(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Applications Committee

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Date: Tuesday 19 January 2021

Time: 7.00 pm

Venue: To be held via Microsoft Teams - please click here

Copies of agendas, reports, minutes and other attachments for the Council’s meetings are available on the Lambeth website. www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov

Members of the Committee

Councillor Scarlett O'Hara, Councillor Paul Gadsby (Substitute), Councillor Ben Kind, Councillor Jessica Leigh, Councillor Mohammed Seedat, Councillor Joanne Simpson (Vice-Chair), Councillor Becca Thackray and Councillor Clair Wilcox (Chair)

Substitute Members

Councillor Scott Ainslie, Councillor Liz Atkins, Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite, Councillor Marcia Cameron, Councillor Malcolm Clark, Councillor Paul Gadsby, Councillor Nicole Griffiths, Councillor Nigel Haselden, Councillor Maria Kay, Councillor Marianna Masters, Councillor Iain Simpson, Councillor Timothy Windle and Councillor Sonia Winifred

Further Information

If you require any further information or have any queries please contact: Lara Edwards, Telephone: 020 7926 6816; Email: [email protected]

Published on: Thursday 7 January 2021

Queries on reports

Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The contact details of the report author are shown on the front page of each report.

@LBLdemocracy on Twitter http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy or use #Lambeth

How to access the meeting

This meeting will be held in accordance with Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the related Regulations which details that members of the public and press be provided access to the meeting through remote means, such as video conferencing and live streaming as provided by the link provided above.

For elected Members of the Council

Councillors who are not members of the committee but wish to make representations at the meeting must inform Democratic Services by 12 noon on the last working day before the meeting. Please refer to the guidance which has been circulated separately by Democratic Services.

For Members of the Public

This is a Microsoft Teams Live Event meeting. If you are new to Microsoft Teams, clicking the link on the front page will take you to the meeting page where you will be prompted to download the app or watch on the web instead. Please follow the instructions to watch on the web instead. On doing so, you can join our live event anonymously.

Can I make representations at virtual PAC meetings?

You may speak in relation to planning applications and other applications that are to be decided by the Committee. Up to three supporters (including applicants), three objectors and the Ward Members can make representations to the meeting at the Committee’s discretion for a maximum of two minutes each.

If you would like to make representation, please contact the clerk (details on the front page of the agenda) or [email protected].

You must register your wish to make representations on any application, and importantly submit the necessary information, by 12 noon on the last working day before the meeting. You must supply a written statement outlining the points you wish to make to the committee. The written statement when read aloud must not take more than two minutes (approximately 300 words).

For further information please contact Democratic Services as soon as possible by telephoning 020 7926 2170 or emailing [email protected] .

Where the number of requests to address the committee exceeds three, and/or it is clear the interested parties wish to make similar points, the interested parties will be asked to liaise so that all the points can be raised succinctly.

Where the Committee is hearing a Pre-application Development Presentation, you will not be able to register to speak in connection with that presentation. Pre-application Development Presentations relate to proposals that are still at the pre-application stage. Pre-application Development Presentations (explained further below) do not involve the determination of an application by the Committee.

What are Pre-application Development Presentations?

These are presentations to the Committee on proposed developments which have not yet been submitted for planning approval. The purpose of the presentation is to make Committee members aware of the emerging proposal and to have an opportunity to ask questions of the developer and to highlight issues to the developer that may require further consideration. The Committee does not make any decision about the proposals. Any proposal that is presented to the Committee through a Pre-application

Development Presentation will still require a planning application to be submitted and determined in the usual way.

What is the process for hearing Pre-application Development Presentations?

Items involving Pre-application Development Presentations will be identified in the agenda papers. If an officer report has been prepared it will be published as part of the agenda papers and at the start of the item, the officer will briefly summarise their report.

The developer will then give a presentation to the Committee. This may involve the use of slides or images, which will be made available to Committee members and which people watching or attending the meeting will also be able to see. Committee members will then be invited to ask questions of the developer and will have an opportunity to highlight issues that may require further consideration by the developer. The item will be included in the minutes of the meeting.

Representation

Ward Councillors (details via the website www.lambeth.gov.uk or phone 020 7926 2131) may be contacted at their surgeries or through Party Group offices to represent your views to the Council: (Conservatives 020 7926 2213) (Labour 020 7926 1166) (Greens 020 7926 2225).

Digital engagement

We encourage people to use Social Media and we normally tweet from most Council meetings. To get involved you can tweet us @LBLDemocracy.

Audio/Visual Recording of meetings

Everyone is welcome to record meetings of the Council and its Committees using whatever, non- disruptive, methods you think are suitable. If you have any questions about this please contact Democratic Services (members of the press please contact the Press Office). Please note that the Chair of the meeting has the discretion to halt any recording for a number of reasons including disruption caused by the filming or the nature of the business being conducted.

Persons making recordings are requested not to put undue restrictions on the material produced so that it can be reused and edited by all local people and organisations on a non-commercial basis.

AGENDA

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING

Page

Nos. 1 Declaration of Pecuniary Interests Under Standing Order 4.4, where any councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.

2 Minutes 1 - 20 To agree minutes of the meeting held on 13 October, 24 November and 15 December 2020.

Town & Country Planning Act (1990), The Planning & Compensations Act (1991), The Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations (1992), The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990), The Town & Country Planning General Regulations (1990), The Rush Common Act 1806 and related legislation: Applications For information on documents used in the preparation of the reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.

3 Pre application - St Thomas House and Dunhill Fitness Centre 21 - 32 (Bishop's) Officers recommendation :

1. That, having heard a Pre-application Development Presentation on behalf of the applicant and individual Members of the Committee having had the opportunity to ask questions and to highlight to the applicant issues that may require further consideration, the contents of this report, the Presentation and any discussion of the item in the meeting be duly noted by the Committee.

4 Arches 107-122 Brad Street And Wootton Street (Bishops) 33 - 96 20/02677/VOC 1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission.

2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.

3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Director

of Planning, Transport and Sustainability, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

5 Appeal and Enforcement Decisions May 2020 97 - 102

6 Appeal and Enforcement Decisions June 2020 103 - 110

7 Appeal and Enforcement Decisions July 2020 111 - 116

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE (PAC) FAQs - YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Who sits on the PAC? The Council has established a PAC, which consists of seven Councillors (elected Members).

Where and when do PAC meetings take place? As a result of the current public health emergency, meetings are being held virtually and the link to the meeting can be found on the committee agenda front sheet on the PAC page of the Council’s website. The meetings are normally held on a Tuesday evening at 7pm and are held 1 or 2 times a month and are listed on the Council’s calendar of meetings at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgCalendarMonthView.asp?GL=1&bcr=1

Can I attend PAC meetings? All virtual PAC meetings are open to the press and public although on rare occasions the Committee may discuss a matter in private. The link to the meeting can be found on the PAC page of the Council’s website.

How can I get a copy of any reports to be considered by PAC? The officer reports on applications to be considered are circulated to PAC Members and published on the Council’s website a week before the meeting. Papers for meetings can be viewed at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=600

Can I make written representations to the PAC meeting? Yes. Written representations, including any letters, petitions or photos should be:  Sent to the relevant case officer listed on the front page of the officer report preferably by email; and,  Sent by 12 noon two clear working days before the meeting. Meetings are normally on a Tuesday, so the deadline would be 12 noon by the Thursday before the meeting.

Can I speak at PAC meetings? You may speak in relation to planning applications and other applications that are to be decided by the Committee. Up to three supporters (including applicants), three objectors and the Ward Members can make representations to the meeting at the Committee’s discretion for a maximum of two minutes each.

If you would like to make representation, please contact the clerk (details on the front page of the agenda) or [email protected].

For further information please contact Democratic Services as soon as possible by telephoning 020 7926 2170 or emailing [email protected] .

What are Pre-application Development Presentations? These are presentations to the Committee on proposed developments which have not yet been submitted for planning approval. The purpose of the presentation is to make Committee members aware of the emerging proposal and to have an opportunity to ask questions of the developer and to highlight issues to the developer that may require further consideration. The Committee does not make any decision about the proposals. Any proposal that is presented to the Committee through a Pre-application Development Presentation will still require a planning application to be submitted and determined in the usual way.

What is the process for hearing Pre-application Development Presentations? Items involving Pre-application Development Presentations will be identified in the agenda papers. If an officer report has been prepared it will be published as part of the agenda papers and at the start of the item, the officer will briefly summarise their report.

Does the PAC consider applications in the order listed on the agenda? Not necessarily. The order of business is determined at the meeting taking into consideration:

1. Applications which are withdrawn, or which officers recommend should be deferred. 2. Applications where there are no notified interested parties wishing to address the committee and members have no questions to ask the applicant or officers. 3. Applications which have been deferred from a previous meeting or have been the subject of a site visit. 4. Applications for developments which would be in receipt of public funding and which are subject to deadlines affecting delivery and other applications subject to specific deadlines.

What is the process for considering an application at the meeting? Officers will introduce each application with a brief PowerPoint presentation which will usually include drawings and photographs of the application site. The Committee will then hear the written representations from the interested parties. If the application is recommended for approval, then objectors’ written representations will be heard first. This is reversed if the application is recommended for refusal. The merits of the application are considered taking into account the views of the interested parties and planning officers before the committee reaches a decision.

What time does the meeting come to an end? The meeting will be conducted in a business-like fashion and the Committee will endeavour to deal with reports as quickly as possible.

However, if there is a lot of outstanding business at 9.00pm the Chair will advise the meeting if and how the timetable for the meeting has to be revised, in order to deal with remaining business and finish the meeting at 10.00pm. At 10.00pm, if the meeting has not ended, the meeting will decide which business can be completed by 10.45pm and any business not reached by that time will be deferred to the next meeting.

What are site visits? The decision whether to have a site visit is made by the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee. Site visits are arranged by Planning Officers to allow the Committee and Ward Members to observe the site and gain a better understanding of the impact of the proposal. Where permission is needed to go on

to private land, contact will be made with the owner by officers. Other than for reasons of access, the arrangements for site visits will not normally be publicised or made known to applicants, agents or third parties except in exceptional circumstances. In such circumstances, officers have discretion to invite one representative of the applicant to be present but only to answer any questions if Members require further context which the officer cannot provide. The applicant must notify the planning officer prior to the site visit who will be attending on their behalf.

Objectors are not to be invited, except in exceptional circumstances where the chair of the Committee agrees that there is information which cannot be provided by officers, and which it is necessary to receive on site and which is only likely to be able to be provided by an objector.

In circumstances where the public may need to be involved; for example, to gain access to a property to view a site from a particular vantage point, officers will arrange this. Members of the public shall be present only to grant access to premises and to answer factual questions.

A site visit is not a part of the formal determination of the planning application and therefore the public attendance.

When do site visits take place? A site visit will normally take place on the Saturday morning immediately before the committee which will consider the matter. An alternative date of the preceding Friday morning could be arranged

If I am unable to attend the PAC meeting, how can I find out the decision? Decisions will be posted on Twitter from @lbldemocracy immediately as the decision is taken. You can also contact Democratic Services by telephone or email. The minutes from the meeting will also be available on the Council’s website approximately five clear working days after the meeting. Planning officers will send the applicant and any interested parties who have made written representations formal notification of the Committee decision.

Where can I get further information or advice? If you would like further information or advice, please contact:  Town Planning Advice Desk: Tel: 020 7926 1180, Email: [email protected]  Town Planning Webpage: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control  Democratic Services: Tel: 020 7926 6816, Email: [email protected]

Guide to Use Classes Order in England.

The table below is intended as a general guide. Reference needs to be made to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

Class Summary of Use/Description Permitted Changes

Permitted change to or from a mixed use as A1 or A2 and up to 2 flats; Permitted change of A1 or mixed A1 and dwellinghouse to C3 (subject to Shops, post offices, hairdressers, sale prior approval, max 150m2); of tickets/travel agency, sale of cold Permitted change to A2; food for consumption off the premises, Permitted change to A3 (subject to Class A1 funeral directors, domestic hire shops, prior approval, max 150m2); Shops/Retail dry cleaners, internet café (where the Permitted change to D2 (subject to primary purpose is to provide facilities prior approval, max 200m2). to access the internet). Temporary permitted change (2 years) to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification to the Council, max 150m2).

Permitted change to A1 where there is a display window at ground floor level. Permitted change to or from a mixed use for any purpose within A2 and up to 2 flats and for A1 and up to 2 flats, where there is a display window at ground floor level. Class A2 Permitted change from A2 or mixed Banks, building societies, estate Financial and A2 and dwellinghouse to C3 (subject agents, employment agencies, Professional to prior approval, max 150m2) professional services. Services Permitted change to A3 (subject to prior approval, max 150m2) Permitted change to D2 (subject to prior approval, max 200m2).

Temporary permitted change (2 years) to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification to the Council, max 150m2). Permitted change to Class A1 and Class A2. Class A3 The sale of food and drink for Restaurants and consumption on the premises. Temporary permitted change (2 Cafes years) to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification to

Class Summary of Use/Description Permitted Changes

the Council, max 150m2).

Class A4 Permitted change to drinking Public House, wine bar or other Drinking establishment with expanded food drinking establishment. Establishments provision.

Permitted change to A1, or A2 or A3.

Class A5 The sale of hot food for consumption Temporary permitted change (2 Hot food takeaways off the premises. years) to A1, A2, B1 (interchangeable with notification to the council, max 150m2).

Permitted B1 change to B8 (max B1(a)- Office other than a use within 500m2). Class A2.

Temporary permitted change (2

years) to A1, A2, A3 Class B1 B1(b)- Research and development of (interchangeable with notification to Business products or processes. the council, max 150m2).

Permitted B1 change to state-funded B1(c)- Light industrial uses that can be school or registered nursery (subject carried out in residential areas. to prior approval).

B1(a) office permitted change to C3 Class B1(a) Office other than a use within Class (to be completed within a period of 3 Office A2. years from prior approval date).

Permitted change (from 1 October Light industrial uses that can be 2017 until 30 September 2020 only) Class B1(c) carried out in residential areas such as from B1(c) to C3 subject to prior Light Industrial joinery workshops, tailors, printworks, approval (max 500m2), completion commercial kitchen, workshops. within 3 years of prior approval date.

Class B2 Industrial process other than one Permitted change to B1 and B8 (max General Industrial falling within class B1. 500m2).

Permitted change to B1 (max 500m2) Class B8 Storage or as a distribution centre. Permitted change to C3 (subject to Storage/Distribution prior approval, max 500m2) until 15 April 2018.

Permitted change to state-funded Hotel or as a boarding/guest house Class C1 school or registered nursery (and here no significant element of care Hotels back to previous lawful use) (subject provided. to prior approval).

Class Summary of Use/Description Permitted Changes

Residential accommodation and care Permitted change to state-funded Class C2 to people in need of care (other than school or registered nursery (and Residential C3), hospital/nursing home, residential back to previous lawful use) (subject institutions school, college or training centre. to prior approval).

Prisons, young offenders’ institutions, Permitted change to state-funded Class C2A detention centres, custody centres, school or registered nursery (and Secure residential secure training centres, secure back to previous lawful use) (subject institutions hospitals, secure local authority to prior approval). accommodation, military barracks.

Dwellinghouse occupied by a single person or by people to be regarded as Class C3 a single household, not more than 6 Permitted change to C4. Dwellinghouses residents living together as a single household where care is provided or not provided (other than a use in C4).

Class C4 Use by not more than 6 residents as a Houses in multiple Permitted change to C3. HMO. occupation

Medical/health services, crèche, day nursery or day centre, provision of Temporary permitted change (2 Class D1 education, display of works of art, years) to A1, A2, A3, B1 Non-residential museum, public library, public (interchangeable with notification to institutions hall/exhibition hall, public worship or the Council, max 150m2). religious instruction, law court.

Permitted change to state-funded school or registered nursery (and Cinema, concert hall, bingo hall, dance back to previous lawful use)(subject Class D2 hall, swimming bath, skating rink, to prior approval). Assembly and gymnasium, area for indoor or outdoor Leisure sports or recreations (not involving Temporary permitted change (2 motor vehicles or firearms). years) to A1, A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification to the council, max 150m2).

Includes large HMO, hostel, theatre, Casino to A2 (subject to prior amusement arcade/funfair, approval); Sui Generis launderette, sale of fuel for motor Casino to D2; Uses that do not fall vehicles, sale of motor vehicles, taxi Amusement centre of casino to C3 within a specified business/hire of motor vehicles, (subject to prior approval, max class scrapyard, waste disposal installation, 150m2); nightclub, casino, betting office, pay Betting office or payday loan shop to

Class Summary of Use/Description Permitted Changes

day loan shop. - A1 or mixed use A1 and up to 2 flats (if a display window at ground floor level), A2 or A2 mixed use and up to 2 flats, - A3 (max 150m2), - D2 (subject to prior approval, max 200m2), - C3 (subject to prior approval, max 150m2), or - mixed use betting office or pay day load shop and up to two flats.

Use as a betting office, pay day loan shop or launderette to C3 (subject to prior approval, max 150m2); Mixed use betting office, pay day load shop or launderette and dwellinghouse to C3 (subject to prior approval, max 150m2); Mixed use betting office and up to two flats to: - A1 (if a display window at ground floor level) - A2 or betting office or pay day loan shop Temporary permitted change (2 years, max 150m2) from betting office or pay day loan shop to A1, A2, A3, or B1.

Please note: Permitted development rights can be removed by an Article 4 Direction. Further details of Article 4 Directions can be found at https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/article-4-direction

Abbreviations

ADF Average Daylight Factor AQA Air Quality Assessment AQMA Air Quality Management Area BNPP BNP Paribas (Financial Viability Advisors) BRE British Research Establishment BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method BSPD Brixton Supplementary Planning Document CAS Conservation Area Statement CHP Combined Heat and Power CIL Community Infrastructure Levy CEMP Construction and Environmental Management Plan MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government DD Daylight Distribution EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement ESP Employment and Skills Plan EVCP Electric Vehicle Charging Point HE Historic England FTE Full Time Equivalent FVA Financial Viability Assessment HSE Health and Safety Executive GLA Greater London Authority LLP Lambeth Local Plan 2015 LVMF London View Management Framework MALP London Plan 2016 (formerly Minor Alterations to The London Plan) NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance OAPF Opportunity Area Planning Framework PAC Planning Applications Committee PPA Planning Performance Agreement PTAL Public Transport Accessibility Level PV Photovoltaic RICS Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors RSS Regulatory Support Service – Environmental Health advisors S106 Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 SPD Supplementary Planning Document SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance TA Transport Assessment TfL Transport for London TLRN Transport for London Road Network TVIA Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment VSC Vertical Sky Component VSPD Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document WSPD Waterloo Supplementary Planning Document

Approach to Heritage Assets

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

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

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

National Policy Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three overarching objectives, contained within the planning system, in order to achieve sustainable development. These objectives are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways and include the following (with detail provided on the most relevant objective to this section): a) an economic objective; b) a social objective; and, c) an environmental objective –to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

The NPPF defines a “heritage asset” as:

“A building, monument, site place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest”.

The definition includes both designated heritage assets (of which, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas are relevant here) and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)

“Significance” is defined within the NPPF as being:

“the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its “setting”.

Paragraph 190 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting its setting), taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. That assessment should then be taken into account when considering the impact of the proposal on the heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Paragraphs 192 to 194 of the NPPF provide as follows:

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

a. the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b. the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c. the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

193. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

194. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

Paragraph 195 of the NPPF deals with substantial harm to or total loss of significance of significance of a designated heritage asset.

Paragraph 196 of the NPPF provides that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

Paragraph 197 of the NPPF deals with non-designated heritage assets as follows:

197. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Paragraphs 200 and 201 of the NPPF are as follows:

200. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.

201. Not all elements of a Conservation Area or World Heritage Site will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 195 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 196, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole.

Officers have also had regard to the National Planning Practice Guidance in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Approach to Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Where a proposed development may impact upon the sunlight and daylight received by an adjoining property, planning applications are often accompanied by a Sunlight and Daylight Assessment. These should be undertaken following the guidelines published by the Building Research Establishment ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ (BRE Guidelines). This is a good practice guide which provides advice on site layout for good natural lighting within a new development, safeguarding of daylight and sunlight within existing buildings nearby a development and the protection of daylighting of adjoining land for future development. The guide is advisory and whilst it provides numerical target values, these need also to be considered holistically with the needs of the development and its surrounding context.

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

VSC is calculated from the centre of a window on the outward face and measures the amount of light available on a vertical wall or window following the introduction of visible barriers, such as buildings. The maximum VSC value is almost 40% for a completely unobstructed vertical wall or window. The BRE guidance suggests that if the VSC is greater than 27%, enough skylight should still be reaching the window of the existing building. Any reduction below this level should be kept to a minimum. Should the VSC with development be both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value, occupants of the existing building shall notice a reduction in the amount of skylight they receive. The guide says: “the area lit by the window is likely to appear gloomier, and electric lighting will be needed more of the time”.

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

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

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

The 2011 BRE Guidelines note that sunlight is valued in living rooms at any time of day but especially in the afternoon. It is viewed as less important in bedrooms and in kitchens (the latter where people prefer it in the morning rather than the afternoon. All main living rooms of dwellings…should be checked if they have a window facing within 90° of due south. If the main living room to a dwelling has a main window

facing within 90° of due north, but a secondary window facing within 90° of due south, sunlight to the secondary window should be checked.

With regard to existing surrounding receptors, the BRE Guidelines provide that a window may be adversely affected if a point at the centre of the window receives - Less than 25% of the APSH during the whole year, of which 5% APSH must be in the winter period; and - Receives less than 0.8 times its former sunlight hours in either time period; and - Has a reduction in sunlight for the whole year more than 4% APSH.

Overshadowing is assessed through transient overshadowing plots which comprise an illustrative tool showing the changing levels of direct sunlight received by amenity space throughout the day on the dates assessed. The BRE ‘test’ for a development’s overshadowing impacts relates to the area of an amenity space that receives more than two hours of sunlight on 21 March (the Spring Equinox). The guide states:

“…for it to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March. If, as a result of new development, an existing garden or amenity area does not meet the above, and the area which can receive two hours of sun on 21 March is less than 0.8 times its former value, then the loss of sunlight is likely to be noticeable”.

Approach to Air Quality There is a Lambeth wide Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and Lambeth is also covered by the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Low Emission Zone.

The NPPF states within paragraph 181:

“…decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement…Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”

London Plan policy 7.14 states that development proposals should minimise increased exposure to existing poor air quality and make provision to address local problems of air quality, promote sustainable design and construction to reduce emissions from the demolition and construction of buildings, be at least air quality neutral, ensure that where provision needs to be made to reduce emissions from a development, this is normally made on-site, and where the development requires a detailed air quality assessment and biomass boilers are included, the assessment should forecast pollutant concentrations.

This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 2

PAC

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Tuesday 13 October 2020 at 7.00 pm

MINUTES

PRESENT: Councillor Scarlett O'Hara, Councillor Ben Kind, Councillor Jessica Leigh, Councillor Mohammed Seedat, Councillor Joanne Simpson (Vice-Chair), Councillor Becca Thackray and Councillor Clair Wilcox (Chair) ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Pete Elliott

1. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS There were none. 2. MINUTES RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 28 July 2020 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

3. 2 ROMAN RISE (GIPSY HILL) 20/01480/FUL Case No. 20/01480/FUL (agenda item three, page nine of the agenda pack, page one of the addenda and page one of the second addenda).

The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 9 October 2020 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of a seven-bedroom hostel to provide 31 affordable residential units, 60 cycle parking spaces, blue badge parking, refuse storage and landscaping and amenity space. It was noted that the council’s Temporary Accommodation team would be able to relocate all current occupants. Members were shown images of the site, its context, proposed materials and design, and existing and proposed views. The adjoining site to the east (Romany Prospect) would benefit from improvements to its landscaping, ecology, biodiversity and playspace provision. There would be a loss of five category C and two category B trees, which would be offset by the replanting of trees on streets and Council land in the local area and a financial contribution. As the Council was the landowner, it could not enter into a S106 agreement with itself. Therefore, a grampian condition was included so that once the land was transferred to the applicant (Homes for Lambeth), it would be required to enter into a S106 to secure the planning obligations before any development could commence on site.

Following the officer’s presentation, the objectors raised the following concerns:  The noise level that future residents of the proposed development would have to experience on the south side of the new build would be unacceptable. Residents would need to close their windows, which would lead to overheating during the summer period, as the ventilation system was not designed to cool.

 The pollution level of Roman Rise was 11.8μg/m3, which was over the World Health Organisation and Mayoral recommendations of 10μg/m3.

 The 58 cycle spaces provided would be for an area that did not provide safe cycle Page 2

routes.

 Truslove House required refurbishment and not demolition. No other alternatives had been provided to residents.

 The units would be unaffordable for the temporary accommodation residents currently residing in the location.

 The objectors were concerned about the environmental devastation, the unnecessary demolition of a building, the future overcrowding and pollution generated from the construction.  The building should be preserved as a heritage asset.

The applicant, agent and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:  The scheme would deliver 31 affordable homes, with priority to Lambeth residents and resident homeowners of the Central Hill Estate.  The development would provide jobs, training and quality homes for local residents.

 The scheme would be within a green setting and would be supplemented by the planting of new trees and shrubs in the nearby vicinity.

 The dual and triple aspect apartments would maximise the amount of daylight entering the living spaces.  There would be wheelchair apartments located on the ground floor.

 The future tenants would be covered by Homes for Lambeth’s Key Guarantees, where their new rent would be set in the same way as Council Rents.

 The scheme would achieve a 73.9% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through efficient building design and through ground source heat pump technology.

Councillor Pete Elliott then spoke as Ward Councillor for Gipsy Hill Ward, stating the following:  The residents of Central Hill Estate had suffered mental health issues since the news that their homes were to be demolished.

 The scheme ignored the carbon locked in the fabric of the building and allowed Homes for Lambeth to pay a carbon offset tax instead of building to the best possible standards.

 The trees that were proposed to be felled soaked up the pollution and provided multiple benefits.

 On completion of the Central Hill Estate regeneration in 2040, there would only be 23% of homes at council rent and not the 70% promised for Roman Rise.  He requested that the application deliver a community centre.

 The community had not participated in the live consultations in the early part of the covid- 19 pandemic.

 He questioned the reason why the boundary of the site was extended into the area outside Romany Prospect.

Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:  The London shared ownership model required units to be available to a range of incomes. In the proposal, the intention was primarily to relocate the residents of the existing Central Hill Estate. Page 3

 There was not a policy need for a housing needs assessment for a small sites scheme. An assessment of the Central Hill Estate had been carried out. The site was intended as a site to relocate residents of the Central Hill Estate to facilitate its possible future redevelopment.

 There was a policy requirement for at least 10% of the dwellings to be provided as wheelchair user dwellings. The remainder of the units would be required to be accessible and adaptable dwellings

 The Lambeth Temporary Accommodation team confirmed there would be suitable alternative accommodation for all current residents.

 The proposal would provide improvements to the quality of the open space to the south of Romany Prospect, located adjacent to the application site. This would be secured through the S106 agreement.

 Of the existing 734sqm of green space within the site boundary, 340sqm would be retained. 600sqm of open space to the south of Romany Prospect would also be improved. At present there was a large wall that surrounded the site, which would be replaced by a dwarf wall and railings. A gate will provide access between the site and Romany Prospect.

 Larger trees would have difficulty in establishing, therefore the Council’s Tree Service recommended that reasonably sized trees were planted instead of heavy standards to improve their establishment within the first three years.

 A discussion was had about the applicant’s SJA tree report, the data and the calculations provided.

 The lighting of the scheme would be secured through conditions. Secure by design principles would be considered when the council was assessing the submission to discharge the lighting condition.  There was interest in the Central Hill Estate as a 20th Century heritage asset. Historic England turned down an application for the listing of the estate. The subject building was not designed by the same architect as the wider estate and was not part of the application for listing.  The area had a large numbers of trees and would provide screening on the height and mass of the building.

 The in-building physical infrastructure to ensure appropriate connection to broadband for the development would be covered by Building Regulations. To not duplicate the work, it could be requested as an informative of the Committee’s wish to obtain the latest connectivity in the finished design of the scheme.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:  It was positive to have the affordable homes, the three-bedroom homes and shared ownership for a range of incomes being provided by the scheme. Members were reassured that the homeless families in the hostels would be adequately cared for and rehomed.

 They were content that the scheme would offer employment during the construction phase.

 Members expressed concern to the loss of mature trees but welcomed the landscaping and planned amenity space.

 The borough required more housing, which the scheme would provide with a higher quality than was currently present at the site. Page 4

 The height would detract from the scheme.

 An informative should be added requesting the best quality broadband to create quality accommodation suitable for both residential and home working purposes.

 A Member was concerned that the scheme was a standalone element of a wider redevelopment and of the carbon impact through the loss of mature trees and the brick not being included in the carbon offset. She requested to defer the item until further information was provided.

 A Member mentioned the importance of the boundary treatment and that the opening between the site and the adjoining part of the Central Hill Estate to the east would be better for both.

 The highest quality and level of maturity for the replacement trees should be used.

It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Simpson, and

RESOLVED, by six votes for to one against

1. To GRANT conditional planning permission including a Grampian condition requiring the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report and any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London and also subject to the following:

a. To amend the wording of the first obligation (Reprovision of hostel use) under Condition 46 by removing the phrase 'Within three months of the date of this permission,'.

b. An informative to capture the Committee Members’ desire for the best quality broadband connectivity level to be installed in the building.

2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:

a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.

4. SOUTHBANK CENTRE, BELVEDERE ROAD (BISHOPS) 20/02289/FUL, 20/02178/ADV AND 20/02177/LB Case Nos. 20/02289/FUL, 20/02178/ADV and 20/02177/LB (agenda item four, page 107 of the agenda pack, page 34 of the addendum and page 18 of the second addendum).

Members agreed to proceed without an officer’s presentation given their broad familiarity with the site and proposals, noting that similar applications had been reported to PAC on an annual basis for a number of years.

The Committee considered information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:  It was important to be able to participate in outdoor cultural events during the covid-19 pandemic, while still practicing safe distancing.

20/02289/FUL It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Kind, and RESOLVED, unanimously

1. To GRANT conditional planning permission. Page 5

2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.

20/02178/ADV It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Kind, and RESOLVED, unanimously

1. To GRANT conditional express advertisement consent.

2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.

20/02177/LB It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Kind, and RESOLVED, unanimously

1. To GRANT conditional listed building consent.

2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.

CLOSE OF MEETING

The meeting ended at 9.12 pm CHAIR PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Tuesday 15 December 2020

Date of Despatch: Thursday 19 November 2020 Contact for Enquiries: Lara Edwards Tel: 020 7926 6816 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk

This page is intentionally left blank Page 7

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES

Tuesday 24 November 2020 at 7.00 pm Microsoft Teams (please copy and paste the following link into your browser): http://ow.ly/qKNN30rjlNq

1. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS With regard to application 20/02203/VOC, Councillor Joanne Simpson stated although not a pecuniary interest, when the original application had been presented at Committee, she had voted against the application and had stood down for the second part. She confirmed that she did not have a pre-determined view.

The legal officer confirmed that if the member had an open mind (with no predetermined view), this would not affect her considering the application referred to at item four. 2. MINUTES RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 22 September 2020 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

The Chair announced a provisional timetable for the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 9.9.1.

3. 339 NORWOOD ROAD AND 3 THURLOW PARK ROAD (THURLOW PARK) 19/03669/FUL Case No. 19/03669/FUL (agenda item three, page five of the agenda pack, page one of the addendum and page one of the second addendum).

The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 20 November 2020 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration and noted that the application was an amalgamation of two separate sites to provide 45 residential units (16 affordable units) with landscaping, communal amenity areas, two disabled parking spaces, cycle parking and refuse and recycling stores. The scheme was not within a conservation area, the buildings were not listed and was opposite a locally listed building (Tulse Hill Hotel). There would be 30 new trees planted for the six trees to be removed and there was a condition for them to be native species. The application was a departure from the Policy ED2 of the Lambeth local plan because no evidence of marketing of the site for another employment generating use had been provided. The daylight/sunlight impacts were within BRE guidance.

Following the officer’s presentation, the objector raised the following concerns:  The scheme was too bulky, too tall, and unattractive for its suburban location with a property line excessively close to Norwood Road.

 The key concern was for the health of its future residents, particularly of the affordable dwellings. Page 8

 The flats with the sunken gardens on the ground floor and the first floor would be subject to the fumes of the queuing traffic. The applicant’s air quality assessment underestimated the extent of the fumes.

 Forced ventilation would be needed for lower-ground, ground and first floor flats and the inadvisability of opening windows would create unacceptable living conditions.

 Unacceptable air quality conditions for future residents would result and it was noted that some flats, balconies and children’s outdoor play area would be set back by only two to four metres.

The agents and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:  The scheme would re-develop a highly accessible, underutilised brownfield site and provide more housing.

 The proposal would provide an elegant and confident seven storey corner building that would gently step down to meet the context of the buildings to the north and east of the site.

 The combination of high-quality contemporary brickwork detailing along with the reconstituted stone detailing would help to refine the massing of the building and add richness to the overall façade.

 It would provide a mixture of unit sizes and tenures, including affordable dwellings. Of the 45 dual aspect dwellings, 16 would be affordable dwellings (37% by habitable rooms).

 The applicant had secured a deal with a social housing provider.

 It would provide access to outside space and playspace and was wheelchair accessible.

 Daylight/sunlight assessments had been completed and showed that all dwellings and outdoor spaces would have sufficient daylight and sunlight levels.

 The scheme would provide 85 cycle parking spaces and two on-site blue badge parking spaces.

 It was a car free scheme which was very well connected with a high PTAL level

Councillor Peter Ely then spoke as Ward Councillor for Thurlow Ward, stating the following:  The development squeezed the largest number of flats into the site, which would result in a tall and bulky building with a footprint that would overwhelm and dominate the surrounding buildings.

 It would not be compatible with the character of the local area and would be contrary to Local Plan Policies Q6, Q7 and PN7(d).

 The proposed cosmetic changes regarding the outside space would not mitigate air quality issues and further measures were required to ensure that lower ground, ground and first floor flats would have outside space that was safe to use.

 The proposed provision for servicing and delivery vehicles raised concerns as the parking bay could create a potential hazard and the risk of illegally parked vehicles obstructing the highway and pavements.

 The proposal should not be approved in its current form.

Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:  The site was better suited to a wholly residential rather than mixed use development. The proposal would result in the loss of two to three jobs but would provide affordable Page 9

housing for which there was an identifiable need in the borough. It was usually difficult for registered providers to take on smaller sites like this one and provide onsite affordable housing rather than a payment in lieu.

 The site’s location would meet the Policy PN7 aspiration for Tulse Hill to act as a gateway to West Norwood.

 The site was outside the district centre boundary and was not located in the KIBA.

 The scheme exceeded the “fast track” affordable housing threshold requirement with a percentage of 36.7% on site affordable housing.

 Officers explained why the previous applications had been refused and the reasons why the present application was a significant improvement. National, regional and local policies had changed since the consideration of the refused applications, and emerging policies actively promoted the delivery of affordable housing on small sites.

 The applicant’s air quality assessment confirmed that the nitrogen dioxide levels in the area were higher than the average and it was necessary for the flats at lower ground, ground and first floor to have mechanical ventilation. The green screens were added as a recognition that the nitrogen dioxide outside was higher than average.

 A condition to secure details of anti-graffiti measures on flank elevation had not be included in the officer report but was an option open to members.  The carbon assessment requirement in policy S12 of the Intend to Publish London Plan was only for GLA referrable applications and was not required for an application of this scale.

 The removal of the two vehicle crossovers would not affect pedestrian movements, including those with pushchairs and wheelchairs.

 The conversion of the parking bay to a loading bay may decrease the numbers of vehicles being parked as there was a limited time to unload.

 The windows with mechanical ventilation would not be sealed and residents would be able to open them.

The Committee considered the points raised by speakers and the information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:  Members were pleased that the applicant had secured a social housing provider and supported the uplift in affordable housing numbers. The additional dwellings would contribute towards the vibrancy of the local area.

 A member had concerns about the design of the building, the impact of the green screens, the reliance on mechanical ventilation, the height, bulk and massing of the building and the lack of contextual CGI images.

 Another member was less concerned about it being a corner site as this absorbed the height and it did not break up an existing parade of shops.

 Some members believed that the scheme should be mixed use and were concerned about the gateway aspect in a low-rise residential area while others considered it a better use than the current use.

 Some members had reservations about the noise and air quality and the adverse effect on daylight/sunlight. Others noted that the daylight/sunlight levels were sufficient. Members considered that the conditions attached were proportional and reasonable.

 Some members understood the practical problems of a mixed-use building for such a Page 10

small site and supported the proposed scheme.

 Condition 21 should be amended to enhance the design elements and provide details of decorative brick detailing on the eastern elevation.

 An informative to be added to request that the applicant give consideration to the treatment of the Norwood Road boundary treatment to avoid littering from the pavement into the sunken gardens.

 An informative should be added requesting a dedicated food waste recycling collection facility within the site.

It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Simpson, and RESOLVED, by five for to two against. 1. To grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report and published addenda and subject to the following:

a. An amendment to condition 21 requiring the submission of details of decorative brickwork finishing to the east facing elevation on the Thurlow Park Road frontage.

b. An additional informative to request that the consideration of measures to minimise the potential for littering of the site from the public highway be incorporated into the Norwood Road boundary treatment.

c. An informative to request that the provision of a dedicated food waste recycling location be incorporated into the final design of the on-site waste storage facility.

2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:

i. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

ii. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

Due to intermittent technical difficulties Councillor Leigh was not able to fully participate in items four and five, and therefore was unable to participate in the vote for both items.

At 9:09 pm the meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes.

Page 11

4. TESCO STORES, 275 KENNINGTON LANE AND 145-149 VAUXHALL STREET (OVAL) 20/02203/VOC Case No. 20/02203/VOC (agenda item four, page 111 of the agenda pack, page eight of the addendum and page six of the second addendum).

The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 20 November 2020 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration and noted that the scheme requested an additional storey to Block G (providing an additional 15 residential units) and revised ground floor layout to provide 105sqm of additional commercial space to the previously approved 18/02597/EIAFUL application. The improvements on the ground floor included the straightening of the residence entrance and removal of the refuse bin in the south east corner of the building, which would be consolidated within Block A. There would be no change in operation for residents. Members were shown images of the consented application and the proposed scheme from various angles.

The applicant then provided the following information in support of the application:  Despite the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, they were continuing to deliver the project which would support 15 direct jobs and potentially 1,000 construction jobs.

 The scheme proposed a subtle increase of heights across Block G which would increase the number of homes in the block by 15. This would include seven additional affordable homes. This took into consideration the key views, local townscape, daylight/sunlight and environmental impact.

Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:  The term “low cost rented” was an umbrella term to include London Affordable Rented homes (the 1 and 2 bed units) and the social rent homes (the 3 bed units). There were 49 x 3 bed units all having a dual aspect.

 There was a discussion on the wider changes to the scheme which were not part of the application.

 Short term lets were restricted to a 90 day use. Any use beyond this would require permission and, in its absence, would be liable to enforcement action.

At 10:00pm the Committee elected to proceed with the meeting for a maximum of a further 45 minutes in order to conclude the remaining matters of business.

The Committee considered points raised by the speaker and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:  Members agreed that although there was an increase in the height, bulk and massing it was not considered a significant material change to the previously approved application.

 A member raised concerns that there could be a future trend to submit applications to add extra storeys to approved schemes. Although supporting this application, he discouraged similar applications in the future for the remainder of the site.

It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Simpson, and RESOLVED, unanimously, by 6 votes.

1. To grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report. Page 12

2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:

i. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

ii. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within three months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

5. FLATS 24 TO 66 FENWICK PLACE (LARKHALL) 20/02374/RG3 Case No. 20/02374/RG3 (agenda item five, page 187 of the agenda pack, page 23 of the addendum and page nine of the second addendum).

The applicant, agent and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:  There were no objections from statutory consultees.

 The scheme would provide 50% affordable housing by habitable room.

 There would be a new communal garden, which would include children’s playspace and additional landscaping improvement work provided to the adjacent site within the wider Fenwick Estate.

 The scheme would be a car free development, would provide three years’ car club membership and electric car charging points for the disabled parking bays.

 The sustainable design would achieve a 74.6% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

 The proposed dwellings would be dual aspect in order to maximise the daylight in the living spaces.

Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:  The “third-party” referred in page 193 of the agenda was Homes for Lambeth who were a separate legal entity to the Council.

 Members were shown where the proposed blue badge parking spaces would be in relation to the proposed dwellings.

 The proposed buildings would be similar in height to neighbouring buildings but it would be a contemporary design, which was considered to be an appropriate response to the Page 13

local context.

 There was no master plan for the wider Fenwick estate. The scheme was part of the Homes for Lambeth small sites programme contained within the Homes for Lambeth Business Plan 2020-2023, which was published in March 2020. The scheme would need to be considered on its own merits.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:  Although there was a loss in the amount of affordable housing units, the Member was content to have a scheme with larger units including family sized dwellings.

It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Simpson, and RESOLVED, by five votes for to one against

1. To grant conditional planning permission including a Grampian condition requiring the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report.

2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:

a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes. and

b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

CLOSE OF MEETING

The meeting ended at 10.42 pm CHAIR PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Tuesday 19 January 2021

Date of Despatch: Tuesday 29 December 2020 Contact for Enquiries: Lara Edwards Tel: 020 7926 6816 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk This page is intentionally left blank Page 15

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES

Tuesday 15 December 2020 at 7.00 pm Microsoft Teams (please copy and paste the following link into your browser): http://ow.ly/ctW030rjm0E

ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Philip Normal

1. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS

There were none. 2. MINUTES Regarding the minutes of 3 November 2020, Councillor Thackray and Councillor O’Hara requested the following amendments respectively:  On page four during the Member observations, “Members of the Committee acknowledged the concerns of objectors that the use at some stage might be changed from office to residential. Members were advised that any change of use would be subject to a separate application and that the outcome of that could not be determined at this stage. It was agreed that an informative would be included on the decision notice reiterating the Committee’s firm view that the proposed building as designed was appropriate for office use on its upper floors and not for other uses including residential.”  On page two, to amend the words ‘bode well’ to ‘sit well’ in the Ward Councillor representations.

RESOLVED: That, subject to Councillor Thackray and Councillor O’Hara’s amendments, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 November 2020 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

The Chair announced a provisional timetable for the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 9.9.1.

3. LAND TO THE EAST OF MONTFORD PLACE (OVAL) 20/01086/FUL Case No. 20/01086/FUL (agenda item three, page seven of the agenda pack, page one of the addendum and page one of the second addendum).

The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 11 December 2020 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the optimisation of brownfield land by the demolition of the existing temporary buildings consent that ends at the end of 2021 and the erection of two linked buildings to provide a mixed- use scheme including provision of light industrial employment floorspace and residential units. The application had been advertised as a departure from policies ED1 and Q26(a)(ii) of the Page 16

Lambeth Local Plan but material considerations were considered to outweigh these departures and to justify the grant of planning permission. The site was located within the Oval and Kennington Development Area, within a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA) and the Kennington Conservation Area and had excellent public transport links. The scheme would provide 139 new homes (40% would be affordable housing), up to 88 permanent jobs, a financial contribution of £100K to the Healthy Routes Network, £10K towards Legible London signage, five blue badge on-site parking spaces and cycle parking. There would be a new loading bay, playspace areas, a flexible use space, communal roof terraces accessible by both blocks, green infrastructure on roofs, a carbon reduction of 50% and a financial contribution towards carbon off-setting. The 15-year covenant period for the build to rent units would include a clawback mechanism in the event that the units were sold out of this tenure before the end of the covenant period. The applicant had a portfolio agreement with the Mayor of London which meant that this particular site did not have to deliver 50% affordable housing despite being on public sector land. The scheme had in any event been viability tested and was delivering the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. Members were shown images of the site, its historical context, the proposed materials and design, and existing and proposed views. The Council’s external daylight consultant outlined the key issues relating to daylight and sunlight including the VSC, NSL, overshadowing and internal daylight/sunlight figures for adjoining residential properties at 231, 233-235 Kennington Lane and Imperial Court.

Following the officer’s presentation, the objectors raised the following concerns:  The recommendation to grant permission rested on a fundamental mistake in the officer report in respect of housing density and the application of the London Plan density matrix. The proposed development was 58% above the upper limit of the correct target range for an urban location.

 The excessive density drove the size and height of the development, which in turn would produce unacceptable harms to heritage assets and major adverse impacts on amenity.  The impact on heritage assets, residential amenity, and residential design quality had not taken a holistic view and therefore the scheme should be refused.  An independent expert found instances of “substantial” harm to heritage assets. There was a legal requirement to afford ‘great weight and importance’ to instances of harm to the many heritage assets.  Objectors acknowledged the scheme’s benefits in terms of housing, business space and employment opportunities, but considered that sufficient provision was made nearby. A smaller development on the site could still provide all the benefits while avoiding all the harm to heritage assets and significantly reducing the harm to amenity.  The loss of daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties was considerably in excess of the BRE guidelines, main living rooms were substantially affected and in some flats all rooms were affected.  An objector stood to experience a reduction in NSL of 64%, in VSC of 98% and of 48% in the annual probable sunlight hours to her study and bedroom. These rooms were her only areas with unobstructed light.  Considering the area as an urban location was not a justification to inflict swingeing reductions in daylight and sunlight and damage to amenity.

The applicant, agent and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:  The scheme was unique and innovative and was committed to creating desirable and healthy homes with a focus on sustainable living.

 The site would provide creative workspace to support a variety of small, local businesses and high quality affordable new homes.

 The scheme would create 53 well-designed affordable homes and offer up to 88 new jobs on-site, 254 construction jobs and a package of bespoke employment and training opportunities. Page 17

 Excellent customer service, dedicated onsite staff and flexible longer-term tenancies would be provided to the future occupiers of the Build to Rent units. Residents would have high-speed Wi-Fi, concierge service, a lounge, shared workspace and a gym, with all apartments capable of accommodating desk-space to work from home.  The leading concept behind the scheme was to embrace the co-location of the two uses and the bringing together of light-industrial occupiers and residents within the public realm of the site, with the proposal structured around a central mews (the core communal space).  The applicant worked closely with Lambeth officers and Historic England and through consultation with local residents to develop a design that would respond to neighbouring amenity space and add to the rich character of the area in both the massing and architectural approach.

 The architect was mindful of the emerging context and therefore carefully stepped the massing from six storeys in the north eastern part of the site to 11 storeys in the south western corner addressing Montford Place and the future Gas Works development.

Councillor Philip Normal then spoke as Ward Councillor for Oval Ward, stating the following:  He recognised the need for new homes but was concerned by the serious issue of the impact of the loss of natural light on residents’ mental health. This was supported by various scientific studies.

 Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, people would continue to work from home, which would increase the time residents spent in their homes.

 He questioned the lack of affordable workspace in the scheme.

Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:  The officer confirmed the error in calculations in paragraph 9.3.3. of the report as stated by the objector. The report had correctly identified the site’s ‘Urban’ setting but had incorrectly provided the figures for a ‘Central’ setting from the density range/matrix set out in Table 3.2 of the London Plan. However, emerging policy D3 of the Draft London Plan proposed to replace the density matrix and give significant weight to a design-led approach (as explained at paragraph 9.3.4. of the report), which the application satisfied.

 The current site was a temporary use and would return to a brownfield site at the end of 2021 when the temporary planning consent expired.

 The application complied with emerging policies E4 of the Draft London Plan and ED3 of the Draft Lambeth Local Plan which was a material consideration which justified a departure from policy ED1 of the Lambeth Local Plan. In addition, the development would deliver public benefits which were also a material consideration. The London Plan housing targets were minimum figures and the scheme would contribute to meeting these targets. Lambeth Local Plan policy sought to maximise the supply of additional homes in the borough to meet and exceed the annual housing target for Lambeth as set out in the London Plan.

 There was a pressing need in Lambeth for one and two bedroom affordable units which the scheme would be delivering, whilst also offering some family-sized affordable units.

 The gin distillery operations were not considered to pose a safety risk. The distillery did not require a hazardous substances consent and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirmed there was no HSE consultation zone and therefore there was no need to consult the HSE. The London Fire Brigade had not objected to the principle of the scheme although they would need to be consulted at the Building Regulation stage.

 London Plan policy in relation to the covenant period for build to rent schemes required a Page 18

minimum of 15 years, whereas the draft Lambeth policy required a minimum of 25 years. However, this aspect of emerging local plan policy had been challenged at the recent Examination in Public and it would not be reasonable to require adherence to the longer period in those circumstances.

 The affordable housing units would be located in Block A and the private units would be located in Block B. Both blocks would have access to the flexible amenity area, facilities and roof gardens.

 Officers advised that the majority of single aspect properties (mainly studios) faced towards the west.

At 9:01 pm the meeting was adjourned for 13 minutes.

After the adjournment, Officers continued to provide information as follows in response to questions from Members referring where necessary to the Council’s external daylight and sunlight consultant who remained in the meeting:  Sunlight levels to the roof terrace of Block B fell below the BRE guidance by 1%, which was a common occurrence in such a location.

 The internal layouts of dwellings within Nos 233-255 and 231 Kennington Lane were dual aspect with all units benefiting from windows facing Kennington Lane. Three single aspect flats within Imperial Court would experience major adverse impacts in VSC and NSL, with retained VSC values of above 14%.

 The historic daylight baseline assessment on properties facing Kennington Lane showed that the impact of the proposed development would still have major adverse impacts on these properties. With regards to Imperial Court, the additional six rooms would comply with VSC and NSL and transgressions would reduce in magnitude. Members were advised to give more weight to the existing site conditions rather than the historic baseline.

 The proposal included tree planting along the eastern boundary of the site. Normally the impact of trees was not included in the BRE assessment of daylight and sunlight. It was expected that the final landscaping design would include smaller types of decorative trees along the boundary with Imperial Court.

 Final design of landscaping, play space and security would be secured through conditions.

 Officers had advised on the heritage harm in both the report and the meeting and it was for Members to weigh up the harm to the significance of designated heritage assets with the public benefits of the proposals.

 The emerging Draft Lambeth Local Plan policy on tall buildings had been challenged at the recent Examination in Public and cannot be given significant weight at this stage.

 The application included the provision of light industrial floorspace, to which emerging affordable workplace policies did not apply.

At 10:00pm the Committee elected to proceed with the meeting for a maximum of a further 45 minutes in order to conclude the remaining matters of business.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers and the external consultant in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:  Concerns were expressed about the impacts on privacy caused by the density of the development and close proximity to the buildings on Kennington Lane. Some Members were concerned that the proposed mitigation measures highlighted the issue and that the Page 19

high density could lead to a stressful and noisy living experience.

 Some Members believed that the location, excellent transport and school places could support the increased population generated from the scheme.

 The major adverse effects on daylight for the properties at Kennington Lane and Imperial Court were noted, specifically for rooms such as kitchens and living rooms particularly given that individuals were likely to be working from home more due to the covid-19 pandemic.

 Concerns were expressed about the less than substantial harm to the significance of the Kennington conservation area, and to the settings of several listed buildings in the conservation area, whilst noting officer advice about the localised extent of those harms.

 The proposed provision of 40% affordable homes in a desirable location, the provision of employment and skills training/contributions and the good use of a soon to be vacant brownfield site were welcomed.

The Presiding Officer recapped some of the key points raised by Members during their deliberations. Members were reminded that concerns about harm to heritage assets, departure from Local Plan policies and residential amenity impacts had been acknowledged by officers in the published report and addenda, and also within the officer presentation. The positive aspects of the development proposal as noted by Members included the reuse of brownfield land, additional housing including affordable housing, provision of employment floorspace and the employment and skills offer. These were public benefits to be afforded weight in decision making. Members were advised that officers had put forward an on-balance recommendation and it was for them as decision makers to exercise their judgement and consider whether the public benefits of the scheme were collectively sufficient to outweigh the identified ‘less than substantial’ harm to heritage assets, the harm to residential amenity and other identified conflicts with the development plan.

It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Kind, and

RESOLVED, by four votes for to three votes against

1. To GRANT conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report and any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London.

2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:

a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within 6 months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

Page 20

CLOSE OF MEETING

The meeting ended at 10.36 pm CHAIR PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Tuesday 19 January 2021

Date of Despatch: Thursday 7 January 2021 Contact for Enquiries: Lara Edwards Tel: 020 7926 6816 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk Page 21 Agenda Item 3

Page 22

ADDRESS: St Thomas House and Dunhill Fitness Centre, Lambeth Palace Road, SE1 Pre-application Development Presentation Case Officer: Jeffrey Holt Ward: Bishop’s Date Received: September 2020 Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of building approximately 31,000 sqm in area and 55m AOD in height to provide an expansion to the existing Evelina London children’s hospital (Use Class C2) along with associated access and public realm. Applicant: Guy’s and St Thomas’ Trust Agent: Montague Evans

RECOMMENDATION

SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations: Central Activities Zone Conservation Area - CA57 : Albert Embankment Conservation Area North Lambeth Archaeological Priority Area Listed Building - Multiple Southbank And Waterloo (SOWN) Neighbourhood Area and Forum London Plan Waterloo Opportunity Area Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area LVMF Protected Vistas - Primrose Hill Summit To The Palace Of Westminster - 4A.2 LVMF River Prospect: Westminster Bridge 18A Environment Agency Flood Zone 3

Adjacent to: Archbishop’s Park Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SINC) Archbishop’s Park Local Space of Heritage Value Archbishop’s Park Historic Park or Garden Lambeth Palace Gardens Site of Borough Nature Conservation Importance Lambeth Palace Conservation Area

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area (ha): 0.2ha

NON-RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Page 23

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (m2) (Gross Internal Area) Existing D1 Medical training facility 924m2 D1 Gym 2,793 m2 Proposed C2 Hospital 28,000 – 30,000 m2

NON-CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL & VISITOR ACCOMMODATION

Bedrooms/Units Floorspace (m2) Existing Hotel Bedrooms Serviced Apartments/Apart-hotel units Proposed Hotel Bedrooms Serviced Apartments/Apart-hotel units Bedrooms Floorspace (m2) Existing Student Accommodation Proposed Student Accommodation Bedrooms Floorspace (m2) Existing C2 212 (in existing Evelina) Proposed C2 Additional 100+ 28,000-30,000 Bedrooms Floorspace (m2) Existing SG Hostel Proposed SG Hostel

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Spaces Car Parking Spaces % of Bike Motor- (General) (Disabled) EVCP Spaces cycle Spaces Drop off Staff Drop off Staff Existing 3 0 0 8 TBC TBC - Proposed 5 0 0 2 TBC TBC -

LEGAL SERVICES CLEARANCE

AUDIT TRAIL Consultation Name/Position Lambeth Date Sent Date Report Comments in department Received Cleared para: Susan Boucher, Legal Services 04.01.2020 05.01.2020 05.01.2020 Throughout Lawyer

Page 24

OFFICER REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: This item is a Pre-application Development Presentation in accordance with the Planning Applications Committee’s terms of reference.

NOTE: A Pre-application Development Presentation is a presentation to the Committee by an applicant about a development proposal that has not yet been submitted for planning approval. The Committee’s terms of reference provide for the Committee to hear such presentations about strategic development schemes and for individual Members of the Committee to ask questions and highlight issues that may require further consideration by the applicant. Any pre-application proposal that is presented to the Committee will still require a planning application to be submitted and determined in due course. The Committee will not be making any determination of the planning merits of any matters that are presented to it in this Pre-application Development Presentation and accompanying officer report. Observations of the Committee in response to this item may be minuted but will not be binding on the eventual decision-maker. The purpose of this officer report is to provide a brief overview of the site and its planning history, the current development proposal, the pre-application process to date and relevant planning policies.

1 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The site is on the west side of Lambeth Palace Road and is within the St Thomas’ Hospital campus. The triangular site currently contains St Thomas’ House, which is a six-storey 1920s building, and the Dunhill Fitness centre, which is a two-storey post-war building. St Thomas’ House is used for clinical skills training and the Dunhill Fitness centre is a gym for staff and students at the hospital and university.

1.2 The site is immediately adjacent to the Evelina London Children’s Hospital which is withing a purpose- built seven to eight storey building with a large curved glass roof. The building was completed in 2005 and the Evelina moved there from their original site at Guy’s Hospital in Southwark. Access to the Evelina is via a short access street known as Hospital Street, which is off Lambeth Palace Road.

1.3 The site is in the Albert Embankment conservation area. Neither St Thomas House or the Dunhill Fitness centre are statutorily or locally listed. The applicant has applied to Historic England for a Certificate of Immunity from Listing for St Thomas House and the decision is pending.

2 THE SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 St Thomas Hospital first opened in 1871 and has expanded organically over time resulting in a large complex of buildings of varying ages and styles. The original five storey 19th century hospital building occupies the south-west corner of the campus. The northern half is occupied by large post-war modernist blocks between six and 12 storeys high and in the south-east corner are the most recent additions including the seven storey Evelina Children’s Hospital building completed in 2004. The main vehicle access to the hospital, including A&E ambulance access, is off Lambeth Palace Road.

2.2 The surrounding area is mixed in use and urban form, as is characteristic of central London. To the north is the main block of the former County Hall. Country Hall is a Grade II* Listed complex of six to seven storey buildings that was once home to the London Country Council. It is now used for leisure, hotel, residential and commercial uses. The rear blocks are Locally Listed and are in residential and commercial use.

Page 25

2.3 To the north-east are contemporary buildings up to 18 storeys high in hotel, student accommodation and office use. Further north-east is Waterloo train and Underground station. To the east are smaller post-war housing blocks and some low rise commercial and community buildings. To the south-east is Archbishop’s Park and the private gardens of Lambeth Palace. Archbishop’s Park is a local space of heritage value and Lambeth Palace Garden is a Registered Historic Garden (Grade II). The new eight storey Lambeth Palace Library is nearing completion.

2.4 To the south beyond the gardens is the Grade I listed Lambeth Palace. It consists of a group of ecclesiastical, ceremonial, defensive and residential buildings of varying periods dating back as early as 1435. To the west is the River Thames and on the opposite bank is the Grade I Listed Palace of Westminster and Westminster World Heritage Site.

2.5 St Thomas Hospital is within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area and the Southbank Conservation Area is to the north. The hospital campus has a number of listed buildings and structures:

 Statue of Robert Clayton at the northern entrance to the ward block of North Wing (Grade I)  Bronze Statue of Edward V at the northern entrance to the ward block of the North Wing (Grade II*)  Stone Statue of Edward VI at the northern entrance to the ward block of the North Wing (Grade II*)  ‘Revolving Torsion’ fountain (Grade II*)  15 public benches on the embankment footpath between Lambeth Bridge and Westminster Bridge (Grade II)  River Wall with 36 lamp standards between Lambeth Bridge and Westminster Bridge (Grade II)  Albert Embankment Wall along boundary of St Thomas’ Hospital (Grade II)

2.6 The site is also in the Central Activities Zone, Flood Risk Zone 3, Thames Policy Area, the Waterloo Opportunity Area and the South Bank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Area.

2.7 The site benefits from a public accessibility level of 6b, which is ‘excellent’, due to the proximity of Waterloo train and Underground station, Lambeth North Underground Station to the east and Westminster Underground to the west across Westminster Bridge. There are also numerous bus services nearby. Westminster Bridge Road and Lambeth Palace Road are both part of the TfL Strategic Road Network.

Page 26

3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Figure 1 - Aerial photograph of site (outlined in blue)

Page 27

Figure 2 - Photograph showing entrance to Hospital Street, St Thomas House and Evelina London (behind)

Figure 3 - Dunhill Fitness Centre (foreground), St Thomas House (background) and Evelina London (right)

Page 28

4 PROPOSAL

4.1 Summary of the Proposal

4.2 The proposal is for the demolition of St Thomas’ House and the Dunhill Fitness Centre and the construction of a new building to provide additional capacity for Evelina London. The building would reach a height of around 59m AOD and provide approximately 31,000 sqm of space. This would accommodate over 100 inpatient beds, 20 critical care beds and 14 operating theatres as well as space for outpatients, research, staff, families and support functions.

4.3 The existing Evelina building would remain and be connected to the new building. The training facilities within St Thomas’ house will be moved into new facilities that are currently under construction elsewhere on the hospital campus. The fitness centre would not be replaced as it is underutilised and considered to be surplus to requirements.

4.4 The applicant will provide a detailed presentation of the proposal.

5 Planning Performance Agreement

5.1 Guy’s and St Thomas’ Trust has entered into a Planning Performance Agreement with the Council. The PPA secures an enhanced pre-application process with a greater level of engagement. It consists of a number of key meetings:

 Meeting 1 – Developer meets Ward Councillors and planning officers to discuss the scheme and agree consultees and community representatives to invite to subsequent meeting  Meeting 2 – Ward Members and community representatives ask questions and provide comments on the scheme  Meeting 3 – Developer Presentation to PAC

5.2 The following meetings have taken place so far:

 6 October 2020 – Meeting 1  20 October 2020 – Design Review Panel  16 November 2020 – Meeting 2  15 December 2020 – Design Review Panel

5.3 The feedback from the above meetings is provided in Section 9 Consultations.

6 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 The site has extensive planning history relating to various works to the hospital. Below are some of the more notable applications:

Evelina London Children’s Hospital  00/01685/FUL – Demolition of Riddell House and ancillary outbuildings and construction of nine-storey building to be used as a children’s' hospital – Permitted 24 September 2001.

Lambeth Wing

Page 29

 13/01999/FUL – Extension and reconfiguration of St Thomas’ A&E department including internal rearrangement and erection of a ground floor glazed entrance and first floor staff facilities – Permitted 20 September 2013.

Block 9 and Prideaux

 16/02387/FUL - Demolition, alteration and refurbishment of existing buildings and structures and erection of new buildings and structures to provide academic and commercially flexible professional floorspace for medical education purposes (Class D1) and/or office space (Class B1) and a café (Class A3); in addition to landscaping and public realms works (including the removal of 3no. trees); alteration to existing and creation of new basements; utility and low carbon energy equipment; alterations to pedestrian access into the site; infrastructure and associated facilities of Block 9 and Prideaux building at the St Thomas Hospital Campus – Permitted 18 July 2016.

 16/02477/LB– Part demolition, alteration and refurbishment of existing buildings and structures and erection of new buildings and structures in association with the proposed redevelopment of Block 9 at the St Thomas Hospital Campus - Permitted 13 June 2016

 20/0084/FUL– Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to provide a part three, part four storey mixed-use development comprising research and development and educational uses and associated enabling landscape and public realm works. Demolition of the external access link between the grade II listed South Wing of St Thomas Hospital (Block 8) and the main entrance to the Prideaux Building development site, creation of new public walkway link and associated façade works to the south elevation of the South Wing (Block 8), demolition of security hut and substation adjoining Block 9 of St Thomas Hospital and associated facade works, demolition of part of boundary wall to Lambeth Palace Road and associated repair work. PENDING.

 20/00885/LB - Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to provide a part three, part four storey mixed-use development comprising research and development and educational uses and associated enabling landscape and public realm works. Demolition of the external access link between the grade II listed South Wing of St Thomas Hospital (Block 8) and the main entrance to the Prideaux Building development site, creation of new public walkway link and associated façade works to the south elevation of the South Wing (Block 8), demolition of security hut and substation adjoining Block 9 of St Thomas Hospital and associated facade works, demolition of part of boundary wall to Lambeth Palace Road and associated repair work. PENDING.

The Core Building

 19/01397/FUL – Demolition of existing single storey hospital building and erection of a new six storey (including plant level) hospital building (C2 use), alterations to existing access arrangements and associated public realm works. Permitted 21 December 2019

Temporary SaIL Facility

 20/02011/FUL – Erection of two storey temporary Simulation and Interactive Learning (SaIL) facility for five years together with alterations to existing access arrangements and associated public realm works. Permitted 20 August 2020

7 CONSULTATIONS

Page 30

7.1 Pre-application consultation has been undertaken by the Council as part of the enhanced PPA service and separately by the applicant.

7.2 Meeting 1 – Meeting with Ward Members

7.2.1 On 6 October 2020 the Council hosted a meeting between the applicant and ward councillors. The applicant presented the emerging proposal in detail and invited comments. No initial concerns were raised by ward councillors and recommendations were made on which local stakeholders to target for the next stage of engagement.

7.3 Design Review Panel

7.3.1 On 20 October 2020 the proposal was presented to the Design Review Panel. Below is the summary of the Panel’s advice:

 Hopkins’ Evelina Hospital (i.e. the existing hospital building) needs to inform the approach to architecture, materials and outlook. The experience of the hospital users at atrium level needs careful consideration.  An understanding of the effect on verified views is key going forward. The effect on views from Westminster Bridge is particularly sensitive given massing.  Panel generally supportive of the approach proposed to façades and materials. These need careful development in relation to detailing, finishes, solar consideration, visual interest etc.  The proposed activation street elevation to Lambeth Palace Road warmly welcomed, so too is the aspiration for further greening/pedestrian improvements here.  The role of the new entrance, its treatment and appearance will be important going forward.

7.4 Meeting 2 - Meeting with local representatives

7.4.1 On 16 November 2020 the Council hosted a meeting to allow the applicant to present the emerging proposals to a number of key local stakeholders. The following groups attended the meeting:

 Church of England  WeAreWaterloo  Southbank and Waterloo Neighbours  Westminster Society

7.4.2 The following questions and comments were raised:

 The relationship between the new building and the existing Evelina building  The number of staff, patients and visitors are expected and the associated impact on the local economy and on the transport network  The accessibility of the new building  Access onto Lambeth Palace Road and the potential for a new crossing  Whether this development forms part of a wider masterplan  What sustainability targets the development is aiming for and what sustainability measure would be implemented  How the building would have a positive impact locally

7.5 Second Design Review Panel

Page 31

7.5.1 On 15 December 2020 the proposal was put before the Design Review Panel a second time to allow the Panel review the evolution of the scheme. The Panel were supportive of the scheme overall:

 The lack of a masterplan for the hospital campus - with a clear rationale for why the choice of site and size of the new facility - is regrettable. However, the need for the hospital extension is accepted and the need to integrate with the existing Evelina building understood.  Given the size, the relationship with the river frontage and listed hospital building in foreground, as part of a ‘family’ of 3 hospital buildings, need careful consideration to minimise dominance.  The façade approach is strongly supported. The need to balance calmness and interest is understood. Encourage design development in line with panel’s detailed advice – degree of simplicity, materiality, weathering etc.  Art work at Evelina atrium level welcome. Needs careful integration into the facade.  Maintenance implications of whole-life costs important.  A clearer strategy for Lambeth Palace Road should be explored with TfL and following TfL meeting.  Further design development on Hospital Street to ensure adequate pedestrian experience is essential. How this flows into the internal foyer space needs to be fully understood.  Effective wind mitigation on the roof terrace is very important.  Panel would welcome opportunity to see the façade detailing prior to submission.

7.6 Consultation undertaken by the applicant

7.6.1 In addition to the above meetings the applicant is undertaking their own public consultation. To date the following have been undertaken:

 Set up of dedicated website www.evelinalondonisgrowing.co.uk  Distribution of newsletter to 2,900 household and business addresses by post  Three online consultation events

7.6.2 58 people registered and 41 attended the three online consultation events. 23 feedback have been received to date. 68 per cent of respondents stated that they support the plans for the new hospital building. Respondents also mentioned the need for coordinated construction management with neighbouring landowners, interest in the public realm and landscaping proposals and assertions that the deign should reflect its local setting.

8 Key Planning Issues

 Land Use – the expansion of healthcare and the development strategies of St Thomas’ Hospital to achieve the highest quality facilities are supported by the Local Plan

Relevant policies: Policies S2 and PN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan; Policy 3.17 of the London Plan; Policy S2 of the draft London Plan

 Design – a significant amount of floorspace is required to deliver the required facility and the site is very constrained. The building will need to be of the highest design quality.

Relevant policies: Policies Q1, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q26 of the Lambeth Local Plan; Policies 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.21 of the London Plan; Policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D8, D9, D11, D12 of the draft London Plan.

Page 32

 Conservation – the site is in a conservation area and in the settings of the Westminster World Heritage Site, a number of listed buildings and a registered park. It is also within a number of key views.

Relevant Polices: Policies Q19, Q20, Q21, Q22, Q23 of the Lambeth Local Plan; Policies 7.8, 7.10 and 7.12 of the London Plan; Policies HC1, HC2, HC3 and HC4 of the draft London Plan.

 Transport – the expansion of the hospital will result in increased numbers of patients, staff and visitors. The development will need to accommodate drop offs from ambulances, patient transport and private vehicles.

Relevant Policies: Policies T1, T2, T3, T4, T6, T7, T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan; Policies 6.3, 6.9, 6.10 and 6.13 of the London Plan; Policy T2, T4, T5, T6, T6.5, T7 of the draft London Plan

 Sustainability – the development will need to meet the latest standards for sustainability including those for carbon emissions, flood risk, drainage, urban green and ecology

Relevant policies: Policies EN1, EN3, EN4, EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan; Policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 of the London Plan; Policies G1, G5, G6, G7, SI1, SI2, SI4 and SI12 of the draft London Plan

9 Next Steps

9.1 Officers will continue to work with the applicant to develop the scheme. The applicant is aiming to submit the application in March/April 2021.

10 RECOMMENDATION

Page 33 Agenda Item 4

Page 34

ADDRESS: Arches 107-122 Brad Street And Wootton Street, London

Application Number: 20/02677/VOC Case Officer: Emily Leighton

Ward: Bishops Date Received: 11.08.2020

Proposal: Variation of condition 11 (Deliveries) of planning permission 02/03247/FUL (Change of use of railway arch units 107 to 122 to provide a mix of food and drink (use class A3), offices (use class B1), and leisure (use class D2) and the erection of a glazed front elevation to Wootton Street, installation of glazed frontages within arches fronting Brad Street, installation of CCTV cameras and roller shutter doors, two storey extension to arch unit 122 in existing enclosed yard fronting Cornwall Road and Wootton Street, installation of mezzanine floor levels to arch units 107 - 115b and 119 - 121, and associated external works to adjacent public highway and publicly access private road) granted on 22.09.2003.

Variation sought: Amend Condition 11 to read as follows: "No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 8am-6pm nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, with the exception of the property at 7 Wootton Street for which 1 no. delivery can be taken or dispatched from the Brad Street entrance between the hours of 5.45am and 8am, Monday to Friday.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties."

Propose the following two additional conditions:

"1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 5.45am and 8am on Saturdays no more than 5 mornings per calendar year."

"1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street or Wootton Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 6pm and 10pm on no more than 20 evenings per calendar year."

Applicant: Agent: c/o BDP BDP 16 Brewhouse Yard London EC1V 4LJ

RECOMMENDATION

1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission.

2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.

3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

Page 35

SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations: Flood Zone 3 Local View Designations  Brixton Panoramic – from Battersea Park to The Gherkin and Canary Wharf  Gypsy Hill – Gypsy Hill to Canary Wharf  Norwood Park – NNE – From Norwood Park to the City Waterloo Opportunity Area Central Activities Zone Neighbourhood Planning Area Southbank and Waterloo Air Quality Focus Area Area of Open Space Deficiency Adjacent site designations: Conservation Area  Roupell Street Conservation Area: CA21 (to the north)  Waterloo Conservation Area: CA34 (to the north-east) Listed Buildings Grade II Listed buildings (to the north of the site):  22 Cornwall Road  26-42 Roupell Street  25 Roupell Street (The Kings Arms PH)  24 Roupell Street  1-23 Roupell Street

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area (ha): Parent application site approximately 4879.5sqm 432.79sqm (site boundary for 7 Wootton Street)

NON-RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (m2) (Gross Internal Area) Existing (at 7 B1(a) Office N/A – no change in Wootton Street floorspace for this Only) application Proposed (at 7 B1(a) Office N/A – no change in Wootton Street floorspace for this Only) application

LEGAL SERVICES CLEARANCE

AUDIT TRAIL Consultation Name/Position Lambeth Date Sent Date Report Comments in department Received Cleared para: Susan Boucher Legal Services 30.12.2020 30.12.2020 07.01.2021 Throughout Lawyer Page 36

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application site is known as Arches 107- 122 Brad Street and Wootton Street. The parent application for the arches is 02/03247/FUL which consented a range of uses (B1, A3 and D2) within the arches.

The applicant will be occupying the arch known as 7 Wootton Street, which is one arch within the parent application site. This arch was permitted as B1 use and the occupier is proposing to retain this use. Due to the nature of the B1 use, the occupier of 7 Wootton Street requires one early morning collection from those premises between 5.45am to 8am on Mondays to Fridays and exceptionally on Saturdays. As such, the applicant has applied for a variation to Condition 11 of 02/03247/FUL as this has consented hours for delivery to or collection from the unit of 8am to 6pm Monday-Friday and not at weekends.

The proposal would allow for one early morning collection from 7 Wootton Street between the hours of 5.45am and 8am Monday to Friday (amendment to condition 11), and in emergencies, up to five Saturday morning collections per calendar year (proposed condition 32). The applicant’s noise assessments submitted during the course of the application, including the baseline noise assessment submitted on 18.12.2020, demonstrate that the ambient noise at 7 Wootton Street is such that the additional early morning collection would not result in detrimental noise to the adjacent Roupell Street residential properties.

The original condition was placed on the decision notice to protect the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties. Whilst the reason for the condition is acknowledged, the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed early morning collections would not result in noise levels over and above the existing ambient noise levels at 7 Wootton Street, and would therefore comply with Policy Q2 of the adopted Lambeth Local Plan (2015)

An additional condition is proposed for evening collections to be undertaken from either the Brad Street or Wootton Street entrance of 7 Wootton Street between the hours of 6pm and 10pm no more than 20 times per calendar year (in total, across both entrances combined). It is considered that these collections would not result in impacts to the residential amenity, given the baseline ambient noise environment at 7 Wootton Street at this time of day.

It is proposed to impose a condition requiring the additional early morning collections authorised by the new conditions are to be undertaken by electric vehicle unless, exceptionally, no electric vehicle is available. The applicant would be required by condition to keep a log of the times of these additional collections and the type of vehicle used for these collections.

It is not proposed to restrict the type of vehicle to be used for the additional evening collections, in view of the proposed times of operation and the limited number of times per year these collections would be able to be carried out. The applicant would however be required by condition to keep a log of the times of these additional collections and the type of vehicle used for these collections.

The proposal could result in up to 285 additional collections to 7 Wootton Street per year, that is, additional to any deliveries or collections undertaken during the 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday delivery timings consented under the parent application of 02/03247/FUL.

Officers are of the view that the proposed additional collections would not result in harm to the free/efficient movement of traffic, cyclists or pedestrians (i.e. traffic congestion) or the safe operation of the local highway/footway network and would therefore accord with Policies T6, T7 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the London Plan Policy T7.

Page 37

The development consented by the parent permission was granted in 2004 under planning policies applicable at that time and was completed some years ago. It is not therefore proposed to re-attach the original condition requiring the development to be commenced within a specified period of time. Other conditions that continue to be required in order to control the operation of the development have been updated to reflect current planning policies and an informative is proposed that cross- refers to the earlier discharge of details for certain of the conditions.

Overall, the proposal would not result in detrimental impacts to the residential amenity of Roupell Street and Wootton Street residents, nor would it result in detrimental impacts to the traffic or pedestrian safety and would accord with the policies of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the London Plan. Nor would the proposal result in harm to any heritage assets. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

Page 38

OFFICER REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: The application is reported to the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with (4) of the Committee’s terms of reference as it relates to ‘any application where a specific written request is made by any Member of the Council for the case to be reported to the Committee, where in the opinion of the Chair (in consultation with the Head of Development Management) there is a material planning reason for doing so’. The reasons given by the Chair was that there are enough questions remaining regarding the specific noise impact that this VOC application may propose to the residential amenity of the area.

THE APPLICATION SITE

The application site is located within the arches beneath Waterloo East Station. The site is bound by Brad Street to the north, Wootton Street to the south and adjacent railways arches to the east and west. The application site for the parent application (02/03247/FUL) consists of Arches 107-122 Brad Street and Wootton Street and in this report is referred to as “the Site”. The applicant seeks to vary conditions for one unit within the Site, known as 7 Wootton Street or 120 Brad Street (referred to in this report as “7 Wootton Street”). 7 Wootton Street has access from both the Brad Street and Wootton Street elevations. 7 Wootton Street is currently vacant, however the consented land use for the unit is B1 Use (office). The remainder of the arches are in mixed uses arising from the granting of 02/03247/FUL (use classes A3, B1 and D2).

7 Wootton Street is comprised of a ground floor open space with raised mezzanine area. The Wootton Street arch elevation is fully glazed with a double door entrance. The Brad Street elevation includes a secondary double door entrance with glazing at ground floor level and a combination of frosted glazing and louvres at upper level. Both the Brad and Wootton Street elevations have roller shutters.

The Site is not located within a Conservation Area, nor does it contain any statutorily listed buildings. The Site is located adjacent to the Roupell Street Conservation Area and faces the rear gardens of the residential properties along Roupell Street which are all Grade II Listed.

The Site is subject to local views designations under Lambeth Local Plan (2015) Policy Q25 (from Battersea Park to the Gherkin and Canary Wharf, from Gypsy Hill to Canary Wharf, and from Norwood Park to the City).

THE SURROUNDING AREA

To the north of the Site is the Roupell Street Conservation Area and the Grade II Listed Buildings along Roupell Street (see Figure 1). The majority of Roupell Street adjacent the Site is in residential use, except for 25 Roupell Street which is a Public House and 22 Cornwall Road which is a bakery. Page 39

Figure 1: Location of 7 Wootton Street (shaded in green) within the Site (shaded in blue) in relation to the Roupell Street Conservation Area (part) and Grade II Listed Buildings outlined respectively in purple and in red.

To the south of the Site are residential properties (Ethelm House, Ospringe House, Windmill House). It is noted that planning permission 16/06172/FUL for these sites has been permitted on 22.08.2019 for a phased development to demolish the existing buildings and construct a 7 to 12 storey scheme providing 215 dwellings (C3 use), theatre rehearsal space (sui generis use), office space (B1a(c) use).

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure 2: Front elevation of Brad Street entrance (7 Wootton Street) which face the rear elevations of Roupell Street. Page 40

Figure 3: View of Brad Street from the intersection with Cornwall Road.

Figure 4: View of aches from the junction of Wootton Street and Cornwall Road.

Page 41

Figure 5: Front elevation of 7 Wootton Street on the Wootton Street elevation.

PROPOSAL

The applicant proposes to vary Condition 11 of the parent application 02/03247/FUL to allow for changes to the servicing and delivery to 7 Wootton Street.

The applicant proposes the following further two conditions:

"1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 5.45am and 8am on Saturdays no more than 5 mornings per calendar year."

"1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street or Wootton Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 6pm and 10pm on no more than 20 evenings per calendar year."

To ensure the efficient operation of 7 Wootton Street, the applicant submitted a Service and Delivery Statement Rev A dated 10th August 2020 which sets out the servicing and delivery shown in Figure 6. This Statement also includes the detailed mitigation measures the occupier of 7 Wootton Street will undertake to ensure that the proposed additional collections from 7 Wootton Street will not result in harm to the amenities of the nearby residential properties. The table below shows the servicing and deliveries proposed that will be undertaken from the Brad Street entrance of 7 Wootton Street and sets out the vehicle types and estimated times and durations that these deliveries will occur, along with the mode of transport for each collection/delivery. It is noted that the proposed variation to Condition 11 does not include refuse collections and as such the refuse collections outlined in the table in Figure 6 are shown for completeness only and are not proposed as part of this application (refuse and waste collections are controlled under different conditions in the parent application).

Page 42

Figure 6: Proposed time/duration and vehicle types for servicing and deliveries to 7 Wootton Street.

The table in Figure 6 proposes that the majority of the collections will be undertaken by a small courier van (Type 1), refuse/recycling will be undertaken by a private company using a heavy goods vehicle (Type 4), one delivery will be undertaken by a delivery van with a tail lift (Type 2) and the rare evening hour deliveries would be undertaken by a small van/courier (Type 3). These details are set out in the Service and Delivery Statement Rev A dated 10th August 2020 and are proposed to be secured under a new condition (number 35). The vehicle types are set out in Figure 7.

Figure 7: The proposed delivery vehicle types for the proposed servicing and delivery in Figure 6. Page 43

Condition 11 of the parent application 02/03247/FUL reads as follows:

No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 8am - 6pm nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.)

The applicant initially proposed to amend Condition 11 (amended in bold) to read as follows:

No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 8am - 6pm nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, with the exception of the property at 7 Wootton Street for which 1 no. delivery can be taken or dispatched from the Brad Street entrance between the hours of 5.45am and 8am, Monday to Friday.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties.

The applicant has advised that the early morning ‘slot’ would involve collection only from 7 Wootton Street, not delivery to it, and that this would be undertaken by an electric vehicle. As such, Officers propose the amended wording to clarify the condition relates to 1 collection from 7 Wootton Street:

11. No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 8am - 6pm nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, with the exception of the property at 7 Wootton Street for which 1 no. delivery can collected from the Brad Street entrance between the hours of 5.45am and 8am Monday to Friday to be undertaken only by an electric vehicle unless exceptionally an electric vehicle is not available.

The occupier of 7 Wootton Street is to maintain a log (for the duration of the collection hereby permitted) for the collection undertaken between the hours of 5.45am and 8am which shall contain the following information:

 Dates and timings of collections;  Vehicle Type (including that the vehicle is electric and in the exceptional instances when it is not, why).

This log is to be made available the Local Planning Authority at their request and the collection hereby permitted from 7 Wootton Street shall not operate in the absence of the maintenance of the said log.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

The applicant has advised that the changes to Condition 11 are required approximately 32 weeks of the year, where the unit requires an early morning collection Mondays – Friday from 5.45am.

The early morning collection may also be required on Saturdays, noting that this would be a rare occasion. To allow for these rare occasions, the applicant proposes the following new additional condition:

1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 5.45am and 8am on Saturdays no more than 5 mornings per calendar year.

Page 44

The applicant has confirmed that the Saturday morning collection would also be undertaken by an electric vehicle. It is proposed to amend the condition to add the words shown in bold to make it clear that the five mornings is the total number of Saturday early morning collections from the Brad Street entrance. This condition would be number 32:

32. 1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 5.45am and 8am on Saturdays no more than 5 mornings per calendar year to be undertaken only by an electric vehicle unless exceptionally an electric vehicle is not available.

 Dates and timings of collections;  Vehicle Type (including that the vehicle is electric and in the exceptional instances when it is not, why).

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

In instances where an urgent collection is required, items would need to be collected from 7 Wootton Street at short notice in the evenings between the hours of 6pm and 10pm. These collections would be undertaken at either the Wootton Street or Brad Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street.

To allow for the urgent evening deliveries, the applicant proposes the following additional condition:

1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street or Wootton Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 6pm and 10pm on no more than 20 evenings per calendar year.

It is proposed to amend the condition to add the words shown in bold to make it clear that the 20 evenings is the total number of evening collections across both entrances combined; this condition would be number 33:

33. 1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street or Wootton Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 6pm and 10pm on no more than 20 evenings per calendar year across both entrances combined.

The Occupier of 7 Wootton Street shall maintain a log (for the duration of the collection hereby permitted) for the collection undertaken between the hours of 6pm and 10pm which shall contain the following information:

 Dates and timings of collections;  Vehicle Type.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Page 45

For the current occupier of 7 Wootton Street, the early morning weekday and rare Saturday morning collections would consist of 30-80 x A4 boxes containing paper and would take about 20 minutes. However, Members should note that the proposed conditions do not control the type of goods being collected or the duration of each collection.

For the current occupier, the late-night collections between 6pm and 10pm would be small consignments usually limited to one box and would be collected from the Brad Street or Wootton Street entrance. Again, Members should note that the proposed condition does not seek to control the type of goods to be collected or the duration of each collection.

Refuse and Recycling

The applicant advised in their email to officers on 06.11.2020 clarifying that the noise assessment had been amended to exclude an assessment of the noise for any refuse collections, advising that this element was not part of the current application and had been included for information purposes only. It is noted that the parent application does not contain any conditions relating to refuse and recycling except for Condition 12 which requires the following:

Bins shall only be placed outside of the refuse stores at collecting times.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residents in Roupell Street.

Mitigation Measures

The applicant has proposed the following mitigation measures set out in their Servicing and Delivery Statement Rev A (“SDS”) dated 10th August 2020, which relates specifically to the servicing and deliveries to 7 Wootton Street, to help mitigate any potential noise impacts arising to the adjacent residents:

 Switching off engines of delivery vehicles to prevent idling;  Switching off voice reversing alarm systems to prevent nuisance noise during the early hours;  Use of resilient wheels on roller cages or manual handling of items from storage to delivery vehicles if necessary;  Application of resilient strip to roller shutters providing this does not compromise fire ratings where needed;  Clear signage indicating that the operations are in a residential area and to keep noise levels to a minimum.

The SDS is proposed to be secured by condition no. 35.

The applicant stated in an email to officers dated 14.12.2020 that the early morning collection proposed for Monday to Friday and proposed Saturday morning collections would be undertaken by a small electric vehicle, further reducing any noise impacts to the adjacent residential properties. Officers propose that this is added into the wording of conditions 11 and 32 (as shown above) to secure the type of vehicle to be used.

Amendments

The SDS was missing the vehicle Type 4 from the appendix. The applicant sent an updated version with the corrected appendix on 20.08.2020. Re-consultation for the application was undertaken on 21.08.2020.

Page 46

The application was reconsulted on for a period of 14-days from 09.11.2020 following the submission of an amended Noise Impact Assessment of Delivery/Collection Activities Rev P05 dated 06.11.2020 which was received on 06.11.2020. The amendments included the following changes:

 Clarification of specifics of the 5.45am collection e.g. collection of paper and changed references from “delivery” to “collection”  Provide greater detail on the location of the residential properties to the collection location  Clarification of assessment methodology, including further details on the World Health Organisation (WHO) requirements and that the impact of the collections is negligible in the context of the WHO Night Noise Guidelines  Included sourced noise levels and included these in Appendix II of the Noise Impact Assessment of Delivery/Collection Activities Rev P05 dated 06.11.2020  Removed reference to waste collection which does not form part of the s73 application.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/00468/FUL - Change of use of railway arch units 107 to 122 to a mix of food and drink (use class A3), business (use class B1), and leisure (use class D2) and erection of glazed front elevation to Wootton Street, installation of glazed frontages within arches fronting Brad Street, installation of CCTV cameras and roller shutters doors, two storey extension to arch unit 122 in existing enclosed yard fronting Cornwall Road and Wootton Street, installation of mezzanine floor levels to arch units 107-115b and 119-121, and associated external works to adjacent public highway and publicly accessible private road. Application permitted 05.11.2001.

02/03247/FUL - Change of use of railway arch units 107 to 122 to provide a mix of food and drink (use class A3), offices (use class B1), and leisure (use class D2) and the erection of a glazed front elevation to Wootton Street, installation of glazed frontages within arches fronting Brad Street, installation of CCTV cameras and roller shutter doors, two storey extension to arch unit 122 in existing enclosed yard fronting Cornwall Road and Wootton Street, installation of mezzanine floor levels to arch units 107 - 115b and 119 - 121, and associated external works to adjacent public highway and publicly access private road. Application was considered by the Planning Applications Committee on 25.03.2003 and the application was permitted 22.09.2003.

The applicant appealed Condition 18 of the decision (ref: APP/N5660/A/04/1146484) which referred to the opening hours of the A3 use. The Inspector noted that the A3 use was limited to Arch 122 with the approved hours being 9am to 11pm daily. The Inspector considered that the main issue would be whether the change to the approved opening hours from 9am-11pm daily to 07:00-24:00 daily would unacceptably affect the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearby dwellings in respect of noise and general disturbance. The Inspector considered that the earlier opening hour of 07:00 would not unacceptably add to the existing level of noise and disturbance of the day-to-day activities of the area. The Inspector noted on the matter of the evening hours, that extending beyond 23:00 would introduce late night activity into a primarily residential street away from the main areas of night time economy uses that are currently situated beyond the immediate locality. The Inspector upheld the appeal on 08.11.2004, deleting the approved Condition 18 and replacing it with the following new condition:

The A3 use in Arch 122 hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times: 0700 hours to 2300 hours Sunday to Saturday.

03/00219/DET - Discharge of condition 3 of planning permission 01/00468/FUL relating to external finishes. Application permitted 08.05.2003.

Page 47

03/00220/DET - Discharge of conditions 5 and 22 of planning permission 01/00468/FUL relating to hard and soft landscaping details and cycle parking stands respectively. Application Permitted 31.10.2003.

03/01528/DET - Approval of details for the discharge of Condition 7 permission ref. 01/00468/FUL in respect of lighting. Application withdrawn 15.10.2003.

03/00217/DET - Discharge of condition 2 of planning permission 01/00468/FUL relating to areas not covered by buildings- car parking, loading, unloading, gates, walls, fences and refuse storage. Application Permitted 05.11.2003.

03/02830/DET – Approval of details, pursuant to Condition 7 of planning permission ref. 02/03247/FUL, in respect of lighting. Application permitted 17.11.2003.

03/02973/DET – Approval of details pursuant of condition 29 & 30 of planning permission ref 02/03247/FUL granted 22.09.2003 in respect of ventilation louvres and Windmill Walk elevations. Application permitted 18.11.2003

03/02974/DET – Approval of details pursuant of Condition 2, 5 and 22 of planning permission ref 02/03247/FUL granted 22.09.2003 in respect of vehicle parking, hard and soft landscaping and bicycle parking/storage. Application permitted 18.11.2003.

03/03439/DET - Approval of details pursuant of Condition 4 (Sound proofing, insulation & means of fume extraction) and Condition 14 (plant sound insulation) of Planning Permission 02/03247/FUL granted 22/09/2003. Application withdrawn 17.02.2004.

03/03172/FUL – Application for variation of condition 18 (hours of operation) of planning permission 02/03247/FUL, granted on 22/09/2003, to allow operation between the hours of 06.00am – 12am Sunday to Wednesday and 06.00am – 1.00am Thursday to Saturday. Application refused on 22.03.2004 for the following reason:

1) The proposed extension of the opening hours of this restaurant would likely give rise to noise and general disturbance at unsociable hours, to the detriment of the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to polices S14 and ENV19 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development plan (1998) and policies 7, 29, and 48 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2002-2017).

03/02970/DET – Approval of details pursuant of Condition 24 of planning permission ref 02/03247/FUL granted 22.09.2003 in respect of external surfaces and service controls. Application permitted 02.04.2004.

03/02972/DET – Approval of details pursuant of Condition 28 of planning permission 02/03247/FUL granted 22.09.2003 in respect of installation of an automatic vehicle barrier. Application permitted 15.06.2004.

04/00926/FUL – Application for variation of condition 18 (hours of operation) of planning permission 02/03247/FUL, granted on 22/09/2003, to allow operation between the hours of 07.00-23.00 daily for the corner café use (revised application). Application permitted 15.07.2004.

Page 48

04/03035/DET - Part Approval of details pursuant to condition 4a (soundproofing), b (insulation), c (fume extraction) and condition 14 (plant/machinery) of planning permission 02/3247/FUL (Change of use of railway arch units 107 to 122 to provide a mix of food and drink (use class A3), offices (use class B1), and leisure (use class D2) and the erection of a glazed front elevation to Wootton Street, installation of glazed frontages within arches fronting Brad Street, installation of CCTV cameras and roller shutter doors, two storey extension to arch unit 122 in existing enclosed yard fronting Cornwall Road and Wootton Street, installation of mezzanine floor levels to arch units 107 - 115b and 119 - 121, and associated external works to adjacent public highway and publicly access private road) granted on 22.09.2003. Application permitted 01.12.2004.

It is noted that the decision notice for this application carries the following note to the applicant: The discharge of this condition relates only to the office (B1) use of planning permission ref: 02/03247/FUL. The swimming pool (D2) and food and drink (A3) uses require discharge under appropriate conditions of that permission.

04/03048/DET - Approval of details, pursuant to condition 25 (Cleaning/maintenance) of planning permission 02/03247/FUL - (Change of use of railway arch units 107 to 122 to provide a mix of food and drink (use class A3), offices (use class B1), and leisure (use class D2) and the erection of a glazed front elevation to Wootton Street, installation of glazed frontages within arches fronting Brad Street, installation of CCTV cameras and roller shutter doors, two storey extension to arch unit 122 in existing enclosed yard fronting Cornwall Road and Wootton Street, installation of mezzanine floor levels to arch units 107 - 115b and 119 - 121, and associated external works to adjacent public highway and publicly access private road) granted on the 22.09.2003. Application permitted 20.12.2004.

05/02997/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 28 (Automatic barrier) of Planning Permission 02/03247/FUL (Change of use of railway arch units 107 to 122 to provide a mix of food and drink (use class A3), offices (use class B1), and leisure (use class D2) and the erection of a glazed front elevation to Wootton Street, installation of glazed frontages within arches fronting Brad Street, installation of CCTV cameras and roller shutter doors, two storey extension to arch unit 122 in existing enclosed yard fronting Cornwall Road and Wootton Street, installation of mezzanine floor levels to arch units 107 - 115b and 119 - 121, and associated external works to adjacent public highway and publicly access private road.) granted 22/09/2003. Application permitted 16.11.2005.

5.18 20/01169/FUL - External alterations including replacement glazing, louvres and entrance doors and installation of CCTV cameras. Application permitted 02.06.2020. Page 49

CONSULTATIONS

Statutory External Consultees

Noting that the application has been reconsulted on three times during the course of the application, only the most relevant comments from the consultees have been added below for clarity.

Historic England – Advised on 11.09.2020 that the application does not fall within one of their assessment categories and notification not required.

Veolia Waste – 23.11.2020 - Waste collection times will need to be agreed with chosen contractor- plans state that a private contractor will be used. A certain amount of noise during collection is unavoidable- especially when collecting glass recyclables. Collection times will need to be agreed with chosen contractor to mitigate impact.

London Borough of Southwark – 11.09.2020 - No objection to proposal.

EHST Noise Pollution Officer – No objections raised. Final comments 20.12.2020: As expected, the new data in the Baseline Environmental Noise Survey Update submitted by the applicant on 18.12.2020 responding to objections that the previous noise surveys were taken at a time that was not relevant to the early morning collections confirms the ambient noise is higher at the relevant periods than described in the original survey.

This is something to be expected given the increasing number of train movements at this time of day. The survey also notes other activity such as vehicle pass-bys and pedestrians.

The maximum noise levels measured in the periods around the 5:45am proposed collection time was 64dB. From the log these events coincided with multiple train pass-bys.

The new data also indicates that the most significant impact of the collection activity would be the potential to cause awakening through elevated maximum noise events. However, it confirms that assumptions in the Noise Impact Assessment of Delivery/Collection Activities report dated 06 November 2020 were representative of actual noise conditions.

The report's conclusion that the impact of maximum noise levels of the proposed collections would present a low risk of disturbance to the adjacent residential properties and can therefore be considered to representative of the noise impacts of the proposed collection activity.

The Baseline Environmental Noise Survey includes a description of activities occurring in the vicinity at the time collection would occur. This illustrates that the component elements of the limited collection activity would not be readily noticeable.

Provided the loading activity is limited and controlled as set out in Section 8 of the Noise Impact Assessment of Delivery/Collection Activities report, it is considered there would be a low risk of adverse noise impact.

Officer Comment: Officers note the EHST Noise Pollution Officer Comments and that the Baseline Noise Survey has demonstrated that the ambient noise levels at the site would be such that the early morning delivery would not result in significant noise impacts to adjacent residential occupiers. In line with the comments, Officers have recommended Condition 35 requiring all servicing and deliveries to the Site are to be in line with the Servicing and Delivery Statement Rev A dated 10th August 2020.

Page 50

Internal Consultees

Design and Conservation – 10.11.2020 - Advised that as there were no changes to design, there was no objection.

Lambeth Transport – 4.12.2020 – No objection to proposal. The current application seeks up to 305 potential additional vehicle movements per year (less than one per day). Working set out as follows:

(A) 1 no. (additional) collection at 5.45am Monday to Friday. So, this makes 5 per week.

(B) The flexibility for evening collections between 6pm and 10pm up to a maximum of 20 evenings per year; and

(C) The flexibility for 1 no. early morning Saturday collection up to a maximum of 5 per year. These would only be required on rare occasions To conclude, potential (i.e. worst case scenario) trip generation: (A) 5 per week = (52 x 5) = 260/year + (B) 40 (assuming perhaps 2 collections on each of those 20 evenings) + (C) 5

= 305 potential (additional) vehicular movements per year (less than one per day)

Regarding the photographs in LERA’s (Lambeth Estate Residents Association – photographs from the objection are shown in Figure 14) objection showing the vehicles overtaking on Brad Street - this is a common occurrence on the streets of inner London. The footway the refuse vehicle is “over- running” has been designed to accommodate such movements (i.e. there is no vertical kerb-face). There is no pedestrian footfall on the footway opposite the arches. Pedestrians use the “formal” footway, adjacent to the arches.

Occurrences such as the one captured in LERA’s objection will be few and far between/quite rare. The vans are loading/unloading and are not breaking any traffic laws. Vehicles are permitted/able to do this on double yellow line waiting restrictions, that is Lambeth Policy.

The proposal doesn’t introduce a severe/detrimental impact on either (a) The free/efficient movement of traffic, cyclists or pedestrians (i.e. traffic congestion) or (b) The safe operation of the local highway/footway network, as per National Planning Policy tests for highways objections to planning applications.

Officer Comment: It is noted that the Transport officer has quoted that the additional deliveries could result in up to 305 potential additional movements per day. Where the applicant has requested evening deliveries between 6-8pm up to 20 times per year, the Transport Officer has assumed 2 collections on each of these times (so up to 40 collections, treating one collection as one vehicle movement). However, it is noted that the applicant has requested that this condition is worded only for one collection, a total of no more than 20 collections, so the Transport Officer has estimated a higher number of trips to 7 Wootton Street than the applicant is proposing. Regardless, the Transport Officer states that the proposal would not result in transport impacts, even when including their higher estimated trip generation.

Page 51

Lambeth Noise Pollution – No objections raised. Final comments 18.12.2020: I have looked at the noise measurement report, the background noise level has increased by 8 dB(A), which is a considerable increase in noise level in the area. Subjective observations show traffic movement on Brad Street. The result shows that Leq and L90 are high already, this means noise from the delivery van has no negative impact on residential properties nearby.

Planning Enforcement Team – 30.11.2020: Proposed conditions would be enforceable and able to be monitored if additional text added to each additional condition or a further condition requiring that a log be maintained of the dates/times/delivery company/vehicle details etc for each of the collections associated with those conditions and that log be made available to the LPA on request.

Officer Comment: Additional wording has been added to Conditions 11, 32 and 33 to require the applicant to keep and maintain a log of all collections from 7 Wootton Street in line with the Planning Enforcement Officers’ comments.

Sustainability Team on Air Quality – 13.10.2020. No objections on air quality grounds to deliveries through the night as exposure to additional emissions from delivery vehicles will be low. The gardens of residential properties back on to Brad Street and allowing deliveries all of Sunday will encourage Sunday delivery at only the Brad Street entrance when people are more likely to be using their gardens. Delivery vehicles are known to idle and this seems like a potential source of unnecessary exposure to pollutants. Limiting delivery hours would encourage limitation of number of deliveries needed and lifting restrictions at the Brad St entrance only will mean that all deliveries are likely to be directed here. Main concern would be all deliveries being directed to Brad Street at times when people will be using the area around i.e. weekends.

Officer Comment: The Air Quality comments are noted. The applicant is proposing to undertake the early morning collections with an electric vehicle and as such would result in a reduction of pollutants arising from this activity. Furthermore, as the Site is located within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) a condition will be added to the Decision Notice which requires that no non-mobile machinery are to be operated on the Site (that is, the parent application site) unless it is compliant with the NRMM Low Emission Zone Requirements and has been registered on the NRMM register. The condition is proposed as Condition 34. This requirement reflects a current policy requirement for applications in the CAZ that was not in place at the time of the original parent application.

Other Consultees

Lambeth Estate Residents Association (LERA) – A revised objection, which included photographs (see Figure 14), was received on 23.09.2020. A summary of the objection is set out as follows:  The proposed changes to Condition 11 would harm the amenity of the residents living on Roupell Street;  The applicant has chosen an unsuitable premises for their operations and should choose another location within the Lambeth Borough which would not harm adjacent residential properties;  The volume and duration of the vehicles servicing the arch pose a serious risk to public safety. Applicant proposing an increase in deliveries from the previous occupier of the unit;  LERA has undertaken an independent noise review of the applicants submitted noise surveys and notes that the survey undertaken at a time not relevant to the proposed early morning collection time;  Proposed noise mitigation measures are not enforceable;  Proposed vehicle types are vague;  Applicant has failed to consult LERA and individual residents before submitting their previous planning application;  The proposal does not accord with policies – LERA have engaged an independent planning consultancy, Line Planning, to submit an objection on behalf of LERA; Page 52

 The occupier is not a Small to Medium Enterprise and should not be occupying the arch. Therefore the occupier should consider an alternative site within the Borough;  The applicant should be embracing technology and should not be producing printing which is counter intuitive to tackling climate change.  Have had Adnitt Acoustics undertake an independent review of the applicants Noise Impact Assessment which concluded that the applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment was inadequate and should have been undertaken closer to the relevant 5.45am collection time, an assessment of the loading and unloading activities to demonstrate that the noise impact is suitably controlled, and an explanation as to why it was not possible to obtain representative noise levels.

Officer Comment: The objection from LERA is noted. A full assessment on the amenities of adjacent occupiers has been undertaken within Section 8.4 of this report. Officers consider that the applicant has clearly demonstrated that the early morning collection from 7 Wootton Street would not result in harmful amenity impacts to the adjacent residential occupiers. Furthermore, the applicant has now confirmed that the proposed early morning collections would be undertaken by electric vehicles unless exceptionally an electric vehicle is unavailable – this is to be secured in Conditions 11 and 32. The location of the applicant’s business is not a material planning consideration for this application. The Transport Officer has advised that there is not transport objection to the application. Conditions have been reviewed by the Planning Enforcement Team who have advised on additional wording to ensure that the conditions are enforceable and can be monitored. The consultation process of previous applications is not a material consideration for this application. The matter of whether the applicant is or should be going paperless for their business is not a material planning consideration for this application. The Adnitt Acoustic Review of the applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment was reviewed by the Council’s Noise Pollution Officers who advised that whilst the assessment was undertaken at a different time to the proposed 5.45am collection, the 1am survey demonstrates that the ambient noise levels would be less than that at 5.45am. A further baseline noise assessment was submitted on 18.12.2020 demonstrating that the ambient noise levels at the time of the 5.45am early morning collection would be 8 dB higher than the noise levels of the initial survey. The Noise Officers are satisfied that the mitigation measures set out in the SDS would sufficiently mitigate any noise impacts, along with the use of an electric vehicle.

Line Planning on behalf of LERA. – Submitted a formal objection on behalf of LERA on 17.09.2020. A summary of this objection is set out as follows:

 B1 use of the site is only lawful if it can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area;  The applicant did not carry out consultation with LERA or residents prior to submitting this application or the previous application (20/01169);  Proposed conditions are impossible to monitor;  Significant transport impacts, including impacts on pedestrian safety, will arise from the cumulative total of deliveries in the region of 1,845 per year – compared to the previous occupier which was typically in the region of 100-150 deliveries per year;  Proposal will alter the acoustic character of the area and will impact residential amenity, adversely affecting the Roupell Street Conservation Area;  Occupier of the arch unsuitable for this area – should search for another site that is more suitable and will not impact residents. Furthermore, the occupier is not defined as an SME (Small to Medium Enterprise) and should not be occupying a railway arch;  Conditions as worded are unenforceable.

Page 53

Officer Comment: The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal would not result in noise impacts to the detriment of the amenity of adjacent residential occupiers and as such would accord with the requirements of Use Class B1. An assessment on noise impacts has been undertaken in Section 8.4 of the report. The applicant is not obliged to undertake community consultation/neighbour notification prior to submitting a planning application if they do not wish to do so and it is further noted that the current application has been consulted on in accordance with the Statement for Community Involvement. The Transport Officer has reviewed the application and advised that there are no transport issues arising from the proposal. An assessment is set out in Section 8.5 of the report. The location of the applicant’s business is not a material consideration for this application.

Councillor Objections

Two Councillor objections (representing 3 Councillors) were received to the proposal. A summary of their objections are set out below:

 Condition 11 should not be amended – would allow for deliveries to change from the hours of 8am-6pm to 5.45am to 10pm. The original timings were implemented to protect residential amenity. Noise Impact Assessment submitted by applicants cannot be relied on as an independent expert for LERA has advised that British Standards for measuring loading and unloading have not been used, readings taken were too short and not at relevant times and the quoted vehicles noises has been questioned;  Previous occupier of the arch typically received 100-150 deliveries per year. Proposed use will result in 24-hour operation and will result in 1,845 deliveries per year (285 deliveries at times not currently permitted) and 2 waste collections a day from 6am;  Concerned about delivery vehicles being parked on Brad Street up to 1hr 45mins per day and due to 4.2m wide road, vehicles have to mount pavement to pass which would impact on public safety;  LERA’s town planning consultant has raised concerns that the proposed new conditions are impractical for the council to monitor and may be unlawful;  Raised concern that the applicant has made a poor choice with the location of their chosen premises as there are other areas that would be more suitable.

Officer Comment: The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal would not result in noise impacts to the detriment of the amenity of adjacent residential occupiers. An assessment on noise impacts has been undertaken in Section 8.4 of the report. The Transport Officer has reviewed the application and advised that there are no transport issues arising from the proposal. Furthermore, the previous occupier of the arch is not a material planning consideration for this application. An assessment is set out in Section 8.5 of the report. The conditions have been re-worded on the advice of the Planning Enforcement Officers in order for them to be able to be monitored and enforced. The location of the applicant’s business is not a material consideration for this application.

MP Objections

An objection was received on 24.09.2020 from MP Florence Eshalomi. A summary of the objection is set out as follows:  Consider that the area is not suited to housing light industry activities and that the occupier could find a more suitable site;  Removal of condition 11 would be unacceptable and extending and expanding the delivery times to the earlier time of 5.45am and later time of 10pm is unacceptable and would impact residential amenity;  Inadequate noise assessment submitted by applicant – does not relate to the relevant time of delivery;  Increase in the deliveries from previous occupier unacceptable;  Brad Street is not wide enough for vehicles to pass and will have to mount pavement; Page 54

 New condition wording unacceptable as does not denote the types of vehicles that will undertake the early morning deliveries.

Officer Comment: The applicant is not applying to change the use of 7 Wootton Street from the consented B1 use. On a section 73 application of the present type it is not open to the local planning authority to reconsider the principle of the land use consented by the parent planning permission. The applicant is not proposing the removal of Condition 11, but the variation of the condition to allow earlier collections from 7 Wootton Street. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal would not result in noise impacts to the detriment of the amenity of adjacent residential occupiers. An assessment on noise impacts has been undertaken in Section 8.4 of the report. The Transport Officer has reviewed the application and advised that there are no transport issues arising from the proposal. Furthermore, the previous occupier of the arch is not a material planning consideration for this application. An assessment is set out in Section 8.5 of the report. The conditions have been re- worded on the advice of the Planning Enforcement Officers in order for them to be able to be monitored and enforced. The location of the applicant’s business is not a material consideration for this application.

Adjoining Owners/Occupiers

Four site notices were displayed on 26.08.2020. Following amendments to the Noise report, the application was reconsulted and four site notices were posted on 11.09.2020. On 06.11.2020 the applicant submitted an amended noise assessment – the application was re-notified for a period of 14 days with four site notices being posted on 09.11.2020. The formal consultation period ended on 23.11.2020.

Eighty Eight representations received during the consultation period. 0 were in support, 88 were in objection. A summary of the concerns raised is set out in the table below:

Page 55

Summary of objections Officers Response Land Use No need for this type of development in a It is noted that the Site is situated within Zone predominantly residential area. 1 of London and the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) which has a wide range of uses within the immediate area of the Site.

Application will create an industrial area 13m The proposal is not seeking permission to from the residential properties. create an industrial area and will be utilising the existing use class of the arch.

Under the Use Class Order 1987 the B1 Use Noted. The applicant has demonstrated that can only be lawful if it is a use which can be the proposal would not result in noise impacts carried out in any residential area without to the detriment of the amenity of adjacent detriment to the amenity of that area by residential occupiers and as such would reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, accord with the requirements of Use Class B1. smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. The onus is on An assessment on noise impacts has been the applicant to demonstrate that a change of undertaken in Section 8.4 of the report. operations will not create such detriment. Separately, the scope of the proposed activity must remain policy compliant. The objection to the proposal is that if granted the applicant's operations would change the character of the area and be of detriment to amenity in terms of noise and disturbance.

Intensification of uses in arches is subject to The applicant is not proposing to undertake a limitations on change as Policy ED6 on use outside of the B1 Use Class that has been Railway arches refers. Applications affecting consented for the arch under the parent railway arches will be required to improve the application 02/03247/FUL; the application does immediate environment around the arches, not involve an application for a change of use including the public realm. This will include of 7 Wootton Street. accessibility, safety, servicing and lighting appropriate to the location.

Amenity Delivery hours will impact on residents’ sleep The applicant has demonstrated that the starting at 5.45am. Windows on Roupell proposal would not result in noise impacts to Street are single glazed only due to heritage the adjacent residents’ sleep. An assessment nature. on noise impacts has been undertaken in Section 8.4 of this report.

Noise from air-conditioning units and Air conditioning units are not proposed as part increased activity and traffic would be of this application. Regardless, as the Site is detrimental to the health of all residents, but located within the Central Activities Zone any particularly children. decision notice would require a condition to ensure that any machinery is operated in line with the NRMM regulations.

Page 56

Noise would not be able to be monitored The operation of the proposed collections properly. would be required to be undertaken in accordance with the approved documents, which includes the assessment of noise from their proposal. If the applicant breaches the conditions set out in the decision notice, they would be liable to enforcement action.

Fail to see how loading/unloading period of The applicant has undertaken an assessment 20mins with associated door closing/parcel of baseline noise conditions at 7 Wootton loading etc, at 5.45am would only result in Street and assessed these against their data ‘noise levels broadly equivalent to that of for the types of vehicles they are proposing to standard cars’. use. Noise has been assessed in Section 8.4 of this report.

Former occupants of arch were a charity and Noted. The previous occupier of the arch is not did not produce any noise nuisance. relevant to this application. The applicant has submitted noise evidence to support their proposal and this has been assessed in Section 8.4 of this report.

Evidence in supporting reports lacks The applicant has undertaken an assessment essential detail in terms of the scope of of baseline noise conditions at 7 Wootton operations and how deliveries will impact Street and this has been addressed in Section upon the occupation of local streets and 8.4 of this report. junctions and what the impacts will be on residents. There is no description of how sound will carry and echo around the railway viaduct which supports Waterloo East Station and surrounds the narrow streets of the Roupell Street Conservation Area. Servicing on Wootton Street would result in The applicant has undertaken an assessment impact on amenity of residents noting the of baseline noise conditions at 7 Wootton redevelopment of a site opposite for 215 new Street and this has been addressed in Section homes (16/06172/FUL permitted on appeal 8.4 of this report. in December 2019). Deliveries and refuse/recycling already The Planning Enforcement Team has provided causes issues in the area. EF language advice about the means of monitoring of the School flouts the 8am-6pm window for proposed conditions. The other examples are deliveries and maintenance for the site. a matter for the Planning Enforcement Team. London & Southeastern who operate The nature of the vehicle to be used for the Waterloo East Station above Brad Street collections in question from 7 Wootton Street is started making twice weekly rubbish addressed in the report. collections with large lorries, gates clanging, bins rolling, waste machinery churning and staff shouting at 4-5am a couple of years ago. Monitoring of these situations do not occur. Page 57

Inadequate noise assessment – failed to The applicant has undertaken an assessment undertake a noise survey carried out over a of baseline noise conditions at 7 Wootton minimum 24-hour period to demonstrate that Street and this has been addressed in Section the noise climate is similar at 05:45 and 8.4 of this report. The assessment was between 18:00hrs and 22:00hrs as it is at undertaken on 9th December 2020 and was 01:00 as advised by Paragraph 8.1.4 of the undertaken in the early morning hours to British Standard or the guidance provided in coincide with the proposed delivery times. the Association of Noise Consultants (ANC) Guidelines.

Hours of Operation Original planning application restricted hours Noted. However, the applicant has submitted of delivery so as to safeguard the amenities noise impact assessments that demonstrate of neighbouring residential properties. that the proposal would not result in impacts to the neighbouring residential amenity. An assessment on noise impacts is set out in Section 8.4 of this report.

Planning permission for the Southwark Tube Noted. However, the permission for the new entrance had the hours of operation entrance of the Southwark tube Station is restricted. significantly different to that of the current application and as such is not relevant to this application.

Current delivery hours of 8am to 6pm and no Noted. The applicant has provided evidence to deliveries on Sundays, Bank or Public demonstrate that the proposed changes to the Holidays should be retained. delivery times would be acceptable.

Transport Pedestrian safety a concern – street is too The images set out in the Lambeth Estate narrow for vehicles to park without passing Residents Association Objection (See vehicles having to mount the pavement. Appendix 2) of vehicles overtaking on Brad Street does not show vehicles mounting the pedestrian pavement. The Transport Officer has reviewed the submitted pictures and the application and has advised that the proposal would not result in harm to pedestrian safety. An assessment is set out in Section 8.5 of this report.

Deliveries should be undertaken on Wootton Noted. The Transport Officer has advised that Street entrance instead of Brad Street. there are no transport concerns arising from the application.

No loading bays on Wootton Street, but has Noted. parking spaces and a wider street.

Delivery schedule indicates demand for The Transport Officer has advised that there parking of which there is an absence of are no concerns with the loading/unloading on loading areas on Brad Street. Street subject double yellow lines and that this is not a traffic to double yellow lines. offence within the Lambeth Borough.

Page 58

Significant increase to the number of Noted. The Transport Officer has advised that vehicles on the adjacent roads. there are no transport concerns arising from the application.

Cumulative total of deliveries in the region of Noted, however regardless of the previous 1,845 deliveries per annum (285 ‘out of occupier of the unit, the parent application did hours’ + 1,040 in office hours + 520 not condition/limit the amount of deliveries to refuse/recycling). Previous charity who the Site, only the hours of deliveries were occupied office typically had 100-150 restricted. deliveries per annum.

The applicant has not adopted a trip Noted. The Transport Officer has advised that generation mitigation strategy although the there are no transport concerns arising from arch surroundings are entirely unsuitable for the application. the purpose of regular deliveries.

New wording of condition does not say The wording of the condition does not need to anything about the number or types of state the type of vehicle as this is contained vehicles which could be used from 5.45am. within the documents that have been Defined Vehicle Certification Agency submitted with the application and in the event classifications should be used instead of of a permission would be secured as an wording like “small courier van”. approved document on the decision notice.

Design Commercial development harming the The applicant is utilising the existing B1 Use historic interest of the Conservation Area. class of 7 Wootton Street and as such would not impact on the Conservation Area; heritage issues are discussed in section 8.3 of the report. Regardless, this is not relevant to the current application which relates to servicing and delivery.

Glass was put into the arches to reflect the Noted. The application does not seek any Southbank skyline and bring light to a changes to the building itself. gloomy street.

Other The applicant should be looking at other sites The location of the applicant’s business is not to house their business. a material consideration for this application.

Plant exceeds the weight limit of the arches The applicant is not seeking permission for air which would put the Jubilee Line at risk conditioning units. unless strengthening work is undertaken.

Printing ink and photocopiers use chemicals The applicant is not proposing these elements. which shouldn’t be used in an already highly The Air Quality Officer has proposed polluted areas with particle counts in excess conditions which relate to the activity of service of recommended levels. and delivery at the site. See condition 34.

If permission is granted, this will result in a Any future application requiring planning precedent for other businesses in the area. permission will be assessed on its merits.

Page 59

Why is the printing operation not going The element of the B1 use is not being ‘green’ and paperless? considered under this application and therefore whether the applicant is or should be going paperless for their business is not a material planning consideration.

The applicant did not contact residents at all The applicant is not obliged to undertake before making the first application community consultation/neighbour notification (20/01169/FUL). There was no consultation prior to submitting a planning application if they before the second application do not wish to do so. The current application (20/02677/VOC) either. has been notified in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement.

Applicants have failed to disclose their The applicant is entitled to have the application identity and are hiding behind their planning handled on their behalf by a planning agent. agent.

Conditions are unenforceable and poorly The Planning Enforcement Team has worded. recommended wording to ensure that the conditions are enforceable.

The application is contrary to Policies D12, The approach taken to the application D13, and E2 of the London Plan and Policies generally is explained in section 8.1 of the T8, Q2 and ED6 of the emerging Lambeth report. Relevant development plan policies Local Plan - which is well advanced. It is have been discussed in the report and it is not contrary to NPPF policy and Planning Policy considered that the application would breach Guidance. those policies.

Page 60

POLICIES

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘LP’) (2016, consolidated with alterations since 2011), the Lambeth Local Plan (‘LLP’) (September 2015) and the South Bank and Waterloo neighbourhood development plan (‘the SoWNDP’) (October 2019).

In December 2019 the London Plan (Intend to Publish version) was published by the Mayor of London. This followed the Examination in Public on the Draft London Plan (published in December 2017), which was held between January and May 2019. On 21 October 2019 the Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations. Many of these recommendations (although not all) were incorporated into the Intend to Publish version. The Draft London Plan (‘DLP’) has a significant amount of weight in planning decisions, although it will not be given full weight until the final version is published.

In March 2020 the Secretary of State formally directed the Mayor to make a number of detailed modifications to the wording of various policies in the Intend to Publish version released in December 2019. On 10 December the Secretary of State sent a response to the Mayor confirming amendments to the original 11 directions issued and 2 further directions. The Mayor responded on 21 December 2020 with a new Publication London Plan (‘PLP’) December 2020, which responded to the directions. The Secretary of State now has up to 6 weeks to decide whether he is content for the Mayor to formally publish the Publication London Plan. Once confirmation has been received from the Secretary of State, the Mayor will proceed with the final steps to publish the new London Plan. Officers have therefore needed to take into account the effect of the Secretary of State’s directions on emerging London Plan policies.

It is not considered that the Secretary of State’s modifications alter the assessment of the application. This is because the emerging London Plan policies that are affected by the direction are not considered relevant to the current proposal. The degree of weight to be attached to the draft London Plan as a whole is noted above.

The LLP is currently under partial review to ensure it complies with amendments to changes in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and London Plan. The Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan underwent public consultation from October to December 2018 under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Plans) (England) Regulations 2012. Pre-submission publication (Regulation 19) of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan Proposed Submission Version (‘DRLLP PSV’) occurred between 31 January and 13 March 2020. The Council submitted the draft plan for examination on 22 May 2020. Officers consider that this should be afforded very limited weight at this stage.

The Site falls within the Southbank and Waterloo neighbourhood area. The adopted Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 is in place for this neighbourhood area (referred to in this report as the SOWN Neighbourhood Plan).

The latest NPPF was updated in 2019. This document sets out the Government’s planning policies for England including the presumption in favour of sustainable development and is a material consideration in the determination of all applications.

The current planning application has been considered against all relevant national, regional and local planning policies as well as any relevant guidance. A full list of relevant policies and guidance has been set out in Appendix 3 to this report.

Page 61

ASSESSMENT

Principle of Development

This application is made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’). This allows conditions associated with a planning permission to be varied or removed, and new conditions added if appropriate arising out of the application. Section 73 applications are often described as being used to bring about a ‘minor material amendment’ to an existing development. There is no statutory definition of a ‘minor material amendment’ but the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) explains that this is likely to include any amendment where its scale and/or nature results in a development which is not substantially different from the one which has been approved. The approach that should be taken to section 73 applications is not to reassess the merits of the approved development but instead to consider the merits of the condition or conditions that are proposed to be varied or removed.

Recent case law has clarified that an application under section 73 of the Act cannot result in an altered description of development from the description of development applying to the ’parent’ planning permission. It is noted that the applicant is not proposing to alter the description of development of the parent application and is seeking variation to the conditions in relation to one arch within the development at 7 Wootton Street.

Where an application under section 73 is granted, the effect is the issue of a new planning permission, sitting alongside the original permission, which remains intact and unaltered.

This application seeks (in relation to the part of the Site at 7 Wootton Street) to amend one condition, and to add additional conditions concerning permitted hours of collections, attaching to the ‘parent’ planning permission ref. 02/03247/FUL, which was for the change of use of the railway arch units 107 to 122 to provide a mix of food and drink uses (Use Class A3), offices (Use Class B1), and leisure (Use Class D2) and the erection of a glazed front elevation to Wootton Street, installation of glazed frontages within arches fronting Brad Street, installation of CCTV cameras and roller shutter doors, two storey extension to arch unit 122 in existing enclosed yard fronting Cornwall Road and Wootton Street, installation of mezzanine floor levels to arch units 107-115b and 119-121, and associated external works to adjacent public highway and publicly access private road.

The proposed amendments to the conditions would not result in any change to the built form of the development, nor do officers consider that they would they result in the development being operated in a way that is materially different from the development approved under planning permission ref. 02/03247/FUL, such that the application falls within the scope of an application under s73 of the Act.

Land Use

The parent application (02/03247/FUL) consented a change of use to the arches 107-122 Brad Street and Wootton Street. 7 Wootton Street was consented as a B1 Use.

It is noted that objectors have raised the issue of the land use of 7 Wootton Street. The land use of the Site has already been established under the parent application 02/032474/FUL. 7 Wootton Street is in B1 use. It is noted that 7 Wootton Street is currently vacant however is to be occupied by the applicant and is currently being fitted out. Internal and external alterations to 7 Wootton Street were approved under application 20/01169/FUL.

The applicant is not proposing in this application to change the use of 7 Wootton Street. The scope of the development that would be permitted by this application, if approved, would remain as approved under the parent application of 02/03247/FUL.

Page 62

Design and Conservation

Impact on Heritage Assets: Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings

8.3.1 It is noted that objections have been raised that the proposed changes to the conditions would result in harm to the significance of the historic Roupell Street Conservation Area and Grade II listed buildings to the north of the parent application site, due to the impacts that the proposed servicing and deliveries to 7 Wootton Street would cause to the ‘noise environment’. For clarity, it is noted that the south side of Brad Street does not site within the Roupell Street Conservation Area. Objectors state that the Grade II listed buildings on Roupell Street which have rear elevations facing towards Brad Street (approximately 13m from 7 Wootton Street) have single glazing to their windows and that the increased servicing and delivery activity would adversely affect the significance of these assets. Issues of residential amenity are discussed in section 8.4 of the report.

The current application relates to a variation to a servicing and delivery condition that was granted under the parent application and proposes the introduction of two further associated servicing and delivery conditions. The railway viaduct and its arches run along Brad Street and Wootton Street. Brad Street is a back street providing access to gardens and garages along the south of Roupell Street, which is a series of grade II listed Georgian terraced houses and forms the southern boundary of the Roupell Street Conservation Area. The south side of the Brad Street is dominated by the Victorian Waterloo railway viaduct, which is outside of the conservation area. It is generally a quiet street and free from passing traffic.

The Conservation Officer notes that no design changes are proposed to the arches and that the application does not involve a change of land use. The Officer has advised that the proposed increase in deliveries and servicing does not affect the setting of the Roupell Street Conservation Area. Brad Street was and remains a service road enabling access to the terraced gardens and the railway arches. The setting of the listed terrace (26-42 Roupell Street) is not harmed by the increased deliveries and services, as the special interest of the listed terrace is not derived from the use of Brad Street.

As such, the proposal would accord with the principles of Policy Q20 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the Council’s statutory duty as regards the settings of listed buildings under the Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Act.

Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers

The parent planning permission is subject to Condition 11 which restricts the deliveries hours for all the arch uses permitted under 02/03247/FUL. Condition 11 reads follows:

No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 8am – 6pm nor any times on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties).

The applicant seeks for one delivery to be undertaken on Mondays-Fridays between 5.45am and 8am to Unit 7 only. In order to demonstrate that the early morning delivery would not impact on the adjacent residential occupiers, the applicant undertook baseline noise data on 3rd October 2019 between the hours of 00:47 – 01.43am – the summary of the data is shown in Figure 8.

Page 63

Figure 8: Summary of the short-term noise measurements undertaken on 3rd October 2019.

The locations of the receptors used for the 3rd October 2019 survey are shown in Figure 8. The report identifies 36 Roupell Street as the most relevant noise receptor for 7 Wootton Street and is labelled as Point 3 in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Locations for the noise receptors for the 3rd October 2019 baseline Noise Survey.

The justification for the time of the survey was that it was considered that the existing ambient noise at those times would quieter (less ambient noise) than that of the proposed 5.45am delivery time.

The applicant outlines in their Noise Impact Assessment of Delivery/Collection Activities Rev P05 date 6th November 2020 that the ambient noise climate established at 7 Wootton Street comprised of road traffic from Wootton Street, plant noise from the existing commercial developments along Brad Street and noise from the adjacent Waterloo East Train Station. The report states that as at the 7th September 2020 trains stopped at Waterloo East Station (in either direction) at the following times on Monday to Friday:

 04:53, 05:23, 05:29, 05:31, 05:33, 05:36, 05:42, 05:45, 05:50. 05:51, 05:55, 05:57, 05:58, 05:59 Page 64

Furthermore, Waterloo East Station has approximately 24 trains between 6am-7am daily and approximately 38 trains between 7am-8am daily. It is noted that currently the earliest train departing from London Waterloo East Station is 05:21am to Dartford and Gravesend via Sidcup.

Noting the comments raised by objectors with regard to the baseline noise data not being undertaken at a time that was relevant to the proposed early morning deliveries, the applicant undertook a further baseline noise assessment on the morning of Wednesday 9th December 2020 between the hours 5.30am and 6.30am. The results of the baseline data are set out in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Measured noise levels obtained between 5.30am and 6.30am on Wednesday 9th December 2020.

Page 65

Figure 11: Location of the noise measurement and receptor locations used when undertaking the baseline noise survey on Wednesday 9th December 2020.

The noise measurements were taken at the boundary of the closest noise sensitive receptor, noted to be the rear boundary of 36 Roupell Street, were recorded to be at LA90 50dB. This is noted that this is 8dB above the previously measured baseline noise LA90 42dB, obtained at 1.20am on 19th October 2019.

Objections have been received relating to the proposed early morning collection stating that this would result in noise that would be harmful to residential amenity. The noise report from 6th November 2020 notes that the World Health Organisation (WHO) Night Noise Guidelines state that the observed threshold effect level for waking up in the night and/or too early in the morning is 42 dB. The early morning collection is proposed to be undertaken by a courier van (Type 1 vehicle – see Figure 7). The applicant measured the noise levels for the proposed Type 1 Vehicle and assessed these against the WHO Night Noise Guidance. The noise levels are set out in Figure 12.

Page 66

Figure 12: The ambient baseline data from 9th December 2020 compared to the predicted noise levels of the early morning delivery activities.

Following the most recent noise assessment undertaken on 9th December 2020, the results show that the ambient noise levels are 8dB higher in the morning around the 5.45am delivery time than the ambient noise levels taken at 19th October 2019.

The noise reports, including the updated baseline data undertaken on the 9th December 2020, have been reviewed by the Council’s Noise Specialists. They have advised that the results are what they would expect in this area and that the ambient noise levels would be higher at the relevant period than that of the initial early morning survey – the higher ambient noise levels could be contributed to the early morning train movements at Waterloo East Station.

Noise Officers advise that the data states that the most significant impact of the early morning collection activity would be the potential to cause awakening to the adjacent residential properties through elevated maximum noise events, confirming the assumptions set out in Figure 12. The report concludes that the impacts of maximum noise levels present a low risk of disturbance and can therefore be considered to be representative of the proposed early morning collection activity. The 9th December 2020 baseline data includes a table which sets out the general activities undertaken in the vicinity of 7 Wootton Street at the time the early morning collections would occur (see Figure 13).

Page 67

Figure 13: Activities undertaken in the vicinity of 7 Wootton Street during the period proposed for the early morning collection.

As such, the results of the noise surveys illustrate that the components of the limited collection activity would not be readily noticeable to the adjacent residential occupiers, provided that the loading of the courier van is limited and controlled as per the proposed mitigation measures that are set out in Section 8 of the Noise Impact Assessment of Delivery/Collection Activities report. It is considered that a new condition requiring the services and deliveries undertaken to 7 Wootton Street are in accordance with the Service and Delivery Statement Rev A dated 10th August 2020, which sets out the proposed delivery times, vehicle types and noise mitigation measures for all servicing and deliveries to 7 Wootton Street. This has been included proposed Condition 35 and would read as follows:

35. The servicing for 7 Wootton Street is to be undertaken in accordance with the details set out in the Servicing and Delivery Statement Rev A dated 10th August 2020.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policies Q2 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

In addition to the mitigation measures set out in the Noise reports, the agent advised in their email of 14th December 2020 that the collection would preferably be undertaken by an electric vehicle which would result in a further reduction of noise.

The proposed wording of the conditions, including the collections to be by electric vehicle unless exceptionally one is not available, are set out at paragraphs 4.7 and 4.10 above. Page 68

Objectors have raised concerns regarding the enforceability of the applicant’s proposals. As set out at paragraphs 4.7, 4.10 and 4.13 of the report it is recommended on the advice of the Planning Enforcement Team that a log is to be maintained of the dates/times/delivery company/vehicle type and that this log is to be made available on request to the Local Planning Authority. The proposed wording of the relevant conditions is set out at paragraphs 4.7, 4.10 and 4.13 above.

Objectors have noted that the early morning collection would be out of character for the Conservation Area/residential nature of the area. However, it is noted that 22 Cornwall Road (approximately 24m from 7 Wootton Street) which houses the Konditor Bakery has permission to operate from 6am to 7.30am Mondays to Saturdays. 22 Cornwall Road is directly adjacent to residential properties (42 Roupell Street). Noting these operating hours and the nature of the business, it is likely that collections and deliveries to this business would be undertaken around the same times as the proposed early morning collections proposed for 7 Wootton Street under this application.

Emergency Collections

The applicant has requested that emergency collections be allowed for between 5.45am and 8am on Saturdays no more than five times per calendar year. Noting the noise assessments that have been provided and that the Noise Officers are satisfied that with the mitigation measures proposed, the additional condition is considered acceptable.

Officers’ proposed wording for this new condition (number 32) is set out at paragraph 4.10 above.

To allow for the urgent evening collections, as set out at paragraph 4.12 of the report, an additional condition is proposed (number 33). The proposed wording is set out at paragraph 4.13 of the report.

Officers consider the application to be acceptable in respect of its amenity impacts subject to the conditions proposed as set out in paragraphs 4.7, 4.10 and 4.13.

Transport

Site Context

The Site has a PTAL level of 6b which is considered excellent access to public transport links. 7 Wootton Street unit has two adjacent roads, Brad Street to the north with limited vehicle access and Wootton Street to the south which is a two-way road with parking facilities (pay and display) on either side.

Wootton Street acts as the main entrance to the unit for both visitors and workers, whilst Brad Street is located to the rear of the arches with the townscape reading as such. Brad Street allows parking for permit holders only, which is currently controlled by APCOA Parking.

In association with this development, the occupier requires a limited number of out-of-hours deliveries and collections from the Brad Street entrance. This report outlines the proposed servicing and delivery operations including delivery hours and frequencies, vehicle types and sizes, and mitigation measures which must be adhered to by the delivery/ collection vehicle drivers.

Pedestrian Safety

Objectors have raised the issues of pedestrian safety and have stated that any vehicle passing another on Brad Street would be required to mount the pavement. One of the objections provided a picture of two vehicles passing on Brad Street (see Figure 14). However, this picture does not show the vehicles mounting the pedestrian footpath, but the dropped kerb adjacent the Roupell Street garages. Page 69

Figure 14: Picture of vehicles overtaking on Brad Street submitted with the objection from the Lambeth Estates Residents Association.

The footpath adjacent the arches has an approximate width of 1.5m with a hard kerb. As seen in Figure 14 the vehicles have not mounted the pedestrian footpath, but the lowered berm adjacent the rear boundary treatments of the Roupell Street properties. The Transport Officer has advised that this is a common occurrence and that this has been designed to accommodate such movements noting that there is no vertical kerb-face. As such, Lambeth Transport Officers have advised that they have no concerns with the application in terms of pedestrian safety and that the berm adjacent the Roupell Street boundary is lowered specifically for the ability for vehicles to pass each other. As such, the proposal would not impact on pedestrian safety and would accord with Policies T6, T7 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Another objection that has been raised is that the delivery/collection vehicles would not be able to stop/park on the double yellow lines that are set out on Brad Street. Lambeth Transport Officers have advised that vehicles that load/unload on double yellow lines are not breaking any traffic laws and are permitted/able to do this within Lambeth

Overall, Lambeth Transport Officers are satisfied that the proposed collection/deliveries resulting from the current application would not introduce a severe/detrimental impact on either (a) the free/efficient movement of traffic, cyclists or pedestrians (i.e. traffic congestion) or (b) the safe operation of the local highway/footway network and would therefore accord with Policies T6, T7 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and London Plan Policy T7.

Number of Additional Collections

The additional proposed collections are computed as follows:

 1 additional early morning collection (between 5.45am and 8am) Monday-Friday = 5x collections per week (5 x 52 = 260 early morning deliveries per year)  1 additional evening collection between 6pm and 10pm up to 20 times per year = 20 evening collections per year  1 emergency early morning collections on Saturdays up to 5 times per year (5 per year) Page 70

Total of additional collections: 285 potential additional vehicular movements per year (where one collection is counted as one vehicle movement). The Transport Officer has raised no objection in terms of the number of additional collections proposed.

Objectors have noted that the pervious occupier of the arch typically received 100-150 deliveries per year. There is no evidence to substantiate this level of delivery to the unit. Furthermore, it is noted that it does not appear that the parent application was supported by any Transport Statement/ Assessment, nor did the parent application secure a quantum of deliveries under the current lawful uses of the arches. It is therefore noted that any of the arch uses consented under the parent application 02/03247/FUL could undertake unlimited deliveries/collections between the consented delivery times of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

Other Environmental Matters

Flood Risk

The Site is in Flood Zone 3 and is located within an area benefitting from flood defences. The proposed changes to the servicing and delivery of the Site would not result in an increase to flood risk at the Site. As such the proposal would accord with Policies EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policies 5.3 and 5.2 of the London Plan.

Air Quality

The proposed development is located within a borough-wide Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and in Central Activities Zone for the purpose of Non-Road Mobile Machinery Low Emission Zone requirements.

Lambeth Air Quality Officers have reviewed the proposal and have advised that whilst there is no objection to the proposal, there would be concerns with deliveries on weekends when residents on Roupell Street would be more likely to be using their gardens. Delivery vehicles are known to idle and would therefore result in a potential source of unnecessary exposure to pollutants.

It is noted that the Officers main concerns are weekend deliveries and idling. The Saturday deliveries that the applicant has applied for is for emergencies only and would occur no more than five Saturdays per calendar year. Furthermore, one of the main mitigation measures proposed in the applicant’s submission documents is that the delivery vehicles must turn off their engines to prevent idling along with proposing to use electric vehicles where possible. These measures would ensure that the Air Quality Officers concerns would be overcome and the proposal would accord with Policy 7.14 of the London Plan.

The additional condition to ensure that NRMM is covered would be referenced as Condition 34 on the Decision Notice.

Section 106 Obligations

8.7.1 Officers have identified a Section 106 agreement that that attached to the parent application. The obligations secure highway and pavement improvement works and street furniture to Wootton Street and street lighting to Wootton Street and Windmill Walk – it appears that these works have been completed. Officers have reviewed the Section 106 agreement and it has been established that the obligations have been duplicated by way of condition on the decision notice, and as such this would be captured by the current Section 73 application as set out in the proposed conditions in Section 8.8 of this report.

Page 71

Planning Conditions

Members are advised that since the approval of the parent application 02/03247/FUL on 22.09.2003, a number of conditions been amended and discharged. Furthermore, the development plan has been updated since the parent application approval. As such, the decision notice is proposed to be updated and amended as follows to reflect these changes and updated policies. An informative is proposed giving details of the discharge of various of the conditions. In this report, in order to assist Members with identifying the proposed changes to the conditions, deleted wording is shown with a strikethrough and additional wording is shown in italics, underlined and in bold font.

Condition 1 Condition 1 of the decision notice referred to the timeframe that the parent application had to be implemented within. The original Condition 1 is proposed to be deleted as the development was completed a number of years ago and it is not considered necessary to include a time for commencement condition.

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years from the date hereof.

(Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

Members are advised that the parent application did not contain what is now a standard condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans/documents. The parent application 02/032474/FUL contained the following approved plans on the decision notice:

Floorspace figures; site plan; planning and design statement; 4876-10/08/1; 10/09/1; 40/2P; 41/2P; 42/3P; 43/1P; 44/1P; 45/1P.

The plans set out on the parent application decision notice will be retained and added to the approved documents under the current application, which are as follows:

Baseline Environmental Noise Survey Update Rev P01 18/12/2020; Noise Impact Assessment of Delivery/Collection Activities Rev P05 06/11/2020; Noise Impact Assessment of Delivery Activities Rev P04 11/08/2020; Planning Statement Rev A 10/08/2020; Servicing and Delivery Statement Rev A 10/08/2020; Email 14.12.2020.

It is proposed to replace the deleted Condition 1 referring to the time period of the parent application with a condition relating to the approved plans to ensure that the proposal is in accordance with the parent application documents and those submitted and approved under the current application (listed at paragraphs 8.8.3 and 8.8.4 above. New Condition 1 is proposed to read as follows:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

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

Condition 2 Condition 2 will be updated to read as follows:

Full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced:

(a) the use of any part of the site not covered by building(s)and the treatment thereof (including gates, walls and fences); (b) the extent and position of accommodation for car parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and picking up and setting down of persons calling at the premises; Page 72

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal(s) in accordance with Policies Q6, Q8, Q12, Q15, T6, T7 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 3 Condition 3 will be updated to read as follows:

Full details, including samples of external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced and the development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory in accordance with Policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 4 Condition 4 will be updated to read as follows:

Full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use commences: (a) soundproofing of the premises; (b) insulation of the premises (including ventilation); (c) means of fume extraction from the premises

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal(s) in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 5 Condition 5 will be updated to read as follows:

Full details of the materials and planting to be used in the hard and soft landscaped areas hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to commencement of any site works, and such landscaped areas shall be permanently retained for the enjoyment of occupiers of the scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping areas are laid out in a satisfactory manner in accordance with Policies Q6, Q9 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 6 Condition 6 will be updated to read as follows:

All planting, seeding or turfing comprising in the approved scheme of landscaping, shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five 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 gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaped areas are laid out in accordance with the approved plans in accordance with Policies Q6, Q9 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 7 Condition 7 will be updated to read as follows: Page 73

Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, street lighting shall be provided at the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The street lighting shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining premises and the area in general in accordance with Policies Q2, Q3 and Q6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 8 Condition 8 will be updated as follows:

The external elevations shall only be illuminated in a manner that does not cause nuisance to neighbouring properties or a hazard to users of the public highway.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally in accordance with Policies Q2 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 9 Condition 9 will be updated as follows:

The proposed windows at mezzanine level in the northern elevation (Brad Street elevation) shall be opaque glazed and shall be permanently maintained as such for the duration of the use.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents in Roupell Street in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 10 Condition 10 will be updated as follows:

The CCTV cameras shall be installed in accordance with the submitted plans prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved. The cameras shall be so orientated to avoid intrusion of adjacent residential properties, and shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policies Q2 and Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 11 Condition 11 shall be amended to read as follows noting the assessment set out in the current application:

No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 8am - 6pm nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, with the exception of the property at 7 Wootton Street for which 1 no. delivery can collected from the Brad Street entrance between the hours of 5.45am and 8am Monday to Friday to be undertaken only by an electric vehicle unless exceptionally an electric vehicle is not available.

 Dates and timings of collections;  Vehicle Type (including that the vehicle is electric and in the exceptional instances when it is not, why).

Page 74

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 12 Condition 12 will be updated as follows:

Bins shall only be placed outside of the refuse stores at collecting times,

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents in Roupell Street in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 13 Condition 13 will be updated as follows:

No processes shall be carried on or machinery installed which are not such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke soot, ash, dust or grit.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 14 Condition 14 will be updated to read as follows:

Before any plant/machinery is used on the premises it shall be enclosed with sound insulating material and mounted in a way which will minimise transmission of structure borne sound, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority, and be retained for the duration of its use.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 15 Condition 15 will be updated as follows:

No loading or unloading of goods, including fuel, by vehicles arriving at or departing from the premises shall be carried out otherwise than within the curtilage of the premises/site.

Reason: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and to safeguard amenities of adjacent premises in accordance with Policies Q2, T6 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 16 Condition 16 will be updated as follows:

The means of fume extraction for the A3 cafe/restaurant use as approved under Condition 4 above, shall be installed before the use commences and thereafter retained and satisfactorily maintained for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers or of the area generally in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Page 75

Condition 17 Condition 17 will be updated as follows:

Noise from the extractor and flue shall not exceed 35db when measured outside the window of the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises.

Condition 18 Condition 18 will be updated to read as follows:

The A3 cafe/restaurant use permitted shall not operate otherwise between the hours of 9am to 11pm daily.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 19 Condition 19 will be updated as follows:

There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audible outside the premises.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining premises and the area generally in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 20 Condition 20 will be retained as follows:

The use of the A3 unit shall be restricted to cafe and restaurant and for no other purpose (including takeaway use or any other purpose in Class A3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and renacting that Order with or without modification).

Reason: In granting this permission the Local Planning Authority has had regard to the special circumstances of this case and wishes to have the opportunity of exercising control over any subsequent alternative use.

Condition 21 Condition 21 will be updated as follows:

No tables and chairs shall be placed on the footpath outside the A3 premises.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 22 Condition 22 will be updated as follows:

Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, bicycle parking (including covered storage facilities where appropriate) shall be provided at the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bicycle stands to be used in the bicycle parking/storage facilities shall be "Sheffield" style. The bicycle parking/storage facilities shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter. Page 76

Reason: In order to provide adequate bicycle parking facilities at the site in the interest of reducing reliance on private transport in accordance with Policies Q13 and T3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 23 Condition 23 will be updated as follows:

The gate proposed for Brad Street shall remain closed at all times except to allow access for deliveries, emergencies and to the rear of Roupell Street properties.

Reason: In order to ensure that the local traffic flow is not disrupted and to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining properties) in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 24 Condition 24 will be updated as follows:

Full details of the upgrading of road surfaces, parking and service controls, road markings, and pavement improvements on Brad Street shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before works on site commence.

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal(s) in accordance with Policies Q6 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 25 Condition 25 will be updated as follows:

Full details of a street cleaning/maintenance programme for Brad Street shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of any use hereby permitted. Such a programme shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining premises and the area in general in accordance with Policies Q2 and Q6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 26 Condition 26 will be updated as follows:

Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied street furniture shall be provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such street furniture shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the general amenity of the area in accordance with Policies Q2 and Q6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 27 Condition 27 will be updated as follows:

Bird netting shall be fitted to the underside of the railway arches to Windmill Walk, Greet Street and Cornwall Road to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement to of any use hereby permitted, and shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the general amenity of the area in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 28 Condition 28 will be updated as follows: Page 77

Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, an automatic vehicle barrier shall be provided at the intersection of Brad Street and Greet Street, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The automatic barrier shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety in accordance with Policy T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 29 Condition 29 will be updated as follows:

Full details of the position and size of the ventilation louvres, in relation to the glazing, on the Brad Street elevation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced and the development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory in accordance with Policies Q2 and Q8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 30 Condition 30 will be updated as follows:

Full details of east and west elevations of Windmill Walk shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced and the development shall be completed in accordance with the details of thereby approved.

Reason: To ensure the external appearance of the building is satisfactory in accordance with Policies Q2 and Q8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 31 Condition 31 will be updated to read as follows:

Full details of the fume extraction for the swimming pool use shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use commences. Such means of fume extraction shall be installed, permanently retained and maintained for the duration of the use.

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details for the proposal satisfactory in accordance with Policies Q2 and Q8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 32 Condition 32 is a new condition as requested and assessed under the current application. This will be added to the decision notice and reads as follows:

1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 5.45am and 8am on Saturdays no more than 5 mornings per calendar year to be undertaken only by an electric vehicle unless exceptionally an electric vehicle is not available.

 Dates and timings of collections;  Vehicle Type (including that the vehicle is electric and in the exceptional instances when it is not, why).

Page 78

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 33 Condition 33 is a new condition as requested and assessed under the current application. This will be added to the decision notice and reads as follows:

1 no. delivery can be collected from the Brad Street or Wootton Street entrance to 7 Wootton Street between 6pm and 10pm on no more than 20 evenings per calendar year across both entrances combined.

 Dates and timings of collections;  Vehicle Type.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Condition 34 Condition 34 is a new condition as requested and assessed under the current application. This will be added to the decision notice and reads as follows:

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

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

Condition 35 Condition 35 is a new condition as requested and assessed under the current application. This will be added to the decision notice and reads as follows:

The servicing for 7 Wootton Street is to be undertaken in accordance with the details set out in accordance with the details set out in the Servicing and Delivery Statement Rev A dated 10th August 2020.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policies Q2 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Page 79

Informatives

The parent application contained the following 2 informatives. Informative 1 read as follows:

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

Noting that the advertisement regulations have been updated, this is proposed to be amended as follows:

Informative 2 read as follows: In determining this application Policies W3, W5, W19, T9, EMP1, EMP4, EMP7, EMP10, ST28, CD15, RL31, RL36, RL39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan were relevant to the decision.

Noting that informative 2 relates to old policies, it is proposed this is deleted.

A number of the conditions of the parent application 02/03247/FUL have been discharged or partially discharged through approval of details but required the development to operate thereafter in accordance with the approved details. Officers consider that it is prudent to include an informative on the decision notice to outline which conditions have been discharged or partially discharged and to record where the corresponding approvals can be found. Informative 2 is therefore proposed as follows:

2 The planning conditions attaching to planning permission 02/0324/FUL have been reproduced in full with the exception of condition 1 as it attached to that permission. Some of these conditions require applications to be submitted to the local planning authority for its written approval and for the development thereafter to operate in accordance with the approved details. A list of the approval of details already granted and attaching to the conditions as numbered in this decision notice is shown below:

- Matters referred to in condition 2 were approved under application reference 03/02974/DET on 18.11.2003; - Matters referred to in condition 4 were approved under application reference 04/03035/DET on 01.12.2004 but only for the office use of the development; - Matters referred to in condition 5 were approved under application reference 03/02974/DET on 18.11.2003; - Matters referred to in condition 7 were approved under application reference 03/0830/DET on 17.11.2003; - Matters referred to in condition 14 were approved under application reference 04/03035/DET on 01.12.2004 but only for the office use of the development; - Matters referred to in condition 22 were approved under application reference 03/02974/DET on 18.11.2003; - Matters referred to in condition 24 were approved under application reference 03/02970/DET on 02.04.2004; - Matters referred to in condition 25 were approved under application reference 04/03048/DET on 20.12.2004; - Matters referred to in condition 28 were approved under application reference 05/02997/DET on 16.11.2005; - Matters referred to in condition 29 were approved under application reference 03/02973/DET on 18.11.2003; - Matters referred to in condition 30 were approved under application reference 03/02973/DET on 18.11.2003.

Page 80

The following informatives are proposed to be added to the decision notice in addition to the amended informative 1:

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

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

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

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

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

8 NRMM Informative: For information on the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements and to register NRMM, please visit “http://nrmm.london/”.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development would allow for one early morning collection from 7 Wootton Street between the hours of 5.45am and 8am Monday to Friday (amendment to condition 11), and on up to five Saturday mornings per calendar year (proposed condition 32), and for one evening collection from the premises up to 20 times per year (proposed condition 33). The applicant’s noise assessments submitted during the course of the application, including the baseline noise assessment submitted on 18.12.2020, demonstrate that the ambient noise at 7 Wootton Street is such that the early morning collection would not result in detrimental noise to the adjacent Roupell Street residential properties. Amended condition 11 and condition 32 require the collection to be by electric vehicle unless exceptionally this type of vehicle is not available.

The original condition (condition 11) was placed on the decision notice to protect the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties. Whilst this is noted, the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed early morning collection would not result in noise levels over and above the existing ambient noise levels at 7 Wootton Street and would therefore comply with Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan. As regards the evening collection, it is considered this would not adversely affect residential amenity, given the noise conditions at 7 Wootton Street at this time of day.

Condition 11 (as amended) and new conditions 32 and 33 all require the keeping of a log of the early morning and evening collection which is to be made available to the Council on request. Officers consider therefore that the amended condition 11 and the new conditions 32 and 33 are acceptable.

In order to secure mitigation measures of all proposed collections to 7 Wootton Street, Condition 35 has been proposed to ensure that all servicing for 7 Wootton Street is undertaken in accordance with the details set out in the Servicing and Delivery Statement Rev A dated 10th August 2020.

Page 81

The proposal could result in up to 285 additional collections to 7 Wootton Street per year, in addition to any deliveries undertaken during the 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday delivery timings consented under the parent application of 02/03247/FUL. Lambeth Transport Officers have advised that the additional vehicle movements associated with these collections would not result in harm to the free/efficient movement of traffic, cyclists or pedestrians (i.e. traffic congestion) or (b) the safe operation of the local highway/footway network and would therefore accord with Policies T6, T7 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the London Plan Policy T7.

Overall, the proposal would not result in detrimental impacts to the residential amenity of Roupell Street and Wootton Street residents, nor would it result in detrimental impacts to the traffic or pedestrian safety and would accord with the policies of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the London Plan. It is not considered that there is any harm to the significance of nearby designated heritage assets. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

EQUALITY DUTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty the council must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity, as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In making this recommendation, regard has been given to the Public Sector Equality Duty and the relevant protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation).

In line with the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right, as per the European Convention on Human Rights. The human rights impact have been considered, with particular reference to Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of property), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.

The Human Rights Act 1998 does not impair the right of the state to make decisions and enforce laws as deemed necessary in the public interest. The recommendation is considered appropriate in upholding the council's adopted and emerging policies and is not outweighed by any engaged rights.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission.

2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes.

Page 82

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Draft Decision Notice

CONDITIONS AND INFORMATIVES AS PER SECTION 8.8 (planning conditions) Page 83

Appendix 2: List of Consultees (Statutory and Other Consultees)

 Regulatory Services - Food Safety  L.F.C.D Authority  Association of Waterloo Groups  Waterloo Community Development Group  Planning Policy  Friends Of Lambeth High Street Rec  Friends Of St John's Churchyard  Neighbourhood Regeneration Project Manager  Southbank & Waterloo Forum  We Are Waterloo  Kennington Oval & Vauxhall Forum  Cleaver Square, Cleaver Street , Bowden St  Friends Of Archbishop's Park  Friends Of Jubilee Gardens  Friends Of Hatfield Green  South Bank Employers Group Page 84

Appendix 3: List of relevant policies in London Plan, Lambeth Local Plan. Reference to SPGs, SPD and other relevant guidance

NPPF (2019)

London Plan (2016) policies:

1.1 Delivering the vision and objectives for London 2.10 Central Activities Zone – Strategic Priorities 2.11 Central Activities Zone – Strategic Functions 2.12 Central Activities Zone – Predominantly Local Activities 2.13 Opportunity Areas and Intensification Area 2.15 Town Centres 4.2 Offices 5.1 Climate change mitigation 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 5.12 Flood risk management 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology 7.3 Designing out crime 7.4 Local character 7.6 Architecture 7.11 London View Management Framework 7.14 Improving air quality 7.15 Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes

Lambeth Local Plan (2015) policies:

ED2 Business, industrial and storage uses outside KIBAs ED5 Railway arches EN5 Flood risk EN6 Sustainable drainage systems and water management Q2 Amenity Q3 Community safety Q5 Local distinctiveness Q6 Urban Design: Public Realm Q8 Design quality: construction detailing Q9 Landscaping Q10 Trees Q11 Building Alterations and Extensions Q12 Refuse /Recycling Storage Q13 Cycle storage Q15 Boundary Treatments Q20 Statutory listed buildings Q22 Conservation areas Q25 Views T3 Cycling T6 Assessing impacts of development on transport capacity T7 Parking T8 Servicing

Page 85

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) & Other Relevant Documents:

London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

Central Activities Zone (March 2016) Town Centres (July 2014) Character and Context (June 2014) Sustainable Design and Construction (April 2014) London View Management Framework (March 2012)

Lambeth

Building Alterations and Extensions SPD (2015) Waterloo SPD Waste Storage and Collection Requirements - Technical Specification Air Quality Planning Guidance Notes Roupell Conservation Area Statement

Page 86

Appendix 4: Other relevant Plans and Photos

Baseline Noise Survey Update

Page 87

Page 88

Page 89

Page 90

Page 91

Page 92

Page 93

Page 94

Page 95

Waterloo East Train Timetables

This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/05/2020 AND 31/05/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

19/00685/FUL Refusal - Town 71 Helix Road Erection of a rear roof extension and the Delegated Refuse Permission 12.05.2020 Appeal Planning London installation of two front roof lights to flat B Decision Dismissed SW2 2JR (Retrospective application).

The appeal property is a two storey Victorian terraced dwelling house, situated on the east side of Helix Road. It lies within a section of roadway, which contains four terrace rows of dwellings, namely Nos 43-129. A common feature of the area is that the roofs of the houses are dual pitched roof forms on the building frontages.

The Inspector considered the main issues of this appeal to be the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The Inspector noted that the roof extension to the appeal property was a rear full width box dormer construction at second floor level, which did not blend into the remainder of the roof of the property. He considered its scale to be disproportionate and inappropriate because it failed to harmonise with the host property. The original roof of the host property was no longer the dominant element in the overall architectural integrity of the dwelling house but had become subordinate to it.

The inspector considered the extension as constructed to constitute a second-floor level, which concluded was a bulky and incongruous addition to the host property and failed to reflect Page 97 the scale, symmetry and design of other examples of roof dormer extensions in the area. He opined that the development cannot be described as a 'modestly sized dormer roof extension' and as a full width box dormer it is not an established feature for roof extensions in the area and is not supported by current policy.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the development is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

18/04288/LDCE Certificate 4 93 - 99 North Street Application for a Certificate of Lawful Delegated Refuse Permission 11.05.2020 Appeal Lawful and Land Rear Of 93 - Development (Existing) to confirm the lawful Decision Allowed Development 99 North Street planning use of Units 4 and 21 as Class Appeal London B1(c) and the lawful use of Unit 20 as Class B1(a). Agenda Item 5 SW4

The Inspector considered the main issue of this appeal to be whether the LPA’s decision to refuse to grant a lawful development certificate was well founded.

The appeal related to three premises known as units 4, 20 and 21 on the above site which consists of building in Class B use, some of which had been converted into Class 3 residential within the last 20 years. For the appeal to be succeed, it was necessary for the appellant to demonstrate that the respective units had been used for the claimed for a period of not less than 10 years prior to the date of application and that they were continuously used as such without interruption and as such had become lawful though passage time (so were immune from enforcement action). In relation to unit 4, the Inspector referred to the evidence submitted by the appellants to support their claim, which included lease agreements and two statutory declarations (SDs). The LPA argued that the lease did not extend the full requisite 10 years. In addition, the Inspector referred to a Valuation Office record upon which the LPA relied in part to refuse the appeal, which listed the unit as a vehicle repair and workshop. The LPA considered that use to fall outside Class B1 use.

1 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/05/2020 AND 31/05/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

The Inspector attached considerable weight to the SDs and noted that although the lease agreements covered a period of less than 10 years, they were inconsistent with the declarations made in terms of the time period. He found that whilst the Valuation Office record, had incorrected identified the uses as falling outside Class B uses, the use of the unit should have been classified under Use Class B1 (c). He concluded that in the case of Unit 4, the evidence submitted was clear, precise an unambiguous and the error in the valuation record should not be justification to dismiss the evidence of the claimed use. Unit 4 was therefore immune from enforcement action, having evidently been used within B1(c) Class for a continuous period of 10 years.

In regard to unit 20, he accepted the LPA’s conclusion that the lease evidence had failed to demonstrate that the use of the unit had occurred for a continuous period of 10 years but argued that this was not the only evidence to rely upon in order to reach a conclusion based on a balance of probability. He noted that the LPA appeared to have attached little weight to the SDs which claimed a continuous 10-year period of use. The Inspector drew on case law, which establishes that evidence does not need to be independently corroborated in order for it to be accepted if there is no evidence to the contradict it, particularly if the evidence submitted is sufficiently precise and unambiguous. He considered that the limited corroboration of the SDs did not undermine their value.

He noted that the LPA had dismissed the evidence submitted in support of the claim for the use of unit 21 on the same grounds as they dismissed the evidence submitted in respect of unit 20. He refuted the LPA’s conclusions for the same reasons as those discussed in relation to unit 20.

Page 98 The Inspected concluded that on a balance of probability the 3 units the subject of this appeal had been used within the B1 use class for a continuous 10-year period and accordingly allowed the appeal.

19/00092/FUL Refusal - Town 25 Lancaster Avenue Erection of 2 storey infill extension to provide 2 x Delegated Refuse Permission 26.05.2020 Appeal Planning London 1 bed residential units, together with the Decision Dismissed SE27 9EL provision of cycle and refuse storages.

The appeal site is situated with the Lancaster Conservation Area, which is characterised by mainly semi-detached two and three storey houses of a range of styles and sizes, dating back to the Victorian and early Edwardian eras. Lancaster Avenue is the focus of the CA and stands out because of its verdant tradition suburban character. The appeal property is a three-storey semi-detached, which has been divided into flat and is part of a group of four pairs of similar properties.

The appeal scheme sought to remove an existing lean-to garage located between the appeal property and its neighbour at No. 23 and replace it with a two-storey extension to provide two one-bedroom flats. The extension would align with the main front façade of the property but would sit forward of the main entrance porch and would project beyond the rear building line of the host property and its neighbours in the group.

The Inspector identified three main issues for this appeal: (I) the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the conservation area; (ii) impact on car parking and implications for promoting sustainable modes of transport (iii) whether the development would accord with sustainable design standards in particularly its contribution to reduction carbon emissions.

2 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/05/2020 AND 31/05/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

On the 1st issue the Inspector noted that the proposal would close the gap between the appeal property and No 23 and lead to an increased terracing effect which would be harmful to the spacious character of the area, and detract from the rhythm of the group of pairs of semi-detached villas of which the appeal property is part. The Inspector also considered that the rear projection beyond the existing building line would be harmful and would be highly visible from adjoining gardens. On this issue the Inspector concluded the development overall would not preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area.

On the 2nd issue the Inspector noted during the appeal site visit that there was high parking stress in the immediate area and acknowledged the Council’s aspirations to introducing a CPZ in the area. The Inspector noted that as the appellant had not submitted a unilateral undertaking to secure the appeal scheme as car parking permit free, the proposal would fail to promote sustainable travel or promote the use of car clubs. On this issue the Inspector concluded that the appeal scheme would not prevent an unacceptable increase in demand for on- street parking.

On the 3rd Issue the Inspector noted that the appellants draft energy report, which was submitted in support of the appeal proposal had asserted that sustainable design measures would be included within the development. However, he did not consider that enough information had been provided to demonstrate that the scheme could be built out as such and concluded that these matters could not be left to condition.

The appeal was dismissed on all the above grounds.

Page 99

Allowed Dismissed Mixed

Month total 1 2 0

Financial year to date 2 5 0

3 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/05/2020 AND 31/05/2020

Council ref. Address Breach of planning control Notice type Decision date Appeal decision

No Enforcement Appeals decided this month

Allowed Dismissed Mixed

Month total 0 0 0

Financial year to date 2 0 0

Page 101

1 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/06/2020 AND 30/06/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

19/02617/DET Refusal - Town 112-113 Lower Approval of details pursuant to condition 3 (Cycle Delegated Refuse Permission 29.06.2020 Appeal Planning Marsh Parking) of planning permission 15/03786/FUL Decision Allowed London (Erection of a first floor single storey rear SE1 7AE extension to provide a self contained 2-bedroom flat, with the repositioning of existing condensers.) granted 13/10/2016

The appeal site is located along Lower Marsh and has two frontages. The principle elevation is a two-storey structure onto Lower Marsh. The return elevation is a part-single, part two- storey structure fronting Launcelot Street. The Lower Marsh elevation has a ground floor shopfront facilitating its current retail occupier, with the upper floor being used as two self- contained flats accessed from Lower Marsh.

The Inspector identified the main issue as to whether the proposed cycle storage would make adequate provision in respect of location and type. The Council’s concerns related to the accessibility of the cycle storage at first floor, which would require the transport of bicycles up a flight of stairs, the type of storage, and vertical lifting of the bicycle into the unit. Cycle storage has been integrated into the original scheme. The Inspector noted that the Council’s delegated report made no mention that the location, as demonstrated on the approved plan as ‘six individual bike storage boxes’ was not acceptable.

Page 103 The Inspector noted that eight cycle stores would be provided, which would exceed the expectations of the condition, and did not find this to be problematic. It was however considered that although bikes would need to be lifted into their storage place, prospective occupiers of the development would be aware of the facility and any associated limitations, before choosing to live within the property as well as the accessibility to the storage bays at first floor level.

Inspector went on to allow the appeal.

19/03562/ADV Refusal - 1 Wincott Parade Removal of existing 2x 48 sheet adverts and Delegated Refuse Permission 19.06.2020 Appeal Advert Kennington Road replacement with 1x internally illuminated 48 Decision Dismissed Agenda Item 6 London sheet freestanding digital advert. SE11 6SR

This site falls within the Walcot Square Conservation Area. The immediate neighbouring properties along Kennington Road comprise a locally listed public house and, beyond this, a grade listed 19th century terrace. The appeal relates to the flank wall of the building, facing the junction of Kennington Road with Bishop's Terrace. Here, two existing non-illuminated advert hoardings are stacked from first floor level on the return wall.

The proposal sought to replace these with a single large, internally-illuminated display. The main issue was identified as the effect on the visual amenity of the area including in respect to local heritage assets.

The Inspector found that the changing illuminated display would be out of keeping with modest, low-level advertising in this mainly residential area. This would be conspicuous in views

1 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/06/2020 AND 30/06/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision along Kennington Road. The illuminated sign was also felt to be close, prominent and incongruous from views to the front elevations of the neighbouring heritage assets (identified above), given its proximity and raised siting. This would be to the detrimental to their setting and result in harm to visual amenity.

The Inspector found that removal of existing hoardings would result in a public benefit, however agreed with the council that such benefit would not be outweighed by the harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Given the findings on visual amenity, the Inspector dismissed the appeal.

19/03293/FUL Refusal - Town 143 Hydethorpe Erection of a single storey ground floor rear and Delegated Refuse Permission 03.06.2020 Appeal Planning Road side infill extension and extension to the rear Decision Allowed London outrigger at first floor level with a roof light. SW12 0JF

Page 104

The appeal site contains a two storey plus roof level, terraced single family dwelling house (Use Class C3) which features a two-storey rear return on a rectangular plot. The property is not a Listed or Locally Listed Building and is not within a Conservation Area. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and appearance, made up of similar types of properties.

The Inspector considered the main issue of this appeal to be the effect on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area.

The ground floor extension was considered to be 'proportionate to the existing building and would not contrast with the inconsistent form of extensions that have occurred within the locality'. With regard to the first floor extension (the reason for refusal), the Inspector noted that 'the roof of the ground floor extension and the first floor extension would be visible above the boundary enclosures at the site and therefore would have some effect on the appearance of the dwelling' when seen from public viewpoints. However, the Inspector concluded that 'the proposed first floor extension would represent a small addition that would not cause the loss of the existing outrigger or result in it becoming insubordinate to the host dwelling'. This was by virtue of the replication of the existing roof forms, proportions and materials of the host dwelling.

In terms of the impact on the wider area the Inspector noted that due to variation in properties of the surrounding area 'the extension would not be unduly large or have an appearance that would be incongruous'. The Inspector further noted that whilst paired outriggers are a local there was sufficient variety and lack of uniformity to ensure that the proposed unbalancing of outriggers would not be incongruous. As suchInspector went on to allow the appeal.

The remaining five appeals all relate to prior approval applications for the installation of telecommunications equipment, which in this instance are freestanding payphone kiosks (public call boxes). The applications were made under Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015.

2 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/06/2020 AND 30/06/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

Certain forms of development by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for the purpose of the operator’s electronic communications network are ‘permitted development’ and only subject to prior approval from the local planning authority. The prior approval procedure means that the principle of development is not an issue. In determining these appeals the Inspector was limited to only considering the siting and appearance of the proposed kiosk.

The local planning authority determined that prior approval was required and refused for each of the applications. The appellants in this instance Maximus Networks Ltd.

All five appeals (A, B, C, D and E) were refused prior approval on the grounds of the effect of the proposals on character and appearance of the street scene and on anti-social or criminal behaviour. In addition, refusals of appeals A, C, D and E make reference to effect on highway safety (specifically, pedestrian safety in the case of appeal D). Refusals of appeals A and C make reference to effects on nearby heritage assets. However, under the terms of the GPDO, only the siting and appearance of the apparatus can be taken into consideration

It should be noted that development consisting of the installation, alteration or replacement of a public call box is no longer permitted development following amendments to Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015, which came into force on 25th May 2019. The refused applications were submitted in advance of this date, and were therefore considered under transitional arrangements as set out in the relevant statutory instrument.

Appeal A Page 105 18/04789/G24 Refusal - Town Telephone Kiosk Application for prior approval for the installation Delegated Refuse Permission 16.06.2020 Appeal Planning Outside 409 of 1 public call box Decision Dismissed Kennington Road London

On the first issue the Inspector concluded that the visual area which is included as an element for the purposes of a non illuminated display would amount to an advertisement as defined in the Act.

On the second issue the Inspector noted there is already a certain amount of street clutter, to which this proposal would add, as noted in a previous appeal decision for a similar proposal (APP/N5660/W/18/3213329) but the character of the area is already commercial where a certain amount of clutter is expected and so the provision of a public call box would not be out of place.

The Inspector noted the advice which describes how free call boxes facilitate drug related crime but that appears not to be a consequence of the siting or appearance of this proposal which they were considering but rather a consequence of the operation of a free telephony service which is not a matter of siting or appearance.

Finally, the Inspector observed a slight curvature in the highway which suggests that the location would compete with the traffic lights in drivers view from a little further away and therefore conclude that, even if this proposal had been solely for the purposes of the operators network, it would have been dismissed because of the effects of the siting of the public callbox on highway safety.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal.

3 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/06/2020 AND 30/06/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

Appeal B

18/04783/G24 Refusal - Town Telephone Kiosk Application for prior approval for the installation Delegated Refuse Permission 16.06.2020 Appeal Planning Outside 412 of 1 public call box Decision Dismissed Kennington Road London

The main issues were whether or not the proposal in each appeal would be solely for the purpose of the operators electronic communications network and, if so, the effects of the siting and appearance of each proposal on the character and appearance of the area and anti social or criminal behaviour.

On the first issue the Inspector concluded that the visual area which is included as an element for the purposes of a non illuminated display would amount to an advertisement as defined Page 106 in the Act.

On the second issue the Inspector noted there is already a certain amount of street clutter, but the proposal would take its place in an orderly line along the pavements edge and so did not find it harmful.

The Inspector noted the advice which describes how free call boxes facilitate drug related crime but that appears not to be a consequence of the siting or appearance of this proposal which I am considering but rather a consequence of the operation of a free telephony service which is not a matter of siting or appearance. The operator has a licence to provide such a service.

The Inspector concluded that, had the proposal been solely for the purposes of the operators network, it would have been allowed but, as the proposal does not fall within the terms of the GPDO for the reasons stated earlier, the appeal was dismissed.

Appeal C

18/04862/G24 Refusal - Town Telephone Kiosk Application for prior approval for the installation Delegated Refuse Permission 16.06.2020 Appeal Planning Outside Leary House of 1 call box Decision Dismissed Kennington Lane London

The Inspector identified that Kennington Lane as a whole has a mixed character, this particular location is in front of the communal grounds of a housing estate and beneath the line of a

4 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/06/2020 AND 30/06/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision row of street trees. The dominant character of the stretch of footway was identified as being non commercial and would be adversely changed, to its detriment, by the introduction of a public call box.

In the next block along to the west is a cluster of listed buildings connected with St Peter’s Church but the Inspector considered that the degree of separation is such that the siting and appearance of this proposal would not affect the setting of the listed buildings or any appreciation of their significance.

The location was reported to be a crime hot spot but was no information provided to show how the particular siting or appearance of this call box as distinct from the siting or appearance of any other call box would exacerbate criminal or antisocial activity. It was noted that the council’s advice which describes how free call boxes facilitate drug-related crime but the Inspector considered would not to be a consequence of the siting or appearance of this proposal.

Finally, the Inspector noted that the proposals’ siting would be on the approach to a traffic light controlled junction and would be sufficiently close to it to distract a driver’s attention from the operation of the traffic lights. They also concurred with the view expressed in an earlier appeal decision for a similar proposal (APP/N5660/W/18/3213336) that the proposal would adversely affect the visibility of approaching traffic for pedestrians waiting to cross at the junction.

The Inspector went on to dismiss the appeal. Page 107

Appeal D

18/04856/G24 Refusal - Town Telephone Kiosk Application for prior approval for the installation Delegated Refuse Permission 16.06.2020 Appeal Planning Outside Tesco of 1 public call box. Decision Dismissed Kennington Lane London

At the time of the Inspector’s visit, this site was concealed behind the hoardings of a redevelopment site. No information was provided concerning the layout of the proposed redevelopment. The Inspector therefore felt they had insufficient information by which to judge whether the siting and appearance of this appeal proposal would be acceptable, or even feasible, in the circumstances which would apply on completion of the development currently in progress.

The Inspector concluded that, even if this proposal had been solely for the purposes of the operator’s network, they would have dismissed this appeal on the effects of the siting and appearance of the public callbox cannot be ascertained.

The Inspector went on to dismiss the appeal.

5 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/06/2020 AND 30/06/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

Appeal E

18/04819/G24 Refusal - Town Telephone Kiosk Application for prior approval for the installation Delegated Refuse Permission 16.06.2020 Appeal Planning Outside Lambeth of 1 public call box. Decision Dismissed Road Junction Kennington Road London

The Inspector noted the proposal would be located on the footway adjacent to the arm of the junction used by traffic leaving the junction and so would not interfere with traffic sightlines or otherwise present an undue safety hazard. It was not therefore precluded from consideration through the operation of article 3(6) of the GPDO.

On the second issue the Inspector noted that the drawings before me therefore indicate elements included for the purposes of advertising. It follows that the proposals [...] are partly for

the purpose of an operator's network, and partly for some other purpose. Consequently, development "for the purpose" of the operator's network, precisely because it is for something Page 108 else as well'. The appeal 'relates to a proposal which does not fall within the purview of permitted development'.

The Inspector concluded that had the proposal been solely for the purposes of the operator's network then he would have allowed the appeal, but the proposal does not fall within the terms of the GDPO. The Inspector went on to dismiss the appeal.

Allowed Dismissed Mixed

Month total 2 6 0

Financial year to date 4 11 0

6 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/06/2020 AND 30/06/2020

Council ref. Address Breach of planning control Notice type Decision date Appeal decision

18/00365/3CND Southview Court Without planning permission, the unauthorised construction of a EN (Operational 19.06.2020 Mixed Appeal Clapham Common South brick, glass and metal porch on the front elevation (‘the Development) Result Side unauthorised front porch’) and green wooden refuse store on the London flank elevation (‘the unauthorised refuse store’). SW4 9DQ

The appeal concerned the unauthorised installation of a front porch and refuse store.

The appeal was made under grounds (a) that planning permission should be granted and (f) that the steps required to comply with the notice and lesser steps would overcome the objections. Early in the appeal the appellant withdrew the appeal in relation to the refuse store – therefore the appeal proceeded only in relation to the front porch (with the requirements to remove the refuse store upheld).

Under ground (a), the Inspector considered the main issue to be the impact of the front porch on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. The Inspector found that the host building was not typical of the character of the surrounding conservation area and was somewhat of an anomaly. He found that the porch was a modest Page 109 addition, occupying roughly the same area as the previous structure and was not readily viewable due to it being significantly set back from the pavement - and because of screening due to vegetation. However, he did find that the red-brick pillars were visible - but considered that this could be dealt with through the staining of these to match the existing brickwork. The Inspector therefore found that the front porch, subject to its brickwork being treated, would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building, and would preserve the character of the Clapham Conservation Area. He therefore allowed the appeal in relation to the front porch, subject to a condition requiring the submission of further details in relation to the treatment of the brickwork.

As he granted permission for the porch under ground (a) the Inspector did not need to consider the appeal under ground (f). The requirements in relation to the refuse store were upheld.

Allowed Dismissed Mixed

Month total 0 0 1

Financial year to date 2 0 1

1 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/07/2020 AND 31/07/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

18/05496/OUT Refusal - Town Rear Of 300-302 Application for outline planning permission Delegated Refuse Permission 10.07.2020 Appeal Planning Norwood Road (Access, Layout and Scale) to provide 28 Decision Dismissed London dwellings (Use Class C3), community space (Use SE27 9AF Class D1) and office space (Use Class B1), together with refuse and cycle storage, access, circulation and parking, amenity space and other ancillary works. (Appearance and Landscaping are reserved matters for which approval is not sought as part of this outline application).

The application site has an area of approx. 0.25ha and is an ‘L’ shaped backland plot incorporating the rear of 300-302 Norwood Road SE27 9AF and 15 York Hill SE27 0BU. The site is comprised of 3 co-joined large warehouse buildings located immediately to the rear of the Texaco garage. The site has an access road running through the site leading onto York Hill to the north. The sites lie within the West Norwood Town Centre Opportunity Area under Local Plan policy PN7 and forms part of Site 18 (286-362 Norwood Road) which is identified in the Lambeth Local Plan as a key site for development and the regeneration of West Norwood. The site is located within the West Norwood District Centre Primary Shopping Area. It is also identified in the West Norwood and Tulse Hill Manual for Delivery (2017) as a ‘Central Retail Area’ and an opportunity site for enhancement. It is important to note this document Page 111 provides guidance but does not form part of the statutory development plan for Lambeth.

The Inspector considered the main issues to be; 1) if there is a loss of Class D1 space; 2) if the scheme would prejudice development of adjoining plots; 3) if the scheme would deliver the policy aspirations for Site 18; 4) whether there would be safe and satisfactory pedestrian access 5) whether the planning obligations are necessary and could they be delivered.

On the 1st issue the Inspector noted that although there was discrepancies in measurement, there would be an overall loss of D1 floorspace and did not consider a condition could increase the D1 space as it would reduce the B1 space and would prejudice interested parties who would not have the opportunity to comment on this change. On this issue the Inspector concluded that there would be a material loss of D1 floorspace. Agenda Item 7

Turning to the 2nd issue the Inspector noted an application for residential use at 294-298 was refused and the existing uses where commercial. The Inspector noted that BRE guidelines do not apply to commercial uses and in the absence of an approved scheme the development with would not prejudice the future development of the adjoining plot.

With regard to the 3rd issue the Inspector noted that there was no adopted Council guidance to prevent piecemeal development. The Inspector concluded that the approval of the proposal would not prejudice development on adjoining sites or hinder the long term policy aspirations for Site 18.

Finally, on the 4th issue the Inspector noted that there is opportunity to provide accessible linkage through the development. The Inspector noted that this link would not be subject to unacceptable transport, noise or environmental issues and concluded that the proposal would provide safe and satisfactory pedestrian access and linkages. On the 5th issue the Inspector noted as all parties were not party to the s106 the Appellant would not be bound by these obligations.

The Inspector concluded in the absence of these obligations the proposals would be contrary to policy and went onto dismiss the appeal.

1 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/07/2020 AND 31/07/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

19/01977/FUL Refusal - Town 21 Thirlmere Road Erection of front garden wall and formation of Delegated Refuse Permission 14.07.2020 Appeal Planning London parking bay and associated vehicular crossover. Decision Dismissed SW16 1QW

The appeal property is located on the western side of Thirlmere Road and is a semi-detached dwellinghouse which hosts a small front garden. Officers on application 18/02219/FUL noted rubble foundations of what appeared to have previously been a front boundary wall. On using various image tools, officers discovered that a front boundary wall hosting a front gate was previously present. There is currently no rubble or front boundary wall. The property is also located within the CA12 Streatham Park Garrad’s Road Conservation Area.

The Inspector noted the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on on-street parking, the lack of sufficient visibility from the parking bay means the development would be harmful to highway safety due to the boundary height proposed of more than 0.9m. It would therefore conflict with Policy T6, Q14 and Q15. The provision of one off-street parking space in lieu of the loss of one on-street parking space would not be unacceptable in parking terms, the conflict with this policy carries limited weight.

The Inspector also noted that the majority of properties along Thirlmere Road had converted their front gardens to provide off-street parking spaces. While such parking areas may not be Page 112 characteristic of the Conservation Area as a whole, was considered that they strongly form part of the established character of Thirlmere Road. The proposal was not considered to harm the conservation area.

Overall, the inspector dismissed the appeal on highway safety.

19/02290/FUL Refusal - Town 231 South Lambeth Erection of a single storey double garage with Delegated Refuse Permission 17.07.2020 Appeal Planning Road shutter doors to the rear of the property. (Flat A) Decision Dismissed London SW8 1XR

The property is currently split into three flats. This appeal relates to the rear garden of Flat A located on the basement and ground floor. The site located within the South Lambeth Road Conservation area, however is not a listed building. The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on traffic congestion and sustainable transport movements.

The Inspector noted that the site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score of 6a, and so has an excellent level of access to public transport services. The site is within a controlled parking zone (CPZ), and it is understood that the appellant has the right to apply for a parking permit. The Inspector noted that when accounting for the existing permit entitlement, the proposal for a double garage could allow three vehicles to be parked within the site and surrounding area. It was therefore considered that this could result in increased traffic congestion.

The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to traffic congestion and sustainable transport movements and the appeal was dismissed.

2 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/07/2020 AND 31/07/2020

Council ref. Appeal type Address Proposal Decision Officer Decision date Appeal type recommendation decision

Allowed Dismissed Mixed

Month total 0 3 0

Financial year to date 4 14 0

Page 113

3 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/07/2020 AND 31/07/2020

Council ref. Address Breach of planning control Notice type Decision date Appeal decision

19/00340/3LB 69 Clapham Road a) Removal of all of the original single glazed timber sash windows EN (Listed Building) 20.07.2020 Appeal London from all floors at the front and rear of the premises, together with Withdrawn SW9 0HY the associated original timber architraves, window cills, internal shutters and panelling. b) Installation of replacement wooden double glazed sash windows on the front and rear elevations (“the unauthorised double glazed windows”).

Appeal withdrawn 20/7/20.

Allowed Dismissed Mixed

Month total 0 0 0

Financial year to date 2 0 1 Page 115

1 This page is intentionally left blank