SITE DESIGNATIONS ADDRESS: 108 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH Application Number: 17/03658/FUL Case Officer: Luke Farmer Ward: Bishops Date Received: 27/07/2017 Proposal: Erection of temporary show venue and associated development for a period of up to five years (Use Class Sui Generis). Drawing numbers: 1707_HT_00_P_010; 1707_HT_00_P_011; 1707_HT_00_P_012; 1707_HT_AA_S_111; 1707_HT_AA_S_112; 1707_HT_E_211; 1707_HT_E_212; 1707_HT_LG_P_001A; 1707_HT_00_P_002A; 1707_HT_01_P_003; 1707_HT_02_P_004; 1707_HT_03_P_005; 1707_HT_AA_S_101; 1707_HT_BB_S_102; 1707_HT_E_201; 1707_HT_E_202; 1707_HT_E_203A; 1707_HT_E_204A. Documents: Construction Management Plan dated July 2017; Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment; Delivery & Servicing Plan dated October 2017; BREEAM (2014) Assessment; Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy; Historic Environment Assessment; Planning Report – Acoustics; Resident & Stakeholder Engagement; Sustainability and Energy Strategy; Transport Statement dated July 2017; Travel Plan dated September 2017; Draft Visitor Management Plan dated 11 October 2017; Design and Access Statement; Planning Statement; Lambeth Transport Response dated October 2017; Transport for London Response dated October 2017. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the planning obligations listed in this report.

2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

 Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report; and  Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. Delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission in the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 19th December 2017 (or an alternative timeframe agreed with the LPA) on the grounds that the development would have an unacceptable impact on – transport and highways, visitor management, sustainability and local employment.

4. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to Officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a Section 106 Agreement in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

Applicant: MM! The Party (Property) Ltd. Agent: Lichfields

Relevant site designations: Type of designation Applicable designation Central Activities Zone (CAZ) Waterloo Opportunity Area Waterloo Flood Zone 3 Archaeological Priority Area North Lambeth Conservation Area Adjoins Waterloo

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area 0.13 hectares

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (Gross External Area) (square metres (sqm)) Existing - Vacant -

Proposed Sui Generis Show Venue 1,945 sqm

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Car Parking Bicycle Motorbike Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces (general) (Disabled) Existing 0 0 0 0 Proposed 0 0 26 0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application proposes a temporary development for 5 years of a cleared, vacant site at the junction of Stamford Street and Cornwall Road. It is proposed to erect a building to house the London performances of ABBA’s ‘Mamma Mia! The Party’ (MMTP). The show already operates in Stockholm, Sweden, and would provide an immersive experience with guest seated at tables within the auditorium. Guests would be served a meal whilst the show goes on around them. Following the meal, the central tables would be cleared away and guests are then invited to join in with the full dancing and singing experience of show.

The application site has remained in its current form since the previous commercial building was demolished in 1985. The site is owned by Coin Street Community Builders, who have longer term aspirations to develop it as the second phase of the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre.

The application site is located within the Waterloo Opportunity Area and Central Activities Zone, home to the internationally renowned arts and cultural venues along the South Bank, and is located in close proximity to Waterloo railway and Underground stations. In such areas, strategic and local policy supports the promotion of arts and cultural activities and the enhancement of the South Bank in its role as an international cultural and leisure centre through supporting the development of arts and cultural facilities, as well as visitor related facilities. A show venue for the London performances of ABBA’s ‘Mamma Mia! The Party’ is therefore supported in principle, subject to other considerations such as design, heritage impacts, amenity and transport.

The footprint, scale, bulk and massing of the Development would provide a positive response to the local context. Due to the use of the Site that is proposed, the building would not require many window openings, which would also limit the levels of noise breaking out of the building to acceptable levels. In the absence of windows to the upper levels of the building, interest would be provided in the form of ‘shimmering’ façades of blue/green toned coloured disks that flutter in the breeze, creating an abstract veil covering the building. Whilst the detailed design of the building would deviate from the local and historic character of the area, the finish to the façades would ensure that the building will be visually interesting, deliver design excellence and as such would contribute positively to the local and historic context. The design of the building is therefore considered acceptable.

In terms of the impact of the proposals on surrounding heritage assets, the application site is surrounded by a number of heritage assets. The applicant has undertaken an extensive views analysis of the proposals in the context of the surrounding heritage assets. Officers consider that no harm would be caused to the surrounding heritage assets, or that of strategic and local views.

Appropriate visitor management arrangements have been proposed and monitoring of impacts would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement to ensure that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. Furthermore, an annual financial contribution would be provided by the applicant to the Council, to mitigate other impacts of visitors to the venue, such as litter collection. The scale and form of the building would also ensure that acceptable levels of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy are retained to surrounding properties.

The application site is located in a highly accessible area for public transport and it is envisaged that the majority of staff and guests would arrive to and depart from the site by this method. Where other methods would be used, such as by car, taxi or coach, these could be accommodated within the surrounding road network without any unacceptable impacts caused. This is also the case for servicing vehicles, where relatively low numbers of servicing trips would be required for the development to operate successfully. The temporary use proposed, would provide an appropriate form of development and use of an otherwise underused central London site, whilst plans are developed for the longer term use of the site. The scheme would provide public benefits in the form of a significant commitment by the applicant to employ local people during the end use of the building. The improved cultural offer of the wider area and economic benefits that this would bring locally, are also considered public benefits of the scheme. The applicant is willing to open the building for a free additional community function when the building is not in use for MMTP shows, for uses such as meetings, workshops and theatre training. Another public benefit that would be provided by the scheme is an improved street-scene for the area in the interim period prior to the permanent redevelopment of the site, which is currently open and enclosed by wooden fencing with 2 no. large panel advertisements. This would be replaced with a visually interesting building which would not be harmful to surrounding heritage assets. The design of the building would also ensure that it would have a limited impact on the environment through the use of sustainable materials and use of natural ventilation, and a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating is forecast.

Officers consider that the development would be in compliance with the Development Plan for the Borough. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would dictate that the application should otherwise be refused. Officers are therefore recommending approval of the scheme, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

PLANNING OFFICER’S REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: The application is reported to the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with (1)(ii) of the Committee’s terms of reference as it relates to a major application for the creation of more than 1,000sqm of commercial floorspace.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site (‘the Site’) is rectangular in shape and lies at the junction of Stamford Street and Cornwall Road in Waterloo, central London. The Site is owned by Coin Street Community Builders (’CSCB’) and has been a vacant, cleared site since the previous commercial buildings were demolished in 1985, and was cleared to basement level. The wider urban block within which the Site is located within, is bound by Upper Ground to the north and Coin Street to the east, as well as Stamford Street to the south and Cornwall Road to the west. The northern and central part of this block was redeveloped as housing (Iroko housing development) in the 1990s in the form of a continuous part four, part five-storey terrace fronting Cornwall Road, Upper Ground and Coin Street, around a central, open landscaped square. The building immediately adjacent to the Site fronting Stamford Street, was developed in the 2000s as a Neighbourhood Centre and is four storeys in height with a fifth storey which is set-back from the Stamford Street frontage. It is envisaged that in the longer term, the Site will be developed as the second phase of the Neighbourhood Centre.

Figure 1: The Site

1.2 The wider block was used for car parking in the period between the previous buildings being demolished and the replacement buildings being constructed. When the wider block was developed, an underground car park was constructed, which is accessed immediately adjacent to the Site, on Cornwall Road via a ramp. Since the development of the housing and Neighbourhood Centre, the remaining plot of undeveloped land (the application site) has been used for the storage of building materials for nearby development sites. 1.3 The Site is enclosed with timber fencing along Stamford Street and Cornwall Road, with metal gates on Cornwall Road providing vehicular access. Two billboard advertisements are present to the front of the Site on Stamford Street, and have been in place for a number of years since the Site was cleared.

Figure 2: The Site as existing

1.4 The Site is not located within a conservation area, but is sited immediately adjacent to the Waterloo Conservation Area, which runs along the northern pavement of Stamford Street, which is the southern boundary of the Site. Immediately opposite the Site on Stamford Street is the Grade II listed Georgian terrace, which is four storeys in height with lower ground floor. To the west of the Site, fronting Stamford Street and Cornwall Road, is the Franklin Wilkins Building, which is a six-storey Edwardian, academic building, which is occupied by King’s College London. This is the main teaching building for the Waterloo campus at King’s College London, and includes a 24 hour library located at first and second floors on the east side of the building, facing the Site. Immediately opposite the Franklin Wilkins Building, at the south- western part of the Stamford Street and Cornwall Road junction, is the Stamford Street apartments, which house 550 student beds and is operational all year round. This building is part five, part six-storeys in height.

Figure 3: Images around the Site (top – Stamford Street, approaching the Site from Waterloo; middle – Stamford Street, approaching the Site from Blackfriars Road; bottom – Cornwall Road, approaching the Site from South Bank, with the Grade II listed terrace in backdrop) 1.5 The Site is located within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and the Waterloo Opportunity Area (WOA), and is located just 100 metres from Upper Ground to the north and approximately 270 metres from the Queen’s Walk on the South Bank of the River Thames. The London Plan identifies the South Bank as being a strategically important area for arts, culture and entertainment in London, and the post-war buildings that are located on the South Bank, significantly contribute to the character of this area. These buildings include the Royal Festival Hall, Queen Elizabeth Hall, Hayward Gallery and Purcell Room, which forms the Southbank Centre; and also include the British Film Institute (BFI), National Theatre and ITV Television Studios.

1.6 The Site is also located approximately 150 metres from the IMAX cinema and roundabout junction to Waterloo Road, Waterloo Bridge and York Road. Waterloo railway and Underground stations are located approximately 300 metres from the Site.

Figure 4: An aerial view of the Site, outlined in yellow. Waterloo station to the south and South Bank to the north of the Site

1.7 The Site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 6b, which is considered ‘excellent’. The Site is located within the Waterloo ‘W’ Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), which is operational between 08:30-18:30 Monday to Friday and 08:30-13:30 Saturdays. Loading or unloading is permitted on yellow lines (without time plates and blips) before 11:00, before being restricted to 40 minutes continuous loading/unloading after 11:00.

1.8 Stamford Street forms part of the Transport for London Route Network (TRLN) as indicated by the double red lines on both sides of the road, which prevent stopping at any time. Taxis are allowed to stop on Stamford Street however, whilst coaches are not, but are able to make use of the coach parking available on the Waterloo Bridge eastern slip road, which allows for coach parking for 15 minutes, with no return within 1 hour.

PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposed development (‘the Development’) is for the erection of a temporary show venue for a period of up to five years. The show venue would accommodate the London performances of ABBA’s ‘Mamma Mia! The Party’ (MMTP), which has been running in Stockholm since January 2016. The venue would accommodate approximately 520 visitors per show.

Figure 5: The MMTP venue in Stockholm

2.2 The MMTP show would be an immersive experience with guests seated at tables within a large auditorium. Guests would be served a meal whilst the MMTP show goes on around them. Following the meal, the central tables would be cleared away and guests are then invited to join in with the full dancing and singing experience of MMTP. The ‘restaurant’ element of the proposal is ancillary to the main use of the building as a show venue. The public will only be able to dine within the building in combination with viewing the show. Similarly, no admissions would be possible during the evening, such as after the meal has finished. Tickets would be sold in advance on the internet.

2.3 It is proposed that the show would operate within the following hours between Wednesday and Monday (no performances would be held on Tuesdays):

- Cabaret between 18:30-23:30 Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday; and 18:30- 00:00 on Friday and Saturday;

- Matinee between 13:00-17:15 on Saturday and Sunday. 2.4 The cabaret performances would commence at 19:30, with the main element of the performances expected to finish at 22:15, with the venue remaining open until 23:30 Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday and until midnight on Friday and Saturday.

2.5 A separate matinee performance would also be held on Saturdays and Sundays with doors opening at 13:00 and performances beginning at 14:00. The matinee performance is expected to have finished, with all visitors departed, by 17:15.

2.6 It is also the applicant’s intention that the building would be available for a range of free community uses outside of the periods when the show is taking place.

2.7 The proposed building would be rectangular in shape and would measure approximately 24 metres in width and 40 metres in length. The building would be approximately three storeys in height, plus basement level, utilising the existing excavated space at the Site. A tower element is proposed as part of the building, at the junction of Stamford Street and Cornwall Road, where the main entrance would be situated. This element would be 26.5 metres in height, which is slightly taller than the neighbouring King’s College building, in order to help draw air from the building as part of the ventilation system. This natural ventilation system has been proposed in order to reduce the need for extensive plant equipment, although a limited amount of equipment is proposed on the roof of the building.

2.8 As explained above, the main part of the building would be three storeys in height, which equates to 10.2 metres, below the height of the neighbouring Iroko housing and Neighbourhood Centre.

Figure 6: Visualisation of the Development along Stamford Street facing east 2.9 Given the nature of the use proposed, the building would generally consist of blank façades with no windows. From the first floor upwards, the building would comprise a ‘shimmering’ façade of coloured disks that flutter in the breeze, creating an abstract veil covering the building. The disks would generally be arranged in a variation of blue/green tones, to reference the Greek Sea and hint at the use of the building within. However, on the Iroko gardens façade, the building would consist mainly of green discs, to integrate the building with the more natural surroundings of the Iroko courtyard. A similar treatment would be provided on the eastern elevation, as some of this elevation would be visible as the building steps out from the Neighbourhood Centre. The discs would comprise painted metal and would be attached to a stainless steel outer frame.

Figure 7: Prototype and visualisation of the façade treatment

2.10 Lighting would also be provided above ground level to illuminate the façade at night, but this would be limited to the street elevations of Stamford Street and Cornwall Road.

Figure 8: A visual of the proposed building at night

2.11 At ground floor level along Stamford Street and Cornwall Road, the elevations would comprise a dark blue painted steel wall. The base level would also incorporate posters advertising the MMTP show. A separate advertisement consent will follow, where necessary.

2.12 As explained above, the main public access to the building would be located at the corner of Stamford Street and Cornwall Road. The building would also be serviced from a secondary entrance at the northern end of the Site on Cornwall Road where deliveries would take place. Refuse and staff cycle parking would also be collected/accessed here. Visitor cycle parking would be provided to the front of the building on Stamford Street, and would be located in the part of the pavement within the ownership of CSCB.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 A wider masterplan for the urban block was initially granted outline planning permission in 1983 by the Secretary of State for Environment. A further outline planning permission was granted in 1986 for the renewal of the original permission. The application site and the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre, labelled as plot ‘B2’ in the outline, were not included as part of these applications, as it was originally intended to refurbish the previous Boots commercial building that existed on plot B2. However, given the condition of the building when CSCB acquired the site in 1984, it was decided to demolish this building.

Figure 9: The previous Boots commercial building that occupied the application site and adjacent Neighbourhood Centre until it was demolished in 1985

3.2 The adjacent Iroko housing development was included within the original permissions and was labelled as plot ‘B1’ and was designated for use as housing.

3.3 The Iroko housing development, located immediately to the north of the Site (plot B1), was granted planning permission on 07.07.1998 (97/01936/FUL). The description of the development is as follows:

The erection of 2 retail units, 59 dwellings comprising 32 houses, 18 maisonettes and 9 flats and the provision of an underground car park for 266 cars including 17 disabled spaces.

3.4 The adjacent Neighbourhood Centre (part of plot B2) was granted planning permission on 03.05.2006 (03/01794/FUL). The description of development is as follows:

Erection of a part-four/part-two/part-single storey building with basement, comprising retail/restaurant use on part-ground and part-basement floor, community-care/meeting room and offices on part-ground floor, plant on part-basement, nursery with outdoor play area to rear and offices at first and second floor level, offices with terrace to second floor and learning and enterprise support centre and conference facilities/and plant to third floor, roof terrace and plant to fourth floor, associated landscaping and pick up/drop off lay-by to Stamford Street, installation of stainless steel planting wires on south east elevation of Iroko Housing adjacent to Coin Street 3.5 The Neighbourhood Centre was built on only part of the land that was previously occupied by the former Boots building, whilst the application site has never been granted planning permission for any replacement development and has remained a cleared site since the previous building was demolished in 1985. It had originally been proposed to develop all of plot B2 (including the application site) as a Neighbourhood Centre under planning application reference 99/00336/OUT, but that application was withdrawn. At no point in time has the application site been subject to planning permission for residential use.

CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Statutory and Internal/External Consultees

4.1.1 Conservation and Design: Support has been expressed for the scheme and the comments have been incorporated below in the ‘Conservation and Design’ section below.

4.1.2 Transport and Highways: Requested further clarification on the trip generation analysis, car parking (including blue badge parking for staff), staff cycle parking access, and delivery arrangements. Amendments were also requested to the originally submitted Travel Plan. Following the receipt of amended documents, no objections were raised.

4.1.3 Transport for London (TfL): Requested further clarification on cycle parking arrangements and taxi and coach management procedures. Following the receipt of amended documents, no objections were raised subject to final details of taxi, coach and construction management to be reserved by condition and in the Section 106 Agreement.

4.1.4 London Borough of Southwark: Did not wish to comment.

4.1.5 Historic England: Advised that the application should be assessed by the Local Planning Authority, and wished to make no comment.

4.1.6 Historic England (Archaeology): Noted that the Site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area, and therefore there may be archaeological artefacts of interest located at the Site. No objections were raised subject to a condition to ensure that the archaeological interest of the Site is preserved.

4.1.7 Environmental Health: No objections were raised subject to conditions regarding construction management, servicing, visitor management, and conditions to ensure noise levels from the development are kept to a level that is no higher than that modelled within the applicant’s report. The levels modelled by the applicant were considered acceptable by the Environmental Health Consultants.

4.1.8 Sustainability Consultants: No objections raised subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement securing a carbon offset payment.

4.1.9 Waste Collection: No objection raised.

4.1.10 Environment Agency: No objection raised.

4.1.11 Flood Risk Officer: No objection raised.

4.1.12 Air Quality: Noted that no Air Quality Assessment has been provided. Requested conditions in relation to the construction of the building, particularly with regard to dust mitigation. Also suggested that further mitigation measures should be proposed, such as committing to installing a ‘green screen’ between the building and the Iroko housing development. 4.1.13 Metropolitan Police and Secured by Design: Raised no objections to the proposals, subject to conditions insuring appropriate counter terrorism measures are installed.

4.1.14 Thames Water: Raised no objections to the proposals, specifically with regard to existing sewerage capacity.

4.2 Adjoining owners/occupiers

4.2.1 A site notice was displayed from 11.08.2017 to 22.09.2017 and the application was advertised in the local paper on 11.08.2017. Given the timing of the application and the summer holiday period officers extended the consultation from the statutory period of 21 days to 42 days. The statutory consultation period ended on 22.09.2017. In response to consultation, 157 letters of representation have been submitted.

4.2.2 152 letters of objections were received, a summary of the concerns raised is set out below:

Summary of objections Response Land Use The land should be for See section 3 (‘Relevant Planning History’). In summary, affordable housing as it was the land was not given planning permission to replace the planned for, and the previous commercial building that existed at the Site and proposed use of the Site is has not been allocated for housing. The Site and adjacent inappropriate given Neighbourhood Centre were excluded from the original surrounding residential masterplan permissions in 1983 and 1986, when it was development. originally intended to refurbish the commercial building that previously stood in place of the now cleared application site and Neighbourhood Centre. Whilst part of the Stamford Street frontage included housing, this is not in the location of the Site.

It is the intention of the landowner, CSCB to develop the Site as ‘phase 2’ of the Neighbourhood Centre, and until such time that they are able to bring forward the redevelopment of the Site, they intend to use the Site for a ‘meanwhile’ use, hence the temporary nature of the application. The nature of the development being applied for is a matter for the applicant and not for the Local Planning Authority.

The proposed use of the land is considered acceptable in land use terms, given the central London location of the Site and easy access, and given its location within the CAZ and close proximity of South Bank, where cultural and night time economies are encouraged. Officers consider the impact of the Development would be appropriately managed in the context of surrounding residential properties. Please see section 6.3 (‘Amenity’) and the below paragraph in this table regarding Amenity concerns raised.

It is not clear where it has Whilst this is not relevant to the current application for ever been confirmed that the temporary planning permission, CSCB have confirmed to Site would be used for the the Council that this is their current plan for the Site. second phase of the Furthermore, when the Neighbourhood Centre was built, Neighbourhood Centre, and it was built in a way to provide easy connection to an this additional facility would extended facility, which indicates that this is the intention not be required. for the permanent use of the Site.

Whilst a temporary Officers would have to consider such an application on its permission has been own merits. It should be noted that the current application proposed, it could be has been considered in the same way as a permanent anticipated that an extension permission given the length of permission proposed. to this could be requested once operational.

A permanent development A temporary permission has been proposed, and should be planned. therefore Officers have a statutory duty to determine the application. Any permanent application would need to be made in association with CSCB, the landowner.

Design The scale of the proposal See section 6.2. In summary, Officers consider the scale would be excessive and its of development to be in accordance with and acceptable appearance would bear no within its surroundings. The building has been designed relation to its surroundings. with limited openings to prevent noise breakout from the building.

Amenity The development would See section 6.3. In summary, Officers consider that the result in a significant impact building has been appropriately designed to ensure that on neighbouring amenity due there would not be unacceptable levels of noise escaping to noise from the venue itself, from the building. smokers outside, and that from guests leaving the With regard to visitor management, a draft Visitor venue, particularly when Management Plan has been submitted, which has set out intoxicated. The surrounding appropriate measures to address potential issues. area would also be subject to Furthermore, the applicant is willing to enter into a additional stress with regard Section 106 Agreement to secure an appropriate financial to litter etc. contribution to the Council to mitigate the impact of visitors from the development on the surrounding area for measures such as litter-picking. Also, the final Visitor Management Plan would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement, and would include measures to monitor the impact of the development, and where necessary amendments to the Visitor Management Plan would be sought to address these issues.

The original permission for The permission limited the use to allow for a full the Iroko housing assessment on the likely impacts, should a change of use development had a condition be proposed. This was because the retail units are part of stating that the 2 no. retail the same building as the residential units, which are units should not be used as above. Therefore the use of the units below was entertainment venues as if specifically controlled. However, any proposal needs to they were to be used as be assessed on its own merits, in this instance, the such, they would create a referenced condition is not considered to be relevant as a serious disturbance to mixture of uses within the same building is not proposed. residents.

The development would have See section 6.3. Officers consider that the Development an unacceptable impact on would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring neighbouring amenity with amenity, including with regard to outlook and sunlight. regard to outlook and sunlight. The noise survey provided is Whilst the Development would result in an increase in insufficient as it does not vehicular movements, it is likely that the majority of staff include details of increased and guests would arrive and leave the Site using public vehicular traffic and the likely transport. In terms of the noise survey itself, the area impact of that. surrounding the Site suffers from high background levels of environmental noise. Therefore it would be difficult for an assessment to be provided that would demonstrate that significant levels of additional noise would result from the vehicular movements associated with the proposed development.

Transport There would likely be an See section 6.4 and the ‘Car Parking’ section. In increase in demand for summary, the applicant has surveyed the availability of parking, which cannot be parking locally, and it is anticipated that guests, if driving accommodated locally. to the venue, would in the most-part, utilise the adjacent underground car park. Any additional parking on-street would have to take account of parking restrictions that exist locally. Officers consider that the majority of guests would arrive and leave by public transport given the excellent access to public transport that the Site benefits from. Any requirement for on-street parking would likely be minimal.

The Development would See section 6.4 and the ‘Taxis’ section. Vehicles other likely result in a large number than taxis are unable to stop on Stamford Street, given it of parked vehicles including is a Red-Route. Whilst there would be an increase in taxis when dropping off and vehicles in the local area at the beginning and end of the picking up guests. performances, given the assessment provided by the applicant with regard to trip generation, and in the context of other similar venues locally, the impact that would be caused is considered to be acceptable.

Inadequate delivery See section 6.4 and the ‘Deliveries and Servicing’ management measures have section. Officers consider that the operation of the been proposed. Deliveries Development would not result in an unacceptable impact would cause issues of on the highways, noting a relatively low level of deliveries passing traffic on Cornwall required by the Development. Road. The proposed ITV The proposed ITV development is yet to receive planning development and Transport permission, and in the context of the wider area, the for London junction changes impacts of the development with regard to transport, is at the IMAX roundabout, considered acceptable. have not been taken into consideration. The proposed changes to the IMAX roundabout are noted. The changes would only affect northbound traffic from Waterloo Road, as it would not be permitted to turn right onto Stamford Street. All traffic wishing to make this turn would have to use alternative routes, such as via Cornwall Road from The Cut. The level of vehicular traffic associated with the proposed development is not considered to be significant in the wider context, and therefore, the proposed highway alterations would not result in the Development creating an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area.

The proposed development Given the central London location of the Site, and its would result in unacceptable position on the TRLN, it is considered that the increased levels of pedestrian activity. footfall that would result from the Development, can be appropriately accommodated without causing any unacceptable impacts on existing pedestrian comfort levels.

There would be inadequate Officers consider that the Site would have adequate access for emergency access for emergency vehicles given its location on the vehicles to the Site. main highway of Stamford Street.

The level of visitor cycle The visitor cycle parking would be accommodated wholly parking would be inadequate on the part of the pavement owned by CSCB. It is not and should be provided envisaged that there would be much of a requirement for elsewhere, with this space the use of the pavement outside the venue for queue provided for arrival and management. However, measures have been proposed departure. within an updated draft Visitor Management Plan which sets out queue management procedures that would be used, which would not conflict with the visitor cycle parking.

Other The dirt and noise from A condition is requested requiring full details of construction and vehicular construction methodology. However, given the Site is a movements during the cleared site, and given the temporary nature of the build, operation of the Development it is not anticipated that the surrounding area would be would only add to the air subject to unacceptable impacts during construction. quality issues already suffered in the area. In terms of the operation of the Development, it would require a relatively small amount of deliveries to function, and the majority of staff and guests would likely arrive to and leave the Site on public transport. In the context of the other development found locally, it is considered that the proposals would not result in a significant impact on air quality. The public consultation The Council encourages applicants to carry out extensive carried out by the applicant public consultation at pre-application stage. However, prior to submitting the there are no statutory powers to control the level of application was inadequate. consultation carried out by the applicant at pre-application stage.

The public have not been The Council cannot force particular members of the able to contact the applicant project team to be made available for comment. to discuss the proposals. The public consultation The level of consultation carried out by the Council is carried out by the Council considered acceptable and in accordance with the during the application was Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and inadequate. statutory requirements. Furthermore, the statutory consultation period of 21 days was extended to 42 days to allow for the summer holiday period.

The public would not benefit The Council considers that sufficient public benefits from the Development and would be provided by the Development to address its there is not a need for the potential harmful impacts. Whilst the offer of the use of use of the venue by the the venue to the community free of charge, is welcomed, community as offered by the this is not considered necessary to make the applicant. Development acceptable in planning terms.

The Development may have Details of foul water drainage have been provided within an unacceptable impact on the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. Thames Water existing sewerage systems. have also raised no objection to the proposals with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity.

The applicant is claiming that This commitment would be secured through the Section a benefit of the scheme to the 106 Agreement. Please see section 6.7. community is that it would provide for local jobs, but this could not be secured.

In a previous planning The Council has considered the current application under application for this site, the the current Development Plan policies, which are set out Council stated that it could in the report. only be used for non-housing “where there are no disadvantages to the local community.” The proposed chimney has In design and heritage terms, the chimney is not been proposed to provide considered to be harmful. Whilst the building would not natural ventilation, but the meet the Mayor’s carbon dioxide emission targets, a building would still not meet carbon offset payment would be secured in the Section the carbon dioxide emission 106 Agreement to mitigate against this shortfall. The targets. building would achieve a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating, which indicates that it would be of a sustainable design and construction, noting that the natural ventilation that the chimney would provide, would minimise the level of plant that would otherwise require. This would improve the level of sustainability of the building.

The Development could As set out in the Visitor Management Plan, staff would be result in increased stationed on the doors before, during and at the end of pickpocketing incidents. the shows, and CCTV would be used. Such measures are considered to minimise the risks of opportunistic crime at the Site.

It is unclear what role The application is required to be determined by the Bromley Council will play in London Borough of Lambeth, and not by the London this planning assessment. Borough of Bromley.

The London Borough of The application has been assessed through planning Lambeth has a statutory duty regulations and policy and it is considered by Officers that to consider public health the Development as proposed would not impact issues that may arise due to unacceptably on neighbouring properties with regard to loss of sleep as a result of the noise. The building has been designed specifically to Development. prevent noise breakout and appropriate management measures are proposed with regard to guest arriving to and leaving the venue.

CSCB should not be claiming It is not a requirement of the current application to inspect that the Development is the financial situation of the landowner, and ultimately, required to fund the future the Council can only determine the planning applications proposals at the Site, other that are presented to it, and on their own merits. Officers surrounding sites and to consider the proposed development to be appropriate for repay loans for developments the reasons set out within the report. completed several years ago. Not material planning considerations The Doon Street Car Park This is not a material planning consideration, as the should be considered as the application is required to be assessed on its own merits site for this proposed and as it is presented to the Council. development, as this is a tried and tested location for temporary events, and the Development would have a less of an impact in that location. Other uses have been shown This is not a material planning consideration, as the to be viable at the Site, application is required to be assessed on its own merits including housing with and as it is presented to the Council. commercial uses.

CSCB are breaking the terms This is not a material planning consideration, but it should on which it was established be noted that it is an application for a temporary due to the use proposed. permission. The company behind the The Council are unable to control the actions of the application is already applicant in respect of this. promoting the show on their website, which indicates that they feel that this is a done deal.

4.2.3 5 letters of support were received, summary of the points raised are set out below:

Summary of support Response Land Use The Theatres Trust supports the application for the use of cultural Noted. purposes on a temporary basis, until the Site is redeveloped. The facilities proposed would be a big asset to central London. The Noted. production will enhance the superb amenities already available and further cement the South Bank as one of the premier districts for high quality entertainment and spectacle in the United Kingdom. This can only be positive for the economy in general and the economy of Lambeth in particular. The social benefits which the development will bring to the area far Noted. outweigh any benefits from use of this particular site for housing. Design The Theatres Trust supports the design of the proposal, as Noted. considerable attention has been given to ensure it both improves and contributes to the streetscape, but is also durable and has incorporated adequate noise mitigation measures to minimise its impact on the surrounding buildings. Transport The existing infrastructure will be able to accommodate the number Noted. of visitors to the proposed venue.

4.2.4 Four separate petitions have been submitted to the Council in objection to the Development. Of the four petitions submitted to the Council, the first contains 69 names and is primarily from residents on Coin Street, Stamford Street and Cornwall Road; the second petition is solely from residents of Edward Henry House, which is located on Cornwall Road, south of the junction to Stamford Street, and contains 37 names; the third petition is from various addresses and contains 21 names; and the fourth is from an online petition containing approximately 730 names. The comments raised through these petitions have been summarised in the table above.

POLICIES

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (LP) (2015) (as amended by the Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2016), and the Lambeth Local Plan (LLP) (2015).

5.3 The National Planning Policy Framework was published in 2012. 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.

5.4 The current planning application has been considered against all relevant national, regional and local planning policies as well as any relevant guidance. Set out below are those policies most relevant to the application, however, consideration is made against the development plan as a whole.

5.5 The London Plan (2015) (as amended by the Minor Alterations to the London Plan, 2016):

- Policy 2.10: Central Activities Zone – Strategic Priorities - Policy 2.11: Central Activities Zone – Strategic Functions - Policy 2.12: Central Activities Zone – Predominantly Local Activities - Policy 2.13: Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas - Policy 4.1: Developing London’s Economy - Policy 4.5: London’s Visitor Infrastructure - Policy 4.6: Support for and Enhancement of Arts, Culture, Sport and Entertainment - Policy 5.1: Climate Change Mitigation - Policy 5.2: Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Policy 5.3: Sustainable Design and Construction - Policy 5.6: Decentralised Energy Networks - Policy 5.7: Renewable Energy - Policy 5.9: Overheating and Cooling - Policy 5.12: Flood Risk Management - Policy 5.13: Sustainable Drainage - Policy 5.15: Water Use and Supplies - Policy 5.17: Waste Capacity - Policy 6.8: Coaches - Policy 6.9: Cycling - Policy 6.10: Walking - Policy 6.13: Parking - Policy 7.3: Designing Out Crime - Policy 7.6: Architecture - Policy 7.8: Heritage Assets and Archaeology - Policy 7.10: World Heritage Sites - Policy 7.11: London View Management Framework - Policy 7.12: Implementing the London View Management Framework - Policy 7.14: Improving Air Quality - Policy 7.15: Reducing and Managing Noise, Improving and Enhancing the Acoustic Environment and Promoting Appropriate Townscapes - Policy 8.2: Planning Obligations - Policy 8.3: Community Infrastructure Levy

5.6 Lambeth Local Plan (2015):

- Policy D4: Planning Obligations - Policy ED2: Business, Industrial and Storage Uses Outside KIBAs - Policy ED7: Evening Economy and Food and Drink Uses - Policy ED11: Visitor Attraction, Leisure, Arts and Culture Uses - Policy ED14: Employment and Training - Policy EN4: Sustainable Design and Construction - Policy EN5: Flood Risk - Policy EN6: Sustainable Drainage Systems and Water Management - Policy Q2: Amenity - Policy Q3: Community Safety - Policy Q5: Local Distinctiveness - Policy Q7: Urban Design: New Development - Policy Q12: Refuse/Recycling Storage - Policy Q13: Cycle Storage - Policy Q15: Boundary Treatments - Policy Q20: Statutory Listed Buildings - Policy Q22: Conservation Areas - Policy Q23: Undesignated Heritage Assets: Local Heritage List - Policy Q25: Views - Policy T1: Sustainable Travel - Policy T2: Walking - Policy T3: Cycling - Policy T6: Assessing Impacts of Development on Transport Capacity - Policy T7: Parking - Policy T8: Servicing - Policy PN1: Waterloo

5.7 Regional Guidance

5.7.1 Relevant publications from the GLA:

- Accessible London: Achieving and Inclusive Environment SPG (2014) - Central Activities Zone SPG (2016) - Character and Context SPG (2014) - The Control of Dust & Emissions During Construction & Demolition SPG (2014) - Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014) - Use of Planning Obligations in the Funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy SPG (2013) - Draft Culture and the Night Time Economy SPG (2017)

5.8 Local Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs):

5.8.1 Relevant local guidance and SPDs for Lambeth:

- Air Quality Planning Guidance Note - Lambeth Local Views Study - Parking Survey Guidance - Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide - Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements - Waterloo Conservation Area Statement - Waterloo SPD - Draft Section 106 SPD

PLANNING OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT

6.1 Land Use

6.1.1 The Site is located just a short distance from the South Bank, within the Waterloo Opportunity Area and CAZ, and in such areas, London Plan (LP) policy seeks to encourage mixed use development and enhance the cultural offer of the South Bank area. LP Policy 4.5 (London’s Visitor Infrastructure) designates the Site and wider South Bank area as a Strategic Cultural Area. In such areas, the promotion, enhancement and protection of major clusters of visitor attractions is encouraged.

6.1.2 Lambeth Local Plan (LLP) Policy PN1 (Waterloo) reinforces these strategic objectives, stating that the Council will support and enhance Waterloo as a key part of central London and Lambeth and its economy in its various roles. This policy also encourages the promotion of arts and cultural activities throughout Waterloo and the enhancement of the South Bank in its role as an international cultural and leisure centre through supporting the development of arts and cultural facilities, as well as visitor related facilities. 6.1.3 More generally, with regard to evening economies, LLP Policy ED7 seeks to encourage these uses in town centres and CAZ frontage areas, but on the basis of such uses not causing harm to neighbouring residential amenity with regard to noise, litter, visual intrusion, size and scale of the proposal, operating hours, impact of delivery vehicles, and traffic impacts.

6.1.4 The Development would complement the existing South Bank arts, cultural and visitor attractions in the area, which include the Southbank Centre, National Theatre and IMAX. It is acknowledged that the Site is located in more of a residential area of Waterloo than that which exists immediately around the railway and Underground stations, or that which fronts the South Bank of the River Thames (Waterloo SPD). However, the Site is located in areas where such facilities are encouraged, as referenced in paragraphs 6.1.1 to 6.1.3 of the SPD. Furthermore, the Site benefits from excellent public transportation links and highway access and is located just a short distance from the main arts, cultural and visitor attractions referred to above. The proposed use would be consistent with strategic and local policies in light of the above assessment, and would ensure an appropriate temporary use of an open, cleared plot prior to its redevelopment.

6.1.5 A number of comments have been received as part of the consultation process, stating that the Site has been designated for housing, and that a housing development should be provided instead of the land use proposed. However, the Site has never been given planning permission for housing. The Site is not designated for any land use in particular within the LP and LLP, and therefore the general Waterloo based and CAZ policies apply, as discussed above.

6.1.6 At present, the Site as existing is used for the storage of building materials for surrounding sites. It is unclear as to whether this use is lawful or not, as no planning permission exists for such a use. The Site is likely to have a ‘nil’ use, and in such instances there is no requirement to assess the loss of that use, as there is no lawful use to be lost. If it transpired that the lawful use was that of the storage of building materials, the loss of this use for that proposed, is considered acceptable, as the proposed use would provide a more suitable use for the Site, with greater public benefits. Furthermore, the Development is not a permanent development, and as such, would not result in the permanent loss of that use.

6.1.7 Given the above, the proposed land use is considered acceptable. A further assessment is to follow on all other relevant matters such as design and amenity impacts.

6.2 Design and Heritage

6.2.1 This section of the report considers the overall design, external appearance, heritage and urban design matters arising from the Development. It is set out below under the following sub headings:

(a) Design - Layout and scale - Appearance and materials (b) Impact on heritage assets: Legislative and national policy considerations (c) Impact on heritage assets: Conservation Areas (d) Impact on heritage assets: Listed Buildings (e) Impact on heritage assets: Locally Listed Buildings/Structures and Archaeological Priority Area (f) Impact upon heritage assets: Summary (g) Assessment of harm versus benefits 6.2.2 The Council’s Conservation & Design Officer’s comments are cross-referred within the following sub-sections below where relevant.

(a) Design

6.2.3 LLP Policy Q5 states that development should provide a positive response to the local context and historical character, and where proposals deviate from this, it should be demonstrated how the proposal clearly delivers design excellence and how it will make a positive contribution to its local and historic context.

6.2.4 LLP Policy Q7 seeks new development to be of a high quality design which has a bulk, scale, mass, siting, building line and orientation which adequately preserves or enhances the prevailing local character. It should be built of durable, robust and low-maintenance materials and have well considered fenestration.

Layout and Scale

6.2.5 The Development would have a rectangular plan form with frontages onto Stamford Street and Cornwall Road. The Development comprises a three storey building (15.23m AOD) with an elevated ventilation shaft (31.57m (AOD) located at the junction of Stamford Street and Cornwall Road. At three storeys, the main body of the Development would have a noticeably lower height when seen in the context of its immediate neighbour to the east, Coin Street Neighbourhood Centre which is four storeys with a maximum height of 23.50m AOD. The main body would also be lower in height to the listed terrace Nos. 95-123 Stamford Street located directly opposite the site along Stamford Street and lower than No.51 to 60 Cornwell Road.

6.2.6 Whilst the majority of the Development would be modestly scaled, the ventilation shaft would rise above the main body to approximately eight storeys. Officers do not consider this increase in scale problematic due to the presence of other larger buildings close to the Site, particularly along Stamford Street. Indeed the Franklin Wilkins building is seven storeys, No.127 Stamford Street is six storeys, Lesco House is seven storeys and Waterloo Bridge House is nine storeys. These buildings occupy large plots and present substantial and impressive elevations to Stamford Street. However, unlike these larger buildings, the proposed ventilation shaft would have slender proportions measuring 5.58m x 5.58m x 16.33m creating a refined elegant architectural feature. The elevated shaft would also highlight the entrance into the development, assisting legibility. The height and massing of buildings in the surrounding context is varied, ranging from four storeys to nine storeys and for this reason Officers do not consider the proposals scale and mass to be at odds with the context.

6.2.7 The Development would not only have an appropriate scale, its siting and building line are also considered to be successful as the building line would follow the common building line along Stamford Street and as such would help to define and reinforce the street. The proposed building line along Stamford Street would ensure a generous pavement width of 6.58m. Along Cornwall Road the Development would splay away from the kerb, increasing the pavement width close to the junction with Stamford Street. Coupled with a recessed entrance at the base of the ventilation tower, the pavement at this junction would also be generous, over 10m. The recessed entrance should help avoid congestion along the street and would provide a covered entry.

6.2.8 To conclude, Officers are supportive of the proposed scale and layout which would positively respond to the context. Furthermore the presence of this appropriately scaled building would, albeit on a temporary basis, fill a conspicuous void in the street-scene and successfully stitch together the urban fabric. Appearance and Materials

6.2.9 Currently the Site is open with high unattractive boundary treatments and two large advertising boards that front onto Stamford Street and the Waterloo Conservation Area. The redevelopment of the Site would require the removal of the existing unattractive boundary and large advertising boards which are a visual blight on the area and heritage assets. The removal of these fixtures is considered to be positive, particularly in terms of the opportunity to improve the appearance of the street and nearby heritage assets.

6.2.10 The Development would have a distinctive contemporary architectural aesthetic that Officers consider appropriate, taking into consideration the temporary nature of the proposals; its differing appearance reinforces the notion that this is a ‘meanwhile’ building. The Development would have a simple and effective composition of a base and shimmering upper elevations; dark blue steel panels would define the base whilst moving discs would add texture and movement to the elevations. A key design aspiration was to relate the Mamma Mia theme to the external elevations to create an interesting exterior and enhance visitors experience. The design team chose to use the Mediterranean Sea as inspiration; from first floor level the building would be covered in blue and green discs fixed to an external steel frame that would allow the discs to move in the wind, creating a shimmering effect similar to rippling water (see image below).

6.2.11 A range of blue and green colour discs are proposed in soothing neutral/natural tones which would not stand out in the street-scene, and as such Officers consider to be generally acceptable. Officers recognise that disc colour ratios and exact placement within elevations are integral to the overall visual appearance and overall success of the Development. It is important that colours transition effectively within the elevation, and for this reason an appropriately worded condition would be added to secure this.

Figure 10: Mediterranean Sea and discs fixed to steel frame

6.2.12 A dark blue painted steel composite panel wall lies behind the steel frame and discs and would extend to the base of the building. The steel frame would also be used to support show posters, adding texture to the base of the building and discouraging fly posters and graffiti/tagging. 6.2.13 Although the Development would be clearly different in architectural style to its neighbours, contemporary and modern buildings and are not unique in this area. Take for example the adjacent Coin Street Neighbourhood Centre, Iroko housing and the emerging tall building cluster at Blackfriars.

6.2.14 In terms of plant equipment, the requirement for this is relatively limited given that the chimney would provide natural ventilation to the building and also due to the fact that the kitchen would be a finishing kitchen only. The kitchen would be based on a process of storage, reheat, finishing and plating of food, all of which would be prepared and prime cooked off site in a third party Central Production Kitchen and transported to the facility in specialised vehicles. There would be no cooking from raw on site and the kitchen would not include any frying of food. The kitchen extract plant is proposed to be located on the roof, such that it is set away from the edges of the building to reduce its visual impact. The sketch below provides details of the proposed layout of plant equipment, full details of which would be secured by condition.

Figure 11: Indicative sketch of plant layout

6.2.15 Overall, Officers are pleased to see the removal of advertisement hoardings around the Site which currently blight the area and are satisfied with the simple elevational composition of the Development, building form, materiality and colour palette, which would result in an attractive and interesting building that would ensure that it sits comfortably within the street-scene.

(b) Impact on heritage assets: Legislative and national policy considerations

6.2.16 This section sets out the legislative and national policy context for the Officer assessment of the impact of the development proposal on the historic environment and its heritage assets.

Legislative Framework

6.2.17 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.

6.2.18 Section 72(1) 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.

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

National Policy

6.2.20 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 “core planning principles” that should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. Those principles include the following:

“Planning should always seek to secure high quality design and should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generation”.

6.2.21 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”.

6.2.22 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).

6.2.23 “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”.

6.2.24 Paragraph 129 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.

6.2.25 Paragraphs 131 and 132 of the NPPF provide as follows:

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

 the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

 the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

 the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

132. 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. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

6.2.26 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF deals with substantial harm to or total loss of significance of significance of a designated heritage asset.

6.2.27 Paragraph 134 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.

6.2.28 Paragraph 135 of the NPPF deals with non-designated heritage assets as follows:

135. 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.

6.2.29 Paragraphs 137 and 138 of the NPPF are as follows:

137. 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 or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.

138. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area 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 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, 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. 6.2.30 Officers have also had regard to the Planning Practice Guidance in respect of conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Approach Required

6.2.31 Turning to consider the application of the legislative and policy requirements set out above, the first step is for the decision-maker to consider each of the designated heritage assets (referred to hereafter simply as “heritage assets”) which would be affected by the proposed development in turn and assess whether the proposed development would result in any harm to the heritage asset.

6.2.32 The decision of the Court of Appeal in Barnwell Manor confirms that the assessment of the degree of harm to the heritage asset is a matter for the planning judgement of the decision- maker. However, where the decision-maker concludes that there would be some harm to the heritage asset, in deciding whether that harm would be outweighed by the advantages of the proposed development (in the course of undertaking the analysis required by s.38(6) PCPA 2004) the decision-maker is not free to give the harm such weight as the decision-maker thinks appropriate. Rather, Barnwell Manor establishes that a finding of harm to a heritage asset is a consideration to which the decision maker must give considerable importance and weight in carrying out the balancing exercise.

6.2.33 There is therefore a “strong presumption” against granting planning permission for development which would harm a heritage asset. In the Forge Field case the High Court explained that the presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrebuttable. It can be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so. But a local planning authority can only properly strike the balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation and if it demonstrably applies that presumption to the proposal it is considering.

6.2.34 The case-law also establishes that even where the harm identified is less than substantial (i.e. falls within paragraph 134 of the NPPF), that harm must still be given considerable importance and weight.

6.2.35 Where more than one heritage asset would be harmed by the proposed development, the decision-maker also needs to ensure that when the balancing exercise in undertaken, the cumulative effect of those several harms to individual assets is properly considered.

6.2.36 What follows is an Officer assessment of the extent of harm which would result from the Development to the scoped heritage assets provided by the applicant as part of its submission. This includes Conservation Areas, and neighbouring Listed Buildings. Officers agree with the scope of assessment provided by the applicants. Both an individual assessment against each heritage asset as well a cumulative assessment is provided. This is then followed by an assessment of the public benefits of the proposals.

6.2.37 Officers have taken into account the Design Officer comments, the relevant conservation area statements, listed building entries and judgements reached in the applicant’s Design and Access Statement (DAS), Heritage Statement (HS) and the comments of Historic England (HE). The applicant’s Verified Views Assessment (VVA) has also been considered as part of this assessment and is based on viewpoints agreed with Officers at pre-application stage.

(c) Impact on Conservation Areas

6.2.38 The following conservation areas either adjoin the Site or are located nearby to the Site:

- The Waterloo Conservation Area, located immediately to the south of the Site,

- The South Bank Conservation Area, located to the north of the Site, north of Upper Ground,

- The Roupell Street Conservation Area, located to the south of the Site,

- The Old Barge House Alley Conservation Area (located within the London Borough of Southwark), located to the north of the Site, north of Upper Ground, bordering the South Bank Conservation Area.

Waterloo Conservation Area

6.2.39 The Waterloo Conservation Area lies to the south of the Site and includes much of the northern pavement of Stamford Street, and as such borders the southern boundary of the Site. The conservation area contains mostly 19th and early 20th Century development comprising a mix of building types and uses ranging from formal terraces to large commercial buildings. Given the proposal would front this conservation area and given the Site has been empty for a number of years, the Development would have a clear visible impact on Stamford Street and the setting of this conservation area. Whilst a new building would be visible, visibility alone would not necessarily result in harm. Although the proposal would be clearly seen from the south pavement of Stamford Street, VVA Views 1, 4 and 5 demonstrate that the Development’s height, building line and form would relate positively to the prevailing characteristics of neighbouring buildings. Also, the taller ventilation shaft would not be significantly higher than neighbouring buildings and as such would not be out of character with the scale of development in the context. The proposal would have a noticeable contemporary architectural expression which would deviate from the traditional vernacular found in the Waterloo Conservation Area. However this is not uncommon for the area which contains buildings of varying architectural styles including the Neighbourhood Centre which delivers a highly competent modern building in this historic setting. The architectural approach would successfully reflect the Development’s temporary nature and period whilst responding to the key characteristics of its context.

6.2.40 Stamford Street (south) forms the northern part of the conservation area and contains formal terraces and larger non-residential buildings that are best appreciated from the northern pavement. Here viewers have uninterrupted views of the historic streetscape. The VVA demonstrates that the Development would have limited visibility when viewing the conservation area from the northern pavement. From this view, the proposal would have a negligible impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

6.2.41 Considering the above, the Development would preserve the character and appearance of the Waterloo Conservation Area.

Figure 12: View 4 of the VVA demonstrating the view of the Development from the Waterloo Conservation Area along Stamford Street

South Bank Conservation Area

6.2.42 The South Bank Conservation Area contains a group of nationally and locally important 20th Century buildings that front the River Thames, between the border boundary with the London Borough of Southwark to the north, and Westminster Bridge to the south. The earliest significant building within the conservation area is County Hall, dating from the 1920s. Most of the buildings date from the post-war period, The Royal Festival Hall (Grade I) was the centrepiece of the Festival of Britain site and acted as a catalyst for the development of the whole area. Other notable buildings in the conservation area include National Theatre, Shell Tower, Elizabeth Hall, Haywood Gallery and IBM.

6.2.43 The Site is visible from Upper Ground from the rear of IBM. VVA View 9 shows one particular view from within the conservation area at the southwest corner of IBM looking southeast towards the Site. In this view the main body of the Development would sit below the eaves of Nos. 51 to 61 Cornwall Road; at a similar height to the listed terrace (Nos. 95 – 123 Stamford Street) currently seen in the background. The ventilation shaft, even with its elevated height would appear significantly lower in height that the Franklin Wilkins Building. The proposal would not be dominant in this view, moreover it would only partially visible through the canopy of existing trees in the foreground of this view. The blue discs would lessen the visual impact of the shaft when seen against clear sky. There would be no harm to the setting of the conservation area.

Figure 13: VVA View 9 of the Development (in turquoise) from the southern edge of the South Bank Conservation Area

6.2.44 VVA View 6 shows that the Development would be within the setting of two conservation areas; Waterloo and South Bank. In this view the main body of the Development would be modestly scaled with a comparable height to Nos. 51 to 61 Cornwall Road and the ventilation shaft would be positioned in front and at a lower height to the ITV tower. For this reason, the height of the ventilation shaft would not appear out of context or dominant.

Figure 14: VVA View 6 from Cornwall Road looking north 6.2.45 VVA View 11 demonstrates that the Development would not be seen when viewed from Waterloo Bridge. As such the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved.

Figure 15: VVA View 11 from Waterloo Bridge

Roupell Street Conservation Area

6.2.46 The Roupell Street Conservation Area is located to the south of the Site and consists mainly of 19th Century terrace housing. Much of the surrounding taller and larger development is screened from view due to the tight-knit nature of rows of two and three storey terraced housing. Although taller buildings can be seen in the distance, terminating the vista between rows, and are a reminder of the urban central London context. An important view of the conservation area is the view looking north up Theed Street, where the Site lies in the backdrop. The view shows the strong, unified front elevation of Theed Street terrace housing terminated by No.10 Theed Street (Waterloo Conservation Area) with the ITV tower behind (South Bank Conservation Area). The views analysis demonstrates that the Development would not be visible in this view and as such there would be no impact on the conservation area.

Figure 16: View from the junction of Theed Street and Roupell Street, demonstrating that the Development (in red) would not be able to be seen in the wider views from this part of the Roupell Street Conservation Area

6.2.47 The Development would be visible in the view looking north at the junction of Cornwall Road and Exton Street (VVA View 7). Although a large majority of the proposal would be screened by existing buildings in the fore, middle and background of the view, the top of the ventilation shaft would be seen quite clearly in the background above the rear elevation of No.123 Stamford Street (Waterloo Conservation Area). The height and slender proportions of the shaft would not compete with the height and mass of the ITV tower which would remain the focal point in the background, or compete with buildings in the fore and middle ground. In addition the proposed façade would have a subdued blue colour palette that when seen against clear sky would lessen the Development’s visual impact in this view. Officers consider that the proposal would have a modest visual impact that would not result in harm and as such the character and appearance of the Roupell Street Conservation Area would be preserved.

Figure 17: View of the Development (in blue) from the Roupell Street Conservation Area at the junction of Cornwall Road and Exton Street

Old Barge House Alley Conservation Area

6.2.48 The Old Barge House Alley Conservation Area lies within the London Borough of Southwark; overlapping and adjoining the South Bank Conservation Area to the east. The conservation area includes two historic thoroughfares and warehouses. The main body of the Development would be a similar height to neighbouring building and as such would have little impact on this conservation area. Although the ventilation shaft is taller, the Development is unlikely have an impact on the conservation area due to its distance from the conservation area, the tight-knit nature of the streets within the conservation area and the extensive dense tree canopies at Bernie Spain Gardens that restrict views out of the conservation area. Officers have also taken into consideration the consultation response from LB Southwark, who have raised no objections to the Development.

(d) Impact on Statutory Listed Buildings

6.2.49 The following statutory listed buildings surround the Site:

- Grade II listed buildings of 61, 63-91 and 95-123 Stamford Street, located opposite the Site, across Stamford Street,

- Grade II* listed National Theatre, located to the north of the Site on the South Bank,

6.2.50 As per the national policy and LLP Policy Q20, development should conserve and not harm the significance/special interest of statutory listed buildings and should not harm the significance of their setting (including views to and from).

No. 61 Stamford Street, Nos. 63-91 Stamford Street and Nos. 95-123 Stamford Street (Grade II Listed)

6.2.51 Similar to the assessment given above regarding the impact on the Waterloo Conservation Area, it is considered that although the new building would be visible in the historic context of a listed building, it does not automatically mean that its impact would be harmful. This is particularly apparent with regard to the setting of the Grade II listed Georgian terraces on Stamford Street. VVA View 2 shows the view of the Development from Cornwall Road and demonstrates that the building would block the view of the Nos. 95-123 Stamford Street listed terrace. However, the Site is unusual in that it has remained vacant since the previous building was demolished in 1985. Therefore, any building on the Site would likely have the same impact, and the impact of the Development would be similar to that of the previous building which occupied the Site.

6.2.52 With regard to No. 61 Stamford Street, Nos. 63-91 and Nos. 95-123 Stamford Street, the character of this group of listed terraces becomes more apparent and is best appreciated when stood on the northern side of Stamford Street. From this location the Development due to its siting, scale and layout would not appear dominant or detract from the listed terrace. As such, it is considered by Officers that no harm would be caused to the setting of the listed terraces.

Figure 18: View of the Development from Cornwall Road with the Grade II listed Georgian terrace in the backdrop

National Theatre (Grade II* Listed)

6.2.53 The National Theatre is located on Upper Ground and its primary elevation fronts the South Bank. Designed by architect Denys Lasdun and built between 1969 and 1976, the theatre is constructed in concrete with stratified horizontal planes that wrap around the building’s side elevations and frontage (north, east and west elevations). The impressive fly-towers create a contrasting vertical counterpart, elevating the height and presence of the building along the Thames. Part of the building’s significance is its striking monumental form and civic presence along the Thames. The southern elevation is faced in brick and contains a complimentary contemporary extension. The difference in material (concrete to brickwork) suggests that the concrete is used for the more public frontages, whilst brick was used for more private uses to the ‘rear’. The ‘frontage’ is best appreciated from the Queen’s Walk, in long views along Waterloo Bridge and along the North Bank. The Development would not be visible in any of these views due to its relatively low scale height. Officers therefore consider that no harm would be caused to the setting of the National Theatre.

Figure 19: View of the National Theatre from Waterloo Bridge, with the Development outlined in red

Other Listed Buildings

6.2.54 With regard to the potential impact of the Development on the other statutory listed buildings that surround the Site, due to the scale of development proposed which is consistent with surrounding development, it is considered that their historical significance and setting would be preserved and no harm would result.

(e) Impact on Locally Listed Buildings/Structures and Archaeological Priority Area

6.2.55 The following locally listed buildings/structures and archaeological priority area surround the Site:

- IBM Building, located to the north of the Site on the South Bank,

- The North Lambeth Archaeological Priority Area. IBM Building

6.2.56 IBM is also designed by Denys Lasdun and was completed in 1985. This building is locally listed because of is architectural interest and its architectural and physical relationship with Lasdun’s adjoining National Theatre. IBM incorporates and continues the horizontal architectural emphasis seen at National Theatre; clean concrete bands are expressed continuously around the building. Along with the landscaping, the high quality treatment to each elevation reinforces the role of pedestrian routes around the building and suggests that there is no ‘rear elevation’. Viewers are able to appreciate the building from routes around the building; Queen’s Walk and Upper Ground and the two pedestrian routes that run alongside IBM connect both these routes.

6.2.57 The Development would not be seen in the setting of IBM in views along Queen’s Walk, pedestrian routes linking Queen’s Walk with Upper Ground, Waterloo Bridge and the North Bank. However it would be visible in the view looking north from Cornwell Road (see VVA View 6) which has been discussed previously. In this view the main body of the Development would be modestly scaled with a comparable height to Nos. 51 to 61 Cornwall Road. The height increases at the junction of Cornwall Road and Stamford Street with the ventilation shaft, which would be positioned in front and at a lower height to the ITV tower. For this reason, the height of the ventilation shaft would not appear out of context or dominant. Furthermore the Development would not obscure IBM any part of IBM in this view where it forms part of the backdrop.

North Lambeth Archaeological Priority Area

6.2.58 The previous commercial building which occupied the Site, was demolished in 1985. This included a basement level, which was retained when the building was demolished. The Development would utilise the existing excavated area and as such, only minor ground-works would be required. Historic England Archaeology have requested a condition to ensure that any archaeological artefacts of interest are preserved during the construction of the Development. The Development is considered acceptable in this respect, subject to this suggested condition.

(f) Impact upon heritage assets: summary

6.2.59 In conclusion, Officers consider that no harm would be caused by the Development to the significance of the heritage assets that surround the Site.

(g) Assessment of harm versus benefits

6.2.60 Public benefits are defined within the NPPG. It advises that public benefits:

“may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework. Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature of scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.

Public benefits may include heritage benefits”

6.2.61 Officers have concluded that no harm would be caused to any of the heritage assets surrounding the Site as a result of the Development. An assessment of harm versus benefits with regard to heritage assets is therefore not required. However, to assist the final decision maker (in this case the Planning Applications Committee), a summary list of public benefits that arise from the development is set out below: - The Development would strengthen the offer of visitor attractions on the South Bank and Waterloo area generally, as supported by policy in the Central Activities Zone, South Bank Strategic Cultural Area, and Waterloo Opportunity Area;

- The temporary use proposed would provide an appropriate form of development and use of an otherwise underused central London site, whilst plans are developed for the longer term use of the Site;

- The significant commitment by the applicant to employ local people during the end use of the building;

- Improved street-scene for the area in the interim period prior to the permanent redevelopment of the Site, which is currently open and enclosed by wooden fencing with 2 no. large panel advertisements. This would be replaced with a visually interesting building which would not be harmful to surrounding heritage assets;

- The design of the building would ensure that it would have a limited impact on neighbouring amenity or the environment through the use of sustainable materials and use of natural ventilation, and a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating is forecast.

6.3 Amenity

6.3.1 The Site as existing is a cleared, open site, and therefore any development will inevitably have some impact on neighbouring amenity. There is residential development located immediately to the north and south of the Site and diagonally across the Stamford Street/Cornwall Road junction to the south-west. The adjacent site to the east contains the Neighbourhood Centre, which consists of community facilities, offices and a restaurant. The adjacent site to the west contains a King’s College teaching building (Franklin Wilkins Building).

6.3.2 The footprint and scale of development would be consistent with neighbouring development. The footprint of the building would closely respond to surrounding development by fronting both of the highways of Stamford Street and Cornwall Road, and whilst it would sit forward of the existing Iroko housing on Cornwall Road, this is to reflect the street pattern, similar to the Franklin Wilkins Building across the road from the Site. The ramp to the underground car park is located immediately north of the Site and therefore would provide a buffer between the Development and the adjacent Iroko housing development, noting that because of this, the footprint of the building would not extend as far back into the site as the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre does. The main part of the building would be no larger than the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre, Iroko housing development, the Georgian terrace or the Franklin Wilkins Building and student accommodation opposite the Site. The chimney feature that is proposed would be 26.5 metres in height, which would be taller than the surrounding buildings, but it is noted that this feature would only be 5 metres in width and 5 metres in depth.

6.3.3 LLP Policy Q2 seeks to protect the amenity of existing neighbours and the visual amenity of the community as a whole. This is measured in terms of potential impacts in relation to outlook and privacy, daylight and sunlight, noise and vibration, microclimate-wind, air quality and impacts during construction. An assessment of the Development’s impact upon amenity is provided below.

Daylight and Sunlight

6.3.1 A Daylight/Sunlight Assessment has been undertaken by Lichfields on behalf of the applicants. Methodology

6.3.2 Two methods of measurement should 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.

6.3.3 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.

6.3.4 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”.

6.3.5 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.

6.3.6 For the benefit of the reader, it should be noted that the number of points of assessment vary between the two differing methods of measurements. VSC looks at windows, of which there can be more than one serving a room. DD looks at rooms only.

6.3.7 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.

6.3.8 The BRE Guide advice is not mandatory since ‘although it gives numerical guidelines, these should be interpreted flexibly since natural lighting is only one of many factors in site layout design’. Whilst the BRE Guide does not categorise levels of impact beyond ‘noticeable’, standardised EIA terminology can be utilised to consider classification of the impacts on neighbouring properties, especially in respect of impacts of ‘minor adverse effect’, ‘moderate adverse effect’ and ‘major adverse effect’ with definitions including as follows below.

6.3.9 Factors tending towards minor adverse impact include:

- Only a small number of windows or limited area of open space are affected; - The loss of light is only marginally outside the guidelines; - An affected room has other sources of skylight or sunlight; - The affected building or open space only has a low level requirement for skylight or sunlight; - There are particular reasons why an alternative less stringent guideline should be applied (such as the mirror scenario).

6.3.10 Factors tending towards a major adverse impact include:

- A large number of windows or large area of open space are affected; - Where loss of light is greater than 50% of guideline levels; - All the windows in a particular property are affected; - The affected indoor or outdoor spaces have a particularly strong requirement for skylight or sunlight (e.g. living room in a dwelling or a children’s playground).

6.3.11 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.

6.3.12 The 2011 BRE Guidelines note that:

6.3.13 “In housing, the main requirement for sunlight is in living rooms, where it is valued at any time of day, but especially in the afternoon…It is viewed as less important in bedrooms and in kitchens, where people prefer it in the morning rather than the afternoon”.

6.3.14 “all main living rooms of dwellings…should be checked if they have a window facing within 90° of due south. Kitchens and bedrooms are less important, although care should be taken not to block too much sun”; and

6.3.15 “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.”

6.3.16 “…a south facing window will, in general, receive most sunlight, while a north facing one will receive it only on a handful of occasions. East and west facing windows will receive sunlight only at certain times of day”.

6.3.17 “Balconies and overhangs above an existing window tend to block sunlight, especially in summer. Even a modest obstruction opposite may result in a large relative impact on the sunlight received”.

6.3.18 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.

6.3.19 Overshadowing: The transient overshadowing plots illustrate the extent of the gardens and amenity spaces assessed that will receive direct sunlight as existing and proposed at a given time. The transient overshadowing plots comprise an illustrative tool showing the changing levels of direct sunlight received by amenity space throughout the day on the dates assessed. 6.3.20 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”.

6.3.21 As a minimum the assessment has therefore considered the area of amenity the gardens and amenity spaces assessed that can receive more than two hours of direct sunlight on this date.

Scope of the assessment

6.3.22 Residential windows and rooms of the following properties have been assessed for the purposes of daylight and sunlight impacts as a result of the Development:

1) 105-121 Stamford Street (daylight only) 2) Iroko Housing

6.3.23 Figure 20 below shows the assessment models which were used.

Figure 20: Proposed assessment model used

Assessment of the Results – Daylight to existing residential buildings

6.3.24 Whilst the applicant has not carried out both a VSC and a DD assessment, the VSC assessment that has been provided demonstrates that the Development would adhere to BRE Guide target criteria for most of the surrounding properties tested. The following provides an assessment on where there would be failings. 6.3.25 In terms of the VSC assessment, reductions in daylight to neighbouring properties from the effect of the Development adhere closely to the BRE Guide target criteria with reductions not being greater than 20% to any of the properties within the Iroko housing development, 105 Stamford Street, or 109 Stamford Street. Where there are failings against BRE Guide target criteria, these only occur to 6 out of the 23 windows tested to the properties of 113, 115, 119 and 121 Stamford Street, and of these failings, there would be no reductions greater than 25%. In the 6 no. instances where there would be failings against BRE Guide target criteria, the lowest retained VSC would be 17.35% compared with an existing VSC of 22.82%, which itself is already below the BRE Guide target criteria of 27%. Given the central London location of the Site and the fact that it is a cleared, open site, these failings are not considered to be significant or unacceptable. It is also considered that a further DD assessment would not be required given the minor failings of the VSC assessment against BRE Guide target criteria.

6.3.26 It is noted that the assessment did not include the student accommodation located diagonally across the Stamford Street/Cornwall Road junction. However, given the distance from the Site and the results of the assessment provided by the applicant on other, closer residential properties to the Site, it is considered that a VSC or DD assessment is not required for this block, and good levels of daylight would be retained following the Development. Given the above assessment, the Development would not result in an unacceptable impact on surrounding residential properties with regard to daylight.

6.3.27 The assessment provided by the applicant did not include the Franklin Wilkins Building located opposite the Site on Cornwall Road, which is a teaching facility for King’s College London, or the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre. The BRE guidance referred to in this report is generally only intended for residential development, however it is advised within the guidance that the target criteria may be applied to any existing non-domestic buildings where the occupants have a reasonable expectation of daylight, such as schools, hospitals and hotels. It is considered to be fair for the university teaching building to have a reasonable expectation of good levels of daylight to be retained following the proposed development; whilst the Neighbourhood Centre has been constructed with a mostly blank flank wall facing the Site and as such would not be impacted upon by the Development. With regard to the King’s College building, the results of the assessment provided by the applicant on other nearby buildings has demonstrated that only minor impacts would be caused following the Development. It is considered that it is likely that a similar impact would be caused by the Development on the King’s College building, and as such, the Development would not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight to this teaching facility.

Assessment of the Results – Sunlight to neighbouring properties

6.3.28 Lichfields have reviewed sunlight to neighbouring properties and as per the BRE Guide, for assessment of windows that face within 90 degrees of south (assessment of windows that face within 90 degrees of north is not applicable on the basis that the availability of sunlight is already limited). Therefore, an assessment is not deemed to be necessary on the Georgian terrace located opposite the Site, the student housing located diagonally across the Stamford Street/Cornwall Road junction, or the Franklin Wilkins Building located opposite the Site on Cornwall Road.

6.3.29 The main building applicable for review is the Iroko housing development. The assessment provided has demonstrated that there would be no failings against BRE Guide target criteria as a result of the Development and as such, good levels of sunlight would be retained. 6.3.30 It is noted that the assessment provided by the applicant did not include the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre, which has south facing windows. The front of the Development would be slightly proud of the Neighbourhood Centre, and as such, would result in a loss of sunlight to this building. However, the windows that would likely be affected, only serve circulation spaces and as the impacts would only likely be minimal to these windows, it is considered that the Development would not result in an unacceptable loss of sunlight to the Neighbourhood Centre.

Assessment of the Results – Sunlight to neighbouring gardens/amenity spaces

6.3.31 For sunlight levels to neighbouring amenity spaces, the daylight/sunlight report provided a detailed review of the impact of the Development on the neighbouring communal amenity area to the Iroko housing development in terms of the BRE Guide 2 hour amenity test on 21st March (spring equinox). The results have demonstrated that 95% of the garden would receive 2 hours of sun on the ground at the equinox, both with and without the Development. This is well in excess of the BRE Guide target criteria of 50% of the overall amenity area to receive 2 hours of sun on the ground at the equinox or where below this value, reductions to not fall below 0.8 times former value. Whilst the private gardens within the Iroko housing development have not been assessed by the applicant, given the results provided on the communal amenity area, it is considered that good levels of sunlight would likely be retained to the adjacent private gardens.

Assessment of the Results – Conclusion

6.3.32 In consideration of the Daylight and Sunlight Report prepared by the applicant and following Officer’s assessment, the Development would only result in minor impacts on surrounding properties with regard to daylight. However, where these impacts would occur, such reductions typically adhere fairly close to the target criteria within the BRE Guide and in consideration of the urban context, on that basis, are reasonable. As such, the Development would not have an unacceptable impact on surrounding properties with regard to daylight and sunlight.

Outlook and Sense of Enclosure

6.3.33 As noted at the beginning of the ‘Amenity’ section, the footprint and scale of the Development would be consistent with surrounding properties. Furthermore, as the Site is an open, cleared site, any development would have an impact on the outlook of surrounding properties. The impact would be mostly limited to the Georgian terrace and Franklin Wilkins Building which directly face the Site. Views of the proposed development from the adjacent Iroko housing development would be mostly oblique views, and as such, good levels of outlook would be retained. Discussions between residents and the applicant as to whether additional landscaping should be used to screen the building, or whether different colour tones to the façade treatment would be sought. If additional landscaping is sought, this would fall outside of the scope of this application and is not considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Figure 21: Proposed view of the building from the Iroko housing development

6.3.34 In terms of the impact of the Development on the Georgian terrace and Franklin Wilkins Building, it is noted that the main part of the building would not be as tall as these properties. Whilst a taller chimney feature is proposed, its width and depth would be limited to just 5 metres. It is therefore considered, that the scale and form of the Development would not be unacceptably imposing on the surrounding properties with regard to outlook, and as such, the Development is considered acceptable in this respect.

Noise

6.3.35 The proposed development as a performance venue will involve a significant amount of amplified music throughout the show. Many of the comments received from surrounding properties has raised concerns that the use of the building, together with management of people arriving and departing, could result in unacceptable noise impacts.

6.3.36 With regard to the building itself, given it would be a complete new-build, and given it would be constructed purely for the purpose of its intended use as a performance venue, it has been designed specifically to minimise any noise leakage from the building. In particular, the building would include a specialist façade with few windows. The façade and roof would be double-skinned to contain the sound of the production within the building. The chimney feature has been included to provide natural ventilation, which significantly reduces the amount of fixed plant required, which would otherwise result in an additional noise impact. The location of the air intake and exhaust points have been selected away from nearby noise sensitive receptors and high levels of attenuation would be provided to minimise noise break- out. 6.3.37 The application was accompanied with an Acoustic Report which has been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health advisors. This report has modelled the likely levels of noise that would be emitted from the building, with the report taking into account the existing background noise survey undertaken, and the sound data for an evening of performance and entertainment at the MMTP venue in Stockholm. The findings of this report have been accepted by the Council’s Environmental Health advisors. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the Development is constructed to the standard required in order for these targets to be achieved, including to ensure that the attenuation measures recommended in the Acoustic Report are installed, maintained and retained throughout the operation of the building.

6.3.38 In terms of visitor management and the operation of the Development more generally, a draft Visitor Management Plan (VMP) has been provided, which has set out specific measures to minimise the impacts of visitors arriving to and departing from the Site. In particular, it is proposed for MMTP staff to be outside the venue at the beginning and end of the show, to ensure that no-one congregates outside, and to direct visitors away from the show along Stamford Street towards Waterloo station. The preferred route to and from the venue would be printed on the ticket and on the MMTP website. In addition, no tickets would be sold at the venue, which would minimise the level of queuing that would occur when entering the venue.

6.3.39 Members of staff would also be stationed at the entrance during the show to help keep noise to a minimum from the smoking area outside the entrance. Furthermore, cigarette receptacles would be placed in this area to avoid littering, guests would not be permitted to take drinks out to the smoking area and this area would be closed after 22:30hrs. Details of this is set out in the draft VMP, which would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. The draft VMP also states that a dedicated telephone number would be provided by the applicant for residents to call should they have any concerns regarding noise levels during operating hours.

6.3.40 It is explained within the submission documents that doors would open one hour before the beginning of the show, which would reduce congestion of people arriving at the venue. The main element of the performances are expected to finish at 22:15, with the auditorium remaining open until 23:30 on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday, and midnight on Friday and Saturday. As set out in the draft VMP, this would allow for a natural wind-down of operations, with guests likely to leave at differing times between the end of the main performance and the closing time of the venue. Staff would also be able to control the numbers of people leaving the venue to avoid any congestion immediately outside the Site. Full details of the dispersal policy is given in the draft VMP, but the overarching aim of the policy is to prevent large numbers of people arriving and departing from the venue at the same time. Such an approach is considered appropriate in order to minimise noise impacts from those attending the venue.

6.3.41 The measures set out within the draft VMP are considered to be appropriate given the scale and use of development proposed. The full VMP is to be requested as part of the Section 106 Agreement, which will also set out measures for monitoring of impacts and complaints, which will be required to be carried out by the applicant. Annual reporting of this to the Council by the applicant will be required, and should such issues require modifications to the approved VMP, alterations will need to be proposed to the VMP for approval by the Council. Furthermore, the applicant has committed to paying an appropriate annual contribution to the Council to mitigate any further impacts from the operation of the Development, such as litter collection and stress on the public realm more generally. Subject to the above, the management of the venue would not cause unacceptable noise disturbances to surrounding properties.

Privacy

6.3.42 The building would contain a limited number of windows and openings, and therefore the Development would not impact unacceptably on the privacy of surrounding properties.

Odours

6.3.43 The operation of venue would include a catering element, with food served to guests as part of the show. However, the food would be prepared off site and only reheated on site. A small level of extraction equipment would be required, with details to be requested as a condition. Subject to this condition, it is considered that the Development would not result in an unacceptable impact on surrounding properties with regard to odours.

Conclusion

6.3.44 Subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement with regard to noise and visitor management, the Development is considered acceptable in relation to potential amenity impacts.

6.4 Transport

6.4.1 LLP Policy T1 states that the Council will promote a sustainable pattern of development in the Borough, minimising the need to travel and reducing dependence on the private car.

Access to the Site

6.4.2 The Development would have pedestrian access at the junction with Stamford Street and Cornwall Road, but would not be provided with a vehicular access. A secondary entrance for deliveries and staff would be along the Cornwall Road elevation.

6.4.3 The Site has excellent vehicular and pedestrian access given its close proximity to Waterloo station and key north/south highway routes of Waterloo Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge.

6.4.4 It is acknowledged that TfL are currently consulting on junction changes to the IMAX roundabout at Waterloo Road, Waterloo Bridge, Stamford Street and York Road. Northbound vehicles from Waterloo Road would no longer be able to turn right onto Stamford Street and would need to seek alternative routes to Stamford Street, most likely from Cornwall Road either from The Cut or Upper Ground. As detailed in the assessment below, the majority of trips to and from the Site would likely be from methods other than driving or by taxi, and the level of deliveries and servicing trips would be low. It is therefore considered that should the proposed junction changes be made during the lifetime of the proposed use, the impact of vehicular trips as a result of the Development would not be significant or unacceptable in the context of the wider area.

Trip Generation

6.4.5 Given the excellent access to public transport and the central London location of the Site, it is anticipated that the majority of guests and visitors (>60%) would arrive at the Site by public transport, walking or by cycle. An element of car, taxi and coach movements would also occur given the nature of the use.

6.4.6 For the cabaret (evening) performances, the table below provides the anticipated total movements to the Site by guests, and the mode of transport:

Departure Arrival Peak Daily Total Mode Modal Split (%) Peak 22:00- 18:30-19:30 18:30-00:00 23:00 Car Driver & 13.75% 73 49 146 Passenger Taxi 13.75% 73 49 146 Coach 10.00% 53 35 106 Bus 6.80% 36 24 72 Rail/ 23.40% 124 83 248 Underground Walk 29.70% 157 105 314 Cycle 2.50% 13 9 26 Total 100% 529 354 1,058

6.4.7 For the matinee (afternoon weekend) performances, the data is the same, albeit there would be a more intense departure peak.

6.4.8 In terms of trips to the Site by staff, the table below indicates the likely method of travel. This data has been taken from the 2011 Census Method of Travel to Work by Workplace population for the local area Lambeth 036. As staff would be required to be at the Site earlier than guests and at times when the CPZ is operational, they would not be able to park in the CPZ. Therefore Car Driver has been reapportioned across sustainable modes of travel:

Modified Modal Mode Modal Split (%) Arrivals Departures Split (%) Car Driver 9.8% 0.0% 0 0 Car Passenger 0.6% 0.6% 0 0 Taxi 0.2% 0.2% 0 0 Motorcycle 1.6% 1.6% 1 1 Underground 26.0% 28.9% 18 18 Rail 37.5% 41.7% 27 27 Bus 14.4% 16.0% 10 10 Walk 4.7% 5.2% 3 3 Cycle 5.3% 5.95 4 4 Total 100% 100% 63 63

Cycling

6.4.9 LLP Policy T3 requires development to provide cycle parking in accordance with London Plan requirements. This requires 1 space to be provided per 8 members of staff and 1 space to be provided per 30 guests. Sheltered, secured and accessible cycle parking would be provided for staff at ground floor level by the servicing and staff entrance. Storage for a total of 8 bicycles would be provided for staff, as would shower and locker facilities. Storage for guests would be provided to the front of the Site on Stamford Street, along the pavement, but within an area that is within the ownership of CSCB. Storage for a total number of 18 bicycles would be provided in this area. It is also acknowledged that additional on-street cycle parking exists immediately adjacent to the Site in front of the Neighbourhood Centre. The quantity and quality of cycle storage to be provided for staff and guests meets London Plan requirements and is considered acceptable, subject to a condition requiring detailed drawings of the storage.

Car Parking

6.4.10 Due to the constraints of gaining a suitable vehicular access to the Site, no on-site car parking would be provided.

6.4.11 The Site is located within the Waterloo ‘W’ Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), which is operational between 08:30-18:30 Monday to Friday and 08:30-13:30 Saturdays. However, outside of these times, parking is unrestricted. Both the main cabaret and matinee performances would commence outside of the operational times of the CPZ, and the shows would end before the CPZ becomes operational again. For clarity, the matinee performances would commence at 14:00 on Saturday and Sunday and the cabaret performances would commence at 19:30 on all days except Tuesday. It is therefore conceivable that staff and guests may seek to park in the surrounding streets.

6.4.12 Given the excellent access to public transport, and the nature of the use, it is likely that most staff and guests would arrive to and depart from the Site using methods other than driving. On the basis of 73 people travelling to the Site by car for each performance, as modelled by the applicant, and on the basis of each car transporting two persons on average, a total of 37 trips to the Site would be made by car, and thus 37 cars would require space for parking.

6.4.13 The applicant has undertaken a car parking survey of the surrounding streets in accordance with the Council’s guidance note. This survey indicates that the surrounding area suffers from moderate levels of parking stress at the times when the venue would be open. Furthermore, adjacent to the Site is the underground car park beneath the Iroko housing development and Neighbourhood Centre, which has a capacity of 255 spaces. A survey has also been undertaken on the occupancy levels of this car park, and it has been demonstrated to have good levels of capacity at the times when the venue would be open.

6.4.14 The applicant has considered other approved developments in the area in order to ascertain the cumulative demand for car parking. Whilst many of these are large schemes, such as Elizabeth House, Shell Centre and Waterloo International Terminal, these developments would not generate a significant demand for car parking within the surrounding streets. Therefore, the cumulative demand for parking is considered to be low and it has been demonstrated that there is sufficient capacity within the surrounding streets and adjacent car park to accommodate the demand for car parking created by the Development.

6.4.15 One blue badge parking bay would be provided within the surrounding streets in place of an existing car parking bay. A financial contribution of £10,000 would be made to the Council in order to secure this and compensate the Council for the loss of an on-street parking bay. The level of blue badge parking to be provided by the Development is considered acceptable.

Coach Parking

6.4.16 The Site is located near to areas which have been designated by TfL as ‘coach ban areas’. Coaches are permitted to use the bus stops on Stamford Street for loading and unloading, but are not permitted to wait in these bus stops. Short stay parking is also permitted immediately outside of the Site on Stamford Street. It is proposed to utilise these facilities for dropping off, as the coaches would not need to stop at the bus stop for any longer than the time required for guests to disembark from the coach. As explained within the draft Visitor Management Plan, staff would be available to ensure that inappropriate unloading does not occur and that coaches do not loiter in the bus stops. Enforcement measures are also available to TfL to prevent this. 6.4.17 For picking up, it is proposed to use the dedicated short-stay coach parking (60m) on Waterloo Bridge slip road, which is located just a short distance from the Site. Coaches are permitted to park for 15 minutes in this area, with no return in 1 hour. Given coaches are likely to arrive shortly before the time of collection, this is considered to be the most suitable location, rather than the facilities on Stamford Street. The coach parking bay has a capacity of 4 no. coaches and the survey undertaken by the applicant indicates that these are not heavily used, other than in the afternoon periods when the matinee performances would be taking place. If there is no space available for loading of guests, other coach parking facilities are available on Belvedere Road opposite the Shell Centre.

6.4.18 The trip generation analysis indicates that the Development would likely generate one coach trip per performance, and as such, it is considered that coach parking for the Development can adequately be accommodated within the existing facilities that surround the Site. Final details of the coach management procedures would be secured as part of the Visitor Management Plan in the Section 106 Agreement, which would be in consultation with the Council’s Transport and Highways Team and TfL.

Taxis

6.4.19 It is anticipated that the Development would receive up to 37 arrivals and 37 departures by taxis to the venue per show (on the assumption of an average of 2 people per taxi). Staff would direct visitors to organise pick-ups by taxis on Stamford Street to the west of the Site in order to control the number of vehicles stopping immediately outside the venue itself and would encourage guests to remain inside the venue until their taxi has arrived. It is noted that taxis are permitted to stop on TfL Red Routes, which Stamford Street is designated as. Comments have been received from neighbouring properties, in which concerns have been raised about potential loitering of taxis in the surrounding streets at the end of the show, whilst waiting for fares. Measures to address this concern will be set out in the Visitor Management Plan, which would be secured in the Section 106 Agreement.

Deliveries and Servicing

6.4.20 Servicing for the Development would take place on-street, on Cornwall Road, utilising a stretch of double-yellow lines along the eastern side of Cornwall Road, which permits vehicles to load/unload for up to 40 minutes. Servicing would be undertaken using vehicles no larger than a 7.5 tonne box van (8 metres in length). A swept path analysis has been provided in the Transport Statement, which demonstrates that a 7.5 tonne box van can acceptably service the Site without causing an undue obstruction to the operation of the highway, noting that the existing road layout already causes a minor obstruction to vehicles at this section of the road. This location is considered appropriate, noting that site constraints mean it would not be feasible to create an on-site loading bay for vehicles to access.

Figure 22: Swept path analysis of a parked 7.5 tonne box van, demonstrating that vehicles would be able to manoeuvre around this vehicle

6.4.21 It is anticipated that the Site would receive 2-3 deliveries per day associated with food, beverages, dry stock, cleaning supplies and the collection of cash. The same delivery vehicle for the food deliveries would also collect waste and dirty plates. A separate collection of waste would occur on Thursday mornings.

6.4.22 The catering deliveries and collections are expected to arrive/depart at 14:00-15:00 each day that the Site is operational, with an additional delivery/collection at 10:00-11:00 on Saturday and Sunday for the matinee performance.

6.4.23 The Delivery and Servicing Plan sets out that a management system would be put in place to ensure that delivery slots are booked to prevent an overlap of deliveries.

6.4.24 A traffic survey has been undertaken by the applicant on Cornwall Road to ascertain the likely impact of the proposed servicing arrangements on the operation of this road, and in particular, the operation of the traffic lights junction to Stamford Street, in which servicing would take place in close proximity to. The results of this survey demonstrates that the flow of vehicles along Cornwall Road is low, with a maximum of 22 movements (16 northbound and 6 southbound) across a 5 minute period. The survey has also demonstrated that the average queue length of vehicles for the traffic lights junction onto Stamford Street is between one and two vehicles.

6.4.25 Noting the above, it is considered that the servicing arrangements proposed would have a minimal impact on the operation of the local highway network and surrounding properties. Subject to a condition requiring the operation of the Development in accordance with the Delivery and Servicing Plan and for waste storage details to be submitted to the Council for approval, the delivery and servicing arrangements proposed are acceptable. Construction Management

6.4.26 A draft Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted with the application. It is anticipated that the construction period would last for just over a year. This period is reduced a standard construction due to the proposed use of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) to construct the building, which requires less time to assemble than a traditional steel frame. Vehicular access is proposed off Cornwall Road via Stamford Street, and loading and unloading would take place utilising the area also proposed for servicing, as referred to in the ‘Deliveries and Servicing’ subsection. Vehicles would leave the Site to the north and onto Upper Ground. In terms of the working hours proposed, these would be limited to 08:00-18:00 on weekdays and 08:00-13:00 on Saturdays. No work would be permitted on Sundays, except by prior agreement with the Council.

6.4.27 The draft construction measures proposed are considered appropriate. A condition is recommended to secure the full CMP.

6.5 Sustainable Design and Construction

6.5.1 The London Plan sets out the Mayor’s vision for London to become: “a world leader in improving the environment locally and globally, taking the lead in tackling climate change, reducing pollution, developing a low carbon economy and consuming fewer resources and using them more effectively”. LLP Policy EN4 requires development to meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction feasible, relating to the scale, nature and form of the proposal. The LLP also requires major non-residential developments to accord with BREEAM requirements, where at least BREEAM ‘Excellent’ should be achieved, unless it is demonstrated that it is not technically feasible or viable to do so, in which case proposals should demonstrate a ‘Very Good’ rating with a minimum score of 63%.

6.5.2 London Plan Policy 5.2 states that development proposals should make the fullest contributions to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the following energy hierarchy:

1. Be lean: use less energy 2. Be clean: supply energy efficiently 3. Be green: use renewable energy

6.5.3 The Development as a whole is anticipated to achieve a 26.4% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over Building Regulations requirements, which fails to meet the London Plan requirement of a 35% reduction. The applicant has demonstrated that all opportunities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions have been maximised whilst noting the temporary nature of the build. Such measures include solar photovoltaic panels, a natural ventilation system, which would reduce the amount of plant required. However, given the scale and nature of the Development, a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system and a District Heat Network (DHN) would not be viable options. As such, it is agreed that a carbon offset payment of £2,390.00 should be made to the Council to mitigate against this shortfall.

6.5.4 The BREEAM New Construction pre-assessment indicates that the building would achieve an ‘Excellent’ rating with a score of 81.5%, which meets the London Plan policy requirement. Conditions are requested to ensure the Development achieves an ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating.

6.6 Flood Risk

6.6.1 The Site is located within Environment Agency Flood Zone 3, and therefore considered to have a high risk of fluvial flooding. However, it should be noted that this risk is reduced by the flood defence systems along the River Thames. 6.6.2 Policy EN5 of the LLP requires development in such areas to contribute positively to actively reducing flood risk through avoidance, reduction, management and mitigation. The NPPF requires the Local Planning Authority to apply the Sequential Test for new development in Flood Zone 3, which the Site is located within. The aim of this is to steer development towards areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Given the central London location of the Site, and its allocation within a CAZ it is considered unreasonable to prevent the development of the Site on flood risk issues alone. Further to the Sequential Test, the NPPF advises that ‘more vulnerable’ development can be considered appropriate in Flood Zone 3, following satisfactory application of the Exception Test. The Exception Test aims to ensure that more vulnerable property types are not allocated to areas at high risk of flooding. Residential uses are considered to be ‘more vulnerable’ forms of development.

6.6.3 The Development would not provide any residential uses and is considered to be a ‘less vulnerable’ form of development. As such, the Development is deemed appropriate with no Exception Test required.

6.6.4 As noted, the likelihood of the tidal flood defences being breached is low. Therefore, whilst the ‘residual’ risk is high, the actual flood risk to the Development is considered to be low.

6.6.5 LLP Policy EN6 requires that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) are incorporated in development proposals to mitigate and enhance the development’s impact on flood risk, water quality and habitat/amenity value. The application has been accompanied with a Drainage Strategy, which sets out methods to reduce the impact of the Site on flood risk locally, noting that the Site as existing contains no permeable areas. The building is proposed to include a blue roof system which would collect rainwater on the flat roof, and disperse this into the drainage system over an extended period of time. The measures proposed are considered acceptable and a condition will be added to ensure that the Development is constructed in accordance with the approved Drainage Strategy and the recommended mitigation measures set out in that strategy.

6.7 Employment and Training

6.7.1 LLP Policy ED14 seeks to use planning obligations that secure employment opportunities and apprenticeships during the construction phase of major developments and during the operation of the end use, so that local residents are given access to the right skills training so that they can take advantage of opportunities created by new development. The draft SPD on Section 106 obligations requires major developments to commit to providing a minimum of 20% of all construction jobs created by the development to local people both through the construction and end use phases. Furthermore, a minimum of 10% of all construction jobs created by the development is required to be provided for trainees and apprentices.

6.7.2 Given the specialist and quicker form of construction, it has been agreed with the Council’s Employment Team that it is an acceptable approach for no obligations to be required for the construction phase of the Development, but instead for the obligations to focus on the end- use, where it is envisaged 64 jobs would be created. The applicant is committed to employing local people wherever possible, with approximately 30 of these jobs being made available to local people, which would comfortably meet the Council’s target of 20% of end use jobs to be provided for local people. Full details given in the submitted Employment & Skills Framework within the Planning Statement. 6.7.3 As part of a clause in the Section 106 Agreement, the Council would require the applicant to commit to obligations to employ local people through the end use, as discussed. The clause would require a completed ‘Employment and Skills Plan’ and ‘Worksmart’ document, setting out how the Development will aim to achieve these targets. A financial contribution would be required towards Employment and Training, which would also be secured through an obligation contained in the Section 106 Agreement.

6.8 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

6.8.1 LLP Policy D4 and Annex 10 sets out the Council’s policy in relation to seeking planning obligations and the charging approaches for various types of obligation. For contributions that are not covered by Annex 10, the Council’s approach to calculating contributions is guided by its July 2013 revised draft S106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) produced for consultation. The July 2013 revised draft S106 Planning Obligations SPD arose from a review of the S106 Planning Obligations SPD that was adopted in 2012.

6.8.2 The planning obligations that are proposed are considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in kind and in scale to the development. They are therefore compliant with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

6.8.3 The proposed obligations to be secured through the S106 Agreement are as follows:

Obligation:

Carbon Offset Contribution of £2,390.00.

Securing an Employment and Training financial obligation of £13,174.58 (based on an employment yield of 64).

Securing employment and training opportunities including apprenticeships, procurement, training and brokerage arrangements for the end use of the building.

Requiring the submission of a Visitor Management Plan, including measures set out for monitoring of impacts of the Development on neighbouring amenity. Matters to be included, but not exclusive to, as follows:

- Arrival and departure procedures, including queue management both before and after the show; - Ticketing arrangements and measures to communicate preferred transport methods to and from the venue; - Measures to ensure noise impacts of use are kept to a minimum both before and after the show; - Measures to ensure noise impacts of smoking area are kept to a minimum and measures to prevent inappropriate littering as a result of the use of the smoking area; - Coach and taxi management procedures; - Security procedures.

Securing an annual financial contribution for visitor management. Initial payment of £44,096.00 to be paid prior to occupation and a payment to be made by the applicant on every annual anniversary of operation thereafter.

Securing a payment of £10,000.00 towards the provision of 1 no. on-street blue badge parking bay in the vicinity of the site. Requiring the applicant to enter into a Section 278 Highways Agreement to secure the relocation of various equipment on the pavement on Stamford Street and Cornwall Road. Details of the proposed relocation of highway equipment also to be approved by Officers. Travel Plan Monitoring Fee of £3,000.00.

Monitoring fee of £3,633.03 (5% of total financial contributions of £72,660.58).

6.8.4 Given the temporary nature of the Development, the application would not be liable for the Lambeth CIL or Mayoral CIL.

6.9 Other Planning Issues

Secured by Design

6.9.1 Development is required to minimise the risks of opportunistic crime, anti-social behaviour and fear of crime in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.3 and LLP Policy Q3. 6.9.2 The proposals would front both Stamford Street and Cornwall Road and would ensure that limited opportunities would be created for opportunistic crime. The draft VMP has set out measures to address crowd management which would include the stationing of staff at the entrance before, during and after the show. Such measures would also aid to increase the security of the use proposed. Officers consider that the measures detailed above are appropriate to minimise the risks of crime in this area and at the Site as a whole.

Air Quality

6.9.3 As noted ‘Transport’ section and ‘Construction Management’ subsection, due to the temporary nature of the building, a timber framed building has been specified. This would minimise the construction and de-construction periods, and thus would reduce the impact of the Development on air quality. This together with the Site’s excellent access to public transport and other sustainable characteristics of the building, such as the chimney to provide natural ventilation in-place of excessive plant, ensures that the Development is acceptable with regard to air quality. Conditions are proposed to minimise the risk of the construction of the Development on the surrounding area with regard to air quality and in particular dust mitigation.

Land Contamination

6.9.4 Paragraph 120 of the NPPF requires development requires development to prevent unacceptable risks from land contamination. This is reaffirmed by London Plan Policy 5.21. The Site is a cleared, open site and the proposed building would sit within the existing excavated basement, with limited ground-works required. As such, the Development would not be subject to any unacceptable land contamination risks.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The application proposes a temporary development for 5 years of a cleared site at the junction of Stamford Street and Cornwall Road. It is proposed to erect a building to house the London performances of ABBA’s ‘Mamma Mia! The Party’. The show already operates in Stockholm, Sweden, and would provide an immersive experience with guest seated at tables within the auditorium. Guests would be served a meal whilst the show goes on around them. Following the meal, the central tables would be cleared away and guests are then invited to join in with the full dancing and singing experience of show.

7.2 The Site has remained in its current form since the previous commercial building was demolished in 1985. The Site is owned by Coin Street Community Builders, who have longer term aspirations to develop it as the second phase of the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre.

7.3 The application site is located within the Waterloo Opportunity Area and Central Activities Zone, home to the internationally renowned arts and cultural venues along the South Bank, and is located in close proximity to Waterloo railway and Underground stations. In such areas, strategic and local policy supports the promotion of arts and cultural activities and the enhancement of the South Bank in its role as an international cultural and leisure centre through supporting the development of arts and cultural facilities, as well as visitor related facilities. A show venue for the London performances of ABBA’s ‘Mamma Mia! The Party’ is therefore supported in principle, subject to other considerations such as design, heritage impacts, amenity and transport. 7.4 The footprint, scale, bulk and massing of the Development would provide a positive response to the local context as required by policy and guidance contained within the Waterloo Supplementary Planning Document. Due to the use of the Site that is proposed, the building would not require many window openings, which would also limit the levels of noise breaking out of the building to acceptable levels. In the absence of windows to the upper levels of the building, interest would be provided in the form of ‘shimmering’ façades of blue/green toned coloured disks that flutter in the breeze, creating an abstract veil covering the building. Whilst the detailed design of the building would deviate from the local and historic character of the area, the finish to the façades would ensure that the building will be visually interesting, deliver design excellence and as such would contribute positively to the local and historic context. The design of the building is therefore considered acceptable.

7.5 In terms of the impact of the proposals on surrounding heritage assets, the Site is bordered by the Waterloo Conservation Area immediately to the south, the Roupell Street Conservation Area further to the south, and is located a short distance from the South Bank Conservation Area, which is to the north of the Site. A number of statutory listed buildings are located in close proximity to the Site, most notably the Grade II listed Georgian terrace, located opposite the Site on Stamford Street. The Site is also in the backdrop of the Grade II* listed National Theatre and locally listed IBM building when viewed from Waterloo Bridge and the north bank of the River Thames. The applicant has undertaken an extensive views analysis of the proposals in the context of the surrounding heritage assets. Officers consider that no harm would be caused to the surrounding heritage assets, or that of strategic and local views.

7.6 Appropriate visitor management arrangements have been proposed and monitoring of impacts would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement to ensure that the Development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. Furthermore, an annual financial contribution would be provided by the applicant to the Council, to mitigate other impacts of visitors to the venue, such as litter collection. The scale and form of the building would also ensure that acceptable levels of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy are retained to surrounding properties.

7.7 The Site is located in a highly accessible area for public transport and it is envisaged that the majority of staff and guests would arrive to and depart from the Site by this method. Where other methods would be used, such as by car, taxi or coach, these could be accommodated within the surrounding road network without any unacceptable impacts caused. This is also the case for servicing vehicles, where relatively low numbers of servicing trips would be required for the Development to operate successfully.

7.8 The temporary use proposed, would provide an appropriate form of development and use of an otherwise underused central London site, whilst plans are developed for the longer term use of the Site. The scheme would provide public benefits in the form of a significant commitment by the applicant to employ local people during the end use of the building. The improved cultural offer of the wider area and economic benefits that this would bring locally, are also considered public benefits of the scheme. The applicant is willing to open the building for a free additional community function when the building is not in use for MMTP shows, for uses such as meetings, workshops and theatre training. Another public benefit that would be provided by the scheme is an improved street-scene for the area in the interim period prior to the permanent redevelopment of the Site, which is currently open and enclosed by wooden fencing with 2 no. large panel advertisements. This would be replaced with a visually interesting building which would not be harmful to surrounding heritage assets. The design of the building would also ensure that it would have a limited impact on the environment through the use of sustainable materials and use of natural ventilation, and a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating is forecast. 7.9 Officers consider that the development would be in compliance with the Development Plan for the Borough. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would dictate that the application should otherwise be refused. Officers are therefore recommending approval of the scheme, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the planning obligations listed in this report.

8.2 Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

 Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report; and  Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

8.3 That if the Section 106 Agreement is not signed by 19th December (or an alternative timeframe agreed with the LPA) the Director of Planning, Transport and Development be given delegated powers to refuse the application in the absence of a legal agreement.

8.4 In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to Officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

Conditions and Reasons

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice, other than where those details are altered pursuant to the requirements of the conditions of this planning permission.

Reason: Otherwise than as set out in the decision and conditions, it is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. The temporary building and use hereby permitted shall not exceed five years starting from the date of the first public performance, or the use shall cease by (INSERT DATE 9 YEARS FROM DATE OF DECISION), whichever is sooner. Upon expiry the temporary use shall be discontinued, the temporary building hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition within six months of expiry, including removal of any fixtures or fittings that facilitate the temporary use.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby permitted does not prejudice the future development of the site.

4. Prior to the commencement of development above ground level and notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, detailed construction drawings of all external elevations (at scale 1:10) including the following items shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

a) Schedule and sample of proposed materials in elevations and roof. Submissions should also provide the following; - Annotated full colour elevations showing the location and colour of each disc; - Mock-up panel of cladding, frame and discs; - Details of frame, how it is fixed to panels. b) Details of external windows and doors; c) Elevations and details of recessed entrance; d) Details (elevation and section) of lighting, including location, size and materials; e) Details of boundary treatments.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and to protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers (Policies Q2, Q5, Q7 and Q15 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

5. 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.

6. The measures approved in the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the uses hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the site are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (London Plan (2016) Policies 6.3 and 6.13, and London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) Policy T7).

7. No development shall commence until full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding:

a) The notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; b) Advance notification of road closures; c) Details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; d) Details regarding dust and noise mitigation measures to be deployed including identification of sensitive receptors and ongoing monitoring; e) Details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway; f) Details of the hours of works and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area and safety of the highway network; and g) Any other measures to mitigate the impact of construction upon the amenity of the area and the function and safety of the highway network.

No development shall commence until provision has been made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, offloading, parking and turning within the site or otherwise during the construction period in accordance with the approved details. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details and measures approved in the Method of Construction Statement.

Reason: Development must not commence before this condition is discharged to avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and to safeguard residential amenity from the start of the construction process (Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (2016); and London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) Policies T6 and T8).

8. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of the provision to be made for cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details before the use hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.

Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport (Policies Q13, T1 and T3 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

9. Prior to the commencement of the uses hereby permitted, details of waste and recycling storage and waste management for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The waste and recycling storage shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of the uses hereby permitted, and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use. The waste and recycling storage areas/facilities should comply with the Lambeth’s Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide (2013), unless it is demonstrated in the submissions that such provision is inappropriate for this specific development.

Reason: To ensure suitable provision for the occupiers of the development, to encourage the sustainable management of waste and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area (Policies Q2 and Q12 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

10. The measures approved in the Delivery and Servicing Plan shall be implemented prior to the uses hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can be satisfied as to the effects of the scheme on the surrounding road network so as to avoid hazard or obstruction to the public highway (Policies T6 and T8 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

11. No development shall take place until a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. For land that is included within the WSI, no development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, which shall include the statement of significance and research objectives, and

a) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works; b) The programme for post-investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication and dissemination and deposition of resulting material. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the WSI.

Reason: Development must not commence before this condition is discharged to safeguard the heritage of the borough by ensuring that any archaeological remains that may exist on site are not permanently destroyed (Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2016)).

12. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the sustainable drainage scheme for the site has been completed in accordance with the submitted details. The sustainable drainage scheme shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan.

Reason: To manage the water environment of the development and mitigate the impact on flood risk, water quality, habitat and amenity value (Policies EN5 and EN6 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

13. Prior to the commencement of building works above ground level, full details of any internal and external plant equipment and trunking, including building services plant, ventilation and filtration equipment and commercial kitchen exhaust ducting / ventilation and their on-going maintenance, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All flues, ducting and other equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing on site and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and approved on-going maintenance plan.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area (Policy Q2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

14. The use hereby permitted, or the operation of any building services plant, shall not commence until an assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of all internally and externally located plant has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The assessment of the acoustic impact shall be undertaken in accordance with BS 4142: 2014 (or subsequent superseding equivalent) and current best practice, and shall include a scheme of attenuation measures to ensure the rating level of noise emitted from the proposed building services plant is 10db less than background.

The use hereby permitted, or the operation of any building services plant, shall not commence until a post-installation noise assessment has been carried out to confirm compliance with the noise criteria. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and attenuation measures, and they shall be permanently retained and maintained in working order for the duration of the use and their operation.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area (Policy Q2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

15. Prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme of measures to ensure compliance with the assumptions given in Section 3 Façade Acoustic Design & Noise Break Out of the Planning Report – Acoustics prepared by BuroHappold Engineering reference 036264 version 00 dated 20 June 2017, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and a separate validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first use. Where any additional acoustic mitigation measures are found to be required, full details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as approved shall be fully implemented and thereafter maintained for as long as the use continues.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area (Policy Q2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

16. The use of the premises hereby permitted shall not be open to members of the public other than within the following times (exclusive of any daytime community operations of the premises):

- 18.30 Hours to 23.30 Hours – Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday, - 13.00 Hours to 00.00 Hours – Friday and Saturday.

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers or users of the area generally (Policies ED7, Q2 and T6 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

17. The capacity of the building for guests during any show shall not exceed 530 persons.

Reason: To ensure that the scheme does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding road network, and to protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies T6, T8 and Q2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

18. Prior to the commencement of works above ground level, an updated Sustainability and Energy Strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval, to address the following points as outlined in the Mayor’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG:

a) How materials that have a low embodied energy, can be sustainably sourced, are durable and non-toxic will be prioritised; b) How the use of existing resources will be maximised and waste generated from demolition and construction minimised; c) As the lifetime of the development will be only 5 years, a de-construction plan should be submitted outlining how re-use and recycling of materials will be maximised.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy EN4 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

19. Prior to the commencement of above ground works, a BREEAM Design Stage certificate and summary score sheet shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval, demonstrating that an ‘Excellent’ score has been achieved.

Prior to first occupation of the development, a BREEAM Post Construction certificate and summary score sheet shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval, demonstrating that an ‘Excellent’ score has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy EN4 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

20. Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development, a scheme showing the siting, size, number and design of the solar thermal panels and photovoltaic (PV) arrays, including cross sections of the roof of the building with the equipment in situ, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The development shall thereafter be completed in strict accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan (2016) Policy 5.2 and London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) Policy EN3.

21. Prior to the commencement of works above ground level, full Design Stage SBEM calculations as an output of the National Calculation Method (incorporating all Be Lean, Be Clean and Be Green measures) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval, that demonstrate the development will achieve a maximum feasible reduction in carbon emissions over that required by Part L of the Building Regulations 2013.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan (2016) Policy 5.2 and London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) Policy EN3.

22. Prior to the commencement of works above ground level, a report prepared by a suitably qualified Structural Blast Engineer (SBE) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval, demonstrating that appropriate security mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction of the building. The report shall include the following details:

a) Evaluating the envelope of the building for effects related to air blast (including interior and exterior glazing, exterior wall systems, roof system and ceilings) at pre-determined stand-off ranged from a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) and a Large Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (LVBIED). b) Performance specifications for pre-manufactured systems subject to air-blast loading (i.e. pre-cast panels, windows etc.). c) Specialist advice to the structural engineer and other design team members on incorporating blast analysis results in to the design of the building.

The development shall thereafter be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development is of a robust construction, durable and resistant to malicious damage, in the interests of public safety Policy Q3 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

23. Prior to the occupation of the development, a Vehicle Dynamics Assessment (VDA) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The VDA shall include appropriate Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) measures to limit and manage access for vehicles onto the development. The development shall thereafter be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development is of a robust construction, durable and resistant to malicious damage, in the interests of public safety Policy Q3 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Informatives

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

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

3) 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 there under.

4) 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.

5) You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities.

6) Officers suggest removing part of the eastern boundary with the Coin Street Neighbourhood Centre so that it aligns with the Development frontage rather than extending into the street. This information should be provided as part of the boundary condition (condition 4).

7) Regarding condition 5, for information on the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements and to register NRMM, please visit “http://nrmm.london/”.

8) You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction and the submission of the Method of Construction Statement (condition 8) 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.

Please contact either Nick Greaves or Julian Maile.

9) Regarding condition 7, the Construction Management Plan should take into account the comments from the Air Quality Team, as follows:

The CMP should contain an Air Quality and Dust Management Plan with a commitment to dust and particulate matter control measures based on measures for Medium Risk sites described in Chapter 5 and Appendix 7 of the Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition SPG.

10) Regarding condition 11, the Written Scheme of Investigation will need to be prepared and implemented by a suitably qualified professionally accredited archaeological practice in accordance with Historic England’s Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London. This condition is exempt from deemed discharge under schedule 6 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

11) 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.