Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (B) Report Title ST CLEMENTS HEIGHTS, 165 WELLS PARK ROAD, SE26 Ward Sydenham Contributors Geoff Whitington Class PART 1 Date: 22 MARCH 2012

Reg. No. DC/11/78207 as revised

Application dated 19 August 2011 and completed 21 December 2011

Applicant St Clement Danes Holborn Estate Charity.

Proposal The demolition of the existing buildings at St Clements Heights 165-171 Wells Park Road, SE26, and the construction of seven, 4 to 6 storey blocks comprising 50 one and two bedroom Almshouses, and 46 two, three and four bedroom self-contained flats and houses, together with the provision of 76 car-parking spaces, vehicular accesses onto Sydenham Hill and Wells Park Road, and associated landscaping (Outline application).

Applicant’s Plan Nos. 615/204/PL11A, PL12A, PL13A, Location Plan showing viewpoints 1 & 2, Design & Access Statement, Planning Statement, Sustainability & Energy Statement, Arboricultural Survey, Transport Statement, Daylight & Sunlight Analysis, Financial Viability Report & Addendum 15/12/2011, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Suggestions for Biodiversity Enhancement, Supplementary Accident & Visibility Splay Note, Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Desk Study Report (March 2011), Bat Surveys, Flood Risk Assessment, Statement of Community Involvement, Visualisation 1 & 2 and Letter dated 7 December 2011.

Background Papers (1) Case File LE/345/20/TP (2) Lewisham Development Framework: Residential Standards SPD (August 2006) (3) Lewisham Development Framework: Core Strategy (2011) (4) Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (5) The London Plan (2011) (6) PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) (7) Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS 1 (2007) (8) PPS 3: Housing (2006) (9) PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (10) PPG 13: Transport (2001) (11) PPS 22: Renewable Energy (2004)

(12) PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk (2006) (13) PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) (14) Delivering Affordable Housing – Good Practice and Guidance (2006) (15) The Code for Sustainable Homes – Setting the Standard in Sustainability for New Homes (2008) (16) Planning and Access for Disabled People – A Good Practice Guide (2003) (17) Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations (18) Mayor of London’s Housing Strategy (2009) (19) Mayor of London’s Biodiversity Strategy (2002) (20) Mayor of London’s Energy Strategy (2004) (21) Mayor of London’s Housing SPG (2005) (22) Mayor of London’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2006) (23) Mayor of London’s Accessible London SPG (2004) (24) Living Roofs and Walls – Technical Report Supporting London Plan Policy (2008) (25) Mayor of London’s Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG (2007) (26) Interim London Housing Design Guide (August 2010) (27) Lewisham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2007, draft published 2008) (28) By Design – Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice (2000) (29) South East London Housing Partnership's Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines (2008)

Zoning Adopted UDP - Existing Use

1.0 Property/Site Description

1.1 The site is located at the corner of Wells Park Road and Sydenham Hill, lying opposite the borough boundary with Southwark. The site area measures 2.2 Hectares.

1.2 The site is currently occupied by St Clements Heights, a collection of buildings ranging in height between 1-3 stories, operating as Almshouses by the St Clement Danes Holborn Estate Charity that provides residential accommodation for poor women of not less than 50 years of age, and poor men of not less than 60 years of age.

1.3 Whilst much of the site where the existing buildings lie is flat, to the east is a steep bank that slopes down toward an area that is a designated nature reserve. Existing trees lie around the perimeter of the site. 1.4 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. To the west of the site are 2-storey plus roofspace dwellings that lie within the Crouchmans Close estate, set-back from Sydenham Hill. To the south of that is Woodsyre, which is a narrow road set-back from Sydenham Hill, where 3-storey townhouses are located.

1.5 To the south of the site is Mountacre Close, which comprises 4-storey blocks of maisonettes, whilst to the north are low rise residential units.

1.6 The nearest local amenity is a public house to the north of the site on Crescent Wood Road. The closest grocery store is located approximately 800 metres away on Wells Park Road.

1.7 The only existing vehicular access into the application site is from Wells Park Road to the north. The site is served by two local bus routes, providing direct links to Sydenham and Crystal Palace. The PTAL for this particular area is 2.

1.8 The site is not located within a Conservation Area, neither would any listed buildings be affected by the proposal. The land is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and Areas of Special Character.

2.0 Planning History

2.1 In 1966, permission was granted for the construction of 2 and 3-storey buildings comprising 50 self-contained flats for elderly persons together with a chapel, 3 houses and 2 flats for staff, 6 garages and ancillary buildings.

2.2 In 1972, permission was granted for the erection of a 4-storey block of 30 three- roomed flats, 12, two roomed flats and 6 bedsitting room flats with 37 integral garages and a single-storey shop; a part three, part four-storey block of 5, four roomed self-contained flats, 9 three-roomed flats and 4 six roomed terraced houses with 18 integral garages; a two-storey terrace of 6, four-roomed houses and 1, five roomed house; a two-storey terrace of 4, four roomed houses together with 22 lock-up garages and access roads on land adjoining St Clements Heights.

2.3 Permission granted for the temporary siting of a mobile home for residential purposes.

2.4 In 1996, permission was granted for the erection of a 2 metre high close boarded timber fence on the boundaries with Sydenham hill and Wells Park road.

3.0 Current Planning Application

3.1 The current outline application seeks to establish the principle of further residential development upon the site, including the demolition of the existing buildings. All detailed matters are reserved, however the applicant has submitted indicative plans to demonstrate how the proposed development would be accommodated within the site.

3.2 The development centres around the need for the replacement of the existing Almshouses buildings, which fail to meet with current building regulations and Code for Sustainable Homes standards. Structurally, the buildings are sound, however the applicant has confirmed that ongoing repairs are becoming increasingly expensive, with a £4m cost calculated over a 10 year period.

3.3 The new Almshouse development would be a 5-storey building (Block A) located to the south-west corner of the site, accommodating 50 units, three more than the existing. This would provide the affordable housing element of the scheme.

3.4 To assist in the funding of the development, the remainder of the site would be sold to provide a total of 46 private residential dwellings, including 14, two bedroom and 12, three bedroom self-contained flats, together with 20, four bedroom houses, accommodated within six separate blocks.

3.5 Block B was originally the tallest building at 6-storeys, however the height of the building was reduced to 5-storeys in response to neighbour objections. 26 private residential units would be accommodated, comprised of 15, two bedroom and 11, three bed self-contained flats.

3.6 Blocks C–G each comprise 4-storey single dwellings in a crescent style layout. Four bedrooms would be provided, whilst driveways and garages would be afforded at the front, and private gardens at the rear.

3.7 Renewable energy measures would include the provision of photovoltaic panels and solar thermal collectors. Overall, the development would achieve at least a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions.

3.8 All units would be of Lifetime Homes standards, whilst meeting Code Level 4 for Sustainable Homes. 10% of the proposed tenure would be disabled units, designed to SELHP standards.

3.9 76 car-parking spaces would be provided within the site, of which 10 would be allocated to the Almshouse element, including one disabled bay. 40 spaces would be allocated to the 20 dwelling-houses, including integral garages. The open market flats would have underground/ undercroft parking, including two disabled bays.

3.10 Secure cycle parking would be provided for 26 bicycles.

3.11 The proposed development would be phased to allow for minimal disruption to the existing almshouse occupiers. Phase 1 would involve the demolition of the western wing of the existing building, together with the construction of the replacement almshouses.

3.12 Phase 2 would see the occupation of the almshouses, with the demolition of the remaining original structures. Construction works on the open market dwellings would then commence.

4.0 Consultations and Replies

Neighbours & Local Amenity Societies etc

4.1 Consultation letters were sent to the occupants of 145 neighbouring properties and the Sydenham Society. A notice was displayed on site and Ward Councillors were consulted.

4.2 A petition containing signatures from four separate properties and 27 letters were received from the occupiers of 29, 29a & 31 Sydenham Hill, 32 Kirkdale, 3, 5, 8, 18, 22, 26 & 31 Woodsyre, 22, 70 & 75 Mountacre Close, 7, 10, 11 & 14 Canbury Mews, 13, 89, 115 & 121 Longton Avenue, 2 Tunbridge Court and flat 1 St Clements Heights, objecting to the proposal on the following grounds;

(1) Height and scale of proposed development; (2) Visual impact upon neighbouring occupiers; (3) Poor design; (4) Out of character; (5) Construction traffic; (6) Loss of trees on site; (7) Insufficient provision of parking spaces for almshouse residents; (8) Site should be retained for the provision of homes for the elderly; (9) No consultation undertaken by applicants prior to formal submission.

4.3 3 Woodsyre & Rockhill Residents’ Association

• The main concern of Woodsyre residents centres on the vehicular access onto Sydenham Hill. This will impact on the visual amenity of those houses directly opposite, which look across the road to trees at the moment, but under the proposals the trees will be cleared for the access road.

4.4 Cllr Lewis Robinson (Southwark)

• Disappointed Southwark Councillors were not directly consulted;

Summarises concerns raised by local resident, include:

• Excessive height, and potential massing of the development along Sydenham Hill, and the impact that will have on the character of the neighbouring conservation area;

• The proposed driveway being built in close proximity to a bus stop and adjacent to the Woodsyre service road;

• Loss of trees and the need to retain or re-provide effective screening.

4.5 Cllr Helen Hayes (College Ward, Southwark)

• There is some strong opposition to having access to and egress from the site onto Sydenham Hill, which present some safety concerns;

• Residents generally support the principle of redeveloping this site, in particular, the proposed removal of the boundary fence along Sydenham Hill

and wells Park Road – any boundary treatment should open up the development to the road.

• Whilst the set-back from the road is welcomed because it would preserve the amenity of Sydenham Hill and Woodsyre residents, it is considered the curved form of the building would create a confusion between the front and the back of the building. Potential to result in opportunities for crime and anti- social behaviour to the area facing Sydenham Hill.

4.6 Sydenham Society

• With regard to the application for demolition and development at St Clements Heights, the Sydenham Society would request that you formally lodge our objection to the scheme for the reasons set out in the letters you have received from the residents associations of Canbury Mews and Longton Avenue. In addition, the Society would like the following point to be noted:

• ‘Currently the St Clements Heights' estate only caters for elderly people and it is proposed that these will be relocated to new accommodation on site if the proposed scheme goes ahead.

• The proposed scheme with 3/4 bedroom houses, allowing for families with up to four or five children, will completely change the social mix on this site to the detriment, we believe, of the elderly people currently residing on the site.

• The Sydenham Society is aware of the applicant’s desire to increase the number of residential units on site and would suggest that a condition of living at St Clements Heights is that all residents are over 50 years of age.’

(Letters are available to Members)

4.7 In light of the number of objections, a local meeting was held at St Philip The Apostle Church Hall, Coombe Road, Sydenham on 2 November 2011. In the event, 17 residents attended the meeting, with a panel comprised of Cllr Best (Chair), planning agents, applicant and the Council’s planning officer.

4.8 The main concern raised by residents related to the perceived excessive height of the development, in particular Block B. Concerns were raised that it would impact upon natural light to neighbouring occupiers, whilst the applicant was advised to consider the views of the community and propose a more sensitive form of development.

4.9 An objector was of the opinion that it was unlikely that the number of units would be reduced, which was confirmed by the agent, however it was suggested that there may be scope to reduce the height of Block B.

4.10 Other matters discussed included:

• Poor mix of housing for elderly persons and private tenure within the same site;

• Insufficient parking within the site would result in on-street pressures within the surrounding area;

• Concerns relating to the loss of trees, in particular to the Sydenham Hill frontage;

• The indicative plans show the proposed buildings to be out of character with the existing setting.

Minutes of the meeting may be seen in the attached appendices.

Environmental Health

4.11 No objections raised to the proposal.

Air Quality Officer

4.12 Raises no objections.

Highways and Transportation

4.13 Unobjectionable in principle.

Design and Conservation

4.14 The Council’s design officers were involved during the pre-application process, and advised that blocks A and B should be located in a purposeful manner that enables a maximum number of flats to enjoy the existing views down the hill, whilst the dwellings and flats should relate to the topography of the site. The communal amenity space should be carefully considered, whilst factors including overshadowing, daylight and sunlight should be addressed.

Design Panel

4.15 The Design Panel provided the following comments in relation to pre-application plans:

• Option 2 is preferred but this needs work, especially with the layout of blocks which seems quite arbitrary; • The most distinguishing thing about this site is the view, therefore the development should capitalise on this. Option 2 seems to do this; • The site is relatively hidden from view by a blanket of trees and there is no immediate adjacent buildings with distinctive character to take into consideration, therefore, there is an opportunity to propose an innovative contemporary style of architecture; • Houses and flats should be located in a complimentary fashion to the topography of the land • Units facing the slope should be dual aspect so that habitable rooms enjoy the view whilst also providing surveillance over the road. • Proposed blocks E and D should be relatively low so that other blocks to the West can enjoy the view over the tops of the buildings • If a building is to be located directly opposite the entrance point then an architecturally interesting end to the building should be designed as this would be the first thing people would see on entering the site.

• Blocks A and B should be located in a more purposeful manor . They should also be orientated in a way which enables a maximum number of units to enjoy the view. They should be located so that communal amenity space is carefully considered and not just left over spaces. Issues such as overshadowing and daylight and sunlight should be factored in • As many private gardens as possible should be designed in addition to communal amenity space. 4.16 In response to the current application, the Panel stated the following:

‘The Panel were very disappointed that previous comments had not been noted and no changes made to the proposal.

‘Therefore the comments made at the Design Panel in March 2011 are still relevant.

‘In addition to those comments, the Panel felt that this design response does not respond well to the topography of the site. The Panel felt the proposal was too introverted. The Panel feel the scheme should relate better with the topography and associate itself more with the location and aspect. There would only be a limited number of private houses which would benefit from the view and the justification for the decanting of residents into block A is not a robust argument. The entire design of the proposal should not be dictated by the preference to retain the existing almshouses during construction of the new.

‘The Panel also noted that as the site is elevated, it would be highly visible from certain locations and these views up to the site should be illustrated, and which would effectively show the poor relation of the proposal to it’s surrounding context as the view up the slope would be to rear elevations and back gardens.

‘The Panel also noted the monotonous scaling of the houses and that more interest could have been added by varying the heights and breaking up the elevations in a less formal way.’

5.0 Policy Context

5.1 In considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must "have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations" (Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This approach is reflected in PPS 1, where, at paragraph 8 (and again at paragraphs 28 and 31), it is confirmed that, where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Lewisham comprises the adopted Core Strategy Document (2011), saved policies in the Lewisham UDP (July 2004) and policies in the London Plan (2011).

Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements

5.2 Planning Policy Guidance and Statements of relevance to the application are:

• PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) • Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to PPS 1 (2007) • PPS 3: Housing (2006) • PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (2009) • PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment • PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005) • PPG 13: Transport (2001) • PPS 22: Renewable Energy (2004) • PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) • PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk (2006)

Other National Guidance

5.3 The following national guidance is also considered relevant to the application:

• Delivering Affordable Housing – Good Practice and Guidance (2006) • The Code for Sustainable Homes – Setting the Standard in Sustainability for New Homes (2008) • Planning and Access for Disabled People – A Good Practice Guide (2003) • Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations • Mayor of London’s Housing Strategy (2009) • Mayor of London’s Biodiversity Strategy (2002) • Mayor of London’s Energy Strategy (2004) • Mayor of London’s Housing SPG (2005) • Mayor of London’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2006) • Mayor of London’s Accessible London SPG (2004) • Living Roofs and Walls – Technical Report Supporting London Plan Policy (2008) • Mayor of London’s The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition BPG (2006) • Mayor of London’s Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG (2007) • Interim London Housing Design Guide (August 2010)

London Plan

5.4 A new London Plan document was adopted on 22 July 2011. The policies considered relevant to this application include:

5.5 Policies 3.3 Increasing housing supply; 3.4 Optimising housing potential; 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments; 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities; 3.8 Housing choice; 3.10 Definition of affordable housing; 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure; 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions; Sustainable design and construction; 5.7 Renewable energy; 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs; 5.12 Flood risk management; 5.13 Sustainable drainage; 6.9 Cycling; 6.13 Parking; 7.3 Designing out crime; 7.4 Local character; 7.5 Public realm, 7.6 Architecture & Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation in the London Plan.

5.6 The Mayor of London has also published a number of strategies, Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and Best Practice Guidance (BPG) notes in order to help implement London Plan policies. The following strategies, SPGs and BPGs are particularly relevant to this application:

Transport Strategy (2001) and draft Transport Strategy (2009); Biodiversity Strategy (2002); Energy Strategy (2004); Housing SPG (2005); Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2006); Accessible London SPG (2004); Planning for Equality and Diversity in London SPG (2007); Living Roofs and Walls – Technical Report Supporting London Plan Policy (2008); The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition BPG (2006); Tomorrow’s Suburbs: Tools for making London more sustainable (June 2006); and Development Plan Policies for Biodiversity (November 2005).

Wheelchair guidance

5.7 The South East London Housing Partnership's Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines (2008, updated 2009) are not published by the Mayor of London and do not set out planning policy, but are nonetheless considered relevant to this application.

Adopted Unitary Development Plan

5.8 The relevant saved policies of the UDP (adopted July 2004) are set out below.

• URB 3 Urban Design • URB 4 Designing out Crime • URB 12 Landscape and Development • URB 13 Trees • ENV PRO 15 Sustainable Surface Water Drainage in New Development • HSG 2 Housing on Previously Developed Land • HSG 4 Residential Amenity • HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development • HSG 6 Dwelling Mix • HSG 7 Gardens

5.9 Referring to the Council’s UDP Proposals Map adopted with the UDP in July 2004, the application site is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and Areas of Special Character.

Residential Development Standards SPD (August 2006)

5.10 In August 2006, the Council adopted the Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document. This document sets out guidance and standards relating to design, sustainable development, renewable energy, flood risk, sustainable drainage, dwelling mix, density, layout, neighbour amenity, the amenities of the future occupants of developments, backland development, safety and security, refuse, affordable housing, self containment, noise and room positioning, room and dwelling sizes, storage, recycling facilities and bin storage, noise insulation, parking, cycle parking and storage, gardens and amenity space, landscaping, play space, Lifetime Homes and accessibility and materials.

Planning Obligations SPD (January 2011)

5.11 In January 2011, the Council adopted the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document. This document sets out guidance and standards relating to the provision of affordable housing within the Borough and provides detailed guidance on the likely type and quantum of financial obligations necessary to mitigate the impacts of different types of development.

Local Development Framework – Core Strategy

5.12 The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2011. The Core Strategy, together with the London Plan and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan, is the borough's statutory development plan. The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Lewisham Core Strategy as they relate to this application:

5.13 The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Lewisham Core Strategy as they relate to this application;

• Objective 1: Physical and socio-economic benefits • Objective 2: Housing provision and distribution • Objective 3: Local housing needs • Objective 5: Climate change • Objective 6: Flood risk reduction and water management • Objective 7: Open spaces and environmental assets • Objective 8: Waste management • Objective 9: Transport and accessibility • Objective 10: Protect and enhance Lewisham’s character • Objective 11: Community well-being • Spatial Policy 5 Areas of Stability and Managed Change • Policy 1: Housing provision, mix and affordability • Policy 7: Climate change and adapting to the effects • Policy 8: Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency • Policy 10: Managing and reducing the risk of flooding • Policy 12: Open space and environmental assets • Policy 14: Sustainable movement and transport • Policy 15: High quality design for Lewisham • Policy 21: Planning obligations

6.0 Planning Considerations

6.1 The current application is for outline approval only, with all matters reserved, therefore it is the principle of residential development which must be assessed. As such, issues relating to design, access, landscaping and layout would be assessed at reserved matters stage should the application be approved. In accordance with the Development Management Procedure Order where scale is also a reserved matter, details shall be submitted at outline stage to show the maximum height limit, width and length of each building.

6.2 It is considered that the issue of scale will have an impact upon the principle of the development of this site for the proposed scheme and will have implications for the outline issue of ‘layout’.

6.3 The illustrative material also shows indicative design but as appearance is a reserved matter that can be addressed without affecting the principle of the development and will not have a direct impact on layout or access, this will not be considered as part of this application.

6.4 The level of visual impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers will also be assessed, together with the ability of the proposed Heads of Terms to mitigate the impact of development upon local infrastructure, affordable housing provision, sustainability, ecology and parking matters.

Principle of Development

6.5 The existing almshouse sheltered housing has been located at St Clements since the late 1960s, currently providing residential accommodation for 40 occupiers over the age of 50.

6.6 The planning statement advises that the need to keep the existing properties in good condition have created an untenable situation for the Charity, due to:

• Increasingly expensive repairs are required to maintain the existing structures. The scale of repairs required would cost approximately £4m over a ten year period;

• The existing dwellings fail to comply with current standards, including cramped rooms; lack of spacious bathrooms; lack of wheelchair accessibility; a predominance of small studio flats that do not meet Lifetime Home standards.

6.7 For these reasons, the Charity consider it imperative to redevelop the site to provide accommodation that meets with current standards. Any development must, however be self funding, therefore the Charity is dependent upon raising sufficient funds from the sale of the remainder of the site for open market housing.

6.8 Officers raise no objection to the principle of demolishing the existing collection of buildings, which are of a bland, 1960s design, subject to the provision of a development that befits this prominent site and complies with national and local policy guidelines.

6.9 The Development Plan seeks to retain buildings that are termed as ‘heritage assets’, i.e. Listed or Locally Listed Buildings. Buildings that are not heritage assets cannot be protected from demolition in their own right. PPS 5 Planning for the Historic Environment states "Those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are called heritage assets. Some heritage assets possess a level of interest that justifies designation and particular procedures apply to decisions that involve them. This statement also covers heritage assets that are not designated but which are of heritage interest and are thus a material planning consideration."

6.10 Design and Conservation officers have assessed the character of the building, and do not consider that the existing building is of any notable heritage interest, therefore Core Strategy Policy 15 (f), which seeks to ensure any development conserves and enhances the borough’s heritage assets, is not applicable in this case.

6.11 Overall, officers consider the principle of new Almshouse accommodation and private dwellings to be acceptable, respecting the existing residential character of the surrounding area.

Scale, Height and Massing

6.12 The applicants have engaged in pre-application discussions with officers to seek advice on what would constitute an acceptable form of development upon the site, together with the constraints of the site, design, layout and relationship with surrounding development.

6.13 The Council’s assessment of the nature of the area is that the site falls within a suburban area, predominantly residential in character. Sydenham Hill experiences relatively high vehicular movement, providing a link between Forest Hill and Crystal Palace. Any development upon this site must respect the existing suburban character of this area.

6.14 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), which advises on design (para 38) states that: “local planning authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or supplementary planning documents on design.”

6.15 The original 6-storey height of the centrally located Block B was the cause of much concern from neighbouring residents, in terms of its visual impact and imposing nature. The applicant advised that it was unlikely the building would impact detrimentally upon existing residents, however he agreed to reduce the height to 5-stories.

6.16 The proposed reduction of Block B is considered to be a positive response to the comments raised by neighbours. Sydenham Hill provides a range of dwelling styles, sizes and heights. Whilst 2-3 stories appears to be the predominant height, to the south of the application site is a modern 4-storey residential block (Dulwich Wood Court), and to the north is Countisbury House, which is a 7-storey block of flats. The proposed 5-storey height of Block B is considered acceptable, and subject to design and facing materials, would not appear as a visually obtrusive or over-dominant form of development.

6.17 The development is considered to be sympathetic to the height of existing dwellings. The overall bulk and mass of Blocks A and B would have been greater without the proposed set-back of the upper stories, with the staggered appearance assisting in avoiding an over-dominant and excessive form of development.

6.18 No specific policy guidelines akin to the Bromley Road SPD are in place for this particular site whereby appropriate height restrictions are suggested, however having considered the positioning of the development within the site, the distances from existing 2/3-storey dwellings and the extent of screening provided by existing trees, a 5-storey development is appropriate for this locality.

6.19 A photomontage shown in the Design and access Statement demonstrates that when viewed from Sydenham Wells Park located to the lower end of the slope to

the east, the development would not dominate in an unacceptable manner. The highest part of the scheme is set further within the site, whilst the 4-storey townhouses lie at least 10 metres from the edge of the slope. Existing trees would also serve to provide a level of screening.

6.20 The Design Panel commented that as the site is elevated, it is likely the proposal would relate poorly with the surrounding context, with the views up the hill onto the rear elevations of the townhouses.

6.21 Officers consider this can be addressed at the reserved matters stage when detailed elevations will be formally presented. The appearance of the rear elevations of the townhouses will be an important consideration, and should be designed sympathetically in light of the topography of the site.

6.22 In summary, the development is considered to be appropriate in scale, height and massing, respecting the general form of development within the immediate area, and befitting of this prominent location.

Density

6.23 The Council’s former density policy (HSG 16) was not among those saved by the Secretary of State, therefore the London Plan now contains the detailed density policies for Development Plan purposes.

6.24 The application site is located within a suburban setting on a relatively busy highway. The London Plan refers to ‘suburban’ as being areas with predominantly lower density development such as, for example, detached and semi-detached houses, predominantly residential, small building footprints and typically buildings of 2-3 stories.

6.25 Guidance states that the Council should make the best use of previously developed land, however such aspirations should not negate the requirement for developments to blend with the surrounding character. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) for the area is 2, and the London Plan Matrix table 3.2 advises that densities in suburban areas should be between 150 - 250 habitable rooms per hectare.

6.26 The density of the proposal is calculated to be 151 habitable rooms per hectare based on the total number of habitable rooms (334) divided by the site area of 2.2ha, thereby falling within the range stipulated. It is considered that the proposed density would not result in demonstrable harm to the character of the local area or the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers, and together with the overall quality of the proposal, officers consider the scheme to be compliant with density policies and therefore acceptable.

6.27 Objections have been raised toward the combination of Almshouse accommodation and private dwellings within the same site. The applicant considers this an opportunity to create a mini-community, with future residents encouraged to co-exist, whilst retaining a degree of separate living. The Almshouse would have a separate access into the site and private grounds at the rear, whilst the dwelling-houses would have their own private amenity spaces. Officers therefore raise no objections to the principle of the proposed use of the site.

Impact Upon Neighbouring Occupiers

6.28 Officers are satisfied that the siting of the proposed development would not significantly harm the visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Objections have been received from residents who reside opposite the application site, stating that the development would be over-dominant, resulting in overshadowing and reduced outlook, in particular from Block B when boundary trees have shed their leaves.

6.29 As reported earlier, in light of neighbour comments, the height of Block B has been reduced to 5-stories (14 metres high), with the upper floor set-back from the frontage. The building would lie approximately 50 metres from the nearest dwellings to the east. Considering this distance, together with the existing boundary trees along the Sydenham Road frontage, and those on the opposite site that provide a natural screening, officers are satisfied the impact of the development would not significantly harm the visual amenities of those residents.

6.30 Whilst it is acknowledged the proposed development would be more apparent within the streetscene during the winter months when the trees have lost their leaves, the fact neighbours would be able to see a greater proportion of the building is not a justifiable reason to refuse the application.

6.31 The perimeter of the application site provides various species of trees, contributing significantly to the green, natural setting. The majority of the trees would remain, however at least 10 trees within the site would need to be felled, including Sycamores and a Maple, as they lie within, or close to the footprint of the proposed buildings.

6.32 The arboricultural report confirms that trees classified as Category’ A’ – high quality and value – would be retained, whilst those shown as Category ‘R’ are considered to be of a poor or dangerous condition, and are likely to be felled.

6.33 It is considered that a sufficient number of trees would be retained upon the site, maintaining the existing green setting along Sydenham Hill and Wells Park Road, whilst crucially, providing a level of natural screening that would assist in reducing the visual impact of the development.

6.34 The presence of the trees would be further enhanced by the proposed removal of the existing fencing upon the Sydenham Hill and Wells Park Road boundaries, which has a harsh impact upon the streetscene.

6.35 A Daylight/ Sunlight report has been submitted, which concludes the proposed development satisfies the Building Research Establishment (BRE) minimum requirements in relation to overshadowing. It states:

‘the overshadowing analysis indicates that the new development will have little or no overshadowing impact on the surrounding buildings. The only potential for overshadowing might be early in the morning and late afternoon in December, due to low angled sun and would only occur on sunny days. It is likely that the existing trees already shade the houses at this time, therefore the proposed development would have no impact.’

6.36 The indicative plans suggest the provision of upper floor balconies to the east facing elevation only of Block B. Should west facing balconies be proposed under

reserved matters, officers would undertake a full assessment of the level of overlooking to the nearest neighbours.

6.37 In respect of Block A, which will accommodate the almshouses, the proposed height would be comparable with B, however the building would extend into the site away from the Sydenham Hill boundary, whilst sited approximately 20 metres from the southern boundary. Officers are satisfied the visual impact upon neighbouring occupiers would not be significant, assisted by the natural screening provided by the existing trees.

6.38 Blocks C-G are 4-storey townhouses, with the intended height attributed to the provision of integral garages. As a result of their proposed siting, officers are satisfied there would be no significant impact upon the visual amenities of existing dwellings or the streetscene generally.

6.39 The crescent style arrangement of the development is considered acceptable, and would not result in visual harm to future occupiers of the St Clements site.

Standard of Residential Accommodation/ Amenity Space

6.40 The Council requires all new residential development to provide 100% Lifetime Homes standards, in accordance with London Plan policies. The applicants have confirmed that the development is fully compliant with Lifetime Homes Standards.

6.41 10% of the units would be built in accordance with the South East London Housing Partnership Wheelchair Design Guidelines (August 2009).

6.42 The layout and circulation of the proposed units shown on the indicative plans is considered to be acceptable, and would provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupiers, in accordance with the minimum standards set out within the London Plan (2011) and the Council’s Residential Development Standards SDP. Each habitable room would be assured of sufficient natural light intake and outlook.

6.43 The proposed single dwelling-houses would all have direct access to private gardens at the rear, in accordance with Council guidelines. The gardens, would measure approximately 8 metres deep.

6.44 All flatted accommodation would have access to the communal garden at the rear, together with use of private balconies. Children’s playspace has not been shown on the plans, therefore it is considered appropriate that a financial contribution should be paid toward existing play areas to the nearest park at Sydenham Wells Park on Wells Park Road.

6.45 Officers raise no concerns to the proposed standard of accommodation and internal layout within the development, and are satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that the site can suitably accommodate the proposed number of units.

Affordable Housing

6.46 The applicant’s Planning Statement states that the provision of almshouse accommodation is a form of specialist housing akin to affordable tenure, and should therefore be considered as such. Officers agree with this interpretation.

6.47 Based upon number of units, the proposed provision of 50 almhouses would be close to achieving the Mayor’s 50% affordable housing requirement, which would be secured by way of a S106 Agreement.

6.48 The applicants have stated that the re-provision of the almshouses would constitute ‘equivalent rental arrangements’, where residents of the almshouses will be charged ‘contributions’ rather than rent, equating to £102 per week and £118 per week for the one and two bedroom units respectively. The Council’s SPD states affordable rents should be no more than 80% of open market rents. The average open market rent within the SE26 area has been found to be £138 and £162 for one and two bed units, therefore the intended affordable rent would be 59% of the open market, which is considered reasonable by officers. This however would need to be secured in a S106 to ensure the rent remains within affordable parameters.

6.49 In their Planning Statement (p5), the applicant confirms that 68% of the existing residents originate from Lewisham, with 12.5% from Southwark and 2.5% from Bromley. They state that whilst they would be open to Lewisham notifying them of any potential residents, any nominations agreement showing preference to Lewisham would be inconsistent with the Charity’s Scheme of Management, whereby every appointment of a resident shall be made by the Trustees at a special meeting. The circumstances of a potential occupier is assessed, and it is determined whether they meet the criteria, ie; poor women of not less than 50 years of age, and poor men of not less than 60 years of age, regardless of where they currently reside.

6.50 Overall, the proposed development would include a sufficient number of affordable housing units that would provide a good standard of accommodation, and an affordable weekly rent, to the benefit of Lewisham residents.

Highways and Parking

6.51 Policy 6.13 of The London Plan states; ‘The Mayor wishes to see an appropriate balance being struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car-parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use.’ ‘In locations with high PTAL, car-free developments should be promoted.’

6.52 In this case, the PTAL 2 rating for this area is not high, with only two bus routes operating locally. The nearest train stations are located less than 2 miles away at Sydenham and Sydenham Hill train stations.

6.53 76 car-parking spaces would be provided within the site, of which 40 would be allocated to the 20 dwelling-houses, including integral garages. The open market flats would have 26 underground/ undercroft parking, including two disabled bays, whilst 10 spaces would be allocated to the Almshouse element, including one disabled bay.

6.54 Table 6.2 of The London Plan refers to parking standards for residential developments. For 4 bedroom dwellings, 1.5 - 2 parking spaces would be expected, 1 - 1.5 spaces for 3 bedroom units and less than 1 space for 1-2 units. When considering the private dwellings only, this would equate to the provision of a maximum of 64 spaces. In this case, 66 spaces would be afforded

6.55 Having assessed the application and the Transport Statement, the Highways officer has subsequently raised no objections to the principle of the development or the number of proposed parking spaces.

6.56 Vehicular accesses would be formed leading onto Wells Park Road and Sydenham Hill, however it is acknowledged that the issue of access is a reserved matter and shall be considered at a later stage.

Sustainability

6.57 Policy 5.2 of The London Plan (2011) states development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions, and should seek to Be lean: use less energy; Be clean: supply energy efficiently; and be green: use renewable energy.

6.58 The policy also requires that all new residential developments meet Code Level 4 for Sustainable Homes, together with a reduction in carbon emissions. In this case, the development would meet Code Level 4 requirements.

6.59 The development proposes to achieve a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions through the use of photovoltaic panels and solar thermal collectors, whilst the provision of green or brown biodiversity roofs would be considered.

6.60 Other measures include the use of double glazing, water efficient devices to reduce water consumption, internal and external facilities for recycling waste and energy efficient lighting.

6.61 Officers are satisfied with the sustainability methodology, and is considered compliant with London Plan guidance.

7.0 Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreement)

7.1 Circular 05/05 states that in dealing with planning applications, local planning authorities consider each on its merits and reach a decision based on whether the application accords with the relevant development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where applications do not meet these requirements, they may be refused. However, in some instances, it may be possible to make acceptable development proposals which might otherwise be unacceptable, through the use of planning conditions or, where this is not possible, through planning obligations.

7.2 Paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations sets out that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is –

(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable

(b) Directly related to the development; and

(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

7.3 Based upon an uplift of 47 new dwellings, the applicant has provided a planning obligations statement outlining the obligations that they consider are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development as set out below:

(1) Education contribution: £229,069.52; (2) Health contribution of £51,100; (3) Employment training £16,022.77; (4) Library £9,094.05; (5) Community Halls £5,666.79; (6) Children’s play £6,000; (7) Allotments £4,000; (8) A minimum provision of 50 almshouse units, as set out in the report; (9) 100% of the units to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard; (10) Development to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4; (11) 10% of the units to meet the SELHP Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines (August 2009); (12) Local Labour - In accordance with the Council’s adopted SPD, reasonable endeavours shall be undertaken to utilise local labour during demolition and construction phases. This will be secured through a S106 legal agreement; (13) Meeting the Council’s legal, professional, and monitoring costs associated with the drafting, finalising and monitoring of the Agreement.

7.4 Officers consider that the proposed obligations outlined above are appropriate and necessary in order to mitigate the impacts of the development and make the development acceptable in planning terms. Officers are satisfied the proposed obligations meet the three legal tests as set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (April 2010).

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 Officers consider the scale and massing of the proposed development to be acceptable, respecting the general character of the area and an appropriate replacement for the existing building. The proposal accords with Policy 15 of the adopted Core Strategy and saved policy URB 3 Urban Design, which expects a high standard of design that seeks to complement the scale and character of existing development and its setting and HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development, which expects all new residential development to be neighbourly and to meet the functional requirements of all future habitants.

8.2 The standard of proposed accommodation is in compliance with guidelines. Together with the provision of affordable housing within the scheme and the submission of an agreed Heads of Terms, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

9.0 Summary of Reasons for Grant of Outline Planning Permission

9.1 The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the London Plan (2011), the adopted Core Strategy and saved policies in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2004), as set out below and all relevant material considerations, including comments received in response to third party consultation.

9.2 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of the application against relevant planning policy set out in the London Plan (2011), the adopted Core Strategy (2011) and saved policies in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (July 2004). The local planning authority has further had regard to the Mayor of London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and Best Practice Guidance; as well as Government Planning Policy Guidance and Statements, and other material considerations including the conditions to be imposed on the permission.

9.3 On balance, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the Council’s landscaping, ecology and biodiversity criteria and will not result in any material harm being in accordance with PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 3: Housing, Table 3.2 Density Matrix, 3.3 Increasing housing supply; 3.4 Optimising housing potential; 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments; 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities; 3.8 Housing choice; 3.10 Definition of affordable housing; 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure; 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions; Sustainable design and construction; 5.7 Renewable energy; 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs; 5.12 Flood risk management; 5.13 Sustainable drainage; 6.9 Cycling; 6.13 Parking; 7.4 Local character; 7.5 Public realm, 7.6 Architecture & Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation in the London Plan (2011), Objective 1 Physical and socio-economic benefits, Objective 2 Housing provision and distribution, Objective 3 Local housing needs, Objective 5 Climate change, Objective 6 Flood risk reduction and water management, Objective 7 Open spaces and environmental assets, Objective 8 Waste management, Objective 9 Transport and accessibility, Objective 10 Protect and enhance Lewisham’s character, Objective 11 Community well-being, Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability, Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects, Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency, Policy 10 Managing and reducing the risk of flooding, Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets, Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport, Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham, and Policy 21 Planning obligations of the adopted Core Strategy (2011), saved policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development and HSG 7 Gardens in the Council's Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) and the Residential Development Standards SPD (August 2006).

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 RECOMMENDATION (A )

Authorise officers to negotiate and complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to cover the following principal matters (as set out in more detail in part 8 of this report), including such other amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development:

(1) Education contribution: £229,069.52; (2) Health contribution of £51,100; (3) Employment training £16,022.77; (4) Library £9,094.05;

(5) Community Halls £5,666.79; (6) Children’s play £6,000 (7) Allotments £4,000, (8) A minimum provision of 50 almshouse units; (9) 100% of the units to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard; (10) Development to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4; (11) 10% of the units to meet the SELHP Wheelchair Homes Design Guidelines (August 2009); (12) Reasonable endeavours undertaken toward local labour during demolition and construction phases; (13) Meeting the Council’s legal, professional, and monitoring costs associated with the drafting, finalising and monitoring of the Agreement.

10.2 RECOMMENDATION (B)

Subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT OUTLINE PERMISSION subject to the following conditions, as set out below and such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development;

(1) Full particulars and detailed plans, sections and elevations of the proposed development, including the items below, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any works are commenced and shall be carried out as approved.

a) the siting of the buildings in relation to the site boundaries and neighbouring buildings;

b) the design of the buildings, (including floorspace, height, massing, internal layout, treatment of the roof and external appearance, together with details of facing materials to be used and their colour and texture);

c) the means of access to the buildings; d) the extent and position of accommodation for car-parking;

e) the level of each floor of the buildings in relation to the site and the adjoining highways.

(2) No development, (excluding demolition) shall commence on site until sample details of all facing materials (including their colour and texture) to be used on the building 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, unless the local planning authority agrees in writing to any variation.

(3) Notwithstanding information shown on the approved drawings, details of windows, balconies, terraces, screening, entrances and brick detailing at a scale of not less than 1:5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

the local planning authority. No development shall commence beyond piling until the full details have been approved. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(4) All window and door openings shall be constructed with minimum 90mm deep external reveals.

(5) No development shall commence on site until a scheme to minimise the threat of dust pollution during site clearance and construction works (including any works of demolition of existing buildings, or breaking out or crushing of concrete) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall include a watering regime in the event of dry weather and shall be implemented in its entirety once development has commenced.

(6) No development, including demolition, shall commence on site until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposals for the plan shall include details of a display at the site entrance of a contact number for complaints, site access arrangements and details of how security will be maintained to neighbouring properties, in particular during and immediately after the demolition phase. The approved plan shall be rigidly adhered to throughout the construction process.

(7) Details of proposed lighting to external areas within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to first occupation of the residential units. Any such lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved drawings. The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed lighting is the minimum needed for security and working purposes and that the proposals minimise pollution from glare and spillage.

(8) (i) The buildings shall be constructed so as to provide sound insulation against external noise, to achieve levels not exceeding 30dB LAeq and 45dB LAmax (night) for bedrooms, 35dB LAeq (day) for other habitable rooms, with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided.

(ii) Development shall not commence until details of a sound insulation scheme complying with paragraph (i) of this condition have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(iii) The development shall not be occupied until the sound insulation scheme approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition has been implemented in its entirety. Thereafter, the sound insulation scheme shall be maintained in perpetuity.

(9) No extensions or alterations to the proposed development whether or not permitted under Article 3 and Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re- enactment thereof, shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

(10) No development, excluding demolition, shall commence on site until drawings showing the use of any part of the site not occupied by buildings and the treatment thereof (including planting, trees, paving, walls and fences), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and all works which form part of the scheme shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development, unless the local planning authority has given written consent to any variation. Any trees or plants 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 in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority has given written approval to any variation.

(11) The refuse storage areas shown on the approved plans shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation and shall thereafter be retained for refuse storage purposes.

(12) Details of cycle stands within the approved cycle store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and shall be provided prior to first occupation of the residential units hereby approved and shall thereafter be maintained.

(13) The external communal area and private amenity gardens shall be provided prior to first occupation of the dwellings to which they relate and shall thereafter be retained for such use.

(14) None of the trees shown as being retained on the permitted plans shall be lopped or felled without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

(15) No development shall commence on site until adequate steps have been taken in accordance with Section 8 of BS 5837 Trees to safeguard all trees on the site against damage prior to or during building works, including the erection of fencing. These fences shall be erected to the extent of the crown spread of the trees, or where circumstances prevent this, to a minimum radius of 2 metres from the trunk of the tree and such protection shall be retained until the development has been completed. No excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut, or pipes or services laid in such a way as to cause damage to the root structure of the trees.

(16) The flat roofs of the buildings shall be as set out in the application, and no development or the formation of any doors providing access to the roofs shall be carried out, nor shall the roof areas be used as balconies, roof gardens or similar amenity space, without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

Reasons

(1) OT1R

(2), (3) & (4) BO1R Facing Materials – New Buildings

(5) N10R Dust Minimisation Scheme

(6) In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied that the demolition and construction processes are carried out in a manner which will minimise possible dust and mud pollution of local roads and to comply with Policies ENV.PRO 9 Potentially Polluting Uses and saved policy HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

(7) N13R External Lighting - Residential

(8) N01 Sound Insulation Scheme

(9) PD1R No Extensions

(10) L01R Planting, Paving, Walls etc.

(11) RF2R Refuse Storage

(12) H12R Provision for Cyclists

(13) L10R Retention of Amenity Space

(14) L06R Trees to be Retained

(15) LO8R

(16) B11R Flat-Roof Extensions

Informatives

(1) Construction Sites Code of Practice or any other such codes applicable at the time of construction.

Thames Water

(2) With regard to surface water drainage, it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, watercourses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water, it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network, through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.

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

Street Numbering

(3) The proposal will require approval by the Council of a Street Naming and Numbering application. Application forms are available on the Council’s web site.

(4) A Part 31 Prior Notification shall be formally submitted to the Council prior to the commencement of demolition works.