For advice on how to make further written submissions or to... please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing
Section 1 – Site Location Map For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy Site address Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London, SE1 7NQ Ward Bishop’s Proposal Demolition of all buildings and structures on the site, including removal of the high level footbridge over York Road, and redevelopment to provide two new buildings of part 29 and part 14 storeys (north building) and 11 storeys (south building) respectively with a part one/part two level common basement to provide 132,127sqm of floorspace (GEA), comprising B1 offices (88,649sqm), C3 residential (comprising 142 units), areas of flexible Use Classes A1- A5 and B1 at ground level and ancillary parking and servicing space; works of hard and soft landscaping to Cab Road and Mepham Street, the provision of a new access to Waterloo Station on West Road and associated works; works of hard and soft landscaping and the provision of a single storey structure providing car lifts and Class A use on West Road; works of hard landscaping to York Road and Leake Street; plant and other associated infrastructure and works. Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the high level footbridge over York Road has also been submitted (12/01329/CON). Application types Full Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent (Demolition) Application References 12/01327/FUL and 12/01329/CON Validation date 11th April 2012 Case officer details Name: Gavin Chinniah Tel: 020 7926 1257 Email: [email protected] Applicant Elizabeth House Ltd Partnership Agent Dp9 Considerations/constraints Approved plans and documents Drawing Ref. No. Drawing Title P_00_01 Rev 00 P_00_02 Rev 00 P_00_03 Rev 00 P_00_04 Rev 00 Existing site plan Existing / Demolition ground floor Existing / Demolition roof plan Existing / Demolition basement plan For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy P_00_05 Rev 00 P_00_06 Rev 00 P_00_07 Rev 00 P_00_08 Rev 00 P_10_01 Rev 00 P_10_02 Rev 00 P_11_01 Rev 00 P_11_02 Rev 00 P_11_03 Rev 00 P_11_04 Rev 00 P_11_05 Rev 00 P_11_06 Rev 00 P_11_07 Rev 00 P_11_08 Rev 00 P_11_09 Rev 00 P_11_10 Rev 00 P_11_11 Rev 00 P_11_12 Rev 00 P_11_13 Rev 00 P_16_01 Rev 00 P_16_02 Rev 00 P_16_03 Rev 00 P_16_04 Rev 00 P_16_05 Rev 00 P_16_06 Rev 00 P_16_07 Rev 00 P_16_08 Rev 00 P_16_09 Rev 00 P_16_10 Rev 00 P_17_01 Rev 00 P_17_02 Rev 00 P_17_03 Rev 00 P_17_04 Rev 00 P_17_05 Rev 00 P_17_06 Rev 00 P_20_01 Rev 00 P_20_02 Rev 00 P_20_03 Rev 00 P_20_04 Rev 00 P_20_05 Rev 00 P_20_06 Rev 00 P_20_07 Rev 00 Existing / Demolition north elevation Existing / Demolition south elevation Existing / Demolition east elevation Existing / Demolition west elevation Proposed location plan Proposed site plan Proposed plan ground levels Proposed plan basement 1 Proposed plan basement 2 Proposed plan 1st, 2nd, 3rd Proposed plan 4th, 5th, 6th Proposed plan 7th, 8th, 9th Proposed plan 10th, 11th, 12th Proposed plan 13th, 14th, 15th Proposed plan 16th, 17th, 18th Proposed plan 19th, 20th, 21st Proposed plan 22nd, 23rd, 24th Proposed plan 25th, 26th, 27th Proposed plan 28th, 29th, 30th Proposed sections AA Proposed section BB Proposed section CC Proposed section DD Proposed section EE Proposed section FF Proposed section GG Proposed section HH Proposed section JJ Proposed site section to London Eye Proposed elevation north Proposed elevation south Proposed elevation east Proposed elevation west Proposed site elevation west Proposed elevation pavilion east & former WIT west Proposed detail north building typical public realm façade Proposed detail north building typical office façade Proposed detail north building typical residential façade Proposed detail north building typical plant façade (S/E) Proposed detail north building typical entrance Proposed detail south building typical office façade South building typical office façade For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy • • • • • • • • • • Design and Access Statement prepared by David Chipperfield Architects and West 8 Landscape Architects Affordable Housing Strategy prepared by Quod Statement of Community Involvement prepared by George Cochrane Associates Economic Benefits Statement prepared by Quod The importance of Elizabeth House to the future of Waterloo International Terminal and Waterloo Station prepared by DP9, Hopkins Architects, Arup Rail and Space Syntax BREEAM Prediction Report prepared by Hilson Moran Code for Sustainable Homes Prediction Report prepared by Hilson Moran Waste Strategy prepared by Hilson Moran Planning Statement - Dp9 Letter from Dp9 dated 24.10.2012 – In relation to the revised parking levels Environmental Statement comprising: • • • • • • • • • Recommendation(s) Volume 1: Main Text Volume 2: Figures Volume 3: Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment Volume 4A: Appendices (incorporating an Energy Strategy and Sustainability Indicators Report prepared by Hilson Moran) Volume 4B: Appendices Volume 4C: Appendices Volume 4D: Transport Assessment and Travel Plan (prepared by Jacobs) Volume 4E: Appendices Non-Technical Summary Grant planning permission subject to Section 106 Agreement, conditions and Stage 2 Referral to the GLA Report Review Department(s) or Organisation(s) Date consulted Governance & Democracy (legal) 24.10.2012 Date response received 25.10.2012 Comments summarised in paragraph Changes made throughout Background Documents Case File (this can be accessed via the Planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7926 1180) For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy Consultation Department(s) or Organisation(s) Consulted? (y/n) Date response received Comments summarised in report? (y/n) Internal Conservation and Urban Design Y Y Transport and Highways Y Lambeth Crime Prevention Unit Y Regulatory Services Entertainment Licensing Regulatory Services – Food Safety Regulatory Services – Noise Pollution Regulatory Services – Health and Safety Lambeth Housing Implementation Team Y 28.08.2012 and 10.09.2012 18.06.2012 and 23.07.2012 17.09.2012 and 18.09.2012 25.04.2012 Y Y Y Y Y Library Leisure Services Manager Park and Open Spaces Planning Policy Sports Y Y Y Y Streetcare Councillors Y Y External English Heritage English Heritage – Archaeology Transport for London (TfL) Y Y Y 17.09.2012 06.05.2012 No representations received 16.10.2012 On-going Discussion 02.05.2012 24.04.2012 20.04.2012 No representations received 17.09.2012 No representations received Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12.10.2012 Y 23.05.2012 Y 18.05.2012 and Y 20.07.2012 City of Westminster Y 30.05.2012 Y London Borough of Southwark Y 02.07.2012 Y London Borough if Camden Y 21.05.2012 Y Environment Agency Y 10.05.2012 Y LFCD Authority Y To date no response Network Rail Y 11.05.2012 Y Victorian Society Y No representations received The Georgian Group Y No representations received For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy Development Control Department Thames Water The Westminster Society County Hall Residents Association Y Y Y No representations received 21.05.2012 Y No representations received No representations received 01.05.2012 No representations received No representations received No representations received No representations received 11.07.2012 Y 21.05.2012 Y Y Y Coin Street Community Builders Y Port of London Jubilee Walkway Trust Y Y Whitehorse Residents and Owners Association South Bank Board Y Y 01.05.2012 Y No representations received No representations received To date no response 25.05.2012 28.05.2012 28.05.2012 To date no response No representations received 06.08.2012 Y South Bank Management Company Ltd Twentieth Century Society Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) London Underground Infrastructure Protection Association of Waterloo Groups Y Traffic Director for London Y Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum Y Lambeth Estates South Bank Employers Group Waterloo Quarter Business Area Kennington Association Y Y Y Y Lambeth Estates Residents Association Waterloo Community Development Group British Railways Board (BRB) Royal Parks Agency ICOMOS UK Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 21.05.2012 Y 17.05.2012 Y No representations received River Thames Society Y No representations received Save Britain’s Heritage Y No representations received BRBR Y 14.05.2012 Y Civil Aviation Authority Y No representations received London Continental Railways Y No representations received For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy Executive Summary This application relates to the total redevelopment of the site with two buildings of part eleven and part fourteen to twenty nine storeys for a mix of uses, including new office floor space and 142 residential units. The scheme is proposed alongside the wider regenerative objectives for the Waterloo area as laid out within the councils SPD, currently out for consultation. In particular, the reopening of the Waterloo International Terminal, public realm improvements to include level access to Waterloo Station from the west (Southbank), upgrade to the Victory Arch façade and enhanced permeability to the area generally. Alongside these local objectives, strategic ones are addressed. The development is situated within the Central Activities Zone as designated within the London Plan, and as such is required to bring forward mixed use development that seeks to enable the infrastructure improvements as noted above which supports capacity enlargement at the station together with addressing housing targets. Whilst all of this needs addressing, so to is it expected that solutions are sought where constraints to development are imposed by heritage designations without compromising environmental quality, including a high quality of design. In this respect, regard to the acutely sensitive location of the site, in view of the World Heritage Site of the Houses of Parliament, together with Listed Buildings within the immediate Waterloo/Southbank environs and local Conservation Areas must be given. The report sets out the planning issues in turn, alongside the representations received and justification of the planning merits of the proposals which when considered in the round enable Officers to recommend the application for approval subject to conditions and completion of a S106 Agreement. One of the principle issues, if not the key one, is the design, heritage and impact on views, for which English heritage and Westminster Council raise concern. A key consideration therefore for the Council is whether the development gives rise to material harm when judged against those matters, which is the view of English Heritage. If that said harm were to arise, could other planning considerations, particularly the public benefits of the scheme, outweigh that consideration. It is the view of officers that the proposal does not give rise to the harm set out by English Heritage, and in that way is quite different from the previous application for the site which was deemed to result in such harm by the then Secretary of State too. In any case, were it to be the view that harm did arise, the substantial interdependent public benefits afforded by the proposal which, whilst complementary, are deliverable because of and not a substitute to those already committed for adjacent landowners. The design engages a ‘marmite’ response – it will not be to everyone’s taste, but then the National Planning Policy Framework makes the case that particular architectural tastes should not be imposed, nor innovation and initiative stifled. The design is unapologetic, being on one hand a simplified form and massing with refined glazing treatment, and on the other can be considered monolithic with a dominance to the street. The architects have been required to respond to challenging infrastructure constraints, given the position of the site transversing a railway station. It is stepped up towards the station in common with good townscape principles to announce its key nodal point. It has actively responded to the concerns English Heritage raised under the previous application, and allows Big Ben to be uncompromised in protected views, nor compete with its internationally recognisable silhouette whose only competitor for attention is the London Eye. A second key consideration is the impact of the viability of the scheme on its ability to be policy compliant. And in respect of the viability of the scheme, what capability the scheme has to deliver affordable housing as a proportion of the residential component. The application has been subject to a financial viability assessment, verified by BNP Paribas and G&T on behalf of the authority to arrive at a point where a minimum level of affordable housing would be provided. Whilst originally submitted to provide only 8% affordable housing, the scheme now proposes to deliver a minimum of 20% affordable housing with both on-site intermediate and off-site affordable rent units. In addition, a review mechanism of the gross development value generated by the entire development at a point post implementation would be secured whereby a capped amount of up to £5.2m would be payable, calculated to be the financial sum that is equivalent to the additional affordable housing required to allow the 40% policy target to be achieved The scheme is delivering a range of regeneration outcomes which are fully in accord with policy expectations. The scheme has been largely supported subject to matters of detail by the GLA in its stage 1 response and is delivering a range of public realm benefits which accord with the long term strategy to deliver improvements to the wider Waterloo area. It is supported in its design by CABE. Notwithstanding, given the scale of and complexity to the development by reason of its location an impact will result, but which is fully addressed in the imposition of conditions and a substantive list of terms to a S106 agreement securing the delivery of the wider benefits proposed. Overall, officers recommend the proposal for approval. 1 Summary of Main Issues 1.1 The main issues involved in this application are: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The acceptability of the scheme in terms of the increase in office floor space (Use Class B1) together with the introduction of residential units (Use Class C3) on the site; The provision of affordable housing associated with the development; The acceptability of the proposed space standards for the residential units together with private amenity space; The public realm improvements associated with the scheme; The potential regeneration benefits the proposal provides within the Waterloo area; The demolition of the existing building along with the high-level footbridge on York Road. The acceptability of a tall building on the site; The impact the proposed design, massing, scale and bulk would have on the visual amenity of the area The impact the development would have on the adjoining conservation areas; The impact the development would have on the setting of various heritage assets in close proximity of the development; The impact the development would have on The Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site. The impact the development would have in terms or residential amenity such daylight, sunlight, sense of enclosure and privacy; The environment impact the proposed development has within the built environment; The acceptability of the highway proposals together; Future connections to the Waterloo International Terminal (WIT); The proposed connection of the development to the South Bank; The acceptability of the development in terms of sustainability and carbon emissions from the proposed scheme and The level of Section 106 Contributions associated with the scheme. 2 Site Description and Surrounding Area 2.1 The site area is 2.16 hectares (ha) which includes the adjoining land on all sides, at West Road and parts of Leake Street, York Road, Cab Road and Mepham Street. The site is currently occupied by three linked 1960’s buildings which are 16, 10 and 7 storeys in height. The building currently provides approximately 42, 683 square metres (sqm) of office floor space together with approximately 1,950sqm of retail units at ground floor level fronting onto York Road. To the rear of Elizabeth House is an area of hard-standing which is currently being used for car parking (49 spaces) and storage/deliveries, with entrance to the basement car park for the building neighbouring the WIT. 2.2 The site is bounded by York Road and the Shell Centre, which is a larger commercial development, built in the 1960’s to accommodate the head office of Shell Petroleum. Its main feature is the Shell Tower, which is 26-storeys fronting onto Jubilee Gardens to the west, with a 10-storey perimeter block fronting onto York Road. An open area known as ‘the podium’ is located at the southern end of the Shell Centre, adjoining Chicheley Street. A residential block known as Whitehouse Apartments is located further north at the junction with Waterloo Bridge. 2.3 Adjoining the Shell Centre on York Road is the County Hall North Block, a residential building of 11-storeys. Opposite this site on the corner of Leake Street and York Road is Prospect House, an 11-storey office building, adjoining which on Leake Street is a series of smaller commercial buildings which abut the southern end of WIT. 2.4 To the northwest, Leake Street, to the southwest, Mepham Street and railway viaduct to the northeast, the Victory Arch (Grade II Listed, the remainder of the station is not listed) entrance to the Waterloo Station to the east and West Road to the southeast, adjoining WIT. 2.5 An existing pedestrian walkway runs from Waterloo Station through Elizabeth House at first floor level, leading to a footbridge which crosses York Road and connects into a set of steps on the western pavement of York Road. The site is located within an area of excellent public transport accessibility with the highest PTAL rating of 6B (Excellent). 2.6 To the north of site is situated the Waterloo and Roupell Street Conservation Areas, to the west the South Bank Conservation Area and to the east are the Lower Marsh and Mitre/ Ufford Street Conservation Areas. Lambeth Palace Conservation Area is located to the south of the site. The application site is surrounded by numerous listed building notably the: • • • • • • Royal Festival Hall (RFH) (Grade I); Royal National Theatre (RNT) (Grade II*); Church of St John with All Saints (Grade II*); County Hall (Grade II*); General Lying-in Hospital (Grade II) and Royal Waterloo Hospital (Grade II). 2.7 The River Thames separates the South Bank from the City of Westminster to the west, connected via the Waterloo, Hungerford and Westminster Bridges. The application site lies approximately 800m across the river from the Westminster World Heritage Site (‘WWHS’) and Parliament Square forming the core of the Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Area. 3 Planning History 3.1 A planning application was granted planning permission on 23.July.2008 for the redevelopment of the site which involved the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 2 office buildings and a residential building as follows: Building A (117.08m AOD)- 27 storeys plus a double height storey for a plant room (Class B1 Use). Building B (90.2mAOD) 22 storeys including a top floor plant room (Class B1 Use). Building C (106.78mAOD) three segments, being of 20 storeys, 26 storeys and 33 storeys containing 274 flats (Class C3 Use). 3,458sqm of Retail (Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses) space at ground level of Building A and ground and first floor levels for Building B and C with shared two level basement, access and servicing. Public realm improvements at street level incorporating retail kiosks, new pedestrian access/egress to Waterloo Station and associated highway and landscaping works (Application Number: 07/02628/FUL). This application was subsequently called in by the Secretary of State for a Public Inquiry where the proposed development was dismissed on the grounds that the proposed towers, for reasons of their intrinsic designs, would not preserve but would impact unacceptably on the settings of the WWHS, RFH, RNT and County Hall and that the scheme would similarly affect the settings and views of buildings forming an integral part of the relevant conservation areas. 3.2 A planning application was submitted then subsequently withdrawn on the 28.09.2004 for the redevelopment of site involving the demolition of Elizabeth House realignment of York Road to adjoining Waterloo station. Extension of Waterloo station Concourse to new underground interchange and station entrance. New weather protected pedestrian piazza on line of existing York Road. Lower ground servicing access for the development, Waterloo International Terminal and Shell centre. Development to include retail (1,451sqm), restaurant (3,072sqm), leisure and office (89,577sqm) uses within a tower, rising to 32 storeys, and a 10 storey building incorporating 71 residential units together with 18 car parking space, coach and cycle parking (Application Number: 04/00377/FUL) 3.3 A planning application was granted planning permission on the 14.03.2007 for the redevelopment by the erection of four new buildings to provide 104,477sq m. of offices and 2,183 sq m. of retail together with the erection of pedestrian bridges and the carrying out of associated highway works (04/02704/FUL). 3.4 The Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s Church were inscribed as a cultural World Heritage Site in 1987. The designation of this group makes them one of 851 buildings and sites worldwide considered to have ‘outstanding universal value’ and to be part of the world’s cultural and natural heritage. A significant proportion of Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Area is included. 4 Proposal 4.1 The current application proposes the demolition of all buildings and structures on the site, including removal of the high level footbridge over York Road, and redevelopment to provide two new buildings of part 29 and part 14 storeys (north building) and 11 storeys (south building) respectively with a part one/part two level common basement to provide 132,127sqm of floorspace (GEA), comprising B1 offices (88,649sqm), C3 residential (comprising 142 units), areas of flexible Use Classes A1- A5 and B1 at ground level and ancillary parking and servicing space; works of hard and soft landscaping to Cab Road and Mepham Street, the provision of a new access to Waterloo Station on West Road and associated works; works of hard and soft landscaping and the provision of a single storey structure providing car lifts and Class A use on West Road; works of hard landscaping to York Road and Leake Street; plant and other associated infrastructure and works. A Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the high level footbridge over York Road has also been submitted (Reference Number: 12/01329/CON). 4.2 The proposed north building would be erected to 125.90m in height, 86m in width and 32m in depth This building would provide the following: • • • • Approximately 64,255sqm (Gross) of B1 office space. Approximately 30,623sqm (Gross) of residential floorspace (Use Class C3) (142 units) The proposed mix of units would be 44x1 bed units, 66x2 bed units, 28x3 bed units and 4x4 bed units. Approximately 808sqm of floorspace would be used for a public gallery at ground floor level. Within the North Building above ground, office accommodation would be provided on floors 1 to 12. Above this, floors 13 to 27 would provide the residential units. Double height plant spaces would be provided at floors 13 and 28. Due to the ground constraints below the proposed building would be constructed on eight bridge piers, which would span 108metres between two rows of four columns. This structural form would appear throughout the office accommodation on the lower floors. 4.3 The proposed north building would have a fully glazed façade. A series of closely spaced vertical fins, produce a white crystalline surface. The office fins form part of unitized system for these floors. All the floor slab details are concealed behind a glazed spandrel condition allowing the fins to run from top to bottom of each volume visually. The ground floor glazing proposes a more transparent envelope that provides maximum visibility to the interior gallery space. 4.4 The residential façade continues the materials and architectural design of the office façade, and comprises two skins of full-height glazing with a 1.5m deep enclosed balcony space, specifically known as a ‘wintergarden’, which would run the full length of each residential unit between the inner and outer skins of glazing. The outer skin acts a rain screen, protecting the wintergarden spaces from wind and rain. The inner skin of glazing consists of a full-height curtain walling system comprising a mixture of fixed and openable triple glazed units. The proposed residential unit would be the Level 4 code-rating for Sustainable Homes. 4.5 The ground floor accommodation to the North Building would be triple-height in space underneath the building between the redesigned Victory Arch Square and the new Central Square. This area would consist of lobbies and a new Gallery space along the York Road frontage. The main entrances to the building are at opposite ends. This area would be fully glazed, matching the existing appearance of the upper floors. 4.6 The proposed south building would be erected to 52.95m in height, 74m in width and 37m in depth. This building would be mainly occupied by B1 office space (approximately 24,394sqm). At ground level there would be flexible uses (A1/A3/B1) which would equate to approximately 824sqm. 4.7 The ground floor area would provide an office lobby to the building along with two retail units. The proposed building would be expressed as slabs and enveloped in pre-cast concrete columns, giving the building a load-bearing façade. The window structure between each floor would be double-height, with a three metre width between each colonnade. The proposed windows would be recessed behind these columns. To the rear of the building, there would be a vehicle entrance ramp, a screen of metal mesh would be integrated into the curtain walling. At roof level the development creates a roof terrace, which would be used by the office accommodation. Balustrade height guard rails are proposed for safety reasons. 4.8 The basement floors on the sites would be used for a range of uses which relate to car parking, bicycle storage, deliveries along with collection of waste and refuse. The scheme proposes a total of 75 car parking spaces comprising 29 residential spaces, 44 office spaces and 2 car-club spaces. A total of 606 cycle parking spaces are proposed, comprising 248 for residential use and 358 for office use, with a further 30 cycle stands at grade for visitors to the building. The development proposes an automated car stacking facility towards the Leake Street frontage for the South Building, which would be in a form of a single-storey structure. 4.9 The application proposes numerous public realm works which are as follows: • Victory Arch Square: the area would be re-graded and landscaped to create a new pedestrian-priority public space in front of Waterloo Station. Cab Road would be re-aligned to the north and a new set of steps created connecting Victory Arch to the Tennison Way bus station via Mepham Street. • Improvement to York Road and Leake Street which would comprise repaving/re-alignment works to the eastern side of York Road, the relocation and expansion of the existing pedestrian crossing on York Road to align with the new Central Square and minor improvement works to Leake Street. • The proposed demolition of the high-level walkway over York Road, would be replaced through the installation of three escalators and two lifts internally within Waterloo Station, Orchestra pit. This area would lead to street level at grade. • The application proposes improvements to linear strip of land between Elizabeth House site and WIT, currently known as West Road. The application proposes to pedestrianise and landscape this land to create a publically-accessible route free of vehicles. Due to the land level changes which equates to 1.2m (lower), the applicant proposes a more ‘seamless interface’. • Victory Arch façade: this part of the scheme proposes to re-face the western flank of the Grade II listed Victory Arch that would be exposed if the demolition of Elizabeth House occurred. It should be noted that neither planning permission or listed building consent has been submitted as this would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement subject to planning permission being granted, that these changes would take place in stages. 4.10 The application would create a new central square between the proposed north and south buildings. This area would potentially facilitate a new pedestrian entrance to WIT when this comes back into use. This area would be accommodated with seating areas where pedestrians could stop and sit. This area would be paved and landscaped through the planting of trees. 4.11 The application proposes a single-storey structure towards the rear of the south building which would also be used within the Use A Class. No further details have been provided for this area. 4.12 The applicant has submitted a Conservation Area application for the demolition of the high-level footbridge as part of this structure falls within the South Bank Conservation Area. 5 Consultations and Responses 5.1 The applicants for Elizabeth House have submitted a Statement of Community Involvement (George Cochrane Associates, April 2012) to demonstrate how they engaged with the local community. The applicant states “that they are committed to developing a meaningful dialogue with local business stakeholders, local community, residents”. Initial consultation on the proposal began in October 2010, which has evolved to reflect the evolution of the design for the building. The submitted document states that the proposal has been consulted upon through newsletters, websites and public exhibitions. The open exhibition was attended by 225 people over three individual dates. Newsletters were posted to properties within the area bounded by The River Thames, Blackfriars Road, St George’s Circus, St George’s Road and Westminster Bridge Road. 5.2 A total of fifteen site notices were displayed on 4th May 2012, on the site and the surroundings. A press notice was published on 4th May 2012. The application went out for re-consultation again on the 31st August 2012, due to the applicant assessing an additional point for solar glare within the daylight and sunlight report. Five additional site notices were displayed along with a new press advert. Internal consultation 5.3 The Council’s Regulatory Services – Food and Safety officer: Comments received raising no objection to the scheme subject to conditions. 5.4 The Council’s Regulatory Services – Noise and Pollution officer: Comments received raising no objection to the scheme subject to conditions. 5.5 The Council’s Regulatory Services – Health and Safety officer: No representations received. 5.6 The Council’s Housing officer: Comments received raising no objection to the scheme. These comments are summarised in the report. 5.7 The Council’s Implementation Team officer: Comments raising no objection to the proposal. 5.8 The Council’s Library Leisure Services Manager: Comments received stating no comment 5.9 The Council’s Parks and Open Spaces officer: Comments received raising no objection. 5.10 The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design officer: Comments received, these are summarised in the report. 5.11 The Council’s Planning Policy officer: Comments received raising no objection to the scheme. 5.124 The Council’s Sport’s officer: No representations received 5.135 The Council’s Streetcare officer: Comments received raising no objection to the scheme subject to conditions. 5.14 The Council’s Transport/Highways officer: Comments received raising no objection to the scheme subject to conditions. 5.15 The Council’s Crime Prevention officer: Comments received raising no objection to the scheme subject to condition being proposed relating to secure by design. 5.16 The Council’s Regulatory Services Entertainment License officer: Comments received raising no objection to the scheme. External consultation 5.17 Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum: No representations received. 5.18 Lambeth Estates Residents Association: Comments received in support relating to the proposed public realm and amenity. However, objection has been received to the design and aesthetics. The residential tower is bulky and that the form and character is less resolved than that of the podium office building with which it connects. There should be further refinement to the design of the building. 5.19 South Bank Employers Group (SBEG): The organisation supports the public realm improvements that the development brings as part of the development. They are very keen to see the non-operational parts of the former WIT brought back into use as soon as operational requirements permit. Redeveloping the WIT for retail would respond to the generally accepted need for better retail in Waterloo expressed in the South Bank Partnership’s 2009 survey of residents, employees and visitors and in the South Bank Manifesto. They accept the applicants argument that the improved access to the WIT and improved public realm in front of it make its reuse much more likely and may enhance the quality of what can be provided to meet a significant local need. Improvement to access to the station and London Underground welcome the proposals being put forward as this would provide an improved interchange and higher quality access to all parts of Waterloo Station. The issues relating to heritage issues should not be given undue weight, but should be balanced against the overall economic and community benefits which developments give rise to. SBEG has taken the line that the view from the WWHS is negligible and no effect on the ability to appreciate the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the site. Equally the impact on the view from the St James’ Park Bridge is minimal. Concerns relating to objections from English Heritage or Westminster, or comments from UNESCO or ICOMOS UK, should be given undue weight in the Council’s decision on the application. Benefits of local jobs associated with the proposed development during construction with coordination with local organisations including SBEG and clear local leadership. SBEG welcomes the initiative for the development to connect to any network which may come to fruition. SBEG have expressed concerns about how the details of the S106 package have been worked up and the lack of engagement with them and other parties. In particular they don’t believe that enough regard is being paid to the long term maintenance requirements of the area. The Council should work with SBEG on how the Section 106 should be prioritised and delivered for the greatest local benefit. 5.20 Waterloo Community Development Group (WDCG): There is strong support for: • The principle of redevelopment • • • • • Intensification of the site Office development and mix of uses The general approach to the development at ground level Servicing and parking The economic and employment benefits There have been mixed views and concerns about: • • • • • • • The efficiency of the residential element and the exorbitant size of the flats, which are likely to prove attractive to investors rather than lived in by real families. The amount of affordable housing. The massing and height and it impact on local views and heritage assets. The gallery as genuinely useable public space, and the need to secure its community benefit through the Section 106 Agreement. The need for more greening of public space. The microclimate created by the development. The paucity of tangible community benefit in the Section 106. WCDG also raised concern to solar glare from the proposed development as this could pose a potential concern to local residents who could be directly affected. The letter further states that none of the evidence presented by the applicant addresses the issue of the impact on the residential amenity of those living in the Whitehouse or County Hall. Therefore, without evidence to the contrary being provided by the applicant, there must be concern that the proposal will cause solar glare affecting the amenity of neighbouring residents. 5.21 Waterloo Quarter Business Area: Comments received supporting the proposed redevelopment of Elizabeth House. The economic benefits of the scheme are very significant. Lower Marsh and The Cut would benefit from 8500 additional employees in immediate vicinity. The new spaces created through the scheme will provide much-needed additional public realm in Waterloo and will de-clutter and improve the current Victory Arch entrance to the station. 5.22 Kennington Association: No representations received. 5.23 English Heritage: Comments received raising objection to the proposal on the following grounds: • • The proposal would cause substantial and unacceptable degree of harm to the OUV, setting and views from Westminster World Heritage Site. English Heritage has advised that new development on the site should not be visible in the gap between Portcullis House and the Tower of Big Ben if it would cause harm. By virtue of its massing, bulk and deposition, appear visually attached to the North face of the Big Ben Tower. Such an impact would be difficult. The proposals would reduce an awareness of the dominance and architectural form of the Big Ben Tower. English Heritage are unable to • • • • support any proposals which would appear to weaken its architectural form or ability to read against the sky. The impact the development would have on the setting and views of the Royal Festival Hall are also a serious concern to English Heritage. It is a building of national importance and safeguarding its setting should be a very high priority. When viewed from Waterloo Bridge, the proposed new development would by virtue of it height, massing and disposition, overwhelm the Festival Hall to an extent which would seriously harm its setting and be unacceptable to English Heritage. The development would be seen from Blue Bridge in St James Park where it would appear visually attached to the tower of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This would lessen the architectural form of the Grade I Listed building and is unacceptable. There would be some harm to the settings and views of County Hall, Victory Arch and the National Theatre. 5.24 English Heritage – Archaeology: Comments received raising no objection, subject to a desk top archaeology assessment as part of the development. 5.25 Transport for London (TfL): Comments received generally in support of the scheme, however, officers have raised objection to the proposed level of parking associated with the office accommodation, given that the development is situated adjacent to a major transport interchange. 5.26 City of Westminster: Objection received relating to the following: • • • • 5.27 The proposed development by reason of its height and bulk will harm the setting and outstanding universal value of the Palace of Westminster Abbey including St Margret’s World Heritage site in the London Views Management Framework, views 23A.1 and 23A.2 from Parliament Square. The proposed development will adversely affect a number of views from the City of Westminster. These include the London Management Framework views from Waterloo Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Victoria Embankment between Waterloo and Westminster Bridge together with a number of metropolitan and local views identified in the City of Westminster conservation area audits. The proposed development would harm the setting of a number of Westminster conservation areas including those of Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square, Whitehall, Savoy and Strand. The proposed development by reason of its height, bulk, design will harm the settings of a number of listed buildings including the Palace of Westminster, Royal Festival Hall, National Theatre, County Hall, Horse Guards and the Foreign Commonwealth Office London Borough of Southwark: Comments received stating the scheme’s breadth and massing within the skyline could benefit from further sculpting and expression in order to create a more striking landmark building in this important location. 5.28 London Borough of Camden: Comments received raising no objection 5.29 Environment Agency: Comments received raising no objection subject to conditions imposed as part of the development relating to flood risk mitigation measures. 5.30 LFCD Authority: No representations received. 5.31 Network Rail: Comments received supporting the proposed development on the basis that the replacement works set out in section 10.4 of the report are delivered within WIT. 5.32 Victorian Society: No representations received. 5.33 The Georgian Society: No representations received. 5.34 Development Control Department Thames Water: Comments received raising no objection. 5.35 The Westminster Society: Comments received raising no comment to the scheme 5.36 County Hall Residents Association: No representations received. 5.37 Coin Street Community Builders: Comments received supporting the proposed public realm spaces outside Waterloo Station, the impact on pedestrian flow towards the river and the first phase of creating Waterloo Square. 5.38 ICOMOS UK: No representations received. 5.39 Royal Parks: Comments received raised objection to the proposal. The impact on views from St James’s Park, specifically that of the view from the Blue Bridge, and Horse Guards Parade, is enough to effect changes to the Sky Space around the Park that are at odds with the Royal Parks policies and those of the Mayor of London within the London Plan Spatial Development strategy and guidance for Greater London July 2011. Elizabeth House as seen from Blue Bridge in St James Park clutters the sky space and significantly alters the skyline of which Horse Guards Parade is a part of. They also note that arguments of tree foliage would cover the proposed development, however, during autumn and winter months this would not occur. The Royal Parks appreciate the endeavours of all agencies involved in the regeneration of SE1 area of London but we are unable to agree to developments that negatively affect the parks. 5.40 South Bank Board: No representations received. 5.41 South Bank Management Company Ltd: No representations received. 5.42 Twentieth Century Society: Comments received raising objection to the proposed development. The height, form, bulk and mass of the proposed tower as the northern end of this site would be seriously overbearing in relation to the nearby Victory Arch. It is recognised that the present arrangements in front of the Arch are cramped and congested and that the proposals would enable the public realm at this point to be redesigned to give the necessary space and setting which this building requires. That part of the proposals is therefore welcomed but it has to be set against the ungainly and awkward cutaway of the tower which is apparently intended to enable those approaching form the Royal Festival Hall to appreciate the magnificence of the station entrance building. On the contrary, the cutaway merely appears contrived and results in the mass of the tower appearing to overhang the Arch in an uncomfortable manner. The proposed height of the north tower at 28 stories would appear intrusive and discordant in views from the north side of the Thames adversely affecting the setting of the Royal Festival Hall, the Royal National Theatre and County Hall. The proposed Elizabeth House scheme would lead to further isolation of the Shell Tower. The desire of the applicants to put a “landmark” building is entirely misconceived in such a context. There is no objection to the south building. 5.43 Port of London: No objection raised 5.44 Jubilee Walkway Trust: No representations received. 5.45 Whitehouse Residents and Owners Association: No representations received. 5.46 Greater London Authority (GLA): Comments received, broadly in support of the proposed development, however, requested further information relating to housing and affordable housing, design and accessibility and transport relating to public realm works, pedestrian crossing on York Road, cycle hire docking stations, Legible London, car parking, CIL contributions. 5.47 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE): Comments received supporting the proposed development. They support the urban form and building design of the building. The taller element of the two buildings is convincing, both architecturally and in relation to the urban context and particularly the Victory Arch. The subtle stacking of the volumes creates the impression of a slender tower when seen from certain view points, particularly from the north east. It is recommended that the local authority conditions the detailing of the elevation, particularly the fins and soffits, undercroft, columns and lighting as appropriate. CABE applaud the proposed landscape design for the public space around the buildings and Waterloo Station. The scheme is pivotal for the identity and character of the whole area and hope to see the design thinking extend beyond the redline boundary to include the whole space between Waterloo Road, York Road, the river and Jubilee Gardens. The materials for the public realm should be conditioned. 5.48 London Underground Infrastructure Protection: Comments received raising no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. 5.49 Association of Waterloo Groups: No representations received. 5.50 River Thames Society: No representations received. 5.51 Save Britains Heritage: No representations received. 5.52 BRB Residuary (Department of Transport): Comments received stating that they strongly support the demolition and redevelopment of Elizabeth House. 5.53 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA): No representations received. 5.54 London Continental Railways: No representations received. 5.55 A total of 41 letters of objection have been received following the consultation process. A total of 14 letters of support have been received. . No. of Letters sent 1878 No. of Objections No. in support Comments 41 14 0 Objections: Council’s Response: The proposed development by reason of its height and bulk will harm the setting and outstanding universal value of the Palace of Westminster Abbey including St Margret’s World Heritage site in the London Views Management Framework. The current application has gone through considerable design stages to overcome the impact the scheme would have within the protected World Heritage Site. The development would not be seen within the protected views from Westminster, however, some of the development specifically the tower part of the north building would be seen within in World Heritage Site. The proposed development has been assessed against and the LVMF where the proposed development would not be seen within the protected views. Furthermore, given the opportunity area designation of the site, the proposed scheme would impact to a certain degree on surrounding heritage assets and conservation areas. However this should be outweighed by the public benefits which in this instance is considered to be welcomed. The proposed scheme has had regard to the conservation areas in Westminster, which have been assessed by Lambeth’s The proposed development will adversely affect a number of views from the City of Westminster. Theses include the London Management Framework views from Waterloo Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Victoria Embankment between Waterloo and Westminster Bridge together with a number of metropolitan and local views identified in the conservation area audits. The proposed development would harm the setting of a number of Westminster conservation areas. The height, form, bulk and mass of the proposed tower at the northern end of this would be seriously overbearing in relation to the nearby Victory Arch. The cutaway over the arch merely appears contrived and results in the mass of the tower appearing to overhang the Arch in an uncomfortable manner. The proposed height of the northern tower would appear intrusive and discordant in views for the north side of the Thames, which would affect the setting of the Royal Festival Hall, the Royal National Theatre and County Hall. The proposed redevelopment of both the Elizabeth House and Shell Centre sites would result in a forest of towers along York Road forming a multiple intrusion into the setting of the listed building as shown above along with the South Bank Conservation Area. The proposed north tower would introduce further vertical emphasis to the isolation of the Shell Tower. The desire of the applicants to put a “landmark” building is entirely misconceived and unnecessary in such a context. The proposed building is a utilitarian and gargantuan structure that is the epitome of the grotesque. It has Conservation and Urban Design officer and their view is that the development would have limited impact on these conservation areas. The current Victory Arch is surrounded by the existing obtrusive Elizabeth House building which masks one side of the western façade to this arch. The new proposal would relieve this arch through the overhangs being proposed by the development which would provide an improved composition between the arch and the proposed building. In this instance officers raise no objection. The proposed development would be acceptable given the opportunity areas designation for the site. Regard and assessment has been given towards heritage assets surrounding the site. Officers consider that there would be an impact, but given the nature of the development within this area, a building of this height, scale and bulk would be seen within the background and as result would have a neutral impact, in that it wont have an adverse impact within the setting of the heritage settings. This site is considered to be an opportunity area by the GLA and it is considered on this basis that tall buildings on this site would be acceptable. This is considered to be an acceptable form of the development within the area. In relation to the South Bank conservation area, the development would impact on buildings in this area, however, regard should be given to the added benefits that the development would bring to the local area and a result a balance must be reached to achieve this, which is the case here. The proposed location is considered to be an area for tall buildings and as a result is considered that the development would not give rise to the Shell Tower being viewed in isolation. The proposed development would be an improvement to the existing building which is currently there. The scheme would provide benefits, which would regenerate the area of Waterloo. The design would be monolithic with an architectural dominance been perceived that the proposed north building compliments the character either of the immediate area or of the neighbouring South Bank conservation area on the opposite side of York Road. The proposed employment floorspace should be affordable. There is extensive stock in the area which should be used. Elizabeth House does not need to be demolished and rebuilt several stories higher and it appears that the only part of the proposal that would be advantageous would be to redevelop the area leading up to Waterloo Station. The proposed construction phase of the development would cause chaos and confusion within the area along with traffic issues. Removing all the retail shops and putting them behind glass screen will produce a wasteland environment. No shop equals no passing trade. There will be less interaction with the building. How can you give planning permission to an office building double the present size with one third of retail space? along York Road, which would be seen elsewhere in the area and as result would be a landmark building in its entirety. The proposed development would provide a mixture of employment floorspace in the Waterloo area, from large slab office space to media/ start up businesses. The uplift in office space would provide a large expanse of employment to the area, creating jobs to the local community. Furthermore, the site is considered to be an opportunity area and that the site should maximise its potential, so it would facilitate the regeneration of the area. The existing stock of office accommodation is not of the same large expanse being proposed and as result would not attract the same office resident which this development would cater for. The existing building is tired, not fit for purpose and dilapidated. Furthermore, the current scheme cannot facilitate the regeneration benefits which are needed within the Waterloo area. The proposed building would provide these benefits and officers consider it to be a positive step forward for Waterloo. Several conditions relating to construction management of the development has been imposed and this would control any traffic management along York Road. The proposed development would provide a mixed retail/ gallery space on the ground floor of the building. This would be accessible to the general public. This would create activity within this area and as result officers welcome this proposal as part of the scheme. Furthermore, this would create interaction between the pedestrian and the building and would not result as this area being a dead frontage. This site is designated as an opportunity area by the GLA and it is considered on this basis that a tall building would be acceptable. Furthermore, the maximum amount of floorspace should be created on the site. This would bring added benefits to the area which are outlined within this report. In relation to the retail units on the ground floor, there would the creation of an The consultation for the proposed new building has been disappointing nor has there been any recognition of the existing good businesses which have been set up. The Council should not consider this application until they have seen the detailed plans for The Shell Scheme which is 20 metres across York Road. Again the application needs to be considered only when the plans for the Euro Terminal at Waterloo have been agreed. This area should not become a high-rise block of luxury apartments. The two facades of the buildings are imaginative a better design could have been sought. The south building in particular seems to rely on heavy concrete pillars – something which has blighted the south bank for years. The redevelopment presents a missed opportunity to break down the environmental chasm between Elizabeth House and the Shell Centre. active frontage which would allow small businesses to be created. On balance officers consider the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the reduction in retail floorspace within the development. The applicant has undertaken extensive consultation with the local residents which has been outlined within Statement of Community Involvement and has been submitted as part of the application. This has been recognised by officers. In relation to existing businesses in the area, the scheme would provide added benefits such as jobs and bringing outside population groups which would benefit the local businesses in the area. Lambeth Planning have a statutory duty to consider an application when they are submitted to the Council. It is not reasonable to hold up the decision of a planning application, due to an application not being submitted on another site. The proposed development provides details on the future of the WIT site which has been submitted. The proposed scheme makes provision of bringing this site back into use in the future. It is not reasonable to hold up the decision of a planning application, due to an application not being submitted on another site. The proposed development would provide a mixture of uses which comprise office and residential accommodation. The majority of the residential floor plate would be privately owned, the scheme would bring public benefits such as an uplift in employment floorspace, public realm improvement, off-site affordable housing and a future entrance to the former Eurostar terminal. The proposed south building would be in keeping with the majority of the buildings along York Road in terms of the appearance and design. It is considered on this basis that the scheme would provide a design which would blight the South Bank. The proposed building would be split into two elements which would create access and walkways through the development onto the former Eurostar terminal. The current building blocks all routes on this The public realm improvements are disappointing as these stop on York Road. Lambeth Planning should take the lead in ensuring that this happens and that York Road is appropriately landscaped from Section 106 monies or CIL to ensure that this happens. This should be grasped. The proposed ground floor level plans, as shown, are again a missed opportunity to really animate this pedestrian realm. Even though there are two retail units on the ground floor, this area could become a sterile environment at ground level, with a huge area given over to the office lobby in the eastern block. The ground level planning materials and landscaping should be examined in detail to make this an animated public space and a real asset to the area. Overdevelopment Pedestrian and vehicle hazard from increased traffic Too close to boundary There is no clear York Road crossing facility or onward route from the new central square. part of the station as the building is one solid mass. As such officers consider this to be a vast improvement from the current building. The interaction of the building with the Shell Centre would be improved through formation of the routes created by the development which would potentially link the development to the South Bank. The proposed public realm works would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed for the planting of trees along York Road. Lambeth Planning have requested that the ground floor element would be used by the general public and the applicant has agreed that more active frontages uses would be included within this ground floor element. This would be secured by the Section 106. Furthermore, the Section 106 Agreement would outline how this area shall be maintained post construction stage. The proposed development would be similar to the previously refused scheme which went to appeal and was accepted by committee members. Given this and that the development site is an opportunity area, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in the current form. Both Lambeth Transport and TfL have assessed the impact the proposed development would have, and officers raise no objection to vehicle hazard and increased parking. The proposed development would be erected within the same boundary lines as the previous application. In this instance no objection is raised. The development would provide a new crossing at the proposed south building which would link the development and lead the pedestrian flows towards Chicheley Street. In this instance no objection is raised. No commitment to 50% affordable housing. No provision for affordable housing of key workers. There is a need to secure affordable housing in key central areas of London. The existing bridge has spanned York Road for many, many years. It is an invaluable pedestrian only link direct from the station across and extremely busy Red Route allowing continuous safe crossing at all times – unlike the traffic light systems at each end of York Road controlling the ground level crossings where pedestrians have to compete for space and time on the road with busy vehicular traffic and masses of people sometimes accumulate at the lights. The development should provide more community space which should be secured via the Section 106 Agreement. There is no temporary drop off/pick up point planned, this may mean cars would stop in the bus lane to drop/ pick up passengers, further adding severe pressure to the already heavily congested York Road. This may also affect Belvedere Road. The proposed south building would impact on the amenity of apartment in the North Block of County Hall. The The proposed development would provide a minimum amount of 20% affordable housing which would be in the form of affordable rent and intermediate housing. Given the added benefits the proposed development brings, this would be the most viable percentage of affordable housing the development could bring on a site which has so many constraints in delivery a scheme of this nature. The proposed development would demolish the existing high-level footbridge over York Road. However, the development would provide alternative pedestrian routes through the former WIT terminal through the installation of escalators, staircase and lifts. Network Rail, TfL and Lambeth Transport support these changes being proposed and as such it is considered that this would not bring pedestrian congestion along York Road. As such officers raise no objection to the demolition of the high-level pedestrian bridge. The development site would bring many benefits to the local community such as jobs, housing, public realm improvements around Waterloo Station and considerable uplift and employment floorspace. The proposed development would also provide Section 106 contributions to the local area. All these benefits are considered to be a positive to the local community. It is unfortunate that the development would not provide community space within the development, but this should be balanced against the other benefits the scheme would bring to the local community. In this instance no objection is raised. Both TfL and Lambeth Transport have assessed the highway impact the proposed development would bring within the local area especially York Road. However, officers have raised no objection to the proposed development on these grounds and furthermore there would be strong conditions imposed on the development to control these measures. The applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report by GIA. This has been assessed independently by BRE and they proposed development would significantly have an impact on the existing skyline and light. There would be a loss in privacy by the development. The proposed parking should be restricted to disabled users. There should be no allocation for office use car parking spaces given the availability of the public transport in the area and the public interest in reducing car traffic coming into central London. The area would be windswept; public spaces are unlikely to be successful or welcoming for leisure use unless more remedial measures are taken. This would lead to a bleak pedestrian landscape. have concluded that there would be a negligible impact from the proposed development, however, this harm would not cause there to be an adverse impact to the existing amenity of the residents within the County Hall block. Further analysis of this is given within the amenity section of this report. The proposed tower of the building would impact the most on the skyline within London. However, any tall building of this nature would impact given the nature of the overall scale, bulk and massing. Officers raise no objection to the proposal on these grounds. The development proposes residential accommodation within the tower of the north building. The two nearest residential properties would be Whitehouse Apartment (approximately 90m) and County Hall (340m). Officers consider that this distance is considered to be sufficient enough to prevent overlooking between the proposed residential units. In relation to the South Building which would be mainly in office accommodation, sited 24m away and given that the use would not be in 24 hour use as residential accommodation, there would not create perceived overlooking between the two buildings. Furthermore, the distance between the buildings are considered to be sufficient within a built up area like Waterloo. The proposed development would provide both residential and office parking which would be policy compliant. The applicant has submitted a wind analysis as part of the development and it states that the development would provide a safe environment for all users after the completion of the scheme. Furthermore, it states that the development in some instances would have an improved condition over the existing. However, overall the impact is negligible which means that any effect does not alter the suitability of existing wind conditions with respect to planned activities. A programme of ongoing responsibility for cleaning public areas and maintaining shrubs and trees should be a planning obligation. The proposed 10,000sqm of public realm are really just a series of walk through’s for commuters with little real benefit to the local community and no significance to Section 106 contributions. The proposed development would create light pollution. The proposed development should be conditioned to control construction work for the development. There should be complete restriction on any building noise or deliveries between the hours of 22.00 and 07.00. In providing for the removal of the elevated footbridge there is a need to ensure Shell always has safe walking routes for staff and visitors from Waterloo Mainline and underground stations to the Shell Centre. Demolition and construction works must be sequenced in relation to the whole Elizabeth House scheme so as to ensure that there is no unnecessary impact on the operation of the Shell Centre. Any traffic management arrangements (during the demolition and construction stages but also on an ongoing basis in relation to the completed development) must ensure that there is no adverse impact on servicing of the Shell Centre. 6 The applicant has agreed to the planting of trees within the central area of York Road. This has been secured through the Section 106 Agreement. The proposed public works are considered to be an improvement to current landscape outside Waterloo Station. Officers support the proposal as these would potential unlock the changes required to bring the former Eurostar terminal into use and provide a much needed improvement to the local area. In this instance no objection is raised. There would be conditions imposed to control this. A condition has been imposed to this effect. A condition would be imposed that adequate mitigation measures are provided to continue the flow of pedestrians from Waterloo Station towards the South Bank and vice versa. A condition has been imposed to this effect which would control any demolition works which would impact on the ongoing operation of buildings along York Road. Several conditions relating to construction management of the development has been imposed and this would control any traffic management along York Road. Planning Policy Considerations National Guidance 6.1 On 27th March 2012, the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This document had the immediate effect of replacing various documents including, amongst other documents, PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS5, PPS12, PPG13, PPG17 and Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations. 6.2 The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It reinforces the Development Plan led system and does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The NPPF states that the National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Moreover, it sets out that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 6.3 The applicant’s planning consultants have submitted a statement confirming how this application meets the aspirations of the NPPF. The London Plan 2011 6.4 The London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region. 6.5 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital over the next 20-25 years. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies 6.6 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant: Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London Policy 2.9 Inner London Policy 2.10 Central Activities Zone – strategic priorities Policy 2.11 Central Activities Zone – strategic functions Policy 2.12 Central Activities Zone – predominantly local activities Policy 2.13 Opportunity areas and intensification areas Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all Policy 3.2 Improving health and addressing health inequalities Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure Policy 4.1 Developing London’s economy Policy 4.2 Offices Policy 4.3 Mixed use development and offices Policy 4.7 Retail and town centre development Policy 4.8 Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector Policy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation 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 5.8 Innovative energy technologies 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 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies Policy 5.16 Waste self-sufficiency Policy 5.21 Contaminated land Policy 6.1 Strategic approach Policy 6.2 Providing public transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity Policy 6.4 Enhancing London’s transport connectivity Policy 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure Policy 6.7 Better streets and surface transport Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.10 Walking Policy 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion Policy 6.12 Road network capacity Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.3 Designing out crime Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.7 Location and design of tall and large buildings Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology Policy 7.10 World Heritage Sites Policy 7.11 London View Management Framework Policy 7.12 Implementing the London View Management Framework Policy 7.14 Improving air quality Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes Policy 7.18 Protecting local open space and addressing local deficiency Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature Policy 7.29 The River Thames Policy 8.2 Planning obligations Policy 8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy 6.7 Lambeth’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy. The Core Strategy was adopted by the council on 19 January 2011. The following policies are considered to be of relevance to the assessment of this application: Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 – Housing Policy S3 – Economic Development Policy S4 – Transport Policy S5 – Open Space Policy S6 – Flood Risk Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10 – Planning Obligations Policy PN1 – Waterloo 6.8 London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’ The following policies are considered to be of relevance to the assessment of this application: Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 19 Active Frontage Uses; Policy 21 Location and Loss of Offices Policy 23 Protection and Location of Other Employment Uses; Policy 26 Community Facilities; Policy 29 The Evening and Late Night Economy, Food and Drink and Amusement Centre Uses; Policy 30 Arts and Culture; Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime; Policy 33 Building Scale and Design; Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction; Policy 37 Shopfronts and Advertisements; Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas; Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design; Policy 40 Tall Buildings; Policy 41 Views; Policy 43 The River Thames Policy Area – Urban Design; Policy 45 Listed Buildings; Policy 47 Conservation Areas; Policy 50 Open Space and Sports Facilities; and 6.9 Regional Guidance: • London Plan Housing SPG • London Plan Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation • London Plan World Heritage Sites SPG • London Plan London View Management Framework (LVMF) SPG • London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG • London Plan Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) SPG • London Plan Cross-Rail SPG • London Plan Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) • London Plan the Mayors Ambient Noise Strategy • London Waterloo Opportunity Planning Framework (OAPF) • British Research Establishment (BRE) Handbook Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight 2011: A Guide to Good Practice. 6.10 Local Guidance: The council has adopted the following Supplementary Planning Documents, which are relevant: SPD: Safer Built Environments SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction SPD: S106 Planning Obligations 6.11 The Council is currently reviewing its draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) pertaining to the Waterloo area. At this time, this document has not been adopted as it is still in its development stage. 6.12 The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is also relevant. 7 Land Use and Principles Employment and Office Accommodation 7.1 The proposal involves the redevelopment of Elizabeth House on York Road, adjacent to Waterloo Station and the former Waterloo International Terminal (WIT). The existing building would be demolished and replaced with two buildings containing approximately 88,649sqm B1 office space, 142 flats and flexible A1-A5 and B1 uses at ground floor level. 7.2 The site is located within the London Plan Central Activities Zone (CAZ), Thames Policy Area and Waterloo Opportunity Area. Under the Core Strategy Policy PN1 Waterloo, the site falls within the ‘Railway’ character area of Waterloo. It is also subject to the saved Major Development Opportunity 92 (MDO92) in the ‘Lambeth UDP 2007: Saved Policies’. 7.3 London Plan Policy 3B.3 states that within the CAZ, wherever there is an increase in office floorspace being proposed they should provide for a mix of uses including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies in the plan. The enhances and promotes the unique international, national and London wide roles, supporting the district offer of the zone based on a rich mix of local as well as strategic uses and forming the globally iconic core of one of the world’s most attractive and competitive business. London Plan Policy 5E.2 relates to Opportunity Areas in South West London, which includes Waterloo. It states that, taking account of other policies, developments will be expected to maximise residential and non-residential densities and to contain mixed uses; and that, given their scale, they are likely to give rise to substantial planning obligations. The Waterloo Opportunity Area is identified as having an indicative employment capacity of 15,000 jobs and is expected to accommodate a minimum of 1,500 additional homes between 2001 and 2026. 7.4 Core Strategy Policy PN1 sets out the council’s vision and approach for Waterloo, reflecting the London Plan Opportunity Area Planning Framework. Furthermore, the vision at a local level is drawn out within the Waterloo SPD that is (approved for consultation). Given its consultation status officers recognise it has limited weight at this current time for consideration of this application, however the broad objectives of growth, mixed development and bringing forward opportunities at the site to synthesise with proposals at WIT are in conformity. Policy PN1 states that the council will support sustainable development for jobs and homes in line with London Plan targets and maximise the area’s potential for the full range of Central London and town centre activities. A broad range of uses is supported within Waterloo in order to achieve this vision and Waterloo is identified as a major location for offices as well as a mixed residential area with appropriate supporting community, service and shopping facilities. 7.5 Core Strategy Strategic Policy S3 (f) supports the location of, and investment in, major office developments (over 1,000 m2) in the Central Activities Zone and Waterloo Opportunity Area. Section (d) of the policy supports the vitality and viability of Lambeth’s hierarchy of major, district and local centres, including the Waterloo Opportunity Area, for retail, service, leisure, recreation and other appropriate uses, whilst maintaining the predominant retail function of primary shopping areas in the Waterloo Opportunity Area (Lower Marsh). Saved UDP Policy 21 provides guidance on the requirements for large scale office development, particularly in relation to impacts on public transport capacity and securing benefits for local communities. 7.6 Elizabeth House is a key regeneration site in Waterloo and provides an opportunity to reverse the trend in Waterloo’ office market which has been in decline. The GLA have stated within the their stage 1 report that the office market has been falling behind other South Bank locations such as Bankside and London Bridge, despite its highly accessible riverside location. Furthermore, they have stated that due to the lack of commercial investment in the area this has given rise to the reduction of over 7000 jobs being lost in the Waterloo in the past 30 years, whilst neighbouring areas in Southwark has grown by 16,000. The existing site has approximately 43,000sqm of existing office floor space, which is dated and is not fit for purpose. The proposed would double this amount of office floor space, providing, high-quality, flexible floor plates that would suit a range of potential occupiers. This development would create up to 8,600 office jobs, an increase from 2,400, as well as generate up to 650 nonoffice jobs and 460 jobs during the construction phase of the development. The economic benefits of the scheme, in terms of increased local spending and job opportunities for the local people are acknowledged and welcomed. 7.7 In respect of local training and local labour, the applicant has given assurance that the development would provide 100 apprenticeships (10% of the operatives) and 150 jobs to local Lambeth residents during the construction period of the development. The applicant has devised a jobs and training strategy for Elizabeth House, which is considered to be acceptable by officers. They are broadly satisfied with the terms of reference and the end the results which would be achieved by the proposed development, in setting out the applicants commitment to creating opportunities for employment in partnership with local stakeholders. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to provide funding for a jobs co-ordinator, which would assist in securing local people in these jobs and apprenticeships. This has been secured through the Section 106 agreement. 7.8 Housing and Affordable Housing 7.9 London Plan Policy 3.3 seeks to increase London’s supply of housing and sets for Lambeth a minimum ten year target of 11,950 new homes. 7.10 Policy S2 of the Core Strategy commits the Council to the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/11 and 2016/17 in line with London Plan targets and a further 8,800 more homes by 2024/25, subject to London Plan targets for this period. Core Strategy Policy S2 sets out that developments should provide a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community. With a scheme of this nature, at least 50 per cent of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is available or 40 per cent without public subsidy, subject to housing priorities. Furthermore, there is an expectation that the mix of affordable housing should be 70 per cent Social Rented and 30 per cent Intermediate housing. 7.11 London Plan Policy 3.8 encourages a full range of housing choice. This is supported by the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, which seeks to secure family accommodation within residential schemes, particularly within the social rented sector. 7.12 London Plan Policy 3.11 sets out that the Mayor will, and boroughs and other relevant agencies and partners should, seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in London over the term of this Plan. 7.13 Affordable Housing 7.14 The London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. Policy S2, part c, at least 50% of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is available or 40% without public subsidy, subject to housing priorities. Policy 16 of the UDP sets out that a range of unit sizes of affordable housing should be provided, having regard to local circumstances, site characteristics and the aims of the borough’s annual housing strategy. It goes on to set out the presumption that affordable housing should be provided on site. Policies further state that there should be tenure mix of 70% socially rented units and 30% intermediate. 7.15 Policy 3.12 of the London Plan urges local authorities to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable housing provision. This is also supported by Lambeth’s Core Strategy Policy S2 (c) where relevant, to independently validate evidence of viability. The applicants have submitted a viability report which has been prepared by Quod. This has been assessed independently by BNP Paribas. The viability report has identified a ‘pot’ of money which would be used towards public realm improvements, affordable housing and Section 106 Contributions. BNP Paribas have stated that they are satisfied with the proposed inputs set out within the proposed development. The overall ‘pot’ would be £30m. As a result this would provide a minimum base level of 20% affordable housing which would comprise a total of 12 intermediate units on site within the north building with the remaining 16 affordable rented units provided as part of the development. The overall contribution to affordable housing units would be £12m. 7.16 Off-Site Provision Affordable Housing Officers acknowledge that there are number of constraints relating to the site in respect of high-development costs. These include the presence of London Underground tunnels beneath the site, which impact upon buildings foundation, the public realm costs generated by a site that sits directly above a transport interchange, and cost associated with acquiring adjacent land. Paragraph 3.74 of the London plan states that affordable housing should be provided on site. In exceptional circumstances it maybe provided off-site or through a cash in lieu contribution, ring fenced and if appropriate ‘pooled’, to secure efficient delivery of new affordable housing on identified site elsewhere. These exceptional circumstances include those where having secured an alternative site, it would be possible: • • • • Secure a higher level of provision Better address priority needs, especially for family housing Secure a more balanced community Better sustain strategically important clusters of economic activities, especially in parts of the CAZ. 7.17 Given the above information, any agreement for off-site provision should be financially neutral , meaning that the provision should be equivalent numerically in terms of the number of units being proposed and no profit advantage to the applicant. Officers have undertaken numerous months of pre-application discussions with the applicant, this has facilitated the current affordable housing to comprise of off-site provision of affordable housing along with remaining 12 units remaining onsite. This offer has been based on a financial viability appraisal, which produces funds which are surplus to the intermediate units. 7.18 The applicant has identified a site as being 10 Leake Street, which is in very close proximity of the application site. This building is currently in office use and subject to planning permission would facilitate 16 affordable rented units being provided as part of the development. The applicant has stated that the site would be secured within 21 days of the granting planning permission on the application site. Officers have agreed within three months, of granting planning permission an application would be submitted on 10 Leake Street. This mechanism would be delivered through the Section 106 Agreement. However, failure to deliver on 10 Leake Street, the applicant has stated that they would seek an alternative site, which would mean the application would be reported back to committee for members resolution on this matter. Officers are in support of this proposal as the delivery on 10 Leake Street would be a practically on-site due to the close proximity of the site to the development. 7.19 Figure 1: Outlines the site of 10 Leake Street. The site is situated on the site boundary. 7.20 The proposed mechanism for the provision of off-site affordable housing would bring added benefits to the scheme as this would create more socially mixed communities The applicant has stated that the proposed mix of units would be mainly two and three bed units which would cater for various family sizes within Lambeth. 7.21 The applicant has agreed to a review mechanism as part of the development which would consider market changes throughout construction phase of the development. This may enable further contributions to be secured to enable further affordable housing to be provided as part of the development. 7.22 Intermediate Units The application proposes a total of 12 onsite intermediate units which would be located within various levels of the tower element within the north building. All the units would be one-bedroom. Given the design constraints, mix of uses proposed, and the core arrangements that come about as a result, together with the high property values generated by the elevated position and view afforded, it is accepted the provision of genuinely affordable units on this site is challenging. The average minimum income levels required would be £38,000 and this would depend on the rental levels that are set, management fees and mortgage rates. The proposed income levels have been assessed by BNP Paribas, who have stated that they are reasonable. The GLA have raised concern whether or not these units would genuinely deliver affordable units, providing a “mixed and balance communities”. 7.23 Lambeth Housing officers support the proposals submitted by the applicant. The proposed off-site affordable housing units should be of family accommodation and should comply with the Lambeth affordable rent model principles. This has been secured as part of the Section 106 Agreement. In relation to the intermediate housing, comments were raised in relation to the affordability of the units given the area. However, after assessing the current development in accordance with the GLA’s affordability level. In this instance no objection is raised. 7.24 Proposed Residential Units in North Building The application proposes a total of 142 residential units onsite which would be accommodated from floors 13-27 of the north block. These units would be serviced by two lifts and a central fire escape. The mix of units comprises: Number % One-Bed 44 31% Two-Bed 66 46% Three-Bed 28 20% Four-Bed 4 3% Total 142 100% These would all be private units, aside from 12 one-bed shared ownership units. The proposed 3 bed plus units appears reasonable in this central location, which amount to 23% overall units being proposed. Having assessed the unit sizes of the development against the SPD for Housing Development and House Conversions, the scheme would comply with the space standards set out within this document. In relation to wheelchair accessibility the development would comply with minimum 10% provision in accordance with the Lifetime Homes Standard. A condition has been imposed to this effect. 7.25 All the rooms would receive natural ventilation and the majority of the units would have dual aspect including the family units. The outdoor amenity space would be provided in the form of winter gardens. The overall areas for the winter gardens range between 11sqm up to 33sqm, this is depending on the requisite size of the residential units. This would also satisfy the space standards for out outdoor amenity space within the SPD for Housing Development and House Conversions. All the residential flats would have minimum floor to ceiling height of at least 2.3m. The applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report which has been independently assessed by BRE. The analysis of the results concluded that the results would be acceptable in terms of daylight and sunlight levels. Overall, a high standard of residential accommodation is envisaged. 7.26 Children’s Playspace The applicant has submitted a ‘Playspace report’ dated May 2012, produced by Quod. Policy 3.6 of the London Plan sets out the requirement for new housing developments to include provision of children’s playspace and informal recreation. Provision should be based on the number of children living in the new development and should be appropriate for the age profile of the population. The GLA SPG “Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation” states that the minimum benchmark for new residential developments should be 10sqm per child. The playspace needs to be suitable for various age groups of children and young people. 7.27 The report states given the nature of the development and the small size of population expected as part of the development, the development has prioritised the use of the public realm work to the wider public. Dedicating space specifically for play to meet on-site demand in this location wouldn’t deliver the most effective use of space on this strategically important site, nor would it be effective way to meet the play needs of children, particularly given the close proximity to playing facilities such as Jubilee Gardens. 7.28 The applicant has stated given the housing mix, the child yield of the scheme would be relatively low, with approximately 10 children under the age of 5 expected. In this instance, no children’s play space is proposed on-site. The applicant would propose a Section 106 contribution, which enables the improvement of public parks in the vicinity of the site. The applicant has agreed to pay £32,000 which has been secured within the legal agreement. Officers consider this approach to be acceptable. This has been assessed by Lambeth Parks officer, no objection has been raised. 7.29 Gallery/ Ground floor – York Road Saved UDP Policy 19 requires development in town centres, Waterloo and the Thames Policy Area to have uses with active frontages open to the public. The proposed development would provide A1 retail units such as cafes and sandwich shops which are considered to be appropriate as this would allow the general public to have access to these uses at ground floor level. The proposed opening times would be between 7am to 8pm. The deliveries would be between these times also. This has been secured within the Section 106 Agreement. Policy 2.10 of the London Plan also seeks to support and improve the retail offer of the CAZ for residents, workers, and visitors whilst 2.11 states that within the CAZ the Mayor will and boroughs should “identify, enhance and expand retail capacity to meet strategic and local need, and to focus this on the Central Area Frontages”. 7.30 The development proposes a gallery floorspace/ active frontage area to the ground floor element of the north building. This area would cover approximately 910sqm2. The applicant has stated that this area would be used as a mixed use area for a foyer area to both the office and residential floorspace. The submitted design and access statement makes reference to this area being used to display art pieces, allow people to linger, experience art or attend organised events. Furthermore, the scheme proposes a series of active frontage uses such as cafes and restaurants along this gallery space, which will activate activity along this area. 7.31 The south building proposes a series active uses at ground floor level which would activate this part of York Road further. No objection is raised towards this element of the development. Overall, the scheme would provide a mix of uses in the CAZ and the Waterloo Opportunity Area, maximising the development potential of a highly accessible site, which is supported and in line with both local and London Plan policies. The regeneration decline and improving the quality of the environment in this part of Waterloo are welcomed and supported in terms of benefits they would bring to Waterloo. 7.32 In summary the proposed development would provide a significant uplift in employment floorspace which would create jobs and training apprenticeships during the construction phase of the development. The scheme would provide economic activity to local businesses after the construction and legacy phase of the development, creating further jobs in the Waterloo area. The development provides an element of housing which would add to the existing housing stock and affordable housing in the borough. The ground floor/ gallery space would bring activity and vibrancy along York Road creating a sense of place and regenerating the overall area further that would provide an interface with wider public realm works forthcoming from the development (section 9.6 of report). 7.33 Conclusion In principle the principle of the scheme is considered to be acceptable. The overall mix of uses accords with the policy requirements of the NPPF, The London Plan and the Lambeth Core Strategy. 8 Conservation and Design 8.1 Scale, massing and appearance 8.2 The overall design parameters have been introduced within the proposals section whereby the scheme would be built out over two blocks, the north and south building. 8.3 The scheme has evolved through pre-application discussion, particularly in relation to the North Building, responding to concerns raised about the scale and form, creating visual interest and reducing the visible mass of the building, particularly in the views from Parliament Square, the river and the adjoining conservation areas. The lower part of the north building comprises a podium bridge structure, which spans the underground tunnels that is situated directly below the site, out of which the tower element rises at the northern end where the degree of impact in terms of views is more limited. The stepped form and articulation of the building would be bold and architecturally dominant to which it would be unapologetically imposed upon York Road, with the residential element situated within stacked blocks above the base. The façade design, which comprises a series of vertical glass fins appears as a screen against the bridging structure, which supports the building. 8.4 The proposed ground floor frontage of the north building would be fully glazed with entrances situated on both the north and south elevations (four entrances in total). Officers raised concern during the pre-application stage as it was thought that the area would be used as a large foyer area for both the office and residential uses. The applicant has stated in the design and access statement that this area would be utilised as an arts and culture use along with active frontages, activating this area to pedestrians. Officers are satisfied with this approach as this would give an ever evolving presence to this area which would potentially attract the general public from York Road. The usability and maintenance of this area would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. 8.5 NPPF makes a strong commitment to the delivery of design excellence. Policy S9 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will seek the highest quality of design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions and the public realm. Innovation in design will be supported and encouraged, particularly where this contributes to local distinctiveness, enhances the existing built environment and heritage reflects the cultural diversity of the borough. This is also supported within policy 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan. The London Plan Policy 7.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for the development in London. Policy 7.4 requires developments to have regard to its context, and make a positive contribution to local character within its neighbourhood. The high quality of design is to be secured through to construction. 8.6 The north building has a stacked linear form to the first 15-storeys. From this level a broad tower rises from floors 16 to 28, which in turn marks the lactation of Waterloo Station in the streetscape. The façade is given articulation by teasing out and or recessing combined floor levels giving the building a linear articulation. The smooth, understated and refined glazed treatment serves to emphasise the bold forms and grand scale of the building. The overall impact is serene and understated. In this respect it could be considered as a carefully contrived ‘backdrop’ building of high quality which allows other assets across the city to retain their prominence when seen within its context. 8.7 The immediate impact of the development would be along York Road, where the monumental scale and what might be considered monolithic form would make the building a very dominant element on the street. The design is unapologetic in this respect - the smoothness and refinement of the elevation is likely to further heighten the sense of the monumentality. The simplified form / massing and the refined glazed treatment bring a level repose and understatement which is not normally found in tall buildings within London. Notwithstanding, like other large scale developments in London it won’t be to everyone’s taste. However, it is not for the Planning system to dictate taste. Officers consider the scheme would introduce something new to London’s skyline - a bold gesture by a renowned architect. As such, design excellence is delivered and these policy objectives are considered to be met. 8.8 CABE provided design review advice which supports both the urban form and building design. They state that the taller element of the two buildings is convincing, both architecturally and in relation to the urban context and particularly Waterloo Station’s grade II listed Victory Arch. The subtle stacking of the volumes creates the impression of a slender tower when seen from certain view points, particularly from the north east. 8.9 Tall Buildings Policy 40 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan states that tall buildings should be of the highest architectural and constructional quality; it should enhance the skyline through profile and use of materials; be constructed to the standard quality, design and vision of the original architect. Policy 7.11 of the London Plan sets out additional requirement for tall and large-scale buildings which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/ or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor. Policies 7.10 and 7.11, which set out the Mayor’s approach to protecting the character of strategic landmarks as well as London’s wider character, are also important considerations. Further to this the Waterloo OAPF, characterises this area as a development for a tall building and this was acknowledged within the previous Inspectors decision at the previous appeal which was dismissed for the site. 8.10 CABE’s support for the proposal has been presented above. English Heritage and CABE have published ‘Guidance on Tall Buildings’ providing twelve criteria’s by which tall buildings should be considered and assessed. These are considered as follows: • • • • • • • • • 8.11 Relation to context: The proposed tower element has a similar bulk and mass to the adjacent Shell Centre tower which is considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area. The effect on the historic environment: this is explained within sections 8.15 to 8.22. The relationship to transport infrastructure: the site is within the highest possible PTAL rating in Lambeth, with a rating 6b and as such accords with the London Plan policy for the provision of tall buildings. The development would improve the public realm around the station and the wider Waterloo area. The architectural quality of building: CABE supports the applicant’s approach in terms of built form and design detailing. The sustainable design and construction: the development would reduce carbon emissions by 31% which would exceed the London Plan standard of 25%. The credibility of the design: the design has progressed following extensive discussions with the Council officers, GLA and presentation to CABE. The architects are well respected for their portfolio of work, both in Britain and internationally. The contribution of public space and facilities: the scheme would benefit and improve the existing public realm surrounding the site. The improvements would also enable a new access into the WIT station. The effect on the local environment: the applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement to assess the proposal impact on the environment which is discussed in section 10 of this report. The contribution to permeability: the development would create new access into the WIT station and facilitate greater permeability between Waterloo Station and the South Bank immediate context. The Waterloo OAPF, states that the northern element to York Road should be the focus for tall buildings, given this the proposed tower element would deliver the cluster of taller buildings at Waterloo. Within regards the views identified in the London Viewing Management Framework (LVMF), the lower part of the building would not generally be visible; the tower would be visible from within a number of LVMF views and from other locations across central London. There are a number of towers in Waterloo generally and the proposed tower will stand next to the Shell Centre tower. In this instance officers would not object to the proposed tower in this location. Furthermore the proposed scheme would accord to the ‘Guidance of Tall Buildings’. 8.12 South Building 8.13 The proposed south building would stand at an overall height of 11-storeys, which would be used for further office accommodation on the upper floors with retail units on the ground floor. The main design appearance would be a repetition of masonry colonnade facades which would span the entire width and height of the building. Its simple rectangular form helps define the streets and urban spaces around it. The design would respond to the local context in terms of materials and mass. Furthermore, this would be an enhancement to the setting of the South Bank Conservation Area. The development proposes plant at roof level which would be set in from all four sides. The presence of this structure would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the building nor the wider street context. Conditions have been imposed requesting details of the proposed materials and finish of the south building. 8.14 The current form of the development within this location has been substantially reduced in scale and bulk from the previously dismissed appeal, where the current blocks B and C in this location impacted upon the setting of the World Heritage Site from Parliament Square. This part of the development would not be seen within any of the strategic/ protected views. This should be noted when determining the application. Further, analysis of the strategic and protected views will be assessed within the Strategic Views section of the report. 8.15 Impact within the Conservation Areas 8.16 The proposed development is not located within a conservation area. The development would impact the most on both Waterloo and Roupell Street Conservation Areas. Policy 47 (a) Protection – development proposals in a conservation should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. (g) Setting and Views – development outside conservation areas should not harm the setting of the area or harm views into or from the area. 8.17 Waterloo Conservation Area: Within the Waterloo Conservation Area the development would be visible in the townscape views along Stamford Street. The proposed residential tower would rise up above the listed terraces. However, given the views of the Shell Tower, IMAX and The London Eye in the foreground, officers are of the view that the erection of the north building within this location would have a neutral impact within the conservation area, given the existing modern backdrop in the vicinity. Furthermore, giving consideration to the characterisation for this part of Waterloo as being an opportunity area, officers are of the view that development of this scale and nature would be acceptable at the proposed height, scale, bulk and design. 8.18 Roupell Street Conservation Area: The proposed development would potentially impact on three main streets within the Conservation Area which are Roupell Street, Whittlesey Street and Theed Street. The proposed tower element of the development would be seen looking outwards from the conservation area. Officers have stated that the scheme would have negative impact on this conservation area, due to the height and mass. The scheme would impact on the conservation area to a degree where any tall building would be seen from these streets. However, given the opportunity area designation for the site, which allows for tall buildings to be proposed, the height and mass of the building would be acceptable. Furthermore, given that the added bulk and massing would be articulated and finished, which would limit there being a potential impact to the Roupell Street Conservation Area. 8.19 Impact on Listed Buildings: Policy 40 protects the backdrops, settings, and important views of buildings and conservation areas. Policy 45 part (f) Setting - Development which adversely affects the setting of a listed building, or significant views of a listed building, will be refused. The NPPF (setting of a heritage asset) is defined as ‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surrounding evolve. The site is in close proximity to the South Bank, where various listed buildings of architectural importance are sited. Furthermore elements of the setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset. 8.20 The development would involve the re-facing of the western flank of the Grade II Listed Victory Arch which is currently shielded by the existing Elizabeth House building. This elevation would be exposed through the demolition of the building and the new building canter levering over this elevation. This element of the development would form part of the public realm works, which forms part of the Section 106 ‘pot’. This part of the development is welcomed as this would be an improvement to the entrance of Waterloo Station. 8.21 The existing County Hall building which is located on the opposite side of York Road, would be mainly dominated by the location and positioning of the south building on the site. Officers consider the overall bulk, massing and materials used here would have a neutral impact. 8.22 The development would impact the most on the setting of the Royal Festival Hall (RFH). The Planning Inspector, considered that the previous scheme would form a continuous backdrop of the development with the Shell Tower in this setting. The current proposal would have a similar impact. However, the glassed element of the tower would be an individual separate component due to the glazed aesthetic of the proposal. Whilst it is acknowledged there would be an impact, the proposed architecture design would not cause harm to the integrity of the Royal Festival Hall. 8.23 The proposed development would also be present in the setting of the Royal National Theatre. However, given the designated zone as being an opportunity area, any tall building would impact on the setting of this building and as result officers consider this impact to be acceptable. Furthermore, given the added benefit associated with the scheme, these would outweigh the impact within the wider area of Waterloo. 8.24 World Heritage Sites London Plan Policy 7.10 ‘World Heritage Sites’ states that “Development should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or their setting (including any buffer zone). In particular, it should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate it Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance”. In accordance with the Mayor’s London Heritage Sites – Guidance of Settings SPG (2012), the applicant has demonstrated a clear understanding of the OUV of Westminster World Heritage Site, assessed the contribution made by the World Heritage Site’s setting to its OUV, and assessed the proposal’s impact on the World Heritage Site’s and its OUV. Policy S9 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment by interalia, ‘Protecting Strategic Views, including those that affect the outstanding universal value and setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site. The site is located approximately about 800m outside the Westminster World Heritage Site. 8.25 The proposed development is located near the South Bank, which is an important component within the setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site. The applicant has assessed the application in accordance with the strategic views set out in the LVMF. The LVMF SPG identifies London panoramas, linear views, river prospects and townscape views, with 27 views in total. The proposed development would not be located in any Protected Vistas, Viewing Corridors or Wider Setting Consultation Areas. In terms of the LVMF, views from bridges, it is considered that there would be sufficient distances between the proposal on the South Bank and the World Heritage Site to enable a continued appreciation on the Palace of Westminster and particular the Clock Tower, in line with the visual management guidance of the LVMF SPG. 8.26 From Parliament Square LVMF views, Parliament Square South West (27A.1) and Parliament North west (27A.2) the proposal would comply with the visual guidance in that the development would be set away from the Houses of Parliament next to Portcullis House. This would allow sufficient sky to be maintained around the Clock Tower to preserve the OUV of the World Heritage Site. Lambeth Conservation and Urban Design officer has raise concern, even though that the development may not be seen within the protected view, the attachment of the narrow flank elevation of the proposed development would be an adverse intrusion into the gap. However, it should be noted that the development has been reduced in overall bulk and massing from the previously refused scheme and it should be identified that the overall scale of development, anticipated by both local and regional policies, cannot be hidden, so in this instance the development would not have an impact. Furthermore, given the added benefits the development would bring to regenerate the Waterloo area, this should be considered to outweigh the harm as others have suggested. 8.27 The submitted assessment recognises that there would be some small adverse impact on the OUV of the World Heritage Site from these LVMF view points in terms of the night time effects of the proposal. However, officers are of view that this element would be minimal and would not detract from the night time appearance of the House of Parliament due to relatively lower level of illumination of the residential element at the top of the scheme compared with offices and other buildings with the Parliament Square itself. 8.28 It is noted on the south side in views from St Margret’s Churchyard (adopted Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan (P7)) the Shell Centre tower is largely screened by Portcullis House and the Elizabeth House proposal sits prominently in the gap between Portcullis House and Big Ben. It should be noted that this view is not protected and given that any development would be seen when ‘moving’ through the gap between the two buildings, some element of the building would be seen and officers consider this view would be a far reaching view which is seen within many parts of London. In this instance the proposed development would have a neutral impact in this view due to the reason given above. 8.29 The applicant has also assessed other views from within the World Heritage Site where the proposal’s impact on the OUV is more prominent. In a small area of Parliament Square on the southern part between Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. The proposal is seen to touch the Clock Tower, however, these instances are minimal in relation to the overall context and visual amenity of the World Heritage Site from Parliament Square as a whole. The design of the building has reflected the appreciation of the OUV of the World Heritage Site and the sensitivities of its setting within the context of the constraints of the proposal site. 8.30 The Mayor’s London World Heritage – Guidance on Settings SPG 2012 also recognises that as well as visual impacts of the proposal there are other physical and experimental impacts that also effect the setting of the World Heritage Site and contributes to its significance, such as public realm, routes and accessibility. As detailed elsewhere in this report, the proposal would help to deliver a range of public benefits, including significantly contributing to the regeneration of the Waterloo Opportunity Area, which would facilitate and improve permeability and functioning of the area. These are being delivered within this application such as affordable housing, public realm work surrounding Waterloo Station, a new access point to the former WIT and upgrades to the station which are reliant upon on Network Rail, increase in office accommodation. Whilst the majority of these impacts would be felt within the immediate Waterloo area, the benefits that the scheme brings in terms of contributing to London’s World City role, with a landmark building and public realm that improves links to cultural areas of the South Bank also help to improve and enhance the setting of the World Heritage Site as well. 8.31 It is therefore felt on balance whilst there are some adverse impacts in terms of the visual integrity of the World Heritage site, in a number of limited places in Parliament Square, the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm to the setting of the World Heritage Site. 8.32 English Heritage Comments 8.33 English Heritage have raised objection to the proposed development on the following grounds: • • • • • • The proposal would cause substantial and unacceptable degree of harm to the OUV, setting and views from Westminster World Heritage Site. English Heritage have advised that the new development on the site should not be visible in the gap between Portcullis House and the Tower of Big Ben if it would cause harm. By virtue of its massing, bulk and deposition, appear visually attached to the North face of the Big Ben Tower. Such an impact would be difficult. The proposals would reduce an awareness of the dominance and architectural form of the Big Ben Tower. English Heritage are unable to support any proposals which would appear to weaken its architectural form or ability to read against the sky. The impact the development would have on the setting and views of the Royal Festival Hall are also a serious concern to English Heritage. It is a building of national importance and safeguarding its setting should be a very high priority. When viewed from Waterloo Bridge, the proposed new development would by virtue of its height, massing and disposition, overwhelm the Royal Festival Hall to an extent which would seriously harm its setting and be unacceptable to English Heritage. The development would be seen from Blue Bridge in St James Park where it would appear visually attached to the tower of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This would lessen the architectural form of the Grade I Listed building and is unacceptable. There would be some harm to the settings and views of County Hall, Victory Arch and the National Theatre. 8.34 Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would have an impact upon the World Heritage Site from Parliament Square, officers have assessed the scheme in accordance LVMF. This has concluded that the development would not be seen within the protected zones specified within 27A.1 and 27A.2. English Heritage has stated that there should not be any building seen within this gap between Portcullis House and Big Ben. Having regard to this, the development would be viewed as a building within far reaching views which are apparent throughout the London city skyline. In this instance the building would have an impact in this view, however, it would not be reasonable to refuse a scheme where a building would seen in an element of the gap between the two buildings which would bring added benefits to the London City role as a whole. 8.35 English Heritage has stated that the development would weaken the architectural form of the Big Ben Tower. It should be noted that the applicants have had lengthy pre-application discussions with Lambeth Planning concerning the impact the development would have on this building. It is also pertinent to note that the scheme was presented to English Heritage. The overall bulk and massing has been reduced from the previously refused scheme and would be mainly hidden behind Portcullis House. Officers acknowledge that the development would still be viewed in close proximity to the Big Ben Tower, but this would only be present when you move away from the fixed point of view that requires consideration under the LVMF. Indeed, it should be noted that views of the tower as you move through this gap would become more oblique, reducing the visual prominence of the clock faces on Big Ben and is representative of the transient way townscape is both ‘read’ and ‘explored’. You would have to actively move through the gap to ‘discover’ the singular point where attachment happens, and when Big Ben appears at its least articulate. The appearance of the tower would not (and is not) appreciated statically. Indeed, predominately the viewers eye would be drawn towards the upper part of the tower, and its Clock Face. In terms of competition, it is indeed shown in the submitted views that as the other landmark site in the immediate area, the London Eye would be the only other point of intrigue in these views to distract from Big Ben itself. The form of development is moved away from the appeal scheme, and in those views of significance, is detached from and does not seek to compete nor rival but be moot to the OUV of the House if Westminster. 8.36 In relation to the impact the development would have from Blue Bridge in St James Park, the development has been reduced drastically to limit the impact of the development from this view. As a result the impact would be minor and in so doing, the scheme would acceptable. 8.37 In relation to the impact the development would have on the remaining buildings within the South Bank Conservation Area. Officers have assessed the potential impact upon these buildings which have been assessed within section 8.18 and 8.19 of this report. 8.38 English Heritage have stated the scheme would deliver “claimed benefits”. The proposal would help to deliver a range of public benefits, including significantly contributing to the regeneration of the Waterloo Opportunity Area, which would facilitate and improve permeability and functioning of the area. Whilst it is acknowledged that improvements can come forward in relation to the WIT, however those associated with the scheme are additional which would benefit the wider Waterloo area, which wouldn’t be achieved without a scheme coming forward on the site These are being delivered within this application such as affordable housing, public realm works surrounding Waterloo Station, a new access point to the former WIT and upgrades to the station which are reliant upon on Network Rail, increase in office accommodation. Whilst the majority of these impacts would be felt within the immediate Waterloo area, the benefits that the scheme brings in terms of contributing to London’s World City role, with a landmark building and public realm that improves links to cultural areas of the South Bank also help to improve and enhance the setting of the World Heritage Site as well. Having regard to the above information and weighing these against the potential harm, the public benefits of the proposal would help to deliver and enhance the setting of the World Heritage Site and outweigh this harm. 8.39 English Heritage state Big Ben should be the dominant building in the skyline and no other building should compete with it. There are clear spatial voids between the building and the tower in the majority of views, and not just a consequence of orientation of the sites from another. English Heritage state “that they are unable to support any proposals which would appear to weaken Big Ben’s architectural form or ability to read against the sky”. Officers accept such a position, and are therefore surprised that English Heritage are unable to support the proposal where it has been demonstrated within the detailed submission that the scheme seeks to preserve a spatial gap around Big Ben and allows for the development to be read against the sky without impingement from the proposed development. Within the appeal scheme the proposal, the building attached to Big Ben and so it is curious where the current proposal does not English Heritage similarly objects. 8.40 It is accepted by officers that the proposed scheme would have an impact within the local area of Waterloo and some strategic views which have been assessed within the report. However, the proposed replacement proposal would provide added benefits, to not only Waterloo but also the wider London city, and as result these benefits would outweigh the potential harm. 8.41 Demolition of high-level footbridge above York Road (12/01329/CON) The application involves the demolition of the high-level footbridge above York Road as the proposed redevelopment of Elizabeth House would not retain this structure as part of the scheme. The current footbridge serves as a main connection route from the upper level platforms within Waterloo Station across York Road and provides a route through to the South Bank area. The development proposes to replace this bridge with three escalators, two lifts and one stair which would be situated internal within the Waterloo Station concourse. The proposed new route would be directed down into existing Orchestra Pit. This would be accessed through existing doors formerly used by the former Eurostar Station. This would be at grade level along York Road. The applicant has submitted a Conservation Area application, as part of the footbridge located towards north-eastern part of York Road falls within a Conservation Area (12/01329/CON). 8.42 Policy 47 (c) demolition - states the Council will resist granting consent for the demolition of a building, or a substantial part of a building that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of a conservation area. In design terms officers raise no objection to the proposed demolition of the high-level footbridge, providing that a scheme comes forward on the Elizabeth House site. Officers have assessed the proposed demolition and have raised no objection to the proposal. However, a scheme must come forward in the first instance. The practicalities of the replacement lifts and escalators situated within the internal concourse, has been addressed within the transport and highways section. 8.43 Public Realm Improvements 8.44 The draft Waterloo SPD aims to promote public realm improvements in and around Elizabeth House which includes the following: • • • Improvements/ treatment of exposed flank wall of Victory Arch; Streetscape improvement to primary and secondary route in accordance with the public realm guidance; New street level pedestrian route to replace the upper level walkway from the station to Hungerford Bridge. The relevant landowners (SBC, Shell, Elizabeth House and Network Rail/BRBR) to continue to coordinate improvement to achieve this route and to produce a whole route masterplan. Proposals for any section of the route must demonstrate that they contribute to achieving a coherent design for the whole bridge to • station route. Improved link to Lower Marsh The development would provide a series of public realm improvements in close proximity of the site and along York Road, which is listed below: • Victory Arch Square: the area would be re-graded and landscaped to create a new pedestrian-priority public space in front of Waterloo Station. Cab Road would be re-aligned to the north and a new set of steps created connecting Victory Arch to the Tennison Way bus station via Mepham Street. • Improvement to York Road and Leake Street which would comprise repaving/re-alignment works to the eastern side of York Road, the relocation and expansion of the existing pedestrian crossing on York Road to align with the new Central Square and minor improvement works to Leake Street. • The application proposes improvements to linear strip of land between Elizabeth House site and WIT, currently known as West Road. The application proposes to pedestrianise and landscape this land to create a publically-accessible route free of vehicles. Due to the land level changes which equates to 1.2m (lower), the applicant proposes a more ‘seamless interface’. • Victory Arch façade: this part of the scheme proposes to re-face the western flank of the Grade II listed Victory Arch that would be exposed if the demolition of Elizabeth House occurred. It should be noted that neither planning permission nor listed building consent has been submitted as this would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. 8.45 The current appearance of Waterloo Station and it surroundings are badly in need of repair and regeneration, given the years of neglect. The redevelopment of this site would provide significant opportunities to resolve the poor state of the public realm around Waterloo Station. This is considered to be a crucial public benefit of the scheme as this would not only improve Waterloo but also London’s city role. Furthermore, the development would provide the public benefits, which have been highlighted within the draft SPD for Waterloo (above). 8.46 All the public realm improvements would assist this part of Waterloo which suffers a lack of permeability and legibility. In particular the area between the existing building and the WIT station, which has a poor environment and whilst it has the potential to provide a ‘gateway’ to London and the South Bank attractions, the current makeup is not fit for purpose. The new central square which would be created between the north and south buildings, facilitates the creation of a new entrance to the WIT station. The improvement to the Victory Arch, which is currently hidden by the existing building would open this western façade, bring improvements to the main entrance into Waterloo Station. This area would also facilitate the new access points from the higher levels of the Waterloo Station concourse, following the demolition of the high-level walkway bridge over York Road. This access point would be provide at grade and the mechanisms for delivery would be provided through the installation of escalators, lifts and a staircase. 8.47 The public realm improvements have been earmarked as Section 106 contributions which equates to £13m of the overall ‘pot’. The mechanisms for delivery and maintenance of the area post construction would be secured through the agreement also. Overall the approach being proposed would provide a public benefit to the area and furthermore, holistically improve the locality. 8.48 Future of Waterloo International Terminal (WIT) 8.49 The applicant has submitted a document ‘The Importance of Elizabeth House to the future of WIT and Waterloo Station’ dated 2012. This has been produced by Hopkins Architects along with the applicant of Elizabeth House. This document outlines how the proposed scheme of Elizabeth House would influence the current proposals for the WIT in terms of its form, content and delivery along with the wider regeneration of Waterloo Station. The submitted document aims to comply with policy PN1 of the Core Strategy in that the scheme would potentially support improvement in the transport capacity and interchange quality of Waterloo Station, including proposal to increase permeability by providing linkages to Lower Marsh and other parts of Waterloo, including through development at the station for Central London uses. 8.50 The Core Strategy, p61 recognises that Waterloo Station and the former WIT Station present a major development opportunity arising from the need to remodel facilities to increase capacity and this must, in turn help to transform the wider neighbourhood in line with adopted policies. The draft SPD for Waterloo states that: • • • • • By 2014, 10 car platforms across the station Reuse of the International Terminal In the longer term, 12 car platforms across the station A new street level concourse, also in the longer term Commercial development to part-pay for the improvements. The Hopkins scheme would comprise of two key schemes which are as follows: 1. The regeneration of WIT in a sustainable way to provide 5 new operational mainline platforms, a new western concourse accessed directly from street level, new retail uses and improved connections to the London Underground, mainline Waterloo Station platforms and externally to York Road and beyond to Waterloo and the South Bank; and 2. The regeneration of Waterloo Station itself, enabled by the implementation of the WIT proposals, by opening up a linear at-grade route east-west through the station at the lower level, diverting pedestrian flows and London Underground ‘paid zones’ demolishing Station Approach to create a consolidated bus and taxi interchange to the east of the station and expanding the existing concourse into the space previously occupied by buses and taxis. 8.51 The applicant has stated that the proposed development at Elizabeth, would complement the station bringing forward the following facilities: • • • • • • Bringing back into use a derelict building at the heart of Waterloo; Relieving congestion at Waterloo Station by providing a new Western Concourse and five additional platforms for domestic train services; Creating new entrances to Waterloo Station with direct visibility and access from York Road; Creating jobs in relation to the operation of rail services and retail floorspace; Providing approximately 10,000sqm of new retail floorspace, providing services for the local residential and business communities; Facilitating the comprehensive redevelopment of Waterloo Station to accommodate projected increases in passenger numbers and to provide a station facility which would potentially benefit London’s busiest transport interchange. Furthermore, this would enable the regenerative benefits set out within the draft Waterloo SPD for the station to come forward. 8.52 In summary the proposed building would be monolithic with an architectural dominance along this section of York Road. In so doing, the development would open up this section of Waterloo in terms of connections to the Southbank and the wider areas of Waterloo. The scheme would improve permeability to the WIT station through the creation of the new central square. Regard has been given to the impact the development would have in terms of the conservation areas, listed buildings, Westminster World Heritage Site and the wider Waterloo Area. On balance, it is considered that the development would impact to some degree on these areas of importance, however, this harm is outweighed by the public benefits the scheme would provide in terms of the public realm improvements in and around Waterloo Station, improvements to the Victory Arch façade and overall the development would make significant improvements to not only the Waterloo area as a whole but the wider London city. 8.53 Conclusion The scheme essentially compromises a tall building which will have an impact on the overall visual appearance of the area. The key consideration is whether this impact is harmful when considered against policy considerations. The interpretation of this impact varies between parties but the key consideration for the Council is to determine if the scheme gives rise to material harm. When all aspects of the design of the building are considered in totality it is not considered that the scheme gives rise to harm as set out by English Heritage. If it were the view that harm was caused it is considered that the interdependent public benefits to be delivered are significant to outweigh any such consideration. 9 Transportation and Accessibility 9.1 Policy S4 of the Core Strategy aims to achieve and contribute towards sustainable pattern of development within the borough; seeking improvement for better connectivity, quality and capacity in public transport; working in partnership with TfL, Network Rail and other public transport providers and supporting the plans and programmes for improvements to public transport infrastructure and services in the borough, including the transport hubs at Waterloo; requiring developments to comply with the maximum car parking standards in the London Plan and reflect the public transport accessibility of the development and to include provision for cycle parking, motor-cycle parking in appropriate location and car clubs wherever possible; promoting walking and cycling, including through improvements to existing provision in and around development for cycling, cycle parking, public realm and transport and highway infrastructure. 9.2 Policy 6.1 of the London plan aim to encourage patterns and nodes of development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car; seeking to improve the capacity and accessibility of public transport, walking and cycling, particularly in areas of greatest demand; supporting development that generates high levels of trips at locations with high public accessibility; improving interchange between different forms of transport, particularly around major rail and Underground stations, especially where this will enhance connectivity in outer London. 9.3 Internal WIT improvements/ Network Rail (NR) The application proposes the removal of the high-level footbridge along York Road. This would potentially be replaced internally within the WIT, through the installation of three escalators, two lifts and a staircase. Access from this area would be through the former entrance doors at the former Eurostar terminal at grade. TfL previously raised concerns in relation to the potential impact of additional pedestrians crossing York Road as a result of the high-level footbridge. However, the applicant has submitted further analysis in relation to the proposed increase in pedestrian flows and it is now considered that the additional footfall could be accommodated at the crossing in front of Victory Arch. 9.4 The applicant have outlined the specification of the works to the ‘Orchestra Pit’, Waterloo Station, which are outlined below: • • • • • • • • • • • Creation of a street level entrance to the Orchestra Pit from Victory Arch Square. Removal of two escalators from the orchestra Pit. Removal of two lifts from the Orchestra Pit. Associated works of demolition and temporary support. Provision of three new escalators. Provision of two new lifts. Provision of one new staircase. Partial decking over the Orchestra Pit, which would be suitable for passenger loading. Provision of structural support for the new deck. Internal walls, partitions and other finishes. Out of hours working, phasing or other constraints imposed by Network Rail. 9.5 Network Rail: The applicant has been in discussion with Network Rail in relation to the internal Waterloo Station works, if the proposed high-level footbridge was demolished, subject to planning permission. Network Rail have given their support for the demolition and redevelopment of Elizabeth House as the proposed scheme and related Section 106 works would improve capacity to the station, create a new entrance via an area known as the Orchestra Pit, improve the overall area concourse and make substantial improvement to the public realm on the South Bank side of the Station. The letter of support has outlined the following commitments which the applicant has given Network Rail which include: • • • • • Prior removal of the existing upper pedestrian walkway, they will carry out work to the Victory Arch entrance to alleviate pressure form additional passenger numbers. This will include removal of the lift and stairs to the IMAX tunnel with decking over subject to agreement by IMAX and NR; Removal of the pedestrian walkway and making good to the station following its removal; The provision of a new access into the station via the Orchestra Pit; Removal of existing fixtures and fitting to be replaced with two lifts, stairs, three escalators to provide connection between the Victory Arch Plaza level and the main station concourse level. This will allow step-free access into this part of the station; The re-facing of the west façade of Victory Arch Network Rail considers the above scope of works would significantly benefit the station and would mitigate the impact of the development proposals. Officers at Network Rail have agreed an outline scope of works with the applicant. This would be secured as part of the Section 106 Agreement. However, Network Rail have confirmed that the detailed specification would be worked up once planning committee granted consent. Officers raise no objection to this approach. 9.6 Public Realm Improvements The proposed building layout also helps to facilitate the longer term redevelopment aspirations of the station, which would include a new entrance from street level through to the WIT, via the new public square and public realm that would be created between the development site and the station. The proposals for Victory Arch Square would be a considerable improvement in the public realm adjacent to the station. TfL have raised comments previously in relation to the operation of this area and the interaction between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. However, officers consider that these factors can be overcome through the detailed design process and appropriate management. This has been secured through the Section 106 Agreement. 9.7 Pedestrian Analysis The applicant has submitted potential pedestrian flows which would be generated by the proposed development, produced by Space Syntax. TfL have been heavily involved with the assessment of the possible impact the development may have within the Waterloo Station given the extent of the development. The information submitted suggests that the proposed pedestrian levels generated by the scheme and users of Waterloo Station could be accommodated on York Road, TfL raise no objection. 9.8 Pedestrian Crossing The scheme proposes to widened the crossing from Sutton Walk to Victory Arch to a width of 10m. In addition a raised table would be proposed at Leake Street and York Road with the existing crossing of York Road and Chicheley Street would be relocated 50m north. It is proposed that West Road would become an access point for the WIT platforms when they are brought back into use and an emergency access into the Elizabeth House scheme. Whilst TfL supported the principles for improving walking and cycling connections to the station in line with London Plan policies 6.9, cycling and 6.10 walking, further analysis and discussion was required in relation to the exact layout of the crossing which were required. The applicant carried out further modelling within the TRANSYT model audit and TfL concluded they would be satisfied with the proposed location of the crossings. 9.9 Trip Generation The application has assessed the potential trip generation by the proposed development which has been outlined within the TRAVL database which forms part of the transport assessment. Both TfL and Lambeth Transport are satisfied with the modal splits for the scheme. 9.10 Highways and Access The proposed scheme would have vehicular access to the site from Leake Street via ramp for servicing vehicles and two car lifts. The junction of Leake Street with York Road would remain as a priority junction, with a raised table introduced to improve pedestrian facilities. 9.11 The application proposes improvements to York Road, incorporating enhancements to the at-grade pedestrian crossing and the use of high quality materials and street furniture. Given the interrelated nature of the Elizabeth House and Shell Centre sites, Lambeth Transport and TfL have indentified a need to develop a solution that addressed the aspirations of both development as well as catering for the strategic requirements of the Waterloo interchange and wider area. Both developments teams currently working together to agree a mutually acceptable proposal. Officer support this approach and this would be secured within the Section 106 Agreement and this would result in improving the public realm and pedestrian environment. 9.12 TfL have assessed the TRAFSYT traffic models and they consider this to be acceptable to facilitate the assessment of the proposed development and highway alterations. 9.13 Car Parking The development proposes a total of 75 car parking spaces. The application previously proposed fifty-seven spaces for the residential spaces and sixteen office spaces. The proposed level originally proposed was contrary to the 0.2 level provision set with the Core Strategy S4 and the Policy 6.13 of the London Plan. 9.14 The applicant has revised the parking provision to a maximum level of twentynine spaces for the residential units, with the remaining twenty-eight spaces transferring to the proposed office accommodation. Policy requires office accommodation to not exceed a maximum provision of one space per 10001500sqm within the CAZ. The proposed increased in office spaces to a total of forty-four spaces would represent one space per 2,028sqm, which would comply with this part of the policy. The applicant has further stated given that the proposed development would provide a high-level of speculative office accommodation, it is likely that the development would be multi-tenanted, and so the ability to offer the option of a small number of car parking spaces to tenants would increase the commercial attractiveness of the building and reduce the risk of developing such a substantial amount of floorspace in this location. 9.15 Lambeth Transport have commented on the re-allocation of the parking provision between the two uses and they concluded that officers would not object to the proposal. However, a minimum of eight parking bays to be accessible for disabled users; minimum 20% of parking bays to provide an electrical charging point and as a result these should be highlighted in the Section 106 Agreement. 9.16 A condition relating to car parking management plan should imposed and approved prior to first occupation. This is to include details of how the measures set out in other contributions/ Section 106 obligations are to be managed, monitored and enforced. Furthermore, the details should outline how the stacking system is to operate and be maintained, how access for disable drivers is to be maintained, how access for disabled drivers is to be provided, how electrical charging points are to be provided and a clear statement that the car park management plan is to be monitored with information on allocation of parking spaces including a plan showing how this is to be carried out, should be submitted to the Council on request for the purposes of monitoring and enforcement. This has been imposed. 9.17 TfL have reviewed the change and justification for the re-allocation of the parking provision in relation to the proposed development. Whilst officers welcome the reduction in the residential parking spaces, the re-provision of the spaces to the office accommodation is considered to be unacceptable, given that no initial justification was given at the outset for a higher provision of office spaces and it is considered that the traffic generation would be worse from the office accommodation rather than the residential accommodation. However, given that the objection by TfL in relation to this matter, the scheme would be policy compliant and the allocation of the spaces would be secured in perpetuity through the Section 106 Agreement. 9.18 London Underground As significant proportion of the additional trips generated by the development are forecast to be made by the London Underground. Whilst the transport assessment concludes that the additional trips can be accommodated by existing service and planned upgrades, this and other developments in the Waterloo area would have a cumulative impact on future capacity. 9.19 Due to the location of the development, the northern building effectively has to span over the LUL infrastructure below. Safeguards therefore need to be put in place to ensure that the construction of the development doesn’t have an adverse impact on this infrastructure. These conditions have been imposed to this effect. 9.20 Cycling/ Taxis/ Buses 9.21 The scheme proposes a total of 666 cycle spaces (248 residential spaces, 358 commercial spaces and 60 visitors spaces within the public realm). The proposed level and allocation would be acceptable and inline with both local and London Plan standards. It is welcomed that the scheme would provide separate showers and changing facilities for office staff. A condition has been imposed to ensure that all cycle parking is delivered prior to the occupation of any part of the development. 9.22 The proposed taxi drop off bays on York Road and Mepham Street are welcomed. However, TfL have raised concerns in relation to the capacity of these bays during the use. A review of taxi operations has been secured through the Section 106 Agreement following the completion of the implementation of the development. 9.23 Due to the central location and proximity of the development to a high number of bus routes, TfL is satisfied that no mitigation is required from a bus capacity perspective. The existing bus stops adjacent to the site on York Road would be upgraded as part of the improvements to York Road. TfL have also requested that an element of bus stops are allocated in close proximity to Waterloo Station on Cab Road. These works would be outlined within the 278 Agreement between the applicant and TfL. 9.24 IMAX The applicant have undertaken detailed studies of the area with ARUP and they have identified that the existing lift and stairs outside the existing Victory Arch, which provides access to the IMAX and other Southbank destinations create a pinch point during the construction period which restricts pedestrian movement to an unacceptable degree once the existing high-level pedestrian walkway is closed. The applicant proposes to remove the lift and deck over the stairs before the walkway is closed. For the duration of construction, signage would be provided in consultation with BFI, Network Rail and others to direct visitors from Waterloo Road station exist. Elizabeth House Limited Partnership (EHLP) would pay for the costs of these temporary works. This would be controlled through a condition. The proposed costs to replace the lift and stairs have calculated and the applicant is discussions with the IMAX. This part of the scheme has been secured within the Section 106 Agreement. 9.25 In summary the proposed scheme would facilitate a significant improvement to both accessibility and permeability to Waterloo Station and the South Bank. This would be achieved through extensive public realm works associated with the scheme and the works being delivered internally within the WIT station. This would provide a public benefit to not only Waterloo but the role of the London city as a whole. In this instance officers raise no objection to the transportation and accessibility mitigation measures being proposed as part of the redevelopment of Elizabeth House. 9.26 Conclusion The scheme is considered to be policy compliant when considered against the key transportation policies. The scheme will be contributing to the wider regeneration and strategic infrastructure improvements required around Waterloo. 10 Residential Amenity The applicant has submitted a comprehensive Environmental Statement (ES) produced by Waterman Energy, Environment and Design (Watermen EED) which seeks to ensure that all the likely significant effects of the proposal are fully understood and taken into account in evaluation the proposal. The approach adopted in the EIA process has been subject to pre-application discussions with the GLA, TfL as well as the Council and has been submitted in accordance with the EIA Regulations and published guidance The ES includes a number of technical areas including wind and microclimate, air quality, land contamination, archaeology and drainage (this list is not exhaustive). 10.1 Daylight and Sunlight 10.2 The applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report produced by GIA. The report has been independently assessed by BRE on behalf of the Council. The nearest residential block which are in close proximity, are County Hall (approximately 340m), Whitehouse Apartments (approximately 90m) and Prospect House (approximately 16m). The report has calculated the Vertical Sky Component (VSC), No Sky Line (NSL) and Average Daylight Factor (ADF). BRE have stated that the development would not impact on the daylight sunlight levels to the Whitehouse Apartments and Prospect House as the levels here would be within the guidelines set out in the BRE and a result would not lose less than 20% of their light. 10.3 The report by BRE concluded that the development of Elizabeth House would impact the most on the northern end of the east elevation of County Hall. The windows along this elevation are recessed already and have lower VSC results. BRE stated even though it is not necessary for a building to be blocked by nearby development due to its design, results should be presented without the effect of any balcony or recess, in order to allow consideration of the actual effects of the development on the occupant of that room. The floor plans show that the windows which are severely affected on the east elevation serve a kitchen and bedrooms respectively on each floor. A total of a 148 residential windows were assessed along the east elevation with a total of 50 windows failing the BRE Guidelines. Each window is the only one serving the room, so there are no alternative sources of daylight on other elevations, and the windows in columns 16, 17, 18 and 19 all serve the same flat. The recessed windows in the column 18 which are particularly affected serve bedrooms. The flats in this corner of the building have living rooms on the north elevation which would continue to enjoy reasonable level of daylight, but the other four of their five rooms would lose between 21% and 47% or more of their light with the effects of the overhangs excluded. The BRE guideline suggests that a ‘mirror image building’ should be analysed for daylight where a proposed development faces a vacant plot of land’. This ensures that the neighbouring development land has a potential for good daylighting. The applicant states that this approach has been successfully argued before and can be adopted where a development is proposed on a currently vacant site. If this approach was taken with the Elizabeth House scheme the resultant effect of the proposal in daylight and sunlight terms would improve. In this instance the 18 windows within the County Hall North Block east elevation as recommended by BRE would not alter the impact on those windows. BRE have assessed this and they accept this methodology being adopted. 10.4 In relation to the sunlight levels the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding buildings and in this instance no objection is raised by BRE. 10.5 Light Pollution BRE have assessed the potential light pollution which may be attributed by the proposed development. It was concluded the light spill from the new development would be well with the Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP) guideline values. As a result there would be a negligible impact, is justified. A lighting strategy and management plan for the development has been secured to ensure that the scheme would not be harmful to neighbouring amenity. 10.6 Solar Glare Glare or dazzle can occur when sunlight is reflected from a glazed façade or area of metal cladding. This can affect road users and train drivers outside and the occupants of adjoining buildings. The applicant has chosen four positions to assess which are York Road (looking south west) (two positions), a further position looking north east and Chicheley Street (looking east). BRE have assessed the calculations and they conclude that the development would have a minor instance of glare to office users of the Shell Centre opposite the site, drivers going down southwest and north east along York Road would have minor glare. However, BRE have stated that these issues of minor glare can be mitigated through the adoption of a non-reflecting coating on the windows. This has been imposed via a condition as these measures cannot be retrofitted as part of the development. 10.7 Overlooking/ Privacy The three nearest properties which would be affected by the development would be Prospect House (approximately 340m), County Hall (approximately 340m) and Whitehouse Apartments (approximately 90m). The proposed residential part of the development, would be a erected up to 29 storeys in height, however it is considered that there would be sufficient distance between the existing building residential blocks to prevent mutual overlooking to occur. In this instance no objection is raised to the loss of privacy by the development. 10.8 The proposed south building which would be in office accommodation, and situated approximately 25m from County Hall and approximately 18m from Prospect House. It is considered that there would be some perceived overlooking between the proposed office accommodation and residential unit of these buildings. However, it is considered that the use of the building would not be used in 24 hour operation as residential unit and only used during business hours, officers raise no objection on this basis. 10.9 Wind The applicant has submitted a wind methodology which has been produced by BMT Fluid Mechanics Limited. The only major effect the scheme would be people stationed at a bus stop located on the western side of York Road where the development would have moderate adverse effect and the mitigation measures would involve the installation of an additional bus stop. This would be secured through the installation of a bus stop to the south of the existing bus shelter. The conclusion of the report states that overall the development would have a negligible effect, meaning that the “any effect that does not alter the suitability of existing wind conditions with respect to planned activities”. In this instance, carrying out the above mitigation measure the scheme would not cause harm to pedestrians. 10.10 Flood Risk This part of the application was written and assessed by Waterman Energy, Environment and Design (Watermen EED). Policy S6 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will work with the Environment Agency in order to manage and mitigate flood risk. The Environment Agency have been consulted in relation to the proposed development and they have raised no objection to the proposed development. However, they have requested conditions relating to drainage flood risk assessment, details relating to contamination, remediation strategy and ground water storage. These have been attached to the report. 10.11 Crime Prevention/ Counter Terrorism 10.12 Lambeth Crime Prevention team were consulted in relation to the proposed development. No objection have been raised in relation to the proposed scheme, however, the applicant is having ongoing meetings with the counterterrorism to mitigate any risk to the proposed development and the ongoing use of Waterloo Station. Conditions have been attached relating to CCTV, external lighting, secure by design details for the proposed development, car parking and maintenance and management of the proposed development, 10.13 Noise and Vibration This part of the application was written and assessed by Waterman Energy, Environment and Design (Watermen EED). Lambeth’s Regulatory Noise and Pollution officer has assessed the report. No objection has been received for the proposed development. However, they have requested that a condition is imposed regulating potential noise impact to the proposed residential units on the site. 10.14 Archaeology This part of the application was written and assessed by Waterman Energy, Environment and Design (Watermen EED). English Heritage have requested a desk top archaeological assessment to be submitted prior to demolition. This has been imposed. 10.15 Air Quality London Plan Policy 7.14 requires developments to minimise increased exposure to poor air quality. It requires developments to be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor quality in areas designated as Air Quality Management Areas. The applicant has submitted a report by Waterman Energy, Environment and Design (Waterman EED). The applicant notes that the potential receptors would be the residential accommodation, located at the thirteenth floor above, and predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxide would not exceed background concentration and have a negligible impact. As such officers consider that the scheme would not give rise to any air quality concerns for future occupiers. 10.16 In summary the proposed bulk, design and massing being proposed would not cause there to be an adverse impact in terms of residential amenity in the local area and as such officers raise no objection to the scheme on these grounds. 10.17 Conclusion It is considered that all of the potential impacts on residential amenity have been fully addressed and either are not considered to be a matter of concern or have been fully mitigated through the detail of the scheme or the proposed conditions. 11 Sustainability and Renewable Energy 11.1 Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the London Plan sets out a minimum target reduction for carbon dioxide emissions in buildings up until 2013 of 25% over the Target Emission Rates outlined in the national Building Regulations. Developments should follow the following energy hierarchy: 1 Be lean: use less energy; 2 Be clean: supply energy efficiently; 3 Be green: use renewable energy 11.2 Policy S7 of the Core Strategy ensures that future development, including construction of the public realm, highways and other physical infrastructure, achieves the highest standards of sustainable design. The policy further states that major developments should achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in line with London Plan targets through energy efficient design, decentralised heat, cooling and power systems and on-site renewable energy generation and requiring all other development to achieve maximum feasible reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through these measures. 11.3 The applicant has submitted two documents, BREEAM Prediction Report and Code For Sustainable Homes prediction report both dated April 2012. These documents have been prepared by Hilson Moran. The application proposes a range of passive design features and demand reduction measures to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters would be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by Building Regulations. Other features of the development include mechanical ventilation heat recovery for the residential apartments in the north building and variable speed drives for fan power. The demand for cooling would be minimised through high performance solar glazing. 11.4 The development proposes to achieve a reduction of 627 tonnes per annum (24.2%) in regulated carbon dioxide emissions. 11.5 District Heating The applicant has carried out an investigation and whilst initial investigations undertaken by the South Bank Employers group in relation to the potential for district heating/ cooling system in the Waterloo area, these plans are still at an early stage and significant feasibility studies are still required. The applicant has stated that they are committed in developing a scheme which would be connected to any future district heating network, should one become a available in the future. The applicant proposes a plant room which would have an area of 138sqm which accommodates the heat network. This is located at basement level. 11.6 Combined Heat and Power The applicant proposes to install gas fired combined heat and power (CHP) units in the north building. The CHP would provide the domestic hot water load, as well as proportion of the space heating to the north building. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide would be 9% through this second part of the energy hierarchy. 11.7 Renewable Energy Technologies The applicant have investigated a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install an active area spanning 184sqm of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. This would be installed to the south side of the north buildings. This would have a carbon emission reduction by 1%. 11.8 Overall Carbon Savings The proposed carbon emissions of the development would be 1,777 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account. 11.9 This equates to a reduction of 811 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in regulated emission compared to a 2010 Building Regulation compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 31%. This would exceed the target set within policy 5.2 of the London Plan. This has been secured through the Section 106 Agreement. 11.10 In summary the proposed development would provide a range of renewable technologies which would be used within the development to reduce associated of carbon emissions as part of the scheme. In this instance the technologies proposed would exceed the both local and London Plan policies and as result the building would be acceptable in this respect. 12 Refuse and Recycling 12.1 Policy S8 of the Core Strategy states the Council will contribute to the sustainable management of waste in Lambeth. The applicant has submitted a Waste Strategy produced by Hilson Moran dated April 2012. 12.2 Elizabeth House is predicted to produce approximately 37.22 tonnes of waste per week. The applicant has stated that the volume of waste would require dedicated storage and disposal facilities and coordinated waste collection strategy from individual floors and the main collection points. A number of options for movement of waste have been considered which include: • • • Waste Chutes Manual Transport Vacuum driven waste ducts 12.3 Commercial Waste Collection, storage and separation 12.4 Waste would be transferred to a central collection point. The transfer of waste would be in wheeled bins from floor level collection points to the basement level. This would be achieved through using lifts. It is recommended that separate container areas are provided for the following waste streams: • • • • • • • High quality used paper; Classified waste paper; Packaging; Combined dry recyclables; Special waste; Waste electrical Non-recyclable waste It is recommended that the proposed waste is located near bin stores to reduce commuting the waste. 12.5 Residential Waste Collection, Storage and Separation 12.6 Each residential unit would be provided with three internal recycling bins for glass, paper, metals and plastics. Waste would be collected on specified days by cleaning staff or facilities management for collection and transportation of waste to the basement. In relation to the bulky storage there would be a room allocated within the basement. 12.7 Waste Disposal/ compactor location and collection 12.8 The general waste would consolidated into two portable compaction skips equipped with wheeled bin lifting equipment situated within the basement loading bay. This would allow the level of waste to be reduced. Three compactors would serve the entire development and would be accessible from both the north and south buildings. Two compactors would be reserved for the disposal of general waste and one compactor for the disposal of co-mingled recyclables. The proposed waste would be collected via Leake Street. 12.9 The above information and the submitted strategy for the development have been assessed by the Lambeth Streetcare. Officers have raised no objection to the proposed mechanism being proposed on the basis that appropriate conditions are imposed to control this. 12.10 In summary the proposed development would provide extensive measures which would be installed as part of the development to enable effective recycling and refuse collection facilities for both the commercial and residential uses. 13 S106, CIL, Impact Upon Local Infrastructure, and Benefits for the Wider Community 13.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 explicitly set out that planning permission should only be granted subject to completion of a planning obligation where the obligation meets all of the following tests. A planning obligation should be: (i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (ii) directly related to the development; and (iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 13.2 Policy S10 of the Core Strategy sets out the circumstances in which planning obligations will be expected from developers. In particular it sets out that planning obligations will be sought to mitigate the direct impact of development, secure its implementation, control phasing where necessary, and to secure and contribute to the delivery of infrastructure made necessary by the development subject to the particular circumstances of the development in question and the nature and extent of impact and needs created. 13.3 With specific regard to Waterloo, Policy PN1 of the Core Strategy sets out that the council will ensure that development is linked with the wider area and that it secures benefits for the wider community through contributions to necessary social and physical infrastructure needs arising from development in particular for public transport, education and other community facilities and securing employment and training opportunities to address issues of worklessness in the borough and the setting up of a local project bank in order to mitigate the impacts of development. 13.4 On 1st April 2012, the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into effect across London to secure funding for Crossrail. The application development would be subject to a CIL charge, based on £35 per sq m on all new net floorspace based on Gross Internal Area. This floorspace figure applies to the retail, B1 office, residential, basement, and plant areas. At the time of writing further information and clarification is awaited from Sainsbury’s on these floorspace figures. 13.5 Section 106 Heads of Terms Affordable Housing • The developer shall submit a planning application for the construction of 16 affordable rent units on 10 Leake Street, which to the best of its knowledge shall be valid at the point of receipt, no later than 3 months following the date of the Section 106 Agreement; • The developer shall secure the provision of 12 one-bed intermediate units on the application site with affordable service costs; • The developer shall secure the provision of 16 affordable rent units (two and three beds) on land at 10 Leake Street; • Not more than 50% of the open market housing units on the application site shall be occupied until the 16 affordable rent units on 10 Leake Street have been completed and the developer has entered into and exchanged an agreement for sale or an agreement for lease (with a leasehold interest of not less than 125 years) of the 16 affordable rent units on 10 Leake Street, with a registered provider of social housing, being one of the Council’s preferred partners; • Not more than 50% of the open market housing units on the application site shall be occupied until the 12 Intermediate on-site units have been completed and the developer has entered into and exchanged an agreement for sale or an agreement for lease (with a leasehold interest of not less than 125 years) of the 12 Intermediate units, with a registered provider of social housing, being one of the Council’s preferred partners; • A review of the Scheme GDV generated by the entire development at a point post implementation, should demolition or other commencement of works not commence within 20 months starting from the date of the permission, to provide a financial contribution of up to a cap of £5.2m, which has been calculated to be the financial sum that is equivalent to the additional affordable housing required to allow the 40% policy target, with 70:30 tenure split, to be achieved. Transport and Highways • Submission of full Travel Plan for the development as a whole together with a contribution of £1,000.00 • Highways and/or public realm improvements to York Road, Victory Arch Square, Cab Road and Mepham Street, estimated at £4,396,000.00. • Highways and/or public realm improvements on Leake Street, estimated at £610,000.00 • Public realm improvements to West Road, estimated at £940,000.00 • Payment by the landowner/developer of £150,000.00 towards the provision of trees on York Road and associated servicing works. • Payment by the landowner/developer of £100,000.00 towards works to Milk Passage • Payment to Network Rail for the provision of the following works: • Prior to the removal of the existing high-level pedestrian walkway, works shall be carried out to the Victory Arch entrance to alleviate pressure from additional passenger numbers. This work will include removal of the lift and stairs to the IMAX tunnel with decking over subject to agreement by IMAX and NR; • Removal of the pedestrian walkway and making good to the station following its removal; • The provision of a connection between Victory Arch Square level and the main station concourse. If an internal solution cannot be achieved the works are to be provided externally. The estimated cost of the works is between £3.6 - £5.2million. • The re-facing of the west façade of Victory Arch at an estimated cost of £580,000.00. • Developer/Landowner to pay to the Council all under spent Section 278 works against the minimum estimates shall be paid to the Council towards other works in the vicinity of the site. • No business or residential parking permits. • Car club membership for a period of 5 years and the provision of 2 spaces on-site in perpetuity. • Pedestrian management plan • Delivery and servicing management plan • WIT/Elizabeth House design and planning group • Waterloo Maintenance group Education and Community infrastructure Contribution • Payment by the landowner/developer of an education contribution of £459,423.00. • Payment by the landowner/developer of a community facilities contribution of £542,445.00 Architect, Open space, Public Art, Play space and Biodiversity • Retention of David Chipperfield Architects Ltd as architect to construction of North and South building or alternative architectural firm as to be advised in writing. • Retention of landscape Architects 8West or alternative landscape architectural firm as to be advised in writing • Payment by the landowner/developer of £32, 452.00 towards Children and young people play space • Payment by the landowner/developer of £264,680.00 towards Open Space • Best endeavours to be demonstrated towards achieving ‘Secure by Design’ certification. • Temporary interface with WIT open space strategy • Site hoarding strategy • Public art strategy for the site • Estate management plan to be submitted to contain details of: • 24/7 unrestricted public access through site, • cleaning and maintenance plan • security management plan Accessibility • All residential units to be built to Lifetime Home Standards • At least 10% of units provided shall be wheelchair accessible standard. Construction • Payment by the landowner/developer of a general employment training contribution of £600,000.00 • Onsite operatives to include 15% as local labour and 10% as apprentices during the course of construction and placed through liaison by a named individual from the developer with the Councils Learning, Schools and Enterprise Team. • Considerate Contractor Scheme – the applicant to carry out all works in keeping with the National Considerate Contractor Scheme • Community working group • Undertaking of an interference study in relation to TV and radio reception Energy and Sustainability • All residential units to achieve a minimum of Code for Sustainable Homes level 4. • Office development to achieve BREEAM Office Standards 2008 Excellent credit rating • At least 25% reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions through the use of renewable energy sources, decentralised energy and energy efficiency measures. A proportion of reduction in Carbon dioxide emissions through the use of on-site renewable energy sources. Other • Ground floor gallery/retail and public use strategy including details of public access throughout the day, being a minimum between 07:00 to 20:00 hours and involvement of local stakeholders as well as the identification of exhibitor selection. • Terrorism Protection Statement • Monitoring Cost • At least 10% of the residential units to be provided to wheelchair accessible standards 14 Conclusion 14.1 The proposed development would provide a significant uplift in employment floorspace which would create jobs and training apprenticeships during the construction phase of the development. The scheme would provide economic activity to local businesses after the construction and legacy phase of the development, creating further jobs in the Waterloo area. The development provides an element of housing which would add to the existing housing stock in the borough. Furthermore, this would bring an element of affordable units in the form of intermediate and affordable rented housing. The ground floor/ gallery space would bring activity and vibrancy along York Road creating a sense of place and regenerating the overall area further. 14.2 The proposed building would be monolithic with an architectural dominance along this section of York Road. In so doing, the development would open up this section of Waterloo in terms of connections to the Southbank and the wider areas. The scheme would improve permeability to the WIT station through the creation of the new central square. Regard has been given to the impact the development would have in terms of the conservation areas, listed buildings, Westminster World Heritage Site and the wider Waterloo area. On balance, it is considered that the development would impact to some degree on these areas of importance, however, this harm is outweighed by the public benefits the scheme would provide in terms of the public realm improvements in and around Waterloo Station, improvements to the Victory Arch façade and overall the development would make significant improvements to not only the Waterloo area as a whole but the wider London city. 14.3 The proposed scheme would facilitate a signigficant improvement to both accessibility and permeability to Waterloo Station and the South Bank. This would be achieved through extensive public realm works associated with the scheme and the works being delivered internally within the WIT station. This would provide a public benefit to not only Waterloo but the role of the London city as a whole. In this instance officers raise no objection to the transportation and accessibility mitigation measures being proposed as part of the redevelopment of Elizabeth House. 14.4 The proposed development would provide a range of renewable technologies which would be used within the development to reduce associated of carbon emissions as part of the scheme. In this instance the technologies proposed would exceed the both local and London Plan policies and as result the building would be acceptable in this respect. 14.5 The proposed development would provide extensive measures which would be installed as part of the development to enable effective recycling and refuse collection facilities for both the commercial and residential uses. 14.6 The proposed Section 106 Contributions would ensure benefits for the wider community to social and physical infrastructure needs arising from the development of Elizabeth House particular for public transport, education and other community facilities and securing employment and training opportunities to address issues of worklessness in the borough. 15 Recommendation 15.1 Grant conditional planning permission subject to a Section106 Agreement and Stage 2 Referral to the GLA 16 Summary of Reasons 16.1 In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant: 16.2 Core Strategy Policies S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10 and PN1; Saved UDP Policies 7, 9,14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47 and 50. 17 Recommended Conditions 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this decision notice, other than where those details are altered pursuant to the requirements of the conditions of this planning permission. Reason: Otherwise than as set out in the decision and conditions, it is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning 3.Prior to the commencement of works (with the exception of demolition) to submit for written approval by the local planning authority a construction sequencing plan for the two main buildings and the pavilion buildings” Reason: To ensure that the development sequencing and provision of detailed design information occurs in a satisfactory order. Environmental Mitigation 4. Before any demolition commences full details of the proposed demolition methodology, in the form of a Method of Demolition Statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Method of Demolition Statement shall include details regarding: consultation with neighbours regarding the timing and coordination of works; the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures; details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; details regarding dust mitigation; details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway; and other measures to mitigate the impact of demolition upon the amenity of the area and the function and safety of the highway network. Demolition shall not begin until provision has been made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site or otherwise during the demolition period in accordance with the approved details. The details of the approved Method of Demolition Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition process. Reason: Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users. (Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy) 5. Before any development commences (other than demolition) full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding: consultation with neighbours regarding the timing and coordination of works; the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures; details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; details regarding dust mitigation; details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway; and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction upon the amenity of the area and the function and safety of the highway network. The development shall not begin until provision has been made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site or otherwise during the construction period in accordance with the approved details. The details of the approved Method of Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the construction process. Reason: Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users. (Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy) 6. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced (other than demolition) until a detailed Design and Method Statement for all of the foundations, basement and ground floor structures, or for any other structures below ground level, including piling (temporary and permanent), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority with prior consultation with London Underground. a) provide details on all structures referred to above to be used in the construction of the development; b) demonstrate how the development works would accommodate the location of the existing London Underground structures and tunnels; c) demonstrate how the development works would accommodate ground movement arising from the construction thereof; and d) set out the proposed mitigation for the effects of noise and vibration arising from the adjoining operations within the structures and tunnels. Thereafter all structures and works shall be implemented in accordance with the Design and Method Statement hereby approved. set out in the approved Design and Method Statement shall be completed, in their entirety, as part of the relevant part of the development and before any part of the building hereby permitted is occupied. Reason: To ensure that the development does not impact on existing London Underground transport infrastructure, in accordance with London Plan policy 3C.4. Design 7. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, full particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to commencement of development (other than demolition) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved. a. Mock up panels of typical elevation bays; b. A sample board for all external materials; c. Façade design and detailing at 1:20 and 1:5 scale to include details of the precast concrete, reveal depth, glass, solar glare mitigation, mullion, transom and their supporting structure, opening windows (or equivalent), the integration of the façade cleaning rails and any external louvres, illustrating the different conditions over the building; d. Location and dimension details of all external pillars; e. Details of building soffits; f. Full ground and first floor detailed elevations of the buildings and retail pavilion including details of entrance doors, canopies, fire escapes and service doors; g. Details of basement ventilation strategy. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area along with setting of the adjoining conservation and listed buildings in accordance with policies 31, 33, 40, 45 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy S9 of the Core Strategy. 8. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, full particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to commencement of all works above ground unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved. a. Finishing details to all external pillars b. Details of louvers, PV panels, façade cleaning equipment, plant and machinery and other excrescences at roof level Reason: Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area along with setting of the adjoining conservation and listed buildings in accordance with policies 31, 33, 40, 45 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy S9 of the Core Strategy. 9. A detailed signage/advertisement strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of all works above ground. All signage/advertisement to be affixed to the building to be in accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area (Policies 33 and 37 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy). 10. Prior to the commencement of any relevant works, full details of a lighting strategy for any lighting to be affixed to the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved lighting shall be installed before the development is first occupied, or in accordance with an agreed implementation strategy, and retained thereafter for the duration of the development in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to detailed design, to security and community safety and to providing acceptable living environments for future residents of the development (Policy 7, 32 and 33 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policies S2, S9 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 11. No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of buildings. Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of design (Policy 33 Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 12. A landscaping scheme, including hard and soft landscaping, street furniture and lighting, illustrated on detailed drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, prior to completion to shell and core. Soft landscaping details to include the planting of trees and shrubs showing species, type of stock, numbers of trees and shrubs to be included and showing areas to be grass seeded or turfed, planter profiles; all hard landscaping including all ground surfaces, seating, lighting of all external public areas, refuse disposal points, designated smoking areas, secure and covered cycle stands, bus stands and other structures, railway/basement ventilation, vehicle crossovers/access points, any ramps or stairs plus wheel chair access together with finished ground levels and site wide topographical levels; all landscaping in accordance with the scheme, when approved, shall be carried out in accordance with a timescale to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a period of ten years, such maintenance to include the replacement of any plants/trees that die, or are severely damaged, seriously diseased, or removed, upkeep of ground surfaces and hard landscaping features as well as cleaning schedule to include removal of graffiti/chewing gum. Reason: To provide a high environmental standard in the interest of the site and wider area (Policies 31, 33, 39 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy). Residential Amenity 13. Prior to commencement of building works above ground, full details of sound insulation for the residential units which shall show how the building has been designed to meet the following standards, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: a) for living rooms, 35 dB(A) LAeq 16 hour between 0700 and 2300 hours; b) for bedrooms, 30 dB(A) LAeq 8 hour between 2300 and 0700 hours; and c) 45 dB(A) max for any individual noise event (measured with F time weighting) between 2300 and 0700 hrs The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers (Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 14. There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music used in connection with the commercial premises hereby approved which is audible above background noise levels when measured outside the nearest residential property. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 7 and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 15. Prior to commencement of all works above ground, a strategy for the location of building services shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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 7 and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 16. Prior to commencement of relevant works, full details of internal and external plant equipment and trunking, including building services plant, ventilation and filtration equipment and commercial kitchen exhaust ducting / ventilation to terminate at roof level, 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 manufacturers’ 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 7 and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 17. Noise from any mechanical equipment or building services plant shall not exceed the background noise level when measured outside the window of the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises, when measured as a L90 dB(A) 1 hour. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 7 and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core strategy). Public Safety 18. Prior to commencement of all works above ground, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: 1.) Secured by Design physical protection measures to be incorporated in both the commercial and residential units. 2.) The internal walls separating the commercial units incorporate a steel mesh layer to prevent easy access via the neighbouring property. 3.) External & Courtyard communal lighting be to BS 5489 4.) Full audio-visual access control measures are incorporated to all units. 5.) Monitored Alarm facilities should be provided to the commercial units. 6.) CCTV is recommended at the entrance and around the exterior of the site 7.) Plant rooms to be lockable with robust security rated doors 8.) Bin stores to be lockable 9.) Cycle stores to be lockable 10.) Security rated doors and windows for each unit 11.) Good lighting to achieve a minimum of 0.25 uniformity Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan). 19. Prior to use of the development commencing an Evacuation Plan for safe access from the basement levels of the development to an upper level and a detailed flood warning system is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be operated in accordance with the plan thereafter. Reason: To reduce the risk to people using the basement levels in case of flooding due to breach or overtopping of the Thames tidal flood defences (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). Highways, Access and Parking 20. A Delivery and Servicing Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to use of the development commencing. The Plan shall require that no deliveries for the B1 or A1-A5 uses hereby approved shall be taken to, or dispatched from, the site between the hours of 0700 and 1000 or 1600 and 1900 Mondays to Saturdays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures approved in the Plan shall be implemented prior to the relevant uses commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the relevant uses. Reason: To ensure that the delivery arrangements to the building as a whole are appropriate, to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements and to prevent deliveries during peak periods and in order to maintain the free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway. (Policies 9 and 33 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policies S2 and S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 21. Prior to commencement of development (other than demolition) full details outlining the scheme parking for the office and residential accommodation, garaging, manoeuvring, and the loading and unloading of vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose, or obstructed in any way. Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 22. No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until the provision for cycle parking shown on the application drawings has been implemented in full and the cycle parking shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated, as shown on drawing number P_11_02 Rev 00 (Proposed Basement -1). Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport. (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 23. No doors or gates shall be erected in a way that enables them to be opened over or across the adjoining footways, carriageways and rights of way. Reason: In the interests of public safety and to prevent obstruction of the public highway. (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). Water, Drainage and Waste 24. No development (other than demolition) shall commence on site until such time as impact studies pertaining to the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system, a suitable connection point and measures for overcoming impact on the water supply infrastructure. The development shall be implemented in accordance with details approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with additional demand generated by the development (Policies S2 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 25. Development shall not commence (other than demolition) until a drainage strategy, detailing any on and/ or off-site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 26. The development hereby permitted shall only be operated in accordance with a Waste Management Strategy to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the use of the development commencing. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site and in the interests of the amenities of the area. (Policies 9 and 33 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policies S8 and S9 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 27. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by Waterman Transport and Development Ltd (dated April 2012) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: • • Provision of on site surface water runoff attenuation of 495 cubic meters Finished floor levels are set no lower than 4.11m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reasons: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site; to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 28. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority: 1. A desktop study, site investigation scheme and intrusive investigation, based on the above report, to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. The desk study will identify all previous site uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The site investigation scheme will provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. The risk assessment will assess the degree and nature of any contamination on site and to assess the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment; 2. The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken; 3. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved and any required remediation works completed prior to the commencement of development (other than demolition). Reason: For the protection of Controlled Waters. The site is located over a Secondary Aquifer and it is understood that the site may be affected by historic contamination from past activities and current conditions. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community. To remove the risk of contaminated land in the interests of the safety of residents and visitors (Policy 7.13 of the London Plan and Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 29. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved and reported to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Given the history of the site, there is a potential for unexpected contamination to be identified during ground works, particularly during basement ground works. We should be consulted should any significant contamination be identified that could present an unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 30. Prior to occupation 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, if appropriate, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority. Any long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved. Reason: Should remediation be deemed necessary, the applicant should demonstrate that any remedial measures have been undertaken as agreed and the environmental risks have been satisfactorily managed so that the site is deemed suitable for use. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 31. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: The developer should be aware of the potential risks associated with the use of piling where contamination is an issue. Piling or other penetrative methods of foundation design on contaminated sites can potentially result in unacceptable risks to underlying groundwaters. We recommend that where soil contamination is present, a risk assessment is carried out in accordance with our guidance 'Piling into Contaminated Sites'. We will not permit piling activities on parts of a site where an unacceptable risk is posed to Controlled Waters. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 32. Whilst the principles and installation of sustainable drainage schemes are to be encouraged, no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details. Reason: Infiltrating water has the potential to cause remobilisation of contaminants present in shallow soil/made ground which could ultimately cause pollution of groundwater. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). Heritage 33. No development (other than demolition) shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the local planning authority. Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigation before any archaeological remains may (Policy 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy). Waterloo Station interface 34. Details of works required to alleviate pressure on the Victory Arch entrance to Waterloo Station as a result of the closure and removal of the pedestrian walkway are to be submitted to the Council for approval in consultation with Network Rail. This includes temporary works to the IMAX access lift and stairs required during construction. The works are then to be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the closure of the pedestrian walkway Reason: To mitigate the effects of the closure and removal of the pedestrian walkway on pedestrian flows in and around Waterloo Station (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy). 35. Details of the works required to the external elevation of Waterloo Station, resulting from the removal and demolition of the high-level pedestrian walkway, shall be submitted to the Council for their approval in consultation with Network Rail. The pedestrian walkway shall not be closed until the details have been approved. The works are then to be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area along with setting of the adjoining conservation and listed buildings in accordance with policies 31, 33, 40, 45 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy S9 of the Core Strategy. Conservation Area Conditions (Demolition) (12/01329/CON) 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. Following the demolition of the existing structures the resultant debris shall be removed from the site and the ground works and shall be made good to match the levels and surfacing of the existing surrounding surfaces and appearance of the existing boundary walls in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter be maintained until such time as building work commence in accordance with an approved planning permission. Reason: To protect the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area in accordance with Policy 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. 3. That part of the existing high-level footbridge over York Road within the South Bank Conservation Area shall not be demolished before a contract for the construction of the new buildings as approved by planning permission reference. 12/01327/FUL has been made. Reason: To ensure that premature demolition does not take place before development works start in order that the visual amenities of the area are safeguarded (Policy 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy). 18 Informatives 1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation, which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer. 3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division. 4. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Street Care team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities. 5. As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following - name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below. Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected] telephone: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9104 6. In response to achieving secure by design standards the applicant is advised to contact: Pc Ann Burroughs, Lambeth Partnership CPDA, London Borough of Lambeth, Community Safety Unit, 205 Stockwell Road, Brixton. SW9 9SL. Phone: 020 7926 2840 and email: [email protected] 7. You are advised that Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and flow rate of 9litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development 8. The applicant is advised to contact London Underground Infrastructure Protection in advance of preparation of final design and associated method statements, in particular with regard to: demolition; excavation; construction methods; security; boundary treatment; safety barriers; landscaping and lighting. __________________________
![Service Layer Design “Facade Vs. Command” CS 446/646 ECE452 [DATE]](http://cdn1.abcdocz.com/store/data/000089452_2-a274a5d9460512c167e0273f82978302-250x500.png)
© Copyright 2024