York House, 199 Westminster Bridge Road in the London Borough of Lambeth Planning Application No

Home , Lambeth Palace Road, Westminster Bridge Road

planning report PDU/0908b/02 20 February 2013 York House, 199 Westminster Bridge Road in the London Borough of Lambeth planning application no. 12/04421/FUL

Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Demolition of York House and erection of an 18-storey building to provide 1,093 student bedrooms, 6,000sq.m. sixth form college, 380sq.m. affordable office space and a 750sq.m. health suite. The applicant The applicant is Urbanest, and the architect is Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

Strategic issues The proposed mix of uses, design and impact on Westminster World Heritage Site is acceptable. The carbon savings are welcomed. The transport matters have been addressed.

The Council’s decision

In this instance Lambeth Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Lambeth Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 3 December 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Lambeth Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

Category 1B (1(c)): Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres.

page 1 Category 1C (1(a)): the building is more than 35 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames.

2 On 9 January 2013 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0908b/01, and subsequently advised Lambeth Council that the application was broadly acceptable in strategic policy terms however the matters set out in paragraph 56 required further discussion.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 29 January 2013 Lambeth Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the application, and on 7 February 2013 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Lambeth Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Lambeth Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application. The Mayor has until 20 February 2013 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

6 At the consultation stage Lambeth Council was advised that the application broadly complied with the London Plan, but further clarification was required on the matters et out in paragraph 56 of the above-mentioned report:

 Use: The principle of the use is supported. The student use, community use of the pool and affordable workspace should be secured by section 106 agreement.

 Design: The design is welcomed. The potential future public route and quality of materials should be secured by condition/section 106 agreement.

 Inclusive design: 10% accessible rooms should be secured by condition.

 Energy: Carbon savings welcomed, electrical capacity of CHP should be confirmed and potential for future connection to district heating network secured.

 Transport: Transport impact is acceptable, electric vehicle charging points and exemption from on-street parking permits required. Contributions for bus stops, legible London signs, and cycle hire required. Travel plan and construction logistics plan required.

Principle of use

7 Use of the accommodation for student housing only is secured in the Section 106 agreement. The 34 studio apartments on the 18th floor, which may also be used for ancillary or incidental purposes, e.g. visiting parents/lecturers, which is acceptable. Free local school use of the pool, between 10:00am to 12:00pm and 2:00pm and 4:00pm Monday to Friday during terms time has been secured in the Section 106 agreement. The affordable workspace will be provided in

page 2 advance of occupation of the student accommodation to Waterloo BID (or other organisation agreed by the Council) at a peppercorn rent for at least 50 years. All these measures are welcomed and ensure scheme compliance with London Plan policy.

Design and inclusive design

8 The potential for a future public route between Westminster Bridge Road and Upper Marsh has been secured by section 106 agreement. A condition has been imposed requiring submission of material samples. A condition has been imposed requiring 5% accessible rooms and 5% easily adaptable rooms. All these measures are welcomed and ensure scheme compliance with London Plan policy.

Energy

9 Additional information has been provided; the carbon savings set out in the energy strategy and potential for future connection to a district heating network have been secured by condition. All these measures are welcomed and ensure scheme compliance with London Plan policy. Transport for London’s comments

10 At stage 1 TfL confirmed that the development would not result in an unacceptable impact on the capacity of local highway and public transport services. TfL expected all future occupants to be exempt from eligibility for on-street car parking permits in the area. TfL also requested that a continuous, safe and legible footway and cycle route be delivered around the site.

11 In addition TfL requested that demand for cycling warranted a contribution towards a new cycle hire station. The need for a travel plan, real time travel information, delivery and servicing plans and construction logistics plan was raised as was the need to secure a CIL contribution.

12 Further discussions have taken place with the applicant and the Council around the design of the footway and cycle route to enable a safe shared use by pedestrians and cyclists. TfL has agreed the indicative design with the final layout to be agreed by way of a detailed landscape plan, secured by condition in consultation with TfL. A section 278 agreement between TfL and the applicant will be required to implement the works. In addition, an ‘in principle’ agreement has been reached regarding the transfer of land to ensure a logical highway boundary, subject to detailed design.

13 TfL has assessed the quality of crossing facilities outside of the site and identified improvements that should be made to the toucan crossing on Lambeth Palace Road. A contribution will be secured through the aforementioned section 278 agreement to secure the works. The above measures ensure compliance with London Plan policies 6.9 and 6.10 through improving connections for users of the development.

14 As a significant proportion of trips are likely to use routes from the northbound bus stop on Westminster Bridge Road. TfL has secured a section 106 contribution of £10,000 to upgrade the northbound bus stop, including installation of a countdown sign. This contribution will be payable to council and transferred to TfL. This ensures conformity with London Plan policy 6.7.

15 A contribution of £7,500 to provide one Legible London sign has been secured through the section 106 agreement. This contribution will be payable to the council for implementation of this sign.

16 The application currently proposes car and cycle parking in line with the London Plan standards as set out in policy 6.13 and table 6.3; TfL supports this approach. The location of the

page 3 proposed cycling facilities is now acceptable, following separation of the cycle parking linked to the different uses. This has resulted in the loss of one disabled parking space. Notwithstanding this, TfL considers the development provides adequate disabled parking facilities in line with London Plan Policy. The exemption of occupants to apply for permits in the surrounding CPZ has been secured by way of the section 106 agreement.

17 TfL requested funding and land be secured for a 36 space Cycle Hire Docking station due to the increase in demand on the cycle network and in order to promote roll out of the Mayor’s Cycle Hire scheme. As a result TfL has secured a section 106 contribution of £195,000. Detailed design and location of the cycle hire station is secured by use of a planning condition. Overall this ensures compliance with London Plan policy 6.9.

18 A travel plan including monitoring and funding is secured through the section 106 agreement. A Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) and Delivery and Servicing Strategy have been secured by condition in line with London Plan policy 6.14.

19 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The charging rate for Lambeth is £35 per sq.m. The applicant and Council should confirm the required CIL once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised.

20 The previous scheme at the site secured obligations towards strategic infrastructure in the Waterloo area. Due to the nature of use this application is not liable for a strategic transport contribution for Waterloo in accordance with the adopted or draft Crossrail SPG. As such an approach to mitigate the site-specific impacts around design, access and cycling was taken.

21 Notwithstanding this, Lambeth Council has secured a contribution of £453,000 to upgrade the railway arches on Westminster Bridge Road and Upper Marsh. As TfL is the traffic authority for Westminster Bridge Road it is requested that TfL is consulted on the development of the scheme to upgrade this archway.

22 In addition Lambeth Council and TfL have secured a contribution of £679,000 through the Section 106 towards wider environmental improvements in the vicinity of the site. This contribution is payable to Lambeth Council and is in addition to works around the boundary of the site which are governed by the section 278 agreement. It is expected that the allocation of funds will be governed by the Waterloo Steering Group upon which TfL is a member.

23 In summary Lambeth Council and TfL have secured the following monetary transport obligations from this application,

 £10,000 to upgrade the northbound bus stop on Westminster Bridge Road  £7,500 towards a new Legible London sign in the vicinity of the site  £195,000 and land for a new 36 space cycle hire station  £453,000 to upgrade nearby railway arches  £679,000 towards wider environmental improvements in the vicinity of the site.  A CIL contribution calculated at £1,270,780 (excludes the education floorspace which is exempt)

24 Overall, the transport issues raised at stage 1 have been addressed satisfactorily, with the necessary mitigation measures being secured by way of the s106 agreement conditions and a forthcoming section 278 agreement.

page 4 Response to consultation

25 Crime Prevention Design Advisor: Provided comments to improve the security, sought conditions regarding need for crime prevention strategy and secured by design, specification of external lighting and CCTV.

26 English Heritage: Objects to the proposal, considers that the building fails to respond to its immediate surroundings and would have a harmful impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Westminster World Heritage Site and also a harmful impact on the Grade I listed Elizabeth Tower.

27 English Heritage (Archaeology): Recommends conditions for archaeological investigation.

28 Design Council: Generally support the scheme.

29 Environment Agency: Do not object to the scheme, welcome flood resilience measures and sustainable drainage measures.

30 Natural England: Provided standing advice.

31 Westminster City Council: No objection.

32 Waterloo Community Development Group: Generally support proposal, particularly the affordable workspace; concern about creation of canyon effect. Consider access to the pool should be increased. Seek amendments to the Section 106 in respect of the pool access, CIL payment, library contribution and affordable workspace.

33 South Bank Employers Group: Concern that the Council has not undertaken community engagement regarding the application, wish to be involved in decisions on the prioritisation and expenditure of section 106 contributions, question whether the waterloo BID is the right body to manage the affordable workspace, consider that heritage issues should be balanced against economic and community benefits, potential for local residents/businesses to benefit from jobs/procurement needs to be managed carefully. Welcome future proofing for potential district heating network.

34 Waterloo Quarter BID: Welcomes application and its contribution towards Lower Marsh Regeneration Project. Support affordable workspace.

35 Guys and St Thomas’ Charity: Strongly support the application.

36 Friends of Archbishop’s Park: Section 106 contribution for Park improvements are essential to cope with increased usage.

37 Alpha Plus: Strongly support proposal.

38 Canterbury & Stangate Tenants Association: Recognise benefits of scheme, but express concern regarding demolition and construction, emphasise the need for good management of students to ensure good neighbourliness, cafe/bar should be for residents only, concern about overspill cycle and car parking, welcome contribution to Archbishop’s Park but seek more detail.

39 Beckett House: Support proposals, but concerned that building is too close and could impact on daylight/sunlight

page 5 40 Two local residents have commented, both supporting the scheme, one also welcoming the contribution towards improvements to Archbishop’s Park.

41 Where appropriate conditions and a section 106 agreement is proposed to address concerns. The strategic issues raised (particularly heritage impact) have been addressed in the reports to the Mayor and other issues have been addressed in Lambeth’s committee report. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

42 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

43 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

44 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

45 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

46 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so).

page 6 Conclusion

47 The redevelopment of the long vacant office building is strongly supported and will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterloo Opportunity Area. The development does not have a harmful impact on the World Heritage Site and all of the issues raised previously by the Mayor have been satisfactorily resolved.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected]

page 7

planning report PDU/0908b/01 9 January 2013 York House, 199 Westminster Bridge Road in the London Borough of Lambeth planning application no. 12/04421/FUL

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal

Demolition of York House and erection of an 18-storey building to provide 1,093 student bedrooms, 6,000sq.m. sixth form college, 380sq.m. affordable office space and a 750sq.m. health suite. The applicant The applicant is Urbanest and the architect is Allford Hall Monaghan Morris Strategic issues The proposed mix of uses, design and impact on Westminster World Heritage Site is acceptable. The carbon savings are welcomed. Transport matters needs to be addressed.

Recommendation

That Lambeth Council be advised that the application is broadly acceptable but does not fully comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 56 of this report.

Context

48 On 3 December 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Lambeth Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 11 January 2013 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

49 The application is referable under Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

Category 1B (1(c)): Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or

page 8 buildings in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres.

Category 1C (1(a)): the building is more than 35 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames.

50 Once Lambeth Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

51 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

52 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

53 York House is located on Westminster Bridge Road roundabout at the junction with Lambeth Bridge Road. Immediately north is One Westminster Bridge Road (the ‘Island site’), a recently completed 16-storey apart-hotel and beyond that is Waterloo Station. The rail lines into Waterloo station and the former international platforms lie to the east. St. Thomas’ Hospital is located to the west of the site, beyond which is the River Thames and the Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site. Beckett House, an office building, is to the south.

54 The site currently contains a 3-storey hexagonal shaped pub, the Florence Nightingale, and a 10-storey rectangular office block. Both buildings are unattractive and currently vacant.

55 Lambeth Palace Road forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and Westminster Bridge Road forms part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN).

56 Public transport accessibility level (PTAL) is measured on a scale of 1 to 6 where 6 is excellent; this site has a PTAL of 6 due to its proximity of 400m from Waterloo transport interchange which provides access to mainline rail, as well as Waterloo and City, Bakerloo, Northern and Jubilee line Underground services, and a range of bus connections. It is also within 340m of Lambeth North Underground station which provides access to the Bakerloo line.

Details of the proposal

57 The application proposes the demolition of York House and the former Nightingale public house and erection of an 18-storey (62.8m AGL) building to provide 1,093 student bedrooms, 6,000sq.m. sixth form college, 380sq.m. affordable office space and a 750sq.m. health suite. Case history

58 Planning permission was granted in July 2007 for the demolition of York House and the public house and its replacement with a part-10 and part-13 storey office building with retail space at ground floor level. The proposal included environmental improvements to the areas around both York House and the adjoining Beckett House.

59 That application was seen by the previous Mayor in 2004/2005 (PDU/0908) who concluded that he was content for Lambeth Council to determine the case itself.

page 9 60 A revised application for 16-storey office block was submitted in 2008 and considered by the previous Mayor at stage 1 in April 2008 (PDU/2120/01) and by the Deputy Mayor, Government relations in May 2008, who was content for Lambeth Council to grant permission. 61 An application was submitted in July 2011 to extend the life of the 2008 consent. The Mayor was content for Lambeth Council to determine the application itself (PDU/2120a/02).

62 Pre-application meetings were held in January and October 2012 to discuss the scheme now proposed. The principle of the redevelopment of the site for the mix of uses was supported by officers. The emerging design was also supported subject to further testing of the impact on the World Heritage Site, issues relating to energy, inclusive design and transport were also raised. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

63 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Mix of uses London Plan  Employment London Plan; Land for Industry and Transport SPG  Education London Plan  Urban design London Plan  Tall buildings/views London Plan, Revised View Management Framework SPG  Historic Environment London Plan; World Heritage Sites SPG; Circular 07/09  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy;  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

64 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2011 Lambeth Core Strategy, the 2007 Unitary Development Plan and the 2011 London Plan.

65 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework  The draft Lambeth Site Allocations Development Plan Document

 The Waterloo Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

 The draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan Principle of development

66 The proposal involves the demolition of the existing York House office building. Whilst the London Plan does specifically protect office uses it does support rejuvenation of the office stock in viable locations (policy 4.2). In this instance the applicant and Lambeth Council have jointly

page 10 commissioned a report assessing the potential for re-use/redevelopment for offices and the impact of the loss office floorspace. The production of such a report is welcomed.

67 The report notes that the existing building is obsolete for modern office requirements, that five years of marketing for the consented office scheme did not generate sufficient interest to enable construction to start and that a number of new build office schemes are more likely to come forward in the near future (Elizabeth House and Shell Centre) which could saturate the local market. The findings of this report are accepted.

68 The applicant is proposing to provide affordable workspace (in place of library space previously proposed), to be managed by the Waterloo Business Improvement District. This is strongly supported and its provision and management will need to be secured by agreement.

69 The provision of student accommodation and sixth form education is welcomed. Both are supported by London Plan policy and meet an acknowledged need. The student use should also either be secured to specified institutions or for permanent student use in order to meet London Plan policy.

70 It is noted that the proposed pool is not intended to be open to the public. While not a strategic issues local community use would be welcomed. The level of community use (hours of access/cost) will need to be established as part of the planning application and secured as part of any subsequent legal agreement.

Urban design

71 The layout proposed is a well conceived response to the constraints and opportunities presented by the site context. The position of the building would allow for the creation of a new pedestrian route alongside the railway viaduct should this be brought forward in future. In the interim it would gate this space to ensure its security. This possibility should be reflected in the section 106 agreement for the application.

72 The configuration of ground floor uses and entrances to the building would animate and overlook the public realm in the vicinity and greatly improve the locale in this regard. The public realm has been enlarged and generally designed to accommodate the high footfall arising from the college use.

73 The scale and curved form of the building, which would be treated in bands of light coloured high gloss tiles and recessed glazing, would sit well within the immediate context. The Council should attach conditions to any grant of permission as necessary to ensure that the materials used are of the high quality suggested in the application and that these would be maintained as such for the lifetime of the building. World Heritage Sites and strategic views

74 The proposed development site is located approximately 500m from the Westminster World Heritage Site and other heritage assets, notably the former County Hall (listed grade II*). It would also be visible within designated views in the vicinity. The Circular on the Protection of World Heritage Sites (07/2009) establishes the Government’s objective to protect each World Heritage Site through conservation and preservation of its outstanding universal value. It sets out that World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer zone should be protected from inappropriate development. The Circular identifies the setting of a World Heritage Site as the area around it (including any buffer zone) in which change or development is capable of having an adverse impact on the World Heritage Site, including an impact on views to or from the site.

page 11 75 There are a number of new and enhanced policies in relation to World Heritage Sites, as set out in the 2011 London Plan, setting out that schemes should compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance. In addition, the NPPF states that applications for development affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval. In addition the Mayor’s World Heritage Sites SPG and the London View Management Framework (LVMF) SPG provide guidance on such circumstances and the application is supported by a townscape, heritage and visual impact assessment with the Environmental Statement.

76 The assessment of the view from LVMF 20A illustrates that the proposal would not breach the roof line of County Hall and would be entirely obscured by that building. This is a welcome. Other views taking in this heritage asset and, including river prospects in the vicinity, show the relationship to be harmonious and that harm to its setting would be avoided.

77 The assessment of the view from LVMF 27B, together with assessments from other points in the vicinity, show the proposal would be readily visible in the street vista formed across Westminster Bridge. It would not directly interact with the Clock Tower, as St Thomas’ Hospital would appear between the two, and would be an entirely subservient background element within this view.

78 Other views from within and around the Westminster World Heritage Site have been assessed to provide a comprehensive picture of the relationship between the two. These illustrate that, where visible, the proposal would not cause harm to the setting of this heritage asset and would not compromise its Outstanding Universal Value and the viewer’s ability to appreciate this.

79 It is noted that this assessment is made on the basis that the building will attain the very high quality of architecture suggested by the application material and the comment above regarding design related conditions should be noted in that regard.

80 In summary the proposal would be consistent with the design and built heritage policies of the London Plan, including policies 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.10. 7.11 and 7.12. Inclusive design

81 The applicant has engaged an access consultant to advice on the design of the scheme, which is to be welcomed. The site has level access from the street and there is level access throughout the development, apart from ‘superstudios’ on the 18th floor, which have mezzanine bedrooms. However, reasonable alternative units on the 17th floor are available. 10% of the student bed-rooms will be easily adaptable for wheelchair uses, which is strongly supported. This should be secured by condition. Climate change mitigation

82 The applicant has followed the energy hierarchy and is proposing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 29.6%, thus exceeding the London Plan requirement, which is welcomed. The development will reduce regulated carbon dioxide emissions down to those of a 2012 Building Regulations compliant development through energy efficiency alone. The proposed combined heat and power plant, which will provide the lead source of heat for the site wide energy network, will

page 12 provide 29% carbon dioxide savings. The electrical capacity of the CHP plant should be confirmed. A small amount of photovoltaic panels (100sq.m.) will provide a further 0.6% savings.

83 The applicant has investigated the potential to link to existing heat networks and has confirmed that there are no networks within the vicinity. The applicant should confirm that provision will be made within the design of the development to allow for future connection should one become available. This should be secured by the Council, together with the commitment to a single site wide energy network. Transport

84 TfL accepts the trip generation methodology used to calculate new trips from the site. TfL considers that, due to the volume of new trips created, the development will not result in an unacceptable impact on the capacity of local highway, bus, rail or London Underground services.

85 In recognition of the site’s excellent accessibility, TfL welcomes the car free nature of the proposal with the exception of three onsite disabled spaces. This is welcomed as being compliant with London Plan policy 6.13. TfL recommends that electric vehicle charging points are installed for these spaces in accordance with London Plan standards; these spaces should be secured by condition. TfL expects all future occupants to be exempt from eligibility for on street car parking permits in the area; this should also be secured by planning condition.

86 TfL welcomes submission of a pedestrian quality and accessibility assessment. The pedestrian comfort level which has been incorporated demonstrates that the comfort for pedestrians will not be adversely impacted by increased demand flows from the development.

87 Pre application discussions have taken place with the applicant and the Council regarding the design of the footway adjacent to the site. TfL requests, following these discussions, that the applicant revises the design proposals for review by TfL. A sufficiently clear footway to allow cyclists to pass each other should be achieved around the boundary of the site together with a potential on footway cycle lane with signage. The associated plan once agreed should be secured by condition and implemented by a section 278 agreement with TfL.

88 TfL notes that the existing access from Lambeth Palace Road would be removed. Reinstatement of the footway and the final design should be secured by condition and subject to the section 278 process which will cover the materials to be used as part of these works. An access currently exists between the roundabout and the rear of the site, connecting with Upper Marsh. TfL has no objection to the developer retaining control of this access.

89 The pedestrian assessment considered the quality of the paving materials on local footways and crossings. TfL has assessed these routes and requests a contribution towards resurfacing the toucan crossings on Lambeth Palace Road directly outside the development site. The level of contribution and scope of work must be discussed further with the applicant and secured through the section 278 agreement.

90 A significant proportion of trips are likely to use routes from the northbound bus stop on Westminster Bridge Road. TfL requires a section 106 contribution of £10,000 to upgrade the northbound bus stop, including installation of a countdown sign, in line with London Plan policy 6.7.

91 The approach to signage and way finding should be considered; there is a TfL and Lambeth programme to connect Waterloo to Vauxhall through a network of Legible London signs. As the development lies on this route, TfL requests a contribution of £7,500 to provide one Legible London sign be secured through the s106 agreement.

page 13 92 TfL is currently undertaking a wider review of key junctions on busy cycle routes close to or on the TLRN. This review is currently at an early stage but may give rise to further consideration of impact at the Westminster Bridge Road / Lambeth Palace Road junction. TfL will update the Council and applicant accordingly.

93 The application currently proposes cycle parking in line with the London Plan standards as set out in policy 6.13 and table 6.3; TfL supports this approach. The location of the proposed cycling facilities is largely acceptable however parking for the business use and for staff at the site should be separate from the student accommodation and college parking.

94 This development is expected to considerably increase demand on the local cycle hire network. As such TfL requests funding and land is secured for a Cycle Hire Docking station. TfL considers the principle of locating the station within the public realm towards the front of the site is acceptable; however the station should be redesigned to allow access to all docking points. If the docking station is to be on private land a separate legal agreement will be needed post permission to enable maintenance and servicing arrangement by cycle hire vehicles. TfL requires a contribution of £195,000 to be secured through the section 106 agreement.

95 A travel plan has been submitted and should be secured, along with any necessary measures or financial contributions through the section 106 agreement. A Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) should also be secured as part of the travel plan and secured by condition in line with London Plan policy 6.14.

96 TfL welcomes the draft servicing management strategy submitted as part of the Transport Assessment; this is considered acceptable in the context of the London Plan.

97 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The charging rate for Lambeth is £35 per sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and Council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised.

98 Lambeth Council has recently consulted on its borough wide CIL. Should the CIL be adopted prior to determination, TfL will need to be satisfied that all mitigation measures are secured through CIL or the conventional section 106 route.

99 In summary, further information on highway designs, bus stop improvements, cycle hire and wayfinding, together with mechanisms to secure works and financial obligations is requested. A Travel Plan and Construction Logistics Plan should be secured through conditions for the site. Local planning authority’s position

100 Council officers are understood to be generally supportive of the proposals. Legal considerations

101 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the

page 14 purpose of determining the application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

102 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

103 The application broadly complies with the London Plan however, further information and/or confirmation, as detailed below, is required to comply fully.  Principle of use: The proposed mix of uses is acceptable, as is the loss of offices. The affordable workspace, permanent student accommodation and community use of the leisure facilities should be secured by agreement.

 Design: The design of the proposal is acceptable and will not have a harmful impact on the Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site or other strategic views. The high quality materials proposed should be secured by condition.

 Inclusive design: The proposal generally provides a good standard of inclusive design. The 10% easily adaptable rooms should be secured by the Council

 Climate Change: The proposed carbon savings exceed the London Plan target and are welcomed. The applicant should commit to enabling future connection to a heat network, provide details of the electrical output of the CHP and commit to a single site wide energy network.

 Transport: Electric vehicle charging points should be secured, a revised footway design should be submitted and agreed with TfL and then secured by condition. Contributions to toucan crossing resurfacing, legible London totems and bus stop improvements are required. Reinstatement of the footway following removal of the existing access to Lambeth Bridge should be secured by condition. Cycle parking needs to be amended to separate the different uses, a contribution towards the cycle hire docking station is required, and a travel plan, construction management plan and servicing management plan should be secured.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected]

page 15