ADDRESS: Land at No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road and Bound by Thornton Road Application Number: 20/01264/RG3 Case Officer: Rozina Vrlic Ward: Thornton Date Received: 07/04/2020 Proposal: Construction of a part 4 / part 5 storey building comprising 14 residential units, associated cycle parking, landscaping together with associated works. Applicant: Homes for Lambeth Agent: Savills

RECOMMENDATION

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 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in this report.

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

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

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

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

SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations: Flood Zone Flood Zone 1 CAA Helipad Safeguarding CAA Helipad Safeguarding Zone Smoke Control Area Smoke Control Area

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area (ha): 0.27

RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Residential No. of bedrooms per unit Total Type Habitable Rooms Studio 1 2 3 4 Total Existing Affordable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private/Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Affordable On-Site Rented Social Rented 0 0 0 2 0 2 10 Intermediate 0 2 2 0 0 4 10 (Shared Ownership) Private/Market 0 2 5 1 0 8 23 Total 4 7 3 0 14 43

Amount (£)

Payment in Lieu of £30,345 Affordable Housing Details/Trigger Review Mechanism Early stage review within 24 months if the scheme is not implemented Late Stage Review triggered at 75% of sale of market units

ACCESSIBILITY

Number of C3 Units M4(2) Units 12 M4(3) Units 2

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Spaces Car Parking Spaces (Disabled) % Bike Motor- (General) of Spaces cycle EV Spaces CP Resi Commercial Visitor Resi Commercial Visitor Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed 0 0 0 1 (on- 0 0 26 0 street)

LEGAL SERVICES CLEARANCE

AUDIT TRAIL Consultation Name/Position Lambeth Date Sent Date Report Comments in department Received Cleared para: Peter Flockhart Senior Legal Services 07/06/2020 08/06/2020 10/06/2020 N/A Lawyer

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed scheme will be delivered by Homes for Lambeth (HfL) who are the Council’s wholly owned group of companies dedicated to delivering more new and affordable homes. HfL are currently bringing forward a number of smaller, Council-owned sites across the borough, of which this site is one. They are seeking to make most efficient use of currently underutilised land and optimise development capacity in order to deliver new homes including affordable homes.

The scheme would deliver a number of planning benefits, by way of provision of additional housing that includes a good affordable housing offer, improved useable Estate amenity land. Improved landscaping and biodiversity enhancements. Finacial contributions will be secured with regards to offsite improvements by way of 6 trees to be planted on highway land. In terms of sustainability there would be a carbon reduction of 71.9% and remaining regulated carbon dioxide emissions to zero would be off set with a payment secured by s106. Employment benefits include a financial contribution of £9,750, which would be used towards the employment and training of local residents and during the build period there would be an employment and skills plan to help local people access job opportunities arising from the proposed development (at construction phase).

The development would be sited on an area of Estate amenity land that includes a former ball court that has been inaccessible and overgrown for a number of years. In terms of quantum this proposed development would result in a net loss of Estate amenity land of approximately 410 sqm of the 917sqm inaccessible Estate amenity land. The proposal seeks to provide enhancements to the quality, usability, and function of the wider Estate amenity land including landscape and biodiversity improvements. With regards to the ball court that has not been used for a number of years it is considered there is adequate provision of sports pitches, ball courts and other recreational space in close proximity to the site. Officers consider that the applicant has demonstrated that distinct regeneration and community benefits and compensatory measures have been achieved within the site and immediate surroundings. Subject to details being secured through conditions and planning obligations secured via s106. the proposal therefore has met the test and accords with Policy EN1(a)(ii) of the Lambeth Local Plan.

The proposal includes 14 residential units and would deliver 6 affordable housing units which equates to 46.5% by habitable room on site. Comprising of two affordable rented units and four intermediate units (Shared Ownership). The tenure split would be 33/66% respectively by unit and 50/50% by habitable room. The application was viability tested and it was considered that the proposed affordable housing offer of 46.5% affordable housing by habitable room and the tenure split 50% affordable rent /50% intermediate (shared ownership) with an offsite contribution to be the reasonable amount deliverable.

The bulk, scale and massing of the proposed development is considered acceptable and the height is broadly proportionate with the prevailing building heights in the vicinity of the application site. The proposed development would not result in any harm to nearby heritage assets.

The proposed development would provide acceptable standards of residential accommodation. It would meet relevant internal residential space standards and the quantum and quality of private and communal amenity space proposed is considered acceptable. The dwellings would have good levels of daylight/sunlight, privacy and outlook.

The proposed development would not result in any undue harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. In consideration of the daylight analysis for all neighbouring properties for both VSC and NSL it is evident that the majority of reductions meet BRE Guide target criteria and in those few isolated instances that reductions are beyond target criteria, these relate to VSC and to No 200-262 Hydethorpe Road which does have some degree of inherent sensitivity due to recessed balconies limiting daylighting. In consideration of retained levels of actual daylight and also separately, consideration on the theoretical review of ‘without balconies’ analysis, the main adversity relates to 2 No living rooms with impact to the rear balcony windows (although as background for these particular rooms, the likelihood is that they are also served by a smaller window in the front elevation which will not be affected by the proposal) and 3 No bedrooms, albeit daylight can be considered less important to the latter.

For sunlight reductions, these effectively meet BRE Guide target criteria, with the isolated exception to some habitable rooms (including some living rooms) within the neighbouring block at 200-262 Hydethorpe Road. With focus upon living rooms, for the small number of isolated living rooms not meeting BRE Guide target criteria under standard analysis review, theoretical analysis can be considered ‘without balconies’ and on that basis, these living rooms would readily meet BRE Guide target criteria so we conclude this isolated adversity is due to the inherent sensitivity of the windows beneath balcony soffits rather than an adverse proposal.

Sunlight review to neighbouring amenity (primarily rear gardens) should also be considered. However, it is evident that given the proposed massing, context and orientation of neighbouring gardens to that of the proposal, most neighbouring rear gardens are not applicable for analysis review. However, given the context of the private garden immediately adjacent to the north-west of the proposal (which is demarked on the existing site plan and noted as ‘private garden of No 210 Hydethorpe Road’) we have requested this to be analysed by eb7 as there will be some increased effect from the proposal although we anticipate the garden will not be affected by the proposal from circa mid-afternoon onwards at the 21st March equinox date (although it is noted that this particular amenity area is anticipated to have some shadowing from a number of existing mature trees to the immediate south). Eb7 have now undertaken the standard amenity BRE Guide 2-hour sunlight availability review and the amenity area has the ability to receive 2 hours or more of sunlight at the 21st March (equinox) to 100% of the amenity area as existing which reduces to 76% in the proposed scenario. Whilst the percentage reduction is 24%, given that the retained percentage of the amenity area as having the ability to receive 2 hours or more of sunlight at the 21st March (equinox) in the proposed scenario is still over half the amenity area (at 76%), then this meets the BRE Guide target criteria for this test.

Due to appropriate separation distances, and the urban context the proposed development would not result in any significant material impact in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring residential properties, nor would it amount to an unneighbourly relationship with regard to increased sense of enclosure or overbearing impact.

The applicant has provided indicative details with regards to hard and soft landscaping with an intention to provide a balance between amenity and biodiversity. A Landscape Management and Maintenance plan has been submitted which is considered acceptable and reasonable. The current ecological value of the application site is acceptable and indicates that the development would not have a significant adverse ecological impact. Furthermore, it is indicated that an urban greening factor of 0.4 will be achieved. Subject to conditions and securing planning obligations and financial contributions the proposals are considered to be acceptable in this regard.

Sufficient commitment is made to sustainable design and construction, reducing carbon emissions and the use of renewable energy technologies. The principles of the Mayor’s energy hierarchy have been applied to the proposed development and the proposed development would achieve the maximum reduction in carbon emissions of 71.9% reduction over the 2013 Building Regulation standards. A financial contribution is required to offset all remaining regulated CO2 emissions to 100% or “zero carbon emissions”.

The development would be car free, with occupants of the residential units not eligible for parking permits. A financial contribution towards the delivery of 1 disabled parking spaces for residents will secured by section 106 agreement. The scheme will provide a total of 26 long-stay cycle storage spaces, and 4 short-stay cycle storage spaces, in accordance with Draft London Plan standards. The development would be suitably mitigated in terms of its impact upon local infrastructure. In addition, the development would not impact unacceptably upon the function and safety of the highway network (both pedestrian and vehicular).

The development would be subject to a range of section 106 obligations that would reasonably mitigate the otherwise unacceptable impacts of the development. The package of section106 contributions has been negotiated having full regard to the nature of the development, to the normal expectations conferred upon developers by the various planning policy documents, and to the statutory tests for section 106 obligations set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

The proposed development has been assessed against the Development Plan and all other material considerations, including national planning policy. Officers consider that subject to the conditions set out in the draft decision notice at Annex 1 of this report and a section 106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in section 20 of this report, the planning application should be approved.

OFFICER REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: (5) Applications made by the Council for development of land in its ownership that the Council intends to dispose of to a third party.

1 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The site is located on the corner of Hydethorpe Road and Thornton Road known as 200-262 Hydethorpe Road – a council owner housing estate. The building (shown outlined in blue in Fig 1 below) a linear walk up block is located to the north-west of the area to be developed and is six storeys (with 7th storey setback) comprising residential units. The building is surrounded by amenity space land that consists of a former ball court (shown shaded green with hatched box at Fig 2 below) to the south-east of the building, hard landscaping (shown shaded white within Fig 2 below) located to the front of the building fronting Hydethorpe Road and a green space (shaded light green within Fig 2 below) fronting Thornton Road.

1.2 The area to be developed comprises approx. 917sqm of Estate amenity land that includes the former ball court (395sqm approx.) (area shown purple in Fig 3 below see Area calculations existing) located to the south-east of the Estate building. The ball court and surroundings has not been in use for a number of years and is significantly overgrown with no access and not part of the useable amenity space areas. Oldest Google Street View image shows the area covered since June 2008.

1.3 There is currently 1,627sqm of accessible Estate amenity land shown shaded pink in Fig 3 below. The application site excludes an area of 174sqm of a parcelled off portion of amenity land shown in green * in Fig 2 below which is used as a private garden by the occupiers of No.210 Hydethorpe Road.

The site is located within Flood zone 1 and CAA Helipad Safeguarding Zone.

Figure 1The application site is shown outlined in red (Source: Landscape Design document)

Figure 2 illustration of Estate amenity land (Source: Design and Access Statement)

Figure 3 illustration of accessible and inaccessible estate amenity land (Source: Landscape Design document)

2 THE SURROUNDING AREA 2.1 The site is located in a residential area predominantly comprising low-rise semi-detached dwellings and terraced houses. To the south-east boundary of the site are No.22 and 22A Thornton Road, two storey houses linked by a single storey wing and carport. Opposite the site are 1970’s two storey semi-detached terrace dwellings. To the north-west directly opposite the existing building is a 1960’s apartment block comprising of residential units. To the north-east and south-west of the site are two storey Victorian terraced properties fronting Hydethorpe Road and Radbourne Road.

2.2 The site is not located in a Conservation Area but the Hyde Farm Conservation Area lies south west of the site, with the rear boundary of No. 22 A Thornton Road (See Fig 4 below outlined in purple). There are no statutory listed buildings on the site but there are some within the surrounding context. To the south-east of the application site at No.24 Thornton Road is a three storey Grade II listed villa with basement which dates from 1840 built by Thomas Cubitt. Also built by Thomas Cubitt at No.58 Thornton Road is St Bede’s Roman Catholic Primary School, a three storey Grade II listed villa with basement and in use as independent school (D1 use class). Both of these are shown hatched red in Fig 4 below.

2.3 The site is located approximately 0.8miles to the west of Balham town centre where local amenities are located. The closest park is the Agnes Riley Gardens, located about 300m north of the site. Approximately 500m south-west of the site, in the London Borough of Wandsworth, is Tooting Bec Common.

2.4 The site is located within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and has a PTAL rating of 3, indicating a good level of access to public transport. The site is approximately 1.2km north-east of Balham National Rail and Underground Station and approximately 1.2 km north-west of Streatham Hill Rail Station. The closest bus stop is located approximately 200m from the site which provides services to Balham and Streatham.

Figure 4 Conservation Areas and Listed building (Application site outlined in dark red, Conservation area outlined in purple and listed buildings outlined in red))

3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure 5a Existing site photographs – from Hydethorpe Road and Thornton Road (Source: Design and Access Statement).

Figure 5b Existing site photographs – within site (Source: Design and Access Statement).

4 PROPOSAL Summary of the Proposal 4.1 The proposal seeks to remove the existing ball court area and construct a part four / part five storey building. The building has been designed with an articulated volume ranging in height from part two storey, part four storey and part five storeys using a limited palette of materials. The elevations primarily to be constructed in brick with a subtle variety in colour. The proposal would provide 14 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) together with provision for communal cycle parking and separate refuse storage located within the front of the site. A canopy arch is proposed over the entrance of the building, located along part of the south eastern side of the building abutting the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road.

4.2 Landscaping improvements are proposed that include a new and enhanced communal amenity space, including children’s play space.

Figure 6a Aerial sketch view from the east (Source: Design and Access Statement)

Figure 6b Aerial sketch view from the south (Source: Design and Access Statement)

Figure 6c Sketch view from communal amenity area looking west (Source: Design and Access Statement)

Figure 6d Sketch street view looking south along Thornton Road (Source: Design and Access Statement)

4.3 Figure 6e Proposed street elevation Thornton Road (Source: drawing 1123 P 2100)

5 Detail of the Proposal 5.1 The proposed building would be sited within part of the existing amenity space land to the south-east of the building at 200-260 Hydethorpe Road. The proposed development would provide fourteen residential units in total, of which six are offered on an affordable tenure. Of the six affordable dwellings, two would be offered as affordable rented units and four shared ownership units.

5.2 The north eastern section of the building would have a height of up to five storeys (+17.550m top of lift) that would step down towards the southeast to four storeys. The four storey element would step down towards the rear of the site to two storeys.

5.3 The main entrance to the proposed building would be located along the south-east elevation of the building. An entrance porch is proposed to the front of the building that includes an enclosed cycle store. This would be the private entrance to one of the ground floor units. A separate entrance to the other ground floor flat is proposed to the rear of the unit that would be accessed via the entrance along the south-east elevation. A canopy is proposed over the entrance to the building. The canopy would be located along the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road. Beyond the entrance under the canopy would be a gate that would lead to the entrance of the building and rear communal amenity areas.

5.4 The proposed ground floor flats would have access to private terraces and each of the upper floor flats would have balconies. The existing communal amenity Estate areas would be enhanced and made accessible to all the future occupiers within the proposed building and existing residents within No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road. Figure 7 below provides an illustration of the communal amenity areas. Area known as No.2 (shaded pink) comprises 816sqm of communal garden space including provision for playspace area (area known as No.5) and 473sqm of green open space fronting Thornton Road.

5.5 26 long stay cycle spaces including 4 short stay spaces are proposed for the future occupiers. The proposed groundfloor units would benefit from their own communal stores. The proposed upper floor units would have access to a communal store located on the ground floor of the building adjacent the entrance into the proposed building. A bin store is proposed to be located to the front of the building along the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road. Figure 8 below illustrates the proposed groundfloor plan.

5.6 The proposal includes a boundary treatment strategy see Figure 9 below. The proposal would retain and make good existing boundary treatments. The proposal also includes a new entrance gate to the located to the south of the building under the canopy entrance arch. Landscaping and planting enhancements are proposed to all the Estate amenity land where possible including to the front of existing building fronting Hydethorpe Road.

5.7 No car parking is proposed with the exception of one disabled parking bay proposed to be located on- street.

Figure 7 Communal amenity areas (Source: Landscape Design Document)

Figure 8 Proposed Ground and Landscape Plan (Drawing No.1123 P 0100)

5.8 Figure 9 Boundary treatment strategy (Source: Landscape Design document)

6 Amendment(s) 6.1 At the request of officers, a draft landscape maintenance and management that would normally be secured by condition was submitted (27/05/2020). This was requested to ensure that the proposed benefits derived from the landscaping and communal areas are managed and maintained.

6.2 A revised Ground and Landscape Plan was submitted (29/05/2020) which has been updated to include the revised bin store capacity and indicative location of cycle parking for 200-262 Hydethorpe Road.

7 Planning Performance Agreement 7.1 Homes for Lambeth have an overarching service level agreement PPA with Lambeth Planning which this scheme falls under. Prior to submission of the application the applicant was engaged in pre application discussions with officers. Meetings were held on the 4th November and 8th January.

8 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 8.1 There are no relevant applications that relate to this site. 8.2 As noted by the objections made at No.22-22A Thornton Road, there were two planning applications withdrawn (16/01845/FUL & 16/04636/FUL) and a further planning application (ref:16/01845/FUL) that was refused planning permission. The reasons for refusal are listed below:

1) The proposal has failed to provide an acceptable level of affordable housing on site or an appropriate mix of affordable housing on site. The proposal has failed to demonstrate that the scheme cannot provide the requisite level of affordable housing on site, that the quantum proposed is the maximum reasonable provision the development can deliver, that an acceptable mix of social and affordable rent to intermediate provision has been provided, and that an acceptable mix of 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom+ units affordable housing units has been provided. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy H1, H2 and H4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

2) The proposal, by reason of its siting, scale, bulk, massing, footprint and proposed parking area would result in an unacceptable loss of garden space. This would have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity value of the site, and would result in an acceptable loss of biodiversity, soft landscaping/permeable draining and openness. Consequently the development would be contrary to Lambeth Local Plan Policies EN1, Q5, Q7, Q9, Q10 and Q14 (2015).

3) Due to insufficient information relating to the tree survey and the arboricultural implications of the scheme, particularly with respect to the impacts of the foundations, drainage, third party trees, tree protection, and the existing biodiversity of the site, the local planning authority is unable to assess the magnitude of impact on the existing trees considered to provide significant amenity and the ecological/habitat conservation value of the overall site. The application has also failed to demonstrate that the reduction of existing garden space provides sufficient capacity for tree planting to mitigate for loss of trees. The application is therefore contrary to policies EN1, Q2, Q9 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

4) The proposed detailed design of the scheme by virtue of the proposed facing materials would be of an inappropriate material and appearance and would not reinforce local distinctiveness. The use of painted brickwork would deteriorate in its visual appearance over time and is likely to become a maintenance burden. Consequently the development would be contrary to Lambeth Local Plan Policies Q5 and Q8 (2015).

5) The proposal, by reason of its height, scale and bulk and proximity to neighbouring residential properties at No. 41, 43 and 45 B & D Radbourne Road, would represent an un-neighbourly form of development that would appear visually intrusive and overbearing and, by virtue of the proposed balconies and expanse of rear windows, would result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to the detriment of these residential occupiers existing level of amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q2 (2015).

6) The proposal has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed off street car parking area and vehicular access would not be prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and vehicular and pedestrian safety. The application has therefore failed to demonstrate compliance with Policies T1, T2, T3, T6 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)

7) The proposal has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, through insufficient information contained within the submitted car parking survey that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable increase in parking congestion within the vicinity which would unduly affect road safety and the free flow of traffic. The application has therefore failed to demonstrate compliance with Policies T1, T2, T6 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

8) By reason of the developments siting as shown on maps held by the Environment Agency classifying the development site in Flood Zone 1 and the failure to provide a Flood Risk Assessment, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not create an unacceptable increased flood risk either to users of the development and people elsewhere. Therefore the proposal is contrary Policy EN5 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 100 -103.

9) The proposal has failed to address sustainable drainage systems and water management and therefore fails to demonstrate that the layout and design of development would not have a detrimental impact on floodwater flow across the site. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015.

10) The submission has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would ensure that air quality is not adversely affected by the development therefore failing to comply with the Mayor's SPG: The Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition (July 2014).

9 CONSULTATIONS

9.1 Statutory External Consultees

Historic England (Archaeology) (16/04/2020) - No discernible on-going archaeological interest.

Thames Water (16/04/2020) - No objection subject to informatives. • Approval from Thames Water required with regards to any discharge to public sewer (informative 12) • Recommend that petrol/oil inceptors be fitted in all carparking/washing/repair facilities (Informative 13) • Take account of minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development with regards to water network and water treatment infrastructure capacity (Informative 14 and 15).

TfL (20/04/2020) -They have no specific comments to make other than to emphasise the development should comply with the transport policies set out in the Intend to Publish London Plan. In particular the car and cycle parking standards in tables 10.2 – 10.6 (inclusive).

9.2 Internal Consultees

Ecology and Biodiversity (16/04/2020)- No objection subject to conditions. • Hard and soft landscaping details (Condition 24) • Appropriate mitigations measures (Condition 23) • Design, installation and maintenance of green roofs (Condition 25 and 26) • Landscaped management and maintenance plan (secured by s106)

Secure by Design (16/04/2020) - No objection subject to conditions. • Details of the security measures to be submitted prior to commencement (Condition 18). • Prior to occupation a Secured by Design inspection undertaken, and certificate submitted (Condition 19).

Veolia (Lambeth Waste Contractor) (24/04/2020) - No objection. Comment: condition in relation waste and recycling strategy added (Condition 32)

Lambeth Flood Officer (28/04/2020) - No objection subject to condition. • Detailed sustainable drainage system (pre commencement) (Condition 38) • Prior to occupation/first use a management and maintenance plan of the final surface water management system submitted (Condition 39)

Transport (29/04/2020) - No objection subject to condition and securing s106 obligations and financial contributions. • Construction Logistics plan (Condition 33) • Delivery and servicing plan (Condition 31) • Details relating to cycle parking (Condition 30) • S106 • Car parking permit free • One (3 year) car club membership for occupants of each new residential unit • Disabled parking contribution of £10,000 for on street disabled parking bay

Highways Team (28/05/2020 and 29/05/2020) - No objection subject to condition and securing s106 obligations • Construction Logistics plan (Condition 33) S106 • to enter into a s278 agreement with regards to works that will affect the highway including reinstatement works

Sustainability – Air Quality (29/04/2020) - No objection subject to conditions. • Air Quality and Dust Management Plan (AQMP) submitted (pre commencement) (Condition 40) • Measures described within AQMP above implemented (pre commencement) (Condition40) • Automatic continuous PM10 monitoring to be carried out, details of equipment and positioning to be submitted and annual summary report submitted (pre commencement) (Condition 39) • Air Quality Neutral assessment submitted (pre commencement) (Condition 41) • NRMM Low Emission Zone registration (pre commencement) (Condition 42)

Sustainability – Bioregional (05/05/2020) - No objection subject to condition and securing s106 obligations and financial contributions. • Prior to commencement an Energy Statement submitted to validate the carbon reduction and final financial contribution (Condition 34) • As Built SAP calculations with a Block compliance worksheet as an output of the National Calculation Method (Condition 35) • Manufacturers’ datasheets with a corresponding water efficiency calculator for the installed fixtures to be submitted (Condition 36) • detailed specification of the green roof shall be submitted (Condition 25 and 26) • evidence shall be submitted to demonstrate Urban Greening has been achieved (Condition 29) • evidence shall be submitted to demonstrate that net biodiversity has been achieved (Condition 28) S106 • Zero carbon contribution

RSS (Lambeth Environmental Health Consultant) (28/04/2020) - No objection subject to conditions. • Submission of construction and environmental management plan (condition 33) • Land contamination if not previously identified is found a remediation strategy to be submitted (Condition 43) • Sound insulation (condition 11) • Prior to commencement of development scheme of noise and vibration attenuation and ventilation sufficient to prevent overheating and maintain thermal comfort (Condition 10) • Details including drawings of internal and external plant equipment and trunking etc to be submitted (Condition 12) • Assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of all internally and externally located plant to be submitted (Condition 13) • A post-installation noise assessment carried out and details submitted (Condition 14) • Lighting scheme details to be submitted (Condition 15)

Policy (06/05/2020) - No objection. Policy EN1 seeks to increase the quantity of open space and specifically protects open space including estate amenity areas. It is understood that the ball court has not been in use for a number of years and therefore is not considered a sporting facility, so does not require analysis against Local Plan Policy S1. The proposal includes useable and high-quality communal amenity space which can be considered to be appropriate compensatory measures, subject to detailed design approval. However, this space should be effectively managed to ensure the benefits to existing and new residents are secured. Therefore the quantum of the amenity space; the landscaping proposals; and the functions of this space as well as the management plan for this space should be effectively secured for the long term through the planning system. This will ensure these benefits are maintained in perpetuity and the requirements of EN1 are met.

It is argued that this proposal is meeting a need for family-sized/3 bed council rented accommodation for those on the council’s housing register. Subject to the conclusions of the above validation of the Financial Viability Appraisal, this information alongside the small numbers of affordable units within the scheme, the relative balance in provision within the scheme as a whole, the balance in relation to habitable rooms leads me to the conclusion that this dwelling mix may be appropriate.

The affordable housing proportion, tenure and mix may be acceptable subject to external verification of the Financial Viability Appraisal that this is the maximum reasonable proportion of affordable housing.

Arboricultural Officer (Council Trees) (11/05/2020) - No objection subject to conditions. • Only as shown trees to be removed (Condition 20) • Arboricultural Method Statement (pre commencement) (Condition 21) • Specification of all soft landscaping and tree planting (Condition 22) • Planting, seeding etc to be undertaken in first planting season (Condition 23)

Design (11/05/2020) - No objection subject to conditions. • The property name and number displayed at entrances (Condition 5) • Construction drawings at 1:10 scale (Condition 5) • Construction drawings of the refuse enclosure (informative – details accord with Council’s refuse and recycling storage guide) (Condition 6) • Sample panels of external materials made available for inspection of site (Condition 4)

Building Control (17/05/2020) – Have reviewed the submitted fire strategy and access and consider the approach to be reasonable and achievable.

9.3 Other Consultees Thornton Ward Councillors – Cllr Ed Davie, Cllr Stephen Donnelly, Cllr Nanda Manley-Browne (05/05/2020) Sent a letter of support that states: ‘’We were elected on a manifesto to build more council homes in our borough and we support the creation of new council flats for families as part of this development.

A number of residents have raised concerns with the current proposals which as ward Councillors we would like to see addressed by the Planning committee, in particular;

• The potential for loss of privacy and overlooking for residents on Hydethorpe, Radbourne and Thornton roads, including in particular the flats at 200-262 Hydethorpe road. • The loss of sun and daylight – namely for flats 210, 220, 230 and 240 in the building 200-262 Hydethorpe Road, and also for residents at 198 Hydethorpe Road. • The reduction of soft landscaping and open green space currently available to residents in 200-262 Hydethorpe Road and the surrounding area. • The impact of construction activity on the area. • Involvement and consultation with residents in the design of the communal green space.

In our view it is important that the Planning committee ensure the development brings commensurate benefit in terms of amenity to residents affected, through consideration of a wide range of measures including: • The creation of new, communal green space which can be enjoyed by adjoining residents – including children’s play space – and designed in consultation with existing residents. • The re-landscaping of the concrete space in front of the building 200-262 Hydethorpe Road to introduce more green space, which should include the provision of new cycle storage for residents in 200-262 Hydethorpe Road. • Planting of new trees along Thornton road, the retention of the existing oak trees wherever possible and screening at the boundary particularly that with Radbourne Road properties and the rear of the Hydethorpe Road flats. • An alternative design for the balconies, with railings being replaced by opaque glass balustrades to improve privacy and mitigate overlooking. • Measures to ensure that the car free nature of the development (other than the creation of an on street disabled parking space) is in perpetuity - to negate the possibility of any future impact on the parking capacity of the area. • A contribution to open space and sports facilities in the area. • A construction management plan that takes account of the location of the site in a residential area, confines movement to the main road network except Thornton Road itself, makes use of traffic marshals, minimises the use of heavy machinery, avoids movements at school dropping off and pick up times, pays particular attention to the control of noise, dust and pollution given the proximity to a substantial number of residences, includes co-ordination with other construction activities in the wider neighbourhood such as that at Clapham Park and establishes a liaison group of local residents.

We would also ask that residents in the affected area are consulted on the distribution of any resulting community investment arising from the development’’.

The concerns referred to from the residents above have been included within the summary of objections table below.

Member of Parliament for Streatham – MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy: sent a representation dated 7th May 2020 shared concerns expressed to her by constituents concerned about the application. These are: • Result in a significant loss of greenspace and wildlife • Loss in natural sunlight • Loss of privacy to properties facing or neighbouring the site • Increase in traffic/parked vehicles • Increase in noise disruption during construction works • Proposal will reduce value of surrounding properties • Does not support local people in their attempts to join property ladder as estimated starting price is £450,000

These comments are reflected within the summary of objections table below.

9.4 Adjoining owners/occupiers

9.4.1 699 neighbours were consulted, and the application was advertised in the local paper on 17/04/2020. The formal consultation period ended 08/05/2020.

9.4.2 Sixty three representations received during the consultation period. Four were in support, fifty eight were in objection. Of these was a letter drafted on behalf of the whole block of flats at No. 200-262 Hydethorpe Road and was supported by countersignatures from residents from 26 flats in the building. A summary of the concerns raised is set out below:

Summary of objections Response Housing Inadequate affordable housing provision. Refer to para 11.11 – 11.29 ‘Dwelling and Tenure The proposal does not meet the 50% policy requirement. Mix’ for discussions. The application was viability tested and found that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing has been provided in line with policy. The addition of two Council rented flats does little to help Refer to para 11.11-11.29 ‘Dwelling and Tenure those currently on waiting lists. Mix’ for discussions. The proposal is meeting a need for family-sized/3 bed council rented accommodation for those on the council’s housing register. The development will not solve the housing shortage for local Refer to para 11.1-11.4 ‘Residential Use’ for full people discussion. The proposal would contribute to the Borough’s housing supply by adding 14 new homes. The private homes proposed are not affordable (estimated The proposal includes 14 residential dwellings, six starting price of £450k for a 1 bed, £575k for 2 bed) and of the residential units have been offered as unlikely to support local people in getting on the housing affordable housing, two of which are family sized market. and offered as social rented. HfL has been set by Does not support local people in their attempts to join the Council to deliver more homes and the property ladder as estimated starting price is £450,000. delivery of some private sales housing is required The applicant's 'Viability Assessment' report, section 6.3.2. to enable the cross subsidy of the affordable the associated rent of the shared ownership properties is only housing. affordable to a household with total come of £90,000 per annum. Given the average household income in London was c. £36,000 in 2018, these units cannot be considered to address the population requiring support to get on the housing ladder. The proposal is contrary to Lambeth Local Plan Policy H2 and H4 (2015). Amenity Significant loss of daylight / sunlight to all properties facing or Refer to para 14.1 to 14.24 ‘Daylight, Sunlight and neighbouring the site. Overshadowing’ for full discussion. Daylight will be lost to various properties throughout the day. Where a proposal breeches the BRE 25 Degree The BRE 25 degree line would be breeched by the r height of line then a daylight and sunlight assessment is proposed building similar in height to the Hydethorpe flats. required. A daylight and sunlight assessment was submitted and reviewed by the Council’s daylight and sunlight consultant. The proposed building is too large and located too close to Refer to para 14.1 to 14.24 ‘Daylight, Sunlight and the existing building No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road and will Overshadowing’ for full discussion. impact upon light received by existing occupiers. In consideration of the daylight analysis for all The conclusion made by the 'Daylight & Sunlight Report' that neighbouring properties for both VSC the development would lead to 'very limited effects to the and NSL it is evident that the majority of majority of neighbours' is a gross misstatement. Based on the reductions meet BRE Guide target criteria and results of the Report, numerous properties in the Hydethorpe in those few isolated instances that reductions are Road flats would experience between 50-70% reductions in beyond target criteria, these relate Annual Probable Sunlight Hours – lead to a significant impact to VSC and to No 200-262 Hydethorpe Road on those resident’s quality of life. which does have some degree of inherent Loss of sun and daylight – namely for flats 210, 220, 230 and sensitivity due to recessed balconies limiting 240 in the building 200-262 Hydethorpe Road, and also for daylighting. In consideration of retained residents at 198 Hydethorpe Road. levels of actual daylight and also separately, The daylight and sunlight assessment fail to acknowledge the consideration on the theoretical review of direct sunlight that existing flats at 200-262 Hydethorpe Road ‘without balconies’ analysis, the main adversity receive through the winter months when the sun tracks lower relates to 2 No living rooms with impact in the sky where they will rely on light and heating that will be to the rear balcony windows (although as taken away. background for these particular rooms, the Loss of sunlight to 250 Hydethorpe Road. likelihood is that they are also served by a smaller The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the sunlight / window in the front elevation which daylight received to the property/garden at No.210. will not be affected by the proposal) and 3 No The proposal is contrary to Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q2 bedrooms, albeit daylight can be (2015). considered less important to the latter.

For sunlight reductions, these effectively meet BRE Guide target criteria, with the isolated exception to some habitable rooms (including some living rooms) within neighbouring 200-262 Hydethorpe Road. With focus upon living rooms, for the small number of isolated living rooms not meeting BRE Guide target criteria under standard.

In terms of sunlight availability to the proposed communal amenity area (combined with that of 200-262 Hydethorpe Road but excluding the private garden area of 210 Hydethorpe Road), eb7 have subsequently provided the BRE Guide 2 hour sunlight availability test for this amenity area (21st Mach equinox) and the analysis confirms that there is no loss to the area that has the ability to receive 2 hours or more of sunlight (21st March) since for both existing and proposed, 99% of the amenity area will have the ability to receive 2 hours of sun (21st Mach equinox).

The daylight/sunlight assessment seems incomplete it does Refer to para 4.1 to 14.24 ‘Daylight, Sunlight and not appear to consider property at 198 Hydethorpe Road. Overshadowing’ for full discussion. The report by eb7 fails to recognise the floor to ceiling west In terms of daylight analysis, applicable reductions facing windows in the ground floor living space. This window to habitable rooms in both VSC and NSL meets will lose up to 2 hours direct morning sunlight for up to 7 BRE target criteria for No 198 Hydethorpe Road. months of the year which provides the majority of downstairs Neighbouring properties have been considered in lighting and heating throughout the year. These points were terms of sunlight reductions to habitable rooms; also acknowledged in planning application ref: 17/03189/FUL the main focus for analysis review is upon living at 22-22a Thornton Road and were part of the key reasons rooms (and conservatories if applicable). From for refusing the 4 storey proposal. consideration of the analysis, we conclude that for Occupier of 198 attended the consultation evening and raised any applicable reductions in sunlight to the concerns regarding privacy and sunlight issues. These properties considered, such reductions concerns have been failed to be recognised in the plans and would meet BRE Guide target criteria. sunlight and daylight assessment. At the time they were advised that somebody would be sent over for a site visit to discuss concerns. This never occurred. Therefore, daylight document is incorrect. Proposal would impede natural light entering garden and Refer to para 14.1 to 14.24 ‘Daylight, Sunlight and dwelling at No.22 Thornton Road in particular during dull Overshadowing’ for full discussion. days and during winter months. This would increase fuel bills With regards to VSC review - There is just one and eco footprint. window in the flank elevation which faces site at The proposed development will overshadow and reduce first floor which has a reduction not meeting BRE daylight and sunlight to the garden and dwelling at No.22 Guide target criteria (window ref W2 – 1st floor); Thornton Road. however, eb7 indicate within their report that this This private garden will be significantly boxed in by the new serves a bathroom and based upon some development and the existing building, undermining the research that we have also undertaken, this ability for existing residents to enjoy which will be appears to be case. Assuming this window does overshadowed. serve a bathroom, then this room would be considered as not a habitable rooms / not applicable for daylight review in reference to the BRE Guide.

Sunlight review given the context of the private garden immediately adjacent to the north-west of the proposal (which is demarked on the existing site plan and noted as ‘private garden of No 210 Hydethorpe Road’). Eb7 have undertaken the standard amenity BRE Guide 2 hour sunlight availability review and the amenity area has the ability to receive 2 hours or more of sunlight at the 21st March (equinox) to 100% of the amenity area as existing which reduces to 76% in the proposed scenario. Whilst the percentage reduction is 24%, given that the retained percentage of the amenity area as having the ability to receive 2 hours or more of sunlight at the 21st March (equinox) in the proposed scenario is still over half the amenity area (at 76%), then this meets the BRE Guide target criteria for this test.

Concerned proposal affect daylight and sunlight to No.59 and Refer to section 14.1 to 14.24 ‘Daylight, Sunlight 61 Thornton Road directly opposite the site. and Overshadowing’ for full discussion. In terms of daylight analysis, applicable reductions to habitable rooms in both VSC and NSL meets BRE target criteria for Nos 53-63 (odds) Thornton Road. Neighbouring properties have been considered in terms of sunlight reductions to habitable rooms; the main focus for analysis review is upon living rooms (and conservatories if applicable). From consideration of the analysis, we conclude that for any applicable reductions in sunlight to the properties considered, such reductions would meet BRE Guide target criteria. Sunlight review to neighbouring amenity (primarily rear gardens) should also be considered. However, it is evident that given the proposed massing, context and orientation of neighbouring gardens to that of the proposal, most neighbouring rear gardens are not applicable for analysis review.

The potential for loss of privacy and overlooking for residents Refer to paras 14.25 to 14.30. on Hydethorpe (in particular flats at 200-262 Hydethorpe Given the proposed design and that the proposed Road), Radbourne and Thornton Roads. building would have a separation distance of 18m distances would be retained between the proposed building and rear elevations of No.200- 262 Hydethorpe Road. The distance is considered sufficient to ensure there would not be any loss of privacy, outlook. The proposed development will impact upon the privacy of Refer to para 14.25 to 14.30. No.59 Thornton Road. With regards to properties directly opposite on Thornton Road the proposed building is situated over 30m from the front elevation of these buildings. The distances are considered sufficient to ensure there would not be any loss of privacy, outlook or an undue sense of enclosure. The height, footprint and close proximity to existing building Refer to paras 14.25 to 14.30. will be overbearing, create a sense of enclosure The proposed development would ensure high (claustrophobic) to surrounding occupiers. levels of privacy are maintained for the surrounding occupiers. This has been achieved through proposed chamfered corners, setback of part of the upper floor at the rear, recessed balconies and location of windows within the elevations. Given this and the separation distances it is not considered that the proposal would lead to any loss of privacy, outlook. The excessive height and proximity of the proposed building Refer to paras 14.25 to 14.30. to the dwellings located in Radbourne Road will cause a loss Given the proposed design and that the proposed of privacy and create overlooking of these properties. building would have a separation distance of 18m Loss of outlook from 39 Radbourne Road. between the rear elevation of the proposed building and rear boundary with dwellings located to the rear fronting Radbourne Road, the distance between the rear elevation of the proposed building and rear elevation of these buildings as a minimum is approx. 30m. The distance is considered sufficient to ensure there would not be any loss of privacy or outlook. There would be a loss of privacy/overlooking to properties as Refer to para 16.1-16.9 for full discussion. the tree cover would be removed entirely. The majority of the tree cover located to the rear The trees proposed along the rear wall that share a boundary (boundary with properties fronting Radbourne with Radbourne Road will only partially hide the proposed Road) and south-east corner (boundary with building to be built and not at all during the winter. properties fronting Radbourne Road and 22 Thornton Road) of the site are being retained. Occupier of No.198 will be overlooked by 5 storeys of flats Refer to para14.25 to 14.30 for full discussion. looking into primary living spaces. Given the context, any views from the proposal The primary living areas at the rear of no.198 Hydethorpe would be oblique, and the separation distances it Road and primary amenity area within rear garden would be is not considered that there would be any loss of overlooked from the rooms located within the top of the privacy, outlook or undue sense of enclosure building resulting in loss of privacy. created. A new planned thoroughfare runs below the bedroom There is already an existing gate that provides windows of No.198 which will cause further privacy issues access to the rear of the building along the flank and noise disturbance. elevation with No.198 Hydethorpe Road. The development will run right up to the boundary of private The rear boundary of this property will abut the garden at 210 Hydethorpe Road with facing windows and private terrace serving one of the ground floor balconies which will be overlooked and lead to a significant units. This private garden is an area that has been loss of privacy. carved out from the existing amenity space that This private garden will be significantly boxed in by the new serves the residents of the existing building. This development and the existing building, undermining the space is already overlooked by windows from the ability for existing residents to enjoy as will be overlooked. existing building and users of the amenity space. The proposal is contrary to Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q2, The proposed development would not make the Q7 and Q14 (2015). situation worse than existing and would comply with LLP policy Q2 and Q7. It is noted that this occupier does also have access to the wider estate amenity area. LLP Policy Q14 does not apply as the proposal is located on Estate amenity land and is assessed against Policy EN1. Proposal does allow for meaningful landscaping, but some Refer to paras 16.10-16.14 areas located within close proximity to the ground floor flats The proposal includes formalising these informal in the existing building will experience a loss of privacy. areas as private terraces for the occupiers of each of these units. Details regarding defensible landscaping have been secured by condition. Removal of the green space and building of a 5-storey Refer to paras 16.1- 16.9 with regards to trees building would have a negative impact on air quality. and para 19.8 -19.16 with regards to Air Quality’. The removal of mature trees including an oak, is detrimental The proposal includes 22 replacement trees and a to the quality of air in the immediate vicinity especially as financial contribution towards the planting of 50 there are two schools for young children on Thornton Road. trees within highway locations nearby to the building. The building is proposed to be fitted with ASHP (Air Source Heat Pumps) which is 100% electric and therefore zero NOx and PM10 emissions. Conditions have been imposed that details submitted to illustrate air quality neutrality. The entrance to the proposed building is too close to the Refer to para 14.35-14.40 for discussion. boundary with No.22 Thornton Road and would create a Given there are no windows within the flank throughput of 50 new occupiers that would lead to increased elevation that serve habitable rooms, the noise and disturbance, encroach on safety and privacy of this proposed planting bed and that any noise from property. residents would be domestic in nature the proposal is not likely to have unacceptable impact on this property in terms of noise disturbance Increase in noise and activity as routes of access are Refer to paras 14.35 – 14.40 proposed on both sides of the proposed building. The area The main entrance/pedestrian access is proposed would become a thoroughfare. to be located to the side elevation of the building adjacent to the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road. Noting the surrounding residential setting and any noise from residents would be domestic in nature it is not likely that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact in terms of noise to existing and surrounding occupiers. Increased noise disturbance from construction works. Refer to para 14.41 Construction works will be disruptive to local residents. An Outline Construction Logistics Plan has been Increased noise disturbance from building works for those provided, which details proposed working hours occupying the existing building and have young families. This and the noise assessment submitted also makes will impact on their children. It is appreciated that the plans recommendations regarding construction site are seeking to minimise this but will presumably continue noise. A condition has been recommended to during school holidays. This will have a significant impact on secure a final version and that it includes details residents' well-being. regarding the notification of neighbours. It should be noted that in addition to the above statutory nuisance legislation would apply through Environmental Services. Lead to increased air pollution from construction works Refer to para 19.11 -19.12 The proposed construction works will create dust pollution The overall dust risk of the site is low. It is that will affect an occupier of existing building who has recommended that a full Air Quality and Dust asthma which will be exacerbated by high concentrations of Management Plan (AQDMP) is secured by dust or pollution. Will be unable to open any windows in condition – this has been incorporated into the south facing bedrooms/living rooms whilst building works are Construction Management Plan condition. going on. This will be intolerable during the summer, when the rooms get very hot. It will also be impossible to use outdoor space or balcony during this time. Will cause disruption to occupiers at No.22 Thornton Road Refer to para 17.20-17.21 with deliveries and visitors to the site as will turn on the side A delivery and servicing plan has been submitted of the house and affect privacy and security. that indicates delivery vehicles will stop on Thornton Road in line with Lambeth’s loading rules and would be in the same arrangement as for existing houses along Thornton Road. Concern regarding safety of the residents of the flats in Refer to para 14.41 and 17.24-17.29 Hydthorpe Road, the opposite, and adjacent properties in An Outline Construction Logistics Plan has been Thornton Road during the build, from large plant and provided that indicates the use of marshals as vehicles. required where large or abnormal vehicle movements are proposed, timed deliveries are indicated. A final detailed plan will be secured by condition.

The current open amenity area provides existing residents Refer to para 13.28-13.40 ‘Residential Amenity with an important area of privacy / noise control from the and play space’ surrounding area. The current amenity area that is accessible would still provide an amenity space for residents to enjoy. The proposals include improvement works that both existing and proposed occupiers will enjoy. Whilst there maybe additional occupiers using the space, any noise derived would be domestic in nature. The proposed development does not provide enough private Refer to para 13.28-13.40 ‘Residential Amenity amenity space for new residents, with 11 of the 14 units and play space’ (80%) being short of the requirement of 10 sqm. The The proposal would increase the amount of proposal is contrary to Lambeth Local Plan Policy H5 (2015). useable amenity space from 1,627sqm to To suggest they will share communal space enjoyed by 1,827sqm, existing residents of the flats is considered highly There would be a shortfall of approx. 67.41sqm of unreasonable. Should the application be approved, it would private balconies/terraces in relation to the upper see a significantly reduced communal/landscaping space floor residential dwellings that would need to be shared by >100 existing residents. consolidated within the communal amenity space. There is 437sqm of open space available fronting Thornton Road, and 816sqm space within the centre of the site proposed as communal amenity space for both the existing and future occupiers. The communal area located within the centre of the site has been designed to provide a range of activities for all ages and abilities. The proposal, by reason of its height, scale and bulk and Refer to paras 14.25 – 14.30 proximity to neighbouring residential properties at No.198 The distances between buildings are considered Hydethorpe Road as well as 200-262 Hydethorpe Road and sufficient to ensure the proposed building would No. 31, 31a, 33, 35, 37, 39 and 41 Radbourne Road, would not be visually intrusive, or lead to any loss of represent an un-neighbourly form of development that would privacy, outlook or an undue sense of enclosure. appear visually intrusive and overbearing and, by virtue of the Furthermore, the proposal would ensure privacy proposed balconies and expanse of rear windows, would maintained achieved through the design, result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to the proposed chamfered corners, setback of part of detriment of these residential occupiers existing level of the upper floor at the rear, recessed balconies amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary and location of windows within the elevations. to Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q2 (2015). Transport The construction works will lead to a loss of parking in the Refer to para 17.24-17.29 area. The applicant has submitted an outline construction management plan that indicates the suspension and relocation of five on street parking bays. This would be a temporary measure during construction works. A condition has been recommended that a final CMP is submitted. Highway Team will need to be contacted by the applicant in order to obtain necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the public highway, road closures etc. An informative to this affect has been included. One parking space is insufficient for the proposed occupiers Please refer to section 17 ‘transport’ for Proposal would lead to an increase in traffic/ parked vehicles discussion. within area, prejudice pedestrian safety. The site is located within a CPZ and the proposed There would be a significant increase in traffic and insufficient development the proposed development would be parking for the occupiers of the 14 residential units. car free with one disabled parking space provided There is insufficient parking in the area to accommodate the on street. An obligation will be secured by a s106 proposed occupiers of the development. Lead to increase in agreement to remove the eligibility of the traffic and insufficient parking. Occupiers will own cars and residents to apply for residential parking permits park on surrounding roads. and therefore unlikely to add to increased traffic. The proposal would lead to increased traffic on to Parkthorne As an alternative to car parking and individual car Road. ownership the provision of Car Club membership It has highly likely that future residents will choose to park on will be required for all residents (one membership nearby streets that fall outside the controlled parking zone. per residential unit) from first occupation of the The proposal would increase number of visitors and development to be secured by s106. This is a deliveries that will affect parking in the area. residential scheme and any visitors associated There has been a reduction in parking spaces with the traffic with this would be residential in nature similar to calming measures that have been introduced and this any visitors to surrounding properties. development will lead to less parking spaces being made Subject to conditions and obligations secured available to the detriment of local residents. within s106 the proposal would accord with LLP Proposed to be "car free" but can’t see how that will be Policy T6 and T7. enforced, leading to increased parking congestion on roads What occurs if a resident applies for a parking permit? Will they be refused? The proposal is contrary to Policy T6 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015). Only one disabled parking space is proposed for a Please refer to para 17.16-17 for discussion. development that includes 27 bedrooms. The proposed development is car free with Welcome the possible addition of a disabled car parking exception of disabled parking. The proposal would space (on street) this (along with the 2.5m gap for refuse convert one existing parking resident bay to one collection) will reduce the amount of parking on Thornton Rd. disabled parking bay. The parking survey results Concerned that a survey of the surrounding roads regarding showed an average of 65% parking stress across parking was undertaken in view of the fact that the residents the area surveyed (64% on 13th Nov and 66% on (apart from the disabled) are not allowed cars. 14th Nov). Thornton Road recorded a parking The parking space area is already used significantly by local stress of 54% and 55% over the two nights with residents as well as during drop offs and pickups at the local spare capacity of 35/36 spaces. White House Nursery and Independent School. Would lead to increased traffic unacceptable particularly with Please refer to section 17 ‘transport’ for two schools (within 300m) would create a risk to discussion. children/parents that walk to the schools. The site is located within a CPZ and the proposed The proposal indicates that deliveries will be made out of development the proposed development would be hours. car free with an obligation secured by way of a s106 agreement to remove the eligibility to apply for residential parking permits and therefore unlikely to add to increased traffic. With regards to servicing it is noted that the site is close to a school and it is recommended that where possible that residents arrange deliveries outside of school drop off/collection times. An informative to this affect has been added in relation to the submission of the final DSMP. There will be a significant increase in traffic and parked The proposed development would be car free with vehicles that would impact on the air quality in the area. exception of one disabled parking space provided on the road. Transport emissions were measured against benchmarks for Outer London developments, but Lambeth is Inner London, it has been requested that the applicant re-do the air quality neutral assessment for transport to ensure that the correct assessment is completed. Pre commencement condition has been imposed to secure this. Design The London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Refer to section 12 ‘design and conservation’ for Guidance states - " One of the key themes of the London discussion Plan is the recognition that while the best use should be The proposed building is not within a particularly made of development opportunities, proper account must be sensitive context. The building has been taken of the range of factors which have to be addressed to designed to provide a transition between no.200- "optimise," rather than simply maximise, housing potential. Of 262 Hydethorpe Road and No.22-22A and No.24 particular importance are ensuring good design and taking Thornton Road. The design approach is into account public transport capacity and local context and considered to be of high quality that would character. reinforce local distinctiveness. It is considered that The application seems to ignore key elements: the proposed building responds positively to the - this is maximisation of the height potential of the site, streetscene in terms of urban grain, it addresses - this is not sympathetic to local context the building line and patterns of space. - this is not in keeping with local character The proximity, height and width of the proposed building is Refer to section 12 ’design and conservation’ for not in keeping with the character of the local area. discussion Surrounding comprises semi-detached two storey dwellings, The proposed building is not within a particularly and blocks of flats that are not as high as that proposed. sensitive context. The building has been The proposed development is over ambitious for the size of designed to provide a transition between no.200 - site and too tall for modern standards. 262 Hydethorpe Road and No.22-22A and No.24 The proposed building is too large for its context. Thornton Road. The design approach is The proposed building is excessive in height. considered to be of high quality that would The proposed building would look out of place in comparison reinforce local distinctiveness. It is considered that to surrounding buildings. the proposed building responds positively to the The proposed building is too large and not sympathetic to the streetscene in terms of urban grain, it addresses dwellings within Thornton Road. the building line and patterns of space. The proposed building would appear visually overbearing. The proposed development relates to the building height of Refer to section 12 ‘design and conservation’ for the building at 200-262Hydethorpe is the exception, not the discussion norm. Its scale is excessive, and out of keeping with the The proposed building is not within a particularly scale of the locally remaining large houses of Cubitt's sensitive context. The building has been Clapham Park Estate such as the White House and the St designed to provide a transition between no.200- Bede's buildings on Thornton Road and beyond, towards 262 Hydethorpe Road and No.22-22A and No.24 Clapham and Brixton. Thornton Road. It is considered that the proposed The proposed development represents an overdevelopment building responds positively to the streetscene in of the site evident through excessive bulk and height which terms of urban grain, it addresses the building line fails to preserve or enhance the prevailing local character. and patterns of space. Even with the setback the proposed development is Given the scale of the scheme and separation excessive and out of keeping with the adjoining properties distances involved, it is not considered that the along Thornton Road. proposal would be readily visible from the CA. and The building should step down from the seven storey height would not have a harmful impact of the setting of 200-262 Hydethorpe Road to the two storey height of 22 Hyde Farm Conservation Area. Officers Thornton Road. considered that the proposed development would This proposal dwarfs the local 1930s inter war housing which not have a harmful impact to the setting of The typifies the streets it faces - Copthorne, Parkthorne, Listed Buildings. Thornton, Queensville; and the Victorian style low rise family With regards No.22-22A Thornton Road and home style of the Hyde Farm Estate. The effect is application ref: 17/03189/FUL the officers domineering, disruptive, and exactly the reason why the delegated report considered the proposal applications for the development at 20 and 22 Thornton Road acceptable in design terms with regards to LLP (ref: 17/03189/FUL) was refused. Policies Q5, Q7 and Q20. The most recent multi-unit developments in close proximity Refer to section 12 ‘design and conservation’ for are Primrose Court and Rosethorn Close, which are a discussion maximum of 3 storeys. The proposed building is not within a particularly sensitive context. The building has been designed to provide a transition between no.200- 262 Hydethorpe Road and No.22-22A and No.24 Thornton Road. It is considered that the proposed building responds positively to the streetscene in terms of urban grain, it addresses the building line and patterns of space. The proposed building would set a precedent for other An application for any site to be redeveloped developments and development of No.22-22A Thornton would need to be submitted and assessed in line Road (Application (ref: 17/03189/FUL)). This application is with policy and any material considerations. difficult to differentiate from that proposed. With regards No.22-22A Thornton Road and application ref: 17/03189/FUL the officer’s delegated report considered it acceptable in design terms with regards to LLP Policies Q5, Q7 and Q20. The officers delegated report indicates the scheme did not accord with parts of LLP policy Q14 (development in gardens and on backland sites). This is a different context to the proposed. The proposed development is on and forms part of Estate amenity land and is assessed against LLP policy EN1. The height of the proposal would also be out of keeping with Refer to section 12 ‘design and conservation’ for the two-storey residential properties to the rear along discussion. Radbourne Road including those within the Hyde Farm Officers consider that the proposed development Conservation Area. would not have a harmful impact to the setting of Hyde Farm Conservation Area. This would accord with Policy 22 of the LLP (2015). The proposed design is not in keeping with the surrounding Refer to section 12 ‘design and conservation’ for architecture including Grade II listed building at No.24 discussion. Thornton Road or building materials. This can be seen in the Officers considered that the proposed "proposed coloured street elevation". The proposed building development would not have a harmful impact to is out of character with surroundings. the setting of The Listed Buildings. The height of the proposed development and limited setback The four storey element of the proposed building to the boundaries of the site, particularly to the south is also is set away from the south east boundary by likely to prejudice future development of adjoining sites. approx. 10m. There are some secondary windows within the proposed flank elevation that serve living areas that look over the rear amenity space of the adjacent property. The proposed setbacks of approx.10m is considered typical within an urban location such as this. Whilst it is noted that unit 14 on the top floor has a terrace that looks towards the south-east this is set-in from the flank elevation, any views in that direction would be looking out over the roofs. A condition has been included (10) that the terrace area includes some form of screening. It is considered that the proposed development would not result in adverse loss of privacy to the amenity areas, adjoining neighbours or prejudice development of adjoining sites. The proposed development is contrary to Section 4.4 and 4.5 The proposed development is not an extension to of the Lambeth Supplementary Planning Document - an existing dwelling. The proposal is for anew Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and building. The proposed building is not within a House Conversions. particularly sensitive context. The building has been designed to provide a transition between no.200 -262 Hydethorpe Road and No.22-22A and No.24 Thornton Road. The design approach is considered to be of high quality that would reinforce local distinctiveness. It is considered that the proposed building responds positively to the streetscene in terms of urban grain, it addresses the building line and patterns of space. Amenity Land/Landscape/Biodiversity The proposal would result in a significant loss of open space, Please refer to section 16 ‘trees, landscaping and biodiversity, wildlife, and soft landscaping. biodiversity’ for discussion. Loss of habitat for birds and other wildlife. Please refer to paras 16.15-16.21 The area has become a valued greenspace for the The Ecological report submitted was reviewed by community providing biodiversity value. the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. The Officer The development will have a significant effect on wildlife, considered that the report as to the current there are many species of birds residing and nesting in the ecological value of the application site is area Including long tailed tits. acceptable and indicates that the development Ecological/ habitat preservation is key, and the removal will would not have a significant adverse ecological see a loss of this. View this as a significant change to the impact subject to conditions. The applicant has character and appearance of the site. provided indicative details with an intention to As tenant and leaseholder of 200-262 Hydethorpe Road for provide a balance between amenity and 30 years and have seen an useable games court grow into biodiversity. The Council’s officer are supportive an attractive amenity area benefitting resident and of the proposed landscaping where the applicant neighbours. The flats have main living room windows and has started to consider the inclusion of biodiverse balconies that face onto the garden and lush foliage. It planting. A final landscape plan will be secured by provides a habitat for foxes and various common birds as condition that the applicant looks at diversity of greater spotted woodpecker and jays. ‘The green spaces of species, includes native species and variation in our towns and gardens bring nature into our daily lives, size including some larger species of tress and brightening our mornings with birdsong and the busy buzzing planting. The proposal would achieve an urban of bees. Together, the UK's gardens are larger than all of our greening factor of 0.4 a condition has been National Nature Reserves combined, making them as imposed that evidence is provided to demonstrate important for wildlife as they are for our own wellbeing’. that the development has achieved this. A pre London Wildlife Trust. commencement condition has been imposed that details of biodiversity net gain are submitted before works commence on site. The area has become a valued greenspace for the Refer to paras 16.1 – 16.9 for discussion community providing visual amenity. The tree survey submitted indicates that seven trees are to be removed, but the proposal includes 22 replacement trees. Including financial contributions to be secured towards tree planting to the front of the site and surrounding roads. This will be secured by s106 agreement. The applicant has provided indicative landscape details with an intention to provide a balance between amenity and biodiversity. Final details of the landscape plan will be secured by condition. Given this it is considered the proposal would not lead to a loss of visual amenity. Loss of mature trees Refer to paras 16.1 – 16.9 for discussion A mature oak tree will be removed which must be contrary to The tree survey submitted indicates that seven LLP and DLP policies and the promises to cut carbon trees are to be removed, but the proposal includes emissions. 22 replacement trees. The planting of a few new trees will not replace a large oak The Council’s Arboricultural officer has advised that has taken decades to mature. that English Oaks removal would be reasonable Area should be better landscaped instead of building flats. when taking into consideration its diminishing There is a general lack of green area and trees in the vicinity. vitality and the indicating signs of stress that were This will remove existing green areas and trees which will identified. Conditions are imposed that only trees change the character of the area. proposed to be removed are removed, There will be loss of trees and that will have an impact on Arboricultural method statement is submitted. The conservation of the area. applicant has provided indicative landscape The removal of this green space would be an act of details to be secured by condition including that environmental vandalism. the applicant looks at diversity of species, that includes native species, variation in size see some more larger species. Subject to conditions and securing financial contributions the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy Q10. Doubt that the proposed green space and landscaping would Please refer to paras 16.10 – 16.14 be maintained properly. A draft landscape management and maintenance plan has been submitted and was reviewed by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer and Biodiversity Officer who have considered the plan acceptable and reasonable to approve. The submission of a final plan will be secured by s106 agreement including it is secured in perpetuity.

Alternative tree studies or environmental impacts have not Please refer to section 16 ‘trees, landscaping and been obtained and suggest that independent studies should biodiversity’ for discussion. be carried out. The application was supported by an Arboricultural report and ecological walkover report both of which were reviewed by the Council’s Arboricultural and biodiversity officers. They raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions and securing of obligations and financial contributions via a s106. Access to the area is not publicly accessible and should The landscaping and communal areas are only to remain. be accessed by the existing residents of No.200- Will the landscape/communal areas be accessible to the 262 Hydethorpe Road and future occupiers of the public (surrounding neighbours proposed development. Radbourne/Hydethorpe/Thornton Road) or is this area only accessible by the residents? Those directly affected by the proposal should be consulted A condition has been imposed that final details of on the landscaping plan if approved. the plan be submitted. Conditions applications are not subject to public consultation in the way a planning application is consulted on. Relevant officers such as the Council’s Arboricultural Officer and biodiversity officer, design will be consulted on any details application in relation to landscaping. The proposal would lead to a loss of a sport facility and as Please refer to paras 11.39-11.40 for discussion. such Para 97 of NPPF applies. Existing open space, sports The ball court forms part of estate amenity land, It and recreational buildings and land, including playing is has not been in use for a number of years and therefore is not considered a sporting facility. The fields, should not be built on unless: applicant has undertaken a review of the a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly immediate local area and identified four other shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to sports pitches and games courts within the vicinity requirements; or of the site. Officers consider there is adequate b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would provision of sports pitches, ball courts and other be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of recreational space in close proximity to the site. quantity and quality in a suitable location; or c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. London plan also resists the net loss of sports and recreation facilities. Other The design of the proposed development does not afford Please refer to section 14 which discusses adequate privacy for the occupants of the building or of amenity for neighbouring occupiers. adjacent residential properties, particularly with regard to Subject to conditions and given that any noise their right to the quiet enjoyment of garden amenities. We from residents would be domestic in nature the would urge you to consider the responsibilities of the council proposal is not likely to have unacceptable impact under the Human Rights Act in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 on the enjoyment of neighbouring properties. which states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land. We believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on us and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states that a person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life. All the extra planting around Thornton and Hydethorpe The proposal will add to the visual amenity within Roads is completely irrelevant as the Council should be the streetscene and contribute maintaining them. It is trying to make everyone in the vicinity The applicant has proposed off site landscape give it a thumbs up as it will make it "look pretty". enhancements by way of six trees on the strip of land outside the red line boundary on Thornton Road. The Council’s Arboricultural officer has recommended that we reduce that number to 4 trees for this strip and to relocate the other two trees to locations nearby along Thornton Road. A financial contribution would be secured for required for the purchase of the 6 trees, planting materials, watering and their maintenance for five years. There was no consultation with residents at the design stage The statement of community involvement to determine their thoughts about the grounds. submitted with the application indicates that a public exhibition was undertaken in December 2019. In conjunction with being able to provide feedback on the day of the consultation the public were also able to provide feedback via freephone number, email and website. It will have a negative social and mental impact that will not The proposal would not lead to a loss of currently be outweighed by benefits to wider community in terms of accessible Estate amenity land. The existing providing more access to housing and reducing waiting lists. accessible areas predominately comprises lawn The proposal will have a detrimental effect on the lives of the area to the rear of the building, a green space to current tenants in the adjacent flats. the frontage of Thornton Road and hard landscaping with limited planting fronting Hydethorpe Road. The proposal seeks to provide enhancements to the quality, usability and function of the wider Estate amenity land. The communal areas would be designed to provide a wide range of activities including exercise equipment for all ages and abilities. It will include improvements to landscaping, improved function and opportunity for enhanced biodiversity, specific benefits to the existing occupiers (by way of cycle parking, formal play provision and formalising private amenity space for some ground floor units of the existing building. Please refer to section 14 which discusses amenity for neighbouring occupiers. Loss in value of properties in the surrounding area due to Not a material planning consideration. impacts of proposed development, congestion. What will it cost to maintain the landscape and green space There are no details available regarding the areas to the existing residents? In the past the area was a history of why this land ceased to be used as a lovely play area that was not properly maintained leading to ball-court, but it has been in the condition it is what it is today. currently in, or very similar to that condition, and Concern about how much the "improvements" going to cost unused for many years. Google Images shows leaseholders? this as far back as June 2008. What is the proposal to maintain safety of area with new play The charges identified are for the external areas equipment and furniture and who will be responsible for and trees on the estate that have been maintained landscape maintenance? by the Council. They do not include costs for At the recent community engagement exercise, no one was maintaining the development site. able to answer who will pay for the planned redevelopment of A draft landscaping management and the area between the buildings. As this is intended to be a maintenance plan has been submitted which is communal space concern existing resident will have to pay considered acceptable a final plan and that it be in for this and its up-keep via service charge. place for perpetuity will be secured by s106. Existing residents concerned about additional cost to current leaseholders this project may incur, and the increase in future service charges to maintain the estate. The lease (200-262 Hydethorpe Road) states 'Full right and liberty for the Tennant and all persons authorized by him as aforesaid at all times by day or night to go pass and repass on foot only over the common pathways of the estate'...... (second schedule paragraph 2). Residents of the 'block' pay service charges to maintain the grounds to enable the above easements. This is how those charges are presented. THORNTON GARDENS ESTATE ESTATE SERVICES GROUNDS MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATED CERTIFIED 2017-2018 14,796.12 16,195.63 2018-2019 16,463.94 17,909.76 2019-2020 16,519.54 TREE MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATED CERTIFIED 2017-2018 0.00 5,898.60 2018-2019 0.00 0.00 2019-2020 1,966.20 The service charges are according to Lambeth Service Charge website: Grounds maintenance, Tree maintenance Through negligence or intent, the council seems to be making charges for services that have not been provided for decades. This has resulted in the grounds being identified as a possible site for building development. There is no need for this development when Clapham Park The proposal would contribute to the Borough’s redevelopment is close by and many of those flats are housing supply by adding 14 new homes. currently vacant. No site notices erected A full statutory consultation was carried out upon 21a Fieldhouse only heard of this through ‘word of mouth’ receipt of the planning application in accordance rather than seeing a notification. with legislative requirements and the Council’s Existing residents have not been sufficiently consulted. Statement of Community Involvement. This comprised 699 neighbour notification letters sent 15/04/2020 (including existing residents and it is noted that these residents have submitted representations), a newspaper advertisement published and on Council website. Surprised that a planning application could be submitted The planning service is still running, and a full during lock down. statutory consultation was undertaken. Where Comment on the timing of the application, due to social residents are not able to communicate such as via distancing it makes it very hard for local residents to consult email, letters can still be sent. The planning with each other about this proposal. officers contact details are on the letter including There are two large posters outside the proposed telephone number to contact to discuss any development advising to keep distance. specific issues regarding responding. I know of two neighbours (elderly who cannot access the web In this regard drawings were sent out to the to a sufficient level and another who do not have access to neighbours. Representations from these the internet so cannot lodge an objection). Have added their neighbours have been received. names to this objection. 198 Hydethorpe Road would welcome the opportunity to Given the current pandemic it is not possible for meet with a representative of the planning department at their officers to visit the neighbours. However, this has home to illustrate objections firsthand. not affected how the planning application has been assessed. See figure 5a &b of this report which are photographs of the site and surroundings provided within the DAS. Officers have also had access to Lambeth mapping and google maps which have aided in the assessment of this application. Why not do away with some of the garden area at Agnes These open spaces areas sites do not form part of Riley Gardens that is close by and has new play area this application. This application specifically facilities plus Tooting Common is close by. This would then relates to the amenity land at No.200-262 enable more car parking space. Hydethorpe Road. Will explore legal option if proposal goes ahead. Noted. Concerned about the vague response encountered when Please refer to section 16 ‘trees, landscaping and asking directly whether any of the wildlife would be killed as a biodiversity’ for discussion. way of clearing the space prior to building works commencing. Existing residents not clear as to why this space was allowed There are no details available regarding the to become overgrown by Lambeth Council in the first place, history of why this land ceased to be used as a especially as a number of local residents have been ball-court, but it has been in the condition it is attempting to get the space converted into a more attractive currently in, or very similar to that condition, and play area for several years. It is very frustrating that in seeing unused for many years. Google Images shows this overgrown area, Lambeth Council have decided to ask this as far back as June 2008. how they can use this to meet their housing targets instead of As well as meeting the Council’s housing needs, asking what has gone wrong and how the existing residents the proposal would not lead to a loss of currently of the block have been let down. accessible Estate amenity land. The existing accessible areas predominantly comprises lawn area to the rear of the building, a green space to the frontage of Thornton Road and hard landscaping with limited planting fronting Hydethorpe Road. The proposal seeks to provide enhancements to the quality, usability and function of the wider Estate amenity land. The communal areas would be designed to provide a wide range of activities including exercise equipment for all ages and abilities. It will include improvements to landscaping, improved function and opportunity for enhanced biodiversity, specific benefits to the existing occupiers (by way of cycle parking, formal play provision and formalising private amenity space for some ground floor units of the existing building. The ball court should be renovated so it can be used by Please refer to paras 11.30-11.40 children as a recreational space as it once was in the past. It is considered there is adequate provision of sports pitches, ball courts and other recreational space in close proximity to the site. Apart from the former ball court which is not in use there are no other playspaces areas existing on the site. This proposal includes playspace provision for both future occupiers and existing residents.

The application shows no photographs of the grounds from See figure 5b of this report. Photos includes from the residents' point of view. applicants DAS. There have been three Planning applications at 22-22A An application for any site to be redeveloped Thornton Road ref: 16/01845/FUL and 16/04636/FUL were would need to be submitted and assessed in line withdrawn and 17/03189/FUL was refused. This proposal has with policy and any material considerations. many similarities, the same issues and should be refused. With regards No.22-22A Thornton Road and application ref: 17/03189/FUL from the officers delegated report it appears that this a different context to the proposed application at No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road. The proposed development is on and forms part of Estate amenity land and is assessed against LLP policy EN1. 17/03189/FUL – Delegated report Para 7.14 states “Policy The proposed development is on and forms part Q14 is clear that the Council does not consider gardens to be of Estate amenity land and is assessed against potential development sites and will resist proposals which LLP policy EN1. Refer to paras 11.30-11.40 for would result in the loss of biodiversity, soft discussion on this policy. landscaping/permeable drainage or openness.” Context for Hydethorpe Road - Like the Thornton Road application, the Hydethorpe Road application relates to a site which is currently the communal garden of the residents of 200-262 Hydethorpe Road (see Appendix II for image of ‘Land Registry Official copy of title plan’ clearly showing the boundaries of the 200-262 Hydethorpe Road site). On this basis, and in reference to policy Q14 the council cannot consider the gardens to be an appropriate potential development site. Furthermore, please see attached a video clip clearly showing the level of biodiversity (including the sound of the wildlife) of the Hydethorpe Road site currently enjoyed by the residents. 17/03189/FUL – Delegated report Para 7.15 states “There The proposed development is on and forms part are exceptions to this policy contained in Policy Q14 (c) - (i-v) of Estate amenity land and is assessed against however when assessed against this criteria the proposal LLP policy EN1. Refer to paras 11.30-11.40 for would not comply. “ discussion on this policy. Context for Hydethorpe Road - Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q14 (c) – (i-v) relates to development in rear gardens, which clearly also applies to the Hydethorpe Road application with the proposed site in the rear garden of the 200-262 Hydethorpe Road site. On this basis, when assessed against these criteria the proposal would not comply. 17/03189/FUL – Delegated report Para 7.18 states “Policy The proposed development is on and forms part Q14 (c) (ii) states that development in rear gardens should be of Estate amenity land and is assessed against single storey. Officers do accept however, that it could be LLP policy EN1. Refer to paras 11.30-11.40 for possible to exceed this height requirement while still discussion on this policy. protecting the amenity value and habitat value of rear gardens. For example, this could be possible if large setbacks are proposed from adjoining residential properties to compensate for a higher built form. Officers do however consider that the proposed building, with excessive development in the current rear garden would unacceptably impact on openness in conflict with Policy Q14 (a) and (c) of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015.” Context for Hydethorpe Road - Both the Thornton Road and Hydethorpe Road proposals relate to development in rear gardens and neither are single storey in height. The Thornton Road application represented the development of a 4-storey property, which was at its closest 30m from the nearest neighbouring properties on Radbourne Road. The Hydethorpe Road application proposes a 5 storey building which at its closest point would be just 18m from the nearest neighbouring properties of 200-262 Hydethorpe Road. On this basis, it is impossible to see any other conclusion than officers considering that the Hydethorpe Road application, with proposed excessive development in the current rear garden, would unacceptably impact on openness in direct conflict with Policy Q14 (a) and (c) of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015. 17/03189/FUL – Delegated report Para 8.5 states “The Please refer to section 12 ‘design and proposed scheme would introduce a replacement building conservation’ for discussion on design relating to which is larger in scale and massing than existing. In the current application. comparison to the existing building on site the schemes principle rear elevation would be extend further rearward by approx. 10m. It would also stand higher at four stories to a height of 12m to the flat roof. The existing height is approx. 7m to the top of the gable of both houses. The cumulative increase in height, scale and mass when compared to the existing buildings would result in an unacceptable visual impact to neighbouring properties at the rear of the site. These being No’s 41, 43 and 45 B and D Radbourne Road. The visual impact of the scheme is considered to appear greater with regard to the rear outlook and garden areas of No.43 and 45 B and D due to the shorter garden depth of the host site where it abuts these properties. The change in ground levels whereby the application site sits higher than these neighbouring sites by approx. 1m would also compound the visual dominant of the rear part of the scheme.” Context for Hydethorpe Road - Per the quote from paragraph 8.5, the height, scale and mass of the Thornton Road application when compared to the existing buildings would have resulted in an unacceptable visual impact to neighbouring properties on Radbourne Road. As referred to above, the Hydethorpe Road development sees a property with a greater number of storeys at a closer distance to neighbouring properties. On this basis, it is impossible to see any other conclusion than officers considering that the proposed Hydethorpe Road application when compared to the existing buildings would result in an unacceptable visual impact to neighbouring properties. 17/03189/FUL – Delegated report Para 8.9 states “On the Please refer to section 12 ‘design and basis of the unacceptable increase in height, scale and bulk conservation’ for discussion on design on the in comparison to the existing buildings and the changes in current application. the sites topography the scheme would appear visually intrusive and over dominant with respect to properties to the rear of the site at No’s 41, 43 and 45 (b & d) Radbourne Road. Therefore, the scheme would be prejudicial to the aims Policy Q2 part i) which seeks to ensure that visual amenity from adjoining sites is not unacceptably compromised.” Context for Hydethorpe Road - Per the quote from paragraph 8.9, the height, scale and bulk of the Thornton Road application when compared to the existing buildings would have appeared visually intrusive and over dominant with respect to properties on Radbourne Road. As referred to above, the Hydethorpe Road development sees a property with a greater number of storey’s at a closer distance to neighbouring properties. On this basis, it is impossible to see any other conclusion than officers considering that the scheme would be prejudicial to the aims of Policy Q2 part i) which seeks to ensure that visual amenity from adjoining sites is not unacceptably compromised. 17/03189/FUL – Delegated report Para 8.9 states “The Please refer to section 14 ‘amenity for development would include the provision of two rear neighbouring occupiers’ for discussion on impacts balconies at first floor level and clear glazing up to a height of on residential amenity in relation to the current four stories. The distance between the first floor balconies application. and rear elevation and the shared rear garden boundary of those in Radbourne Road is approx. 9m to 16m. Whilst the shortest separation distance between windows would be approx. 30m given that the scheme would stand on taller ground, the expanse of windows – totalling 16 and presence of two first floor balconies; this is considered to result in unacceptable, increased overlooking impact and loss of privacy.” Context for Hydethorpe Road - Per the quote from paragraph 9.10, the Thornton Road application was considered to result in unacceptable, increased overlooking impact and loss of privacy – with particular mention to the expanse of windows (16 in total) and presence of 2 first floor balconies, and the proximity of 30m to the nearest neighbouring properties (see appendix III for the proposed elevation drawings facing Radbourne Road). The Hydethorpe Road proposal would see one side of the building positioned just 18m from 200-262 Hydethorpe Road with 15 floor to ceiling windows with clear glazing and 10 separate balconies from ground to fifth floor (see appendix IV for the proposed elevation drawings facing Hydethorpe Road). On this basis, it is impossible to see any other conclusion than officers considering that the scheme would result in unacceptable, increased overlooking impact and loss of privacy for the residents of 200-262 Hydethorpe Road.

10 POLICIES

10.1 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. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2016, consolidated with alterations since 2011), the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015) and the South Bank and Waterloo neighbourhood development plan (‘the SoWNDP’) (October 2019).

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

10.3 On 13 March 2020 the Secretary of State formally directed the Mayor to make a number of detailed modifications to the wording of various policies in the Intend to Publish version released in December 2019. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, whilst such a direction remains in force, the Mayor must not proceed to publish the London Plan (in its final form) without modifying the Intend to Publish version so as to comply with the direction. From the Mayor’s reply to the Secretary of State on 24 April 2020 as published on the GLA website, it appears that there may be further dialogue between the Mayor and the Secretary of State about the modifications. However, the outcome of this process is not known at present. Officers have therefore needed to take into account the effect of the Secretary of State’s direction on emerging London Plan policies.

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

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

10.6 The latest National Planning Policy Framework was published in 2018 and updated in 2019. This document sets out the Government’s planning policies for England including the presumption in favour of sustainable development and is a material consideration in the determination of all applications.

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

ASSESSMENT

11 Land Use 11.1 Residential Use

11.2 Policy H1 seeks to maximise the supply of additional homes in the borough line with the LP. Policy 3.3 of the current LP (consolidated with amendments 2016) sets out the need for additional housing within London Boroughs to meet the projected and existing need for housing. The London Plan’s annual monitoring target for new housing supply from 2015-2025 in Lambeth is 1,559 new homes per year, which is intended to deliver 15,594 homes by 2025 (see Table 3.1 of the LP).

11.3 Policy H1 of the draft London Plan (DLP) sets out the Mayor’s approach to increasing housing supply, with a particular focus on brownfield sites, accessible sites, surplus sites owned by public sector bodies and industrial sites considered under draft Policy E7 for intensification or co-location. A draft target of 13,350 new homes per annum over a ten-year period (Table 4.1 of the DLP) is proposed within Lambeth.

11.4 The site is located in an area with a PTAL rating of 3, indicating a good level of access to public. The principle of additional residential development in this location would be acceptable (subject to addressing the potential impact on open space biodiversity; the scale and detailed design of the proposed development and; impacts on residential amenity and local infrastructure) as it would contribute to the Borough’s housing supply by adding 14 new homes.

11.5 Density

11.6 DLP Policy D3 seeks to optimise site capacity through the design-led approach and does not specify exact levels of density for development. Part A of the policy requires the development to make the best use of land and considers design options to determine the most appropriate form of development that responds to a site’s context and capacity for growth. In making a determination on whether a proposal is the most appropriate form of development, Part B of the policy takes the following into account:

11.7 Form and layout (buildings and spaces which respond to locally distinctive forms, encouraging active travel and facilitating efficient servicing and delivery) (See sections 12 and 17of this report)

11.8 Experience (good quality accommodation, safe and secure environments and active frontages onto the public realm) (See sections 13 and 15 of this report)

11.9 Quality and character (respond to the existing character, high quality architecture and high sustainability standards) (see sections 12 and 18 of this report)

11.10 Overall, officers are satisfied that the proposal would optimise development on the site in a form which is appropriate and corresponds with the above requirements, which are assessed in further detail within the appropriate sections of this report.

11.11 Dwelling and Tenure Mix 11.12 Local Plan Policy H1 seeks to maximise the supply of additional homes in the borough, and so residential use is supported in this location. In relation to affordable housing, Lambeth Local Plan Policy H2 seeks to maximise affordable housing delivery in Lambeth. Policy H2 a) (i) sets out that in a development providing 10 or more residential units, 50% of homes should be affordable where public subsidy is available or 40% without subsidy. Policy H2(a)(iii) seeks 70% of new affordable housing units to be for social and affordable rent and 30% as intermediate provision.

11.13 The Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and DLP Policy H4 introduce the threshold approach to affordable housing provision, whereby 50% affordable housing (by habitable room) must be achieved on public land, and all other policy requirements be met in order to proceed through the Fast Track Route. Should this not be met applications should be taken through the Viability Tested Route (be subject to full Financial Viability Appraisal). Draft Revised Local Plan Policy H2 reinforces this approach. This application proposes 46.5% affordable housing by habitable room (43% affordable housing by unit number) and the tenure split is 50% affordable rent /50% intermediate (shared ownership) on a habitable room basis (33%/66% mix by unit) does not meet the tenure split requirements of Policy H2(a)(iii). Therefore, it is required to go through the Viability Tested Route (VTR) in accordance with DLP Policy H5 F.

11.14 Homes for Lambeth are a Registered Provider, they will deliver and also manage both the proposed rented and shared ownership homes for the long term. It should be noted that given the site constraints and design configuration, it would be difficult to increase the affordable housing provision on site by habitable room to 50%. The limitation of converting one market unit on one of the upper floors (2nd, 3rd, 4th) where the market units are located would give rise to service charge, cost and management issues.

11.15 In accordance with DLP Policy H5 F and LLP Policy H2(d) The applicant has provided a viability assessment report prepared by Savills, dated February 2020 and a further addendum dated 6th April 2020. The report and addendum have been independently verified by the Council’s viability consultants, Avison Young (AY). Table 1 below summarises the viability discussions.

Input/Output At Independent Final Commentary Submission Review agreed position Cost of construction £3,893,923 £3,506,000 £270 per sq Agreed following (£.sqm) (£276 per sq (£248/sq ft) ft meeting between ft) respective QS’s Residential Values £742/sq ft £760/sq ft £751 per sq Mid-point between ft consultants Profit level (%GDV) Blended profit Blended profit Blended Note the 8% margin equating to equating to profit previously adopted was 20% of Private 20% of private equating to a typo by the applicant Residual GDV Residual GDV 20% of and 8% of and 6% of private affordable affordable GDV Residual GDV GDV and 6% of affordable GDV Sales fees and 3.25% 2.5% 2.75% Mid-point between marketing consultants Benchmark Land £675,000 £277,595 £277,595 See commentary Value below. Ground Rents Nil £400 per Nil See commentary annum and a below. yield of 5.5% Table 1 - Viability Discussions

11.16 With regards to the Benchmark Land Value, the applicant simply based their approach on the rationale depicted within the BNPP Local Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Review document from July 2018. The key approach to establishing a ‘viability benchmark’ is to have regard to existing use value along with a premium to incentivise its release. Within the cited document it quite clearly states that ‘the study methodology compares the residual land values of a range of development typologies reflecting the types of developments expected to come forward in the borough over the life of a new Local Plan and a replacement charging schedule. The appraisals compare the residual land values generated by those developments (with varying levels of affordable housing and CIL contributions) to a benchmark land value to reflect the existing value of land prior to redevelopment.’

11.17 However, Avison Young have sought to address the potential value of the existing space if it was let to an outsourced 3rd party. Having paid due consideration to the site’s location and lack of supplementary facilities, we consider a rent of £17,500 per annum to be appropriate which equates to circa £335 per week. They envisage that the lease/license terms would be flexible, and that the opportunity wouldn’t be of interest to those companies with strong covenant strength. Therefore, they considered a yield profile of 7.5% to be appropriate. This equates to a net value of circa £231,000, which was considered to be reflective of the existing use value of the subject site on the assumption that it could be let.

11.18 As stated within the appropriate guidance, any premium is to reflect the incentive for the landowner to release their site for development. Such premiums can range between 10%-30%, with 20% being the most commonly adopted. We have therefore adopted a 20% premium which produces a benchmark land value of circa £277,595.

11.19 With regards to Ground Rents in this case the Council are willing to accept their non-inclusion at this stage of the process. The Council recognise that this is in line with the majority of current Red Book valuations. There is some uncertainty at the moment about whether residential ground rents will be able to be charged in new residential leases. The Secretary of State indicated last summer that ground rents would be scrapped for new residential leases, along with other reforms to the way in which property is sold however this is still an ongoing area of uncertainty.

11.20 Given there is such uncertainty regarding Ground Rents it is recommended that at the late stage review discussed below it will need to bring into account the capitalised value of the residential ground rents at that point, unless it is agreed at the time of the review that those ground rents should not be included at that stage either.. At the time of review, should Ground Rents not be abolished, than they would be included within the revised development appraisal.

11.21 The assessment following verification and amendments demonstrated that the development as proposed generates a profit margin equating to 18.19% on GDV which is above the targeted threshold. They therefore consider the proposed affordable housing offer of 46.5% affordable housing by habitable room and the tenure split 50% affordable rent /50% intermediate (shared ownership) with an offsite contribution of £ £30,345is the reasonable amount deliverable.

11.22 The affordable housing provision affordable rent units would be delivered in line with the Council’s Tenancy Strategy, 3 bedroom properties are set at Social Target Rent levels. In this regard the three bedroom units would be offered at Social Target Rent Levels to be secured by section 106 agreement.

11.23 The affordability of intermediate shared ownership units must be in accordance with the Mayor’s qualifying income levels, as set out in the Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report, including a range of income thresholds. It is proposed that homes will be affordable to household incomes of the maximum cap of £90,000 Affordability thresholds would be secured by section 106 agreement.

11.24 To incentivise delivery of the development and the delivery of the affordable housing, an Early Stage Viability Review will be triggered if the scheme is not implemented within two years of the permission being granted or as agreed with the Local Planning Authority. This would be secured in the s106 agreement and is consistent with the Mayor’s and Council’s viability SPD’s.

11.25 A near end of development review will also be required in line with the Mayor’s and Council’s Viability SPD’s. This will ensure that viability is accurately assessed and up-to-date. As discussed above at the time of review, should Ground Rents are not abolished, than they would be included within the revised development appraisal, along with any reduction in development costs and any improvements in private sales values currently projected are included. The trigger for the review will be 75% of sales of market units. An occupation clause is likely to be required which would prevent occupation of the development until the review is completed and any additional affordable housing is delivered, or a commuted sum is paid. This would be secured by s106 agreement.

11.26 Any contribution arising from a review of viability would be capped by relevant policy requirements (i.e. in the case of affordable housing, to the equivalent of 40% (without public subsidy) or 50% (with public subsidy)). Where a viability review demonstrates an improvement in a scheme’s viability, in line with the Council’s Viability SPD, a percentage split of the increase in the scheme’s value between the developer and the council will be agreed. This will be 20% of the increase in the scheme’s value returned to the developer and 80% to the council, up to the level that would be required for a policy compliant scheme. Additional surplus profits will then pass to the developer in their entirety. This will be secured within a s106 agreement.

11.27 The table (No.2) below sets out the relevant housing mix requirements against LLP Policy H4 and DRLLP Policy H4 in relation to affordable and low-cost rented products. This is shown against the dwelling mix of the proposal.

Planning policy Proposal Adopted Local Plan H4 (social/affordable rented and intermediate)

• 1-bed units - Not more than 20% • 1-bed units – 2 (33.3%) • 2-bed units - 20-50% • 2-bed units – 2 (33.3%) • 3-bed+ units - 40% • 3-bed+ units – 2 (33.3%)

DRLLP Policy H4 (2020) (low cost rented) Affordable housing

• 1-bed units- Not more than 25% • 1-bed units – 0 (0%) • 2-bed units- 20-60% • 2-bed units – 0 (0%) • 3-bed+ units- Up to 30% • 3-bed+ units –2 (100%)

Table 2 - Housing Tenure Mix

11.28 Table 2 above sets out that against the adopted Local Plan it provides more one beds and fewer three bed affordable homes; however, against the emerging Local Plan (DRLLP) this is providing more three bed council rented and no one or two beds. Although Policy H4 relates to units only, if this analysis against the adopted Local Plan were applied by habitable room this would relate to 20%/30%/50%. It would provide policy compliant one and two bed units and more three bed units.

11.29 The proposal is meeting a need for family-sized/3 bed council rented accommodation for those on the council’s housing register. Given the validation of the Financial Viability Appraisal, this information alongside the small number of affordable units within the scheme, the relative balance in provision within the scheme as a whole, the balance in relation to habitable rooms it is considered that this dwelling mix is appropriate in this instance.

11.30 Non-residential uses 11.31 Loss of Estate amenity land 11.32 The proposed development is on Estate amenity land that comprises of 1,627sqm of accessible communal Estate amenity land and 917sqm of inaccessible amenity land that includes the former ball court (395sqm approx.). The ball court and surroundings forming the 917sqm of inaccessible land has not been in use for a number of years since at least June 2008 (Google Map Images) and is significantly overgrown with no access and does not form part of the useable communal Estate amenity areas. The development would be sited on this area of inaccessible Estate amenity land. In terms of quantum this proposed development would result in a net loss of Estate amenity land of approximately 410 sqm of the 917sqm inaccessible Estate amenity land.

11.33 Policy EN1(a) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) resists the loss of open spaces and their function and that development will not be supported unless it meets one of the three tests. The policy is worded as follows:

‘The council will meet requirements for open space by:

(a) Protecting and maintaining open spaces and their function. Development which would involve the loss of existing public or private open space will not be supported unless at least one of the following tests is met:

(i) Replacement open space of equivalent or better quality and quantity is provided within a suitable location in the local area.

(ii) In the case of housing estate amenity areas, significant regeneration and community benefits would be achieved that could not be achieved in any other way, and appropriate compensatory provision for the loss of open space is made, including improvements to the quality of the remaining open space.

(iii) It is for the provision of facilities directly related to the use of open space including ecology centres, indoor sports facilities, changing rooms, toilets or cafes as long as these are appropriate in scale and form to the size and character of the open space and acceptable in terms of impact on openness and do not harm the function and operation of the open space’.

11.34 The proposed development is on Estate amenity land, in this regard the proposal would need to meet the policy test at part (ii). It should be noted that the proposed site does not fall within an area of open space deficiency.

11.35 It is only as part of this development that this significant regeneration and community benefit proposed could be achieved. This includes developing on underutilised land, providing an additional fourteen residential dwellings that includes six affordable dwellings. It includes employment benefits in this regard a financial contribution of £9,750 which would be used towards the employment and training of local residents. During the build period there would be a plan to help local people access job opportunities arising from the proposed development (at construction phase). Benefits to local economy, the proposed residential development would bring people to the Balham and Streatham Hill area, many of whom are likely to support local businesses. Finacial contributions will be secured with regards to offsite improvements by way of 6 trees to be planted on highway land within the vicinity that would contribute towards the visual amenity around this part of Thornton Road which is characterised as leafy and pleasant as a result of the verge and mature trees.

The proposal seeks to provide appropriate compensatory provision for the loss of estate amenity land through enhancements to the quality, useability and function of the wider Estate amenity land, including contributions towards tree planting off site on Thornton Road within immediate surroundings.

11.36 The communal areas would be designed to provide a wide range of activities for all ages and abilities. It will include improvements to landscaping (see section 16 of this report), improved function and opportunity for enhanced biodiversity (see section 16 of this report), specific benefits to the existing occupiers (by way of cycle parking (see section 17 of this report), formal play provision (see section…. 13 of this report) and formalising private amenity space (see section 13 of this report). This is illustrated in the landscape plan below at figure 10, it is designed to include: • increasing the amount of useable amenity space from 1,627sqm to 1,827sqm, • enhanced planting opportunities within the hard-landscaped area fronting Hydethorpe Road, • enhanced planting opportunities at junction of Hydethorpe Road and Thornton Road, • improvements to forecourt of existing building fronting Hydethorpe Road, including secure access to garden, • areas of planting with flexible play/exercise equipment, jumping logs, stepping stones, • area of sport and flexible play/exercise equipment, monkey bars table tennis, trim trail equipment for proposed and future occupiers, • horticultural beds for food growing and production, • accessible footpaths through out with permeable surface material, • biodiverse boundary planting with existing trees, improved native hedge and mixed shrub and herbaceous species, increased tree planting on site; • increased ecology and biodiversity on site that equates to an increased net biodiversity gain; • financial contribution towards tree planting off site on Thornton Road within immediate surroundings. • Formalise private amenity areas for existing occupiers of ground floor flats (rear elevation) within No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road; and • Include some cycle parking spaces for existing occupiers of No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road

Figure 10 Landscape plan (Source: Landscape design document)

11.37 The applicant has submitted a draft management and maintenance plan which provides an indication of how the landscaping proposal, functions of the space etc will be managed and maintained (see section16 of this report). A final plan would need to be submitted and secured in perpetuity via a s106 obligation. This would ensure that the benefits proposed are managed and maintained in perpetuity and the requirements of Policy En1(a)(ii) met.

11.38 Subject to details being secured through conditions such as hard and soft landscaping (condition 22) quantum of useable amenity space area safeguarded (condition 3), a management and maintenance plan secured by a s106, off site financial contribution towards tree planting on Thornton Road and additional trees secured via s106. Officers consider that the applicant has demonstrated that distinct regeneration and community benefits and compensatory measures have been achieved within the site and immediate surroundings. The proposal therefore has met the test and accords with Policy EN1(a)(ii) of the Lambeth Local Plan.

11.39 The ball court forms part of the housing amenity area and is assessed against LLP Policy EN1(a)(iii) as discussed above. It is has not been in use for a number of years (oldest Google Street View image shows the area has been covered since June 2008) and therefore is not considered a sporting facility, so does not require analysis against Policy S1 of the Lambeth local Plan (2015). It is noted that the size of the ball court 0.0396ha is less than 0.2 hectares to trigger the requirement to consult Sport England. The applicant has undertaken a review of the immediate local area and identified four other sports pitches and games courts within the vicinity of the site. Figure 11 below illustrates these on a map and the Table 3 below provides some commentary on distance from site and explanation of types of facilities provided.

Figure 11 Location of other sports pitches and games courts within vicinity (Source: Planning Statement)

No. Name Distance from Site Facility uses

1 Tooting Bec 500m south of the Council owned public land, used for informal Common application site sports pitches and tarmac court for ball games etc, free to use/

2 Agnes Riley 300m north of application Council owned park and garden with following Gardens site facilities: Astro turf pitch, basketball court, football pitch.

All free to use booking required.

3 Grafton Tennis 240m south of the Private facility, sports club with tennis and and Squash Club application site squash courts.

Paid membership.

4 Clapham Park 540m north of application Council owned ball court. Estate – Clarence site. Avenue Ball Court Free use

Table 3 – facilities provided (Source: Planning Statement)

11.40 Given the above it is considered there is adequate provision of sports pitches, ball courts and other recreational space in close proximity to the site.

12 Design and Conservation

12.1 Scale, massing, layout, materials and appearance 12.2 The proposed building would front Thornton Road, which is not within a particularly sensitive context, but this part of Thornton Road is leafy and pleasant as a result of the verge and mature trees. The building has been designed to provide a transition in building height and mass that will be lower than the six storey (7th storey setback) at No. 200-262 Hydethorpe Road to the north-west, that steps down to four storeys to the south-east towards the pair of two storey dwellings at No. 22-22A Thornton Road and the three storey listed villa at 24 Thornton Road. It would part step down to two storeys at the rear towards the two storey residential dwellings to the southwest. Given this and the building’s compact and articulated design the scale and form is considered to be acceptable when viewed from the streetscene and surrounding context.

12.3 A canopy arch is proposed along part of the south-eastern side of the building abutting the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road. This provides a covered entry over the communal entrance of the building. A porch is proposed to the front of the building that includes an enclosed cycle store. These are considered to be subordinate to the main building and it is not considered that they would unacceptably dominate the building or the streetscene. Details can be secured by condition (condition 5).

12.4 The proposal addresses the building line within its setting within of Thornton Road. The main building line of the scheme aligning with the front building lines of the adjacent No.22-22A Thornton Road and No.200 – 262 Hydethorpe Road. Officers consider it would respond to the local character of the area in accordance with LLP Policies Q5, and Q7. The building footprint would be set away from the boundaries with No.22-22A Thornton Road and No 200 – 262 Hydethorpe Road providing a sense of space between the buildings when viewed from the streetscene. Overall, it is considered that the proposed building responds positively to the streetscene in terms of urban grain, and patterns of space in accordance with LLP Policies Q5, and Q7.

12.5 A bin store is located to the front of the site within a small area of hardstanding. This would be adjacent the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road. No details regarding the waste store have been provided and a condition (Condition 6) is recommended that details are provided and that the detail shall accord with the Councils refuse and recycling storage design guide (July 2013). Furthermore, an informative is recommended that the refuse store is set away from the front boundary and includes some soft landscaping to the front of the store to ensure it is screened from Thornton Road. Subject to condition the proposal would accord with LLP Policy Q12.

12.6 The proposal includes a boundary treatment strategy as illustrated at Figure 9 above. The proposal would retain and make good existing boundary treatments, timber trellis is proposed to be added in to the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road. A secure fence line is proposed at the entrance to the building and rear of the site under the entrance arch. No details of this have been submitted ta this stage. The existing low metal railing fronting Thornton Road is proposed to be removed. The opening up of the site along Thornton Road would respond to the local character creating a better relationship with the site and its presence within Thornton Road. Details of the boundary treatment can be secured by condition. Subject to this condition (condition 7) the proposal would accord with LLP Policy Q15.

12.7 In terms of appearance the proposed building would have a simple architectural aesthetic. The symmetrical form of the proposed building, the horizontal rhythm of the fenestration takes cues from the character of nearby buildings. It proposes to include vertical proportions of the windows of the listed building at No.24 Thornton Road, vertical arrangement at 200-262 Hydethorpe Road. The design approach is considered to be of high quality that would reinforce local distinctiveness. The elevations will be primarily constructed in red brick with a subtle variety in colour that will give a strong tonal quality and relate to its surroundings where use of brick predominates within the context. Mortar joints will alternate between flush and recessed at each floor to subtly emphasise the proposed levels. See figure 12 below drawing which illustrates the proposed strip elevations.

12.8 Further details of the construction detailing (including windows, doors, reveals and external soffits, gates, vents and extracts, cills and copings, rain water goods, brick bonding, dalustrades/balconies/terraces, property name and number display etc.), sample panel of materials made available on site shall be secured by condition (condition 4 and 5).

12.9 No details have been provided at this stage regarding lighting and a condition (condition 15) is recommended that a lighting plan including details of fittings and showing location of the fittings is submitted to ensure the design of the scheme is of a high standard and avoids visual clutter.

Figure 12 Detailed Elevation (Source: Design and Access Statement)

12.10 Overall, the proposed building would be an attractive development of high quality design with an appropriate scale and massing for the context and materials relating to its surroundings. Subject to conditions indicated the proposal would comply with LLP Policies Q5, and Q7.

12.11 Impacts on heritage assets: Legislation and notional policy context 12.12 The beginning of the Agenda Pack contains a summary of the legislative and national policy context for the assessment of the impact of a development proposal on the historic environment and its heritage assets. This is in addition to Lambeth Local Plan and London Plan policies.

12.13 Turning to consider the application of the legislative and policy requirements referred to 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.

12.14 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.

12.15 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.

12.16 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.

12.17 The case-law also establishes that even where the harm identified is less than substantial (i.e. falls within paragraph 196 of the NPPF), that harm must still be given considerable importance and weight.

12.18 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. Considerable importance and weight must be attached to each of the harms identified and to their cumulative effect.

12.19 What follows is an officer assessment of the extent of harm which would result from the proposed development to the scoped heritage assets provided by the applicant as part of its submission. This includes Conservation Areas and neighbouring Listed Buildings. Both an individual assessment against each heritage asset as well a cumulative assessment is provided. This is then followed by an assessment of the heritage benefits of the proposals.

12.20 Impact on heritage assets: Conservation Areas

Figure 13 Hyde Farm Conservation area (C48) shown edged in purple

12.21 The Hyde Farm Conservation Area (C48) is a designated heritage asset, the area was developed by Emmanuel College Cambridge between 1896 and 1916, the Hyde Farm Estate has a marked Edwardian character. The builder, Ernest Dashwood, created a coherent and consistent built form which gives the area its special interest. No views of strategic or local importance have been identified in the conservation appraisal.

12.22 Given the scale of the scheme and separation distances involved, it is not considered that the proposal would be readily visible from the CA. Officers consider that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact to the setting of Hyde Farm Conservation Area. This would accord with Policy 22 of the LLP (2015).

12.23 Impact on heritage assets: Listed Buildings

Figure 14 Listed Buildings shown edged in red

12.24 The Grade II listed building at No. 24 Thornton Road is a designated heritage asset. This substantial mid-19th century villa was built by Thomas Cubitt and is three storeys in height above ground level with basement.

12.25 Also built by Thomas Cubitt at No.58 (St Bede’s Roman Catholic Primary School) is a three storey Grade II listed villa with basement and in use as independent school (D1 use class).

12.26 Officers have considered the impact of the scheme on the setting of the Grade Il listed buildings. Given the distances between the buildings, the stepping down in height of the building towards the south this scheme would not overbear the listed building or appear overly dominant in views looking north and south along Thornton Road. Officers consider that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact to the setting of The Listed Buildings. This would accord with LLP Policy Q20. 12.27 Impact upon heritage assets: Summary 12.28 It is the view of officers that the proposal would not harm any heritage assets. The proposal would accord with LLP policies Q20 and Q22.

12.29 Assessment of harm versus benefits 12.30 Officers consider that the development would not harm the significance of any heritage assets and that an assessment of harm versus benefits is not required.

12.31 However, should Members come to a different view, they must consider the impact of the proposed development on the significance of each designated heritage asset. Great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance (as per paragraph 193 of the NPPF).

12.32 If Members come to a view that there would be substantial harm or total loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused, unless it is demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the identified harm or loss (as per paragraph 195 of the NPPF).

12.33 If Members come to a view that there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the identified harm must still be given considerable importance and weight when weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the heritage asset’s optimum viable use (as per paragraph 196 of the NPPF).

12.34 In this case, officers consider that the development provides the following public benefits:

12.35 Economic • Employment and skills: the application would be subject to an employment and skills financial contribution of £9,750 which would be used towards the employment and training of local residents and during the build period there would be a plan to help local people access job opportunities arising from the proposed development (at construction phase). • Benefits to local economy, the proposed residential development would bring people to the Balham and Streatham Hill area, many of whom are likely to support local businesses.

12.36 Social • Housing – the provision of 14 new flats, of which six would be affordable housing

12.37 Environmental • Biodiversity: the scheme would improve the wider estate amenity land that would increase the biodiversity and urban greening on the site.

12.38 Officers consider that the above constitutes public benefits that would outweigh any harm to the Hyde Park conservation Area and the Grade II listed buildings.

12.39 Views 12.40 The site is not located within any views of strategic or local importance. It is considered that the proposed development would not impact on or harm any statutory or local views in accordance with LLP Policy Q25.

13 Standard of residential accommodation

13.1 Layout and access 13.2 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and Table 3.3 was updated in May 2016 to reflect the adoption of new nationally prescribed minimum space standards. This has been carried through in the Draft London Plan Policy D6 and Table 3.1. Policy H5 of LLP (2015) states that all proposals for new residential development should accord with the principles of good design.

13.3 All the proposed dwellings would exceed the London plan minimum space standards. All new accommodation would be expected to have a minimum head height of 2.5m for at least 75% of the gross internal area. All floor to ceiling heights would meet or exceed this requirement with the exception of one unit No.10 on the that would reach a head height of 2.47m. The applicant has advised the reason for the lower height is to allow for a Part M compliant access to Unit 14’s terrace above. The section drawing 1123-P-3001A, shows a dropped slab. This is to allow for insulation etc above it as well as a feasible services void under it. Unit 10 with a 2.475 m clear height (only 25mm short) would not result in less than 25% of the internal being below 2.5m in height.

13.4 The proposed scheme would achieve a mixed and inclusive community with regard to positioning of affordable and non-affordable elements. The layout of design ensures that the development is tenure blind, functions as a whole, and works as one.

13.5 In terms of access the groundfloor units have their own individual entrance to the dwellings. All the units on the upper floor would have a separate entrance to the south east where they would enter a lobby that leads to a lift and stair core where future occupiers would then be able to access the residential units.

13.6 Accessible, Adaptable and Wheelchair Housing Provision 13.7 DLP Policy D5 which seeks to ensure developments achieve the highest standards of accessible inclusive design. DLP Policy D7 requires ninety percent of new housing meets Building Regulation requirement M4 (2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’; ten per cent of new housing meets Building Regulation requirement M4 (3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’, i.e. is designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.

13.8 Based on the proposed 14 units, 10% (equates to 1.4 units) of which would need to be designed to meet Part M4 (3). The applicant confirms that the two groundfloor units would meet this regulation. The remaining units are designed to meet part M4(2). The provision for wheelchair accessible and adaptable dwellings will be secured through appropriate condition (Condition 8).

13.9 Privacy 13.10 18m distances would be retained between the proposed building and the rear elevation of No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road and it would be over 18m to the rear of dwellings (south west) fronting Radbourne Road. With regards to the properties directly opposite on Thornton Road the proposed building is situated over 30m from the main elevation of the proposed building and front elevation of these buildings. Given the separation distances the proposed development would ensure high levels of privacy are maintained for the future occupiers.

13.11 The landscape design indicates that two groundfloor units would benefit from terraces and defensible planting that would limit direct views into each of the units. A condition (condition 10) regarding details of the screening is recommended to ensure privacy to these residential units is maintained in accordance with LLP Policy Q2.

13.12 Outlook and Aspect 13.13 Of the fourteen residential dwellings proposed, twelve (equates to 85.7%) would have dual aspect in accordance with Policy H5(a)(i) of the LLP (2015). The other two (equates to 14.3%) residential dwellings, units 3 and 4, both 1xbeds located on the first floor would have an aspect over the balconies. It is considered that both would still have a good outlook and reasonable levels of daylight and sunlight given that one of the site constraints is that the building is broadly rectangular with a north-west elevation and north-east elevation.

13.14 Daylight,Sunlight 13.15 The provision of suitable daylight and sunlight to the new development has been considered. In terms of daylight, this is in respect of the proposed new habitable rooms and consideration is often reviewed on an average daylight factor (ADF) basis, especially since the provision of daylight is targeted to the actual room use with a standard ADF targeted of 1% bedrooms, 1.5% living rooms and 2% kitchens. However, in instances of any applicable open-plan arrangements of ‘living/kitchen/dining’ rooms, an alternative methodology to that of the BRE Guide (that simply seeks to apply the highest ADF for a given room use within a multiple-use room to that of the whole room), is that the ADF is based upon the predominant room use. This is more commonly applied within the industry since modern design, now often places kitchens typically at the back of such open-plan arrangements and to achieve a 2% ADF at the rear of room is unlikely (we also highlight that in reference to the BRE Guide, internal galley-type kitchens are permissible providing they are directly linked to a well daylit living room which for this scheme, would be the case in any event, albeit the design has typically not sought to isolate the kitchen area / has still sought to provide suitable open-plan arrangement). Thus often analysis is on the basis of still including the kitchen area within the assessment (albeit we are then considering a target for the predominant room use of an ADF of 1.5% for living room); as background, if we were to exclude the kitchen area from assessment, the theoretical ADF value would only improve / increase further in value.

13.16 However, in reference to paragraph 2.12 within eb7’s report, the kitchen area within the open-plan room has been removed for the purpose of analysis. Thus the analysis presented is a theoretical ADF analysis as in terms of the proposal, the ADF will be reduced in reality when there is an actual larger rooms area i.e. the living and kitchen area for the available light to be divided over. In reference to the analysis results, all habitable rooms meet ADF target criteria although as highlighted, for the applicable living/kitchen/dining rooms within the scheme (which relate to 11 No rooms), although these exceed a target ADF of 1.5%, in real terms, there will be a reduction to the submitted ADF values for these rooms as the available daylight will need to be divided over a larger room area to include the kitchen. Having looked at these theoretical ADFs for just living room review, the ADFs all typically exceed the ADF target of 1.5% by a reasonable margin so the reduction in the ADF for a larger room area (kitchen and living rooms) should still result in typically reasonable ADF levels. However, taking this methodology will not be appropriate for all schemes, especially where self-test ADFs are at a much lower level.

13.17 On balance, reasonable ADFs levels to habitable rooms are provided for the scheme proposal.

13.18 For sunlight review to habitable rooms, results have been provided for all habitable rooms with windows in applicable orientation for consideration (i.e. windows facing within 90° of South). The focus on the 14 living rooms, 9 No are ‘north facing’ not applicable for review leaving just 5 No living rooms applicable for review which do meet BRE Guide target criteria for sunlight. Thus there is minimal / limited sunlight to 9 No living rooms (circa two-thirds of the living rooms) and so we have examined these further to consider sun availability in other habitable rooms within these particular flats; for 5 No flats, these would have at least one habitable room (not living room) with some reasonable sunlight.

13.19 Thus in summary, 4 No flats have suitable provision to living rooms (one-third of dwellings), a further 5 rooms have sunlight available to at least one habitable room other than living room (one-third of dwelling) and the remaining 5 No flats have minimal limited sunlight as effectively not having any windows within 90° of South (one-third of dwellings). It is appreciated that one of the site constraints is that the building is broadly rectangular with a north-west elevation and a north-east elevation so some inherent sunlight restriction. We consider on balance, for a multi-unit development and given site constraints, reasonable provision of sunlight is provided to habitable rooms.

13.20 Finally, in terms of sunlight availability to the proposed communal amenity area (combined with that of 200-262 Hydethorpe Road but excluding the private garden area of 210 Hydethorpe Road), eb7 have subsequently provided the BRE Guide 2 hour sunlight availability test for this amenity area (21st Mach equinox) and the analysis confirms that there is no loss to the area that has the ability to receive 2 hours or more of sunlight (21st March) since for both existing and proposed, 99% of the amenity area will have the ability to receive 2 hours of sun (21st Mach equinox).

13.21 In summary, the provision of daylight and sunlight to the new proposal is reasonable in consideration of the development proposal and context.

13.22 Noise and Vibration 13.23 Policy Q2 of the LLP states that development will be supported if the adverse impact of noise is reduced to an acceptable level through the use of attenuation, distance, screening, or internal layout/orientation.

13.24 The Noise Assessment prepared by Ardent Consulting Engineers report reference: 193830-04 details the results of noise monitoring at the site and has made recommendations with respect to noise mitigation.

13.25 It is not clear if the conclusion of the Noise Assessment (indicates windows be closed) has informed the Dynamic Overheating Assessment (indicates windows to be openable) and therefore it is recommended that a scheme of noise and vibration attenuation and ventilation sufficient to prevent overheating and maintain thermal comfort is provided. This may mean that additional building services plant is required, and conditions (condition 11) are proposed to cover this eventuality.

13.26 The proposed floor plans show some living rooms above or adjoining bedrooms of other separate occupiers within the development (for example unit 4 - bedroom located over living room of unit 1, bedroom within unit 7 located over kitchen within unit 3). The applicant proposes to upgrade the sound resistance of the separating walls and floors in the areas where there is a conflict. This will be secured by condition (11).

13.27 To further ensure that no noise nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of future occupiers’ conditions (conditions 11, 12 and 13) a scheme of noise and vibration attenuation and ventilation sufficient to prevent overheating and maintain thermal, full details and schedule of internal and external plant equipment, assessment of acoustic impact arising from operation and post installation noise assessment. Subject to this the proposed development is therefore considered to comply with LLP Policy Q2.

13.28 Residential Amenity and Play Space 13.29 LLP Policy H5 requires new flatted development to provide 50 m2 of communal amenity space plus a further 10 m2 per dwelling provided as either a terrace or balcony or consolidated within the communal amenity space.

13.30 On this basis the total requirement would be 190sqm, comprising of 50sqm communal open space and 140sqm (14 residential units x10sqm) provided as balconies/private gardens or consolidated within communal space.

13.31 The ground floor residential units would have terrace areas of 16.87sqm and 23.38sqm. With regards to the upper floors the balconies would vary in size between 5.41sqm and 7.29sqm. Therefore, there would be a shortfall of approx. 67.41sqm of private balconies/terraces in relation to the upper floor residential dwellings that would need to be consolidated within the communal amenity space. Overall, 117.41sqm of communal amenity space is required.

13.32 As illustrated in Figure 7 there is 437sqm of open space (area 03) available fronting Thornton Road and816sqm (area 02) within the centre of the site proposed as communal amenity space for both the existing and future occupiers. The communal area located within the centre of the site has been designed to provide a range of activities for all ages and abilities. For example, exercise equipment, table tennis, horticultural beds for food growing (see illustrative examples at Figure 12 below). It is considered that adequate communal amenity space would be provided for future occupiers and contribute to the improvement of the existing amenity space for the existing occupiers of No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road.

13.33 It should be noted that there are currently some small informal areas in front of the ground floor units at the rear of the existing building No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road where the occupiers have used to store buggies, children’s bikes, BBQs. The proposal includes formalising these areas as private terraces for the occupiers of each of these units which would benefit these existing occupiers. It would also contribute to the improvement of this area visually when viewed from the communal areas.

13.34 The final details of the soft landscaping and communal amenity area shall be secured by condition (condition 2). A planning obligation by way of a s106 is recommended that secures access to the communal areas in perpetuity for both future and existing occupiers. It is considered that the proposal would accord with LLP Policy H5. 13.35 Playspace 13.36 LLP Policy H5 states that provision for developments of 10 or more units with at least one family sized dwelling, children’s play space should be provided where appropriate to at least the levels set out in the London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation’ 2012.

13.37 In total, according to the GLA’s playspace calculator the development would be required to provide 64.8sqm of playspace for the future occupiers. This is broken up as 27sqm for ages 0-4, 21sqm for ages 5-11, 11sqm, for ages 12-15, 34sqm and for ages 16 & 17, 1sqm. The proposed development will provide 155sqm of playspace on site, an increase of 90.2sqm above the requirement. This would be located within the communal amenity area shown as area 05 in Figure 7 above.

13.38 It should be noted that the existing Estate amenity land does not have any specific play areas. As noted above there is 395sqm former ball court area that has been overgrown since June 2008 as discussed at section 11 in this report. Apart from this area that is not accessible there are no other playspace areas on the site. The proposed playspace to be provided will also be accessible to the existing occupiers of No.200-242 Hydethorpe Road. An improvement on the existing and considered to be a benefit for the existing residents.

13.39 The applicants landscape strategy indicates that the play equipment that would be proposed would be robust, hard wearing and long lasting as well as having a naturalistic tie in with the design aesthetic. Indicative examples of the play equipment are indicated below at Figure 12. This includes timber play equipment, play areas, trail trim located within planting, table tennis table.

Figure 12 – Examples of play equipment

13.40 A condition (Condition 17) is recommended to secure details of the play area/equipment to be installed to ensure it is of an adequate standard in line with Policy H5.

14 Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers

14.1 Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing 14.2 The beginning of the Agenda Pack contains broad contextual overview of the assessment framework within which BRE compliant sunlight and daylight studies are undertaken. This includes an explanation of the key terms and targets contained within the BRE guidance. The following assessment has been made in the context of this information.

14.3 There are no adverse comments on the methodology utilised by eb7 (albeit self-test ADF review has some limitations – please see later comments). The BRE Guide (Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – a Guide to Good Practice 2011) has been utilised as the benchmark for analysis and subsequent review of analysis output.

14.4 The extent of neighbouring properties reviewed is appropriate. The context of the surrounding properties is primarily residential and low-rise with the exception of 200-262 Hydethorpe Road.

14.5 In terms of the impact of the proposal upon existing neighbouring properties, losses in daylight and sunlight have been considered. For daylight, this has been considered in reference to both the vertical sky component (VSC) and daylight distribution i.e. no sky line / NSL (where room layouts are known) as per the BRE Guide. 14.6 14.7 In terms of properties analysed these are summarised as;

• Broadly north-west of site: No 200 – 262 Hydethorpe Road

• Broadly north-east of site: Nos 53-63 (odds) Thornton Road

• Broadly south-east of site: No 22 Thornton Road

• Broadly south-west / west of site: Nos 31-43 (odds) Radbourne Road; No 198 Hydethorpe Road.

14.8 Council’s daylight and sunlight Consultant concurs with the extent of neighbouring properties analysed.

14.9 Daylight 14.10 In terms of daylight analysis, applicable reductions to habitable rooms in both VSC and NSL meets BRE target criteria for the following properties and therefore, not commented upon further in this review; • Nos 53-63 (odds) Thornton Road • Nos 31-43 (odds) Radbourne Road • No 198 Hydethorpe Road

14.11 In respect of the residual dwellings at No. 200-262 Hydethorpe Road and 22 Thornton Road, for the analysis reductions presented for NSL, these do meet BRE Guide target criteria. However, as a technical note, we highlight within the NSL analysis tables, ‘Proportion Retained’ rounding has occurred – it is evident that the manner in which eb7 have presented this figure rounds to one decimal place. Therefore, a ‘proportion retained’ of ‘0.8’ i.e. 0.8 times former value and therefore presenting as a reduction of 20% (not exceeding BRE Guide target criteria) theoretically, could result in some ‘proportion retained’ as low as 0.75 i.e. a 25% reduction, being rounded up to 0.8 i.e. 20% reduction. Therefore, some slight reductions below target criteria / just falling into ‘minor adversity’ could potentially be presented within eb7’s analysis as meeting BRE Guide target. Having considered the analysis and context, we consider this makes minimal difference and more a technicality note rather than any main significance (and conversely, a reduction of 0.84 would be rounded down to 0.8 so in that particular instance, the reduction is less than the ‘proportion retained’ is indicating).

14.12 In terms of VSC reductions, there are a number of windows with reductions exceeding BRE Guide target criteria in respect of residential dwellings at No 200-262 Hydethorpe Road and 22 Thornton Road.

14.13 VSC review - 22 Thornton Road : There is just one window in the flank elevation which faces site at first floor which has a reduction not meeting BRE Guide target criteria (window ref W2 – 1st floor); however eb7 indicate within their report that this serves a bathroom and based upon some research that we have also undertaken, this appears to be case. Assuming this window does serve a bathroom, then this room would be considered as not a habitable rooms / not applicable for daylight review in reference to the BRE Guide.

14.14 VSC review - No 200-262 Hydethorpe Road: As background, this property contains 32 No dwellings, primarily arranged over ground + 5 storeys (with a caretaker / similar flat at 6th floor). The entrance doors to most flats is via the deck access representing the front of the building facing onto Hydethorpe Road (facing away from site thus the majority, if not all, are dual-aspect flats having windows typically facing onto Hydethorpe Road and also on the opposite side / rear elevation, facing site. Have undertaken some research in respect of this property and typically, entrance halls, bathrooms, kitchens and some bedrooms face onto Hydethorpe Road whilst facing site are primarily living rooms (a small number of which also benefitting from a front window) and bedrooms. The inherent design of the building has incorporated a number of recessed balconies which does place some inherent limitation to daylight. Accordingly, VSC analysis has been presented by eb7 on both a ‘with balconies’ and the theoretical review of ‘without balconies’ analysis where the balconies are theoretically removed for the purpose of analysis which in reference to the BRE Guide allows this additional review to assist the extent of inherent restriction the balconies are having / increased sensitivity – in summary, if the reductions meet BRE Guide target criteria without balconies then the proposal should be considered reasonable / the adversity is inherently resulting in part from the balconies. Within Table 1 – Summary on VSC analysis – WITH and WITHOUT balconies is as follows:

Table 1 – Summary on VSC analysis – With and Without balconies

14.15 In reference to Table 1, 86% of the windows facing site would have reductions that meet BRE Guide target (and 92% in the ‘without balconies’ theoretical review analysis).

It is important to highlight that in respect of Table 1, this includes all windows on the analysis submitted by eb7 – we note that this includes ‘secondary’ windows which can be discounted for consideration in terms of daylight VSC and equally, it includes a number of ground floor windows which potentially may not be serving habitable rooms. Within Table 2 – VSC Summary for Main Windows not meeting BRE Guide target (with balconies analysis) seeks to summarise the analysis for windows not meeting BRE Guide target criteria which excludes consideration on any secondary windows not meeting BRE Guide target criteria. In addition, we have also excluded 3 No windows at ground floor that are not meeting target criteria but considered also unlikely to be serving habitable rooms given these windows are small and positioned at high-level (windows Nos W12, W13 & W14 applicable as not meeting target and not likely to be serving habitable rooms). Table 2 as follows:

Table 2 – VSC Summary for Main Windows not meeting BRE Guide Target (WITH balcony analysis)

14.16 From Table 2, it can be summarised that there is daylight VSC adversity to 6 No living rooms (1 No minor, 2 No moderate and 3 No major) and 7 No bedrooms (1 No minor and the remainder can be considered as moderate adversity considering footnote to Table 2). All of these windows with the exception of main window W16 serving ground floor living room ref R13, have some sensitivity to daylight due to such windows having a balcony soffit above. Accordingly, have considered the theoretical ‘without balcony’ analysis and confirm the following in respect of these particular windows.

Table 3 – VSC Summary for Main Windows not meeting BRE Guide Target (WITHOUT balcony analysis).

14.17 In reference to Table 3, we can conclude that in the theoretical analysis, 4 No livings and 3 No bedrooms would still not meet BRE Guide target criteria thus suggesting, the proposal is having some adversity beyond any inherent sensitivity due to balconies as now the theoretical analysis without balconies has been considered.

14.18 However, in consideration of the actual retained levels in proposed scenario from Table 2 and the ‘without balcony’ analysis in reference to Table 3, we can consider that main adversity relates to 2 No living rooms (rooms R13 served by window W15 at 1st & 2nd floor) and to a lesser extent to 3 No bedrooms as daylight could be considered less important to such rooms. Thus the adversity extent to living rooms with impact to the rear balcony windows (although as background for these particular rooms, the likelihood is that they are also served by a smaller window in the front elevation which will not be affected by the proposal) can be summarised as 2 No living rooms out of 32 No living rooms (6%). We consider on balance, this isolated adversity, especially in consideration that the proposal could be considered proportional at part 4, part 5 storey is seeking a proportional share of daylight with that of No 200 – 262 Hydethorpe Road.

14.19 In consideration of the daylight analysis for all neighbouring properties for both VSC and NSL, it is evident that the majority of reductions meets BRE Guide target criteria and in those few isolated instances that reductions are beyond target criteria, these relate to VSC and to No 200-262 Hydethorpe Road which does have a degree of inherent sensitivity due to recessed balconies limiting daylighting. In consideration of retained levels of actual daylight and also separately, consideration on the theoretical review of ‘without balconies’ analysis, the main adversity relates to 2 No living rooms (daylight VSC reductions to balcony windows) and 3 No bedrooms albeit daylight can be considered less important to the latter.

14.20 Sunlight 14.21 Neighbouring properties have been considered in terms of sunlight reductions to habitable rooms; the main focus for analysis review is upon living rooms (and conservatories if applicable). From consideration of the analysis, we conclude that for any applicable reductions in sunlight to the properties considered, such reductions would meet BRE Guide target criteria with the isolated exception to some rooms within No 200-262 Hydethorpe Road.

14.22 Sunlight to 200-262 Hydethrope Road : From the analysis, there are 3 No living rooms having reductions not meeting BRE Guide target criteria for Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) – whilst there are also reductions for winters hours to these living rooms, the retained values can be considered as meeting / close to target criteria. The APSH will effectively be halved to 2 No of these rooms and reduced by two-thirds to the remaining other room. However, similar to the ‘without balconies’ review for daylight VSC, the same theoretical analysis can be considered in reference to these 3 No living rooms and based upon the ‘without balcony;’ analysis, these rooms would readily meet BRE Guide target criteria and on that basis, the adversity is due to the inherent sensitivity of the windows beneath balcony soffits rather than an adverse proposal. We note that there is also 7 No bedrooms with reductions in sunlight greater than BRE Guide target criteria although such reductions are less relevant in reference to bedrooms.

14.23 Sunlight review to neighbouring amenity (primarily rear gardens) should also be considered. However, it is evident that given the proposed massing, context and orientation of neighbouring gardens to that of the proposal, most neighbouring rear gardens are not applicable for analysis review.

14.24 However, given the context of the private garden immediately adjacent to the north-west of the proposal (which is demarked on the existing site plan and noted as ‘private garden of No 210 Hydethorpe Road’) we have requested this to be analysed by eb7 as there will be some increased effect from the proposal although we anticipate the garden will not be affected by the proposal from circa mid-afternoon onwards at the 21st March equinox date (although it is noted that this particular amenity area is anticipated to have some shadowing from a number of existing mature trees to the immediate south). Eb7 have now undertaken the standard amenity BRE Guide 2 hour sunlight availability review and the amenity area has the ability to receive 2 hours or more of sunlight at the 21st March (equinox) to 100% of the amenity area as existing which reduces to 76% in the proposed scenario. Whilst the percentage reduction is 24%, given that the retained percentage of the amenity area as having the ability to receive 2 hours or more of sunlight at the 21st March (equinox) in the proposed scenario is still over half the amenity area (at 76%), then this meets the BRE Guide target criteria for this test.

14.25 Privacy 14.26 The proposed development would ensure high levels of privacy are maintained for the future occupiers. This has been achieved through proposed chamfered corners, setback of part of the upper floor at the rear, recessed balconies and location of windows within the elevations.

14.27 18m distances would be retained between the proposed building and rear elevations of No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road. The proposed building would also have a separation distance of 18m between the rear elevation of the proposed building and rear boundary with dwellings located to the rear fronting Radbourne Road, the distance between the rear elevation of the proposed building and rear elevation of these buildings as a minimum is approx. 30m. With regards to properties directly opposite on Thornton Road the proposed building is situated over 30m from the front elevation of these buildings. The distances are considered sufficient to ensure there would not be any loss of privacy, outlook or an undue sense of enclosure.

14.28 No.198 Hydethorpe Road shares a flank boundary with the application site. It is noted that the flank elevation of this property predominately faces the existing building (No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road). The proposed building would be set over 40m away from the flank elevation on a diagonal. Given its siting any views from the proposed would be oblique, furthermore the separation distances are considered sufficient to ensure there would not be any loss of privacy, outlook or undue sense of enclosure.

14.29 With regards to No.22 Thornton Road the proposed building would step down to four storeys towards this property and down to two storeys beyond the rear elevation of this property. The distance between the flank elevations at the closest point are just over 5m. There are no windows within the flank elevation of the proposed building at its closest point. There is only one window within the flank elevation of No.22 Thornton road which faces onto the site and this window is obscure glazed and unlikely to serve a habitable room.

14.30 The four storey element of the proposed building is set away from this boundary by approx. 10m. There are some secondary windows within the proposed flank elevation that serve living areas that look over the rear amenity space of this property. The proposed setbacks of approx.10m is considered typical within an urban location such as this and it is considered that the proposed development would not result in adverse loss of privacy to the amenity areas. There are windows at the ground floor and first floor rear elevation of No.22 Thornton Road that serve habitable rooms. These windows look directly towards the rear of the properties fronting Radbourne Road. Any views towards the site from these windows and into these the windows from windows within the flank elevation of the proposed four storey element would be oblique. Given the oblique views and setbacks it is not considered that the proposal would lead to a loss of privacy. Whilst it is noted that unit 14 on the top floor has a terrace that looks towards the south-east, this is set-in from the flank elevation and located towards the front part of the property. Any views in that direction would be looking out over the roofs. A condition has been included (10) that the terrace area includes some form of screening. It is considered that the proposed development would not result in adverse loss of privacy to the adjoining neighbours and amenity areas.

14.31 Outlook/Sense of enclosure 14.32 Officers consider sufficient distances will be maintained between the proposed building and surrounding residential neighbours and that the proposed buildings would not unduly impact upon the outlook from the neighbouring properties nor is it considered that it would create a sense of enclosure.

14.33 As noted above that the proposed building would extend beyond the rear elevation of the dwelling at No.22 Thornton Road it should be noted this element is two storeys and is chamfered away from this boundary. Given this and that it is set away from the boundary, it is not considered that the proposal would lead to a loss of outlook or create a sense of enclosure to this property.

14.34 With regards to the four storey element as indicated above this would be set away from the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road by approx. 10m given this and that any views from the windows within the rear elevation of No.22 Thornton Road towards this element would be oblique it is not considered that the proposal would lead to a loss of outlook or create a sense of enclosure to this property.

14.35 Noise and Vibration 14.36 LLP Policy Q2 makes clear that proposals should ensure that any adverse impact in terms of noise and vibration should be reduced and minimised as far as possible to ensure the amenity of existing and future occupants is protected

14.37 The development would not likely result in an unacceptable impact on surrounding properties with regard to noise, noting the surrounding residential setting and any noise from residents would be domestic in nature.

14.38 The main entrance/pedestrian access is proposed to be located to the side elevation of the building adjacent to the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road. There are no windows within the flank elevation with the exception of the first floor window that is obscure glazed and unlikely to serve a habitable room. Furthermore, the applicant proposes a planting bed with climbers to a small section in front of the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road opposite the entrance to the proposed building (see Figure 9 above). Given this and any noise from residents would be domestic in nature the proposal is not likely to have unacceptable impact on this property in terms of noise disturbance.

14.39 It should be noted that there is currently a side gate located to the flank elevation of the existing building No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road and the boundary with No. 198 Hydethorpe Road which provides access to the rear of the existing building from Hydethorpe Road. This access would be retained as part of this proposal. The main entrance to the proposed building would be located on Thornton Road. Given this and the nature of the use is for residential the proposal is not likely to result in an unacceptable impact on this property.

14.40 The Council’s regulatory Services consultant has reviewed the proposal and raised no objection subject to conditions (Conditions 11,12 and 13) that details of the scheme of noise and vibration attenuation and ventilation, full details and schedule of internal and external plant equipment, assessment of acoustic impact arising from operation and post installation noise assessment are provided.

14.41 Construction Impacts

14.42 An Outline Construction Logistics Plan has been provided, which details proposed working hours and the noise assessment submitted also makes recommendations regarding construction site noise. It is considered that the outline CLP and the noise assessment considers issues that may arise during the construction phase. However, a condition (condition 33) is recommended to secure a final version of the CLP for submission and approval before development commences in accordance with LLP Policy Q1.

14.43 It should be noted that in addition to the above statutory nuisance legislation would apply through Environmental Services.

14.44 Lighting 14.45 No details regarding lighting have been provided at this stage. To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and of the area generally in line with LLP Policy Q2 a condition (condition 15) is recommended that details of lighting be submitted.

15 Designing Out Crime

15.1 DLP Policy D10 seeks development which reduces opportunities for crime. LLP Policy Q3 states the Council will expect development to utilise good design to design out opportunistic crime, anti-social behaviour and fear of crime.

15.2 The proposal would intensify the residential nature of an area with a mostly residential character. It is considered that the introduction of additional residential units would not create the opportunity for crime in the locality.

15.3 The application was referred to the Metropolitan Police Design Out Crime advisor who raised no objection subject to conditions (Condition 18 and 19) requiring the development to submit details of security measures for approval prior to commencement of development to ensure incorporates measures that maintains and enhances safety. A further condition is also recommended that requires a certificate to demonstrate that the development would adhere to the principles of secured by design is submitted.

16 Trees, Landscaping and Biodiversity 16.1 Trees

16.2 LLP Policy Q10 states that proposals for new developments will be required to take particular account of existing trees on site and adjoining land. Development will not be permitted that would result in the loss of trees of significant amenity, historic or ecological/habitat conservation value, or give rise to a threat, immediate or long term to the continued wellbeing of such trees. Where appropriate the planting of additional trees should be included in new developments.

16.3 The tree survey schedule (Arboricultural report) shows that there are currently 23 trees, and 1 group of trees relevant to the application which are shown on the tree protection plan below (Figure 12). The proposed development will involve the removal of 7 trees and a group of young trees. The trees identified for removal within the Arboricultural implications report are identified as T17, T18, T19, T20, T21, T22, T23 and G1 (illustrated in red at Fig 12 below). The Arboricultural report identifies the 7 trees to be removed as category C specimens. The group of trees (G1) to be removed comprises dense growth of young sycamore and hawthorn. Of the remaining trees one tree (T6) is identified within the report as a Category A tree, and three trees (T5, T12, T16) are identified within the report as Category B trees.

16.4 The Council’s Arboricultural officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no objection subject to appropriate conditions and securing of financial contributions towards the planting of 6 additional trees and 50 replacement trees (with regards to loss of canopy) in the vicinity. 16.5 One of the seven trees to be removed is mature, large canopied specimen, this being an English oak. The removal of the English Oak would be unfortunate and the consideration for replacement trees must take in to account this particular tree species size potential, environmental contribution, habitat capacity and life span. The English Oak’s removal would be reasonable when taking into consideration its diminishing vitality and the indicating signs of stress that were identified. Upon inspection substantial decay was also observed at the base of the stem as well as evidence of fungal brackets (Ganoderma resinaceum) observed around the base of the stem as noted within the Arboricultural implications report. In the future these factors will have a negative impact on the life expectancy of this tree as well as structural stability.

16.6 The proposal includes 22 replacement trees which the Arboricultural Officer considered an uninspiring selection of species and deficient in providing a number of key components we would consider essential for improving this sites contribution to the local environment, these being the provision of habitat, diversity of species and variation in size. Within the tree list provided there is a noticeable lack of native species which provide a considerably larger capacity to harbour insects and provide wildlife habitat. Consideration must also be taken in regard to the potential sizes the removed trees would have eventually reached. Therefore, would like to see some more larger species chosen as replacements which would maintain a level of variation in tree sizes on this site. Species to consider include Tilia cordata/platyphylos, Acer campestre, Pinus Sylvestris, Betula pendula/pubescens, Alnus glutinosa, Ulmus ‘New Horizon’, Castanea sativa, Ilex aquifolium. This can be addressed by condition (condition 22) that the design of the hard and soft landscaping looks at diversity of species, that includes native species and variation in size include some more larger species. An informative is recommended that the list of the species above are considered. Other conditions (conditions 20,21 and 23) considered necessary are, that only as shown trees are to be removed, an Arboricultural Method Statement submitted pre commencement, detailed specification of all soft landscaping and tree planting, planting, seeding etc to be undertaken in first planting season.

16.7 The applicant has proposed off site landscape enhancements by way of six trees on the strip of land outside the red line boundary on Thornton Road. The Council’s Arboricultural officer has reviewed the proposal and advised that the 6 trees located on the strip of land outside the red line boundary when planted would be too close together. They have recommended that we reduce that number to 4 trees for this strip and that we can relocate the other two trees to locations nearby along Thornton Road. The financial contribution required for the purchase of the 6 trees, planting materials, watering and their maintenance for five years would be £3,600. This will be secured via a s106. This would add positively to this part of Thornton Road which is leafy and pleasant as a result of the verge and mature trees. With regards to any other further contributions towards tree planting this is being discussed with the applicant and will be reported in the addendum.

16.8 Subject to conditions and securing financial contributions via s106 the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy Q10 of the LLP (2015).

Figure 13 – Tree Survey (Source: Arboricultural Implications Report)

16.9 Landscaping 16.10 Policy Q9 requires developments to provide landscaping that is fit for purpose, provides means of access routes, avoids piecemeal or left over spaces, includes sustainable drainage, maximises opportunities for greening and makes use of appropriate plant species and is attractive and well designed.

16.11 The applicant has provided indicative details (see figure 10 above) with an intention to provide a balance between amenity and biodiversity. The Council’s biodiversity officer is supportive of the proposed landscaping. They note that the area has developed into an area of brownfield habitat which may provide a range of ecosystems and that any landscaping strategy for the development should aim to offer appropriate mitigations so that wildlife is able to access those services (this is discussed below under biodiversity section).

16.12 As illustrated at Figure 10 above (No.6) the landscaping proposal avoids piecemeal spaces, includes pedestrian desire lines into and within the communal areas. The footpaths will be accessible and of permeable materials. With regards to the needs of ambulant people an informative (informative 8) is recommended that the hard landscaping considers the needs of all ambulant and disabled people.

A Landscape Management and maintenance plan has been submitted and was reviewed by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer and Biodiversity Officer who have considered the plan acceptable and reasonable to approve. They have advised that it is written to the required standard and includes approximate references to existing British Standards on horticulture, grounds maintenance and arboriculture. If any changes are proposed to the final landscaping design or content does change the management and maintenance plan will need to be amended and submitted for further approval before any physical work commences on the ground. Given this a final plan would be secured by s106 and to ensure that the proposed benefits derived from the landscaping and communal areas are managed and maintained and in perpetuity which can be secured by a s106.

16.13 Detailed soft and hard landscaping plans, including a full planting schedule and tree planting along with details of any green roofs would be secured by conditions (Conditions 19-25). A final management and maintenance plan including that it is secured in perpetuity would be secured by obligations via a s106. This is to ensure the landscaping and tree planting is of a high quality and provide greater amenity value than the existing landscaping and that opportunities for ‘greening’ the site can be maximised, biodiversity gained and provide suitable plant and tree species for the location.

16.14 Biodiversity 16.15 The site is not located within area designated as a Site of Importance for nature Conservation (SINC). Officers note the representations received raise concern regarding impact on ecology and biodiversity of the site, loss of wildlife, including birds (such as long tailed tits). The applicant has submitted an ecological walkover report prepared by AA Environmental Limited.

The report indicates that no evidence of badger or their setts was recorded on the site or in the surrounding area. With regards to bats the report states that ‘there were no buildings/structures present on the site to offer any roosting opportunities for bats. The majority of the trees were considered to provide negligible roosting opportunities for bats with the more mature oak assessed to provide low roosting potential, due to its age but lack of any obvious PRFs. The site, due to its restricted size and location in a well-lit and built-up area only provided limited foraging habitat for bats’.

16.16 With regards to Herpetofauna the report states that ‘there were no ponds on the site and therefore no breeding opportunities for amphibians. The site, being dominated by dense scrub and individual trees creating heavily shaded conditions, does not provide suitable terrestrial habitat for any species of herpetofauna. The site is located in a built-up area of London and lacks any direct connectivity to any semi-natural habitat within the surrounding area. In addition, despite a careful search of the site, no species of herpetofauna was found sheltering under any refugia lifted’.

16.17 In terms of other wildlife apart from evidence of a fox and few common species of birds (a long tailed tits are considered a common bird), either recorded on the site or flying overhead no other species of note were recorded.

16.18 The report indicates a series of mitigation measures, that should be implemented to reduce any impact the development proposals may have on local wildlife. It also indicates that there is an opportunity to implement some enhancement measures to increase the nature conservation value of the site in the long term. The measures indicated are as follows:

• If any mature trees to be felled should be by competent Tree Surgeon aware of current legislation protecting bats and their roosts. In unlikely event bats encountered then works should stop immediately and Natural England or AAe contacted so appropriate advice can be provided.

• In the unlikely event that any evidence of Japanese knotweed is recorded, works in the area should stop and the AAe or the Environment Agency contacted.

• Potential bird nesting habitat – site clearance works should be timed to avid main bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) but if not possible, a check should be carried out prior to any clearance works to ensure no active nests are present and that check is done by qualified ecologist. Secured by condition 2.

• To protect any vegetation to be retained, suitable fencing may be required at certain locations to reduce the possibility of any damage and minimise accidental damage, any overhanging branches should be pruned back to suitable live growth points to be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced specialist and should conform to current industry best practice, i.e. BS 3998: 2010 ‘Tree Work - Recommendations’. • Where any new planting is proposed it should aim to use native species, but where this is not practicable then species of known value for wildlife can be used. In particular, flowering plants will be of benefit to invertebrate species and shrubs and trees may provide nesting opportunities for birds once they become established. Green roofs will also be included, which will provide additional habitat for a range of species.

• Any boundary treatment should be designed to promote permeability of the site to minimise fragmentation and allow free movement of wildlife throughout the site, for example by strengthening/enhancing the existing boundary vegetation, planting up a series of new hedgerows and/or installing post and rail fences. These measures will strengthen habitat connectivity and provide additional foraging habitat, cover and nesting opportunities. If close boarded fences are required for security reasons these should be minimised and raised slightly off the ground (c. 150-200 mm) to allow animals to pass underneath.

• The site could be further enhanced by providing roosting and nesting opportunities for bats and birds by installing a series of bat and bird boxes. Any boxes installed will be positioned in accordance with good practice. Condition (condition 27) imposed

• Any new lighting to be introduced should be designed to minimise light spillage and pollution and not directed onto any bird/bat boxes installed. Condition (condition 15) imposed

16.19 The Ecological report was reviewed by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. The Officer considered that the report as to the current ecological value of the application site is acceptable and indicates that the development would not have a significant adverse ecological impact. To minimise any potential risks to protected species during site clearance it is recommend that the recommendations contained in the submitted Ecological report are followed as to procedures and protocols. Condition (condition 15 and 27) recommended.

16.20 Draft London Plan Policy G1 (Green Infrastructure) part D seeks that proposals incorporate appropriate elements of Green infrastructure such as street trees, green roofs. The proposed building will have flat roofs and the intention is to provide green roofs at various levels. This approach is supported but we would also recommend that these are biodiverse living or brown roofs wherever possible. A biodiverse living roof design is an opportunity to compensate for any loss of existing brownfield habitats on the ground proposed to be removed. Further details regarding the design and construction of the green roofs will need to be secured by condition (condition 25 and 26). It is recommended that an informative be included that the applicant look at providing biodiverse living or brown roofs where possible.

16.21 Net Biodiversity Gain 16.22 Draft London Plan Policy G6 (Biodiversity and access to nature) part D seeks that proposals manage impacts on biodiversity and aim to secure net biodiversity gain. The landscaping proposes a high level of biodiversity and the proposed development would aim to secure net biodiversity gain.

16.23 The landscape design includes a communal garden with biodiverse planting (to offer an ecological and varied palette throughout the seasons), community horticulture beds for fruit and vegetable growing and existing trees have been retained where possible. Details have been provided on proposed tree and plant species. The landscape design also includes log piles, bird boxes and bug boxes for biodiversity and proposed maintenance plans have been provided.

16.24 An Ecological report has been provided demonstrating that the ecological value of the site and protection has been addressed from the start of the development process. 16.25 Whilst the landscape design has been outlined, the applicant has not demonstrated that net biodiversity gain has been achieved. To demonstrate compliance with Draft London Plan Policies G1 and G6, a pre commencement and prior to first occupation condition (condition 28) is recommended that details of net biodiversity gain shall be submitted, and evidence shall be submitted to demonstrate that net biodiversity has been achieved.

16.26 Urban Greening Factor

16.27 Draft London Plan Policy G5 (urban greening) requires proposals within boroughs to develop an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) to identify the appropriate amount of urban greening required within developments. For residential development this is an Urban Greening Factor of 0.4.

16.28 Urban greening covers a wide range of options including, but not limited to, street trees, green roofs, green walls, and rain gardens. It can provide a range of benefits including amenity space, enhanced biodiversity, addressing the urban heat island effect, sustainable drainage and amenity – the latter being especially important in the most densely developed parts of the city where traditional green space is limited.

16.29 The site area is 2,674sqm, the proposed landscape design and calculations submitted demonstrate that the proposal would successfully achieve the total urban greening factor of 0.4 for this residential development. The scheme incorporates a range of green roofs, flower rich perennial planting, hedges, rain gardens, green amenity spaces and permeable paving. Therefore, the proposal meets the requirements of the draft London Plan Policy G5. To validate the measures at the as built stage a condition (condition 29) is recommended that evidence is provided to demonstrate to illustrate the development has achieved an urban greening factor of 0.4 or more.

17 Transport 17.1 Policies T3, T6, T7 and T8 of the Local Plan seek to ensure that proposals for development have a limited impact on the performance and safety of the highway network and that sufficient and appropriate car parking and cycle storage is provided whilst meeting objectives to encourage sustainable transport and to reduce dependence on the private car. If development would have an unacceptable transport impact, it should be refused in the absence of mitigation measures to make the development acceptable.

17.2 Site context 17.3 The site is within a CPZ (Thornton ‘R’ (Monday to Friday 08:30am-5:30pm, Cavendish Road – Monday-Saturday 9:30am – 5:30pm)) has a PTAL rating of 3, indicating a good level of access to public transport. The site is located approximately 1.2km north-west of Balham National Rail and Underground Station and approximately 1.2 km north-east of Streatham Hill Rail Station. The closest bus stop is located approximately 200m from the site which provides services to Balham and Streatham.

17.4 Sustainable travel 17.5 LLP Policy T1 states that Lambeth will promote a sustainable pattern of development in the borough, minimising the need to travel and reducing dependence on the private car.

17.6 No vehicular access is proposed into the site as part of the application. Pedestrian access is proposed from Thornton Road.

17.7 Cycle Parking 17.8 LLP Policy T3 requires development to provide cycle parking in accordance with London Plan Requirements. A total of twenty six (26) cycle parking spaces will be provided for residents and four (4) cycle parking spaces for visitors in line with the minimum standards set out in the DLP Policy T5 and Table 10.2.

17.9 Of the 26 cycle parking spaces proposed 20 cycle spaces are proposed to be accommodated within two tier stacker and remaining 2 spaces accommodated within horizontal Sheffield stands to provide parking for larger cycles. The two tier stands aisle width would be below the minimum outlined within the London Cycling Design Standards of 2500mm. However, the specification details provided state the minimum access required for these stands would be 1700mm. From the lowered frame an aisle width of 2244mm will be provided. This would be considered acceptable in this instance. The cycle parking store is proposed close to the entrance and will be accessed via a door which is accessed via gate along the side elevation.

17.10 Individual cycle stores are proposed for each of the ground floor units, that would accommodate 2 cycle spaces per unit (4 horizontal cycle spaces in total).

17.11 A further 4 cycle parking spaces are provided for visitors opposite the main entrance to the site in the form of two Sheffield Stands.

17.12 Further details regarding the specification of the proposed cycle parking stores and visitor spaces including cycle parking dimensions for the visitor spaces and individual stores for future occupiers, can be secured by condition (Condition 30).

17.13 The representation received by Ward Councillors asked that Members ensure the development brings commensurate benefit in terms of amenity to residents affected, through consideration of a wide range of measures, one of which was to include the provision of cycle storage for the residents of the existing building at No.200-262 Hydethorpe Road. There is limited opportunity to design a cycle store that integrates into the existing building and the site is limited with regards to where the cycle parking stores could go. In this instance the applicant has indicated 6 cycle parking spaces within a store located to the front of the site. Whilst the number of spaces to be provided are limited the proposal would still be beneficial with regards to promoting sustainable travel given there is no existing cycle parking spaces currently provided. Details of this including location of the store would be secured by condition (Condition 30).

17.14 Car parking 17.15 The site is located within a CPZ and the proposed development proposes no off street parking. Mindful of the local high quality public transport links/provision and the need to reduce dependence on private car use in line with LLP Policy T7 the proposed development would be car free with an obligation secured by through the s106 agreement to remove the eligibility to apply for residential parking permits.

17.16 Blue badge parking 17.17 DLP Policy T6.1(g) states that disabled persons parking should be provided for new residential developments. The proposed development would convert one existing parking resident bay to one disabled parking bay. The parking survey results showed an average of 65% parking stress across the area surveyed (64% on 13th Nov and 66% on 14th Nov). Thornton Road recorded a parking stress of 54% and 55% over the two nights with spare capacity of 35/36 spaces. A £10,000 financial contribution towards the provision of the disabled parking bay the implementation and maintenance of the on-street parking bay would be secured by a s106 agreement.

17.18 Car Club 17.19 LLP Policy T7 states that Car Clubs are required, where appropriate, preferably on-street to facilitate ease of public use. Policy T7(a) also confirms that Car Clubs and pool car schemes will also be promoted as an alternative to car parking and individual car ownership. For the proposed development, provision of Car Club membership will be required for all residents (one membership per residential unit) from first occupation of the development. This would be secured by s106 Agreement.

17.20 Servicing 17.21 A delivery and servicing plan has been submitted and considered acceptable by the Council’s transport Officers. Delivery vehicles will stop on Thornton Road in line with Lambeth’s loading rules and would be in the same arrangement as for existing houses along Thornton Road. It is noted that the site is close to a school and it is recommended that where possible that residents arrange deliveries outside of school drop off/collection times. A condition (condition 31) is recommended that a final delivery and servicing plan be submitted and an informative (informative 11) that the final plan make provision where possible for deliveries to occur outside school drop off/collection times.

17.22 Waste and Recycling 17.23 The proposal would provide a refuse and recycling store located to the front of the development adjacent the boundary with No.22 Thornton Road. In terms of capacity provision has been made for 1x 1260L bin for recyclables (required 840L (14x60L)) and 1x 600L + 1x 1100L bins for general waste (required 1440L (4x60L+10x120L) in accordance with the Council’s waste and recycling storage and collection requirements (2013). The store would be located within 30m of the recommended travel distance from the resident’s properties. A new drop kerb on the footway is proposed between the bin store and the road to allow a refuse vehicle to access the site. The Council’s waste contractor Veolia has reviewed the proposal and raised no objection and the Councils Transport officer has considered the drop kerb to be acceptable. Full details of the refuse and recycling storage would be secured by condition (Condition 6). A further condition (Condition 32) is recommended that details of a refuse and recycling strategy are submitted.

17.24 Network impacts 17.25 The applicant has submitted an outline Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) which provides details about the construction logistics/methods. Construction related traffic will enter the site from Thornton Road and enter the site once an access has been implemented. This would lead to the suspension and relocation of approximately five on-street parking bays and a temporary dropped kerb pedestrian crossing required. Once the development reaches the latter stages vehicles will stop along Thornton Road.

17.26 With regards to the Whitehouse Preparatory School and Woodentops Kindergaten the outline plan indicates that the proposed construction works would not impact on the operation of these facilities, with utilisation of traffic marshals as appropriate, the movement of construction vehicles will be managed and restrictions on large delivery vehicle deliveries during school peaks as part of a detailed CLP. Any deliveries to the site are intended to be booked in advance to ensure no congestion occurs.

17.27 The outline CMP also includes measures to control dust and noise and makes a commitment to considerate behaviour and will put in place process through which local residents can contact the contractor/developer to report any problems.

17.28 The Council’s highway officer has reviewed the outline CLP and are satisfied with the proposal subject to details regarding the notification of neighbours. Given further details are still to be worked up and the close proximity to surrounding residential properties and schools, a final Construction logistics Plan would be required to be submitted, prior to the start of any works. This would be secured by condition (condition 32). An informative (informative 4) is recommended inform them of the necessity to consult the Highway Team in order to obtain necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the public highway, road closures etc

17.29 The applicant will also need to enter into a s278 agreement with regards to works that will affect the highway including reinstatement works. This would be secured by s106.

17.30 Mitigation 17.31 As discussed above, the proposed development is considered acceptable with regard to transport and highway impacts subject to the following measures that would mitigate any transport impacts of the proposal:

• Car parking permit free designation for the residential units (Planning obligation) • 3 year car club membership for each dwelling (Planning obligation) • Financial contribution of £10,000 towards provision of 1 x blue badge car parking spaces (Planning obligation) • Enter into a s278 agreement for highways works (Planning obligation) • Final construction management/logistics plan (Condition 33) • Details of cycle parking (Condition 30) • Details of refuse and recycling (Condition 6) • Submission of a waste and refuse recycling strategy (Condition 32) • Delivery and servicing plan (Condition 31) • Air quality and dust management plan (Condition 40)

18 Sustainable Design and Construction

18.1 The NPPF states that proposed developments should promote the use of renewable energy where technology is viable, economic and where the social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. From 1 October 2017, LLP Policy 5.2 and DLP Policy SI 2 requires major residential developments to achieve zero carbon status through a combination of on-site measures (35%) and cash-in lieu contributions to a ring-fenced carbon off-set fund (65%).

18.2 LLP Policy 5.3 of the LP states that development proposals should demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal and should meet the minimum standards set out in the Mayor’s ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ SPG (2006).

18.3 Policy 5.2 of the LP and Policy SI 2 of the DLP states that development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the Mayor’s energy hierarchy, namely; using less energy, supplying energy efficiently and using renewable energy. The London Plan requires that all major developments meet specific targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction in buildings. These targets are expressed as minimum improvements over the Target Emission Rate (TER) as set within Part L of the Building Regulations (2013). 18.4 LLP Policy EN4 requires all development to meet high standards of sustainable design and construction feasibility, having regard to the scale, nature and form of the development proposal. Proposals should demonstrate in a supporting statement that these standards are integral to the design, construction and operation of the development.

18.5 An Energy and Sustainability Statement along with an Overheating assessment has been submitted as part of the proposal and reviewed by the council’s consultants (Bioregional) and raised no objection subject to conditions and financial contribution secured via s106.

18.6 Decentralised Energy 18.7 There are no existing heat networks in the vicinity of the proposed development. The site is 3km from the nearest proposed heat network, and the applicant has also provided robust justification why a site- wide heating system is not viable for the site.

18.8 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions The applicant has provided an Energy Statement compliant with the Draft London Plan Policies and GLA’s Energy Assessment Guidance Energy Hierarchy. For the Be Lean stage, the report states in the table that a carbon emissions reduction of 10.1% has been achieved, but in the body of text it is stated as 18.6%, and in the carbon offset table it is stated as 11.9%. No Be Clean measures are proposed. For Be Green, ASHPs are proposed for space heating and domestic hot water and an array with 29 PV panels is proposed for the roof. The Energy Statement demonstrates that the measures introduced have resulted in a reduction in regulated CO₂ of 71.9% (confirmed in email dated 18/05/2020) using SAP 10 CO₂ emissions factors, exceeding the minimum 35% site target. The remaining regulated carbon dioxide emissions would be off set with a payment of £12,825 to reduce the emissions to an equivalent of zero. This may need to be re-calculated when the final carbon emissions reduction is confirmed. This would be secured by s106.

18.9 The applicant has demonstrated that site-wide improved energy efficiency measures result in an improvement against the Part L 2013 Baseline for the Be Lean stage of 11.9% (confirmed in email dated 18/05/2020).

18.10 A condition (condition 34) is recommended a final Energy Statement is submitted to confirm the carbon emissions reductions achieved at each stage of the Energy Hierarchy. This would be prior to commencement of development and at prior to first occupation to validate the carbon reduction at the as built stage. The financial contribution of £12,825 with the actual amount to be determined following final emissions carbon reduction being confirmed to be secured via a s106. Subject to these conditions and securing the financial contributions the proposal would comply with LLP Policy 5.2 and DLP Policy SI2.

18.11 Sustainable design and construction 18.12 The applicant has provided an Energy Statement and a Sustainability Statement compliant with the Draft London Plan Policies and Lambeth Local Plan Policies with regards to sustainable design and construction. These reports demonstrate that sustainability has been considered for the design, construction and operation of the development and that the proposals are compliant with LLP Policy EN4 and DLP Policy SI2.

18.13 The overheating analysis was undertaken using the London Heathrow weather file and the results for the testing for DSY1, DSY2 and DSY3 scenarios have been provided (and therefore CIBSE TM49 has been considered), which consider the urban heat island effect. 18.14 The cooling hierarchy has been followed to demonstrate the measures incorporated to address overheating: highly efficient building fabric and air tightness; reduction of heat entering the building (g value of 0.45) and balcony overhangs; thermal mass of concrete slabs between floors proposed; windows openable for natural ventilation; and continuous mechanical extract ventilation. No active cooling is required.

18.15 The applicant has demonstrated in the Overheating Assessment that all rooms tested demonstrate an acceptable level of overheating based on the CIBSE TM59 (and the sample tested is representative of the building) and the flats tested pass both criteria 1 and 2 for CIBSE TM59.

18.16 The applicant has confirmed that water efficient fixtures and fittings will be installed, and the water efficiency calculator provided shows a total of 104.9 litres/person/day. To ensure that this is achieved at the As-Built stage, a condition (condition 36) details confirming this are submitted.

18.17 The applicant has confirmed that water saving, and water metering measures are proposed, demonstrating compliance with DLP Policy SI5. To ensure that this is achieved a condition (condition 35) that details confirming this are submitted.

18.18 Details of a green roof can be secured by condition (condition 25 and 26). In order to demonstrate compliance with LLP Policy EN4.

19 Other Environmental Matters

19.1 Flood Risk 19.2 LLP Policy EN5 states that flooding in the borough will be minimised through applying a sequential, risk based approach to the location of development to avoid flood risk to people and property. For all developments, it must be demonstrated that development will be safe, and where required it will reduce fluvial, tidal, surface run-off and groundwater floor risk through using appropriate flood risk measures, including the use of sustainable drainage systems.

19.3 The applicant has concluded the site to be at low risk of flooding from surface water based on Environment Agency mapping, the Council’s Flood Risk officer concurs with this assessment. On this basis there are no concerns with the principle of the proposal in terms of surface water flood risk, although paragraph 5.12 of the FRA submitted lists measures that can be used to minimise the risk of flooding from surface water, these measures should be installed/undertaken where reasonably practicable to minimise the risk of surface water inundation

19.4 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems 19.5 LLP Policy EN6 states that development proposals should ensure that the layout and design does not have a detrimental impact on floodwater flow routes across the site, and incorporate a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS) system to demonstrate that there will be a decrease in the volume and rate of run-off leaving the site.

19.6 A drainage strategy has been submitted, which has been reviewed by the Council’s Flood Risk Officer. The officer has advised that on the basis the site is at low risk of flooding from surface water there is no objection to the principle of the development.

19.7 The applicant has supplied a drainage strategy that would appear to function however officers are not satisfied with the proposed discharge rate of 2l/s. This is because part of the development will be constructed on land that is currently covered in vegetation. In such circumstances officers expect the discharge rate should be as close to the greenfield rate as is reasonably practicable, or otherwise justified. On the basis the applicant has supplied a strategy that appears to function, that it is considered that the discharge rate element can be addressed as part of the detailed design that can be imposed as a pre-commencement condition. This is to ensure the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage and interest of securing a more sustainable development and reduce impact of flooding. In this regard Conditions (condition 38 and 39) is recommended that a detailed sustainable drainage system (SuDs) strategy is submitted and details of the systems management and maintenance strategy submitted prior to first use/first occupation. Subject to conditions the proposal would accord with LLP Policies EN5 and EN6 and Government ministerial statement HCWS161 (ensure arrangements in place for ongoing maintenance).

19.8 Air Quality 19.9 The proposed development is a major development located within a borough-wide Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). DLP Policy SI 1 states that development proposals should be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor quality.

19.10 The application was accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment (AQA) that was reviewed by the Council’s Sustainability (Air Quality) officer who raised no objection subject to conditions (Condition 39,40,41).

19.11 Construction Impacts 19.12 The overall dust risk of the site is low. It is recommended that a full Air Quality and Dust Management Plan (AQDMP) is secured by condition. The AQDMP should be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of works. This is to manage and mitigate the impact of the development on the air quality and dust emissions in the area and London as a whole. This will be secured by condition (condition 40). Furthermore, an informative (informative 10) is recommended that mitigation measures for low risk sites listed in Appendix 7 of the Control of Dust and Emissions SPG should be included in the AQDMP.

19.13 Air Quality Neutral Assessment 19.14 Transport emissions were measured against benchmarks for Outer London developments, but Lambeth is Inner London, so it is recommended that the applicant re-do the air quality neutral assessment for transport to ensure that the correct assessment is completed. This can be imposed by condition (condition 41) that details are submitted prior to commencement.

19.15 Air Quality Neutrality for building emissions this has not been provided. As ASHP (Air Source Heat Pumps) is proposed to be fitted which is 100% electric and therefore zero NOx and PM10 emissions. Notwithstanding building emissions calculations should be undertaken to asses air quality neutrality to demonstrate that building emissions are below the benchmark. This would be secured by condition (Condition 40).

19.16 NRMM Low Emission Zone 19.17 The proposed development is a major development located in Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Low Emission Zone and is subject to its requirements. It is therefore recommended that an NRMM condition (condition 42) is imposed to ensure that any NRMM machinery to be used has been registered to ensure air quality has not been adversely affected by the development.

19.18 Subject to conditions indicated above the proposal would accord with DLP Policy SI 1.

19.19 Land Contamination 19.20 Policy EN4 requires adequate remedial treatment of any contaminated land. A condition (condition 43) is recommended that if during development any contamination not previously identified is found to be present then no further work shall be carried out until a remediation strategy to ensure any identified contamination

19.21 Archaeology 19.22 An Archaeological desk based assessment was submitted and reviewed by Historic England (Archaeology) along with information held in the Greater London Historic Environment Record. They advised that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest and that there is no discernible on-going archaeological interest.

19.23 Fire Strategy 19.24 DLP Policy D3 (Inclusive design) requires proposals to set out how access and inclusion will be maintained and managed, including fire evacuation procedures. DLP Policy D12 (Fire safety) states that all development proposals must achieve the highest standards of fire safety. Whilst fire safety is currently dealt with under Building Control legislation, the Planning process acts as a ‘gateway’ to the consideration of the issue and we seek to ensure that appropriate consideration has been given.

19.25 The Council’s Building Control officer has reviewed the submitted fire strategy and access and consider the approach to be reasonable and achievable. That the proposal would be subject to a final assessment of compliance would be completed when the Building Regulations application is submitted to the nominated Building Control body. This would entail the submission of the final version fire strategy and any amended plans and specifications etc.

20 Employment and Training

20.1 Policy ED14 of the Lambeth Local Plan states that planning obligations should be used to secure employment opportunities and apprenticeships arising from major developments, so that local residents are given access to the right skills training so that they can take advantage of opportunities created by new development.

20.2 The SPD on Employment and Skills (2018) sets out a ‘headline’ target of 25% of jobs generated by developments as being for local residents. The SPD envisages that an applicant will be asked to work towards delivery of that target through the carrying out of an approved employment and skills plan, which would be designed so as to include the intended target numbers and types of job opportunities. The SPD envisages an element of flexibility in how an applicant may agree to work towards delivery of employment and skills obligations, for example as regards the target mix of jobs, apprenticeships and/or bespoke employment training and support arrangements. The employment and skills plan should also set out how an applicant will aim to deliver young people’s training and careers initiatives.

20.3 Given the nature of the proposed development, it is proposed in this case that employment and skills obligations are sought in respect of the construction phase only. This would be secured by s106 agreement.

20.4 As part of a section 106 agreement, the Council will require the applicant to commit to the completion of a construction phase employment and skills plan and the delivery of the obligations contained in that plan. In addition, a financial contribution will also be required towards the cost of vocational training and employment support, which is calculated on the basis of £6,500 for every 10 residential units provided. This contribution has been calculated to be £9,750 and will be secured via s106 agreement.

21 Planning Obligations and CIL

21.1 The 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 the Development Viability SPD (adopted 2017) and the Employment and Skills SPD (adopted 2018).

21.2 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.

21.3 Officers are finalising the mechanism by which to secure the proposed obligations through a s106 and this will be reported in the addendum. The planning obligations proposed to be secured through the S106 Agreement are as follows:

Item Details Affordable housing • Securing 6 units (46.5% by HBR) of affordable housing with the following – on-site provision mix: I. 2 x affordable rented units (2x3 bed equivalent to 10HBR) 50% by HBR) II. 4 x Shared Ownership units (2x1 bed equivalent to 4HBR and 2x2 bed equivalent to 6HBR (total 10 HBR)) III. Tenure Split - 33% social rent / 66% intermediate mix by unit (50% / 50% by habitable room) • Social Target Rent Levels in line with Council’s Tenancy Strategy secured. • Shared ownership - affordability thresholds secured • Early Stage Viability Review will be triggered if the scheme is not implemented within two years • Late stage review 75% of sales of market units (should include Ground Rents if not abolished, any reduction in development costs and any improvements in private sales values). Prevent any further occupation of the development until review is completed and any additional affordable housing delivered, or commuted sum is paid. • Where a viability review demonstrates an improvement in a scheme’s viability, a percentage split of the increase in the scheme’s value between the developer (20%) and the council (80%) up to level of policy compliant scheme. Trees, Landscaping • A financial contribution of £3,600 towards 6 trees; their planting, materials, and communal watering and their maintenance for five years. 4 of the trees to be located space on the strip of land outside the red line boundary fronting Thornton Road and the other two trees planted at locations nearby along Thornton Road. • A final landscape management and maintenance plan is submitted and secured in perpetuity. • Secure access to the communal areas in perpetuity for both future and existing occupiers. Transport • Car parking permit free designation for the residential units • 3 year car club membership for each dwelling • Financial contribution of £10,000 towards provision of 1 x blue badge car parking spaces • Enter into a s278 agreement for highways works agreement with regards to works that will affect the highway including reinstatement works. Employment and • Employment and Skills Plan to cover reasonable endeavours to secure 25 Skills per cent of jobs created by the development during construction • Employment and skills financial contribution of £9,750 to be used towards vocational training and employment support Carbon Offset • Securing a carbon offset contribution of approximately of £12,825 with the actual amount to be determined following final emissions carbon reduction being confirmed. Other • Monitoring fee of up to 5% of total financial obligations.

21.4 If the application is approved and the development is implemented, a liability to pay the Lambeth Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will arise.

21.5 Expenditure of the majority of a future CIL receipt will be applied towards Borough infrastructure needs in accordance with the applicable policies and procedures relating to expenditure decisions.

21.6 Allocation of CIL monies to particular infrastructure projects is not a matter for consideration in the determination of planning applications. Separate governance arrangements are being put in place for Borough Infrastructure needs.

22 CONCLUSION

22.1 The scheme would deliver a number of planning benefits, by way of provision of additional housing that includes a good affordable housing offer, improved useable Estate amenity land. Improved landscaping and biodiversity enhancements. Financial contributions will be secured with regards offsite improvements by way of 6 trees to be planted on highway land. In terms of sustainability there would be a carbon reduction of 71.9% and remaining regulated carbon dioxide emissions to zero would be off set with a payment secured by s106. Employment benefits include a financial contribution of £9,750, which would be used towards the employment and training of local residents and during the build period there would be an employment and skills plan to help local people access job opportunities arising from the proposed development (at construction phase).

22.2 The development would be sited on an area of Estate amenity land that includes a former ball court. In terms of quantum this proposed development would result in a net loss of Estate amenity land of approximately 410 sqm of the 917sqm inaccessible Estate amenity land. Regeneration and community benefits would be achieved. The proposal seeks to provide enhancements to the quality, usability, and function of the wider Estate amenity land including landscape and biodiversity improvements. With regards to the ball court that has not been used for a number of years it is considered there is adequate provision of sports pitches, ball courts and other recreational space in close proximity to the site. Subject to details being secured through conditions and planning obligations secured via s106. Officers consider that the applicant has demonstrated that distinct regeneration and community benefits and compensatory measures have been achieved within the site and immediate surroundings. The proposal therefore has met the test and accords with Policy EN1(a)(ii) of the Lambeth Local Plan.

22.3 The proposal includes 14 residential units and would deliver 6 affordable housing units which equates to 46.5% by habitable room on site, comprising two affordable rented units and four intermediate units (Shared Ownership). The tenure split would be 33/66% respectively by unit and 50/50% by habitable room. The application was viability tested and it was considered that the proposed affordable housing offer of 46.5% affordable housing by habitable room and the tenure split 50% affordable rent /50% intermediate (shared ownership) with an offsite contribution to be the reasonable amount deliverable.

22.4 The bulk, scale and massing of the proposed development is considered acceptable and the height is broadly proportionate with the prevailing building heights in the vicinity of the application site. The proposed development would not result in any harm to nearby heritage assets.

22.5 The proposed development would provide acceptable standards of residential accommodation it would meet relevant internal residential space standards and the quantum and quality of private and communal amenity space proposed is considered acceptable. The dwellings have good levels of daylight/sunlight, privacy and outlook. It is considered that the proposal would not impact unacceptably on the amenity neighbouring properties.

22.6 The applicant has provided indicative details with regards to hard and soft landscaping with an intention to provide a balance between amenity and biodiversity. A Landscape Management and Maintenance plan has been submitted which is considered acceptable and reasonable. The current ecological value of the application site is acceptable and indicates that the development would not have a significant adverse ecological impact. Furthermore, it is indicated that an urban greening factor of 0.4 will be achieved. Subject to conditions and securing planning obligations and financial contributions the proposals are considered to be acceptable.

22.7 Sufficient commitment is made to sustainable design and construction, reducing carbon emissions and the use of renewable energy technologies. The development would be suitably mitigated in terms of its impact upon local infrastructure. In addition, the development would not impact unacceptably upon the function and safety of the highway network (both pedestrian and vehicular).

22.8 The development would be subject to a range of section 106 obligations that would reasonably mitigate the otherwise unacceptable impacts of the development. The package of section106 contributions has been negotiated having full regard to the nature of the development, to the normal expectations conferred upon developers by the various planning policy documents, and to the statutory tests for section 106 obligations set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

22.9 Officers consider that the proposed development would be in compliance with the development plan for the borough and 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 proposed development, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

23 EQUALITY DUTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

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

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

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

24 RECOMMENDATION

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 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in this report.

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Draft Decision Notice

Appendix 2: List of consultees (statutory and Other Consultees)

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

Your Ref: Our Ref: 20/01264/RG3

Homes For Lambeth c/o Miss Lucy Aspden 33 Margaret Street London W1G 0JD

10th June 2020

DRAFT DECISION NOTICE

Dear Homes For Lambeth

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990.

PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT

The London Borough of Lambeth hereby permits under the above mentioned Acts and associated orders the development referred to in the schedule set out below subject to any conditions imposed therein and in accordance with the plans submitted, save in so far as may otherwise be required by the said conditions.

Application Number: 20/01264/RG3 Date of Application: 07.04.2020 Date of Decision: 10.06.2020

Proposed Development At: Land At No. 200-262 Hydethorpe Road And Bound By Thornton Road London SW12

For: Construction of a part 4 / part 5 storey building comprising 14 residential units, associated cycle parking, car parking, landscaping together with associated works.

Approved Plans 1123 P 0001 Rev C;1123 P 0100 Rev A;1123 P 0110 Rev A;1123 P 1000 Rev B;1123 P 1001 Rev A;1123 P 2000;1123 P 2001;1123 P 2100;1123 P 3000 Rev A;1123 P 3001 Rev A;1123 P 2200;1123 P 5000 Rev B;1123 P 4000 Rev A;1123 P 4001 Rev A;1123 P 4002 Rev A;1123 P 4003;1123 P 4004;1123 P 4005;1123 P 4006;1123 P 4007;1123 P 4008;Design and Access Statement Revision A, dated February2020, prepared by FBM Architects;Planning Statement, dated March 2020, prepared by Savills;Air Quality Assessment (Ref. 24020- HFLHydethorpeRd(a).9, Rev1), dated February 2020, prepared by Mayer Brown;Arboricultural Implications Report (Ref. SJA air 19267-01),dated February 2020, prepared by SJA Trees;Archaeological desk Based Assessment (ref. JAC26081 seconddraft), dated February 2020, prepared by RPS;Daylight and Sunlight Assessment, dated 02/04/2020, preparedby eb7;Sunlight Amenity Study, Ref.03 SA01 01, dated 01/06/2020,prepared by eb7;Dynamic Overheating Assessment (v.2) Final, dated 14/02/2020, prepared by Hodkinson;Ecological Walkover Report, prepared by AAe;Energy Statement (v.2) final, dated February 2020, preparedby Hodkinson; Email dated 18/05/2020; Fire Strategy Report (Issue 1, Ref. BWC/FS/1501/V1), dated7th February 2020, prepared by BWC;Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Rev A, Ref.193830-01A), dated February 2020, prepared by ArdentConsulting Engineers;Heritage Statement (issue no.3 Ref. NGR 529636 173534),dated 13/02/2020, prepared by MOLA;Landscape Design (D-001, Rev P3), dated March 2020, preparedby outerspace;Noise Assessment (Final, Ref. 193830-04), dated 13/02/2020,prepared by Ardent Consulting Engineers; Outline

Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180 PO Box 734 Facsimile 020 7926 1171 Winchester www.lambeth.gov.uk SO23 5DG [email protected]

PERG3Z

Construction Logistic Plan (Rev A, Ref. 193830-03A)dated 17/02/2020, prepared by Ardent Consulting Engineers;Sustainability Statement (v.2) Final, dated 14/02/2020,prepared by Hodkinson;Viability Assessment, dated February 2020, prepared bySavills;Savills response to Avison young report, dated April 2020,prepared by Savills;Statement of Community Involvement, Revised April 2020prepared by Your Shout;Josta 2-Tier bicycle Racks Specification by Cycle-Works;Photo Cycle wall mounted railing;Landscape Management Plan, Ref. OUT-L- SP-00001, Rev: P02,dated May 2020, prepared by Outerspace;Transport Statement Ref. HfLLambeth, dated 13/02/2020,prepared by Mayer Brown;Technical Note (ref.HfLLambeth.1), dated 14/05/2020,prepared by Mayer Brown.

Conditions

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than three years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 In accordance with approved plans

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

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

3 The development hereby approved, shall provide:

1,827sqm of Estate amenity land.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and ensure secured for the long term (Policy EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015)).

4 Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings or supporting information hereby approved, prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, samples and a schedule of the materials to be used in the external elevations, including on site samples of all external brickwork (including pointing, bonding and special brick detailing) erected on site for inspection, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development hereby permitted shall be thereafter built in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory, it maintains the special interest and that it protects or enhances the character and appearance of the Lambeth Walk conservation area (policies Q2, Q5, Q7, Q8, and Q20 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

5 5. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings or supporting information hereby approved, prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, drawings showing all external construction detailing of all development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drawings shall include details of:

Detailed elevations Details of windows (including technical details, elevations, reveal depths, plans and cross sections) Details of terraces and balconies (including soffits), balustrades and privacy screens Details of entrances, canopies (canopy arch), front porch enclosure and doors (including technical details, elevations, surrounds, reveal depths, plans and sections) Details of roof treatments, cills and parapets Details of rainwater goods (including locations and fixings) Details and location of rainwater pipes, flues and vents Details of any the privacy screen proposed The property name, number and location

The details set out above shall be provided at 1:5 scale (including sections) or 1:20 elevational studies whichever is most suitable for the detail in question. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details and drawings thus approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory, it maintains the special interest and that it protects or enhances the character and appearance of the Lambeth Walk conservation area (policies Q2, Q5, Q7, Q8, and Q20 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

6 Notwithstanding the details on the drawings and documents hereby approved, no above ground construction works shall commence until details of the waste and recycling storage (including elevations, floor plans, location plan) have been 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 first occupation of any part of the building hereby permitted. The waste storage areas 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 Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

7 Prior to commencement of above ground works, a scheme for the siting and design of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted commences and retained for the duration of the development.

Reason: In order to ensure high quality landscaping for the boundaries of the site in the interests of visual amenity (policy Q15 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

8 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any part of the development hereby permitted, without planning permission first being granted.

Reason: To ensure that the visual impact of telecommunication equipment upon the surrounding area can be considered. (Policies T10, Q6 and Q7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

9 Groundfloor units 1 and 2 as shown on drawing 1123 P 1000 B shall be constructed to comply with Part M4 (3) of the Building Regulations. Any communal areas and accesses serving the M4 (3) compliant Wheelchair User Dwelling(s) shall also comply with Part M4 (3). All other residential units, communal areas and accesses hereby permitted shall be constructed to comply with Part M4 (2) of the Building Regulations. The units shall be retained as such, unless otherwise approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.

Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, older people and others with mobility constraints (Policies 3.8 of the London Plan (2016), Policy D7 of the Draft London Plan(2019) and Q1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the guidance in the London Plan Housing SPG (2016)).

10 Notwithstanding the details on the drawings and supporting documents hereby approved, prior to the commencement of above ground works, detailed drawings (at scale 1:20 and 1:100) of the how the ground floor residential units 1 and 2 located within the proposed Building, and the units on the groundfloor of the existing building adjacent to communal gardens and/or play areas will be screened (incorporates planted screening/raised beds) and unit 14 terrace will be screened shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the details thus approved.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development to safeguard the character and appearance of the site and the local area and protect residential amenity of future occupiers (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

11 Prior to commencement of above ground works a scheme of noise and vibration attenuation and ventilation sufficient to prevent overheating and maintain thermal comfort and ensure sound insulation is upgraded where bedrooms are located adjoining or below living rooms shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall achieve at least 5 dB greater sound reduction than the values given in Section 0 of the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document E Resistance to the Passage of Sound. 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 within 3 months of first occupation. All work must be carried out by suitably qualified person and the approved noise, vibration attenuation and ventilation

measures shall thereafter be retained and maintained in working order for the duration of the use in accordance with the approved details

Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

12 Prior to the commencement of building works above ground, full details (including elevational drawings) and a tabulated Schedule of any proposed internal and external plant equipment and trunking, including building services plant, ventilation and filtration equipment and exhaust ducting / ventilation flues, 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.

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

13 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 5 dB less than background. 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 Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

14 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. Any additional steps required to mitigate the noise impact shall be identified and implemented within 3 months of operation commencing. The post installation noise assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details as approved shall thereafter be permanently retained.

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

15 Notwithstanding the details on the drawings and supporting information hereby approved prior to the first occupation of any part of the buildings, full details of the external lighting strategy for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning Authority in accordance with the Institute of Lighting Professional's Guidance notes for the reduction of obstructive light. The scheme must be designed by a suitably qualified person in accordance with the recommendations for environmental zone E4 in the ILP document "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011.

Any lighting should be designed to minimise light spillage and not directed onto any bird/bat boxes installed.

Before commencement of operation of the approved lighting scheme the applicant shall appoint a suitably qualified member of the institute of lighting professionals (ILP) to validate that the lighting scheme as installed conforms to the recommendations for environmental zone E4 in the ILP document "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011

Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015.)

16 No parts of the roof of the buildings hereby approved shall be used as a balcony or terrace nor shall any access be formed thereto (other than the areas designed as roof terraces and balconies as shown on the approved drawings or for maintenance purposes) without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of residential occupiers (Policy Q2 Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

17 Notwithstanding the details on the drawings and supporting information hereby approved, prior to the commencement of above ground level works of the development hereby permitted, a detailed plan of the proposed children's play area including all play equipment shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details and the children's playground shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure that high quality children's play area is provided (Policy H5 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 and the London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation' 2012).

18 The development hereby permitted shall incorporate security measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the development in accordance with the principles and objectives of Secured by Design. Details of these measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of above ground works and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation.

Reason: To ensure the safety and security of future occupiers and adjoining properties and prevent crime and disorder occurring within and in the immediate vicinity of the site, in the interest of public safety. (Policy Q3 of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

19 Prior to occupation of the development a satisfactory Secured by Design inspection must take place. The resulting Secured by Design certificate shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure the safety and security of future occupiers and adjoining properties and prevent crime and disorder occurring within and in the immediate vicinity of the site, in the interest of public safety. (Policy Q3 of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

20 No trees other than those shown to be removed on the approved plan Drwg No. SJA TPP 19267-041 (identified as T17, T18, T19, T20, T21, T22, T23 and G1) shall be felled, damaged or otherwise disturbed. All tree protection measures shall be carried out in line with the specifications contained in the approved document Arboricultural implications report prepared by SJA Tree Consultants (ref. SJA air 19267-01, February 2020). The tree protection measures shall be erected before demolition commences and remain in place and effective for the duration of the development and only dismantled and / or removed following the written agreement of the council.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies Q2, Q9 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)

21 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an Arboricultural Method Statement in accordance with BS5837:2012 relating to a) groundworks within the Root Protection Area of retained trees for any construction activity (including the installation of hard surfaces) b) the installation of all service and utility routes within the Root Protection Area of all retained trees c) details of a pre-commencement meeting (to include the Tree Officer) together with a schedule of all confirmed site supervision and tree protection monitoring shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the council. Thereafter, the respective Method Statements shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies Q2, Q9 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

22 Notwithstanding the details on the drawings and supporting information hereby approved, prior to the commencement of above ground level works a specification of all proposed soft and hard landscaping and tree planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of soft landscaping shall include details of a diversity of species, that includes native species, includes variation in size see more larger species on the site. The scheme of soft landscaping shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. The specification shall include all green roof details. In addition, all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS8545:2014 and current landscape best practice.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and appropriate landscape scheme relative to the development in order to comply with Policy Q9 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015.

23 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of

the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and appropriate landscape scheme relative to the development in order to comply with Policy Q9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan 2015.

24 The mitigation measures outlined within the approved ecological walkover report (ref: 193383) prepared by AA Environmental Limited, dated February 2020 with regards potential bird nesting and site clearance procedures and protocol shall be implemented prior to any site clearance works. The potential bird nesting check should be done by a qualified ecologist.

Reason: To minimise any potential risks to protected species during site clearance and biodiversity measures within development (Policy EN1 of Lambeth Local Plan)

25 Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings, a detailed specification of the green roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all elements of the green roof, together with details of their anticipated routine maintenance and protection. The green roof shall only be installed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The details are required ahead of work commencing above ground level to ensure that construction is undertaken in a way which does not preclude incorporation of energy efficiency measures. The condition is necessary to ensure that the achievement of the objectives of sustainable development and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area (Policies 5.3 and 5.11 of the London Plan (2016), policies G1, G5 and SI 13 of the Draft London Plan(2019) and Policies EN1, EN4, EN5, EN6, Q2, Q8 and Q9 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

26 If within 5 years of the installation of the green roof any planting forming part of the green roof shall die, be removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, then either this planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with planting of a similar size and species.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability and biodiversity and to mitigate the impact on flood risk (Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.10 and 5.11 of the London Plan (2016) policies G1, G5 and SI 13 of the Draft London Plan(2019) and Policies EN1, EN4, EN5, EN6, Q2, Q8 and Q9 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

27 Prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure of the development hereby permitted, details of bird and bat boxes locations and types and indication of species to be accommodated shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boxes shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter retained and maintained unless prior written approval is given by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to secure appropriate features to conserve and enhance wildlife habitats and biodiversity measures within the development (Policy EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015))

28 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of net biodiversity gain are submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings herby permitted, evidence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to demonstrate that net biodiversity has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that a net biodiversity gain has been achieved in the interests of the ecological value of the site (Policy EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and Policy G6 of the Draft London Plan (2019))

29 Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings herby permitted, evidence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to validate the measures at the as built stage to demonstrate that an urban greening factor of 0.4 or more has been achieved. net biodiversity has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the urban greening factor has been achieved on site (Policy G5 of the Draft London Plan (2019))

30 Notwithstanding the details on the drawings and documents hereby approved, prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the development details of the provision to be made for short and long stay cycle parking (including location, floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevation details where applicable) for future occupiers and existing residents shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The

cycle parking shall thereafter be implemented in full to 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 T1, T3 and Q13 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

31 A final Delivery and Servicing Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the residential uses hereby permitted commencing.

The measures approved in the Plan shall be implemented prior to the relevant uses commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the relevant uses.

Reason: To ensure that the delivery arrangements to the building as a whole are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (Policies T1, T6 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015)

32 Prior to first occupation of the residential hereby permitted, a Waste and Recycling Management Strategy shall be submitted to (at the same time as the Delivery and Servicing Strategy and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The uses hereby permitted shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved Waste and Recycling Management Strategy. The Waste and Recycling Management Strategy will align with the guide for architects and developers on waste and recycling storage and collection requirements.

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 Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

33 Notwithstanding the details on the drawings and documents hereby approved, the development hereby approved shall not commence until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall incorporate the recommendations in the Noise Assessment prepared by Ardent Consulting Engineers report reference: 193830-04 and shall include details of the following relevant measures: a. An introduction consisting of construction phase environmental management plan, definitions and abbreviations and project description and location; b. A description of management responsibilities; c. A description of the construction programme which identifies activities likely to cause high levels of noise or dust; d. Site working hours and a named person for residents to contact; e. Detailed Site logistics arrangements; f. Details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; g. Details regarding dust and noise mitigation measures to be deployed including identification of sensitive receptors and ongoing monitoring; h. 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 i. Communication procedures with the Local Planning Authority and local residents/community regarding key construction issues - newsletters, fliers etc. The construction shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details and measures approved in the CEMP for the related phase unless the written consent of the Local Planning Authority is received for any variation.

Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and to avoid unnecessary hazard and obstruction to the public highway (Policies EN4, EN7 & T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

34 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an Energy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which demonstrates that the development will achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of 35% over that required by Part L of the Building Regulations 2013, and state the carbon emissions reductions achieved at each stage of the Energy Hierarchy. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan (2016) Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 and Policy SI2 of the Draft London Plan (2019).

35 Prior to first occupation of the development As Built SAP calculations with a Block compliance worksheet as an output of the National Calculation Method should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the dwellings have achieved a 35% reduction in carbon emissions over that required by Part L of the Building Regulations 2013, in line with the approved Energy Statement.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan (2016) Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 and Policy SI2 of the Draft London Plan (2019).

36 Prior to first occupation of the development herby permitted, manufacturers' datasheets with a corresponding water efficiency calculator for the installed fixtures and fittings should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the internal water consumption will not exceed 105 litres/person/day in line with The Water Efficiency Calculator for new dwellings from the Department of Communities and Local Government.

Reason: To reduce the consumption of potable water in the home from all sources, including borehole well water, through the use of water efficient fittings, appliances and water recycling systems in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.15 and draft London Plan Policy S15).

37 Prior to commencement of the development beyond the superstructure a scheme showing the siting, size, number and design of the photovoltaic array including cross sections of the roof of each building showing the panels in-situ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be sited so as to minimise its visual impact upon the external appearance of the buildings. The development shall thereafter be completed in strict accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such for the duration of use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development and to ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policies Q2, Q7, Q8 and EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

38 No development shall commence on site until a detailed Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) Strategy document has been provided for approval by the Local Planning Authority, that demonstrates the technical feasibility/viability of the development's surface water drainage system through the use of SuDS to manage the flood risk to the site and elsewhere; and the measures taken to manage the water quality for the life time of the development. The SuDS Strategy document must include but not limited to: i. Detailed designs and plans for the development's surface water management system and associated pipework that has a final discharge rate as close as reasonably practicable to the site's greenfield runoff rate. ii. A demonstration of the surface water management system's capability to manage its 1% Annual Exceedance Percentage (AEP) event critical storm with an appropriate climate change factor.

The approved scheme for the surface water drainage shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the development is first put in to use/occupied.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage and in the interests of securing a more sustainable development and to reduce the impact of flooding both to and from the development in accordance with Policies 5.12 and 5.13 of the London Plan (2015) and Policies EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015).

39 Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved a management and maintenance plan of the final surface water management system (I.e. Sustainable Drainage System - SuDS) and associated pipework shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The plan must consider the management and maintenance for the lifetime of the constructed system which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The approved plan shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions.

Reason: To ensure there are clear arrangements in place for ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development (Government ministerial statement HCWS161)

40 No development shall commence until full details of the proposed mitigation measures for impact on air quality and dust emissions, in the form of an Air Quality and Dust Management Plan (AQDMP), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In preparing the AQMDP the applicant should follow the guidance on mitigation measures for Low Risk sites set out in Appendix 7 of the Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition SPG 2014 for earthworks, construction and trackout. Both 'highly recommended' and 'desirable' measures should be included. The AQDMP can form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The AQDMP shall include the following for each relevant phase of work (earthworks, construction and trackout): A summary of work to be carried out; Proposed haul routes, location of site equipment including supply of water for damping down, source of water, drainage and enclosed areas to prevent contaminated water leaving the site;

Inventory and timetable of all dust and NOx air pollutant generating activities; List of all dust and emission control methods to be employed and how they relate to the Air Quality (Dust) Risk Assessment; Details of any fuel stored on-site; Details of a trained and responsible person on-site for air quality (with knowledge of pollution monitoring and control methods, and vehicle emissions); Summary of monitoring protocols and agreed procedure of notification to the local authority; and A log book for action taken in response to incidents or dust-causing episodes and the mitigation measure taken to remedy any harm caused, and measures employed to prevent a similar incident reoccurring.

Automatic continuous PM10 monitoring should be carried out on site. Baseline monitoring should commence at least three months before the commencement of the development. Monitors should be used at locations in use by sensitive receptors and construction traffic for the duration of the development. Details of the equipment to be used and its exact positioning should be submitted to the Council as part of the Air Quality Dust Management Plan and approved prior to use. Data should be available for download by the local authority

No development shall commence until all necessary pre-commencement measures described in the AQDMP have been put in place and set out on site. The development shall thereafter be carried out and monitored in accordance with the details and measures approved in the AQDMP. An annual summary report of continuous monitoring data should be provided to the council for the duration of the development.

Reason: Development must not commence before this condition is discharged to manage and mitigate the impact of the development on the air quality and dust emissions in the area and London as a whole, and to avoid irreversible and unacceptable damage to the environment (London Plan policies 5.3 and 7.14, and the London Plan SPGs for Sustainable Design and Construction and Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition).

41 Prior to commencement of development an Air Quality Neutral Assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the GLA Sustainable Design And Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance and submitted to the LPA for approval. Where Air Quality Neutral benchmarks cannot be met a scheme of mitigation must be submitted which includes on site mitigation that is part of the proposed development and may also include off-site offsetting. The details as approved shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

Reasons: To minimise increased exposure to existing poor air quality and make provision to address local problems of air quality (particularly within AQMAs) (policy 7.14 of the London Plan 2015.)

42 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 policy 7.14 and the Mayor's SPG: The Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition.

43 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, including suspected unexploded ordnance, then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination will be dealt with.

Reason: Development must not commence before relevant parts of this condition are discharged to safeguard future users or occupiers of this site and the wider environment from irreversible risks associated with the contaminants which are present by ensuring that the contaminated land is properly treated and made safe before development. (policies 5.21 of the London Plan (2015) and EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

Notes to Applicants: In dealing with this application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner. The Council has made available on its website the policies and guidance provided by the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and its supplementary planning documents. We also offer a full pre-application advice service in order to ensure that the applicant has every opportunity to submit an application that’s likely to be considered acceptable.

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 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect, you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Highways team prior to the commencement of construction at [email protected] 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.

5 As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following: 1. name a new street 2. name a new or existing building 3. apply new street numbers to a new or existing building This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below. Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected] tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9104

6 For information on the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements and to register NRMM, please visit "http://nrmm.london/".

7 With regards to the waste and recycling store details this should be set away from the front boundary and include some soft landscaping to the front of the store. This is to ensure it is screened from Thornton Road. This should be submitted at the same time as the landscaping plan.

8 With regards to the hard and soft landscaping detail above you should endeavour to should endeavour to include, within reason, measures to promote biodiversity including features attractive to bats and/or wild birds, and the use of native species typical of locality and ground conditions or naturalised areas. Include larger tree species chosen as replacement trees which would maintain a level of variation in tree sizes on this site. Species to consider include Tilia cordata/platyphylos, Acer campestre, Pinus Sylvestris, Betula pendula/pubescens, Alnus glutinosa, Ulmus 'New Horizon', Castanea sativa, Ilex aquifolium. The applicant should act on good practice to maximise the site's landscape, visual and horticultural quality, ease of maintenance and to provide long term environmental benefit. The design should consider the needs of all ambulant and disabled people.

9 With regards to green roofs above It is recommended the applicant look at providing biodiverse living or brown roofs where possible.

10 With regards to the AQDMP, that mitigation measures for low risk sites listed in Appendix 7 of the Control of Dust and Emissions SPG should be included in the AQDMP.

11 With regards to the delivery and servicing plan should make provision where possible for deliveries to occur outside school drop off/collection times.

12 With regard to SURFACE WATER drainage, Thames Water would advise that if the developer follows the sequential approach to the disposal of surface water we would have no objection. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. Should you require further information please refer to our website. https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large- site/Apply-and-pay-for-services/Wastewater-services

13 Thames Water would recommend that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses.

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

15 If you are planning on using mains water for construction purposes, it's important you let Thames Water know before you start using it, to avoid potential fines for improper usage. More information and how to apply can be found online at thameswater.co.uk/buildingwater.

Yours sincerely

Rob Bristow Assistant Director Planning, Transport & Development Growth, Planning and Employment Directorate

Date printed: 10th June 2020

Appeals to the Secretary of State

If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the local planning authority to refuse permission or approval for the proposed development or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, he may appeal to the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 within six months from the date of this notice. Appeals must be made on a form which is obtainable from The Planning Inspectorate, Room3/13 Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN. Alternatively an Appeal form can be downloaded from their website at www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/appeals. The Secretary of State has power to allow longer period for the giving of a notice of appeal but he will not normally be prepared to exercise this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal. The Secretary of State is not required to entertain an appeal if it appears to him that permission for the proposed development could not have been granted by the local planning authority, or could not have been so granted otherwise than subject to the conditions imposed by them, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of the development order, and to any directions given under the order.

Consultations for Reports to Planning Applications Committee

Application No 20/01264/RG3/DC_RVR/PP-08487320

Location Land At No. 200-262 Hydethorpe Road And Bound By Thornton Road London SW12

Proposal

Construction of a part 4 / part 5 storey building comprising 14 residential units, associated cycle parking, car parking, landscaping together with associated works.

Recommendation

Consultations

Site Notice posted on

Advert Publication Date 17 April 2020

List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies, Local Amenity Groups and Internal departments Consulted.

Ward Councillors Lambeth Town Hall Brixton Hill London SW2 1RW

Regeneration Team Brixton, Clapham Areas 2nd Floor Phoenix House Wandsworth Road

Streatham Society Streatham Society C/o Mr J W Brown 316 Green Lane London

Clapham Park Tenant Resident Association

Telford Court Residents Tenants Assoc Telford Court Residents/Tenants Association 10 Telford Court Streatham Hill London

Telferscot Radbourne Community Group Telferscot And Radbourne Community Group 49A, Radbourne Road Balham London Consultations for Reports to Planning Applications Committee

Building Control Building Control 3rd Floor, Civic Centre 6 Brixton Hill London SW2 1EG

EHST Noise Pollution EHST - Noise Pollution 12 Brighton Road, South Croydon, CR2 6AA

Development Control Enforcement Team Planning Services Phoenix House 10 Wandsworth Road London

Flooding - SUDS C/O Matthew Panou Civic Centre, 3rd Floor, 6 Brixton Hill, London

Housing Housing Partnership Team

Housing Association/S106 Hsg Ext 63611 Housing Partnerships Manager

Highway Team Lambeth Lambeth Highways 5th Floor Blue Star House 234-224 Stockwell Road London

Implementation Team Implementation Team 1st Floor Phoenix House 10 Wandsworth Road

Parks & Open Spaces Development Manager Environment Development Unit 4th Floor Blue Star House

Conservation & Urban Design Conservation & Urban Design 3rd Floor, Civic Centre 6 Brixton Hill London SW2 1EG

Planning Policy Planning Policy 3rd Floor, Civic Centre 6 Brixton Hill Consultations for Reports to Planning Applications Committee

London SW2 1EG

Bioregional

Veolia Waste Lambeth Planning App 185 - 205 Shakespeare Road London SE24 0PZ

Sustainability Team On Air Quality

Transport Lambeth Transportation

Historic England - Archaeology Historic England - Archaeology Historic England 1 Waterhouse Square 138-142 Holborn

London Transport Buses Kevin Gardner London Transport Buses 172, Buckingham Palace Road London

TFL Road Network Development (non-referable) Borough Planning Team Administrator, 9th Floor, 5 Endeavour Square, Stratford,

Environment Agency Environment Agency, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London,

L.F.C.D Authority Brigade Headquarters 169 Union Street SE1 0LL

London Cycling Campaign London Cycling Campaign 228, Great Guildford Business Square 30, Great Guildford Street London

Sewers Major Development (20+) Thames Water Thames Water Consultations for Reports to Planning Applications Committee

Devcon Team Development Planning Department Maple Lodge STW

TFL Road Network Development (non-referable) Borough Planning Team Administrator, 9th Floor, 5 Endeavour Square, Stratford,

Design Out Crime Officer South East Designing Out Crime Team Room 3.18 Bromley Police Station Bromley High Street BR1 1ER

Arboricultural Officer Arboricultural Officer 3rd Floor, Civic Centre 6 Brixton Hill London SW2 1EG

Corporate Asset Strategy Head Of Assets Strategy Town Hall Brixton SW2 1RW

EDF Energy Freepost RRYZ- BRTT- CBJS Osprey House Osprey Road

London Heliport Lombard Road Battersea London SW11 3RE

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

London Plan (2016) policies:

• 3.3 Increasing housing supply • 3.4 Optimising housing potential • 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments • 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities • 3.8 Housing choice • 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private and mixed use schemes • 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions • 5.3 Sustainable design and construction • 5.7 Renewable energy • 5.9 Overheating and cooling • 5.10 Urban greening • 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs • 5.13 Sustainable drainage • 5.15 Water use and supplies • 5.18 Construction, excavation and demolition waste • 5.21 Contaminated land • 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity • 6.9 Cycling • 6.10 Walking • 6.13 Parking • 7.3 Designing out crime • 7.4 Local character • 7.6 Architecture • 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology • 7.14 Improving air quality • 7.15 Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes • 8.2 Planning obligations • 8.3 Community infrastructure levy

London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

• Housing (March 2016) • Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (October 2014) • The control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition (July 2014) • Character and Context (June 2014) • Sustainable Design and Construction (April 2014)

Other guidance

• BRE ‘Layout planning for daylight and sunlight: A guide to good practice’ • DCLG ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ (March 2015)

Lambeth Local Plan (2015) policies:

• D4 Planning obligations • H1 Maximising housing growth • H2 Delivering affordable housing • H4 Housing mix in new developments • H5 Housing standards • H8 Housing to meet specific community needs • ED14 Employment and training • T1 Sustainable travel • T2 Walking • T3 Cycling • T6 Assessing impacts of development on transport capacity • T7 Parking • T8 Servicing • EN1 Open space and biodiversity • EN3 Decentralised energy • EN4 Sustainable design and construction • EN5 Flood risk • EN6 Sustainable drainage systems and water management • Q1 Inclusive environments • Q2 Amenity • Q3 Community safety • Q5 Local distinctiveness • Q7 Urban design: new development • Q8 Design quality: construction detailing • Q9 Landscaping • Q10 Trees • Q12 Refuse/recycling storage • Q13 Cycle storage • Q15 Boundary treatments • Q20 Statutory listed buildings • Q22 Conservation areas • Q25 Views

Lambeth Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) and guidance

• Development Viability SPD (2017) • Employment and Skills (2018) • Parking Survey Guidance Notes • Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide (2013) • Waste Storage and Collection Requirements - Technical Specification (2013) • Air Quality Planning Guidance Notes

Draft London Plan (2019) policies: • D3 Optimising Site Capacity through the design led approach • D4 Housing quality and standards • H4 Affordable housing tenure • H5 Delivering affordable housing • G5 Urban Greening • G6 Biodiversity and access to nature • SI 1 Improving air quality • SI 2 Minimising greenhouse gas emissions • SI 4 Energy infrastructure • SI 5 Water infrastructure • T5 Cycling • T6 Car Parking