ADDRESS: St Thomas' Hospital 249 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7EH Application Number: 19/01397/FUL Case Officer: Jeffrey Holt Ward: Bishops Date Received: 10 April 2019 Proposal: Demolition of existing single storey hospital building and erection of a new six storey (including plant level) hospital building (C2 use), alterations to existing access arrangements and associated public realm works. Applicant: Agent: Guy's And St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust Ben Stalham GL Hearn 65 Gresham Street LONDON EC2V 7NQ

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

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

4. In the event that the Section 106 unilateral undertaking is not completed within three months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to provide a section 106 unilateral undertaking for the mitigating contributions identified in this report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

SITE DESIGNATIONS

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

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area (ha): 0.08ha

NON-RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (m2) (Gross Internal Area) Existing C2 Hospital 372 Proposed C2 Hospital 3,465

RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

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

Proposed Affordable N/A On-Site Rented Social Rented Intermediate Private/Market Total

Proposed Affordable N/A Off-Site Rented Social Rented Intermediate Private/Market Total

Amount (£) Payment in Lieu of N/A Affordable Housing Details/Trigger Review Mechanism N/A

ACCESSIBILITY

Number of C3 Units M4(2) Units N/A M4(3) Units

NON-CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL & VISITOR ACCOMMODATION

Bedrooms/Units Floorspace (m2) Existing Hotel Bedrooms N/A Serviced Apartments/Apart-hotel units Proposed Hotel Bedrooms Serviced Apartments/Apart-hotel units Bedrooms Floorspace (m2) Existing Student Accommodation N/A Proposed Student Accommodation Bedrooms Floorspace (m2) Existing C2 N/A Proposed C2 Bedrooms Floorspace (m2) Existing SG Hostel N/A Proposed SG Hostel

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Spaces Car Parking Spaces % of Bike Motor- (General) (Disabled) EVCP Spaces cycle Spaces Existing 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed 0 0 0 0 0

LEGAL SERVICES CLEARANCE

AUDIT TRAIL Consultation Name/Position Lambeth Date Sent Date Report Comments in department Received Cleared para: Peter Flockhart Legal Services 09/08/2019 19/08/2019 19/08/2019 Various Senior Lawyer

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i. Guy’s and St Thomas’ Trust submitted an application to demolish an existing building within St Thomas’ Hospital and replace it with a six storey building for hospital use. The building would provide an expanded Same Day Surgery Centre for the Evelina Children’s hospital, accommodation for undergraduate staff and students from Kings College London (KCL) and a Simulation and Interactive Learning (SaIL) Centre.

ii. St Thomas’ Hospital is in the north of the borough between the River Thames and Lambeth Palace Road. It was first established in the 19th Century and has grown organically since. The new building is proposed on a site between the South Wing and East Wing buildings. Currently, the site contains a single storey building that was used for radio therapy but is now unneeded. Surrounding buildings are six to 12 storeys in height and vary in age and style. South Wing is one of the original 19th Century hospital buildings and is Grade II Listed. There are other listed structures elsewhere on the hospital site and in the surrounding area. The site is also in the Albert Embankment Conservation Area and on the opposite side of the Thames is the Westminster World Heritage Site. The site in the Central Activities Zone and benefits from excellent access to public transport.

iii. The principle of the development is acceptable as it would provide new hospital capacity. The six storey building would respond acceptably to its context by having an appropriate height and massing and a material palette that would relate positively to surrounding buildings. It would have no harmful impact on strategic or local views. It would have a ‘less than substantial’ harmful impact on the setting of the Grade II Listed South Wing. However, this harm would be outweighed by the public benefits provided by the new facilities and hospital capacity. There would be no harm to all other nearby heritage assets.

iv. The development would cause no harm to residential amenity as it is located within the hospital campus and it would have no harmful impact on the operation of nearby hospital buildings.

v. There are no residential properties nearby that would be affected by construction works but the impact on hospital operations would be managed by a construction management plan agreed with the Trust.

vi. The new building would accommodate existing staff and students so it will not result in a significant increase in trips to and from the site. No changes are proposed to existing vehicle access and servicing arrangements. Consequently, there would be significant impact on the transport network.

vii. Subject to conditions the development would meet technical requirements in respect of sustainability, flood risk, land decontamination and ecological protection.

viii. A s106 unilateral undertaking would secure a carbon offset payment of £10,673 and an employment and skills plan for the construction phase.

ix. The proposed development has been assessed against the Development Plan and all other material considerations, including national planning policy. Officers consider that subject to appropriate conditions and a s106 unilateral undertaking the planning application should be approved.

x. The proposed development is an application of potential strategic importance to London and as such is referable to the Mayor of London pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The GLA has issued its Stage 1 consultation response, and the officer recommendation contained in this report acknowledges the need to refer the application to the Mayor for his final decision (Stage 2 referral).

OFFICER REPORT

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

1 THE APPLICATION SITE

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

1.2 The site relating to this application is in the centre of the wider hospital campus. It sits between the original 19th Century hospital building, known as South Wing, and a modern building known as East Wing, adjacent to the Evelina Children’s hospital. To the north are small single storey modular office buildings. The site is contains a small single storey timber clad building with flat felt roof plus a small prefabricated modular building linking South Wing to East Wing. The building was once used for radio therapy but this service was relocated to a new cancer centre at Guy’s Hospital. The site slopes gently upwards to the rear by about 1.3m. There is a vehicle access running along the eastern side of the site.

1.3 The site is in the Albert Embankment conservation area and the South Bank conservation area is located to the north. The existing building is not listed but the adjacent South Wing building is Grade II listed for its architectural and historic interest. Elsewhere on the hospital site is the Grade II listed Block 9 of the St Thomas Hospital Medical School which is another 19th Century building listed for its architectural interest. There are also a number of listed structures on the hospital grounds and nearby:

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

1.4 The site is in the Central Activities Zone, Flood Risk Zone 3, Thames Policy Area and the Waterloo Opportunity Area.

2 THE SURROUNDING AREA

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

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

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

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

3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure 1 - View of application site looking north

4 PROPOSAL

5 Summary of the Proposal

5.1 Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing single storey building and the erection of a new six storey hospital building (C2 use) along with alterations to existing access arrangements and associated public realm works. The building would be known as the ‘Core Building’ and would provide an expanded Same Day Surgery Centre for the Evelina Children’s hospital, accommodation for undergraduate staff and students from Kings College London (KCL) and a Simulation and Interactive Learning (SaIL) Centre.

Figure 2 - Visualisation of proposed development looking north

6 Detail of the Proposal

6.1 The proposed building would have an irregular footprint but it would be broadly rectangular with a maximum length 33m and a maximum width of 16.5m. The building tapers down to 11.6m wide at its southern end. The building would be six storeys tall with an overall height of 26.05m. The main entrance to the building would be at its southern end where new step free access would be provided. The existing link between South Wing and East Wing will be replaced. No changes are proposed to existing vehicle access arrangements.

6.2 The east and south elevations would be clad in evenly spaced aluminium baguettes, which are slim rectangular rods. These would screen any windows behind. On the south elevation the baguettes would have a terracotta effect finish. The west elevation would be clad mostly in light coloured cladding panels. There would be a smaller section of aluminium baguettes towards its southern end. The north elevation would have cladding panels only.

6.3 On the east and west elevations these baguettes would be vertical to maximise privacy while on the southern side the baguettes would be horizontal to provide solar shading. The north elevation would also have horizontal baguettes to mirror the southern elevation. The roof would be flat and contain the building’s plant.

7 Amendment(s)

7.1 Amendments were received 17 June 2019 making the following changes:

 Change of external materials from terracotta baguettes to aluminium baguettes, some with terracotta effect finish, plus a reduction in the extent of the baguettes  Removal of solar PV from the roof  Increase in lift overrun height  Reconfiguration of plant  Removal of external gantry along west elevation

7.2 The above amendments were made following consideration of the practical buildability of the scheme. In the case of the solar PV, these were considered unfeasible as the roof would be overshadowed.

7.3 No further public consultation was undertaken as there are no neighbouring properties that would be affected by the amendments.

8 Planning Performance Agreement

8.1 This application is subject to a planning performance agreement.

9 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

9.1 The St Thomas’ Hospital site has extensive planning history but notable applications include:

Evelina London Children’s Hospital

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

Lambeth Wing

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

Block 9 and Prideaux

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

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

10 CONSULTATIONS

10.1 Statutory External Consultees

Historic England 31 May 2019 – no comments

Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) 10 June 2019 – no objection subject to condition requiring a written scheme of archaeological investigation

Westminster City Council 1 May 2019 – No comment

Thames Water 1 July 2019 – No objection subject to condition controlling works within 5m of the strategic water main. Informatives were also recommended regarding compliance with relevant Thames Water requirements. [officer response: condition and informatives added]

Greater London Authority – The GLA’s Stage 1 letter will be reported via an addendum.

Metropolitan Police 16 May 2019 – No objection subject to conditions requiring details of security measures prior to construction and confirmation of implementation of these measures prior to occupation.

Transport for London 27 June 2019 – no objection subject to condition securing updated construction management plan and informative advising the application to no obstruct the highway [officer response: condition and informatives added]

10.2 Adjoining owners/occupiers

10.3 A site notice was displayed from 26 April 2019 to 17 May 2019 and the application was advertised in the local paper on 26 April 2019. The formal consultation period ended on 17 May 2019.

10.4 No representations received during the consultation period.

11 POLICIES

11.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan (“the Development Plan”) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (“LP”)(2016, consolidated with alterations since 2011) and the Lambeth Local Plan (“LLP”) (September 2015).

11.2 The new Draft London Plan was published on 1 December 2017 (updated August 2018) for consultation and will eventually supersede the current 2016 consolidated London Plan once the final version is published (anticipated late 2019). The Draft London Plan is a material consideration to be balanced in planning decisions. Officers consider that this should be afforded very limited weight at this stage.

11.3 The Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan underwent public consultation from October to December 2018 under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Plans) (England) Regulations 2012. Pre-submission publication (Regulation 19) is anticipated in autumn 2019. The plan has little weight at this stage.

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

Draft South Bank and Waterloo neighbourhood development plan

11.5 The site falls within the designated South Bank and Waterloo neighbourhood planning area. As set out in paragraph 48 of the NPPF 2019, local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the NPPF (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).

11.6 Paragraph 007 (Reference ID: 41-007-20190509) of the Planning Practice Guidance “states that an emerging neighbourhood plan is likely to be a material consideration in many cases. Paragraph 48 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework sets out that weight may be given to relevant policies in emerging plans in decision taking. Factors to consider include the stage of preparation of the plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to the relevant policies. A referendum ensures that the community has the final say on whether the neighbourhood plan comes into force as part of the development plan. Where the local planning authority publishes notice of a referendum, the emerging neighbourhood plan should be given more weight, while also taking account of the extent of unresolved objections to the plan and its degree of consistency with NPPF.

11.7 Paragraph 007 (Reference ID: 41-007-20190509) of the Planning Practice Guidance “states that an emerging neighbourhood plan is likely to be a material consideration in many cases. Paragraph 48 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework sets out that weight may be given to relevant policies in emerging plans in decision taking. Factors to consider include the stage of preparation of the plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to the relevant policies. A referendum ensures that the community has the final say on whether the neighbourhood plan comes into force as part of the development plan. Where the local planning authority publishes notice of a referendum, the emerging neighbourhood plan should be given more weight, while also taking account of the extent of unresolved objections to the plan and its degree of consistency with NPPF.”

11.8 The Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 amended Section 70 of the 1990 Act to require local planning authorities to have regard to a post-examination draft Neighbourhood Development Plan, so far as material to the application, when dealing with planning applications in the neighbourhood area. A draft NDP is a ‘post-examination draft NDP’ once it has been formally sent to referendum.

11.9 South Bank and Waterloo Neighbours (SoWN) submitted their draft South Bank and Waterloo neighbourhood development plan (‘the draft NDP’) to Lambeth and Southwark on 19 June 2018. The draft NDP subsequently underwent examination and the examiner’s report was published in May 2019. On 3 July 2019 the Council made the decision that the draft NDP, subject to modifications, should proceed to the two referendums (one for residents and one for businesses).

11.10 The draft NDP is therefore a ‘post-examination draft NDP’ and regard should be had to the draft NDP, so far as material to the application, when dealing with planning applications in the South Bank and Waterloo neighbourhood area. It should be noted that the draft NDP will become part of Lambeth’s development plan if it is approved at the two referendums.

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

12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 Land Use

12.1.1 The existing building is functionally part of the wider St Thomas’ Hospital site, which is C2 Use ‘residential institutions’. The proposed development would also be part of the hospital so there would be no change in land use.

12.1.2 The development would provide improved hospital facilities, which is supported by LP Policy 3.17 and LLP Policy S2. The site is located in the CAZ and the proposal would support its function by supporting a strategically important cluster of health uses in compliance with LP Policy 2.11. In addition, the site is within Policy PN1 Waterloo policy area and this policy supports the additional health care use. PN1(g) in particular supports the development strategies of St Thomas’ Hospital to provide the highest quality care facilities, which this proposal would do.

12.1.3 LLP Policy S2 requires proposals for new hospital provision to maximise shared community use of the premises, if practical. However, given the specialised and sensitive nature of the uses in the proposed building it is not considered practical to secure a shared community use of this building.

12.1.4 The principle of the development is therefore acceptable.

12.2 Design

12.2.1 The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, stating that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. LP Policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 require development to be of the highest design quality, having regard to the local urban form. This is reflected locally in LLP Policies Q5 and Q7.

12.2.2 The existing modern structure on the site has no architectural merit and does not contribute to the character of the local area. Its demolition is therefore considered acceptable.

12.2.3 The proposed building would have a compact rectangular footprint reflecting the constrained site. The footprint would be repeated upwards to six storeys, which is substantially taller than the existing single storey building on site. It would reach higher than the parapet of adjacent Victorian hospital building (South Wing) but stay below the parapet of the Evelina Children’s Hospital building and well below the 12 storey height of the post-war building to the east (East Wing). Due to its location and the height of adjoining buildings, the building would not be highly visible from outside of the hospital site.

12.2.4 The building would fill the visual gap between South Wing and East Wing. However, the terracotta finish baguettes on the south elevation would harmonise with the red brick of the Victorian hospital building and the terracotta colour cladding of the nearby Evelina Children’s hospital. The aluminium baguettes on the east elevation would be less visible and relate more to the contemporary design of East Wing. The north and west elevations would be the least visible so the cladding proposed for these elevations would have no significant bearing on the outwards appearance of the building. These simple and calm façade treatments would not compete with the Victorian detail of South Wing, the architectural expression of the Evelina building or the dominant size of East Wing.

12.2.5 The proposed massing makes best use of the space available and the elevation treatments respond adequately to the site’s context. The proposed design is acceptable having regard to the policies listed above. Conditions are proposed to secure the final materials and construction details.

12.3 Impact on Strategic and Local Views

12.3.1 The site sits within the following strategic views as identified in the Mayor’s London View Management Framework (LVMF) (LP Policies 7.11 and 7.12):

 River Prospect 18A Westminster Bridge  River Prospect 19A Lambeth Bridge: Downstream  River Prospect 20A Victoria Embankment between Waterloo and Westminster Bridges; Between Westminster and Hungerford Bridges  London Panorama 4A.2 Primrose Hill to the Palace of Westminster

River Prospect 18A Westminster Bridge

12.3.2 Most of the top floor of the building would be visible above Victorian roof of South Wing but it would be seen against the backdrop of the Evelina building and the much larger and dominant East and North Wing buildings. There would be no harm to this view.

Figure 3 - View from Westminster Bridge (18A). Proposal building outlined in orange.

River Prospect 19A Lambeth Bridge: Downstream

12.3.3 The proposed building would not be visible in this view as it would be completely hidden by the South Wing building.

River Prospect 20A Victoria Embankment between Waterloo and Westminster Bridges; Between Westminster and Hungerford Bridges

12.3.4 A portion of the top floor would be visible in this view but there would be no harm to this view as it would be seen against the backdrop of the Evelina building and the much larger and dominant North Wing building.

Figure 4 – View from Victoria Embankment (20A) Proposal building outlined in orange

London Panorama 4A.2 Primrose Hill to the Palace of Westminster

12.3.5 The building would not be noticeable in this view. There would be no harm.

Local Views

12.3.6 The building would sit within Norwood Park Local View and Brixton Panoramic Local View as identified under LLP Policy Q25. Due to the size and location of the building it would not be noticeable in these views and would cause no harm.

Conclusion

12.3.7 The proposed development would not harm any strategic or local view in compliance with LP Policy 7.12 and LLP Policy Q25 respectively.

12.4 Impact on heritage assets

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

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

12.4.3 The decision of the Court of Appeal in Barnwell Manor confirms that the assessment of the degree of harm to the heritage asset is a matter for the planning judgement of the decision-maker.

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

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

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

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

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

Impact on Westminster World Heritage Site

12.4.9 LLP Policy Q19 seeks to preserve or enhance the Outstanding Universal Value, authenticity and integrity of the Westminster World Heritage Site (WWHS) and its setting. The proposed building would not be within or adjacent to the boundary of the Westminster World Heritage Site.. It would be located within its setting but views of the proposed building from the WWHS would be blocked by existing development or the building would be seen against the backdrop of the Evelina building and the much larger and dominant North Wing building. In terms of views towards the WWHS, due to the surrounding buildings of considerable height and scale, the building would not be visible in views toward the WWHS from the hospital site.

12.4.10 The proposed development would cause no harm to the value of the WWHS in compliance with LPP Policy Q19 and LP Policy 7.10.

Impact on Listed Buildings

12.4.11 The nearest listed building is the Grade II Listed original St Thomas’ Hospital building immediately to the west. The existing structure on site is a single storey modern building of no architectural merit. It does not contribute to the setting of Listed Building and its demolition is acceptable. The replacement building is much larger and would fill most of the visual gap between South Wing and East Wing. It would partially connect with South Wing and be 5.8m from East Wing. This introduction of building mass would be tempered by the terracotta finish that would harmonise with the red brick of South Wing and the terracotta of the Evelina building. However, the proximity to and the bulk and mass of the building would still result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of the listed South Wing building.

12.4.12 There would be no harm to the listed structures elsewhere on the hospital site as the development would not be visible within their settings or would be less dominant than the existing buildings that occupy their settings. Similarly, there would be no harm to the Grade II* Listed County Hall, Grade I Listed Lambeth Palace and Grade II listed Lambeth Palace Gardens for the same reason.

Impact on Conservation Areas

12.4.13 The site is within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area (CA). The existing structure is not a positive contributor to the character of the CA. From the public realm the proposed building would be most visible from Lambeth Palace Road when looking down the access road towards the site. In this view the terracotta finish would create a positive visual relationship with the red brick of South Wing and the terracotta of the Evelina building. The building would be less visible in other views (see section 14) and consequently it is considered to cause no harm to appearance and character of the CA.

12.4.14 The South Bank conservation area begins on the north side of Westminster Bridge Road and is considered to be too far to be affected by the proposal. There would be no harm to its setting.

Impact on Locally Listed Buildings/Structures and Archaeological Priority Area

12.4.15 Locally Listed Buildings are ‘non-designated heritage assets’ under the NPPF. Para. 135 of the NPPF states that the effect of an application on the significance of non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In addition LLP Policy Q23 seeks to retain, preserve, protect, safeguard and where desirable, enhance non-designated heritage assets

12.4.16 The nearest locally listed buildings are the rear block of the former County Hall however the proposed development would not be visible within its setting. There would be no harm.

12.4.17 Non-designated heritage assets also include archaeological assets and the same policy approach applies. Policy 7.8 of the London Plan emphasises that the conservation of archaeological interest is a material consideration in the planning process. LLP Policy Q23 requires proper investigation and recording of archaeological remains.

12.4.18 The application site lies in an area of archaeological interest and the application is supported by a Historic Environment Assessment. The assessment identifies the potential for archaeological remains to be present and advises that a condition be applied requiring the approval of a scheme of investigation prior to commencement. Subject to this condition, there would be no harm to heritage assets of archaeological interest.

Summary of impacts

12.4.19 The impact of the development on heritage assets has been assessed and the results are summarised in the table below

Designated Heritage Asset Level of harm Westminster World Heritage Site None South Wing (Grade II) Less than substantial harm All other listed structures within the hospital None site Lambeth Palace (Grade I) None Lambeth Palace Gardens (Grade II) County Hall (Grade II*) None Albert Embankment Conservation Area None South Bank Conservation Area None Non-designated Heritage Asset Level of harm County Hall Read Blocks Locally listed None building Archaeology None

Assessment of harm versus benefits

12.4.20 The development would result in less than substantial harm to heritage assets. As required by para. 196 of the NPPF, where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

12.4.21 The proposed development would deliver a number of public benefits. It would provide an expanded ‘Same Day Surgery Centre’ for the Evelina Children’s hospital, flexible healthcare accommodation to support existing hospital services, a Simulation and Interactive learning centre and accommodation for staff and Kings College students. As such the building would provide capacity to meet existing health care requirements. It would also provide capacity to allow existing functions to move into this building to free up existing buildings for their redevelopment. In this way the development is key to facilitating the long term modernisation of the hospital. These are considered to be material considerations that would outweigh the less than substantial harm to heritage assets identified above.

12.4.22 Officers have had special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess; the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area; and a viewer’s ability to appreciate the WWHS’s Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance. Officers have had regard to the statutory presumption against granting planning permission for development which would harm a heritage asset but consider the public benefits to outweigh the identified harm.

12.5 Tall buildings

12.5.1 The proposed building is 26.05m tall. Most of its neighbouring buildings are taller than it but since it is more than 25m tall and within the Thames Policy Area (i.e. near the Thames) it is considered to be a ‘tall building’ in the London Plan and therefore referable to the GLA. Accordingly, the proposal is assessed in the table below against London Plan Policy 7.7 which sets specific requirements for tall buildings.

Policy 7.7 criterion Scheme response (a) generally be limited to sites in the Central The site is in the CAZ, Waterloo Opportunity Activity Zone, opportunity areas, areas of Area and has good access to public transport intensification or town centres that have good access to public transport

(b) only be considered in areas whose The immediate context is defined by large character would not be affected adversely by buildings of greater height and would not be the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building adversely affected

(c) relate well to the form, proportion, The design would relate well to surrounding composition, scale and character of buildings, urban grain and public realm surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm (including landscape features), particularly at street level;

(d) individually or as a group, improve the The building would improve the legibility of the legibility of an area, by emphasising a point of space in front of it and provide a clear link to civic or visual significance where appropriate, surroundings buildings. It would not be and enhance the skyline and image of London noticeable on the skyline

(e) incorporate the highest standards of The building is of a high architectural standard architecture and materials, including and incorporates sustainability principles into its sustainable design and construction practices design

(f) have ground floor activities that provide a The building would have a ground floor positive relationship to the surrounding streets entrance that would provide activity and have a clear relationship to public space between South Wing and the Evelina building (g) contribute to improving the permeability of The building would not maintain existing the site and wider area, permeability and improve the internal link where possible between South Wing and East Wing

(h) incorporate publicly accessible areas on the This would not be appropriate for a hospital upper floors, where appropriate building

(i) make a significant contribution to local The building forms part of the hospital’s wider regeneration. modernisation strategy

12.5.2 The Lambeth Local Plan has the same definition for tall buildings as the London Plan and LLP Policy Q26 sets out a number of policy requirements for such buildings. These are addressed in the table below:

Policy Q26 criterion Scheme response (a)(i) they are not located within areas St Thomas hospital is located in an area identified as inappropriate for tall identified as ‘Inappropriate for Tall Buildings’ buildings in Annex 11; however the proposal is only 1m beyond the threshold of 25m for a tall building. In addition, the proposal is not ‘substantially taller’ than its surroundings, nor will it cause ‘a significant change to the skyline’, which are set out in the supporting text to Policy Q26 as other criteria for tall buildings. As such, the building is considered to be appropriate in this location. (ii) there is no adverse impact on the The proposal would have no adverse impact significance of strategic or local views or on strategic or local views. There would be a heritage assets including their settings; less than substantial impact on the setting of South Wing but this would be outweighed by the scheme’s public benefits.

(iii) design excellence is achieved (in terms of The building is of an excellent design standard. form, silhouette, materials, detailing etc.); (iv) the proposal makes a positive contribution to The building would not be noticeable on the the townscape and skyline either individually to skyline but would make a positive contribution form a distinctive landmark or as a contribution to the urban context in this part of the hospital. to a group;

(v) they are of the highest standards of The building is of a high architectural standard. architecture and materials; and (vi) it does not have an unacceptably harmful The building would have acceptable impacts impact on its surroundings including on its surroundings. microclimate, wind turbulence, noise, reflected glare, aviation, navigation and telecommunication or broadcast interference.

12.6 Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers

12.6.1 Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

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

12.6.3 The proposed building would be located almost adjacent to existing hospital buildings so there would be significant impacts on daylight and sunlight to these buildings. The submitted daylight and sunlight assessment has modelled these impacts and they range from negligible to major adverse. The location of the major adverse impacts for each affected buildings is set out below.

South Wing

12.6.4 The proposed building would be 2.9m away from the façade of South Wing so it is expected that is daylight and sunlight would be significantly affected. For daylight, almost all of the windows immediately opposite the proposed building would experience an adverse in terms of VSC. Most of the windows on the ground, first and second floors would experience a major adverse and four windows on the third floor would experience a minor adverse.

12.6.5 In terms of sunlight, measured as APSH, all of the windows opposite the new building would experience an adverse impact – in most cases major adverse.

12.6.6 The affected rooms are used for administration, laboratories, waiting rooms and day treatment rooms. These are considered to be less sensitive to daylight and sunlight impacts.

East Wing

12.6.7 East Wing is on the opposite side to South Wing and while it is not as close, is still only 3.8m away. It would therefore also experience daylight and sunlight impact. In terms of daylight, there would be an adverse impact on most of the windows at ground to fourth floor. The impact starts at minor adverse in the middle of its façade and increases to major adverse toward the southernmost end.

12.6.8 For sunlight, a major adverse impact is expected on the majority of windows on the ground to fourth floors that face the development.

12.6.9 At ground floor, the affected rooms are offices and circulation spaces, which are less sensitive to daylight and sunlight changes. At first, second, third and fourth floors the affected rooms include adult in-patient wards. The retained level of VSC for the major adversely affected windows on these floors ranges from 6.4 per cent to around 12 per cent. Although these values are low, the affected rooms are inhabited on a temporary basis only and the sensitivity would be less than a dwelling, for example. Consequently, the impact is considered to be acceptable. Some mitigation would be provided by the light coloured cladding and the aluminium treatment on the east elevation of the building as it would reflect light.

Evelina Children’s Hospital

12.6.10 The Evelina Children’s Hospital is to the south east and while most of its windows are too far south to be affected, there is a glazed area at its north-eastern corner that would experience some adverse impacts. The impact is major adverse at first floor (there are no ground floor windows) and decreases to minor at fourth floor.

12.6.11 For sunlight, the impact is negligible for the majority of windows. Those that are affected are located towards the northern end of the building and range from minor to moderate adverse.

12.6.12 The impacts would affect offices, circulation spaces, a parents’ room and meeting room. There would be no material impact on any residential wards.

Conclusion

12.6.13 Although there are instances of major adverse impact, the impact would fall on offices, circulation spaces and some adult in-patient wards, which are considered to be less sensitive to such impacts No third party residential property would be affected. The impact is considered to be acceptable.

Privacy and outlook

12.6.14 The building would have windows on its north, east and south elevations. There are no residential properties nearby that would suffer overlooking. The windows on the north would face the windows of north wing but these are over 40m away and there would be no overlooking. The windows on the east elevation would face towards East Wing and be only 3.8m away however these east facing windows would serve administrative or clinical rooms where privacy would be heavily controlled. Furthermore, the aluminium baguettes would be placed vertically on this elevation to block oblique views. The windows on the south elevation are the largest and these would have long uninterrupted aspect south towards Lambeth Palace Road. These windows would serve the building’s ward, recovery bays, staff break area and student area reception. There would be no overlooking to or from these areas.

12.6.15 The building would affect the outlook of the South Wing and East Wing. The affected rooms in South Wing are offices, treatment rooms or laboratories which are considered less sensitive to changes in outlook. There would be some rooms in East Wing that are in-patient wards that would have a more restricted outlook. However, there would be remain at least a 3.8m separation to maintain daylight access. Given that the in-patient wards are occupied on a temporary basis this impact is considered outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

12.6.16 The proposed development would not result in unacceptable impacts on overlooking outlook.

Noise and Vibration

12.6.17 The application is supported by a detailed noise and vibration assessment that has been independently reviewed. It found that the main sources of existing noise are road and air traffic. For vibration it was plant on existing buildings but this was very low. The assessment concludes that in this environment it would be possible to achieve acceptable indoor noise levels in the new development using standard sound insulation.

12.6.18 The source of noise from the development would be plant noise. No plant details have been submitted at this stage but the noise assessment affirms that the LPA’s requirement of achieved 10dB below existing background level can be achieved. Accordingly, conditions would be imposed requiring the submission of plant details and an associated acoustic assessment as well as a condition requiring the LPA’s noise target is achieved.

12.6.19 For vibration, the existing levels are below guidance levels for human annoyance and the proposed building is not expected to increase background vibration levels.

12.6.20 During construction, noise and vibration impacts would be managed in cooperation with the hospital Trust. The measures would be confirmed in an updated construction management plan but are likely to include a restriction on hours to 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays with no noisy work permitted between 1200 and 1400 each day.

Light Pollution

12.6.21 The proposed building would be located in a managed hospital campus and would not affect any residential properties.

12.7 Designing Out Crime

12.7.1 The hospital campus is a managed space with its own security arrangements but the proposed development would provide more activity and surveillance to the semi-public area it faces onto. The Metropolitan Police have reviewed the proposal and confirmed that the development could achieve Secured by Design compliance. Conditions would be imposed requiring details of security measures in accordance with Secured by Design principles and objectives.

12.8 Public realm, landscaping and trees

12.8.1 The site is very constrained and the proposed building would occupy almost all of it. Existing access road would be maintained but the existing ramp that provides step free access between South Wing and the Evelina building would be reconfigured to provide a level walkway from the South Wing exit directly to the entrance of the new building. Ramped access down to the lower level would be retained. The ramp would be treated in brick and tiling to tie in with South Wing and the tiling used on the new building. This would be more appropriate than the steel and glass railings that are there today.

12.8.2 There are no trees on site and there is no opportunity to plant new trees. The applicant has explored providing a green roof but it was considered feasible due to the limited roof space available, engineering constraints which require the roof to be a lightweight structure and the difficulty in providing the necessary access for maintenance. Officers are satisfied that a green roof would not be appropriate in this instance.

12.9 Transport

Site context

12.9.1 The site is accessed by a service road off Lambeth Palace Road. It is located in an area of excellent public transport accessibility due to the proximity of Waterloo train and Underground station, Lambeth North Underground Station to the east and Westminster Underground to the west across Westminster Bridge. There are also numerous bus services nearby. Lambeth Palace Road and Westminster Bridge Road are both part of the TfL Strategic Road Network.

Sustainable travel

Walking

12.9.2 The site is easily accessed on foot from Lambeth Palace Road and from elsewhere in the hospital campus. The existing ramp at the front of the site would be improved as part of the development.

Cycling

12.9.3 The hospital currently has extensive cycle parking for both short and long stays and given the very minor increase in patients, staff and visitors expected, additional cycle parking would not be necessary.

Car parking

12.9.4 There are existing car parking facilities serving the hospital campus but no additional parking is proposed as part of this development. This is supported.

Servicing

12.9.5 No changes to existing servicing and delivery arrangements are proposed. It is noted that the Trust are implementing a freight consolidation programme that would reduce the number of deliveries across the whole hospital campus. Waste would be collected under existing waste arrangements for the whole hospital campus. As the proposed uses would be relocated from elsewhere in the hospital there would be no material increase in waste generated.

Network impacts

12.9.6 The proposed building would provide a same day surgery centre, (KCL) undergraduate staff and student accommodation and a simulation and interactive learning centre (SaIL). The KCL and SaIL facilities would be relocated from elsewhere in the hospital so there would be no expected change to staff or student numbers. The new surgery may allow for one additional patient per day to be seen, which may in turn generate an estimated two extra visitors. Given the site’s excellent accessibility, the lack of additional car parking and the small number of trips involved, the development is likely to have negligible traffic impacts.

12.9.7 The Trust has an existing travel plan for the whole hospital campus and it would apply to this development.

Construction impacts

12.9.8 The application is supported by a construction management plan (CMP). It confirms that site access during construction would be via the existing service road off Lambeth Palace Road, which is a TfL controlled road. The service road is controlled by the Trust to ensure only authorised access is permitted. The Trust operates a system which requires all deliveries to be booked-in with 48 hours’ notice and this would also apply to construction deliveries for this development. At no point will there be any plant or crane equipment on the highway. However, TfL require further discussion on how vehicles would exit the site safely. Therefore a condition would be imposed requiring an updated CMP to ensure TfL’s concerns are addressed.

12.9.9 The Trust are implementing a freight consolidation scheme to reduce the number of deliveries to the hospital. This could be applied to construction deliveries for this development and could reduce deliveries by up to 30 per cent. The condition requiring an updated CMP will be required to demonstrate how freight consolidation will be used during the construction phase.

Conclusion

12.9.10 The proposed development would have no significant transport impacts and this is acceptable. .

12.10 Sustainable Design and Construction

Energy

12.10.1 LP Policy 5.2 requires developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with ‘Be Lean’, ‘Be Clean’ and ‘Be Green’ hierarchy.

12.10.2 The proposed development would achieve a 31.3 per cent reduction against a baseline based on 2013 Building Regulations. This would be achieved through energy efficiency measures (‘Be Lean’) and connecting to the existing combined heat and power (CHP) network at the hospital (‘Be Clean’). No carbon savings are proposed through renewable generation (‘Be Green’) as it would not be feasible. Solar PV would otherwise be the most appropriate but the roof would be overshadowed by neighbouring development and there would be limited space to install PV.

12.10.3 The justification for no solar PV is accepted and connecting to the existing CHP system would result in carbon savings. However, the saving would be 31.3 per cent, falling short of the 35 per cent target set by the London Plan. There is scope is replace the site-wide CHP with a newer, more efficient model to result in greater carbon savings but this is unlikely to take place prior to commencement of the development. Consequently, the developer would be required to make a cash-in-lieu payment to achieve the equivalent of 35 per cent saving. This would be £60 per tonne per year for 30 years resulting in a payment of £10,673.

BREEAM

12.10.4 A BREEAM pre-assessment has been submitted showing that the development would achieve ‘Excellent’ with a score of 77.37 per cent. This is in compliance with LLP Policy EN4.

Overheating and cooling

12.10.5 The development has been designed with regard to the Mayor’s cooling hierarchy (LP Policy 5.9) in order to reduce the potential for overheating. Passive design features such as solar control glazing and shading have been prioritised. Mechanical ventilation will also be used. Active cooling is proposed and although it is lowest on the hierarchy, given the sensitive medical nature of the development, it is considered acceptable in this instance.

Green Roof

12.10.6 LP Policy 5.11 requires development to include green roof or walls where feasible. No green infrastructure is proposed here and while it is recognised that this development might have constraints to providing a green roof, the possibility should be fully explored. A condition would therefore be imposed requiring the applicant to consider the provision of a green roof with full justification given if this is deemed not feasible.

12.11 Other Environmental Matters

Ecology and biodiversity

12.11.1 The application site is not within or adjacent to any public open space or any Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The application site is close to the River Thames and its walls and foreshore, which is a Metropolitan SINC for London, but there is sufficient physical separation from it and there is no risk of intrusion into or reduction in area of quality of the SINC.

12.11.2 The submitted ecological appraisal identified the neighbouring South Wing building as having potential to contain roosting bats. Therefore, conditions would be imposed to require inspection of the building to confirm potential for roosting bats and for emergence and return surveys between May and September to confirm the presence of any bats prior to construction.

12.11.3 A survey of peregrines was undertaken and it confirmed that there are no potential peregrine nest sites in the vicinity. However, conditions would be imposed requiring a nesting bird check prior to any demolition and an updated peregrine survey be undertaken prior to any works if commencement begins after March 2020.

12.11.4 The site otherwise has little ecological value and there would be potential to improve the site in this respect with a green roof. A green roof has not been proposed by a condition would be imposed requiring the applicant to consider the provision of a green roof with full justification given if it is deemed not feasible.

12.11.5 Subject to the above conditions the development would be in compliance with LLP Policy EN1

Flood Risk

12.11.6 The site lies within Flood Zone 3 but benefits from the Thames Tidal Defences which provide protection up to the 1 in 1000 year statutory defence level. Therefore, subject to these defences operating the site would not be at risk of flooding from tidal and/or fluvial sources over the lifetime of the development. . The site is also at low risk of flooding from groundwater, surface water or sewer sources.

12.11.7 The NPPF sets a sequential test for the location of new development with regard to flood risk. This is expanded in the NPPG. The proposed hospital use is classified as ‘more vulnerable’ and as it located in Flood Zone 3, it must pass the sequential test to determine. The sequential test was applied when the council undertook it Lambeth’s strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA). It identified that the entire Waterloo Opportunity Area, where significant new development is proposed, is within Flood Zone 3. Therefore any new development that is ‘more vulnerable’ would only be permitted if it passed the Exception Test under para. 160 of the NPPF.

12.11.8 The proposed development would pass the Exception Test as it would (a) provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and (b) be safe for its lifetime taking into account the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

12.11.9 The wider benefits to the community are the additional clinical capacity, accommodation for undergraduates and staff and improved education facilities. The clinical capacity would benefit St Thomas as a specialist children’s hospital, of which there are only two in London. It would also provide capacity to allow existing functions to move into this building to free up existing buildings for their redevelopment. In this way the development is key to facilitating the long term modernisation of the hospital.

12.11.10 In reference to (b) above, risk would be highest in the event of a breach of the River Thames flood defences. However, most of the St Thomas hospital site would be unaffected with the flood hazard most acute at the site of the breach. The development would benefit from the Environment Agency’s Flood Warnings Direct service and would be included in the Trust’s wider flood evacuation plan for the hospital, which would be implemented if events required. Finally, the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere as there will be no increase in surface water run-off rate compared to the existing development. A green roof could provide some attenuation and as discussed earlier, a condition would be imposed requiring this to be explored.

12.11.11 The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable in flood risk terms, in compliance with LP Policy 5.12 and LLP Policy EN5.

Air Quality

12.11.12 The proposed development would have no significant impact on air quality as it would generate few additional trips on the transport network.

12.11.13 During demolition and construction, the potential for dust emission is low as the existing building is mainly constructed from low dust emitting materials (steel and timber) and the proposed building would consist of pre-fabricated modules. However, the contractor has committed to employing their standard mitigation measures such as damping down earthworks and fully sealing off any spoil or waste that is transported from the site. These measures would be confirmed in an updated construction management plan, required by condition.

12.11.14 Subject to this condition, the proposed development would be in compliance with LP Policy 7.14.

Land contamination

12.11.15 The preliminary desktop study has identified the risk of contamination to be moderate. In addition it is likely that un-exploded WWI and WWII ordnances may exist on site. Consequently, conditions would be imposed requiring a site investigation to further assess the risk, to set out a remediation strategy if required and verification of the successful completion of the remediation strategy. Subject to these conditions, the risk of harm through site contamination would be minimised, in compliance with LLP Policy EN4.

12.12 Employment and Training

12.12.1 The proposed development would not result in an increase in the number of permanent jobs at the hospital as existing staff would be transferred to the new building.

12.12.2 The demolition and construction stage would provide some opportunities for employment and training and these will be delivered through an Employment and Skills Plan. The plan would be secured through a unilateral undertaking.

12.13 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

12.13.1 The LLP Policy D4 and Annex 10 sets out the Council’s policy in relation to seeking planning obligations and the charging approaches for various types of obligation. For contributions that are not covered by Annex 10, the Council’s approach to calculating contributions is guided by the Development Viability SPD (adopted 2017) and the Employment and Skills SPD (adopted 2018).

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

12.13.3 The proposed obligations to be secured through a unilateral undertaking are as follows:

 Carbon offset payment £10,673  Employment and skills plan for construction phase

12.13.4 If the application is approved and the development is implemented no CIL would be payable as health uses attract no liability under both the Mayoral and Lambeth CIL charging schedules.

13 CONCLUSION

13.1 Guy’s and St Thomas’ Trust submitted an application to demolish an existing single storey hospital within St Thomas’ Hospital and replace it with a six storey building also for hospital use. The building would provide an expanded Same Day Surgery Centre for the Evelina Children’s hospital, accommodation for undergraduate staff and students from Kings College London (KCL) and a Simulation and Interactive Learning (SaIL) Centre. The building would be located between the existing South Wing and East Wing buildings.

13.2 The principle of new medical facilities is acceptable. The six storey building would respond acceptably to its context by having an appropriate height and massing and a material palette that would relate positively to surrounding buildings. It would have no harmful impact on strategic or local views. It would have a ‘less than substantial’ harmful impact on the setting of the Grade II Listed South Wing. However, this harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of the new facilities and hospital capacity delivered by the development. There would be no harm to all other nearby heritage assets.

13.3 The development would cause major adverse impacts on daylight and sunlight for some rooms on neighbouring buildings but the rooms affected would be wards, which are inhabited on a temporary basis only or office and circulation spaces. It would cause no harm to any residential property.

13.4 There are no residential properties nearby that would be affected by construction works but impact on hospital operations would be managed by a construction management plan in agreement with the Trust.

13.5 The new building would accommodate existing staff and students so it will not result in a significant increase in trips to and from the site. No changes are proposed to existing vehicle access and servicing arrangements. Consequently, there would be significant impact on the transport network.

13.6 Subject to conditions the development would meet technical requirements in respect of sustainability, flood risk, land decontamination and ecological protection. A s106 unilateral undertaking would secure a carbon offset payment of £10,673 and an employment and skills plan for the construction phase.

13.7 The proposed development has been assessed against the Development Plan and all other material considerations, including national planning policy. Officers consider that subject to appropriate conditions and a s106 unilateral undertaking the planning application should be approved.

14 PROCEDURAL MATTERS

14.1 The application is referable to the Mayor under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The application has been referred to the Mayor at ‘Stage 1’. Before Lambeth can issue a decision on this application it will need to refer the application again to the Mayor at Stage 2; at which point the Mayor will have the opportunity to elect to become determining authority, direct refusal, or allow Lambeth to proceed and issue the decision in line with its resolution.

15 EQUALITY DUTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

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

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

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

16 RECOMMENDATION

1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in this report and any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London.

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

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

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

4. In the event that the Section 106 unilateral undertaking is not completed within three months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to provide a section 106 unilateral undertaking for the mitigating contributions identified in this report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:Draft Decision Notice

Your Ref: Our Ref: 19/01397/FUL

Guy's And St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust c/o Mr Ben Stalham 65 Gresham Street London EC2V 7NQ

DATE

DRAFT DECISION NOTICE

Dear Guy's And St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990.

PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT

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

In accordance with the statutory provisions your attention is drawn to the statement of Applicant’s Rights and General Information attached.

Application Number: 19/01397/FUL Date of Application: 10.04.2019 Date of Decision:

Proposed Development At: St Thomas' Hospital 249 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7EH

For: Demolition of existing single storey hospital building and erection of a new six storey (including plant level) hospital building (C2 use), alterations to existing access arrangements and associated public realm works.

Approved Plans STEW-ADP-D-00-DR-A-0900 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-00-DR-A-0902 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-00-DR-A-0915 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-00-DR-A-0916 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-00-DR-A-1000 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-CB-00-DR-A- 1025-S2 P12;STEW-ADP-CB-01-DR-A-1026-S2 P-9;STEW-ADP-CB-02-DR-A-1027-S2 P11;STEW-ADP- CB-03-DR-A-1028-S2 P9;STEW-ADP-CB-04-DR-A-1029-S2 P10;STEW-ADP-CB-05-DR-A-1030-S2 P7;STEW-ADP-CB-06-DR-A-1031-S2 P7;STEW-ADP-D-XX-VS-A-0802 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-XX-VS-A- 0803 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-XX-VS-A-0804 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-ZZ-DR-A-0917 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-ZZ- DR-A-0918 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-CB-ZZ-DR-A-1300-S2;STEW-ADP-CB-ZZ-DR-A-1301-S2 P5;STEW-ADP-D- ZZ-DR-A-1302 S2 P2;STEW-ADP-D-ZZ-DR-A-0920 S2 P3;STEW-ADP-D-ZZ-DR-A-0921 S2 P3;STEW- ADP-D-ZZ-DR-A-0922 S2 P3;STEW-ADP-D-ZZ-DR-A-0923 S2 P3;STEW-ADP-CB-ZZ-DR-A-1200-S2 P6;STEW-ADP-CB-ZZ-DR-A-1201-S2 P6;STEW-ADP-CB-ZZ-DR-A-1202-S2 P6;STEW-ADP-CB-ZZ-DR-A- 1203-S2 P5;408284-MMD-CB-FD-SK-S-0001 P2;Design-and-Access-Statement-RevD;GSTT Waste Management Policy;Town and Visual Impact Assessment- May 2019;Preliminary Ecological Appraisal rev C;190705 - GSTT - The Core - Peregrine survey rev A;Flood Risk Assessment rev C;Daylight and Sunlight Assessment rev C;Air Quality Assessment rev B;Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment rev C;Transport Statement rev B;BREEAM Strategy - Pre-Assessment rev D;190511 - GSTT - The Core - Energy Statement rev D;190510 - GSTT - The Core - Sustainability Statement Rev C;HEA_St_Thomas_Hospital_The_Core V.3;HS_St Thomas_Hospital_The Core_V4;GSTT - Technical Note on Linac Bunker;GSTT - Technical Note on Piling Methodology;Phase 1 Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental;Combined Heat and Power (CHP) - Supporting Planning Informat

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

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

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

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

3 No construction shall take place until, the proposed demolition and development shall be carried out in accordance with the stage 1 written scheme of investigation (WSI). For land that is included within the WSI, no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, and the programme and methodology of site evaluation and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works.

A. If heritage assets of archaeological interest are identified by stage 1 then for those parts of the site which have archaeological interest a stage 2 WSI shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the stage 2 WSI, no demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed stage 2 WSI which shall include:

B. The statement of significance and research objectives, the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works.

C. The programme for post-investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication & dissemination and deposition of resulting material. this part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the stage 2 WSI.

Reason: Heritage assets of archaeological interest may survive on the site. The planning authority wishes to secure the provision of appropriate archaeological investigation, including the publication of results, in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF, London Plan 2016 Policy 7.8 and Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q23. This is required pre-commencement to ensure that construction work does not harm existing archaeological assets.

4 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority no development other than demolition shall commence until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: i) A site investigation scheme, based on previous findings to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site; ii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment resulting from i); iii) An options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of any remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken;

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

Reason: To safeguard future users or occupiers of this site and the wider environment from irreversible risks and to demonstrate that any work has been carried out effectively and the environmental risks have been satisfactorily managed (policies 5.21 of the London Plan (2015) and EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)). This is required prior to commence so that opportunities for remediation are not prejudiced.

5 Prior to occupation of any part of the development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a "long-term monitoring and maintenance plan") for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard future users or occupiers of this site and the wider environment from irreversible risks and to demonstrate that any work has been carried out effectively and the environmental risks have been satisfactorily managed (policies 5.21 of the London Plan 2015) and EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

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

Reason: To safeguard future users or occupiers of this site and the wider environment from irreversible risks and to demonstrate that any work has been carried out effectively and the environmental risks have been satisfactorily managed (policies 5.21 of the London Plan (2015) and EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

7 No construction shall take place within 5m of the water main. Information detailing how the developer intends to divert the asset / align the development, so as to prevent the potential for damage to subsurface potable water infrastructure, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water prior to the commencement of above ground construction work. Any construction must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved information. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for the maintenance and repair of the asset during and after the construction works.

Reason: In order to protect water infrastructure (Policy 5.13 of the London Plan 2016).

8 The proposed works shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations relating to ecological protection set out in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated 5th April 2019 and the Peregrine Survey dated 7th May 2019, both prepared by Mott McDonald. For the avoidance of doubt these recommendations are: a. It is recommended that vegetation removal and building demolition is undertaken outside the nesting bird season. If this is not possible, then any vegetation or structures to be removed or disturbed should be checked by an experienced ecologist for nesting birds immediately prior to works commencing. If birds are found to be nesting any works which may affect them would have to be delayed until the young have fledged and the nest has been abandoned naturally, for example via the implementation of an appropriate buffer zone (species dependent) around the nest in which no disturbance is permitted until the nest is no longer in use. b. The towers on the roof of the South Wing must be internally inspected between April and September 2019 to confirm the potential of the building for occupation and use by roosting bats. c. Subject to the outcomes of the above internal building inspections, bat emergence and return surveys, involving three separate survey visits with at least one dusk emergence and a separate dawn re- entry survey, should be carried out between May and September with at least two of the surveys conducted between May and August. d. In the event that a bat is found during demolition works, all works must immediately cease and a suitably qualified ecologist should be contacted.

Reason: In order to minimise harm to protected species in the interest of biodiversity (Policy EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015)

9 If development has not commenced before 31st March 2020, development shall not commence until a new peregrine pre-works survey undertaken by a suitably qualified person on or after the 1st of April 2020 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations of the new survey.

Reason: In order to minimise the risk of harm to protected species (Policy EN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015). This information is required pre-commencement as any demolition or construction work has the potential harm peregrines.

10 No demolition or development shall commence until all non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) to be used at the demolition and construction phases on site has been registered at 'https://nrmm.london/user- nrmm/register' and that all registered NRMM is compliant with the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements.

Reason: To ensure that air quality is not adversely affected by the development (Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (2016)). Registration of all non-road mobile machinery is required prior to commencement as they must be registered before they are used for any demolition or construction work to ensure they do not adversely affect air quality.

11 Prior to their installation, the following details of the materials to be used in the external elevations of that part of the development shall be provided to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development hereby permitted shall be thereafter built in accordance with the approved details. The following details are required: a) a specification schedule of the materials b) a sample panel to be provided on site or at another appropriate location c) a photographic record of the sample panels, taken on site at midday

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory (Policies Q2, Q7 and Q8 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

12 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, prior to the commencement of the relevant work, construction drawings (including sections) at 1:10 scale of all external elements of the new structure (including but not limited to the ramp, retaining walls, balustrades, lighting and rain water goods) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained permanently thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory (policies Q2, Q7 and Q8 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)). This is required pre-commencement to ensure that the entire development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

13 Prior to commencement of above ground construction works, a revised Energy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The revised statement must demonstrate that an upgrade of the existing CHP system to meet the requisite minimum 35 per cent carbon reduction target set out in London Plan Policy 5.2 has been investigation with full justification provided if an upgrade is deemed unfeasible. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to secure appropriate reductions in carbon emissions. (London Plan 2016 Policy 5.2).

14 Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, further supporting information on the proposed connection to the CHP system as per the GLA's Energy Assessment Guidance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details must include confirmation from the network operator on whether the network has the capacity to serve the proposed development, timescales for connection, the carbon factor associated with the supplied heat and any assumptions used to derive the carbon factor. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to secure appropriate reductions in carbon emissions. (London Plan 2016 Policy 5.2).

15 Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, a revised Sustainability Statement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It must show how the development responds to guidance contained within the Mayor's Sustainable Design and Construction SPG 2014 (or its alter versions) across its lifecycle. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the construction and operation of the development accords with sustainability principles (Policy 5.3 of the London Plan 2016 and Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

16 Within six months of commencement, a Design stage BREEAM assessment must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing showing how the development will achieve a score of 'Excellent' unless it can be demonstrated that it is not technically feasible or viable to do so. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to improve environmental performance (Lambeth Local Plan 2015 Policy EN4). This is required pre-commencement to ensure that development is not carried out in a way which prejudices the achievement of the required BREEAM standards.

17 Within six months of first occupation, a BREEAM Post Construction certificate and summary score sheet shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating the rating identified under condition 16 has been achieved.

Reason: In order to improve environmental performance (Lambeth Local Plan 2015 Policy EN4).

18 Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, Design Stage calculations under the National Calculation Method shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the development has been designed in accordance with the approved Energy Statement. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to secure appropriate reductions in carbon emissions. (London Plan 2016 Policy 5.2).

19 Prior to first occupation of the development, 'As Built' calculations under the National Calculation Method shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the development has been built in accordance with the approved Energy Statement.

Reason: In order to secure appropriate reductions in carbon emissions. (London Plan 2016 Policy 5.2).

20 Prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the development, full details (including elevational drawings) of any internal and external plant equipment and trunking, including building services plant and ventilation and filtration equipment, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All flues, ducting and other equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing on site and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

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

21 There shall be no occupation of the building or operation of any building services plant connected with that use, until an assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of relevant internally and externally located plant has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

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

Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the occupants of the development and adjoining buildings (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2016).

22 Prior to commencement of above ground works, details of security measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the development in accordance with the principles and objectives of Secured by Design measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

23 Prior to final occupation, evidence of the development having achieved the agreed crime prevention and security measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

24 Prior to commencement, an updated construction management plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMP shall include the following information: i. The notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; ii. Advance notification of any access way, pavement, or road closures; iii. Details regarding parking, deliveries and storage including details of freight consolidation, routing, loading, off-loading, parking and turning of delivery and construction vehicles and the accommodation of all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles during the construction period; iv. Details regarding dust mitigation and measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway. v. The proposed hours and days of work; vi. Details of any proposed external illumination and/or floodlighting during construction; vii. Details of measures taken to prevent noise disturbance to surrounding residents; viii. Details of any further measures taken to limit and mitigate the impact of construction upon the operation of the highway and the amenity of the area;

The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid unnecessary hazard and obstruction to the public highway and impact on air quality and amenity (Policies EN4, EN7, T8 and Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015).

Notes to Applicants:

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

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

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

4. 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.

5. The footway and carriageway on the A3036 Lambeth Palace Road must not be blocked during the construction works. Temporary obstructions during the construction works must be kept to a minimum and should not encroach on the clear space needed to provide safe passage for pedestrians or obstruct the flow of traffic on Lambeth Palace Road

6. All vehicles associated with the construction works must only park/ stop at permitted locations and within the time periods permitted by existing on-street restrictions.

7. No skips or construction materials shall be kept on the footway or carriageway on the TLRN at any time.

8. The applicant is advised any alterations to the nearby Listed Building may require listed building consent. Early discussion with the Local Planning Authority is encouraged.

9. A Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water will be required for discharging groundwater into a public sewer. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures he will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water's Risk Management Team by telephoning 02035779483 or by emailing [email protected]. Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality.

10. The applicant is advised that discharge to a public sewer requires prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services. Should you require further information please refer to our website. https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Apply-and-pay-for-services/Wastewater- services

11. The proposed development is located within 15m of Thames Waters underground assets, as such the development could cause the assets to fail if appropriate measures are not taken. Please read our guide 'working near our assets' to ensure your workings are in line with the necessary processes you need to follow if you're considering working above or near our pipes or other structures. https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Planning-your-development/Working-near-or- diverting-our-pipes. Should you require further information please contact Thames Water. Email: [email protected]

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

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

14. Informative: For information on the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements please visit 'http://nrmm.london/nrmm''

15. Owners, operators and occupants should register with Flood Warnings Direct.

Yours sincerely

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

Date printed: 20th August 2019

INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, OR WHERE PERMISSION HAS BEEN REFUSED.

General Information

This permission is subject to due compliance with any local Acts, regulations, building by-laws and general statutory provisions in force in the area and nothing herein shall be regarded as dispensing with such compliance or be deemed to be a consent by the Council thereunder.

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations 1985 and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council’s Building Control Officer, Phoenix House, 10 Wandsworth Road, SW8.

The Council’s permission does not modify or affect any personal or restrictive covenants, easements, etc., applying to or affecting the land or the rights of any person entitled to the benefits thereof.

STATEMENT OF APPLICANT’S RIGHTS ARISING FROM THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION OR FROM THE GRANT OF PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

Appeals to the Secretary of State

If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the local planning authority to refuse permission or approval for the proposed development or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, he may appeal to the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 within six months from the date of this notice. Appeals must be made on a form which is obtainable from The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/13 Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN. Alternatively an Appeal form can be downloaded from their website at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning- inspectorate. The Secretary of State has power to allow longer period for the giving of a notice of appeal but he will not normally be prepared to exercise this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal. The Secretary of State is not required to entertain an appeal if it appears to him that permission for the proposed development could not have been granted by the local planning authority, or could not have been so granted otherwise than subject to the conditions imposed by them, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of the development order, and to any directions given under the order.

Purchase Notice

If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions, whether by the local planning authority or by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonable beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, he may serve on the London Borough of Lambeth a purchase notice requiring that Council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 137 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Compensation

In certain circumstances, a claim may be made against the local planning authority for compensation, where permission is refused or granted subject to conditions by the Secretary of State for the Environment on appeal or on a reference of the application to him. The circumstances in which such compensation is payable are set out in Section 120 and related provision of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

 Association of Waterloo Groups  Lambeth Estates Residents Association  South Bank Employers Group  Waterloo Community Development Group  Kennington Association Planning Forum  Friends Of Hatfield Green  Friends Of Jubilee Gardens  Friends Of Archbishop's Park  Kennington Oval & Vauxhall Forum  Cleaver Square, Cleaver Street , Bowden St  We Are Waterloo  County Hall Freehold Ltd  Friends Of St John's Churchyard  Southbank & Waterloo Forum  Neighbourhood Regeneration Project Manager  Westminster Square Residents' Association  Design Out Crime Officer  Ambulance Services  EDF Energy  Southern Gas Networks Appendix 3: List of relevant policies in London Plan, Lambeth Local Plan. Reference to SPGs, SPD and other relevant guidance

London Plan (2016) policies  Policy 1.1: Delivering the vision and objectives for London  Policy 2.10 Central activities zone – strategic priorities  Policy 2.11 Central activities zone – strategic functions  Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all  Policy 3.2 Improving health and addressing health inequalities  Policy 3.17 Health and social care facilities  Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions  Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction  Policy 5.5 Decentralised Energy Networks  Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals  Policy 5.7 Renewable Energy  Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling  Policy 5.10 Urban greening  Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs  Policy 5.12 Flood risk management  Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage  Policy 5.21 Contaminated land  Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity  Policy 6.9 Cycling  Policy 6.10 Walking  Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment  Policy 7.3 Designing out crime  Policy 7.4 Local character  Policy 7.6 Architecture  Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology  Policy 7.10 World heritage sites  Policy 7.12 Implementing the London view management framework  Policy 7.14 Improving air quality  Policy 7.15 Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes  Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature  Policy 7.21 Trees and woodlands

London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)  Central Activities Zone (March 2016)  Social Infrastructure (May 2015)  Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (October 2014)  The control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition (July 2014)  Character and Context (June 2014)  Sustainable Design and Construction (April 2014)

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

Lambeth Local Plan (2015) policies  D1 Delivery and monitoring  D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development  D4 Planning obligations  ED6 Town centres  ED14 Employment and training  S1 Safeguarding existing community premises  S2 New or improved community premises  T1 Sustainable travel  T2 Walking  T3 Cycling  T4 Public transport infrastructure  T5 River transport  T6 Assessing impacts of development on transport capacity  T7 Parking  T8 Servicing  EN4 Sustainable design and construction  EN5 Flood risk  Q1 Inclusive environments  Q2 Amenity  Q3 Community safety  Q5 Local distinctiveness  Q6 Urban design: public realm  Q7 Urban design: new development  Q8 Design quality: construction detailing  Q9 Landscaping  Q11 Building alterations and extensions  Q12 Refuse/recycling storage  Q13 Cycle storage  Q15 Boundary treatments  Q19 Westminster World Heritage Site  Q20 Statutory listed buildings  Q21 Registered parks and gardens  Q22 Conservation areas  Q23 Undesignated heritage assets: local heritage list  Q25 Views  PN1 Waterloo

Lambeth Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) and guidance

 Employment and Skills Plan (2018)  Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide  Waste Storage and Collection Requirements - Technical Specification  Air Quality Planning Guidance Notes

Appendix 4: Other relevant Plans and Photos

Figure 5 - Visualisation of proposed development

Figure 6 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Figure 7 - Proposed South Elevation

Figure 8- Proposed East Elevation

Figure 9 - Proposed North Elevation

Figure 10 - Proposed West Elevation