Policies CS14 and DP24 require all development to be of the highest standard of design and expect developments to have consideration to a number of criteria. These include consideration of the character, setting and context and the form and scale of neighbouring buildings; the quality of materials of used; the provision of visually interesting frontages at street level; and, the provision of appropriate hard and soft landscaping.

12.4 The NPPF also states that, in determining planning applications where heritage assets are involved, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, as well as the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. The London Plan also requires, at Policy 7.8, that development affecting heritage assets conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. Camden Development Policy DP25 resists development that will cause harm to the character and appearance of a Conservation Area, or to the setting of a listed building. 12.5 The application site lies outside but between two Conservation Areas, Mansfield and Parkhill and Upper Park, and close to the Grade I listed Isokon building. The prevailing character of these areas is high quality but familiar London suburbia. Mansfield is formed of three storey terrace streets with the houses set behind short boundary walls. Within the northern part of the Parkhill/Upper Park Conservation Area, along the eastern side of Lawn Road, the scale of development is predominantly 2-3 storey semi-detached and terraced houses with pitched roofs of the interwar housing estates.

Page 138 South of the terraces, the scale of development increases to the predominantly 4 storey semi-detached villas with pitched roofs of the earlier Victorian period.

12.6 Along the western side of Lawn Road and backing onto Belsize Wood, the scale of development is defined by individual flat blocks from 5 (Isokon) to 15 storeys (Cayford House). Along Upper Park Road and to the south east of the site, the scale of development is defined by the 3 storey flats and houses south of Palgrave House and the 5 storey Park Dwellings on Garnett Road. South of Garnett Road on Upper Park Road, the scale of development is defined by the small area of 2 storey interwar terraced houses and beyond, 4 storey terraced villas infilled by the Barn Field blocks of 4-5 storeys.

12.7 Along the north side of Fleet Road, the scale of development is of 3-4 storey, narrow terraced houses. There is a wide variety of building height, scale and massing within the context of the site. There is no overall consistency in how buildings relate to each other, with significant variations in form between adjacent buildings such as Cayford House and the adjacent 4 storey flats, the Georgian Villas on Lawn Road and the adjacent much smaller semi-detached interwar housing.

12.8 As set out in the Design and Access Statement accompanying the application, surrounding buildings include the following examples:

Building Storeys Height in metres The Stag 3 11.6m (to parapet) Education Centre 3 11.3m (to ridge) Garnett House 5 15.1m (to parapet) Park Dwellings 4-5 17.1m (to ridge) Houses on Upper Park Road opposite site 3 10.3m (to ridge) Flats on Upper Park Road opposite site 4 13.5m (to ridge) Isokon 5 15.2m (to flat roof) Interwar houses 2-3 9.7m (to ridge) Interwar semi-detached villas 2-3 10.4m (to ridge) Georgian villas 4-5 15.2m (to ridge) Barn Field Flats 4-5 17.4m (to ridge)

12.9 The variation in massing in the surrounding area includes: the individual, bulky and tall Palgrave and Cayford flats, which have little articulation of the elevations other than the punctuation of inset balconies; the large but squat, plain Garnett House; Isokon, with its strong horizontal features that break up the mass of the building; and the richly detailed and articulated semi-detached interwar houses and Georgian Villas.

12.10 The site sits in the Fleet river valley, with the land rising into the Parkhill & Upper Park Conservation Area. Two roads from the conservation area provide long vista views either side of the site. The existing green buffers and the trees within them currently contribute to the quality and character of these views.

12.11 The proposal replaces the existing car park and community buildings with a single residential building with amenity space on its eastern side. The proposed building would measure 57m at its widest point running from north to south, 41m at its longest point running from east to west and 22.7m at its highest point (16.6m high at its

Page 139 northern most point and 19.5m at its highest point nearest the southern boundary). It would be set back by 4m from its western and eastern boundaries with Lawn Road and Upper Park Road.

12.12 The proposal is formed of a single L-shaped block, the shorter wing of which completes a courtyard with the u-shaped Garnett House. The longer wing would follow the curve of Lawn Road. The entire footprint would rise to five storeys, the same height as Garnett House, with two further setback storeys extending in the middle section of the Lawn Road wing. The building would have four cores, three with entrances off the street and one off the proposed garden.

12.13 At 7 storeys the building would be taller than the prevailing scale, but lower than the towers. The uppers storeys would be set back from Lawn Road and from either end of the building. The curved profile of the road, reflected by the layout of the building, would reduce full views of the building, and the location of the projecting stair tower, would obscure its full extent further. From the Parkhill and Upper Park Conservation Area, the upper storeys of the building would be visible, but they would be seen in the presence of the 15 storey towers. The curved corners would help to soften their form in this view.

12.14 The building line is setback from the street behind a planted buffer. The façade would be finished in light brickwork and would be modulated with recessed balconies and entrances. The northern end of the building and the entrances are curved, would take reference from the Listed Isokon building located further south on Lawn Road. The setback upper floors, finished in a contrasting brick are also radiuses on all corners. A projecting radius stair tower would be located on the midpoint of the façade to Lawn Road. Mosaic tiles would line the entrance areas, responding to the relocated mosaic from the community centre, which would be placed on the east side of the building.

12.15 The building picks up on the 5 storey adjoining Garnett House in creating a 5 storey brick facade – an attic storey, set back 2 metres and rising up to seven stories around the central projecting staircase. The building’s proportions are carefully considered to arrive at a streetscape that sits comfortably within Lawn Road, and Upper Park Road and culminates in an elegant ‘prow’ at the northernmost end, with curved inset balconies addressing a minor public space onto Fleet Road.

12.16 The building, within its streetscape picks up on the 5 storey massing of Garnett House and the villa blocks further along Lawn Road, while the 2 storey attic centred around the staircase element, provides a ‘top’ to the building and sits appropriately to the larger surrounding buildings.

12.17 The design and appearance of the building provides a coherent streetscape on Lawn Road and Upper Park Road, whilst also softening the development by ‘wrapping it’ in a complementary landscaping scheme. The height, form and massing represents a considered response to a number of issues – from the historic street pattern, urban grain and heights of surrounding buildings, to the relationship between the proposed building and its existing neighbours. Care has also been taken to arrive at a material palette that, while assuming its own identity, also carefully making reference to the New London Vernacular in its use of brick as the predominant material with large window openings; it also makes a subtle reference to the nearby Grade I listed Isokon building in its form and light masonry tone.

Page 140 12.18 Only in some longer views would the proposed development be read in the context of the Isokon building, set within the eclectic mix of buildings in the area between the two conservation areas. In terms of the other listed buildings identified, the site would not be viewed in the context of the two buildings further afield – Barn Field and the Dunboyne Road Estate, albeit there are limited views of the site from the former. The relationship of the new development with the identified heritage assets has been considered in the accompanying Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), which provides key views from within the conservation areas and from a location adjacent to the Isokon building.

12.19 From the assessment within the HIA, it has been demonstrated that the scale, form and massing of the development pays due regard to the two conservation areas and the Isokon building. The key views provided demonstrate that the development would sit comfortably within its surroundings, responding to the scale of neighbouring buildings, and not interrupting key views into or out of the conservation areas.

12.20 Subject to a condition requiring full details of the material samples to be used, the proposal would sit comfortably with neighbouring buildings and within the streetscene and would be in accordance with the design, conservation and heritage policies set out above.

13 Trees and landscaping

13.1 Policy DP24 requires development to consider existing natural features, such as trees, and to provide appropriate hard and soft landscaping. There are a number of trees on and adjacent to the site with some street trees present along the site’s boundaries and a number of significant large trees to the north of the site and within the grounds of the Education Centre. Formal street tree planting is not however, a strong characteristic of Lawn Road as it is on Upper Park Road.

13.2 An Arboricultural Development Statement (ADS) has been submitted with the application which categorises the trees on site according to their quality. There are 9 individual trees and 3 groups of trees on or adjacent to the site, of varying quality. The ADS found there to be no Category A trees, being those of high quality. 5 individual trees and 1 group of trees were considered as being of moderate quality, with some landscape and arboricultural value.

13.3 As the site is not located within a conservation area, 4 of the on-site trees (1 Birch, 2 Tree of Heavens and 1 Ash) were brought under the protection of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) as a precautionary measure to prevent its owners removing the trees prior to any development proposals for the site being fully considered by the Council.

13.4 The development provides an opportunity to provide a high quality, cohesive tree- planting scheme that reinforces the tree planting in the vicinity of the site, enhances biodiversity through species selection and works within the new landscaping scheme that will be developed for the application site, and extended to the wider area around the application site. It is proposed to remove all of the trees within the application site, including the 4 proposed TPO trees. The large Ash tree to the north of the site, within the green space, will be retained and protected.

Page 141 13.5 Since changes have been made to the original landscaping proposals submitted, it is considered that the new planting proposal will successfully mitigate against the loss of canopy cover over the site as a whole if the existing trees are to be removed. The changes to the species proposed on the western frontage, with input from the Council’s Tree Officer, has maximised the number of proposed trees and ensured the trees have a long term future. As such, it is not considered necessary to confirm the TPO as in overall terms it is acknowledged that the proposals would result in a net gain in numbers of trees at the site.

13.6 The applicant has been advised that systems such as Arbor raft or Silva Cell (both brand names; other products offer the similar results) should be utilised to ensure rooting areas for trees near to hard landscaping are maximised and optimised. This advice has been taken by the landscape architect and is shown in the most recent landscaping proposals.

13.7 The eastern side of the site is where the majority of the proposed planting is to be sited. The scheme is considered to be of a high standard with a broad range of plant types and species proposed. This will significantly enhance the biodiversity of the area and the species selected are considered suitable for the site will therefore be sustainable. At least 3 large trees of a large ultimate size are proposed to be planted on the east side of the site which will significantly add to the character of this part of the area.

13.8 The Camden owned and managed Ash tree immediately to the north of the site will be adequately protected during development, as set out in Section 5 of the Arboricultural report and the tree protection plan submitted. The proposed pruning of the Ash tree would not to be detrimental to the health of the tree nor the level of visual amenity it provides in its current form. As the tree is Camden owned and managed, the applicant will need to liaise with the Council’s Tree Section to arrange for the pruning to be carried out by Camden’s tree contractors.

13.9 The Council’s Tree Section have raised no objection to the proposal subject to a detailed landscape planting plan, details of materials and cellular rooting products referred to in the landscaping proposal being secured by condition in any planning permission granted.

14 Impact on neighbouring amenity

14.1 Policies CS5, DP26 and CPG6 (Amenity) are relevant with regards to the impact on the amenity of residential properties in the area. Any impact from construction works is dealt with in the transport section.

14.2 The nearest residential properties to the application site are the following:

Name/Address of Building Use of Building Position in relation to Site Du Maurier House Residential South West Crayford House Residential West Palgrave House Residential North East 90 Upper Park Road Residential East

Page 142 84-88 Upper Park Road Residential South East Garnett House Residential South

Daylight and sunlight

14.3 A Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report has been submitted with the application. This provides an assessment of the potential impacts of the development on sunlight, daylight and overshadowing to neighbouring residential properties based on the approach set out in the Building Research Establishment’s (BRE) ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Good Practice Guide’. This includes an assessment of impacts on the site’s residential neighbours, and on the quality of sunlight and daylight to the new residential dwellings and open space.

14.4 To assess the impact on the above neighbouring residential properties, a three- dimensional computer model has been constructed. This includes the window locations and internal configuration. Daylight has been assessed in terms of Vertical Sky Component (VSC), sunlight has been assessed in terms of Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) and overshadowing has been assessed against BRE guidelines.

14.5 Of the 258 windows considered within Du Maurier House, Cayford House, Palgrave House, 90 Upper Park Road, 80-84 Upper Park Road and Garnett House considered, 99% of the windows will achieve a VSC of at least 20% or 0.8 times the existing value or the rooms they serve will achieve the recommended minimum ADF. Concerning the 2 windows that do not achieve the numerical values for daylight, they achieve a VSC of greater than 0.7 times the existing rather than the recommended 0.8 times. Taking into account the current underdeveloped nature of the site, it is considered that this is acceptable.

14.6 The analysis has also considered daylight distribution to the habitable rooms served by the windows analysed, by plotting the No Sky Line (NSL). The results demonstrate that all except 30 rooms will have a significant portion or at least 0.8 times the existing area in front of the NSL. Of the 30 rooms that do not achieve the numerical values within the BRE Guidelines, 26 are bedrooms which are considered less important, with the remaining 4 (less than 2% of the total analysed) are located at ground floor level within Garnett House and achieve at least 0.6 times the existing area in front of the NSL.

14.7 The sunlight light analysis demonstrates that all except 6 windows within Palgrave House will achieve the numerical values contained within the BRE Guidelines. The windows that do not achieve the numerical values are located at the back of recessed balconies and it is therefore appreciated that the design of Palgrave House itself restricts its access to sunlight. 14.8 The numerical values contained within the BRE Guidelines are for suburban rather than an urban location such as this site and therefore as they state need to be applied flexibly. It also needs to be appreciated that the site is currently under developed for such an urban location and that therefore the neighbouring properties currently enjoy an unusually open outlook.

14.9 On this basis, it is considered that the results of the analysis demonstrate that, taking into account the urban, rather than sub-urban location, and the under developed

Page 143 nature of the site, the aims of the BRE Guidelines are met in relation to the neighbouring properties.

Noise and disturbance

14.10 A condition is attached with regards to noise from the proposed plant. Subject to this condition, there would be no material noise impact on existing residents from the proposals.

Outlook, Overlooking and loss of privacy

14.11 The proposed building would be set back by approximately 16m from Palgrave House and 18.5m from 84 to 86 Upper Park Road to the east, 22m from Cayford House and 26.7m from Du Maurier House on Lawn Road to the west and 22m from the main northern face of Garnett House (7.3 to 7.6m at its closest point to its northern end) to the south as shown below.

14.12 The nearest residential properties in Lawn Road to the west referred to above would be located in excess of 18m from the proposed building thereby ensuring no undue loss of outlook or privacy to these neighbouring properties. Similarly, the main rear southern face of Garnett House would also be located in excess of 18m from the building ensuring no undue impact on the residential amenity of its occupiers. Whilst the northern ends of this neighbouring building would be closer at 7.3m and 7.6m respectively, there are no main habitable room windows within these ends.

Page 144 14.13 With the exception of Palgrave House, the nearest residential properties in Upper Park Road to the east referred to above would be located in excess of 18m from the proposed building thereby ensuring no undue loss of outlook or privacy to these neighbouring properties. Whilst Palgrave House itself would be located 16m away at its closest point, the positioning of the proposed building on the site at this point, its angling away towards its most northern point and the internal layout arrangement of the flats would ensure no undue loss of outlook or privacy to these neighbouring properties.

14.14 Given the proposed positioning of the building on the site set back from the boundaries of the site, the separation distances between the new building and neighbouring properties proposed and the intended orientation of the balconies and flat layouts, the proposal would not appear visually overbearing or result in any significant material impact in terms of outlook, overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residential properties.

Air quality

14.15 Policies CS16 and DP32 are relevant with regards to air quality. Policy DP32 requires the submission of air quality assessments for developments that could cause harm to air quality. Mitigation measures are expected in developments located in areas of poor air quality.

14.16 The application site lies within an Air Quality Management Area. An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted with the application. The Assessment recommends positive venting for the proposed flats located between the ground and third floor at the northern end of the development to ensure appropriate levels of air quality for the new residents with the air extracted from above the third floor of the building to reduce exposure. The assessment concludes that the proposed development will not have any impact on the ambient air quality near the site, when compared to the previous use, and that air quality should not present a constraint to achieving planning permission for the proposed development. A separate report considers the impact of the proposed CHP system on air quality, concluding that the impacts will be of negligible significance.

14.17 The energy statement states that the air leakage will be set below 5m3/h/m2 and an appropriate mechanical ventilation system would therefore be required. The Council’s Air Quality Officer has reviewed the application and raised no objection in principle to the proposal. They have, however, suggested that mechanical ventilation be required in all plots, with those affected by poor levels of air quality having windows sealed. Those units that would not be affected by poor levels of air quality should have the option to naturally ventilate through openable windows. The mechanical ventilation system and details of the positioning of any air intake locations, which should be located as far as possible from the CHP flue as possible, would be secured by condition. Subject to this condition, the proposal would have no material air quality impact on future residents or the surrounding area.

15 Sustainable design and construction

15.1 Section 5 of the London Plan outlines the Mayor’s policies on climate change and sustainability. Policy 5.2 sets out the Mayor’s approach to minimising carbon dioxide

Page 145 emissions through the energy hierarchy of “Be Lean”, “Be Clean”, “Be Green” and sets a target, explained further in the Sustainable Design and Construction SPG, that all residential development will be expected to achieve a flat carbon dioxide improvement target beyond the Building Regulation Part L 2013 requirement of 35%.

15.2 Policy 5.6 requires that major development proposals select energy systems in accordance with the following hierarchy:

1 Connection to existing heating or cooling networks; 2 Site wide CHP network; 3 Communal heating and cooling;

15.3 Major development proposals are also expected to provide a reduction in expected carbon dioxide emissions through the use of on-site renewable energy generation, where feasible as set out in Policy 5.7.

15.4 London Plan Policy 5.3 also promotes sustainable design and construction in new development and Policy 5.13 encourages development utilising sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so. Policy 5.15 seeks to minimise the use of main water with residential development.

15.5 Camden Policy DP22 promotes and measures sustainable design and construction by expecting new build housing to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 by 2013. Policies CS13, DP22 and CPG3 set out further guidance on sustainability.

15.6 An Energy Statement and Sustainability Statement, which demonstrate how the proposed development will incorporate a range of sustainability measures that will reduce carbon dioxide and use of natural resources, have been submitted with the application.

Energy Efficiency

15.7 The Energy Statement explains how the proposals follow the Mayor’s energy hierarchy. It demonstrates that the proposed energy solution for the development follows and responds to the Be Lean, Be Clean, Be Green principles and includes various energy efficiency measures as well as low-carbon and renewable energy technologies.

15.8 The development has been designed to reduce CO2 emissions by incorporating a range of passive design and energy efficiency measures throughout the site, including improved building fabric standards beyond the requirements of building regulations, energy efficient ventilation strategy and energy efficient lighting. The energy assessment states that by implementing the energy efficient design, by incorporating enhanced building fabric standards and by using energy efficient systems, it is possible to achieve Part L compliance without contribution from low carbon and renewable energy technologies.

15.9 Once energy demand has been reduced, the strategy proposes implementation of a gas-fired CHP engine and efficient gas-fired boilers connected to a communal heating system, which will supply hot water for the entire development. It is anticipated that

Page 146 theuse of the CHP engine and communal heating network will reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 29.5%. This would be in accordance with the hierarchy for selecting energy systems, as it has been established that is not contractually possible to connect to the district heating system in the area of the site. The site’s infrastructure will, however, be future-proofed to allow connection to a district heating network if possible in future. This would be secured by S106 legal agreement.

15.10 To meet the requirement for renewable technology, photovoltaic (PV) systems are proposed to supply renewable energy for the development. The assessment shows that the PV systems will result in approximately 18.9% CO2 reduction for the entire site. This means that the renewable target of 20% would almost be achieved.

15.11 Overall, the proposed strategy could achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions for the development equivalent to 42.8% reduction when compared to the original baseline, in excess of the 35% policy target. The development would also meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 energy requirements. This would be secured by S106 legal agreement.

Sustainability Strategy

15.12 The Sustainability Statement sets out details of how the development will contribute to the Mayor’s and Camden Council’s sustainability policies and targets. The development has been designed to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, as required by Camden Policy DP22, and responds to the requirements of Camden Planning Guidance 3 on Sustainability. A Code for Sustainable Homes Pre- assessment has been included in the Sustainability Statement, demonstrating how Camden’s minimum standards against the relevant categories will be achieved.

15.13 Heating and hot water for all units would be provided through a communal heating system incorporating Combined Heat and Power (CHP). The use of solar PVs would then be used to ensure emissions are further reduced. As noted above, a total reduction in carbon emissions of 42.8% is expected to be achieved beyond the Part L 2013 baseline is proposed, exceeding the 35% requirement of London Plan policy 5.2.

15.14 London Plan Policy 5.15 and Camden Policy DP23 require developments to reduce water consumption through the incorporation of water efficient features. Internal water consumption of less than 90 litres/person/day will be targeted through the use of water efficient sanitary fittings and appliances.

15.15 Policy DP23 also seeks to limit the amount and rate of run-off and waste water entering the combined storm water and sewer network through, for example, the adoption of sustainable urban drainage methods.

15.16 The surface water drainage system for the new development, as set out in the Surface Water SUDs Strategy and Flood Risk Statement, will incorporate sustainable drainage principles and adopts measures in accordance with the London Plan’s drainage hierarchy (Policy 5.13). This would include the incorporation of flow control devices, to limit the flow of water to the existing sewer system. The on-site system will be designed to withstand run-off generated from a 1 in 100 year return storm, plus an allowance for climate change. It will ensure that any surface water generated is collected, attenuated and released gradually into the adopted sewer, so preventing

Page 147 flood risk to future occupiers. Rainwater from roof areas will also be collected for re- use, for irrigation purposes, with any surplus overflowing into the main onsite surface water drainage system.

15.17 The Council’s Sustainability Section has reviewed the application and have no objections to the proposal subject to the following matters being secured by S106 legal agreement:

1) Prior to construction full details of proposed CHP.

2) Full construction drawings showing how the development will be future-proofed for connection to the Gospel Oak Decentralised Energy network.

3) A Decentralised Energy Network Connection Assessment being undertaken to assess the parameters of constructing operating and maintaining a connection to the Decentralised Energy Network with the Development. If this concludes that a connection is possible prior to Occupation, the Owner will use reasonable endeavours to agree commercial terms to enter into a contract with the proposed operator of the Network and agree measures with the Council to enable connection to the Development at the boundary of the Property prior to first occupation.

16 Flood risk and drainage

16.1 Policies CS13 and DP23 are relevant with regard to flood risk and drainage.

16.2 The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1 where there is a low probability of flooding (0.1% probability of flooding in any year). Notwithstanding this, Map 2 contained within Policy DP23 identifies that the southern-most part of the application site is at risk of surface water (pluvial) flooding during periods of extreme rainfall.

16.3 Given the overall size of the proposed development site (0.25ha), a full-scale Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment is not required to support the application. A Surface Water Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy & Flood Risk Statement has, however, been submitted which confirms that a flow control device will be incorporated ahead of the final outfall to the existing adopted sewer system to ensure that the discharge rate does not exceed 50% of the rate which exists from the development presently (in a 1 in 1 year return period storm event). The onsite surface water drainage system will also be designed to withstand runoff generated from all storm events up to and including a peak 1 in 100 year return period storm, plus an allowance for the potential effects of climate change (+30%). Rainwater from roof areas will be collected for reuse, for irrigation purposes, with any surplus overflowing into the main onsite surface water drainage system. The design of the drainage system will assume that any rainwater harvesting vessels are ‘full’ at the time of a heavy rainfall event.

16.4 Thames Water has been consulted on the application and has no objections to the proposal subject to a condition and informatives. The proposed surface water drainage strategy for the development has been designed to ensure that any surface water generated in this area is collected, attenuated and released gradually into the adopted sewer system, thus preventing any flood risk to future occupiers. Overall, the

Page 148 proposal would reduce site run off rates by 50% in accordance with policy. This would be secured by condition.

16.5 Given the low flood risk and Thames Water’s comments, the proposal, subject to the above SUD’s condition, would raise no concerns with regards to flood risk and drainage.

17 Nature conservation and biodiversity

17.1 The site is for the most part surrounded by existing roads and residential development. The principal exception to this is Belsize Wood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Site of Local Importance (SLI) to the southwest. There are no statutory designated sites within or directly adjacent to the site. The closest such site is Belsize Wood LNR which is approximately 20m away.

17.2 An ecological assessment has been submitted with the application, which includes an extended Phase 1 habitat survey, dated February 2014, and a desk-based study. The site has a variety of habitats including mixed woodland, scrub, hedgerows, amenity planting and a pond. Redevelopment of the site is not likely to have any significant effect on the LNR.

17.3 The closest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is Hampstead Heath Wood SSSI, 1.35km to the north, an area of ancient woodland with important dead wood habitats. There is no likelihood of any adverse effects on this site as a result of the proposed redevelopment.

17.4 There are no non-statutory designated sites within the site boundary. However, on the opposite side of Lawn Road and approximately 20m to the southwest from the site boundary is Belsize Wood SLI. This site shares very similar boundaries to Belsize Wood LNR and is also designated for the same reasons.

17.5 Approximately 300m to the north of the site is Gospel Oak Railsides SBI1, a mosaic of habitats including woodland, scrub and grassland. This area provides a valuable wildlife corridor and habitat for a number of species. Redevelopment of the site is not likely to have any significant effect on these non-statutory sites.

17.6 Overall the majority of the habitats present are of negligible ecological interest and their loss to the proposed development would be of no significance. The new areas of amenity grassland and landscape planting where previously the majority was hardstanding will create new opportunities. Overall there is likely to be a net gain in terms of the ecological interest of the habitats present.

17.7 No evidence of the presence of other protected or notable species was recorded on site during the survey work undertaken or from the background data search information received. In conclusion, it is considered that there is no overriding ecological constraint to the development of the site and it is considered that the proposals accord with planning policy with regard to nature conservation and biodiversity.

18 Transport

Page 149 18.1 Policies CS11, DP16, DP17, DP18, DP19, DP20, DP21 and CPG7 (Transport) are relevant with regards to transport issues.

18.2 Policy DP16 seeks to ensure that development is properly integrated with the transport network and is supported by adequate walking, cycling and public transport links. Proposals should also make appropriate connections to surrounding streets and spaces. Policy DP18 further states that “the Council will expect development to be car free…within Controlled Parking Zones that are easily accessible by public transport”.

Trip Generation

18.3 The building is currently unoccupied and does not therefore generate any regular trips. The trip generation assessment accompanying the application estimates that the proposed development would generate 68 additional walking trips during the AM peak hour and 106 additional walking trips during the PM peak hour, when compared with the existing building.

18.4 The vast majority of trips to and from the site would be made by sustainable modes of transport (public transport, walking and cycling). The distribution of predicted trips to the various modes of transport indicates that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on the operation of the public transport network in the local area. However, the level of additional walking trips associated with the proposal would have an impact on pedestrian comfort levels in the vicinity of the site.

18.5 In order to ensure that residents and visitors to the development are encouraged to walk and cycle to and from the site, it is recommended that a financial contribution be secured to allow the Council to improve the public realm on routes to the site. This contribution would need to be secured as a section 106 legal agreement if planning permission were granted.

Travel Planning

18.6 The applicant has provided a framework Travel Plan (TP) in support of the planning application. This aims to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport through a range of soft measures, as well as highlighting the benefits of travelling by modes other than the private car. The draft TP has been reviewed against Transport for London guidance and is a good example of what is expected from developers during the planning application process.

18.7 The Council would require a strategic level Residential Travel Plan to satisfy Policy DP16 and Camden Planning Guidance; specifically CPG7 (Transport); this includes references to Transport for London (TfL) and Department of Transport guidance. The travel plan would be secured by a S106 legal agreement if planning permission were granted. A financial contribution of £5,902 would need to be secured to cover the costs of monitoring and reviewing the travel plan over a 5 year period. This would also need to be secured by S106 legal agreement.

18.8 TfL encourages developers to use the TRICS database (formerly TRAVL) for trip generation predictions. The Council will require the applicant to undertake a TRICS after study and provide TfL and the Council with the results on completion of the

Page 150 development. TfL would then be able to update the TRICS database with the trip generation results for the various use categories associated with this development. The necessary after surveys and results would be secured by S106 agreement as part of the Residential Travel Plan review and monitoring process.

Public Right of Way

18.9 There is also a Public Right of Way that runs through the proposed development site and a Stopping Up Order has been submitted with the planning application. This is required in order to allow the developer to close this footpath to the public.

18.10 The stopping up of the footpath (highlighted in green below) would require existing users to take an alternative and slightly longer route around the proposed development (highlighted in red below). When processing a stopping up order the Council require an alternative to be proposed that would be of a measurable benefit to the residents.

18.11 This Public Right of Way is used by local residents as a cut through between Lawn Road and Fleet Road. It appears to be part of a pedestrian route through the Royal Free Hospital site and also provides a connection to the school on Fleet Road. The application to Stopping Up this pedestrian route would hinder pedestrian movement, contrary to Policy DP21, as the alternative route would be less convenient and direct and would increase journey times on a daily basis.

18.12 The applicant has, at the Council’s Transport Section’s request, provided a desirable plan that would improve the pedestrian route though the estate over all, with a measurable and much needed improvement to Upper Park Road and the

Page 151 surrounding area. The most notable of these improvements is the creation of the new step free route through the estate connecting Upper Park Road and Fleet Road. The current route requires passing a number of steep steps, which presents restrictions for disabled users and people with pushchairs. This new improvement would help create better access in the area and is in line with Policy DP17 which requires new developments to provide convenient and safe pedestrian routes to help promote walking as an alternative to the car.

18.13 The improvements for the area, require further consultation with the highways authority, Housing and Social Care department (who own some of the land) to provide better highways for the local residents. The Council would require these works to be fully funded by the applicant to help improve the area and mitigate the loss of the Public Right of Way. This would be covered within the financial contribution to be secured for highway works and should be secured by way of S106 legal agreement.

Car Parking

18.14 The site is located within the Belsize (CA-B) controlled parking zone and has a PTAL rating of 4-5 (good). This means that the site is easily accessible by public transport. Policies CS11, DP18 and DP19 require developments in such locations to be car free.

18.15 The proposal would provide a car free development with no parking spaces on the site. This welcomed and will help to minimise the impact of the development on the local area and what is already a highly stressed Controlled Parking Zone with 110 permits for every 100 spaces available. For car free developments, the Council will:

not issue on-street parking permits; use planning obligations to ensure that future occupants are aware they are not entitled to on-street parking permits; and not grant planning permission for development that incorporates car parking spaces, other than spaces designated for people with disabilities, and a limited number of spaces for car capped housing in accordance with Council's Parking Standards.

18.16 In order to meet the requirement to provide adequate access for disabled residents, the proposal would include the provision of 4 disabled parking spaces. Of these, 3 spaces would be provided on the public highway on Lawn Road, with 1 further space being provided within the site directly adjacent to Upper Park Road. The proposal to provide 3 disabled parking bays on Lawn Road would require amendments to the existing traffic management orders. This element of the proposal would not involve the loss of existing residents parking bays. This is because the single yellow lines adjacent to the 2 redundant vehicular crossovers would be converted. The loss of single yellow line needs to be considered carefully as it serves an important function (e.g. loading and unloading, passing place). It may not therefore be possible to provide all 3 disabled parking spaces on-street as proposed. A financial contribution for the costs associated with amending the existing traffic management orders would be secured by S106 legal agreement. This would be covered within the financial contribution to be secured for highway works.

Page 152 Cycle Parking

18.17 Policy DP18 requires developments to sufficiently provide for the needs of cyclists. Camden’s minimum cycle parking standards are contained in Appendix 2 of the Camden Development Policies document. The London Plan also provides guidance on minimum cycle parking standards and these are outlined in Table 6.3 of the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) recently adopted in March 2015 and replacing Table 6.3 of the Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA) published in October 2013.

18.18 Table 6.3 of the FALP requires:

1 cycle space per studio or 1 bedroom unit; 2 cycle spaces for all other units.

18.19 The proposal has been designed to comply with the former REMA guidelines and would currently provide a total of 90 cycle parking spaces. This would include 88 covered, secure and fully enclosed cycle parking spaces within the building and 2 further cycle parking spaces in the external courtyards for visitors. Whilst the proposed level of provision exceeds Camden’s minimum requirements, it would not currently meet the minimum requirement set out in the FALP adopted after the submission of the application.

18.20 The Council’s Transport Section has advised that the proposal would be capable of providing the 121 cycle parking spaces requested by TfL. Subject to a condition requiring full details of these spaces, the proposal is welcomed and would help to encourage cycling as a convenient, healthy and sustainable mode of transport.

Deliveries and Servicing

18.21 The proposal suggests that the majority of servicing and deliveries would take place from Upper Park Road. In addition, some servicing and deliveries would take place from yellow lines on Lawn Road. A draft Delivery and Servicing Management Plan has been submitted in support of the planning application. This suggests that conflicts with road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians could be managed/mitigated.

18.22 The proposed servicing arrangements are generally considered to be acceptable by the Council’s Transport Section. However, a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan would be secured by S106 legal agreement.

Management of Construction Impacts on the Public Highway in the local area

18.23 The proposal would involve a significant amount of demolition and construction works. This is likely to generate a large number of construction vehicle movements during the overall construction period. The proposal is also likely to lead to a variety of amenity issues for local people (e.g. noise, vibration, air quality). In order to ensure that the development can be implemented without being detrimental to amenity or the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the local area, a construction management plan (CMP) would be secured by S106 legal agreement.

Page 153 18.24 A draft CMP has been submitted in support of the planning application. This provides some useful information which suggests that the proposed works could be constructed without being detrimental to the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the local area. However a far more detailed CMP would need to be approved by the Council prior to any works commencing on site.

18.25 The proposed loading/unloading location for large deliveries on Lawn Road is not deemed an appropriate location due to being situated opposite a service entrance for medical services including a GP Surgery and the Royal Free Hospital and could cause conflict with their daily operations. Arrangements for servicing the site would require further discussion with transport Strategy and Engineering Services. This would also include routes between the site and the transport for London Road Network (TLRN). The proposed vehicle route fails to respect the road hierarchy in the Borough. The developer must also ensure all relevant highway licences are sought and approved by the Council prior to any works commencing on site (e.g. hoarding licence, scaffolding licence, temporary parking bay suspension, etc).

18.26 Key elements that that the CMP should address in addition to the points made above include:

Construction vehicle movements would need to be scheduled to avoid peak periods including the school run in the morning and afternoon during term time. All Contractors will be required to adhere to the ‘Manual for Contractors Working in Camden’. The CMP would need to provide evidence of consultation on a draft CMP with the local community, including details to describe how any problems and issues would be addressed. A Construction Working Group involving representatives of the local community would need to be set up prior to any works commencing on site. The site would need to be registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme. The proposed works would also need to be undertaken in accordance with the best practice guidelines in TfL’s Standard for Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety (CLOCS) scheme.

Highways Contribution

18.27 The proposed works would most probably lead to a significant level of damage to the footways and carriageways directly adjacent to the site on Lawn Road and Upper Park Road. The proposal would also require the removal of redundant vehicular crossovers and the introduction of 3 disabled parking spaces on Lawn Road. 18.28 It will also require approval from the highway authority for a stopping up order that is currently being processed. As part of the stopping up order the developer has proposed a number of improvements to the public highway and land that is owned by the Housing and Social Care (HASC) department. These are essential works to mitigate the loss of the public right of way if approved. These works will need to be agreed by the Highways Authority and HASC, the works will be performed by the Highways Department and funded by the applicant. Full details are still to be agreed but these works are likely to include the following:

Upper Park Road

Page 154 The proposed footway on the western side of the carriageway will be extended north, to link in with the existing footway between Upper Park Road and Lawn Road, outside Palgrave House; Introduction of a raised section of carriageway, including the turning head, to allow the creation of a shared space environment; Granite sets will be provided to encourage reduced vehicle speeds on entry to the shared space; The footway along the eastern side of Upper Park Road will be resurfaced along with the footpath that extends around the turning head; Bollards will be introduced between the shared areas and the connecting footways; Improved lighting will be provided; and Landscaping.

Footway between Lawn Road and Upper Park Road (outside Palgrave House)

Removal of block paving and introduction of new artificial stone paving; Provision of bollards at both ends of the route, to prevent improper use of the route (i.e. By motorised vehicles); Improved street lighting; Landscaping.

Fleet and Upper Park Road Connection

Two new ramps to create a step free zone.

Junction between Upper Park Road and Garnett Road

Realigning the footway on the eastern side of the carriageway at the junction between Upper Park Road and Garnett Road, which will improve crossing and reduce the crossing distance at this location; Realigning the existing seven parking bays on the eastern side of Upper Park Road (no loss in parking will result from these improvements); Introduction of a raised table on Upper Park Road (north) to signal a change in traffic environment to road users and prioritise east-west pedestrian movement across this link; and Reinforce the status of Upper Park Road (northern section) as a cul de sac and a lower order traffic route and shared space, through the surface improvements and raised table.

Lawn Road

Removal of 2 existing vehicular crossovers. Repaving of the carriageway if damaged during construction. Repaving of the footway. Introduction of 3 disabled parking spaces and any associated reconfiguration of existing residents parking bays, including amendments to traffic management orders.

Page 155 18.29 The above works would need to be agreed with the Highways Authority and HASC and fully funded by the Applicant if planning permission is granted. The financial contribution for the highway works agreed would be secured by way of S106 legal agreement.

18.30 Subject to the above works being secured by S106 legal agreement, the Council’s Transport section has raised no objection to the proposal and consider the development would be in accordance with London Plan and Council policies.

19 Security

19.1 Policy CS17 and CPG1 (Design) are relevant with regards to secure by design.

19.2 The Metropolitan Designing Out Crime Officer has been consulted on the application. They have raised no objection to the proposal subject to the following points being considered by the applicant:

Along the perimeter of the site a 1.8m railing with a gate of the same height controlled with 2 magnetic locks with audio and video access control. This could be further secured by a railing to this height at the corner of the building to Lawn Road. The building which faces Lawn Road, may have a 1.2m railing/wall to define this space as belonging to the household. A maximum recess of 600mm is required for any access into the building to address concerns of there being little surveillance of the communal entrance doors that could be the subject to crime or Anti-Social Behaviour Two methods of postal delivery, either through the wall scheme or internal foyer, being adopted with the foyer requiring a secondary security enhanced door, and stairs and lift controlled with fob or security door. Utilities meters being in a central location or outside the building. Bin stores having a fit for purpose self-closing and locking door. Bike stores being reduced to the number of bikes a person has access to. This can be done with metal gating, mesh or grills. All residential and communal doors will be to BS PAS 24-2012 or other acceptable standard with laminated glass to P1a rating. Opening and accessible windows being to BS PAS 24-2012 with P1a rating laminated glass. Party walls from common parts being supported with 9mm plywood or metal mesh.

19.3 The above arrangements have been largely incorporated into the scheme, which is considered to meet the requirements of Secured by Design.

20 Refuse and recycling

20.1 Policies CS18, DP26 and Camden Planning Guidance 1 (Design) are relevant with regards to waste and recycling storage and seek to ensure that appropriate storage for waste and recyclables is provided in all developments.

Page 156 20.2 Servicing of the development would be undertaken from the street, and principally from Upper Park Road. Refuse storage, including segregated storage for recyclables, would be provided within the building at ground floor, as detailed on the plans. A Service Management Strategy is contained within the Transport Statement.

20.3 The Council’s Environmental Services Officer has been consulted and has no objections to the proposal. Given the above, the proposed quantity, location and strategy of the refuse and recycling storage are considered acceptable and would be in accordance with Policies CS18, DP26 and Camden Planning Guidance 1 (Design).

21 Planning obligations

21.1 Based upon the formulae outlined in CPG8 (Planning obligations), the following financial contributions are required to mitigate the impact of the development upon the local area, including on local services. These heads of terms will mitigate any impact of the proposal on the infrastructure of the area.

Contribution Amount (£) Public open space £96,908 Education £125,184 Training and employment £68,750 Construction apprentice payment £7,500 Community facilities £131,320 Highways £340,000 Health £91,840 Travel plan monitoring £5,902

TOTAL £867,404

21.2 Subject to the above being secured, the proposal would be in accordance with the guidance set out in CPG5 and Policies CS8 and DP13.

22 Mayor of London’s Crossrail CIL

22.1 The proposal will be liable for the Mayor of London’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as it includes the addition of residential units. Based on the Mayor’s CIL charging schedule and the information provided as part of the application, the charge for this scheme, should it be approved, would be based on the proposed market housing floorspace (Gross Internal Area - GIA) of 4,800sq.m minus the existing floorspace of 2,167sq.m. This equates to a payment of £156,030. This would be collected by Camden after the scheme is implemented and could be subject to surcharges for failure to assume liability, submit a commencement notice and late payment, and subject to indexation in line with the construction costs index.

23 CONCLUSION

23.1 The loss of the existing uses has been being justified and the principle of the redevelopment of the site for housing is supported and complies fully with Council policy.

Page 157 23.2 The application is accompanied by a financial viability assessment, which provides justification for not providing a policy-compliant level of affordable housing (50%). This has been independently assessed on behalf of the Council, with the assessment concluding that the proposal provides the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing delivery from the scheme consistent with its viability. On this basis, the proposal complies with Council policy.

23.3 The density of development is justified by the quality of the proposed design and the proposal delivers on London Plan policy by optimising additional housing on an underutilised brownfield site in an accessible location.

23.4 The proposal provides an appropriate mix of tenure and units with a good standard of accommodation, in terms of unit sizes, aspect and amenity space provision, being provided. Given the distance and orientation to the nearest residential properties, the proposal would not appear visually overbearing or result in any significant material impact in terms of outlook, overlooking, loss of light and privacy to neighbouring residential properties.

23.5 The design and appearance of the building provides a coherent streetscape on Lawn Road and Upper Park Road, whilst also softening the development by ‘wrapping it’ in a complementary landscaping scheme. Its height, form and massing represents a considered response to the historic street pattern, urban grain and heights of surrounding buildings and to the relationship between the proposed building and its existing neighbours and would sit comfortably within its surroundings, responding to the scale of neighbouring buildings, and not interrupting key views into or out of the nearby conservation areas.

23.6 As such, the development would be appropriate and in accordance with relevant National and Regional Guidance, Core Strategy and Development policies and Camden Planning Guidance for the reasons noted above.

24 RECOMMENDATIONS

24.1 Planning Permission is recommended subject to conditions and a S106 Legal Agreement covering the following Heads of Terms:-

Education contribution of £125,184 Community facilities contribution of £131,320 Affordable housing and Wheelchair housing Car Free development Open space contribution of £96,908 Residential Travel Plans and monitoring costs of £5,729 Construction Management Plan Delivery and servicing management plan Highways contribution of £340,000 Health contribution of £91,840 Employment and training contribution of £68,700 with a target of 20% local recruitment, 5 apprenticeships with associated construction apprentice payment contribution of £7,500 and signing up to the local procurement code

Page 158 Level 4 Code for Sustainable Homes compliance, pre-assessment and post construction review Prior to construction full details of proposed CHP Full construction drawings showing how the development will be future-proofed for connection to the Gospel Oak Decentralised Energy network A Decentralised Energy Network Connection Assessment being undertaken to assess the parameters of constructing operating and maintaining a connection to the Decentralised Energy Network with the Development.

25 LEGAL COMMENTS

25.1 Members are referred to the note from the Legal Division at the start of the Agenda.

Conditions and Reasons:

1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the end of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing Numbers:

1406-100 Location Plan; 1406-200 Rev A Site Plan Ground Level; 1406-210 Rev A Level 0 - Ground Level; 1406-211 Rev A Level 1; 1406-212 Rev A Level 2; 1406-213 Rev A Level 3; 1406-214 Rev A Level 4; 1406-215 Rev B Level 5; 1406-216 Rev B Level 6; 1406-217 Rev B Level 7 Roof Plan; 1406- 250 Rev A Waste Storage + Management Plan; 1406-400 Rev B Proposed Streetscenes; 1406-450 Rev B West Elevation - Lawn Road; 1406-451 Rev B East Elevation - Upper Park Road; 1406-452 Rev B South Elevation - Garnett House Courtyard; 1406-453 Rev A North Elevation; 1406-454 Rev B Site Sections AA + BB; 1406-455 Rev B Site Section CC; 1406-456 Rev A Site Section DD + EE; 1406-500 Rev A Lifetime Homes Compliance - Typical 1 Bed Flat; 1406-501 Rev A Lifetime Homes Compliance - Typical 2 Bed Flat; 1406-502 Rev A Lifetime Homes Compliance - Typical 3 Bed Flat; 1406-503 Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plots 14 + 27; 1406-504 Rev A Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 6; 1406-505 Rev A Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 2; 1406-506 Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 3; 1406-507 Rev A Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 10; 1406-508 Wheelchair Accessible Unit - Plot 19; 1406-600 Rev B Bay Study - Entrance 32A; 1406-601 Rev B Bay Study - Entrance 32B; 1406-602 Rev B Bay Study - Entrance 32C; 1406-603 Rev B Bay Study - Entrance 32D; 1406-604 Rev A Bay Study - Prow Balconies; 1406-610 Rev A Typical Details; 1406-611 Rev A Material Images; MCA FNH413 LS01 Rev A Landscape Masterplan; DAT/9.0/Planning Rev A Site Survey; FNH413-P-201 Rev A Existing Plans & Elevations – Workshop; FNH413-P-202 Rev A Existing Plans & Elevations - Community Centre; and FNH413-P-203 Drainage Plan.

Page 159 Supporting documents:

Application Amendment Letter prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (dated 27/02/15); Design and Access Statement Addendum (February 2015); Planning Statement, prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners; Employment Floorspace Assessment, prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd; Design and Access Statement (Volumes 1 – 3) prepared by JPA; Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners; Urban Design Appraisal, prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners; Landscape Masterplan, prepared by MCA Landscape Architects; Landscaping Design Strategy, prepared by MCA Landscape Architects; Transport Statement (Volumes 1-3) including Travel Plan and Servicing Management Strategy, prepared by URS; Statement of Community Involvement, prepared by Curtin & Co; Energy Statement, prepared by Silver Energy Management Solutions Limited; Sustainability Statement, prepared by Silver Energy Management Solutions Limited; Construction Logistics Plan, prepared by Fairview; Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Statement, prepared by Infrastructure Design Limited; Noise Assessment and Noise Response to EHO comments, prepared by Grant Acoustics; Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report, prepared by CHP Surveyors Limited; Air Quality Assessment prepared by MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd; Air Quality Impact Assessment for Combined Heat and Power Plant, prepared by The Airshed; Arboricultural Development Statement prepared by CBA; Ecology Assessment, prepared by Ecology Solutions; and Wind Assessment, prepared by RWDI.

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

3. Sample panels of each of the following shall be provided on site or at an agreed location and shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant parts of the works are commenced: a) Typical brick panel (minimum 2m x 2m in size) of each brick type including window reveals showing the colour, texture, face-bond and pointing b) Panel (minimum 2m x 2m in size) of the curved staircase facade The approved panels shall be retained on location until the work has been completed. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the premises and the character of the immediate area in accordance with the requirements of policy CS14 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP24 and DP25 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

4. No development (except demolition works) shall take place until full details of hard and soft landscaping and means of enclosure of all un-built, open areas have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. Such details shall include details of proposed screening, roof terrace design and any roof terrace planting, The relevant part of the works shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.

Page 160 Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high quality of landscaping which contributes to the visual amenity and character of the area in accordance with the requirements of policy CS14 and CS15 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP24 and DP25 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

5. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscape details by not later than the end of the planting season following completion of the development or any phase of the development. Any trees or areas of planting which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably possible and, in any case, by not later than the end of the following planting season, with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaping is carried out within a reasonable period and to maintain a high quality of visual amenity in the scheme in accordance with the requirements of policies CS14 and CS15 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP24 and DP25 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

6. Full details of the 121 secure cycle parking facilities hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing before the development commences. The details as approved shall be provided in their entirety prior to the first occupation of any of the new units and permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the development provides adequate cycle parking facilities in accordance with the requirements of policy CS11 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP17 and DP18 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

7. No development (except demolition works) shall take place until, full details of a sustainable urban drainage system, detailing any on and/or off site drainage works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. Such a system should be designed to accommodate all storms up to and including a 1:100 year storm with a 30% provision for climate change, and shall demonstrate a 50% reduction in run off rate. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed.

The system shall be implemented as part of the development and thereafter retained and maintained.

Reason: To reduce the rate of surface water run-off from the buildings and limit the impact on the storm-water drainage system in accordance with

Page 161 policies CS5, CS13 and CS16 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP22, DP23 and DP32 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

8. No development (except demolition works) shall take place until CHP specification (model, size, emissions), flue position and required abatement measures, confirming compliance with the Mayor’s BAND B NOx emissions limits of 95mg/Nm3 should be submitted together with full dispersion modelling assessing the impact of the proposed CHP engine on receptors identified in the approved Air Quality Assessment (revised March 2015) - Air Quality Consultants.

Based on this, details of proposed air quality inlet positions should be provided together with details of any NOx scrubbing system in accordance with the approved Air Quality Assessment (revised March 2015) - Air Quality Consultants.

The relevant part of the works shall be carried out in accordance with the details thus approved and shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the amenity of neighbouring and future occupants is protected in accordance with the requirements of policy CS5 and CS16 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP26 and DP32 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

9. The lifetime homes features and facilities, as indicated on the drawings and documents hereby approved shall be provided in their entirety prior to the first occupation of any of the new residential units.

Reason: To ensure that the internal layout of the building provides flexibility for the accessibility of future occupiers and their changing needs over time, in accordance with the requirements of policy CS6 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policy DP6 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

10. No part of the flat roof areas hereby approved, other than those specifically indicated as such on the approved drawings, shall be used as roof terraces, and any access out onto these areas shall be for maintenance purposes only.

Reason: In order to prevent any detrimental impacts of overlooking and/or noise and disturbance of the neighbouring premises in accordance with the requirement of policy CS5 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP26 and DP28 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of any proposed lighting and CCTV scheme shall be submitted to and

Page 162 approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved lighting and CCTV scheme should be implemented prior to first occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interest of crime prevention and visual amenity.

12. Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy, detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed.

Reason: To ensure the development does not lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community in accordance with policies CS5, CS13 and CS16 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP22, DP23 and DP32 of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

13 Before building works commence on the site, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority providing for the insulation of the proposed dwelling units so that externally generated from road traffic noise, and noise levels do not cause internal noise levels to exceed an indoor ambient noise levels in unoccupied rooms of 30 dB(A) LA eq (1hour) and individual noise event shall not exceed 45 dB LAmax The development shall be carried out in such a manner to ensure that the above noise levels are to be retained for the next 15 years.

Reason: To ensure the occupiers of the proposed flats are not unduly disturbed by nuisance from traffic noise, in accordance with policy CS5 of the Camden Core Strategy and policies DP26 and DP28 of the Camden Development Policies of the Camden Local Development Framework.

On completion, a test on each dwelling shall be carried out to verify 14 compliance with Condition 13. A report shall be produced containing all raw data and showing how calculations have been made. A copy of such report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. The Noise report shall clearly contain standards used, measurements locations, raw tabulated and graphically represented data, time, date etc.

15 The machinery, plant or equipment, ventilation system, etc. ("machinery") installed or operated in connection with the carrying out of this permission shall be so enclosed and/or attenuated that the noise generated by the operation of the machinery shall not increase the background noise levels

Page 163 during day time expressed as LA90 [1hour] (day time 07:00-23:00 hours) and/or (b) LA90 [5 mins] during night time (night time 23:00-07:00 hours) at any adjoining noise sensitive locations or premises in separate occupation above that prevailing when the machinery is not operating. Noise measurements for the purpose of this condition shall be pursuant to BS 4142:1997.

Reason: To ensure the occupiers of the neighbouring and proposed flats are not unduly disturbed by nuisance from noise, in accordance with policy CS5 of the Camden Core Strategy and policies DP26 and DP28 of the Camden Development Policies of the Camden Local Development Framework.

16. Before building works commence on the site, a scheme, including standard used shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority for the sound insulation (for both airborne and impact sound at separating walls, floors and ceilings). The scheme shall provide adequate sound insulation to prevent the transmission of noise and/or vibration from the normal activities (including the use/operation of equipment) performed at the lower levels to the upper floors to a level that the internal noise levels (including LAmax) are increased and vibration levels are not perceived as measured in BS 6472:2008 "Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings."

Reason: To ensure the occupiers of the proposed flats are not unduly disturbed by nuisance from noise, in accordance with policy CS5 of the Camden Core Strategy and policies DP26 and DP28 of the Camden Development Policies of the Camden Local Development Framework. On completion a test shall be carried out to verify compliance with Condition 17. A report shall be produced containing all raw data and showing how calculations have been made. A copy of such report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. The Noise report shall clearly contain standards used, measurements locations, raw tabulated and graphically represented data, time, date etc.

27 INFORMATIVES

1. Your proposals may be subject to control under the Building Regulations and/or the London Buildings Acts which cover aspects including fire and emergency escape, access and facilities for people with disabilities and sound insulation between dwellings. You are advised to consult the Council's Building Control Service, Camden Town Hall, Argyle Street WC1H 8EQ, (Tel: 020-7974 6941).

2. The Mayor of London introduced a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help pay for Crossrail on 1st April 2012. Any permission granted after this time which adds more than 100sqm of new floorspace or a new dwelling will need to pay this CIL. It will be collected by Camden on behalf of the Mayor of

Page 164 London. Camden will be sending out liability notices setting out how much CIL will need to be paid if an affected planning application is implemented and who will be liable.

The proposed charge in Camden will be £50 per sqm on all uses except affordable housing, education, healthcare, and development by charities for their charitable purposes. You will be expected to advise us when planning permissions are implemented. Please use the forms at the link below to advise who will be paying the CIL and when the development is to commence. You can also access forms to allow you to provide us with more information which can be taken into account in your CIL calculation and to apply for relief from CIL.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/ cil

We will then issue a CIL demand notice setting out what monies needs to paid when and how to pay. Failure to notify Camden of the commencement of development will result in a surcharge of £2500 or 20% being added to the CIL payment. Other surcharges may also apply for failure to assume liability and late payment. Payments will also be subject to indexation in line with the construction costs index.

Please send CIL related documents or correspondence to [email protected]

3. Noise from demolition and construction works is subject to control under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. You must carry out any building works that can be heard at the boundary of the site only between 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays. You are advised to consult the Council's Compliance and Enforcement team [Regulatory Services], Camden Town Hall, Argyle Street, WC1H 8EQ (Tel. No. 020 7974 4444 or on the website http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/contacts/councilcontacts/environment /contact-the-environmental-health-team.en or seek prior approval under Section 61 of the Act if you anticipate any difficulty in carrying out construction other than within the hours stated above.

4. Your attention is drawn to the fact that there is a separate legal agreement with the Council which relates to the development for which this permission is granted. Information/drawings relating to the discharge of matters covered by the Heads of Terms of the legal agreement should be marked for the attention of the Planning Obligations Officer, Sites Team, Camden Town Hall, Argyle Street, WC1H 8EQ.

5. Under Section 25 of the GLC (General Powers) Act 1983, the residential accommodation approved is not permitted for use as holiday lettings or any other form of temporary sleeping accommodation defined as being occupied by the same person(s) for a consecutive period of 90 nights or less. If any such use is intended, then a new planning application will be required which may not be approved.

6. For the residential accommodation the design and construction criteria for development of building shall have regard to the good criteria set out in BS

Page 165 8233:2014 Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings – Code of Practice The scheme shall include full details on noise mitigation measures to be incorporated including window glazing and room ventilation provisions Where ventilation is required it should be capable of achieving the same noise reduction as the closed glazing or building structure.

Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 EEE L L LL L L LA A A A M M MM E E E EW W W W S S S S

Ambulance Station Agincourt House 1 to 5 to 1

120

2 El Sub Sta

108 10 4 98

55 .1m 90

88 Fleet Primary School

53 .6m

T he S tag LB 66

(PH) CW

56 William Gunn H ous e 52 .5m

50 U nd 1 to 56 FLEFLEFLE E E E Palgrave House FLEFLEFLE E E E

Stephenson House

1 to 18

Cayford House 55 .0m 90 Siddons House

1 to 18

Boro Const & Ward Bdy 1 to 56 to 1

Du Maurier House

Park Dwellings 42 to 27 17 to 26 to 17

Garnett House 16 to 1

1 to 18 to 1 1 to 24 to 1

GARNETTGARNETT ROADROAD WOODLANDWOODLANDWOODLAND WALK WALKWALK 1

WOODLANDWOODLANDWOODLAND WALK WALKWALK FW 80 11

57 .0m 3 71

4 5

Und 28

A ir S haft This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.

70 Belsize Wood 61 Isokon Flats

Nature Reserve Boro Const & Ward Bdy 12

CW 32 to 1

23 Belsize Tunnel

16 51

59 .4m

LAWNLAWNLAWN LAWNLAWNLAWN LAWNLAWNLAWN

Scale: N Application No: 2014/6903/P 1:1250 32 Lawn Road Date: London 13-Mar-15 NW3 2XU

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Page 182 Photographs Location Plan Page 183 Page 184 ViewView 11

View 2 Page 185 View 3

View 4 Page 186 View 5

View 6 View 7 Page 187

View 8 Proposed Ground Floor Page 188 Proposed Level 1 Page 189 Proposed Level 2 Page 190 Proposed Level 3 Page 191 Proposed Level 4 Page 192 Proposed Level 5 Page 193 Proposed Level 6 Page 194 Proposed Level 7 – Roof Plan Page 195 Page 196 West Elevation- Facing Lawn Road

West Elevation- Facing Lawn Road - Excluding Boundary Treatment Page 197 East Elevation- Facing Upper Park Road

East Elevation- Facing Upper Park Road – Excluding Boundary Treatment Page 198

South Elevation- Facing Garnett House

South Elevation- Facing Garnett House - Excluding Boundary Treatment Page 199 North Elevation- Facing Junction of Lawn Road and Fleet Road

North Elevation- Facing Junction of Lawn Road and Fleet Road- Excluding Boundary Page 200 Section AA

Section BB Page 201

Section CC Page 202 Section DD

Section EE Street View from Lawn Road Page 203

Street View from Upper Park Road CGI of Proposed Building as Viewed from Junction of Lawn Road and Fleet Road Page 204 CGI of Proposed Building as Viewed from Lawn Road Page 205 CGI of Proposed Building as Viewed from Access Road Between 90 Upper Park Road and Palgrave House Page 206