PA b
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
Date and Time: Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7.00 pm
Venue : Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Democratic Services Officer : Jacqueline Davy Democratic Services Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 00282167 London Borough of Lambeth, Fax: 020 7926 2755 Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, Email: [email protected] London, SW2 1RW Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
Despatched: Friday, 20 October 2006
MEMBERS: Councillors A. GIBSON, B. PALMER, D. MALLEY, D. MORRIS (Vice- Chair), J. HEATHER, N. SABHARWAL and T. SMITH (Chair)
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors A. AMINU, A. SAWDON, J. WHELAN, J. FEWTRELL and R. LING
AGENDA
Appendices to reports- bulky appendices are published on the Website www.lambeth.gov.uk and can be obtained from report authors or at the meeting. They are not circulated with the agenda.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
Page Nos. 1. Welcomes and Introductions
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Minutes
To agree minutes of meetings held on 3 rd October and 17 th October 2006.
4. Town & Country Planning Act (1990), The Planning & 1 - 32 Compensation Act (1991), The Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations (1992), The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act (1990), The Town and Country Planning General Regulations (1990), The Rush Common Act 1806, and Related Legislation:
98 to 108 Lower Marsh London (06/00990/FUL/SWE/18749)
For information on documents used in the preparation of the reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.
5. Town & Country Planning Act (1990), etc., and Related Legislation: 33 - 46
Shop 36 - 38 Clapham Road, London, SW9 0JQ (06/01808/FUL/RHE/11092)
For information on documents used in the preparation of the reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.
6. Town & Country Planning Act (1990), etc., and Related Legislation: 47 - 68
Business 369 Clapham Road, London 06/02329/FUL/SWE/20776)
For information on documents used in the preparation of the reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.
7. Town & Country Planning Act (1990), etc., and Related Legislation: 69 - 100
43 to 51 Brixton Water Lane and Works Rear of 43 to 51 London (06/02120/FUL/AMU/21478 )
For information on documents used in the preparation of the reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.
8. Town & Country Planning Act (1990), etc., and Related Legislation: 101 - 132
Dohm House, 89-91 Norwood Road, SE24 (05/02229/FUL/B/29397)
For information on documents used in the preparation of the reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.
FUTURE MEETING DATES AND DEADLINES
PLANNING APPLICATIONS Deadline Date Agenda Meeting Decision Published [5pm 8 working Published [6 (Tues) 7pm by days] clear days] [7 clear days]
18.10.06 20.10.06 31.10.06 10.11.06 01.11.06 03.11.06 14.11.06 24.11.06 15.11.06 17.11.06 28.11.06 08.12.06 29.11.06 01.12.06 12.12.06 22.12.06 22.12.06 28.12.06 09.01.07 19.01.07 10.01.07 12.01.07 23.01.07 02.02.07 24.01.07 26.01.07 06.02.07 16.02.07 07.02.07 09.02.07 20.02.07 02.03.07 28.02.07 02.03.07 13.03.07 23.03.07 14.03.07 16.03.07 27.03.07 10.04.07 26.03.07 28.03.07 10.04.07 20.04.07 11.04.07 13.04.07 24.04.07 04.05.07 24.04.07 26.04.07 08.05.07 18.05.07 15.04.07 18.04.07 29.05.07 08.06.07
Access Information
Facilities for disabled people: • Access for people with mobility difficulties: please ring the bell (marked with the disabled access symbol) on the right-hand side of the Acre Lane entrance. • Induction loop facilities are available in Room 8 and the Council Chamber. • For further special requirements, please contact the officer listed on the front page.
Queries on reports: Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The name and telephone number of the report author is shown on the front page of each report.
Other enquiries: Please contact the officer shown on the front page to obtain any other information concerning the agenda or meeting.
Accessing Agendas, Reports and Minutes All public committee papers are available for inspection at Lambeth libraries , and also on the internet from the day of publication in the following manner: • Log on to www.lambeth.gov.uk • On the Home Page (bottom left), click on Democracy @ Lambeth • In the list on the left: either o If you know the date of the meeting concerned click on the seventh item - How to get involved and scroll down to the – Meetings and Events Diary . Navigate your way to the date concerned and click on the name of that meeting. At the bottom of the page that appears, there is a list of Associated documents - the list of reports on the agenda for that meeting. o Or click on the fifth item – documents of meetings . Navigate your way to the meeting and documents you want. If you are unable to locate the document you require, please contact the officer shown on the front page above.
Procedure before taking Key Decisions and Publication of the Forward Plan (Constitution: Part 4 Section 2 Procedure Rules 13 & 14) • The Forward Plan is published monthly; it sets out key decisions to be taken over the next four months. It is available to the public on the Council’s website, at the Town Hall or in Lambeth public libraries. • Please contact the officer listed on the front page if you want to know more.
Public Notice Questions (Part 4 Section 1 Procedure Rule 10) • Written questions concerning the matters within the responsibility of the Council may be submitted by a member of the public (Council Tax payers, Business Rate payers or local government electors) by post or via Email to the Head of Democratic Services at [email protected] • Questions should be submitted as early as possible and at least 10 clear days before the meeting so as to enable the item to be included on the agenda and for a response to be prepared. • Only persons residing or working in the area concerned can submit a question to an area committee, and such a question must concern that one area only. • The answer to the question will be sent to the questioner within 10 working days,
and included on the agenda. • At the relevant meeting, the member of the public or Councillor putting the question may attend and ask a concise supplementary question relevant to the original question or answer given but may not make a speech.
Speaking rights at sub-committees and committee meetings (Part 4 Section 1 Procedure Rule 10) • At Area Committees, the Chair will encourage questions and contributions from members of the public on all agenda items, subject to guidance from the Chair on time allowed for the particular item and the guillotine for the meeting. • At other Committees and the Executive, speaking rights are solely at the discretion of the Chair.
Petitions (Part 4 Section 1 Procedure Rule 10) • Petitions may be presented by members of the public or Councillors: o To the Mayor. o To the Chief Executive or other officers o To a Councillor or o At a meeting of the relevant area committee where the petitioner is entitled to advise briefly of the subject matter of the petition and the number of signatories involved, but not otherwise to make a speech. • Such petitions will be acknowledged and referred to an appropriate officer who will be required to send an answer to the lead petitioner or member (and ward members) within four weeks.
Deputations (Part 4 Section 1 Procedure Rule 10) • Deputations of local people concerned with a particular issue should write to the Head of Democratic Services briefly setting out the issue of concern. The deputation will then be advised to the relevant sub-committee, committee meeting (Area or Scrutiny) or Council meeting which the deputation is asked to attend to raise their issue of concern. • Deputations will not normally be heard where a deputation at any meeting of the Council or any of its committees or sub-committees, has been heard on the same, or essentially the same, issue within the last six months.
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
Q1. Who sits on the Committee?
A1. The Committee comprises seven elected Council Members (Councillors).
Q2. Where does the Committee meet?
A2. Usually in Room 8, The Town Hall, Brixton. Sometimes there are exceptions if there are reasons for holding the meeting near the locality for instance.
Q3. When does the Committee meet?
A3. The second and fourth Tuesday of each month from 7.00pm to about 10.30-11.00pm. A list of meetings dates is found on the Council’s Events Diary.
Q4. May I attend the Committee?
A4. Yes, all Council meetings are open to the press and public although very rarely the Committee may have to discuss a matter in private session.
Q5. May I speak at the Committee?
A5. Yes, but please register your interest to speak on a particular item, preferably by telephoning Democratic Services Division on 020 7926 2170 a few days in advance, or by informing the Democratic Services Officer on duty in Room 8 approximately 20 minutes before the meeting, but before 6.50 p.m.
Q6. Can I submit further material to the Committee?
A6. Any letters of support/objection sent to the Planning Department within the consultation period will be summarised in the report to the Committee. However if you wish to submit further written comments, pictorial evidence or a petition this must be submitted a working day and a half prior to the Committee. For instance if the meeting is on the Tuesday this must reach Democratic Services by 1 p.m. on the Friday. This will then be copied and circulated to members of the Committee and relevant officers.
Q7. Can I see a copy of the agenda / report about the application?
A7. Yes; they are available for viewing at least 5 working days before the meeting at the Town Planning Reception, Phoenix House, 10 Wandsworth Road, SW8 2LL during office hours (9.30am-4.30pm). You can also collect a copy from Democratic Services at Lambeth Town Hall. Copies are available at the Committee meeting.
The agenda and reports are posted on the website. How to view this is detailed on page 2 of the agenda front sheet.
Q8. Does the Committee take the items in the order of the agenda?
A8. The Committee has agreed that the items will be taken in the following order of priority:
1. Applications which have been withdrawn or which officers recommend should be deferred;
2. Applications which have been deferred from a previous meeting/have been the subject of a site visit;
3. Applications regarded as a priority due to the large number of people present/or where applicants have special requirements;
4. Applications recommended for approval/refusal for which the applicant or objector wish to speak;
5. All remaining applications;
The running order will be circulated at the meeting.
A majority of the applications will be in Section 6 (5). These will be dealt with in alphabetical order – i.e. the order in which the items appear on the index.
Q9. How do I address the Committee?
A9. When your item is to be considered, the Chair will ask you to sit at the table. You will be allowed to speak for 3 minutes. If a number of people wish to speak on the same application please nominate one person as spokesperson. The Committee may ask you, or others, questions, following which it will generally make a decision unless the item is going to be deferred.
Q10. Can a decision be deferred?
A10. Yes; the Committee can defer a decision for a number of reasons, e.g. it may want further information, additional consultation or to make a site visit to the property.
Q11. What are site visits and can I attend?
A11. Site visits take place in order to allow Committee and Ward Members an opportunity to view the site and its surroundings. Discussion of the proposal will not take place at this time. Further discussion will occur at the next Committee meeting, and you will be notified of the date. All interested parties are invited to the site visit and it is important that you ensure that Members see how the proposal would affect you.
Q12. When do site visits take place?
A12. Site visits usually take place on Saturday mornings. If you have already written to the Planning Department about the application you will be notified of the date.
Q13. If I am unable to attend Committee, how can I find out the decision?
A13. By telephoning the Democratic Services on the day after the Committee. The minutes will be published on the website 7 clear working days after the meeting.
DEMOCRATIC SERVICES TELEPHONE NUMBER - 020 7926 2170 TOWN PLANNING RECEPTION NUMBER - 020 7926 1180/1
Page 1 Agenda Item 4
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 31 ST OCTOBER 2006 ITEM WARD ADDRESS CASE NO RECOMMENDATION PAGE No NO 1 Bishops 98 To 108 Lower Marsh 06/00990/FUL/ GRANT PERMISSION 2 London SWE/18749 SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT 2 Oval Shop 36 - 38 Clapham Road 06/01808/FUL/ GRANT PERMISSION 33 London SW9 0JQ RHE/11092 3 Larkhall Business 369 Clapham Road 06/02329/FUL/ GRANT PERMISSION 47 London SWE/20776 4 Tulse Hill 43 To 51 Brixton Water Lane 06/02120/FUL/ GRANT PERMISSION 69 And Works Rear Of 43 To 51 AMU/21478 SUBJECT TO S.106 London AGREEMENT 5 Thurlow Dohm House, 89-91 Norwood 05/02229/FUL/ GRANT PERMISSION 101 Park Road, SE24 AB/29397
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Location 98 To 108 Lower Marsh London
Ward Bishops Proposal
Erection of three additional floors to existing building, and five storey extension to rear, together with conversion of 1st floor from leisure club (Use Class D2) to create 34 self contained flats (8 x studio, 13 x 1 bed, 10 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed) on upper levels and additional shop space at ground floor to rear of No's. 98-99, communal area at rear of first floor, new entrance lobby to Lower Marsh frontage, along with provision of 4 parking spaces, refuse and cycle store to rear service lane.
Application Type Full Planning Permission
Application No 06/00990/FUL/DC_SWE/18749
Applicant Breanstar Limited
Agent Mark Scott - Willingale Associates 56 Clerkenwell Road London EC1M 5PX
Date Valid 3 April 2006
Considerations
Conservation Area CA40 : Lower Marsh Conservation Area Local Plan Area Waterloo UDP Area Adopted UDP Archaeological area UDP Archaeological Area : A2 : North Lambeth Adopted UDP Noise Abatement Zone Waterloo noise abatement zone Cross River Transit Cross River Transit
Approved Plans
SE1/93-108LM/1, 2, 3A, 4A, SE1/98-108LM/5, 6, 7A, 9, 10J, 11H, 12K, 13H, 14J, 15E, 16G, 17J, 18G, 19G, 20 (x 2), 50, 60, 61, 62, Schedule of Accommodation dated 29/08/06, Supporting Statement by Willingale Associates - March 2006,
Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT
Page 6
Officer Report
06/00990/FUL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
This application was deferred from the Planning Applications Committee Meeting on 03 October 2006.
This was for the main part, to enable further investigation into Section 106 contributions, following on from a late objection which was received from the Waterloo Community Development Group (WCDG).
The application was previously recommended for approval by Officers, with the following heads of terms:
- Securing the residential units as “car free”; - Securing 40% of habitable rooms as affordable housing in perpetuity (without Housing Corporation subsidy) split 70:30 between low cost and intermediate tenureship; - Securing £38,614 towards education contributions; - Securing £35,000 towards environmental improvement works on Lower Marsh.
The WCDG consider that the proposed Section 106 agreement is inadequate and also raise objections regarding the lack of consultation with local groups over the proposed amounts. They state that the following amounts should be sought:
- £66,649 towards open space, play equipment and sports equipment; - a greater contribution towards public realm in Waterloo; - a contribution towards library and health facilities; - a contribution towards employment and training in Waterloo.
Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations (ODPM 2005) clearly states that Section 106 agreements are intended to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. Policy 50a of the Revised Deposit UDP states that the Council will, where appropriate, enter into legal agreements with developers, and seek the attainment of planning obligations, having regard to any Government guidance and supplementary planning guidance.
Firstly, it is important to note that the Council only currently has planning guidance and/or policy for affordable housing and education contributions. It is noted that the affordable housing contribution complies with current UDP policy and the education contribution complies with the Council’s
Page 7
interim planning guidance on Contributions to School Places.
The points raised by WCDG have been considered. With respect to the Southwark Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, WCDG’s letter has been passed on to Planning Policy and Implementation colleagues who are charged with compiling Section 106 guidance, who may find Southwark’s formula useful when establishing other supplementary planning guidance (SPG) for planning obligations. As stated above, the Lambeth only has a draft SPG for education contributions at this point in time, and no standard charges or formulae for the other matters expected of WCDG. It would not be appropriate to use Southwark’s formula to calculate contributions on this scheme or across the Borough. In accordance with Circular 05/05, where standard charges and formulae are proposed, local planning authorities should publish their levels in advance.
With respect to the negotiated financial contribution towards environmental improvement works, these would go towards a programme of footway/lighting improvements that the Council’s Transport and Highways Team are seeking to undertake on Lower Marsh. The proposed site frontage occupies approximately 20% of Lower Marsh, and as such, an amount of this proportion has been sought to contribute towards these works. Transport colleagues have advised on this figure and the rationale for the amount sought. This amount is considered by Officers to be appropriate mitigation for the environmental impact that approximately 100 additional residents on Lower Marsh may have. The environmental improvements contribution is based on a clear and reasonable formula, based on the likely amount of footfall that the section of footway around the application site may experience as a result of a development of this scale being carried out. The Council does not have any planning guidance or policy with respect to environmental contributions.
With respect to policy 26 (Community Facilities) of the Replacement UDP which WCDG refer to, this seeks contributions from residential schemes of 10 or more units, where the development creates or exacerbates an existing shortage of community facilities. It is not considered that a scheme of this nature and scale would create or exacerbate an existing shortage, and nevertheless, the Council does not have any formula for calculating such a contribution. Policy 45 (Open Space and Sports Facilities) of the Replacement UDP seeks provision of, or contribution towards children play facilities on schemes of 10 or more units. Noting the restricted number of family units on this site, and the communal terrace that these family units have access to, Officers are satisfied that in the absence of any established formula, that it would not be appropriate to seek contributions in relation to these matters. With respect to Policy 74, this seeks transport contributions where a
Page 8
scheme would cause transport capacity constraints to arise. Officers are satisfied that a scheme of this scale, so close to existing bus and train routes would not exacerbate public transport problems in the local area. Furthermore, Policy 26, 45 and 74 are not adopted policies at this point in time, and it is only on significant regeneration schemes that the Council is currently seeking contributions in this respect.
Officers are satisfied that a redevelopment of 35 flats above a parade of shops in such a highly urban context, close to public transport, would not exacerbate or add to demand for community facilities or open space, or generate the need for mitigation of the level suggested by WCDG. The scheme is considered to be acceptable in its current form, and is in accordance with other similar scaled developments which have been approved by the Planning Committee. As such, Officers recommend that no further financial contributions be required.
Another point that requires addressing at this point is daylight and sunlight impact upon neighbouring properties, noting that the applicant has commissioned an analysis of daylight and sunlight impact upon 1 Launcelot Street and 109A Lower Marsh, by a chartered building surveyor, in accordance with BRE Guidelines. This is intended to supplement the Officer’s analysis carried out under 6.5 below. With respect to 1 Launcelot St, it is concluded that there would not be an adverse effect, due largely to the unchanged skyline, and the use of and number of windows to rooms. With respect to 109A Lower Marsh, there is one single bedroom window which would suffer a slight reduction in Vertical Sky Component, which is already low, and because it is a bedroom, would generally comply with BRE requirements.
It is noted that an objector from 95 – 96 Lower Marsh attended the previous Committee Meeting. As detailed under 6.5 below, Officers are satisfied that the proposal would not result in loss of light or privacy from the development. The applicant has commissioned a light study with respect to this property, to support Officer’s conclusions, and this will be reported verbally to Committee.
Regarding refuse storage, an objector attended the previous Committee Meeting where this matter was raised. As noted under 6.7 below, the location and level of provision complies with Council requirements, and Streetcare Services have raised no objections. A refuse truck is generally 2.5 metres wide, which is the width of the access point at its narrowest point, and any collection would have to be from Launcelot Street. Facilities should be within 10 metres of a dropped kerb, and locating the bins any further down the accessway would make collection problematic. It is considered that the location as indicated is the most appropriate, and would not create an adverse amenity impact, and in fact is an improvement over current practice.
To summarise, Officers are recommending that permission be granted in accordance with the report below, with no amendments proposed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
1. Summary Of Main Issues
Page 9
1.1. Acceptability of design and appearance of development, particularly upon character and appearance of streetscene and Lower Marsh Conservation Area.
1.2. Acceptability of loss of first floor Use Class D2 leisure facility.
1.3. Impact of extensions and alterations upon amenities of adjoining residential neighbours, in particular Launcelot Street and Lower Marsh.
1.4. Highways safety and parking stress implications of development.
2. Site Description
2.1. The application site comprises an approximately 50 metre long two storey building located on the north west side of Lower Marsh, built on a cleared bomb site in the 1960’s. It comprises a basement, with nine shop units at ground floor level, and a branch of Chariots, a chain of private sauna and massage premises, at first floor level.
2.2. To the rear of the site is the Waterloo Telephone Exchange, fronting on to Spur Road which runs alongside Waterloo Railway Station. To the north east and south west are a series of buildings of varying heights fronting onto Lower Marsh, with commercial uses at ground floor level and either residential or commercial above. Immediately to the south west is 1 Launcelot Street, a single dwelling house that fronts Launcelot Street and the accessway to the site.
2.3. The shop units within the building comprise a mix of commercial units, including a branch of Boots Pharmacy, an A3 café, and several retail shops.
2.4. The application premises are situated in the Lower Marsh Conservation Area, and within the Lower Marsh District (shopping) centre
3. Planning History
3.1. An application for “erection of three additional floors to existing building, and five storey extension to rear, together with conversion of 1st floor from health club to create 42 self contained flats on upper levels and additional shop space at ground floor to rear of No's. 98-99, along with provision of 4 parking spaces, cycle store, new entrance lobby, communal area at rear of first floor and associated alterations” (ref 05/02562/FUL) was withdrawn in December 2005. The application was unacceptable with respect to design, housing mix and tenureship in particular. The current application seeks to resolve the concerns that Officers had with this previously submitted application, and follows on from a series of pre-application discussions.
3.2. Prior to this there have been miscellaneous applications relating to the ground floor shops. The current occupier of the first floor, Chariots, commenced their use in 2002.
3.3. The statement submitted with the application details the history of the site, stating that the current building was built on a cleared bombsite in 1963/1964.
Page 10
4. Scheme Details
4.1. The proposal involves the change of use of the first floor, along with extensions comprising three additional floors to the main building, and a five storey extension to the rear, in order to accommodate at total of 34 self contained flats.
4.2. The first floor leisure use (Use Class D2) and first floor ancillary office and WC for Boots Chemist would cease. The ground floor shop units would be retained in-situ, with an enlargement of Boots to the rear to accommodate the lost floorspace at first floor level.
4.3. The main entrance to the upper floor units would be from a dedicated entrance on Lower Marsh, with servicing maintained at the rear via Launcelot Street. Four parking/loading bays would be retained on the service lane for the shop units, along with a turning area, refuse/recycling storage, and cycle storage.
4.4. The mix of units comprises 8 x studio flats, 13 x 1 bed flats, 10 x 2 bed flats, and 3 x 3 bed flats.
4.5. Materials proposed for the extensions comprise traditional yellow stock fairfaced brickwork and stucco, timber cladding for the upper levels, with steel and aluminium powder coated windows.
5. Consultation Responses
5.1. The following adjoining properties were consulted: 1, 83, 85 Launcelot Street; Pitch 53, 25 – 41, 83, 91 – 118 (all) Lower Marsh; 2 Spur Road
5.2. The following Amenity Groups were consulted: Association of Waterloo Groups, Lambeth Estates Residents Association, South Bank Employers Group, Waterloo Action Group, Waterloo Community Development Group. The local ward councillors, as well as English Heritage (Archaeology and Conservation), and the North Lambeth Town Centre Manager were also consulted.
5.3. A site notice and press notice were posted on two occasions, the second in response to amendments to the planning application.
5.4. A total of 20 objections and one letter of support have been received as a result of the consultation exercise. Whilst generally there is no objection to some form of redevelopment of this building, concerns raised by objectors can be summarised as follows: - Overlooking to adjoining properties; - Loss of daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties; - Overbearing impact and loss of outlook to adjoining properties; - Refuse is inappropriately located and would cause nuisance to adjoining property; - Strain on local resources and amenities; - Sound pollution due to canyon style development along Lower Marsh; - Would affect ventilation and movement of air around nearby properties; - Would cause parking stress, and congestion on local streets;
Page 11
- Inadequate space at rear for servicing – site is too tight for turning; - Parking reconfiguration in yard would impact upon ability of shops to be serviced; - Building would be too large and disproportionate to the existing building and surrounding area. - Design and appearance is monotone, and out of character with the rest of the street and conservation area; - Retail units below would be retained during construction and concerns raised by occupiers about disturbance to business during this time; - Disturbance to surrounding residential properties during construction.
5.5. The local ward Councillor has advised that there are no objections to more effective use of the site, but supports objectors concerns about amenity impacts upon neighbouring properties.
6. Planning Considerations
6.1. Relevant Policies
6.1.1. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005): Sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. Promotes good design that ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places.
6.1.2. Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing (March 2000): Sets out the Government's housing policies on different aspects of planning. Local Planning Authorities are expected to give priority to re-using previously developed land within urban areas. Paragraph 49 states that local authorities should promote developments which combine a mix of land uses, including housing, either on a site or within individual buildings such as flats over shops.
6.1.3. Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment: Provides guidance for development that affects conservation areas. In section 4.26 - 4.27 of this document it is explained that, where a building makes a positive contribution to a conservation area, the presumption will be for its retention. In less clear-cut cases the case for its retention will be assessed against other factors including the merits of alternative proposals for the site.
6.1.4. Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998)
Policy H1: Housing Provision Policy H10: Residential Development Standards Policy CD2: Proposals for Development Policy CD14: Safeguarding Archaeological Remains Policy CD15: Design of New Development Policy CD17: Shopfronts CD18: Extensions Policy RL39: Snooker Clubs, Pool Halls, Fitness Training Centres and other private facilities Policy S13: Floorspace Over Shops
Page 12
Policy T17: Transport Implications for Development Proposals Policy ENV19: Noise Control Policy ENV24: Waste Management and Disposal
6.1.5. Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004)
Policy 4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 10: Walking and Cycling Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 15: Additional Housing Policy 16: Affordable Housing Policy 20: Mixed-Use Development Policy 26: Community Facilities Policy 31a:Community Safety/Designing Out Crime Policy 32: Building Scale and Design Policy 32a: Renewable Energy in Major Development Policy 32b: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 33: Extensions and Alterations Policy 34: Shopfronts and Advertisements Policy 35: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas Policy 36: Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 42: Conservation Areas Policy 43: Archaeology: Recording and Analysis of Buildings Policy 48: Pollution, Public Health and Safety Policy 50: Waste Policy 50a: Planning Obligations
6.1.6. Supplementary Planning Guidance: Internal Layout and Room Sizes
6.1.7. The policies of the emerging replacement UDP normally carry relatively less weight than the policies of the adopted UDP. Generally speaking the weight to be attached to such emerging policies depends upon the stage of plan preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached.
6.1.8. In the case of the Lambeth Replacement UDP, the Council has now received the Inspector’s Report (17th February 2006) and is in the course of responding to the Inspector’s recommendations and preparing proposed modifications as part of the final stage of procedures leading to adoption of the Replacement UDP. This is a significant stage in the process of adoption of the Replacement UDP and as such considerable weight may be attached to policies in the Replacement UDP, which the Inspector has supported.
6.1.9. The Council’s approach to this has been approved under delegated powers and is outlined in the Report on the Current Status of the Replacement UDP , which lists the policies the Inspector supports and states the Council will take this approach to all planning applications submitted from 1st August 2006.
Page 13
6.2. Land Use
6.2.1. The proposal involves the change of use of first floor and extensions above and to the rear, in order to accommodate 34 self contained flats. The existing ground floor shop units would be retained in-situ, and as such, the proposal would not adversely impact upon the ground floor retail character and vibrancy of the parade. There would be a relocation of Boots Pharmacy office and WC space at first floor level to new ground floorspace at the rear, thereby not resulting in a loss of retail/ancillary floorspace.
6.2.2. The applicant has stated that the structure was built to “warehouse class” such that the foundations would not be required to be altered to cater for additional storeys being built. As such, the applicant states that the shops would not be required to be closed during construction works. As such, it is not considered that the development would affect toe retail function of the shop units. A condition is suggested to require details that this is the case, in order to satisfy concerns raised by shopkeepers in this respect.
6.2.3. The first floor is currently occupied by a branch of Chariots, a private chain of saunas, that leases the premises from the applicant, who is the owner of the building. The facility falls under Use Class D2 (assembly and leisure).
6.2.4. Policy RL39 of the AUDP refers to private leisure facilities and states that the Council will seek to retain such facilities, in acknowledgement of their value as alternative forms of recreation. The policy is somewhat rigid and does not provide any circumstances where such a loss may be acceptable. Chariots branches are characteristically located near to railway termini and a new and larger facility run by the same operator has recently opened in Vauxhall, and there are similar saunas in nearby proximity, such as Pleasuredome. It is noted that no objections have been received from neighbours or the local community with respect to the loss of the sauna club. Furthermore, the use could cease and change to a gymnasium or other leisure use without requiring planning permission. Given the proximity of other similar facilities and also other D2 leisure facilities such as private gyms in the area, including Soho Gyms, Topnotch, K4, The Club, as well as several further afield towards London Bridge, and north of the river at Embankment. It is not considered that the change of use would result in a demonstrable loss of a private facility.
6.2.5. It is noted that Policy 26 of the RDUDP is silent on the loss of private facilities and is more focussed on Use Class D1 community facilities such as halls, schools, medical facilities etc, stating that “the loss of a community use falling within the D1 use class will be resisted...” As noted above, the use is a private leisure facility, falling under Use Class D2. On this basis, the proposal is compliant with Policy 26 of the RDUDP.
Page 14
6.2.6. The recent report on the status of the Replacement UDP states that policies which have the support of the Inspector should be given considerable weight in the planning application process. However it is noted that the Inspector recommended considerable modification to Policy 26, so isn’t being given the weight that other unchallenged policies are being given at this point in time. However its intentions are clear with respect to the community facilities it seeks to protect, namely use Class D1 facilities, and these principles have not been challenged or altered by the Inspector. Whilst this policy does carry as much weight as others within the RDUDP, it is also the case that the weight to be attached to Policy RL39 is diminishing as the RUDP gains strength, and in light of this, it is considered that it would be difficult to substantiate a refusal on grounds of a loss of a Class D2 premises. The Policy Officer has considered this matter, and concurs, raising no objections to the principle of redevelopment.
6.2.7. AUDP Policy H1 and RDUDP Policy 15 seek to provide additional residential properties in order to meet the housing needs of the Borough. In addition, Adopted UDP Policy H7 and Revised UDP Policy 16 support the provision of additional affordable housing. In particular, the policy sets out the requirement that on a scheme of this size that a minimum of 50% of habitable rooms be allocated as affordable housing, if seeking Housing Corporation funding, and 40% with no public subsidy. Of this, 70% of the units should be affordable to people on low incomes who cannot afford general market housing, and 30% should be intermediate housing for people on moderate incomes to buy or rent at below market value.
6.2.8. The application proposes 34 residential units, with a mix of 8 x studio, 13 x 1-bed and 10 x 2-bed and 3 x 3 bed units. In terms of affordable housing, a total of 11 units (40% of habitable rooms) would be allocated as affordable housing (4 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) split between low cost (70%) and intermediate housing (30%). The proposed mix and tenureship of the units is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Revised UDP Policy, noting the highly urban location in which it is located, above shops, which is not ideally suited to a significant number of family units. The Council’s Housing Partnerships Team has considered the proposal and raises no objections to the mix or tenureship, on the presumption that at 40%, the developer would not be seeking Housing Corporation funding and that the affordable housing tenureship be split between low cost rental (70%) and intermediate/shared ownership (30%).
6.2.9. A section 106 Legal Agreement will be required to secure a minimum of 40% of habitable rooms as affordable housing, and also detailing the tenureship of a 70:30 split between low cost rental and intermediate/shared ownership.
Page 15
6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations
6.3.1. Adopted UDP Policy CD2 and Revised Deposit UDP Policy 42 seek to ensure that development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.
6.3.2. Adopted UDP Policy CD15 states that high quality design will be required in all new development, carefully related to its surroundings and contributing positively to the area. Particular attention should be given to the layout, building lines, materials, height, bulk and scale and relationship to neighbours. Revised Deposit UDP Policy 32 states that new development should be disciplined by building lines and the scale of the area, heights, massing and where appropriate improving on them.
6.3.3. Policy CD18 of the AUDP relates to extensions and alterations to properties and states that alterations and extensions should respect the plan form, period, architectural characteristics and detailing of the original building. In particular, buildings where the roofline is exposed to long views from public spaces and where a roof extension in any form would have an obtrusive view will not normally be permitted. Policy 33 of the revised DUDP states that extensions should usually be confined to the rear or least important elevation and should not obscure important architectural features on a formal flank elevation. Roof extensions are only acceptable if they create good roofscapes and are successfully integrated with their surroundings.
6.3.4. CD17 of the AUDP and Policy 34 of the RDUDP require that shopfronts must be of a high quality of design and should respect the character and original framework of the building and parade.
6.3.5. Policy CD14 of the AUDP and 43 of the RUDP refer to archaeological remains, and the site falls within an Archaeological Priority Area.
6.3.6. The subject building comprises an unsympathetic infill development on a bomb damaged site. Compared to other, more characterful buildings in the street, it is considered that the building does detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and streetscene. The Council's designation report of 1984 states that the Lower Marsh Conservation Area has "a canyon-like form created by high buildings which line a narrow street' and consists largely of unexceptional buildings representing many phases of development and many different styles, but with two main unifying factors - the close relationships between the opposing retail frontages created by the building line and the small plot sizes. Lower Marsh has a variegated character and appearance, with mixed uses and various building heights and styles. However, underlying this is a fine urban grain, with characteristically narrow plots with shops at ground floor level and residential above.”
Page 16
6.3.7. The applicant’s design approach has been to attempt to reflect the 19th century urban grain and terraced form on the main street frontage using traditional materials, while setting back the upper floors using lighter materials. The Council’s Conservation Officer has considered the scheme and has sought amendments, largely in relation to the principle fa ēade, and as a result, a greater vertical emphasis has been applied to the front elevation by introducing variegation to the materials, parapet height, and projection. It is also considered that the staggered and lightweight nature of the upper two floors assist in achieving recession from the storeys below.
6.3.8. The main roof area is a shallow-pitch membrane roof system behind low upstands formed by the cladding panels. Through these panels there are rainwater outlets and downpipes set in rebates on the party wall lines, re-iterating the party wall rebates of the main frontage. The raised roof areas above the French windows are finished with photovoltaic panels to provide solar power.
6.3.9. It is noted that English Heritage has considered the proposal in light of the historic values of Lower Marsh. They confirm that they do not wish to offer any comments in relation to this application, having been involved in discussions with the applicant over the need to achieve greater vertical emphasis on the street elevation, and amendments to the residential main entrance.
6.3.10. Whilst it is noted that objections have been received about the design and that it does not preserve the traditional appearance and atmosphere of Lower Marsh, the proposal is intended to improve on the existing building by re-cladding and varying the appearance of the front elevation to break up the monotony that the existing building creates on the streetscene. Objectors have raised concerns about the scale of the building in relation to its surroundings, but again, Officers are satisfied that with the setback of the upper floors, that it would not appear over- dominant or out of keeping, compared to other similarly scaled buildings nearby, noting the similar form of No. 95 – 96 Lower Marsh nearby, for which extensions of similar height and setback have recently been approved. This goes for the building at the rear which is of similar height to those immediately around it. These buildings to the rear would be visible from Spur Road, but not from Lower Marsh. However, these do reflect the design of the frontage building.
6.3.11. With regard to street level, the shopfronts of the existing retail units are proposed to be upgraded, and general details of this are shown. However, in order to be satisfied with detailed design and execution, a specific condition in this respect is considered to be appropriate.
6.3.12. On this basis, Officers are satisfied that the scheme is compliant with relevant policies within the AUDP and RDUDP with respect to design and impact upon the Lower Marsh Conservation Area.
Page 17
6.3.13. The site is in an Archaeological Priority Area, and whilst the main building structure and foundations would not be altered, given there are some ground works and foundations proposed for the rear, English Heritage have advised that a standard condition regarding archaeological investigations would be appropriate.
6.4. Standard of Accommodation
6.4.1. Policy H10 (Residential Development Standards) and H11 (Dwelling Mix) of the adopted UDP, Policy 15 of the emerging UDP and supplementary planning guidance of the adopted and emerging UDPs require that that proposals of this nature meet the standards and criteria set by the Council in terms of standard of accommodation.
6.4.2. In terms of room sizes, the development exceeds the minimum standards set out in SPG4. For the most part rooms are stacked according to use, except for the studio flats which would have lounge areas above them. With the studio flats having dual use, there are no objections to this aspect. There is a small communal outdoor amenity space provided at the rear at first floor level, easily accessible to the three larger (3 bed) units. Except for the studio flats, all units have dual aspect with windows either opening out to the service yard or to Lower Marsh.
6.4.3. Whilst the flats are proposed for above ground level, the scheme does include a lift and there are several units set out over one level. Policy 32 of the RDUDP does not specify the number of units which should be wheelchair accessible, but it is noted that all homes would be built to Lifetime Homes standards, and the applicant has confirmed that they would ensure that at least 3 units would be designed to wheelchair accessible standards (approximately 9% of units). A condition is suggested to secure these units as such.
6.4.4. Overall, the quality of accommodation proposed is appropriate for dwellings above shops in a highly urban location. It is noted that there are two extract flues proposed for within the fabric of the building which would rise vertically through the building from ground floor ceiling level to roof level (without turns). Each would consist of a metal duct with clear internal area of 400 x 400mm encased in 200mm blockwork with 12.5mm plaster finish. A kitchen extract fan unit would be fixed at high level within the ground floor of No. 107 on acoustic and mechanically damped mountings, and would be provided with an attenuator duct before being connected to the riser duct, with acoustic damping of the connection to prevent vibration from being transmitted to the riser duct construction. The heavy construction around the riser duct, the acoustic damping at ground level and the attenuator duct from the extract fan would prevent noise from being transmitted to the residential accommodation. The boiler flue from Boots would be accommodated in the riser duct surrounded by an ample air gap for thermal and acoustic insulation. A condition requiring full details of these extract systems should be required as a condition.
Page 18
6.4.5. To summarise, the scheme is considered to provide a suitable standard of accommodation to meet a range of housing needs, in accordance with Policy H10 of the AUDP and Policy 32 of the RDUDP in particular.
6.5. Amenity Impact
6.5.1. Policy H10 (Residential Development Standards) of the adopted UDP includes residential standards, standard ST3 of this states the plan layout of building should seek to achieve good daylight and sunlight standards within buildings and the open spaces between them. Standard ST5 of the adopted UDP states the layout of residential development should provide adequate privacy from residents in the dwelling, in the garden and in adjoining properties. The corresponding Policy 32 (Building Scale and Design) of the revised deposit UDP requires that development protect the residential amenity of future residents.
6.5.2. The main amenity impact from this scheme is any impact in terms of loss of light to, or outlook from, immediate neighbours to the north east and south west of the property. Overlooking, loss of privacy, and loss of outlook/overbearing impact must also be considered.
6.5.3. With respect to 1 Launcelot Street to the south west, this property comprises a four storey dwelling with roof terrace, with a series of windows facing northwards into the service lane, immediately perpendicular to the subject building. With respect to diffuse daylight entry to these windows, using the BRE’s “45 degree” approach, the ground and first floor windows, and the second floor window nearest the subject site, are already impacted upon by the existing building on the subject site. As such, the proposed extension would not cause loss of light to the lower level windows over and above the existing arrangements.
6.5.4. The “45 degree” BRE test indicates that there are three windows in this property for which daylight entry could be reduced by the proposed additional floors, being the 3 rd storey windows, and the outer window at 2 nd floor (furtherest away from the development site). However, the approved floor plans for 1 Launcelot Street (2 additional floors were approved in 2000) indicate that the potentially affected windows to these elevations are secondary windows to bedrooms or are to bathrooms, and all of these floors have main windows facing onto Launcelot Street. It is concluded whilst there is the potential for loss of light or overshadowing to these windows given their proximity, it would not be possible to refuse the scheme on these grounds as it accords with the BRE Guidelines i.e. the average daylight factor of the rooms as a whole would be acceptable due to the presence of other windows and/or the windows are to non-habitable rooms. With regard to sunlight entry, the BRE guidelines state that in measuring annual probable sunshine hours, that this only applies to windows which face within 90 degrees of due south, which these windows do not (being north east facing). There would be no loss of outlook to
Page 19
these windows, there being no extensions proposed for directly in front of them.
6.5.5. With respect to the roof terrace of 1 Launcelot Street, as stated above, the proposed building would sit to the north east, with the fourth floor elevated approximately one storey above the roof terrace. The BRE Guidelines do not give specific formula regarding light entry to elevated outdoor amenity spaces such as this, focussing more on light entry to windows and to “sunlight on ground”. Nevertheless, given the position to the north-east, presently this roof terrace would only receive limited early morning sunlight from the direction of the subject site, before it would be overshadowed by its own stair tower. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would cause unacceptable overshadowing to a degree which could warrant refusal, in accordance with BRE Guidelines. This roof terrace would not suffer any loss of sky outlook, it being directed north west across to Spur Road and Waterloo Station.
6.5.6. With respect to possible overlooking of this property, the closest windows directly facing this property are in the linkage block, some 50 metres to the north east so it is not considered that there would be an adverse impact. Regarding the roof terrace, as stated above, the nearest windows facing this building would be some 50 metres away. It is noted that the fourth storey does have a means of escape at the rear, comprising an access only balcony. In order to prevent its use outside of emergencies, a condition would be appropriate. A condition is also suggested to provide an obscure screen along the south west (flank) of this means of escape to prevent views to the roof terrace.
6.5.7. There is also a first floor sunken courtyard/lightwell to the rear of 109 Lower Marsh, immediately to the south west of the flank wall of the subject site, which is associated with an upper level maisonette above Greggs Bakery. This lightwell is completely enclosed on all sides by the host building, 1 Launcelot Street, and the flank wall of the subject site. The applicant owns the freehold of this property. This lightwell/courtyard area contains two windows which are perpendicular to the flank wall of the subject site and facing No. 1 Launcelot Street - the first floor one to a bedroom, and the second floor to a bathroom. In addition, there are two very small secondary windows facing northwards towards the subject site - one to a kitchen and one to a bedroom. Regarding the latter, both these rooms have larger main windows facing Launcelot Street itself. All of these windows are already affected by the existing site arrangements, the lightwell being sunken and completely enclosed on all sides. Given this arrangement and nature of the windows, there would not be an undue loss of light to these windows from the proposed development. The only habitable, non-secondary window is to the first floor bedroom, and this is already constrained by the existing flank wall of the subject property, and in terms of the BRE “45 degree” test, daylight entry would not be unacceptably diminished further by the proposed extension. With respect to the other windows, again, it would not be possible to refuse the
Page 20
scheme on loss of daylight as it accords with the BRE Guidelines ie the average daylight factor of the room as a whole would be acceptable due to the presence of other windows and/or the windows are to non-habitable rooms.
6.5.8. Again, with regard to sunlight entry, the BRE guidelines state that in measuring annual probable sunshine hours, that this only applies to windows which face within 90 degrees of due south, which these windows do not. Furthermore, any potential sunlight entry to habitable windows would be blocked by the existing buildings surrounding them. There would be no loss of outlook to these windows, with them already constrained by the existing buildings around the courtyard/lightwell.
6.5.9. To the north-east of the site, the nearest residential dwellings are the upper floors of 95-96 Lower Marsh, which have recently been developed into flats. Between this and the subject site is No. 97 which is a wholly commercial property over ground and upper floor levels, with two derelict/obscure windows facing to the rear. The large blank flank wall of No. 95-96 faces the site, with no habitable windows in this elevation. There are rear windows and terraces to this property facing away from the subject site, to the north west towards some Victorian railway buildings and Spur Road.
6.5.10. Concerns have been raised from the residents of this property about loss of light and outlook to windows and balconies from the extensions proposed for the rear of the subject site. This aspect has been assessed, and noting that the windows are not facing the subject site and the rear projection of the proposed development is some 9 metres away, the scheme meets the tests of the BRE guidelines, and it is concluded that acceptable levels of diffuse daylighting to these windows would be maintained. Being north west facing, these windows do not benefit from sunlight entry throughout the day, and the only sunlight that the rear of the building may possibly benefit from is diffuse sunlight to the rear balconies at sunset across the existing 3 storey Telephone Exchange, when it is very low in the sky. Given their orientation towards the north-west, such that habitable windows do not receive direct sunlight during the day at present, the proposal would not adversely affect these properties by reason of loss of sunlight or overshadowing, and complies with BRE guidelines which only measures annual probably sunshine hours to windows which face within 90 degrees of due south, which these windows do not.
6.5.11. It is not considered that there would be any other properties that may potentially be affected by the proposed development. As noted above, No 97, which immediately adjoins the property, is a commercial property, and whilst it may experience a canyoning effect, there would be no impact in terms of residential amenity. In terms of future development potential, this site would have scope to extend upwards and between the party walls between the subject site and No. 96, noting the run down condition of the rear of the building and such future development is most likely.
Page 21
Given the positioning and orientation of the proposed development in relation to its surroundings, noting that the most affected building to the rear is a commercial building, it is not considered that the scheme would have an overbearing impact or result in loss of outlook to residential properties nearby.
6.5.12. As detailed above, it is considered appropriate, in order to prevent informal use of the 4 th floor “means of escape” terraces and flat roof, that a condition be imposed to prevent their recreational use.
6.5.13. It is noted that the existing ground floor A3 use and the boiler flue for Boots Pharmacy are shown as integral to the building and extracting at roof level. As noted under 6.4.4, subject to satisfactory design and operation, it is not considered that these would have a harmful impact upon adjoining neighbours, over and above existing.
6.5.14. Whilst it is noted that objections have been received regarding disturbance during construction, this is not a planning matter, and any concerns neighbours have in this respect would be for consideration under other environmental legislation. This also goes for any works affecting pipes and flues on adjoining buildings, which is a matter for Party Wall legislation.
6.5.15. Based on the above, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy H10 of the AUDP and Policy 32 of the RDUDP with respect to protecting amenities of surrounding residential neighbours.
6.6. Highways and Transportation Issues
6.6.1. Policy T17 (Transport Implications of Development Proposals) and 9 of the revised deposit UDP states that planning applications will be assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts on highway safety (having regard to supplementary planning guidance), on the environment and the road network (having regard to proposals in the local implementation plan), and on all transport modes, including public transport, walking and cycling.
6.6.2. Policy T12 [Parking Standards] of the adopted UDP and 14 of the revised deposit UDP states that development should comply with the revised deposit UDP's maximum vehicle Parking Standard (Table 6) and feature cycle parking situated in a covered and secure location.
6.6.3. Lower Marsh is designated as a Local Access Road in the Council’s Road hierarchy and the site is situated with the Waterloo ‘W’ Controlled Parking Zone. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of Exceptional (PTAL 6b). The 2001 census data indicates 60.4% of the households in Bishop’s ward do not own a car. Based on these statistics, and the good PTAL of the site, it is anticipated that 17 additional vehicles will require a parking space if a Section 106 'permit free' Agreement was not secured as part of the development.
Page 22
6.6.4. The proposal would utilise the existing vehicular access at the rear of the site, and involves laying out of four parking spaces for use by the ground floor shops for deliveries and servicing. It is noted that there is currently ad-hoc parking on this service lane at present, and refuse storage is randomly arranged, such that servicing at present would have cause to be problematic. The extension proposed does not affect on site manoeuvrability, and as said, this area is currently heavily parked and not able to be used effectively at present. A swept path analysis has been submitted to show vehicle manoeuvrability for deliveries, and a condition is considered to be appropriate to ensure its permanent retention as such. A parking management plan is also considered to be necessary for the proposed parking spaces to ensure that they are allocated and used efficiently and effectively.
6.6.5. The existing entrance way is enclosed by the buildings either side of it, and there are no changes proposed to its size, dimensions or visibility splays. Only an entrance gate is the proposed change to the existing site layout. The Transport Planner has stated that details of the entrance mechanism for the proposed vehicular gates would need to be submitted for approval. These details would need to include how the gate would operate, who would have access and how they would apply for access. Details of the gate are also required to ensure that the gate opens inwards only. This would be necessary to ensure the gate did not have an unacceptable impact on road and/or pedestrian safety.
6.6.6. No parking is proposed for the residential flats. A Section 106 agreement would be required to ensure the development is ‘permit free’. At the time of writing the applicant did request that an exception be made for electric cars. However, under the Council's current parking permit policy electric cars are treated in the same way as all other cars. Therefore, an exception for electric cars would not be possible at the current time.
6.6.7. The proposed cycle store is located in an area that does not compromise the function of the proposed turning head and at a location that provides appropriate clearance from vehicular movements. It is covered and secure, but a condition is suggested to ensure its full implementation prior to occupation and that there is sufficient space for 35 bicycles.
6.6.8. A sustainable transport contribution would also be required as part of the scheme proposals. Lambeth Council and the LDA have funded initial design work into significant environmental improvement works along Lower Marsh. This includes upgrading footways, providing shared surfaces, rationalisation of street furniture, and improving pedestrian crossing facilities. It is considered reasonable and necessary for the development on the application site to contribute towards footway, lighting and environmental improvements on the section of Lower Marsh between Launcelot Street and Spur Road, given the increases in footfall it would generate. In this regard, and in this respect the applicant has agreed to a financial contribution of £35,000
Page 23
towards these works. This would need to be secured by way of a Section 106 legal agreement.
6.7. Refuse and Recycling
6.7.1. Policy ENV24 and Policy 50 of the adopted and emerging UDP's seek to ensure that adequate, safe and secure refuse and recycling storage is provided.
6.7.2. The scheme proposes a purpose built storage area at the rear, adjacent to the service lane, to contain refuse and recycling storage facilities for the ground floor commercial units and the residential flats. The size and capacity complies with the Architects Code of Practice. Noting the presence of existing Eurobins in this access lane which are obviously serviced by commercial waste collectors, there are no objections to this location. The Council’s Streetcare Services have commented that there are no objections to the scheme.
6.7.3. One objector has raised concerns regarding the location and nature of the proposed storage facilities, being some 3 metres from the nearest residential premises. Whilst this concern is acknowledged, it is noted that the location is in similar proximity to existing refuse arrangements, which are informally arranged in several locations on the service lane, including immediately adjoining this neighbour’s windows. Given this fact, it is not considered that a reason for refusal regarding this location could be substantiated, which is further away than at present by a few metres and would be in a specially designed enclosure. The enclosure is of a height and distance away which would not obstruct daylight entry to these windows. Any nuisance such as smell or vermin caused by such facilities is a matter for other environmental legislation, and subject to adequate maintenance would not raise concerns in this respect. Nevertheless, a condition requiring full details of refuse and recycling facilities is suggested, and which would ensure a more formal and controlled arrangement over and above the existing facilities.
6.8. Crime Prevention
6.8.1. Policy 31a Community Safety / Designing Out Crime of the emerging UDP states that new development should enhance community safety and that development will not be permitted where it will increase opportunities for crime.
6.8.2. The Council’s Crime Prevention Officer has raise no objection to the proposal, but does note the need to ensure adequate visual access control, and that the vehicular gates incorporate a robust design to make them non-climbable. Conditions and informatives are proposed to ensure compliance with Secure by Design principles.
Page 24
6.9. Sustainability
6.9.1. Policy 32a (Renewable Energy in Major Developments] states that within major developments of this nature it is required to incorporate equipment to generate 10% renewable power on site. Policy 32b requires developments to incorporate of sustainable design and construction principles.
6.9.2. The applicant has advised that they are discussions with Solar Century, based on Lower Marsh, on the subject of a possible stream 2 grant application from the Energy Saving Trust for the installation of Photo Voltaic panels on the new roof of the development. Details of these would need to be secured by way of condition, and such measures are supported as a means of making carbon savings and working towards requirements of Policy 32a. The re-use of the existing building, rather than demolition is supported as a means of reducing the schemes environmental impact, in accordance with Policy 32b. Furthermore, the requirements of the Building Regulations with respect to use of renewable materials would further assist in meeting the intentions of these policies.
6.10. Regeneration and Town Centre Issues
6.10.1. The proposal entails the retention of the existing retail shops in- situ. The scheme involves improvements to the shopfronts of these properties, with Boots being the only units whose floorspace would be altered – moving first floor ancillary administrative space to the ground floor of the rear extension that is proposed. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal may enhance this district centre, and by introducing further residential activity and residents, increase its vibrancy and vitality.
6.10.2. Whilst shop owners have expressed concern about disturbance during construction and that it would not be physically possible to construct three floors over the existing building, these are not for consideration under the Town and Country Planning Act. However, the applicant has confirmed that they do not have to undertake any structural work to the foundations or fabric of the existing building, and that it will be possible to undertake the development without needing to close the shops. It is considered that a method of construction statement would be appropriate so as to be satisfied that building works and scaffolding etc do not obstruct the public highway, and to ensure that the shop premises can remain open during construction.
6.11. Section 106 Legal Agreement
6.11.1. Policy 26 and 50a of the RDUDP refer to contributions to education as an appropriate example where planning obligations can be sought. The education department have recently issued an executive report that highlights that the population projection for Lambeth and the resulting growth in the school population
Page 25
suggests that a significant increase in school places will be needed by 2015 in both the primary and secondary sectors. As such, contributions to school places will be sought from all residential new build, change of use and conversion development proposals where the scheme results in a net increase of 10 or more dwellings.
6.11.2. Consideration has been given to the likely impact of the development on the demand for school places within the Borough. An assessment of future numbers of primary and secondary school children, likely to occupy the proposed development and for whom education within the Borough is required, has been carried out in accordance with the Councils Draft Supplementary Planning Document for education contributions. This calculation indicates a likely child yield for Primary education of 2.51 and a child yield of 0.915 for Secondary education. This would result in a contribution of £24,809 for primary education and £13,805 for Secondary education. This gives a total contribution of £38,614. The applicants have agreed to pay this sum.
6.11.3. To safeguard the affordable housing, and to secure contributions towards primary and secondary education needs likely to arise from the development, and essential environmental/highway improvement works it is recommended that the applicant be required to enter into a Section 106 to secure:
- the provision of 40% Affordable residential accommodation with a 70:30 split between social and intermediate housing; - a contribution of £38,614 for primary and secondary school education facilities within Lambeth; - a contribution of £35,000 towards environmental improvement works on Lower Marsh; - securing the residential units as “permit free”.
7. Conclusion
7.1. The proposal comprises a comprehensive re-development of a two storey commercial property on Lower Marsh.
7.2. It is considered that the principle of re-development is acceptable, with the scheme contributing to the Council’s housing stock with a mix of unit sizes and affordability. Whilst the proposal would entail the loss of a private leisure facility, it is considered that the circumstances are such that there are adequate similar facilities in the area, and no objections have been raised to its loss.
7.3. It is considered that the design, bulk, scale and appearance of the scheme is in keeping with the surrounding area, is a significant improvement over existing, and would ensure the preservation and enhancement of the Lower Marsh Conservation Area.
7.4. It is considered that the orientation and relationship with surrounding properties, along with the proposed design, is such that the development
Page 26
would not have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of adjoining residential neighbours.
7.5. The proposed accommodation would provide a good standard of housing for future residents, with a mix of unit sizes and tenureship.
7.6. Subject to a Section 106 agreement and conditions regarding the utilisation of the rear service yard, it is considered that the development would not result in an increase in parking stress or traffic congestion within the area.
8. Recommendation
8.1. Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement in relation to the following: - Securing the residential units as “car free”; - Securing 40% of habitable rooms as affordable housing in perpetuity (without Housing Corporation subsidy) split 70:30 between low cost and intermediate tenureship; - Securing £38,614 towards education contributions; - Securing £35,000 towards environmental improvement works on Lower Marsh.
Page 27
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant: Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998): Policy H1: Housing Provision, Policy H10: Residential Development Standards, Policy CD2: Proposals for Development, Policy CD14: Safeguarding Archaeological Remains, Policy CD15: Design of New Development, Policy CD17:Shopfronts, CD18: Extensions, Policy RL39: nooker Clubs, Pool Halls, Fitness Training Centres and other private facilities, Policy S13: Floorspace Over Shops, Policy T17: Transport Implications for Development Proposals, Policy ENV19: Noise Control, Policy ENV24: Waste Management and Disposal;
Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) Policy 4: Town Centres and Community Regeneration, Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity, Policy 9: Transport Impact, Policy 10: Walking and Cycling, Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint, Policy 15: Additional Housing, Policy 16: Affordable Housing, Policy 20: Mixed-Use Development, Policy 26: Community Facilities, Policy 31a:Community Safety/Designing Out Crime, Policy 32: Building Scale and Design, Policy 32a: Renewable Energy, Policy 32b: Sustainable Design and Construction, Policy 33: Extensions and Alterations, Policy 34: Shopfronts and Advertisements, Policy 35: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas, Policy 36: treetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design, Policy 42: Conservation Areas, Policy 43: Archaeology: Recording and Analysis of Buildings, Policy 48: Pollution, Public Health and Safety, Policy 50: Waste, Policy 50a: Planning Obligations.
1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2 The flat roof areas and 4th floor emergency exit balcony of the development hereby approved shall be used for emergency purposes only and not as a terrace, sitting out area or amenity area. Reason: To preserve the privacy and amenities of the adjacent property occupiers (Policies CD15, H10, ST1 and ST5 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 32 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
3 Full details of an obscure screen at the south western end of the fourth floor emergency exit balcony (adjoining Flat 4-22) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the dwellings and shall be permanently retained thereafter. Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property (Policies CD15, H10 and ST5 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
4 Full details, including samples, of the following features/materials proposed in the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
Page 28
the Local Planning Authority before any building work commences and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application: a) all external facing materials, including render panels, colour and type of bricks, timber cladding, window/glazing detail, balcony detail; b) detailed construction and section drawings for the front elevation, including depth of set-back of the areas of fair-faced brickwork, depth of reveals of the grouped windows, and details of the window surrounds; c) detailed drawings of the metal work finials; d) construction details, dimensions and detailed design of roof (including overhang) and solar panels. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies CD2, CD15, CD18 and G17 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 32, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
5 Detailed drawings of the shopfronts, including sections, samples and a schedule of materials, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building work commences and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policy CD17 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 34 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
6 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the external faces of the building. Reason: Such works would detract from the appearance of the building and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality (Policy CD15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 32 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
7 Prior to the commencement of the development, full details of the entrance gates fronting Launcelot Street, showing it opening inwards, and including full details of its opening/operation mechanism and access rights, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety and crime prevention (Policy T17 and T18 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 31 and 31a of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
8 No part of the development shall be occupied or used until a parking management strategy for the rear service lane has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Parking shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway (Policies CD15, T18, ST29 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 14 and 32 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
9 The scheme for parking, garaging, manoeuvring, and the loading and unloading of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way. Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway (Policies S3, CD15, T18, ST29 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary
Page 29
Development Plan (1998), and Policies 14 and 32 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
10 No part of the development shall be occupied until a turning area has been laid out within the site for long wheel base transit vehicles to turn in accordance with the approved drawing and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose or obstructed in any way. Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off and turn clear of the highway thereby avoiding the need to reverse onto the public highway (Policies T18, CD15 and ST29 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 14 and 32 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
11 Prior to the occupation of any of the residential units hereby permitted, details of the provision to be made for 34 covered and secure cycle parking spaces for the residential units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the building hereby permitted is occupied/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 G39, G40, T36 and 32 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
12 Full details of refuse and recycling storage facilities to serve the development, including details of the enclosure, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies ENV24 and CD15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 32 and 50 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
13 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme approved pursuant to this condition. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that any archaeological evidence discovered during groundworks is adequately recorded (Policy CD14 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 43 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
14 Full details of the three units to be constructed to wheelchair accessibility standards shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted development. Reason: To ensure adequate disabled accommodation is provided (Policy H12 of the Adopted UDP and Policy 32 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
15 Details of a scheme of soundproofing (to prevent fumes, smell and noise
Page 30
permeating into residential accommodation) of all party walls and the ceiling/floor between the ground floor commercial premises and the first floor residential units, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The soundproofing shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial residential occupation of the building and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted development Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers or of the area generally (Policies EMP12, S3, S13 and ENV19 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 7, 20, 23, 32, 35 and 48 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
16 Full details (including noise mitigations measures) of all commercial exhaust ducting / ventilation systems, including the extract and boiler flue, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development. The systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the development. Reason: To safeguard residential amenity (Policy S14 of the Adopted UDP and Policy 32 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
17 Noise from the extractor and flue shall not exceed the background noise level in the area when measured from the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers or of the area generally (Policies S14 and ENV19 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 7, 29 and 48 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004).
18 Details of a scheme to light the access drive and vehicle parking areas hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall be implemented in full before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. The approved lighting shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interest of public safety (Policies ENV12, ENV15 and ENV16 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policy 31 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
19 No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety, and in the interests of the retail function of Lower Marsh (Policy T17, T18 and S3 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
Notes to Applicants:
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.
Page 31
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 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- name a new street- name a new or existing building- apply new street numbers to a new or existing buildingThis 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. Rachel Harrison, Street Naming and Numbering Officer, e-mail: [email protected] , tel: 020 - 7926 2283, fax: 020 7926 9131
5 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Principal Highways Engineer of the Highways team on 020 7926 2620 or 079 0411 9517 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.
6 The applicant is advised of 'Secure by Design' standards for communal entrances including a visual control system, as well as BS standards for windows, doors, residential doors, and gates. Please contact the Crime Prevention Design Officer within the Community Safety Team on 020 7926 1243 to discuss these requirements.
7 You are reminded that this application is subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
8 You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division concerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or regulations made thereunder.
9 You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division with regard to the extraction of fumes from the premises.
Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank Page 33 Agenda Item 5
Page 34
Page 35
Location Shop 36 - 38 Clapham Road London SW9 0JQ
Ward Oval Proposal
Erection of a single storey store to rear of property.
Application Type Full Planning Permission
Application No 06/01808/FUL/DC_RHE/11092
Applicant Mr M. C. Yeoh
Agent Jaime Delgado Mcsd Chartered Designer 8 Kingfisher Close Harrow Weald HA3 6DA
Date Valid 5 June 2006
Considerations
Conservation Area CA11 : St Marks Conservation Area Tunnel Safeguarding line Tunnel Safeguarding Line Adopted UDP Protected View UDP Protected View : V4 : Parliament Hill to Palace of Westm Adopted UDP Archaeological area UDP Archaeological Area : A3 : Roman Road Cross River Transit Cross River Transit
Approved Plans
4894/1, 4894/1B, 4894/4A
Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION
Page 36
Officer Report
06/01808/FUL
1. Summary Of Main Issues
1.1. The main issue raised by this proposal is the impact of the proposed store on visual amenity in the locality, and in particular its impact on the wider St Marks Conservation Area.
1.2. The proposed store’s impact on neighbour amenity, in terms of daylight and sunlight.
2. Site Description
2.1. The subject properties (nos. 36 and 38) are located on the north-western side of Clapham Road. The proposed store is located to the rear of no. 38. Both properties are currently in use as a restaurant at ground floor level with residential accommodation above.
2.2. There are air conditioning units on the rear elevation of no. 36, with a large extractor flue on the rear elevation of no. 38.
2.3. A large wooden store is located in the rear yard of no. 38 – on the site of the proposed wooden store. This store has dimensions of 4.3m in depth, 2.3m (3.3m including eaves) in width and 2.8m in height.
2.4. It is very important to note that the existing structure is not the subject of this application – in the event of the approval of the proposed store the existing (unauthorised) one would be removed.
2.5. The properties are located within the St Marks Conservation Area; the properties are not listed.
3. Planning History
3.1. An application (ref: 06/00259/FUL) for the erection of a single storey store to rear of property with associated works was withdrawn on the 25.04.2006 [this application was retrospective - for the store that is currently in existence].
4. Scheme Details
4.1. The current application involves the erection of a single storey store to the rear of the property. The scheme has been amended to take account of Case Officer advice.
4.2. The store would be located to the immediate rear of an existing single storey (brick construction) extension. It would have a floor area of 9.2 sq.m.
4.3. The proposed store would be 3.75m in depth, 2.6m in width (including eaves) and 2.4m in height.
Page 37
4.4. The external walls of the store would be of feather-edged boarding. It is to be painted ‘conservation green’. The roof materials are to be lead or zinc. The base of the store would be a brick plinth, with a painted concrete floor.
4.5. The location of the proposed store has been amended to move it a further 0.5m away from the rear boundary with no. 5a Palfrey Place. The store would protrude 0.5m above the rear fence marking the boundary between the host property and the property to the rear, 5a Palfrey Place.
4.6. The store is to be used in connection with the restaurant business – specifically for the (as the submitted application forms state) storage of ‘dry good/utensils for restaurant use.’ A letter from the application agent dated 26 th September 2006 reiterates the above and also states that ‘we firmly reiterate that the store will be used solely as a store and not as a food preparation area.’ The letter also states that the store ‘has a concrete base, which will be coated with impermeable paint/varnish for easy maintenance.’
4.7. In the event of the approval of this application, the existing unauthorised structure would be removed to make way for the proposed store.
5. Consultation Responses
5.1. Consultation letters were sent to adjoining neighbours at the following properties: - Nos. 1-13 Palfrey Place - 4 Trigon Road - 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 Clapham Road - IMPACT, 66 Claylands Road
5.2. The Vauxhall Society, Regents Bridge Gardens Association, Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum and the Kennington Association were consulted. A site notice was posted and a press notice published.
5.3. 3 objections were received in response to the first consultation, with concerns raised comprising the following issues: - The building will give a significant negative sightline; - The location of the building sets a precedent, which allows other outbuildings to be built away from the main body of the commercial property and up to neighbouring residential properties. Structures, similar to the one proposed, would be more effective if attached to the applicant’s main building; - The location of the proposal is contrary to Conservation Area policies; - The design and materials are inappropriate; - Impact on residential amenity through increased noise and disturbance, and loss of outlook; - Impact on health and safety, and increase in vermin.
5.4. An additional 10 objections (including one from Kate Hoey MP) were received in response to the second consultation, with concerns raised comprising the following issues: - External appearance of the development; - Loss of sunlight; - Undue noise or fumes; - Fire risk – being so close to kitchen;
Page 38
- The gap of 0.5m from the rear boundary fence is insufficient to allow for ‘my privacy, maintenance of the outbuilding, and to create landscaping to replace the natural foliage, which was removed to make way for this plywood building … I would look to see a dead space of at least 2m to separate my residential boundary from this ‘extended floorspace’; - ‘We do not believe a gap of 0.5 metres is sufficient space between a commercial outbuilding and a residential garden’; - ‘This space is small enough as not to allow easy maintenance between the outbuilding and garden fence’; - ‘The extension was erected without due consideration for neighbours and its surroundings, and should now be subject to the same planning constraints as it would have been had planning permission been applied for before the construction was built. The proposed actions to paint the extension green and lower the roof will do little to improve the impact on neighbours.’
6. Planning Considerations
6.1. Relevant Policies
6.1.1. Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) (AUDP) Policies: CD2: Proposals for Development (Conservation Areas) CD15: Design of New Development CD18: Extensions S3: New shopping development, rebuilding and extension of existing shops ENV7: Retention of Trees in Existing Development ENV8: Protection of Trees on Development Sites ENV19: Noise Control
6.1.2. Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) (RUDP) Policies: 7: Protection of Residential Amenity 32: Building Scale & Design 33: Alterations and Extensions 36: Streetscape, Landscape & Public Realm Design 42: Conservation Areas 48: Pollution, Public Health and Safety
6.1.3. The policies of the emerging replacement UDP normally carry relatively less weight than the policies of the adopted UDP. Generally speaking the weight to be attached to such emerging policies depends upon the stage of plan preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached.
6.1.4. In the case of the Lambeth Replacement UDP, the Council has now received the Inspector’s Report (17 th February 2006) and is in the course of responding to the Inspector’s recommendations and preparing proposed modifications as part of the final stage of procedures leading to adoption of the Replacement UDP. This is a significant stage in the process of adoption of the Replacement UDP and as such considerable weight may be attached to policies in the Replacement UDP, which the Inspector has supported.
Page 39
6.1.5. The Council’s approach to this has been approved under delegated powers and is outlined in the Report on the Current Status of the Replacement UDP, which lists the policies the Inspector supports and states the Council will take this approach to all planning applications submitted from 1 st August 2006.
6.2. Land Use
6.2.1. The proposed store would be used in association with the existing use of the premises as a restaurant; specifically, it is to be used for the storage of dry goods and utensils for the restaurant. Therefore no change of use is proposed and no land use issues come from this application. The proposed store is considered to be an appropriate addition to the existing use of the land as a restaurant.
6.2.2. In terms of intensification of use, the proposal is for storage only, and would not result in the expansion of the existing restaurant. A condition is suggested to ensure that it is not used for additional working space for the restaurant, and as a store only.
6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations
6.3.1. Policy CD15 of the AUDP states that the Council will seek to achieve a high quality of design in all new development that carefully relates to its surroundings and contributing positively to the area. Policy 32 of the RUDP states that the design of development should exhibit a consistent and well-considered application of the principles of any chosen style and have regard to the context and sensitivity of the site and area. The form and design of new development should be disciplined by height, massing, rhythm and roofscape of adjoining buildings and architectural characteristics, profile and silhouette of adjoining buildings.
6.3.2. Policy CD2 of the AUDP states that in considering development proposals, the Council will ensure that the character or appearance of a conservation area is preserved or enhanced. In determining applications for new development, special regard will be given to: (i) bulk; (ii) height; (iii) proportion and rhythm; (iv) roofscape; (v) materials and colour; (vi) landscaping including boundary treatment; (vii) layout; (viii) design details; (ix) style; (x) existing trees. Additionally, Policy 42 of the RUDP states that ‘the enhancement of conservation areas and the improvement and restoration of properties within conservation areas is encouraged and will be promoted in conjunction with local residents and societies’.
6.3.3. AUDP Policy S3 states that ‘in accordance with its policies towards the maintenance and improvement of the Borough’s shopping centres, the Council will normally grant planning permission for the construction of new shops and rebuilding/extension of existing shops within Streatham and Brixton Major centres, the District centres and the Neighbourhood
Page 40
centres subject to consideration of … the impact of the proposed development upon the vitality and viability of any existing shopping centre as a whole.’
6.3.4. The proposed store would be 3.75m in depth, 2.6m in width (including eaves) and 2.4m in height. The location of the proposed store was revised to move it a further 0.5m away from the rear boundary with no. 5a Palfrey Place.
6.3.5. The Conservation and Design team, when commenting on the originally submitted scheme, and confirm that there are no objections, as the structure is seen to have very little impact upon the wider conservation area. Concerns were raised about the materials and as such, amendments to the submitted scheme were requested, with feather-edged boarding now being proposed. As a result, the Conservation Officer is satisfied with the proposal, and that it achieves the appearance of a garden structure, more in keeping with its context.
6.3.6. The external materials of the proposed structure, being green- painted feather-edged boarding and a lead or zinc roof, are considered to be appropriate in this context. As the Conservation Officer has stated, the revised design of the store is now more residential in character – looking more like a garden shed than a commercial extension.
6.3.7. In light of the above comments, the proposed store is considered to be a relatively minor addition, which is considered appropriate in this mixed use (commercial/residential) area. The proposed store would be subordinate to the main building and surroundings given its location set behind the existing rear extension at the property.
6.3.8. Any impact upon the wider Conservation Area would be mitigated by the store’s ‘domestic’ appearance (feather-edged boarding and ‘conservation’ green colour) and low overall height (only 0.5m higher than the existing rear boundary fence).
6.3.9. Furthermore, the store would have no impact on the streetscene by virtue of its location to the rear of the host property.
6.3.10. Overall it is considered that the proposed development would comply with Policies CD2, CD15 and CD18 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies 32, 33 and 42 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
6.4. Amenity Impact
6.4.1. In assessing the acceptability of the scheme it is appropriate to consider the potential impact upon amenities of surrounding residential properties. Policy CD15 of the AUDP and Policy 32 of the RUDP require that schemes protect existing residents amenity, ensuring adequate levels of privacy, daylight, and preventing overlooking and sense of enclosure. H10 (ST3) of the
Page 41
AUDP relates to sunlight/daylight issues and states that new development must have regard to the BRE guidelines.
6.4.2. Policy 7 of the RUDP seeks to protect residential amenity and states that in mixed-use areas, the scale, hours of use, intensity, concentration and location of non-residential uses will be controlled in relation to residential uses to protect residential amenity.
6.4.3. The proposed store, at 2.4m in height at its highest point, would not be significantly taller than the adjacent boundary fences, which are 1.8m - 2m in height.
6.4.4. There are no windows in the rear elevation of the store that would have potential to cause overlooking of neighbouring properties.
6.4.5. Additionally, the store is to be located approximately 10.5m away from the rear elevation of the neighbouring residential properties to the rear on Palfrey Place. It is therefore considered to be highly unlikely that any measurable negative noise impacts would be likely to result from the structure and its use as a store in connection with the use of the host property as a restaurant. The Council’s Regulatory Services (Noise/Pollution) section was consulted and has stated that ‘no environmental health impacts are envisaged in relation to noise nuisance. Hence, no objections.’
6.4.6. Again, due to the store’s distance from the neighbouring properties to the rear (10.5m) and its low overall height (just 0.5m above the height of the existing boundary fence), it would not cause any loss of daylight and sunlight to habitable rooms in these properties.
6.4.7. In light of the above considerations, the proposed store will not have any discernable negative impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers – including loss of daylight and sunlight.
6.4.8. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would comply with Policies CD15 and ENV19 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies 7, 32 and 48 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
6.5. Amenity Impact – Noise/Pollution
6.5.1. AUDP Policy ENV19 states that developments that are likely to generate noise inappropriate to the local environment will be refused. RUDP Policy 48 (e) states that noise and/or vibration- generating development will not be permitted if it would create, or worsen, noise levels above acceptable levels set out in national policy guidance.
6.5.2. The Council’s Regulatory Services (Noise/Pollution) Team were consulted and have stated that there is no environmental health impact in relation to noise nuisance. They therefore consider that the proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions.
Page 42
6.5.3. Furthermore, as the proposal is for a store with no additional cooking capacity, it therefore follows that no additional fumes or cooking smells would arise from its use.
6.5.4. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would comply with Policy ENV19 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 48 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
6.6. Amenity Impact – Food Safety
6.6.1. Several objectors have raised the issues of increase in vermin and a general negative impact on health and safety that they perceive would arise from the use of the store.
6.6.2. The Council’s Regulatory Services (Food Safety) Team were consulted on this application, and advise that the store would be required to comply with the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995. They raise no objections to the proposed use as a store, with concerns relating to if cooking were to occur and the need for appropriate ventilation. However, as the proposal is for a store with no additional cooking capacity, it therefore follows that no additional fumes or cooking smells would arise from its use.
6.6.3. So as to ensure that no cooking does occur, a condition prohibiting it would be appropriate. An informative will be added requiring the store to be properly maintained for the duration of its use, including regular proofing, treating and cleaning.
6.7. Impact on Trees
6.7.1. Adopted Policies ENV7 and ENV8 seek to retain trees and minimise the loss of trees, safeguard those trees to be retained during construction and encourage the planting of new trees/shrubs/hedges. Replacement Policy 36 states that trees of high amenity value will be protected.
6.7.2. The Tree Officer has assessed the scheme and has no objections, stating that it does not appear that the pruning that has been carried out has been, or will be, detrimental to the long term health of the tree. The works that have been carried out comprise a 'crown lift' of the lower canopy of the Sycamore tree and such works that would have been approved had the owners approached the Local Planning Authority at the time the pruning was carried out.
6.7.3. The proposed scheme is therefore considered to be in accordance with Adopted Policy ENV7 and ENV8, also Replacement UDP Policy 36.
Page 43
7. Conclusion
7.1. The proposed store is acceptable and would not have an adverse effect on visual amenity or the character of the St Marks Conservation Area.
7.2. The proposal will not have a significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of local residents and occupiers.
7.3. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable (subject to conditions) and in accordance with relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004).
8. Recommendation
8.1. Grant permission subject to conditions.
Page 44
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant: Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) Policies:CD2: Proposals for Development (Conservation Areas)CD15: Design of New DevelopmentCD18: ExtensionsS3: New shopping development, rebuilding and extension of existing shopsENV19: Noise Control; Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) Policies:7: Protection of Residential Amenity32: Building Scale and Design33: Alterations and Extensions42: Conservation Areas48: Pollution, Public Health and Safety
1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)
2 The store hereby approved shall be constructed of 'feather-edged' boarding and be painted 'conservation green' (BS 14039). The roof shall be of zinc or lead. The store shall thereafter be maintained as such for the duration of its use. Reason: To ensure that the materials used are of appropriate quality in the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the conservation area (Policy CD2 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 42 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004).
3 The store hereby approved shall only be used for storage ancillary to the use of the host property as a restaurant, and not for the preparation and/or cooking of food. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers or of the area generally (Policies CD18 and ENV19 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 7, 33 and 48 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004).
4 The unauthorised store already in place at 38 Clapham Road shall be removed within 30 days of the date of this decision notice and prior to the construction of the new building. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area (Policies CD2, CD15 and CD18 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 32, 33 and 42 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004).
Notes to Applicants:
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.
Page 45
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 The applicant is reminded that the store hereby approved shall be properly maintained for the duration of its use. This can be achieved by regular proofing, treating and cleaning.
5 Failure to remove the existing structure on the site within the prescribed time will result in enforcement proceedings being taken. Please advise the Council of action taken in respect of Condition 4.
Page 46
This page is intentionally left blank Page 47 Agenda Item 6 Page 48
Page 49
Location Business 369 Clapham Road London
Ward Larkhall Proposal
Redevelopment of rear of site, comprising erection of a terrace of four 3-storey houses (two with basements) with second floor front balconies, facing onto a courtyard area containing seven car parking spaces, cycle parking and landscaping.
Application Type Full Planning Permission
Application No 06/02329/FUL/DC_SWE/20776
Applicant McClymont Holdings Limited
Agent Mark Fairhurst Ltd Ground Floor West Neckinger Mills 162-164 Abbey Street London SE1 2AN
Date Valid 27 July 2006
Considerations
Conservation Area CA33 : Clapham Road Conservation Area Tunnel Safeguarding line Tunnel Safeguarding Line Adopted UDP Archaeological area UDP Archaeological Area : A3 : Roman Road
Approved Plans
PL 107E, 109G, 110, 112A, 114, 116, 130A, 131, 140A, 564/PR13A, 14A
Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION
Page 50
Officer Report
06/02329/FUL
1. Summary Of Main Issues
1.1. Acceptability of the use of the rear of the site for residential purposes.
1.2. Height, bulk, scale and design of the proposed building and the impact on the character of the conservation area and setting of listed building.
1.3. Impact of the development upon the living conditions of the future occupiers and existing neighbours.
1.4. The acceptability of the proposal with respect to traffic, parking congestion and highway safety.
2. Site Description
2.1. The application site is a backland site accessed via an existing driveway off the east side of Clapham Road, some 250 metres north of Clapham North tube station.
2.2. There is an existing three - storey plus basement detached Grade II listed building which the proposed development would sit behind. This building is set back some 20 metres from Clapham Road and has recently been converted from a funeral directors into 6 flats. It has a landscaped garden to the front, and there are vehicular and pedestrian gates set back some 3 metres from the back of the footpath along its northern edge.
2.3. The application site, which abuts the rear boundary, is currently vacant. Part of it is fenced off, the remaining area currently used as informal parking for the main building. The site previously contained a single storey corrugated iron building, approximately 9 metres deep and covering the full width of the site, with a sloping roof. This building was previously used for commercial purposes. An existing 6 metre boundary wall which formed the rear and side walls of the demolished building, remains in-situ. The applicant had commenced excavation works but on receipt of complaints from nearby residents, these have ceased.
2.4. The site is situated within the Clapham Road Conservation Area, and as stated above, adjoins a Grade II listed building. It is also within an Archaeological Priority Area, due to the Roman road, Stane Street.
2.5. To the rear of the site lies a large area of wooded land that is accessed from 373 - 377 Clapham Road and which has planning permission for a residential development. To the north of the site is a large industrial unit, and the property to the south is in commercial use, with residential accommodation above. Page 51
3. Planning History
3.1. The existing building on the site, was constructed in the early 1800’s, originally as a house, but was converted to a Funeral Directors (date of change of use unknown).
3.2. An application for a change of use from funeral directors to six flats, the erection of a 4- storey rear extension, external alterations, erection of 6 three- storey dwellings at the rear and the provision of 12 parking spaces (98/01952/FUL) was withdrawn on 8/12/98.
3.3. Subsequently a planning and listed building consent application were submitted for the conversion of the building to use as four self- contained flats with associated parking and amenity space (99/00175/FUL & 99/00345/LB). These were approved on 6th August 1999, but not implemented.
3.4. Applications were submitted and withdrawn on 06/12/01 for the conversion of the listed building to provide 7 self- contained flats along with the demolition of the ground floor rear extension and the erection of 4 x 3- storey buildings to the rear (ref 01/02295/LB & 01/02294/FUL). The application was withdrawn at the council’s request so to discuss a more appropriate internal layout of the listed building and a revised design for the dwellings to the rear.
3.5. Planning permission and listed building consent granted by the Planning Applications Committee on 10.6.02 for the conversion of existing building into 7 self contained flats including the demolition of rear ground floor extension and workshop (and internal works) and the erection of four 3 storey terraced single family dwellings along with associated landscaping and works (ref. 02/00171/FUL and 02/00173/LB). This scheme has not been implemented, but the 4 dwellings proposed in the current application are identical to those approved under this scheme.
3.6. Planning permission and listed building consent granted 31.10.2003 for conversion of building from funeral directors to six self contained flats involving the demolition of existing rear extensions and erection of a rear extension at basement level together with associated alterations, landscaping works and on site parking (ref 03/01900/FUL and 03/01901/LB). This application was implemented, however during the course of construction, an application to amend the plans with respect to alterations to the footprint of the extension at rear basement level was approved in May 2004 (ref 04/00722/FUL and 04/00719/LB). It is noted that this scheme which was implemented did not include the four dwellings. At the time of this application, it was proposed to incorporate the site into a development of the larger plot behind the application site, which would have resulted in a large landscape and parking area on the application site. This proposal never came to fruition.
3.7. There have been various submission of planning applications to approve details of conditions relating to the planning permission for conversion of the existing building into 6 flats detailed under 3.6 above. Approval has been granted to landscaping, vehicular access and cycle parking. The details of boundary treatment have been refused due to the unacceptability Page 52
of the railings which have been installed to the front elevation. This is currently an enforcement case.
3.8. On the adjoining site to the rear, referred to under 3.6 above, planning permission has been granted and is about to be implemented for erection of a terrace of three storey buildings to contain 4 houses and 5 flats. Access to this development would be provided between No's 371 and 373 Clapham Road (ref 05/03682/FUL).
4. Scheme Details
4.1. This application is for full planning permission to construct a terrace of four 3 storey houses.
4.2. The units would all comprise 4 bedroom dwelling houses, the two middle dwellings to contain basement floorspace (non-habitable with no natural light). Each unit would have a front (private) garden, and a small terrace at second floor level.
4.3. Access to the development would be from the existing driveway off Clapham Road, and there would be a total of seven parking spaces laid out in a courtyard area between the subject buildings and the existing building on the site, to be allocated between the two sites. A total of 16 cycle parking spaces would be provided.
4.4. Materials for the building would comprise stock facing brick and render to match the existing listed building, with painted timber windows, and slate roof.
4.5. The current application is identical to a terrace of buildings which were approved in 2002 (see 3.5 above). This permission has not been able to be implemented due to the fact that the conversion which was approved under that planning permission was superseded and carried out in the existing building was undertaken in accordance with an amended scheme (see 3.6 above) and in this instance, due to the nature of the conditions, it was not possible to partially implement the two permissions.
5. Consultation Responses
5.1. Consultation letters were sent to the following properties which surround the development: 12 – 62 Atherfold Road (evens), 361 – 377 Clapham Road.
5.2. Letters were also sent to the Clapham Society, the Clapham Antiquarian Society, English Heritage Archaeological Unit, Transport for London, London Underground, 3 Ward Councillors, and the local MP.
5.3. A site notice and press notice were posted.
5.4. A total of 10 responses were received in response to the consultation that was carried out. The issues raised can be summarised as follows: - Would compromise architectural value of existing listed building and its setting; Page 53
- Would result in the loss of landscaped garden (amenity) area, by virtue of the paved courtyard/parking area; - Overdevelopment of site – site is already cramped; - Plan are inaccurate with respect to exiting lightwells, and area surrounding main building; - Possible damage from manoeuvring cars upon existing building; - Layout is already cramped enough; - Insufficient parking for the total number of flats on the site, or motorcycle parking; - Insufficient on-site turning/manoeuvrability for vehicles; - Inadequate pedestrian access/walkways around parking area; - Overlooking and impact upon privacy to existing building, including from use of parking area in close proximity to lightwells. Windows would be separated by only 18 metres; - The scheme is of excessive bulk and scale in relation to the space available; - Inadequate drainage systems in place on site; - Noise and disturbance from additional residents; - Conflicts with approved scheme on which existing building was developed; - The existing rear wall is in separate ownership and needs to be taken into account with respect to Party Wall matters.
5.5. A Local Ward Councillor has reiterated the objections which have been raised by residents in relation to the architectural character of the listed building, overlooking and loss of privacy, loss of communal gardens, and that the proposal results in overdevelopment of the site. This Ward Councillor has requested that the application be determined by the Planning Applications Committee.
5.6. The Local MP has been included in email exchanges from objectors to this case, with concerns relating largely to the matter of enforcement and unauthorised works proceeding on the site.
6. Planning Considerations
6.1. Relevant Policies
6.1.1. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development : Seeks to bring vacant and underused previously developed land and buildings back into beneficial use to achieve the targets the Government has set for development on previously developed land.
6.1.2. Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing (March 2000): Sets out the Government's housing policies on different aspects of planning. Paragraph 57 confirms that Local Planning Authorities are expected to seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.
Page 54
6.1.3. Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment : Provides guidance for development that affects listed buildings and conservation areas.
6.1.4. Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998): Policy H1: Housing Provision Policy H3: Reversion to Residential Use Policy H6: New housing developments Policy H10: Residential Development Standards Policy H16: Backland, Rear Garden, Corner and Adjacent to Corner Sites EMP6: Protection of land and buildings generating employment Policy CD2: Proposals for Development Policy CD5: Enhancement of Conservation Areas. Policy CD10: New Uses for Old Buildings Policy CD13: Setting of Listed Buildings Policy CD14: Safeguarding Archaeological Remains Policy CD15: Design of New Development Policy T17: Transport Implications for Development Proposals Policy ENV9: New planting and landscaping on development sites Policy ENV24: Waste Management and Disposal Policy ENV25: Recycling and Re-Use
6.1.5. Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004): Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 10: Walking and Cycling Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint Policy 15: Additional Housing Policy 23: Protection and Location of Employment Uses Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32: Building Scale and Design Policy 35: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas Policy 41: Listed Buildings Policy 42: Conservation Areas Policy 43: Archaeology Policy 50: Waste
6.1.6. Supplementary Planning Guidance : SPG 4: Internal Layout and Room Sizes
6.1.7. The policies of the emerging replacement UDP normally carry relatively less weight than the policies of the adopted UDP. Generally speaking the weight to be attached to such emerging policies depends upon the stage of plan preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached.
6.1.8. In the case of the Lambeth Replacement UDP, the Council has now received the Inspector’s Report (17th February 2006) and is in the course of responding to the Inspector’s recommendations and preparing proposed modifications as part of the final stage of procedures leading to adoption of the Replacement UDP. This is Page 55
a significant stage in the process of adoption of the Replacement UDP and as such considerable weight may be attached to policies in the Replacement UDP, which the Inspector has supported.
6.1.9. The Council’s approach to this has been approved under delegated powers and is outlined in the Report on the Current Status of the Replacement UDP, which lists the policies the Inspector supports and states the Council will take this approach to all planning applications submitted from 1st August 2006.
6.2. Land Use
6.2.1. Until recently, the application site contained a workshop building, accessed by a narrow passageway between the main building and side boundary of the property. The workshop building was in a poor state of repair, and detracted from the character of the conservation area, and was demolished earlier this year. It is understood that these buildings were most recently used for the repair, maintenance and storage of cars, ancillary to the main building, which until its conversion to flats in 2003, was occupied by a funeral directors, known as Ashtons.
6.2.2. Due to the fact that these building were last in commercial use, Policy EMP6, H3 and CD10 of the AUDP and Policy 23 and 40 of Replacement UDP are of relevance. These policies confirm that sites originally developed for residential purposes, which are difficult to access and service, and have an unacceptable relationship to surrounding (residential) properties may be more suitable for reversion to residential use. It is not known if the workshop building was ever associated with the original residential use of the site, but it is noted that the earliest Ordnance Survey extract does not show this building.
6.2.3. The narrow accessway, listed and residential status of the adjacent building, are such that this backland site is not ideally suited for an active commercial use. This is in accordance with two previous planning permissions for the site which saw the cessation of its commercial activity in favour of reversion to residential use. Policy 23 of the Replacement UDP in particular states that loss of employment is permitted where it is a listed building designed for and reverting to residential use. In light of the above, and noting that there have been no changes in circumstances since these approvals were granted, the principle of residential use of this site is considered to be acceptable.
6.2.4. The scheme would provide four additional housing units, and as such would assist in the increase of the borough's housing stock in accord with policies H1 and H6 of the adopted UDP, and policy 15 of the Replacement UDP.
6.2.5. Policy H16 of the AUDP and Policy 35 of the Replacement UDP refers to backland development, requiring that special regard be paid to density, scale, privacy, access, amenity space and loss of garden in particular. These matters are addressed under relevant Page 56
sections below, but it is noted that the scheme would not result in loss of existing garden area, having previously contained workshop buildings in association with a commercial use of the main building. The approved plans for the 6 flats which has been implemented showed this area as containing a lawn area of 170 sqm, along with parking for 7 vehicles and access to the rear site. Whilst the listed building has been converted, the rear has never been laid out as communal garden space for the residents of these flats.
6.2.6. It is noted that objectors have stated that this scheme comprises over-development of the site. On this basis, it is appropriate to consider the density of the scheme. Adopted UDP Policy H10, and more notably Standard ST2 relate to density, however this policy was produced in 1998 and is no longer in line with current government guidance. Replacement UDP Policy 32 follows the approach taken in the London Plan and states that the primary consideration in determining appropriate density and scale will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Table 10 outlines the densities that can be achieved in the 'Design-led' Approach. It states that a site such as this within an urban setting with a moderate to high accessibility level should have a density between 450-700 habitable rooms per hectare.
6.2.7. The site area has been calculated to include the existing building, as the development falls within its curtilage and would be subdivided from it. The total area of the two sites combined is 1344 sq.m. There are a total of 50 habitable rooms in the existing building and proposed development, and as such the density is calculated at 380 habitable rooms per hectare. This is below the standard set out in Table 10 of the Replacement UDP Policy 32 as well as the London Plan. Whilst the development does not maximise densities set out above, it would assist in the delivery of the Government's objectives.
6.2.8. Overall, the principle of providing further residential units on this site is in line with national and local government, and that the loss of a commercial presence is acceptable. Noting the recent nature of the previous decision, it is not considered that a reason for refusal could be substantiated on grounds of loss of employment land or use.
6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations
6.3.1. Adopted UDP Policy CD15 and Replacement UDP Policy 32 state that development should have high quality design that relates to its surroundings and contributes positively to the area. Replacement UDP Policy 31 states that development should respond to and enhance the architectural character of the area, having regard to its overall urban characteristics.
6.3.2. Adopted UDP Policy H16 and Replacement UDP Policy 35 set out criteria for housing proposals on backland sites. They seek a Page 57
layout, scale and form of that is subordinate to the frontage housing, protects outlook and privacy, prevents overlooking, and ensures that sufficient garden depth and area is retained.
6.3.3. Due to the listed nature of the main building on the site it is necessary to ensure that the proposed development makes a positive contribution to the conservation area and also the setting of the listed building, in accordance with Adopted UDP Policies CD2 and CD13 and Replacement UDP Policies 41 and 42.
6.3.4. When considering the principle of backland development as part of the approved scheme in 2002, the Conservation Officer noted the peculiarities of the site, in particular the precedent created by the existing workshops/garages on the site. Whilst the principle of backland development has the potential to compromise the spatial quality and setting of listed buildings, as well as the pattern of development in conservation areas, the proposed development was seen as improving the visual amenities of the site over and above the existing workshop buildings. The removal of this building and its replacement with a more sensitively designed development would enhance the setting of the listed building and character of the conservation area.
6.3.5. The scheme proposes a terrace of four dwellings, with the scale and footprint designed to follow the footprint of the demolished building as closely as possible, with the upper storey in line with it. The only protrusion beyond it being the curved bays of the lower levels, by just under a metre. In terms of scale, at 9 metres, the height of the building (to the top of the roof pitch) would be 3 metres higher than the highest point of the workshop building, which sloped upward from front to back. The listed building is approximately 13.5 metres high (above ground level). In light of the above, the proposed development is considered to be respectful of, and subservient to, the main building, with the stepped back nature of the second storey further reducing its profile and visual impact. With the previous buildings being located in the position of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposal does not compromise the visual quality or open character of the site.
6.3.6. The design and appearance is traditional, intended to complement the listed building. The elevations for the development would use traditional materials to relate to the listed building, proposing stock brickwork, slate roofing and painted timber windows. The second floor level of the proposed development is stepped back from the front elevation with render finish. Roof lights are proposed on the rear roof pitch of the dwellings. Any approval would require full details of materials to be submitted for approval. The scheme as proposed is identical as that approved in 2002, which was the result of on-going negotiations between Officers and the architect at the time. The Conservation Officer was satisfied with the design of the scheme and the improvements it made over the garages which existed at the time.
Page 58
6.3.7. There have been no changes in circumstances in relation to the relevant conservation and design policies concerning this case. In particular, it is noted that the Planning Inspectorate in the consideration of the Replacement UDP, generally endorsed the wording in Policy 32 (Building Scale and Design), Policy 35 (Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas, and Policy 41 (Listed Buildings) which were the design policies used in the consideration of the previous scheme which was approved.
6.3.8. In terms of landscaping, private gardens of approximately 30 sqm for each of the dwellings are proposed, which assists in providing a visual buffer between them and the listed building and combined with appropriate landscaping would assist in softening the appearance of the built form. A parking area with seven spaces is proposed in the area between the listed building and the private gardens of the proposed dwellings. Being set behind the main building, this location avoids the presence of parking fronting Clapham Road, which is considered to be unacceptable in terms of impact upon the setting of the listed building and the character of the conservation area and streetscene. Any approval should be subject to a condition requiring submission of details relating to hard and soft landscaping, and ensuring that the details and materials are of a high quality expected for the setting of a listed building.
6.3.9. The Conservation and Design Officer, in commenting on the current scheme, has noted that the scheme is almost identical to the approved scheme in terms of footprint, building envelope, materials, layout and external elevational appearance of the buildings. The only difference from the previously approved scheme is the depth of the gardens. As the listed building conversion was revised to include deeper lightwells, this has resulted in a reduction in the depth of the gardens by approximately 2 metres over that which was previously approved. The Conservation Officer confirms that whilst development in such proximity could have the potential to impact the setting of the listed building, the proposed footprint of the scheme, the separation distance and breaking of this space with landscaping and soft planting mitigate such impact.
6.3.10. To summarise, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its design, scale and appearance, and preservation of the setting of the listed building and conservation area. Furthermore, noting that a virtually identical scheme was approved in 2002 by the Planning Applications Committee, and that there have been no changes in circumstances since it was granted, it is not considered that a refusal on grounds of design and appearance could not be substantiated.
6.3.11. English Heritage’s Archaeological Unit were consulted as the site is within an archaeological priority area. They confirm that in order to ensure that there is no impact upon any archaeological remains a survey should be undertaken, noting that the works do involve excavation of basements. It is noted that some excavation has been carried out, but has stopped. Prior to any Page 59
recommencement, a condition requiring this aspect to be investigated should be required. This will ensure that the proposal is in accordance with AUDP Policy CD14 and Replacement UDP Policy 43.
6.4. Standard of Accommodation
6.4.1. Adopted Policy H10, Replacement UDP Policy 32 and Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 4 require that residential developments meet certain space requirements and offer an acceptable standard of accommodation for future residents.
6.4.2. The proposed room sizes exceed the minimum requirements, and the internal layout is acceptable. Whilst the scheme does have single aspect, there are skylights at the rear, and the scheme features gallery/mezzanine space at ground and first floor level, exposing both floors to more light. With this design feature, the scheme would have adequate access to daylight, and sunlight from the roof lights. Private gardens of approximately 30 square metres each in front of the dwellings would be provided as amenity space. This ensures that the development will provide an acceptable form of accommodation for future occupiers. Semi mature trees are proposed for the boundary between the private gardens and the parking area. Any approval would require a condition detailing materials and planting proposed for the landscaping. In particular, a high quality of paving would be expected to replace the existing asphalt. It is also considered appropriate that there be some defined demarcation where the paving adjoins the lightwells in the interests of safety.
6.4.3. The scheme is identical to that approved in 2002, except in relation to the size of the private amenity space for each dwelling, which has been reduced by some 10 sqm for each. It is considered that this reduction is minor and would not undermine the quality of the accommodation. The scheme is in accordance with Policy H10 of the AUDP, Policy 32 of the Replacement UDP, and SPG4. Furthermore, noting that the proposal is consistent with the scheme which was approved in 2002, it is not considered that a reason for refusal could be substantiated on grounds of the quality of the accommodation.
6.5. Amenity Impact
6.5.1. Adopted UDP Policy CD15 states that the amenity of neighbourhoods will be safeguarded. Adopted UDP Policy H10, H16 and Standards ST3 and ST5 specifically seek to safeguard the amenity (sunlight, daylight and privacy) of neighbouring properties. Section (D) of Replacement UDP Policy 32 states that development should protect the residential living conditions of existing and future residents with regard to privacy, sunlight and daylight, overlooking, sense of enclosure and amenity space. Replacement UDP Policy 35 states that proposals to intensify residential/mixed-use areas are welcomed where this can be achieved without harming local living conditions.
Page 60
6.5.2. The main amenity issue concerns the relationship between the existing occupiers of the listed building at No. 369 and the future occupiers of the proposed new dwellings. Noting the commercial nature of No. 367 to the north, and the mixed use of No. 371 to the south and the vacant site to the east, it is not considered that there are any other occupiers who may be affected by the proposal.
6.5.3. The scheme would result in the single aspect habitable windows of the proposal facing on to the rear elevation of the existing listed building, which has recently been converted into flats. The existing building has 16 windows and two basement level doors facing on to the application site. Of these, 7 are to bedrooms, 2 are to kitchens, 2 are to bathrooms, and 5 are to communal stairs or lobbies. Objections have been raised by residents of this building with respect to overlooking and loss of privacy, amongst other things.
6.5.4. Standard ST5 of the Adopted UDP seeks to ensure adequate standards of privacy are preserved in neighbouring development and achieved in new development. A minimum distance of 25m is sought between each window of a habitable room or kitchen directly facing the window of another habitable room or kitchen, where either building is three storeys. Replacement Policy 32 requires that new development should not create unacceptable overlooking. However, in line with government guidance contained within PPS1 and PPG3 that planning authorities should not apply rigid standards to development proposals, the Replacement UDP does not prescribe minimum separation distances between windows and seeks to move away from a reliance on standards towards more positive emphasis on performance criteria. This is so as to encourage a more flexible and individual approach and judgement in the assessment of amenity issues, on a site by site basis. Even a rule of thumb criteria of 18 metres which originally featured in the First Draft Replacement UDP supporting text to Policy 32, has been deleted in the Revised Plan, and the policy specifies that development should protect the residential amenity of existing residents by, amongst other things, not creating unacceptable overlooking.
6.5.5. This approach has been endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate in the consideration of the Replacement UDP. On this issue he states that has endorsed the wording in Policy 32 [Building Scale and Design] of the revised UDP and agrees that 'performance criteria' in protecting residential amenity should be dropped following the advice set out PPG13 (paragraph 58) and PPS1, all of which advocate a design-led approach as a way of encouraging a more flexible and individual approach in the assessment of amenity issues.
6.5.6. There would be habitable windows facing each other as a result of this development. The distance between the windows of the two buildings would be at least 18.5 metres for the ground and first floor and 20.5 metres for the 2 nd (set back) storey. The Page 61
original scheme, approved by the Planning Applications Committee in 2002, proposed such dimensions.
6.5.7. When considering the previous scheme, there were no occupiers of the listed building, the difference being that the building is now fully occupied. However, it is noted that the Council’s policies concerning residential amenity require protection of existing and proposed occupiers. In assessing the previous scheme, the issue of mutual overlooking between the two buildings was considered to be acceptable, being over the 18 metres rule of thumb which was set out in the First Draft Replacement UDP which was relevant at the time the application was considered. The fact that there are occupiers of the building does not change the circumstances of the case, as overlooking between the buildings was assessed at this time, whereby it was concluded that applying the rigid distance criteria of the AUDP would conflict with government policy and could compromise the refurbishment of the listed building, and render any development at the rear unachievable. On this basis, the scheme was considered to be acceptable with respect to the distances between habitable windows. Furthermore, the presence of balconies within the scheme were also deemed to be acceptable.
6.5.8. Given that the most effective use of previously developed land in an urban area is required as a government directive, a degree of overlooking is likely to occur in such a location. The distance that is proposed is considered to be appropriate to this urban context, and is in line with the previous approval and other developments that the Council approves in built up areas such as this. There have been no changes in circumstances since the previous approval.
6.5.9. It is considered that a sense of space between the proposed building and the existing houses would be retained, and combined with the scale of the development in relation to the previous building which existed, ensures that the proposal would not have an overbearing impact upon the occupiers of the two buildings, or result in a sense of enclosure. This is also in accordance with the previous permission that was granted. Whilst there were extended lightwells approved on the listed building, which result in the building to be closer to the application site at basement/ground floor level, this does not lead to any further amenity impact.
6.5.10. There would be no impact upon windows the rear of this building with respect to daylight, sunlight or overshadowing, due to the distance that would be maintained between the two buildings, and the subject building’s height. In particular, the BRE “25 degree” angle would not be subtended by the proposed development when measured from the basement window in the rear elevation of the main building. When measured from the ground floor of the proposed dwellings, the 25 degree angle is subtended by the existing building, however this infringement is only minor, and given that there is a gallery/mezzanine which allows light from first floor level as well, this aspect is considered to be acceptable. Page 62
The orientation of the buildings is such that they would receive adequate access to sunlight for the majority of the day.
6.5.11. With respect to the vacant site to the rear, whilst there would be no amenity impact at present, it is noted that planning permission has been granted on this site for a residential development comprising a terrace of 3 storey residential units. There would be habitable windows facing the application site, some 6 metres back from the 6 metre high boundary wall, which would be retained as part of the scheme. There would be no windows directly facing each other, and whilst there are skylights in the rear roof slope of the subject scheme, they would face upwards, and as such, would not result in mutual overlooking or loss of privacy between the two properties. Nor would the scheme result in an overbearing or overshadowing impact. In terms of the BRE “25 degree” test, the additional bulk created by the roof would not cause any overbearing or loss of light over existing arrangements. It is noted that the subject development was taken into account when the neighbouring development was assessed, and neither prejudice the other.
6.5.12. To summarise, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of ensuring that an acceptable level of amenity would be provided for existing residential neighbours, in accordance with Policy H10 of the AUDP and Policy 32 of the RDUDP. Furthermore, noting that the proposal is consistent with the scheme which was approved in 2002, it is not considered that a reason for refusal could be substantiated on grounds of amenity impact.
6.6. Refuse and Recycling Facilities
6.6.1. Policies ENV24, ENV25 and Standard ST13 of the Adopted UDP and Policy 50 of the Replacement UDP require the appropriate provision of refuse and recycling storage and collection. Council's Guidance for ‘Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements’ provides a more comprehensive guide to waste storage provision.
6.6.2. The scheme proposes to locate additional refuse and recycling storage adjacent to the existing facilities at the front of the site. However, it is considered that these details should be secured by way of condition to ensure that there is not an over provision for refuse and that provision is made for recycling, noting that the site does adjoin the A3, and has an existing set of vehicular gates which would make for difficulty in servicing if additional facilities are located behind the gates.
6.7. Highways and Transportation Issues
6.7.1. Adopted UDP Policy T17 and Replacement UDP Policy 9 seek to ensure that development proposals do not have an adverse impact upon traffic safety and do not lead to an increase in parking stress and traffic congestion within the Borough. Replacement UDP Policy 10 states that new developments Page 63
should have full cycle access and facilities. Replacement UDP Policy 14 sets out maximum car-parking levels and minimum cycling-parking levels.
6.7.2. The site has a PTAL of 4 (Good) and is a short walk from Clapham North station. Car ownership in Larkhall ward is 54% according to the 2001 census (ie. 54% of households have access to 1 or 2 cars). Therefore 7 parking spaces for 10 residential units is an appropriate amount to accommodate parking demand and follows the spirit of PPG13, which seeks to achieve lower parking provision on sites. The site is located over 200m from the nearest available on-street parking and on this basis, there was not a requirement for a parking survey, or for a Section 106 “car capping” Agreement, as occupiers are unlikely to park on-street when available spaces are so far away.
6.7.3. The parking spaces are situated to the rear of the site, which is a preferred location for these spaces. The historic nature of the area is such that schemes should be resisted where parking is proposed in the front. Policy CD5 (iv) states that the ill effects of parked vehicles should be avoided in conservation areas. The moving of vehicles to the rear of the site complies with this policy.
6.7.4. Whilst objectors have raised concerns that there is inadequate on site turning, the Transport Planner confirms that the proposed car parking spaces and turning head comply with the Council's standards. The original plans have been amended to ensure that a 6 metre wide aisle between the parking spaces and the listed building could be accommodated. Parking bays measure 2.4m x 4.8 m on plan and a condition would be appropriate to ensure that the scheme is laid out in accordance with the approved plans, and so as to ensure that “fly” parking does not occur.
6.7.5. Cycle parking is indicated in a purpose built facility, adjacent to the proposed car park. This location and level of provision is in accordance with policy, and to secure its implementation and its elevational details, a condition requiring full details of the facility is suggested.
6.7.6. To summarise, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highways and pedestrian safety and parking standards, in accordance with Policy T17 of the AUDP and Policy 9 and 14 of the RDUDP, and as was approved for the same development in 2002. Furthermore, noting the recent nature of the previous decision, and that there have been no material changes in the development proposal, it is not considered that a reason for refusal could be substantiated on grounds of the parking and layout.
7. Conclusion
7.1. The principle of redevelopment of this backland site for residential development is supported by the Local Planning Authority and will provide additional residential dwellings within the Borough to meet a housing need. Given the surrounding uses, the status of the adjoining listed building, and Page 64
the access constraints, continued use for commercial purposes is not considered to be appropriate.
7.2. It is considered that the proposed height, bulk, scale and design of the proposed development would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Clapham Road Conservation Area, and the setting of the listed building.
7.3. It is considered that the amenities of existing and future residents would be protected by reason of the design, scale, orientation and separation distances that would be provided.
7.4. The provision of 7 car parking spaces to serve this development and the adjoining building is in line with government targets for traffic reduction, and noting the location of the site on a red route. The layout would ensure that cars can exit in a forward gear. Cycle parking would be provided in accordance with Council standards.
8. Recommendation
8.1. Grant planning permission, subject to conditions.
Page 65
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant: Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998): Policy H1: Housing Provision, Policy H3: Reversion to Residential Use, Policy H6: New housing developments, Policy H10: Residential Development Standards, Policy H16: Backland, Rear Garden, Corner and Adjacent to Corner Sites, EMP6:Protection of land and buildings generating employment, Policy CD2: Proposals for Development, CD5: Enhancement of Conservation Areas. Policy CD10: New Uses for Old Buildings, Policy CD13: Setting of Listed Buildings, Policy CD14: Safeguarding Archaeological Remains, Policy CD15: Design of New Development, Policy T17: Transport Implications for Development Proposals, Policy ENV9: New planting and landscaping on development sites, Policy ENV24: Waste Management and Disposal, Policy ENV25: Recycling and Re-Use; Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004): Policy 9: Transport Impact, Policy 10: Walking and Cycling, Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint, Policy 15: Additional Housing, Policy 23: Protection and Location of Employment Uses, Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout, Policy 32: Building Scale and Design, Policy 35: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas, Policy 41: Listed Buildings, Policy 42: Conservation Areas, Policy 43: Archaeology, Policy 50: Waste.
1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2 Samples and a schedule of all materials to be used in the elevations, roofing and joinery of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any further building work commences. This shall include painted softwood timber windows, natural slate roof, and stock brick to match existing. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such for the duration of the development. Reason: To ensure that the materials used are of appropriate quality in the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the adjoining listed building and Clapham Road Conservation Area (Policies CD2, CD13, and CD15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32, 35, 41 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
3 No further development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that any archaeological evidence discovered during groundworks is adequately recorded (Policy CD14 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 43 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Page 66
Plan (2004) refer).
5 A scheme of landscaping, which shows details of hard and soft landscaping, including paving and planting for the private gardens and parking area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of further development. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed prior to the occupation of the dwellings. 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 satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity and safety (Policies CD2, CD15, H10 and ENV9 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 31a, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
6 No vents, extracts, or plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the external face of the building, unless shown on the approved drawings. New rainwater pipes shall be painted cast metal. Reason: In order to preserve and enhance the character of the listed building and Clapham Road Conservation Area (Policies CD2, CD13 and CD15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32, 35, 41 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
7 The scheme for parking and turning of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way. Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway (Policies CD15, T17 and T18 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9 and 14 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
8 Prior to any further development commencing, details of the provision to be made for at least 10 covered and secure residential cycle parking spaces, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied 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 T36 and ST15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
9 No vehicles shall enter or leave the site otherwise than in a forward direction. A sign reading "No Reversing Into Street" shall be erected in a prominent position adjoining the exit before the units are occupied and retained thereafter for the duration of the development. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policies T18, T34 and T38 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
10 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Classes A, B & E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no enlargement, Page 67
improvement or other alteration of, or to, any dwellinghouse the subject of this permission shall be carried out without planning permission having first been obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority; nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed on any part of the land covered by this permission without such planning permission having been obtained. Reason: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the nature and density of the layout requires strict control over the form of any additional development which may be proposed in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory residential environment (Policies CD13, CD15, H10, ST1, ST2 and ST8 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 31 and 32 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
11 Full details of the provision for refuse and recycling facilities on the site, in accordance with the Architects Code of Practice, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to further works commencing. The refuse and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the provision of refuse and recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies G12 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (Policies G14, ENV25, CD15 and H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 9, 32, and 50 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
Notes to Applicants:
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 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- name a new street- name a new or existing building- apply new street numbers to a new or existing buildingThis 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.
Rachel Harrison Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected] tel: 020 - 7926 2283 Page 68
fax: 020 7926 9131
5 You are reminded of the outstanding details in relation to the front boundary treatment which is the subject of separate enforcement proceedings.
6 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities
7 In relation to Condition 5, you will be required to indicate a delineation between the parking area and access to the rear lightwells in the interests of pedestrian safety and building safety.
Page 69 Agenda Item 7 Page 70
Page 71
Location 43 To 51 Brixton Water Lane And Works Rear Of 43 To 51 London
Ward Tulse Hill Proposal
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 2, part 3, part 4 storey building to provide 31 self contained flats comprising 3 one bed, 24 two beds, 1 three bed and 3 four beds units, together with provision of cycle parking, refuse storage and landscaping.
Application Type Full Planning Permission
Application No 06/02120/FUL/DC_AMU/21478
Applicant Genesis Housing Group
Agent GVA Grimley - Karen Jones - 10 Stratton Street London W1J 8JR
Date Valid 6 July 2006
Considerations
Approved Plans
05014-D-001, 10-001, D-110A, D-111A, D-120A, D-121A, D-122A D-123A, D-010F, D-011F, D-012E, D-013E, D-015C, D-020F, D-021F, D-022C, D-023C, D-030B, D-031A, D-032B, D-033B, D-034, D-040C, D-042C, D-060, D-061, D-062, D-063 and letter dated 04/10/06- Green Roofs
Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT
Page 72
Officer Report
06/02120/FUL
1. Summary Of Main Issues
1.1. Whether the proposal is acceptable in principle; 1.2. The design of the building and impact on visual amenity; 1.3. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; 1.4. Whether the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation; 1.5. The transport implications of the proposal and; 1.6. Planning Obligations.
2. Site Description
2.1. The application relates to a 0.130ha corner site, situated to the east of the junction of Brixton Water Lane and Crownstone Road. The site contains a terrace of two-storey properties on the Brixton Water Lane frontage comprising a ground floor café with a vacant upper floor at Nos. 43-45 and a ground floor motor mechanics garage and shop, known as Ken’s Autos with storage on the upper floor at Nos. 47-49) and a vacant dwellinghouse at Nos. 51-53. The garage buildings extend to the rear in a linked 2-storey workshop building that abuts the northern boundary of the site. The buildings cover approximately 70% of the site. The applicant states that the whole site has been occupied by a family business for the last 30 years.
2.2. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character comprising purpose built flat blocks of varying height, bulk and design and domestic scale dwellinghouses in Josephine Avenue. To the north ‘Brockwell Court’ is a five-storey building containing 70 flats, to the east is ‘Nevena Court’, which is a four storey block containing 17 flats, to the south are the dwellinghouses in Josephine Avenue, which back onto Brixton Water Lane and to the west are the two blocks of ‘Springett House’, which is 4-5 storeys in height, contains a total of 96 flats and fronts onto Crownstone Road and St Matthews Road. The Effra Mansions lie to the northwest of the site in a three-storey building, which fronts onto Crownstone Road. There is also a two-storey dwelling at 143 Crownstone Road, situated on the northern boundary of the site.
2.3. The only exception to this residential character is the Allied Carpets retail store situated to the southeast of the site at the junction of Brixton Water Lane and Tulse Hill.
2.4. The site is not designated in the adopted or the deposit replacement development plans. However, it adjoins the Rush Common and Page 73
Brixton Hill Conservation Area (CA49) and Brixton Water Lane Conservation Area (CA13).
3. Planning History
3.1. Last March, an application for planning permission to demolish of all buildings on site and redevelop it in a two to five-storey building, with the 5 th storey in a setback mansard roof and 2 two-storey semi- detached houses, providing 42 residential units was withdrawn on officer advice (06/00041/FUL). The applicant was required to reconsider the design, form, scale, massing, height, layout, density and landscaping of the proposed development and to provide further evidence in support of the principle of loss of employment-generating floor space.
4. Scheme Details
4.1. This application seeks planning permission for redevelopment of the site in an L-shaped part single, part 2 to 4-storey building to provide 31 dwellings. The scheme would consist of 3 one-bedroom units, 24 two-bedroom units, 1 three-bedroom unit and 3 four-bedroom units. The proposal is by Genesis Housing Group, which is on the Council’s list of preferred Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). It is proposed that all units (100%) would be for affordable housing comprising 11 social rent units and 20 shared ownership units.
4.2. The proposal includes the provision of amenity space in the form of private lawned gardens to ground floor units and full balconies to some upper floor flats. Soft and hard landscaping including planting of new trees, shrubbery and hedges is proposed to the frontages and at the rear of the site in a communal semi-open courtyard. The scheme makes no provision for off-street parking, proposing instead a car-free development. Provision would be made for the storage of 31 bicycles at the rear of the site whilst refuse storage is incorporated into the design of the building and is accessed from Crownstone Road.
4.3. The building would present 4 storeys to Brixton Water Lane, stepping down from 4 to a single storey on Crownstone Road with a curved corner feature at the junction of Brixton Water Lane and Crownstone Road. The building is set back from the street frontages, allowing defensible landscaped space between residences and the street. A dwarf boundary wall with metal railings between brick piers surrounds the site boundaries on the Brixton Water Lane and Crownstone frontages.
4.4. The elevations would contain metal-framed double glazed windows and French doors with Juliet windows and balconies servicing habitable rooms. The building would be constructed in a of combination brick and render blockwork with copings and cills in Page 74
reconstituted stone and would terminate in a series of green flat roofs as it tiers down from the south to north, towards the 2 storey detached building at 143 Crownstone Road.
4.5. Entrances to the building would be located on the Crownstone Road and Brixton Water Lane frontages, marking separate accesses to the social rented and shared ownership units, respectively. The building is also accessed from the semi-open courtyard at the rear via staircases and lifts to the upper floors.
5. Consultation Responses
5.1. A site notice was posted in the vicinity of the site and an advert published in the local press on 14 th July 2006.
5.2. 267 letters were sent out to the occupiers of neighbouring properties in Josephine Avenue; Brixton Water Lane; Brockwell Court, Effra Road; Effra Mansions, Crownstone Road; 143 Crownstone Road; Springett House, St Matthews Road, Tulse Hill, Nevena Court, Effra Road; 17 Helix Gardens, 13 Leander Road; 83 Appach Road, Hermes House, Josephine Avenue.
5.3. 14 letters of objection were received following consultations. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:
Loss of existing buildings and employment use of site would harm character of the area Loss of outlook, particularly for occupiers of No. 143 Crownstone Lane, whose property contains south facing windows to habitable rooms at first floor level Proposal would present a largely blank northern flank wall to No. 143 Crownstone Road, which given its proximity to habitable room windows, would create an oppressive environment Use of pathway to communal rear garden and cycle store would lead to loss privacy, as ground floor south facing windows to No. 143 would be overlooked and, would cause noise and disturbance. Occupiers of neighbouring properties in Josephine Avenue, Nevena Court and Brockwell court would also lose privacy due to the proposed large windows and balconies Proposal would create a canyon-like space between the new development, Nevena Court and Brockwell court, which would result in a noisy environment for residents Noise during construction Proposal would create a wind tunnel due to positioning of the highest part of the building in proximity to Nevena Court Unrestricted use of flat roof areas as amenity space would cause overlooking problems for neighbouring occupiers Page 75
Loss of sunlight and day light to south facing windows to No 143 and south-west facing windows and rear courtyard to Nevena Court Proposal would lead to car parking pressure in surrounding streets. Proposal represents high density development not consumerate with properties of similar size in the area Building footprint of 90% is excessive, leaving little green open space to the detriment of the verdant nature of this part of Brixton Design of building is inadequate as it fails to respond and enhance architectural character of the area, instead echoing the bulk, mass and poor design of neighbouring flat blocks The rear wing remains over-scaled in relation to Nevena Court and should be no more 2-3 storeys in height Lack of articulation to northern elevation, which is prominent in the streetscene notwithstanding setbacks, would have an overbearing impact on occupiers of 143 Crownstone Road and would detract from streetscene The east facing gable wall by reason of its depth would reduce the western aspects of the Nevena Court flats and would reduce the open ness of the external courtyard. Roof terraces should not be allowed above 2 nd floor level and, parapet walls should be provided to limit downward views of neighbouring properties Proposal should include some car parking for disabled occupiers. Location of bins immediately next to pavement would lead to a poor entrance environment and bins being left on pavement.
6. Planning Considerations
6.1. Relevant Policies
National Guidance
6.1.1. The following national guidance contained in Planning Policy Statements and/or Guidance Notes is considered relevant to this application.
(i) PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It states that good design is indivisible from good planning and encourages planning authorities to secure high quality and inclusive design for all development, which positively contribute to making better places for people.
Page 76
(ii) PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) advises that new buildings do not have to copy their neighbours, noting that most interesting streets include a variety of building stles, materials and forms of construction. It indicates that redevelopment in conservation areas or in adjacent areas should provide opportunity for imaginative, high quality design which enhances the character and appearance of the area.
(iii) PPG13 (Transport ) deals with transport and particularly the way in which it integrates with the proper planning of the environment. It seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices and promotes accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and discourages the need to travel by car. It proposes that local planning authorities should actively manage the pattern of urban growth, locate facilities to improve accessibility on foot and cycle and accommodate housing principally within urban areas.
The London Plan
6.1.2. The London Plan is the Mayor’s spatial strategy, which seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London’s diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city. It proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport.
Local Development Plans
6.1.3. The following policies of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) are considered relevant to this application: H1 Housing Provision H6 New Housing Development H7 Affordable Housing H10 Residential Development Standards H11 Dwelling mix CD2 Proposal for Development CD15 Design of New Development S11 Changes of Use Outside Defined Centres T17 Transport Implications of Development Proposals T36 Cycle parking ENV24 Waste management and disposal Page 77
ENV25 Recycling and Re-use EMP6 Protection of Land and Buildings Generating Employment EMP7 Loss of Business and Industry (Use Classes B1 and B2)
6.1.4. The following policies of the revised deposit Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2004) are considered relevant to this application:
4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration 6 Developing Brownfield Sites 9 Transport Impact 14 Parking and traffic Restraint 15 Additional Housing 16 Affordable Housing 23 Protection and Location of Other Employment Uses 31 Streets, Character and Layout 31a Community Safety/Designing out Crime 32 Building Scale and Design. 32a Renewable Energy in Major Development 32b Sustainable Design and Construction 35 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas 36 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design 42 Conservation Areas 50 Waste 50A Planning Obligations
6.1.5. The policies of the emerging replacement UDP normally carry relatively less weight than the policies of the adopted UDP. Generally speaking the weight to be attached to such emerging policies depends upon the stage of plan preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached.
6.1.6. In the case of the Lambeth Replacement UDP, the Council has now received the Inspector’s Report (17 th February 2006) and is in the course of responding to the Inspector’s recommendations and preparing proposed modifications as part of the final stage of procedures leading to adoption of the Replacement UDP. This is a significant stage in the process of adoption of the Replacement UDP and as such considerable weight may be attached to policies in the Replacement UDP, which the Inspector has supported.
Page 78
6.1.7. The Council’s approach to this has been approved under delegated powers and is outlined in the Report on the Current Status of the Replacement UDP, which lists the policies the Inspector supports and states that the Council will take this approach to all planning applications submitted from 1 st August 2006.
` Supplementary Planning Guidance
6.1.8. SPG 4: Internal Layout and Room Sizes
6.2. Land Use
6.2.1. The matter for consideration in terms of land use is whether loss of land and/or building in former or recent employment use and change of use from retail shop and café is acceptable.
6.2.2. National guidance in PPG3, particularly as amended in para 42A, actively promotes the use of formerly developed sites including surplus employment land for housing. In order both to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of Greenfield land being taken for development, the government is committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land and empty properties and conversion of non-residential buildings for housing.
6.2.3. Similarly, the London Plan, supplemented by the draft SPG on industrial capacity in the capital supports a flexible criteria-based approach to the release of surplus industrial land to non-business uses, particularly to provide affordable housing. Both require Councils to formulate policies that seek to make the best use of previously developed land and empty properties.
6.2.4. Accordingly, Policy 6 of the revised deposit plan encourages development of previously developed urban land, including conversions, use of empty property and changes of use in the interests of sustainable development. In addition, under Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and Policy 15 of the revised deposit UDP, the Council seeks to increase all types of housing stock in the Borough. Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to make provision for 7,700 new dwellings in the Borough in the period 1992-2006. Policy 15 reiterates this objective, stating that the Council will provide a minimum of 20,500 net additional dwelling completions, including at least 8,200 affordable dwelling in the period of the development plan.
Page 79
6.2.5. Policy 15 of the revised deposit plan has a presumption in favour of provision of additional housing through the conversion, re-use of empty buildings or redevelopment “unless retention of viable uses is protected by other policies”. In this case, whilst the site is largely vacant and appears disused, it is still occupied for commercial purposes including a car repair workshop (Class B2), café (Class A3) and shop (Class A1). As such, the site, excepting the residential property, is safeguarded for employment generating uses under Policies EMP6 and EMP7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 23 of the revised deposit plan.
6.2.6. Policy EMP6 of the adopted plan provides that planning permission for the development of land in an employment generating use, for a non-employment generating use, will normally be refused except where inter alia , “they are poorly located for employment or they cause significant harm to residential amenity, or there is no effective demand for the size and type of the premises or the premises have remained vacant for a length of time and marketing has failed to generate sufficient interest”. Similarly Policy EMP7 of the adopted plan seeks to protect buildings currently, or last in B1 or B2 industrial use against change of use to uses outside these classes.
6.2.7. However, permission may be granted where the site is not capable of accommodating an acceptable employment use or no effective demand exists. The objectives of adopted policy have been echoed in the revised deposit plan. Policy 23 in the Revised Deposit UDP provides that changes to non-employment uses will not be permitted, unless, inter alia the site is no longer suitable for employment use; or the site is vacant and it has been demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect in the medium term of re-use or redevelopment to modern standards .
6.2.8. Policy 23 (ii), part vi, contains an exception, which provides that where the proposal would result in solely affordable housing, this criteria-based approach is not be applicable and such land/buildings may be released for housing without need to carryout a marketing exercise to test demand for continued employment use. It should be noted that the exemption does not apply to actively occupied sites unless the occupier is successfully relocated locally. This is the appropriate approach in assessing this proposal.
6.2.9. The site is actively occupied. However, the owner of the site has confirmed that the family business only employs 2 full time employees who are not family members. Due to failing Page 80
health, the owner has been looking to retire and in anticipation of this, has purchased new garage premises at 226 White Horse Road, Croydon. These premises are said to be more conveniently located for the continued operation of the family business. There are no leases or other businesses affected by the vacation of the premises. The premises remain occupied temporarily whilst the business effects are relocated to Croydon and existing customers and suppliers are informed of the changes. All existing employees will relocate to Croydon.
6.2.10. The application has been referred to the planning policy section for advice on whether or not locating locally is acceptable in this case. Justification text to Policy 23 of the replacement UDP seeks to protect employment land and premises for employment generating use. However, section B9v) of the policy states that an exception can be made if the application under consideration is for 100% affordable housing and the site is unoccupied. This part of the policy recognizes the importance of maximizing affordable housing provision in Lambeth, which has one the highest levels of housing need in the country. One of the Plan’s methods of achieving this is to relax the normal marketing requirements on vacant employment sites for development that is exclusively affordable housing, thus giving priority to the provision of affordable housing on vacant employment sites.
6.2.11. The site remains occupied temporarily whilst business effects are relocated to the new premises. The site will be completely vacated and secured when planning permission is granted. At the time of a recent officer site visit the café was closed although the shop appeared to be trading. The site therefore falls into the requirements set out in section B (v). In addition, the garage premises are not suited to modern car repair works, having no on-site car parking facilities and with cramped and inadequate space for associated uses such an MOT station. It is considered that the proposal would make effective use of the site to provide affordable housing in an accessible location, while contribution to the on-going regeneration of this part of Brixton/Tulse Hill.
6.2.12. In support of the principle of development, the applicant refers to a development brief commissioned by the Brixton Town Centre Forum in 2004. Although it is not a statutory document, the brief identifies the site as being suitable for high-density residential development and notes that such development would improve the visual amenity of the area by redeveloping a derelict and under-used site. In addition, according to the owner of the site, the dwelling at 51-53 Page 81
Brixton Water Lane has been vacant for the last 20 years having been deemed by the Council as being unfit for human habitation.
6.2.13. With regards to the change of use of the café (Class A3, restaurant and cafes) and shop (Class, retail shops), Policy S11 of the adopted UDP provides that outside defined centres, loss of retail units would be permitted provided the range of shopping facilities available within the area would not be significantly affected and, if in a local parade, its viability and retail function would not be adversely affected.
6.2.14. In this case the retail shop is ancillary to the garage workshop, as it trades in motor spare parts associated with the workshop. The café is currently closed. Policy 4 of the Replacement UDP would normally require marketing evidence before residential can be considered as an acceptable alternative use. However Policy 16 (e) of the Replacement UDP allows affordable housing on land protected by other plan policies provided, among other things, the shop unit is not in the core of the town centre and it is unoccupied. The café and shop do not form part of a local parade and the proposed change of use would not reduce the range of shopping and eating premises available to local people. The site is located within walking distance of local parades in Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill and in proximity to the Brixton Town Centre. Although employing 4 people, the café is not a safeguarded a B Class employment use as defined in both Policies EMP6 and EMP7 of the adopted Policy 23 of the Replacement plan and as such its loss would not lead to loss of an employment use.
6.2.15. In view of the merits of the case, the loss of employment use of the site to provide 100% affordable housing accommodation is considered acceptable in principle.
Affordable Housing, Density and Mix of Accommodation
6.2.16. Policy 16 (E) of the revised deposit plan cross-references Policy 23 (II), part iv and states that the loss of uses protected by other plan policies may be permitted on previously developed land (brownfield sites) providing this is solely for affordable housing. An element of general market housing maybe permitted on such sites, where it is demonstrated that a cross-subsidy of the affordable housing proportion is necessary. Policy H7 of the adopted UDP requires the provision of affordable housing in association with development of this scale. Under Policy 16 (B), the normal expected level of provision is 50% of habitable Page 82
rooms assuming a public subsidy, or 40% of habitable rooms with no public subsidy. Typically 70% of the affordable units should be for social rent and 30% for intermediate housing/shared ownership.
6.2.17. In this case the scheme would be 100% affordable housing comprising 11 social rent units and 20 shared ownership units. This equates to approximately 35% and 65%, respectively. The proposed ratio between shared and social rent units is not consistent with the normal policy requirement however, Policy 16 (c) states that higher proportions of intermediate housing are appropriate where higher density proposal are acceptable or where there is an existing high concentration of social housing. The proposal has been referred to the Council’s Housing officers, who have confirmed that the ratio is acceptable because 8 of the social rented units are large family units comprising 3 and 4 bedroom flats and the rest are 2 bedroom units.
6.2.18. The applicant has discussed the financial viability of the scheme with housing and it is confirmed that no further socially rented accommodation could be provided. An increase could only be secure if the large family size units were eliminated, however housing priority is for increasing the stock of family size units in new schemes. The proposal is therefore consistent with affordable housing policy and would make a contribution towards meeting the current shortfall of 3050 affordable dwellings required per year in the Borough (Lambeth’s Housing Needs Survey, 2003). The applicant is a RSL and has agreed to enter into Section106 legal agreement to secure the development as affordable housing.
6.2.19. Policy 32 (C) of the revised deposit plan and Policy H10, Standard ST2 relate to density of residential development. Whilst both policies provide density standards against which all new development should be assessed, they state that the primary aim should be to achieve an appropriate design that makes optimum use of land while meeting the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Policy 32c encourages higher densities in schemes that achieve a good townscape design and are located in areas of good, very good or exceptional public transport accessibility, such as town centres. It states that schemes that under-develop a site will be refused.
6.2.20. The site is located in proximity to the core of Brixton Town Centre and has a very good public transport accessibility level (PTAL =5). Policy 32 of the revised UDP provides that sites within town centres could be developed with densities Page 83
of 650-1100 hrh and those in walkable neighbourhoods, which are urban location with highest to moderate levels of accessibility, at 450-700hrh. In town centres along main arterial routes and substantial parts of inner London development of 3-4 storeys are encouraged.
6.2.21. The revised deposit plan does not prescribe the density of development on a particular site - rather it requires a design- led approach, which seeks to encourage a more flexible and individual approach in the assessment of amenity issues. The terms of Policy 32 are in line with the London Plan and have been broadly supported by the UDP Inspector in his report dated 17 February 2006. In this case the scheme would provide 673 hrh and is therefore of a density that is consistent with emerging development plan.
6.2.22. The proposal complies with Council policy in terms of the mix of residential units comprising 3 one-bedroom, 24 two- bedroom, 1 three-bedroom, and 3 four-bedroom units. Both Policy 15 (C) of the revised deposit UDP and Policy H11 of the adopted UDP require a mix of dwelling type, affordability and size of units on development sites. The proposal would provide both family size and 1-2 persons units in a manner consistent with the above policy aims.
6.2.23. In summary, it is considered that the development would provide new affordable housing units without causing harm to the amenity occupiers of neighbouring properties (see amenity section). The proposal therefore meets the broad aims of both national, regional and local government policy, which seek to encourage mixed and balanced communities and increase housing stock to meet changing housing needs in the Borough. It would also contribute to achieving government target of providing 60% of additional housing on brownfield sites.
6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations
6.3.1. PPS1 states that good design is indivisible from good planning, with high quality and inclusive design being the aim of all of those involved in the development process. PPG15 states new buildings do not have to copy their neighbours, noting that most interesting streets include a variety of building stles, materials and forms of construction. The development site is not located in a conservation area but is within its setting. The design of new buildings is particularly important in or within the setting of conservation areas.
Page 84
6.3.2. Policies 4.42 and 4.43 of The London Plan require a design approach in new development that demonstrates that buildings and spaces around them would be beautiful and enjoyable, yet functional, safe, sustainable and accessible for all. It suggests that new development proposals should also maximise opportunities to green the urban environment.
6.3.3. Policies CD2, CD15 and CD18 of the Lambeth adopted UDP state that a high quality of design, which carefully and sensitively relates to its surroundings and contributes positively to the area will be sought in all new development. These policies state that in considering new development or extensions regard will be given to such factors as layout (building lines and relationship to neighbours), bulk, height and scale, character the area and landscaping and boundary treatment. New buildings and/or extensions should respect the scale, height, bulk, character and amenities of nearby buildings. This approach has been reiterated in the revised deposit UDP where Policies 31, 32, 33, 35 36 and 42, which whilst not seeking to stifle architectural expression, require that new buildings and extensions should have due regard to the context and sensitivity of the development site.
6.3.4. The proposal is for a modern building whose form and scale echoes the purpose built flat blocks that characterise this part of Brixton but is not a pastiche. The design approach draws upon various recent precedents in Rushcroft Road, Vining Street and St Matthews Road. The contemporary language of the new building, articulated in the combination of part rendered and part brick facades with French doors behind balustrades, parapet walls to flat roofs and a curved feature to the most prominent corner of the site, which terminates in a brise soleil, represents an acceptable transition between the traditional mansion blocks from the last century on Crownstone Road and the Victorian terraces in Josephine Avenue. The elevations are simply divided into vertical elements and project forward at intervals to give the building relief to both street frontages.
6.3.5. The new buildings are sited 0.5m at ground floor level behind the pavement in Crownstone Road and up to 2.8m on all floors along the Brixton Water Lane. Above ground floor, the building follows the line of the of the site boundary t in Crownstone Road and overhangs the ground floor fa ēade. It presents tiered elevations to views in Crownstone Road with reconstituted stone coping to parapet walls, behind which sit green or Sedum flat roofs. This, combined with the differentials in the materials to be used in these Page 85
elevations, would mitigate the building’s presence within currently open views.
6.3.6. The existing buildings stand hard on the edge of the pavement and occupy most of the eastern perimeter of the site. The perimeter buildings abut the rear courtyard of Nevena Court, which contains single storey garages and a driveway and, is located 10 - 20m from the eastern boundary of the site. The northern boundary of the site adjoins 143 Crownstone Road with the nearest wing of Brockwell Court located some 10m beyond. Across the width of Brixton Water Lane the buildings face onto the coppice of trees in a triangle formed by its junction with Josephine Avenue and the side and rear gardens of properties in this street. Springett House and Effra House lie on the opposite side of Crownstone Road with sizeable front gardens, a communal playground and car parking in on the forecourt.
6.3.7. The 4 storey short leg of the L-shaped building occupies the southern half of the site - across much the site from east to west. The top end of the building occupies the northwestern part of the site. This part single part 2 and part 3 storey element of the building is sited approximately 14.8 from the eastern boundary of the site and as such some 29-35m from the west facing elevation of Nevena Court. The remaining area is given to an open courtyard for communal and private amenity in place of the existing 2 storey perimeter workshop buildings.
6.3.8. On the northern end of the site the new building would be 2.6m away from 143 Crownstone Road in a part single part two-storey building. This element would not be any closer to No. 143 Crownstone Road than the existing two-storey building. The building would then tier away from the northern flank wall as it rise to 1 st floor (4.8m); part 1m, part 9m at 2 nd floor level and part 10m, part 14m at 3 rd floor level. Occupiers of the property at 143 Crownstone Road, which could not be incorporated into the site and those in Nevena Court will view the distant skyline against the tiered elevations and green roofs, which will bring some relief to the hard edge of the built fabric. Although in the case of the occupiers of No. 143 their only outlook from the residential first floor windows would be restricted by the new building, it is not considered that the development would appear oppressive or overbearing when viewed against this backcloth.
6.3.9. As sited and given the staggered elevations and set backs, it is not considered that the siting of the building would result Page 86
in a development of an overly dominant appearance within the streetscene or from neighbouring properties.
6.3.10. The applicant has taken on board advise by the Council’s design officer in terms of its bulk, height, massing, footprint, street frontages elevational treatment and use of materials to articulate the building and break up a building that would otherwise appear bulky and monolithic. Although it would have been preferable to incorporate some of the existing buildings in the overall design of the scheme, as suggested during consultations, the proposal is not objectionable on these grounds and is a reasonable response to the existing urban grain.
6.3.11. In the event of approval it is recommended that all materials and finishes, and details of openings including depths of reveals, window cills and heads, window framing and glazing, rainwater goods, other pipe-work and external services, the green roof and brise soleil over the curved feature and, landscaping, boundary walls and any lighting be reserved by condition.
Sustainability and Renewable Energy Issues
6.3.12. The design follows the principles of sustainable construction and incorporates "green" roofs and photovoltaic cells on the main roof. The government has set a national target to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20% by 2010 and 60% by 2050. There is scope to achieve this target by ensuring that new buildings are designed to conserve fuel and power and sited to reduce the need to travel and, restraint measures are adopted to encourage more sustainable means of transport. The Mayor’s Energy Strategy has set a target of 10% of energy to come from renewable sources.
6.3.13. Adopted UDP Policies ENV16, ENV18 and ENV23 and 32A and 32B of the revised deposit UDP encourage the use of energy conservation technologies; use of renewable power sources; and design, layout and orientation of buildings to minimise energy use. Policy 32b states that development of this nature should show, by mean of a sustainability assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. This should include, among other things, utilising environmentally friendly specification and materials and specifying the use of sustainable sources.
6.3.14. The applicant recognises the importance of sustainable design, construction and management and commissioned a Page 87
detailed sustainability assessment of the proposed building, which seeks to balance environmental performance with the need for a safe and healthy internal environment. To this end the proposal makes the most efficient re-use of previously development land by maximising residential density on the site and is a car-free development, which would encourage use of more sustainable modes of transport. The design includes numerous glazed opening on the south facing elevation, coloured external brickwork, small windows on north elevation and is oriented to maximise daylight and winter solar heat gain and minimise heat loss.
6.3.15. In order to conserve energy the applicant would use renewable energy sources in the form of photovoltaic cells on the main roof to light internal communal areas. In addition the flat roof areas elsewhere on the building would be covered with a Sedum or green roof system to both reduce heat loss through the building and capture CO2 emissions. The construction, using heavyweight concrete frames, would enable the building to absorb summer heat and reduce the need for artificial cooling systems. The building will be constructed using materials with low embodied energy so as to achieve ‘A’ rating as provided in the Green Guide for Housing document. The development has been subject to Eco-Homes pre-assessment calculations and will on completion be likely to achieve at least a ‘very good’ standard. A condition to secure this commitment is recommended.
6.3.16. The statement indicates that issues of energy, transportation, pollution, materials, water, and land use and ecological value and health and well being of future residents have been taken into account in designing the building. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the relevant sustainability UDP policies.
Secured By Design
6.3.17. The application was referred to the Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design adviser who has confirmed that the design has incorporated all pre-application advice on crime prevention. The development would be secured by design and would meet the purposes of s17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. For example a demarcation is provided between public and private realms and public areas will be well lit and landscaped so as not to obscure views into and out of the building. These measures are consistent with Standard ST4: Security and Safety of the adopted UDP Page 88
(Policy H10) and Policy 31a: Community Safety/Designing Out Crime of the revised deposit pan, which promote security through appropriate layout, lighting and design. Nevertheless, in the event of approval, it is recommended that details of landscaping and the treatment of all areas not covered by building be reserved by condition.
Compliance with the Disability and Discrimination Act
6.3.18. The application was submitted prior to the statutory requirement that all proposals for new development must include a statement on how the design incorporates the principles of design and access for all. Buildings that are designed inclusively are convenient, flexible and adaptable to the needs of everyone. Whilst a design and access statement did not accompany the plans show that all floors are serviced by lifts and there would be level access to all ground floor units. The proposal would have to meet Part M of the Building Regulations, which deals with aspects of the Disability and Discrimination Act (DDA) including width of doors and corridors, level thresholds, toilet facilities etc. All ground floor units are suitable for disabled people.
6.4. Amenity Impact
6.4.1. The proposal has been assessed having regard to Policies H10 and CD15 of the adopted UDP and Policy 32 of the revised deposit plan, which among other things seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents from un- neighbourly development. In this respect the policies seek to ensure that new development does not materially or adversely affect adjoining buildings in terms of sunlight, daylight, privacy and overshadowing or create a sense of enclosure.
6.4.2. The impact of the new building on the amenity of residents at 143 Crownstone Road to the north, who stand to be affected the most, has been carefully examined. This property is largely of single aspect, with most windows that service habitable rooms located in the south facing elevation at first floor level. The ground floor windows service non- habitable rooms including a music studio and a utility room. The siting and relative distances between the proposed building and neighbouring properties have been detailed in para 6.3.6 –6.3.8 above.
6.4.3. The scheme has been designed and laid out to face the street and its own internal courtyard in order to avoid loss of privacy. It is considered that the relationship between Page 89
windows servicing habitable rooms in the new building and neighbouring properties is such that new and existing occupiers would not suffer undue loss of privacy. Views would either be sufficiently distant or at oblique angles as not to cause direct overlooking problems. Only one ground floor bedroom window and one 3 rd floor dining/kitchen window in the new development are located in the flank of the building facing onto 143 Crownstone Road. These windows would be obscure glazed; a condition to this effect is recommended.
6.4.4. The scheme generally meets the minimum standards contained in Policy H10 of the adopted UDP (Standard ST5: Privacy and space between buildings) for new buildings of 2-4 storey heights with respect to Nevena Court, Brockwell Court and Springett House. Across Brixton Water Lane towards properties in Josephine Avenue, views would be oblique and of non-habitable rooms including bathrooms and kitchen areas. It should be noted that the emerging development plan relies on design solutions rather than arithmetical standards to address privacy considerations.
6.4.5. No 143 Crownstone Road stands to be affected the most in terms of sunlight and daylight. The applicant has commissioned a sunlight/daylight assessment report on the impact of the building on this and the other neighbouring properties. The assessment has been made in accordance with the British Research Establishment (BRE) Guidelines: ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’.
6.4.6. The BRE has developed a series of tests for daylighting, which if all are failed, the development would be considered unacceptable in terms of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties. One of the tests used in this case is the Vertical Sky Component (VSC), which measures the amount of available daylight from the sky received at a particular window. It states that “If the Vertical Sky Component, with the new development in place, is less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value, then occupants of the existing building will notice a reduction in the amount of skylight”.
6.4.7. Using another test, known as the Daylight Distribution test, BRE guidelines have determined that daylight levels within a room can be reduced by approximately 20% of the former value before the loss can be materially noticeable. The consultant has relied on both tests to assess the impact on daylight levels.
Page 90
6.4.8. The BRE tests for sunlight are only required where an existing building has a ‘Window wall’ (a wall with a window serving a habitable room) within 90 degrees of due south. The tests for sunlight are met if the window wall faces within 90 degrees of due south and no obstruction measured in the section perpendicular to the window wall, subtends an angle of more than 25 degrees from the horizontal.
6.4.9. Another test for sunlight, known as the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) test provides that if the tested window can receive more than ¼ of APSH, including at least 5% of APSH during the winter months between 21 September and 21 March, the subject room should continue to receive enough sunlight. It states that if the available sunlight hours are both less that this level and less than 0.8 times their former value then occupants of the affected building will notice the loss of sunlight. “ As with daylight, the BRE guidelines provide that sunlight levels within a room can be reduced by 20% before loss of sunlight is noticeable.
6.4.10. Having tested the windows identified in the properties, the findings have established that in the majority of cases the properties would not experience a reduction in daylight and sunlight in excess of 20% of their existing values. The development would therefore comply with the sun/daylight criteria.
6.4.11. However, in Nevena Court there would be some transgression in sunlight levels above the 20% threshold in respect of 2 windows, which are already affected by existing obstructions. These windows service secondary habitable spaces. For Effra Mansions, in only one incident is the sunlight percentage change more than 20%. For 143 Crownstone Road, the maximum reduction would be 17.22%, well within the BRE threshold for daylight. Even by using the daylight distribution test the result show that there will be a maximum reduction of 7.87% and significant gains in respect of this property, as the proposed building is taller than the existing building towards the northwest and below the existing roofline towards the northeast. In terms of sunlight for this property only one window will experience a reduction of more than 20%; in all other incidences the BRE guidelines are met.
6.4.12. No sunlight analysis was made for Josephine Avenue and Springett as the relevant windows face north, northeast or northwest and not south.
6.4.13. It should be borne in mind that the guidelines are not a rigid set of rules but a guide that “ should be interpreted flexibly Page 91
because natural light is only one of many factors in site layout design ” (Para 6, BRE guidelines). The existing buildings on the application site are low level and therefore do not present significant obstruction to sunlight or daylight. A replacement building more in keeping with its neighbours in terms of massing and height would inevitably result in some loss of sunlight and daylight. In this case, even if the BRE guidelines were applied strictly, which they should not, only a small number of transgressions arise out of the proposed scheme. These transgressions are not considered sufficiently harmful to justify a refusal of planning permission.
6.4.14. Adopted UDP H10 and revised deposit UDP Policy 32 seek to ensure that new development does not create an overbearing sense of enclosure. In this case, the new 4- storey building would stand more than 28m from the nearest property in Nevena Court and is tiered away as not cause an oppressive sense of enclosure for residents of this block.
6.4.15. In relation to No 143 Crownstone Road, part of the northern elevation of the new building is only 2.6m away. However, this element is only part single, part two storeys in height. Only the first floor of 143 Crownstone Road is in residential use and therefore given the tiered north elevations and the location of the taller element on the same building line as the existing two-storey building, the new building would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of this property. Occupiers of No. 143 would enjoy new open aspects to the southeast, which are currently restricted by the existing two-storey building at this point. The green roof would take the hard edge off the new building when viewed from this property.
6.4.16. On balance, it is considered that the new building would not constitute an un-neighbourly form of development.
6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues
6.5.1. The proposal makes no provision for on-site car parking. The site lies within a “B” category Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and has a very good public transport accessibility level (PTAL =5). It is in a town centre location and lies within 800m of the Brixton main railway station to Victoria Station and destinations to the south/south-east and the underground Victoria Line Station. Numerous buses on Effra Road/Tulse Hill and Brixton Hill also serve the site, with bus stops located within 2-4 minutes walking distances. In order to avoid the potential for development to generate demand for additional residents’ parking permits, the applicant has Page 92
agreed to a ‘car-free’ scheme whereby prospective residents would not be eligible to parking permits. This would be secured via a Section 106 agreement.
6.5.2. The application has been referred to the Council’s Transport planners, who have raised no objection to proposal subject to completion of the s106 agreement. The proposed car-free development is consistent with local, regional and national plan policies, which seek to discourage reliance on travel by private car and encourage more sustainable means of travel. The London Plan requires local authorities to adopt policies that promote this restraint. PP3 (Housing) states that ‘Local Planning Authorities should allow housing developments with limited or no off-street car parking in areas with good public transport accessibility and where effective on-street parking control is present or can be applied’ .
6.5.3. In order to improve parking and highway conditions, officers have advised that although a right of way exists for 143 Crownstone Road over the existing vehicular access to Crownstone Road this access would need to be permanently closed and kerbs and the footway reinstated. The right of access for occupiers of No. 143 will not be affected by stopping up the crossover, as they have no right of access by vehicle. In addition, the existing car parking bays in Crownstone Road would have to be extended across the former access at cost to the applicant. In the event of approval appropriate conditions and/or informatives are recommended to ensure that these works are carried.
6.5.4. The applicant proposes to provide 1 cycle parking space per unit in accordance with the Council’s minimum parking standards contained in Policy 14 of revised deposit plan. However, transport officers consider this to be inadequate and advise that a store should be provided to accommodate 50 cycles. The standard in the plan and as proposed is a minimum standard and, because of the number of family dwellings proposed, cycle ownership is likely to be higher than an average of 1 per dwelling.
6.5.5. The provision of a high number of cycle storage spaces would encourage cycling and, represents a sustainable form of development. It is considered that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 14(E)(i) of the revised deposit UDP, which encourages car/permit-free developments in areas of good, very good and exceptional PTAL. In the event of approval, it is recommended that details to secure and covered cycle storage be reserved by condition.
Page 93
6.5.6. The arrangements for refuse storage and recycling are incorporated within the building on part of the ground floor with access from Crownstone Road. Whilst the carrying distance is consistent with the Council Streetcare department’s advice, in the event of approval it is recommended to attach a condition requiring submission of further details of this aspect of the development to ensure that the level of provision is adequate. The waste manage scheme would require doors on the refuse store to be kept closed at all times other than when in use.
6.6. Planning Obligations
6.6.1. Under Policy 50a (Planning Obligations) of the revised deposit plan, the Council will, where appropriate, enter into legal agreements with developers, and seek the attainment of planning obligations, having regard to any Government guidance and supplementary planning guidance. Planning obligations may be sought in respect of sports facilities, improvements to open spaces, environmental improvements, improvements to the public realm, particularly for pedestrians, highway improvements, improving educational facilities etc.
6.6.2. Policy 26 (Community Facilities) of the revised deposit UDP states that: "In developments capable of 10 or more residential units where the development creates or exacerbates an existing shortage of community facilities (such as increasing the residential population) new facilities or contributions towards improving the existing facilities will be required." Community facilities are defined as uses within D1 Use Class and include the provision for education.
6.6.3. The Inspector's report into the UDP has endorsed the Council's stance in respect of the provision of educational contributions on new housing schemes over 10 units. In addition to this a report by educational services, states that Lambeth's population is predicted to continue to increase in the period up to 2015 and there is a need for a significant increase in school places in both the primary and secondary sectors. The Building Schools for the Future programme will only partially address the shortfall in capacity for the existing population. As new residential developments increase pressure and demand on the Council's schools, the Council will expect developer contributions to fund new school places.
6.6.4. The Council has published draft guidance on contributions towards school places. Contributions will be sought from all residential new build, change of use and conversion Page 94
development proposals where the scheme results in a net increase of 10 or more dwellings. There will be a deduction of 25% for affordable homes such as this one. All dwelling sizes will be included, the child yield accounts for less children living in small flats.
6.6.5. An assessment of future numbers of primary and secondary school children, likely to occupy the proposed development and require education within the Borough, has been carried out in accordance with the Councils draft guidance for education contributions. This calculation indicates a likely child yield for Primary education of 9.23 and a child yield of 5.74 for Secondary education. This would result in a contribution of £40,065 for primary education and £21,650 for Secondary education. This gives a total contribution of £61,716, which would be the requisite contribution, secured via a S106 agreement. However, this requirement is waived where the Council retains 100% nomination rights to the affordable units, as is proposed in this case.
6.6.6. In order to safeguard the Council's position regarding contributions towards primary and secondary education needs and to secure the affordable housing requirement and a car-free development for reasons outlined in paragraphs 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 above, it is recommended that the applicant be required to enter into a Section 106, comprising the following heads of terms:
(i) a contribution of £61,716 towards primary and secondary school education facilities within Lambeth in the event that 100% Council nomination rights cannot be retained. (ii) provision of 100% Affordable residential accommodation. (iii) a car-free development where by future residents in the development would not be eligible to car parking permits
7. Conclusion
7.1. The proposed development represents an effective and efficient use of re-use of former employment urban land to provide 100% affordable housing units of high density in accordance with current government guidelines and emerging development plan policies, which encourage higher densities in accessible location.
7.2. The proposal, by virtue of its design, massing, bulk, size, height and siting is considered an appropriate response to the constraints of the site. The building would add to the existing variety in built form in the Page 95
immediate and wider townscape, without harming the character of the area.
7.3. The proposal would not unduly detract from the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers by reason of loss of outlook, sun/daylighting or privacy. The scheme would provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation.
7.4. The proposal would not result in additional parking pressure within surrounding streets as the scheme is car-free and as such residents would not be eligible to car-parking permits. This and the location of the site in area of good public transport accessibility would encourage use of a more sustainable means of travel.
7.5. The proposal meets its planning obligations in terms of education contributions and the affordable housing requirement.
8. Recommendation
8.1. Grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement secure the heads of terms outlined in paragraph 6.6.6 above.
Page 96
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant: Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) Policies: EMP6 (Protection of Land Buildings Generating Employment), EMP7 (Loss of Business and Industry (Use Classes B1 and B2), H1(Housing Provision), H6 (New Housing Development), H7(Affordable Housing), H10 (Residential Development Standards), H11 (Dwelling Mix), CD2 (Proposal for Development ), CD15 (Design of New Development), S11 (Changes of Use Outside Defined Centres), T17 (Transport Implications of Development Proposals),T36 (Cycle parking), ENV8 (Protection of Trees on Construction Sites), ENV19 (Noise), ENV24 (Waste Management and Disposal) and ENV25 (Recycling and Re-use).Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004 - 2017) Policies: 6 (Developing Brownfield Sites), 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity), 9 (Transport Impact) 14 (Parking and traffic Restraint), 15 (Additional Housing), 16 (Affordable Housing), 23 (Protection and Location of Other Employment Uses), 31 (Streets, Character and Layout), 31a (Community Safety/Designing out Crime), 32 (Building scale and Design), 32a (Renewable Energy in Major Development), 32b (Sustainable Design and Construction) , 35 (Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas), 36 (Streetscape, Landscape & Public Realm Design), 42 (Conservation Areas) , 48 (Pollution, Public Health and Safety), 50 (Waste) and 50A (Planning Obligations).
Conditions
1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.(as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)
2 Detailed drawings, samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the carrying out of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the development and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given on the approved plans and in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the details approved in writing. The following details will be required.a) window reveals, cills and heads, framing and glazing b) elevational treatment including, bricks, render and stonework;c) rainwater goods, vents, extracts and pipes;d) metal and timber work including railings and balustrades; and e) green roof system and location of photovoltaic cells;Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality, and in the interests of the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Areas (Policies CD2, CD15 and G17 of the Page 97
adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
3 The solar panels and green roofs described in the applicant's letter dated 4/10/2006 shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development and shall be permanently retained for the duration of the use hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of sustainable development, (Policies, CD15 and H10, and ENV16 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 7, and 32a, of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
4 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the external faces of the building. Reason: Such works would detract from the appearance of the building and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality (Policies CD15 and G17 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy 32 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
5 Full details of the use of any part of the site not covered by building and the treatment thereof, including hard and soft landscaping and external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details before the initial occupation of the flats herewith permitted and retained for the duration of the use. Reason: To ensure satisfactory layout of the site in the interests of safety and visual amenity. (Policies G15, G17, G39, CD15 and H10, and Standard ST31, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 33, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
6 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 satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development. (Policies CD15, ENV7, ENV9, G10 and H10, and Standard ST31, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
7 Details of the siting and design of all walls and/or fencing including all boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of development hereby approved. Such walls or fencing as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the buildings unless the prior written approval Page 98
of the Local Planning authority to any variation has been obtained. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory resultant appearance and standard of amenity of the site and, in the interests of the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Areas. (Policies G15, G17, G39, CD2, CD15 and H10, and Standard ST31, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 33, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
8 Notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application, details of a waste management plan, incorporating provision for refuse storage and recycling facilities on the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the building and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use.
9 No gates to the refuse store shall be installed which open outwards over the highway/footway. Doors to the stores shall be kept closed and locked at all times other that when they are in active use for storage or collection of refuse. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interests of the amenities of the area. (Policies CD15, T18, ST29 and H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 14 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
10 Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the provision to be made for cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the building hereby permitted is occupied 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 G39, G40, T36 and ST15 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer).
11 No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policy T17 and T18 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9 and 31 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004- 2017) refer.)
12 The ground and third floor windows in the northern return elevations of the building hereby approved shall be obscure glazed and fixed shut to a height of not less than1800mm above finished floor level and shall be non- opening below that height. The ground floor glazed elements on the western Page 99
elevation of the building fronting Crownstone Road, which are shown to be obscure glazed shall be retained obscured glazed. Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property and future residents of the affected units (Policies CD15 and CD18 and Standard ST5 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32 and 33 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004 - 2017) refer.)
13 Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved the existing vehicular access to Crownstone Road shall be permanently closed and the on-street parking bay shall be extended across the closed access. The dropped kerbs, which were used in connection with the employment use of the site, stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb and reinstating the footway in a manner to be agreed with the Highway Authority. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access (Policies T9, CD15, ST28 and H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004- 2017) refer.)
14 The development hereby approved shall be constructed in a manner so as to gain a 'very good' or 'excellent' Ecohomes Rating. Reason: In order to adequately address sustainable design and construction considerations in accordance with Policy 32b of the Revised Deposit UDP (2004) refer).
15 No part of flat roofs of the building hereby approved shall be used as a balcony, sitting out area or amenity area. Reason: To preserve the privacy and amenities of the adjacent property occupiers (Policies CD15 and H10 and Standards ST1 and ST5 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 32 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
16 Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this investigation shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provision for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved.(Reason: In order to prevent pollution of the water environment (policies ENV21 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 48 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (June 2004) refer.)
Notes to Applicants:
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 Page 100
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 Street Care team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities.
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- name a new street- name a new or existing building- 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: Rachel Harrison Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected]: 020 - 7926 2283fax: 020 7926 9131
6 It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.
7 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Principal Highways Engineer of the Highways team on 020 7926 2620 or 079 0411 9517 in order to obtain necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffold, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections and Repairs on the Highways, Hoarding, Excavations, Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
8 You are advised that whilst the proposed number of cycle parking spaces meets the Council's minimum standards highway officers consider this to be inadequate given the proposed number of family dwelling in the scheme. You should therefore make provision to accommodate 50 cycles.
Page 101 Agenda Item 8
Page 102
Page 103
Location Dohm House 89-91 Norwood Road London SE24 9AW
Ward Thurlow Park Proposal
Redevelopment of the site with retention of facade to Croxted Road, and part of facade to Norwood Road, erection of a part three, part four storey building to provide 33 flats (10 of which would be affordable housing) with landscaping including roof garden, provision of car and cycle parking spaces, and relocation of electricity sub-station.
Application Type Full Planning Permission
Application No 05/02229/FUL/DC_AB/29397
Applicant Brockwell Park Homes Ltd
Agent CGMS Ltd Morley House 26 Holborn Viaduct London EC1A 2AT
Date Valid 5 August 2005
Considerations
Conservation Area CA39 : Brockwell Park Conservation Area
Approved Plans
1.03A, 2.00G, 2.001G, 2.01G, 2.02G, 2.03G, 2.04G, 2.05G, 2.06G,2.10G, 2.11G, 2.12G, 2.002G
Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION FOR DEED OF VARIATION
Page 104
Officer Report
05/02229/FUL
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<
This proposal solely concerns an Application for a Deed of Variation to the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement:-
(i) to allow the inclusion of a grant of public housing subsidy
(ii) to allow an increase in number of affordable units
(iii) to allow all affordable units to be social rented
(iv) to specify the Council’s Long Term Registered Social Landlord partners
BACKGROUND
1.1 On 13.12.05 Members resolved to grant planning permission and conservation area consent, subject to a Section 106 Agreement, for the redevelopment of this site by the erection of 33 flats with associated car parking and amenity space. Of these 33 flats 10 would be 2 bedroom Affordable Units.
1.2 The Section 106 Agreement to secure these Affordable Housing Units was duly signed and the decision notices were issued on 22.2.2006.
1.3 Building works pursuant to these decisions have now commenced.
1.4 This application before Members now seeks to vary the terms of the Section 106 Agreement, in respect of the Affordable Housing provisions only. No physical alterations to the approved scheme or any other amendments are proposed.
1.5 With respect to the approved Affordable housing provisions the existing Section 106 Agreement ensures
(1) At least 7 of the 10 affordable housing units are Social Rented Units
(2) No more than 3 of the 10 affordable housing units are Page 105
Intermediate Housing Units
(3) The Registered Social Landlord shall not apply for any grant funding grant or loan under the Housing Act 1996
1.6 Subsequent to its signing however the Developers found that without a public subsidy the scheme was not economically viable and as a consequence have now requested that the Section 106 Agreement be varied so as to allow an application to be made for public subsidy.
1.7 In association with this request the Developers are now proposing to provide an additional affordable unit, namely a 2 bedroom flat. (This would make the total affordable accommodation of 11 x 2 bedroom flats).
1.8 The Developers also propose to change the current mixed tenure of the Affordable units so as to be all rented accommodation, rather than including 3 Intermediate shared ownership housing units for sale. Policy 16 (B) of the Revised draft UDP states (emphasis added)
‘…the normal expected level of provision will be 50% of habitable rooms assuming a public subsidy, or 40% of habitable rooms with no public subsidy (or pro-rata) unless it is demonstrated and independently validated that a scheme would not be economically viable unless there is a lower level of provision, having regard to transport and other significant planning obligations necessary for the scheme to go ahead and the level of subsidy to the affordable housing proposed by the developer.’
1.9 Application is therefore made for a Deed of Variation to the existing Section 106 Agreement to:-
(1) Allow an application to be made for public subsidy
(2) Make provision for an increase in number of affordable units from a total of 10 x 2 bedroom flats to a total of 11 x 2bedroom flats
(3) Make all of the affordable units social rented accommodation.
(4) Include a specification of the Council’s Long Term Registered Social Landlords
Page 106
1.10 The Development would therefore still provide 17 x 1 bed flats and 16 x 2 bed flats. The proposed Affordable element however would be increased from 10 to 11 x 2 bedroom units all of which would be social rented accommodation. There would be no shared ownership units. The Affordable Housing would be approximately 40% of habitable rooms, which is below the normal expected level of 50% as set out in Policy 16(B) of RDUDP)
1.11 However the Council’s Housing Partnerships Officers have been consulted and have confirmed that they welcome the provision of an additional affordable unit and raise no objection to the amended scheme which would result in a total of 11 x 2 bedroom units. They would not be opposed to the conversion of the shared ownership units to rented units with the additional unit and state that rented accommodation is preferred to shared ownership. The Council’s Housing Officer has also requested that the Council’s Long Term Registered Social Landlords be specified in any Section 106 Agreement relating to this scheme (i.e. public subsidy)
1.12 Given the support of the Council’s Housing Officers, who have raised no objection to the economic viability issue raised by the Developer, It is considered, that the proposed alteration to the tenure and funding of the Affordable Housing units within the scheme would be in accordance with Policy 16B of the RDUDP. The proposed application for a Deed of Variation to the existing Section 106 Agreement is, therefore, considered acceptable.
2 RECOMMENDATION
Agree that Legal officers draw up a Deed of Variation to existing Section 106 Legal Agreement, as proposed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
ORIGINAL REPORT CONSIDERED AT PAC MEETING ON 13.12.2005
1. Summary Of Main Issues
1.1. The main planning issues are: o Loss of employment floorspace o Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties o Impact of design on character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the street scene Page 107
o Standard of accommodation o Impact on traffic and safety
2. Site Description
a. The application relates to a prominent corner site that is approximately rectangular, with a 50metre frontage onto Norwood Road, and a 17 metre frontage onto Croxted Road. The property comprises a part single part two storey building, with vehicular access from Norwood Road onto a forecourt. The property is vacant, and was previously in use as a long established printing works. The authorised used is considered to be light industrial, / industrial, storage (Class B1, B2/ B8). The building provides approximately 1,671 sqm of employment generating floorspace
b. Along the rear of the application site, is a gated accessway (Park Mews), approximately 3metres wide leading onto Croxted Road. This accessway provides the site with emergency means of escape, and also provides access for the businesses in the arches beneath the railway line, which is on a viaduct behind the site. This accessway also runs along the rear of the two storey terrace of houses which adjoin the southern boundary of the site. On the opposite side of Croxted Road, to the north within LB Southwark, is the end of a single storey terrace in use as a parade of shops
c. The application property faces westwards across Norwood Road to the expansive open area of Brockwell Park, which with the corner location of the site results in it having long range visibility over a wide area, although this is significantly screened by trees in the park.
d. The application site and the Park are within the Brockwell Park Conservation Area
e. Norwood Road and Croxted Road are both busy, numbered main borough roads, forming part of the radial network leading towards central London. The junction is controlled by traffic lights
f. Herne Hill Railway Station is situated less than 500m to the north of the site. There are bus stops within 200metres of the site on both Croxted Road and Norwood Road
3. Planning History
3.1 The site has been used as a printing and bookbinding works. The works were automated about 1983 with around 33 employees. The business went into administrative receivership in October 2001.The number of employees fell to 12. It shut at the end of 2001 The Probation Service Page 108
occupied part of the first floor with about 15 staff until February 2001. Subsequently the entire property has been vacant
3.2 On 13.4.2004 the Council's Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planning permission and conservation area consent for development of the site by:- Partial demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment including the erection of a three storey building and an additional storey to retained building together with associated works to provide ground and part first floor office (Class B1) units and 14 self contained flats on part first and second floors including terraces to front elevation, with associated landscaping and refuse storage. (ref 03/02178/FUL) Permission is subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure:- affordable housing were the scheme to be revised to provide 15 plus units; payment for highway markings to restrict on-street car parking, and a contribution towards a scheme to improve bus, pedestrian and cycle facilities of Herne Hill junction. To date the Agreement remains to be completed.
3.3 On 29.4.2005 Conservation Area Consent for demolition was refused on 29.4.2005. (ref 05/00725/CON) The reason for refusal was:- The proposed partial demolition of 89-91 Norwood Road, with retention of facades on the corner of Croxted Road and Norwood Road, in the absence of an approved scheme would have a detrimental impact on the area, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
3.4 On 6.6.2005 Planning permission was refused for ‘Redevelopment of site, with retention of facades to Norwood Road / Croxted Road erection of part single, part two, three part four storey building to provide 43 flats (17 of which would be affordable housing) together with landscaping including roof garden.(ref 05/00724) The reasons for refusal were:-
1 The proposed development by reason of its design, external appearance, bulk, height and form would have an unacceptable and detrimental impact on the character of the retained building and streetscene and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of Brockwell Park Conservation Area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies CD2, CD15 and CD18 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development plan (August 1998) and Policies 31, 32, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (June 2004).
2 The high number and poor internal layout of the proposed flats, the bulk of the building and lack of amenity space constitute an overdevelopment of the site that would be of detriment to the Page 109
amenities of future occupiers of the proposed development and the general amenity of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies CD2, CD15, H10 and G17 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development plan (August 1998) and Policies 7, 32, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (June 2004)
3 It is likely that the proposed development will result in additional vehicles requiring parking. In the absence of parking restrictions and the provision of on-site parking, it is considered that this development will increase on-street parking to an unacceptable level. This has the potential to adversely affect highway safety and efficiency, and residential amenity. The proposed development is contrary to Policies H10 and T17 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development plan (August 1998) and Policies 7, 9 and 14 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (June 2004).
4 The single aspect flats by reason of their layout poor access to natural daylight and sole outlook towards the adjacent railway viaduct would provide a substandard level of accommodation that would prejudice the amenities of future occupiers. The proposal may also unduly constrain the operation of the business units located in the arches of the railway viaduct and as such have a detrimental impact on their success and growth. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies H10, CD15, EMP6 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (August 1998) and Policies 32 and 23 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (June 2004).
An Appeal against this refusal has been lodged and a Public Inquiry is scheduled to be held 0n 21 st February 2006.
3.5 A further application for Conservation Consent for demolition associated with the present application is the subject of a separate report, recommending consent, which also appears on this agenda. (ref- 05/02856/CON)
3.6 On 1.2.2005 the Council's Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planning permission, with respect to a site approximately 300 metres south of the application site, at the corner of Norwood Road and Rosendale Road (119- 121 Norwood Road), for:- Change or use from Nightclub (Class D2) to 20 self contained residential units residential (Class C3) [Revised Full Planning and Listed Building applications] (ref 04/00504/FUL). This planning permission is subject to a Section 106 Agreement, to secure:- affordable housing, payment for removal of yellow lines to increase on street parking, and for a contribution towards improved public transport accessibility.
Page 110
4. Scheme Details
4.1 Application is made for partial demolition of the existing building and change of use from Business/ Industrial use to residential by redevelopment, with retention of the front and side facade of the two storey corner building, and erection of a part three part four storey building. The new building would generally follow the existing front building line established in the street scene. The height of the proposed new building would be approximately 1.9metres lower than both the ridge of the existing building and the height of the building previously approved. The height is midway between the ridge and the eaves of the roof of the neighbouring terrace.
4.2 The revised proposed development would provide:-
(i) 33 self-contained residential flats, 10 of which would be affordable. (ii) The overall dwelling mix comprises 17 x 1 bedroom units and 16 x 2 bedroom units, of which 10 of the 2 bedroom units would be affordable. (iii) 10 car parking spaces, 9 of which would be under cover at ground level in the southern end of the proposed building. (iv) 33 cycle parking spaces would be located at the southern end of the site. (v) Associated landscaping, with refuse storage areas located on forecourt. (vi) An area approximately 7.6 metres x 19 metres (144 square metres) would be laid out as amenity open space to the rear/northern part of the flat roof of the proposed three- storey building. (In the revised proposal the extent of the roof garden has been reduced. The original application proposed a roof garden covering the entire flat roof of the new building.)
5. Consultation Responses
a. Occupiers of the following properties were consulted on both the original and the revised proposals:- Nos. 81 to 103 (odd) Norwood Road, 288, 345 to 351 (odd) and railway arches 860-862, 873-875 Croxted Road, Units 1 to 5 Park Mews.
b. The following Departments have been consulted;- Housing, Transport Highways, Parks, Regulatory Services (noise /pollution) and the Crime Prevention Officer
c. The following Groups/Amenity Soc.'s were notified: English Heritage, Transport for London, Network Rail, LB Southwark, Dulwich Residents Association, Dulwich Society, Brixton Society, Croxted Road Residents Association, Friends of Brockwell Park,
Page 111
d. Notices have been displayed in the local area and in the local press. e. Two letters of objection received from a neighbouring resident is summarised as follows:- Loss of privacy Development too high Would result in additional on street parking stress Concern that things would be thrown off the roof garden f. A letter of objection from The Herne Hill Society is summarised as follows :-
The Herne Hill Society welcomes the revisions that have been incorporeated into the current application.
…we believe that the building design, along with the proposed planting and landscaping, is now acceptable.
..however, local on-street parking problems remain a matter of serious concern. We note that the application acknowledges that the surrounding residential streets are subject to serious parking stress. Other local developments such as at 119 – 121 Norwood Road currently under construction and 274 Rosendale Road for which permission has been granted, will also significantly increase the number of residents looking for on-street parking and further exacerbates the current parking stress problems. This again reinforces the urgent need for a Controlled Parking Zone in the Croxted Road / Rosendale Road area, between the southern-most railway bridges an Norwood Road- an issue that has previously been raised with Ward Councillors. We would like to see this development go ahead in the proposed form.” g. Transport for London state that the proximity of good public transport appears to favour a car free option. h. The London Borough of Southwark has confirmed that they have no comments on the proposed development. i. English Heritage have raised no objections j. Network Rail have raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the normal proviso that their interests in relation to land, its access, and the operation of rail services, are safeguarded. As with the previous scheme it is not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on railway land. The present scheme sets the proposed building a further away from the railway line than the previous scheme Page 112
6. Planning Considerations
a. Relevant Policies & Guidance
6.1.1 National Guidance PPG 3 Housing PPG 13 Transport PPG 15 Planning and Historic Buildings PPG 24 Planning and Noise
6.1.2 Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan ( August 1998)
EMP6 Protection of employment generating use EMP7 Loss of business and industry (Use Classes B1 and B2) H6 New housing development H7 Affordable housing H10 Residential development standards H11 Dwelling Mix CD2 Development in Conservation areas CD15 Design of new development T9 Provision of vehicular accesses T17 Transport Implications of Development Proposals ENV9 New planting and Landscaping on development sites ENV24 Waste Management and Disposal ENV19 Noise control
6.1.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance - Residential Development Standards (2000) SPG 4 Internal Layout and Room Sizes
6.1.4 Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (June 2004)
7 Protection of residential amenity 8 Accessible Development / Integrated Transport 9 Transport impact 10 Walking and Cycling 14 Parking and traffic restraint 15 Additional housing 16 Affordable Housing 23 Protection of employment uses 23a Use of Railway Arches 31 Streets character and layout 31a Community Safety / Designing Out Crime 32 Building scale and design 33 Alterations and extensions Page 113
36 Streetscape, landscape and public realm design 42 Conservation Areas 48 Pollution, Public Health and Safety 50 Waste 50a Planning Obligations
6.1.5 The policies of the emerging Replacement UDP normally carry relatively less weight than the policies of the adopted UDP. Generally speaking the weight to be attached to such emerging policies depends upon the stage of plan preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached.
6.1.6 The emerging plan has now completed its public inquiry stage and the Council is awaiting receipt of the UDP Inquiry Inspector's report. The weight afforded to the plan will vary between policies. For example more weight can be given to those policies which deal with an issue not covered by the Adopted UDP; those which reflect Government guidance; those which have been amended following substantial public consultation to overcome objections raised; and those which have not been the subject of any substantial objection.
6.2 Land Use
6.2.1 It is Council policy (ref EMP 7 of the adopted UDP) to normally resist the loss of land and buildings currently or last in B1 business or B2 industrial use to non-employment generating use. However the policy allows a change to other uses where:- 1) the site, with or without adaptation, would not be capable of accommodating an acceptable employment development, or that development for employment purposes would have a significant adverse effect on residential amenity. 2) evidence is produced, including attempts made to let the property, to show that no effective demand exists, or is likely to exist in the future to use the land or buildings for employment-generating activities. 6.2..2 Outside of Key Industrial Business Areas The Policy 23 of the Revised Deposit Plan provides that where land is or has last been in employment use, loss of floorspace (in particular B1 business use floorspace for small businesses) to non- employment use will not be permitted, unless
(i) the site is no longer suitable for employment use, having regard to factors such as whether unacceptable environmental problems (which cannot be solved through enforcement powers) are associated with the site, the suitability of means of access, and whether the premises Page 114
have an unacceptable relationship to surrounding properties; or
(ii) if the site is vacant, if it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect in the medium term of re-use or redevelopment to modern standards for an environmentally acceptable employment use (including Work-Live development). Regard will be had to: evidence of a lack of demand for employment premises; the length of time that the premises/site have been appropriately and actively marketed; and the amount and nature of vacant employment floor space
6.2.3 It is also Council policy to seek to achieve a high quality of design in all new development, carefully related to its surroundings and in this case the development should make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
6.2.4 The principle of the loss of the employment generating floor space has been established by the previous decisions on this site. The first permission (ref03/02178/FUL) to re-develop the site maintained 2 commercial units comprising of 1291 sq.m of commercial floor space on the ground floor. However, the principle of loosing the upper floors as commercial generating floor space was accepted by members of PAC (in April 2004). This was on the basis of a marketing report, which contained the following details.
(I) The property has been vacant for more than 4 years (II) .Marketing of the property began in November 2002. (III) The marketing exercise revealed that the only likely commercial investor was a storage user (Big yellow, Sureguard etc). Policies EMP14 of the AUDP acknowledges these tend to generate low levels of employment. Policy 23 of the RUDP also states that these types of uses will not be permitted in residential areas. Given there are residential properties immediately next door to the site it is likely that this element of this policy would be applied to any potential application change of use. (IV) The site is also unsuitable for a large single employer not just because of issues relating to residential amenity but it is also located on a principle main road and has no on-site servicing. (V) Substantial investment would be required to adapt the building for smaller occupiers. The level of rent Page 115
that the unit would command would not fund the investment required.
6.2.5 Since members granted planning permission for this scheme. A second application was submitted for the use of the site for 100% residential. Housing (ref 05/00724 ). Whilst this was refused under officer delegated powers it was considered that a refusal based upon the loss of the remaining ground floor commercial space could not be sustained, partly because of the above difficulties highlighted by the marketing report and the fact that on balance a wholly residential scheme would enable the provision of affordable housing on site. In addition the property had been continued to be marketed by an appropriate firm of commercial agents. This provided evidence to confirm that details of the site were circulated on a regular basis to some 550 firms of Surveyors in Central London, and included in an Agency website. Adverts were placed in Estates Gazette, Dulwich Trader and Evening Standard.
6.2.6 The proposed dwelling mix on this constrained site of one and two bedroom units, like the previously approved residential scheme, is considered acceptable. In addition the proposed development would provide 10 self-contained affordable flats.
6.2.7 40% of the proposed habitable rooms would provide affordable housing in a scheme where no public subsidy is proposed. As such the proposal complies with the Council's required level of affordable housing, which is set out in policy H7 of the adopted plan and Policy 16 (B) of the Revised Deposit UDP. This requires that where a development qualifies for affordable housing 40% of habitable rooms with no public subsidy should be affordable.
6.2.8 The proposal sets the building back from the rear site boundary to allow more light into the rear mews. For both the existing business users of the railway arches, and potential residents this will enhance the working and living environment. The proposed white render to the rear elevation would also enhance sunlight and daylight, and the construction would take account of acoustic protection. Within this context it is on balance considered that the proposed development would enhance the working environment at the rear and would not have an unacceptable impact on business operations. No objections have been received from these existing businesses.
6.2.9 In the light of the above the proposed change of use to residential is considered acceptable in land use terms.
6.3 Design and Conservation Considerations Page 116
6.3.1 The Conservation Area status of the site requires a scheme that would either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in compliance with policies CD2 of the AUDP and policy 42 of RDUDP
6.3.2 The application concerns proposed re-development of a neo- Georgian style two floor partly set back former printing works. The site is in a prominent position fronting onto and in full view from Brockwell Park. The site occupies a prominent corner location in Norwood Road, and is included withinin the Brockwell Park Conservation Area. The buildings on site currently comprise a large building with a partly set back two floor building forming an L shape. An associated one floor warehouse infilling the ‘L’ may have been added later.
6.3.3 It is Council policy that consent will not normally be given for the demolition of buildings or structures, which in its opinion make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. In considering applications involving change of use, the Council will consider the contribution of existing and proposed uses and activities to the character of the conservation area
6.3.4 In this instance that part of the existing building which makes a positive contribution to the conservation area is in the main retained. It is considered that the neglected building proposed for demolition, with an external staircase overlooking neighbouring residential properties does not fulfil such a positive role within the conservation area, and does not provide such an attractive definition of the street scene. This part of the site at present also provides an unattractive forecourt with vehicular access, which results in cars reversing into Norwood Road. No objection has been raised to the proposed demolition. These considerations are set out in the accompanying report on the application for Conservation Area consent for demolition.
6.3.5 The present proposals form a revised scheme to accommodate previous concerns. The Council’s Conservation Officer considers that the revised scheme is acceptable in principle. The main contentious issues throughout this process have been bulk/form/ massing, fenestration, and connection.
6.3.6 The bulk/form and massing of the new build element has been addressed, with the proposed new build elements no longer overwhelming the existing building and are suitably subservient. The calm repetition of form and pattern within the new build is complimentary to the principles of the existing building, affording a much stronger relationship between the two. The fenestration is much more sober and regulated in this version of the Page 117
proposed scheme. This, again, compliments the existing rather than juxtaposing. The connection between the new build and existing building elements of the scheme is considered to be acceptable in the current proposal. The new build element no longer ‘wraps around’, and over, the existing building. The connectivity in this scheme now demonstrates subservience, which is welcomed. The additional storey above the existing building has been improved, as it is detached from the other new build elements and it is now a principally glazed elevation.
6.3.7 The proposed pier and railing boundary treatment to the site has been improved since previous schemes. Recommended conditions require the submission of details, which include external materials, hard and soft landscaping, boundary treatment, gates bin stores and cycle parking.
6.3.8 In the light of the above it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of conservation and design issues.
6.4 Amenity Impact
6.4.1 It is Council policy that development should acceptably relate to neighbouring properties and not have a detrimental impact upon amenities (ref policies CD2, CD15, of AUDP and 7, 32, 33 and 42 of RDUDP)
6.4.2 The proposed development would be located to the north of the neighbouring residential properties and would be bounded by roads to the west and north of the site and by a railway viaduct to the east, which screens the rear of the site.
6.4.3 The southern side elevation of the proposed building would be set away from the boundary with the neighbouring residential terrace by a distance of between 1 metre at the front and 8 metres back of the site. This end elevation would have windows at first and second floor levels. In the main these would face the blank side elevation of the neighbouring terrace. Being either secondary windows to living rooms or windows to kitchens and as such are a recommended condition provides for obscure glazing to these windows, and protection of privacy.
6.4.4 The southern elevation of the existing building, which the proposed development would replace, comprises a two-storey gable end with large first floor windows, and an external staircase from ground to first floor level. A high ground floor wall to a single storey projection from this gable end runs along the site boundary.
Page 118
6.4.5 The proposed roof garden would be set back approximately 8.5 metres from the front elevation of the building and 15.5 metres from the southern side elevation of the proposed building. Within this context it is considered that this would not result in unacceptable overlooking/loss of privacy.
6.4.6 Within the context described above it is not considered that the proposed development would be unacceptably overbearing or result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or outlook to neighbouring properties. In addition being to the north of the existing neighbouring terrace with the proposed building placed at an angle so that it slopes away from the site boundary towards the rear it is considered that the proposed development would acceptable in terms of impact upon natural light. This is confirmed by the daylighting report submitted by the applicant which concludes that nearby windows of neighbouring properties would receive adequate light as a result of the proposed development and would meet the requirements of the BRE Report 1991 in terms of Daylighting and Sunlighting.
6.4.7 In being set a little further away from the railway viaduct the small businesses operating along the rear accessway would enjoy a less overbearing neighbouring building. In addition reflected natural lighting to this accessway, aligned north / south, would be enhanced by the proposed use of white render to the rear elevation.
6.4.8 It is also considered that prospective occupiers of the proposed development who would have views over Brockwell Park opposite but with limited amenity space, are likely to have an impact on the use / amenity of the Park, which is also within the Conservation Area. Within this context a Planning Obligation is recommended to compensate for such additional demands in order to protect the amenity of the Park, see para 6.7
6.4.9 Within the context described above, together with a recommended Obligation to cater for the impact on the amenity of the park, in addition to parking and traffic issues, detailed below, it is considered that the impact of the development on the amenity of the local area is acceptable.
6.5 Standard of Accommodation.
6.5.1 There are windows to flats in the rear of the building that overlook the railway the railway viaduct at the rear of the building. The viaduct is approximately 7metres high and 5 metres to the west of the rear elevation. Page 119
6.5.2 One of the 4 reasons why the previous application was refused related to the outlook of the single aspect flats that faced the railway viaduct and the fact this could jeopardise the viability of the business based in the railway arches. This application is no different in so far as it also contains single aspect flats that face the viaduct (the plans show these to be a mix of private and affordable). However, this issue has been carefully considered and it is felt that on balance the previous reason could no longer be justified as a sole reason for refusal because of the following:
1. The previous scheme had single aspect flats on the ground floor and it is evident from the previous case officers report that these flats formed the basis of the Council’s concern. In contrast the ground floor flats in the current scheme benefit from a dual aspect and as such their sole outlook is not restricted to the railway arches. There are also fewer windows to habitable rooms on the ground floor by virtue of the fact that the car park takes up about 1/3 rd of the ground floor space. The previously refused scheme had single aspect flats that occupied the entire ground floor.
2. The businesses in the railway arches are ‘Artists Workshops’. This use falls generally within the B1 Business Use Class, which is generally compatible with safeguarding residential amenity. In this instance it is not considered that the close proximity of this Business Use would have a detrimental impact on either the existing businesses or the proposed residential accommodation. Following consultations no objections have been received from the businesses at the rear.
3. The Applicants have submitted a sunlight daylight report with particular reference to proposed ground and first floor windows, which would face the railway viaduct at the rear. This review concludes the outlook from these flats, particularly at first floor level, proposed windows would receive a vertical sky component of approximately 27%. This would provide a level of daylight, which would comply with the BRE Guide to good practice re daylight and sunlight. (1991).
4. The site lies close to the main railway carrying domestic passenger and the main Norwood Road. The Council's Noise and Pollution Officer indicates the site is within PPG24 Category C for road noise and Category B for rail traffic noise. To mitigate the potential noise impact the applicants have submitted a noise report as part of their submission. The Council's Noise and Pollution Officer states the proposed measures will ensure a reasonable internal environment for the future residents, including the residents of the single aspect flats, which face the rear. This would involve dealing with ventilation mechanically. The Council's Noise and Pollution Officer has also advised that the level of rail traffic using this part of the line is not Page 120
particularly busy. Two conditions are recommended to ensure specfied noise levels arte not exceeded
6.5.3 In terms of amenity space the scheme would benefit from fronting Brockwell Park. In addition provision is made for a communal front garden of approximately 130 sqm., a communal roof garden of approximately 150sqm. and balconies to some of the flats. The ground floor mobility flats have private open space at front and modest paved area at the rear.
6.5.4 The proposed room sizes would comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance and are considered acceptable. The ground floor slab has been lowered to ensure level entry for wheelchairs from pavement level while retaining the front elevation. The building is served by lift and staircases designed to serve the ambulant disabled. In addition the ground floor units have been designed to full mobility standards. Of the proposed ten parking spaces one has been designated as a parking space for the disabled.
6.6 Highways and Transportation Issues
6.6.1 The site is bounded on two sides by main roads and screened at the rear by a railway viaduct. The proposed vehicular access onto Norwood Road with vehicles able to turn on site is considered an improvement. The existing forecourt restricts vehicular movements and results in the likelihood of vehicles backing onto a busy main road, which carries bus services and is near a light controlled junction.
6.6.2 The site is located in an area of very good public transport accessibility (PTAL= 5) and is not within a Controlled Parking Zone. According to Lambeth’s Revised Deposited UDP the site is in an area of Traffic Restraint. Of the 33 units, 10 will be available as affordable housing, whilst the remaining 23 will be available for private ownership. On this basis of this information the site should have a maximum of 10 off-street car-parking spaces. The applicant proposes 10 off-street car-parking spaces, which accords with Council standards. One of the spaces will also be allocated as a disabled space.
6.6.3 A designated area for cycle storage has been shown on application plans, that is intended to accommodate up to 33 cycles. The specification of the proposed spaces has not been included with the application, but it is acceptable for the provision of this cycle information to be secured via condition.
6.6.4 The applicant has undertaken two overnight parking surveys (15 th December 2004, 17 th December 2004) that identified overall parking stress levels of 90% for the area. Officer site Page 121
visits have confirmed that these finding are accurate. One of the possible reasons for high levels of parking stress in the area is related to the fact that on the north-west side of Croxted Road, within the the London Borough of Southwark, there is an on- street Controlled Parking Zone in operation. It is considered that the Lambeth side of Croxted Road may currently experience overspill parking from this Controlled Parking Zone. The cumulative impact of parking from existing residents on the Lambeth side of Croxted Road, together with any overspill parking from the Southwark CPZ, contributes to the high existing levels of parking stress in the area.
6.6.5 The 2001 census data indicates that 50.9% of the households in Lambeth and 42.4% of the households in the Thurlow Park Ward do not own a car. 14.9% of households have two or more cars. These figures, along with the very good public transport accessibility of the site, and the mix of the units, would suggest that the proposed development would generate between 20-25 residential vehicles that require a car parking space, resulting in between 10 and 15 cars requiring an on-street car parking space. As there is insufficient overnight parking capacity in the area to accommodate the 10-15 vehicles on-street, it is considered that the application would be unacceptable without the introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone in the area.
6.6.6 To this end, the Council will be seeking a contribution of £60,000 towards the consultation and implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone in the area. It is intended that the Controlled Parking Zone consultation will cover the roads of Guernsey Grove, Hawarden Grove, Croxted Road (from the junction of Norwood Road to Harwarden Grove) and Rosendale Road (from the junction of Norwood Road to Harwarden Grove). Additional amendments to existing controls may also be made on Norwood Road. In the event that the CPZ consultation is unsuccessful, the money will be used for alternative traffic management / highway safety improvements within the area.
6.6.7 As part of the Section 106, residents/leasees of the flats will also be provided with a minimum of a years membership to a car club operator operating within the area. The Council has plans to introduce on-street car club bays throughout the Borough and car club bays in this area will either be introduced as part of the new CPZ, should this application be approved, or through alternative funding streams. The cost of a minimum of a years membership to the car club for residents of the development will be met by the applicant.
6.6.8 The site has a previous scheme that was approved by Lambeth’s Planning Committee on 13 th April 2004 (03/02178). The proposal constituted a mixed use scheme of an office Page 122
development and 14 residential units (5 x 1 bedroom, 9 x 2 bedroom). As part of the application Lambeth Transport negotiated contributions of £50,000 towards improving the crossing between Norwood Road and the station and the park, and £5,000 towards double yellow lines along the frontage of the site. It is consider that the transport improvements priorities with the new application are different, due to the additional impact on parking stress in the area from a solely residential scheme. Subsequently, it is now considered to be imperative to require a contribution towards the introduction of a CPZ in the area, rather than the crossing improvements. Whilst the highway safety benefits of the crossing improvements are acknowledged, it is not considered reasonable to require the applicant to fund both schemes.
6.6.9 The proposed on-site parking layout has been designed in order that there is sufficient space for vehicles to turn and enter and exit the site in forward gear. The vehicle access is 4.8 metres wide and has been provided with 2 metre x 2 metre pedestrian visibility splays on either side of the access. Rising bollards have been erected 5 metres from the edge of footway, at the request of the Crime Prevention Team. There is no objection to this, as they have been set back far enough to enable a waiting vehicle to park clear of the footway when waiting for the bollards to open.
6.6.10 The refuse storage has an accessible location and would be suitably screened. Refuse storage facilities are constrained by the nature of the site. The present scheme proposes refuse stores on the sizeable forecourt of the property. The details of this layout would be the subject of a Condition of any approval which would be considered with landscaping and in the light of their prominent position, and the need for a response sensitive to the street scene and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Streetcare have been consulted regarding the proposed refuse storage arrangements and have not raised any objections.
6.6.11 Transport for London has raised no observations
6.6.12 In summary, there are no transport objections to the proposed application subject to the S106 financial obligations and relevant conditions detailed below:
6.7 Section 106
6.7.1 It is Council policy to seek planning obligations where this is, amongst other things, reasonable and relevant to a proposed development. Page 123
Examples of planning obligations that could be sought include are set out in the Revised Deposit Replacement UDP (Policy 50a Planning Obligations). The examples include:- (i) provision of affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of Policy 16 (Affordable Housing) (ii) contributions in respect of sports facilities and open spaces;(ref Policy 45 Protection and Enhancement of Open Space) (iii) the control of parking and other traffic management measures, highway improvements (ref Policy 9 Transport Impact)
6.7.2 With reference to this, the Council's Environmental Development Manager states: - '… my comments centre on the impact of the development on Brockwell Park, which is a major district park and lies immediately opposite 89-91 Norwood Road. It is also worth mentioning that the Council and its partners, including the Friends of Brockwell Park, have formed a Management Advisory Committee to develop a formal management plan for the park and a major Heritage Lottery Fund application. It is easy to imagine that a development in the immediate vicinity of Brockwell Park will be attractive to potential buyers and it is inevitable that the occupants of the flats will have a disproportionate impact the condition of the park, its facilities and the access points. …the developers should make a Section 106 contribution based on the increased maintenance costs of the Council'.
6.7.3 As reported above In this instance the proposed residential accommodation would lack on site amenity space due to the constraints on the site, which is directly opposite Brockwell Park, between a main road and a railway viaduct. (It is to be noted that on 13th April 2004 the Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planning permission for development of this site with 14residential units above ground floor Business units. No contribution to the park was requested in this instance) Following an examination of previous schemes where an Obligations were sought with respect to Public Open Space (namely 9 Albert Embankment & Salamanca St., Lawn & Langley Lane, and Queensborough House) it is considered that in the case of the present proposals for 89-91 Norwood Road a contribution of about £30,000 (approximately £909 per proposed residential unit) would be a fair and reasonable one- off contribution towards increased maintenance costs for Brockwell Park. This figure is generally in line with previous contributions concerning other developments and green spaces within the Borough. Page 124
6.7.4 In view of the level of on-street car parking stress within the local area a contribution of :- (i) £60,000 towards the consultation and implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) within the vicinity of the site. In the event that the consultation is negative, the money will be directed towards alternative traffic management/highway safety measures within the vicinity of the site.
(ii) The funding of a minimum of one years membership to a car club operating within the vicinity of the site for residents/leasees of the proposed development is also recommended. The main problem with the Section 106 for car club membership is that we cannot write in a financial sum, as we don't know which car club operator will be working from the bays, or what there charges will be. As part of the negotiations when drawing up the Section 106 for 274 Rosendale Rd it was agreed that the developer would fund the years membership up to a maximum of £200 per resident.
7 Conclusion
It is considered that in this instance the potential benefits to the townscape, and the proposed additional housing, out weigh the proposed loss of employment floor space, which it has not been possible to let.
It is also considered that the proposals would be acceptable subject to Planning Obligations to:-
(i) offset the impact of the development on on-street parking stress in the local area with a one off contribution of £ 60.000
(ii) ensure that the prospective owners/leasees of each of the residential properties shall be entitled to a minimum of one years free membership to a car club operating within the area.
(iii) offset the likely increased costs of maintaining Brockwell Park with a one off contribution of £30.000
(iv) ensure the provision of the proposed affordable housing for which no public subsidy is proposed.
It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted in this instance. Page 125
Recommendation:
Grant planning permission
Page 126
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant: Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) Policies;- EMP6 (Protection of Employment Generating Use), EMP7 (Loss of Class B1 Use), H6 (New housing development), H7 (Affordable housing), H10 (Residential Development Standards), H11 (Dwelling Mix), CD2 (Development in Conservation Areas), CD15 (Design of New Development), CD18 (Extensions), T9 (Vehicular Accesses) and T17 (Transport Implications). ENV24 (Waste Management and Disposal), ENV19 (Noise control)Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) Policies:- 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity), 9 (Transport Impact), 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint), 15 (Additional Housing), 23 (Protection of Employment Uses), 31 (Streets, Character and Layout), 32 (Building Scale and Design), 33 (Alterations and Extensions), 36 (Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design) and 42 (Conservation Areas),.48 (Pollution, Public Health and Safety), 50 (Waste), 50a (Planning Obligations)
Conditions
1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning from the date of this decision notice.Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 Samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building work commences and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality, and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area (Policies CD2, CD15 and G17 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
3 Full details of the use of any part of the site not covered by building(s) and the treatment thereof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details before the initial occupation of the flats herewith permitted and retained for the duration of the use. Reason: Page 127
To ensure satisfactory layout of the site in the interests of safety, and visual amenity, and to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. (Policies G15, G17, G39, CD2, CD15 and H10, and Standard ST31, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 33, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
4 Prior to the completion of the development hereby permitted, full details of boundary treatment including all gates and means of enclosure shall be erected in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory layout of the site in the interests of safety, and visual amenity, and to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. (Policies G15, G17, G39, CD2, CD15 and H10, and Standard ST31, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 33, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
5 Details of a waste management plan, incorporating provision for refuse storage and recycling facilities on the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the building and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use.Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies G14, ENV24, ENV25, CD15, H10 and ST13 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 15, 32 and 50 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
6 Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on drawings already submitted, the development hereby approved shall not be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping. Reason:To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity. (Policies CD15, ENV7, ENV9, G10 and H10, and Standard ST31, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
7 Details of acoustic treatment to ameliorate impact on the development from the railway line shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The building shall be so designed to ensure that environmental and rail traffic noise shall not exceed the following standards:-Living Rooms 35dB(A) Leq 18 hour 07.00hrs to 23.00hrsBedrooms 30 dB(A) Leq 8 hour + no individual noise event to exceed 45dB(A) max [measured with F time weighting] - 23.00hrs to 7.00hrsSuch scheme as may be approved shall be implemented before the use commences and shall thereafter be permanently retained. Page 128
Reason: To protect the amenities of occupiers. (Policies G12, H10 and ENV19 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 1, 7, 32 and 48 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
8 Noise from the proposed electricity sub-station shall not exceed background noise during the day / nightime hours when measured outside outside the window of the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises.Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area. (Policies G12, ENV19 and H10 ST9 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 1, 7, 32 and 48 and of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004 refer.)
9 Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the provision to be made for cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the building hereby permitted is occupied 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 G39, G40, T36 and ST15 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
10 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 continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development. (Policies CD15, ENV7, ENV9, G10 and H10, and Standard ST31, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
11 No vents, extracts, plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed on the external face of the building, unless shown on the approved drawings. New rainwater pipes shall be painted cast metal. Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance of the property in the interests of visual amenity, and to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. (Policies G15, G17, CD2, CD15 and H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 33, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.) Page 129
12 Any damage to the retained building caused by the works shall be made good with a finish to match the existing adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance of the building in the interests of visual amenity, and to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. (Policies G15, G17, CD2, CD15 and H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 33, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
13 All window reveals on the external faces of the development shall be set within 115mm (minimum) reveals from the face of the building. Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance of the property in the interests of visual amenity, and to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. (Policies G15, G17, CD2, CD15 and H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 33, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
14 No other part of the development shall be occupied until the means of access has been altered in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access. (Policies T9, CD15, and ST28 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9, and 31 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
15 Within 5 months of the new/altered access being brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users (Policies T9, CD15, ST28 and (b) of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9, 31 and (c) of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
16 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure other than those shown on the approved plan shall be erected along the site frontage within 5 metres of the edge of the carriageway. Furthermore, any gates hereby permitted shall not open out over the public highway.Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off clear of the highway for the safety and convenience of the highway users (Policies T9, CD15 and ST28 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 Page 130
and 31 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
17 No part of the development shall be occupied until the visibility splays shown on the approved drawings have been provided on both sides of the access and the area contained within the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway.Reason: To provide adequate intervisibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access (Policies T9, CD15, ST28 and (b) of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9, 31 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
18 The scheme for parking, manoeuvring, and the loading and unloading of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way.Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway (Policies CD15, T18, ST29 and H10 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 14 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
19 No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policy T17 and T18 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
20 Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on drawings already submitted, the development hereby approved shall not be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority full details of the roof details of the third floor of the proposed element on the corner of Norwood Road and Croxted Road, such details as are approved shall be fully erected as part of theapproved development. Reason:Iin the interests of visual amenity. (Policies CD2, CD15, ENV7, ENV9, G10 and H10, and Standard ST31, of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 32, 36 and 42 of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
21 The first and second floor windows in the south end elevation, and the secondary ground floor window to flat 04 in the eastern elevation, indicated on the drawings herewith approved shall not be other than Page 131
obscure glazed and fixed shut up to a height of at least 1.6metres above internal finished floor level. Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties (Policies CD15 and ST5 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 32 and H10 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004) refer.)
Notes to Applicants:
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 In connection with Condition 5 herewith you are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Refuse/Streetcare Services with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities. You are also advised that when considering details of such facilities account will be taken of the landscaping proposed on the site in the light of the prominent position of the storage facilities. Your attention is drawn to the need for a response sensitive to the street scene and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
5 You are advised that this property lies within a Conservation Area and Conservation Area Consent may be required for any demolition works.
6 You are advised to consult Railtrack, Southern, at Waterloo Station, London SE21 8SW with regard to 'Comments / Conditions to be observed in connection with the development of land adjacent to the railway'.
7 A legal agreement has been entered into with the London Borough of Lambeth in conjunction with this grant of planning permission to ensure the provision of affordable housing and secure contributions in relation to highway improvements and in relation to the impact of the development on Brockwell Park,Public Open Space, which is opposite the site on the other side of Norwood Road. The Council's requirement that developers should pay the legal fees associated with Section 106 agreements should be noted.
Page 132
8 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- name a new street- name a new or existing building- apply new street numbers to a new or existing buildingThis 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.Tom KerriganStreet Naming and Numbering Officere-mail: [email protected]: 020 - 7926 2283fax: 020 7926 9131
9 It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.
10 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections and Repairs on the Highways, Hoarding, Excavations, Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
11 In connection with Condition 20 you are advised that the bulk of the elevation of the corner roof element should be reduced, and the bulk of the lift over run structure shall be substantially reduced.