1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. national parks

For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this
item, please contact Corporate Affairs by emailing [email protected] or
telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website
www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy
Location
Public Car Park, Belvedere Road, London SE1 8XZ
Ward
Bishops
Proposal Application
Part demolition of pedestrian footbridge that passes over Belvedere
Road into the Shell Centre and associated site reconfiguration and
clearance to enable the development of a temporary visitors pavilion
(sui generis use) on Hungerford Car Park to provide flexible space for
sales, marketing, exhibitions, offices, events and associated activities
together with hard and soft landscaping works, parking and servicing
space, ancillary works and land reserved for recreation and event
space.
Applicant
Braeburn Estates Ltd Partnership
C/o Agent
Agent
Mr Matthew Sherwood
Quod Planning
Ingeni Building
17 Broadwick Street
London W1F 0AX
Date valid
13th January 2014
Case Officer
Gillian Nicks
Application Reference
Recommendation(s)
14/00302/FUL
Grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a
Section 106 Agreement
Constraints
Southbank Conservation Area
Central Activities Zone
Waterloo Opportunity Area
Metropolitan Open Land
Environment Agency Flood Zone
London Plan Thames Policy Area
Protected Vistas
Approved Plans
A-100, 102, 103; 200, to 205; 304; 310 to 313 and 102SM096001 and
96021.
Approved documents
Design and Access Statement, Heritage Statement, Installation and Deinstallation plan, Planning Statement, Transport statement, Tree Survey
Report, Archaeological Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment,
Sustainability Assessment, Wind Assessment (all dated January 2014).
Site Notice posted on
3rd February 2014
1
Summary of Main Issues
1.1
The main issues involved in this application are:
•
•
•
•
Whether the temporary proposed would be acceptable in land use terms,
with particular regard to the designation of the car park as Metropolitan Open
Land.
Whether the proposal would result in any harm to the character and
appearance of the surrounding conservation area or the setting of any
nearby listed buildings, the World Heritage Site and protected views.
Whether the proposal would result in significant harm to the residential
amenity of surrounding properties.
Whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of transport impacts.
2
Site Description
2.1
The application site covers an area on the south bank of the River Thames.
The site covers a part of the main Hungerford Car Park, part of the existing
service road into the coach park, and part of the pedestrian walkway over
Belvedere Road. The Hungerford Car Park is situated between Jubilee
Gardens and County Hall to the south, Belvedere Road to the east, Queens
Walk and the River Thames to the west and, Hungerford Bridge and Royal
Festival Hall to the north.
2.2
Jubilee Gardens is a large open area between County Hall and Hungerford
Bridge. It is a recently redeveloped area of soft and hard landscaping and allows
views to north, east and west. The low-lying Hungerford Coach/Car Park acts as
a buffer between the gardens and the Hungerford viaduct. The Queen’s Walk,
also known as the Riverside Walk, is the spine of the South Bank Conservation
Area and presents a very long linear pedestrian boulevard, which has dictated
the siting and form of most of the significant post-war buildings along the South
Bank of the River Thames.
2.3
The site is situated within the South Bank Conservation Area and the site lies
between two landmark listed buildings, the Royal Festival Hall (Grade I) and,
County Hall (Grade II*). Views are afforded from the site of the Houses of
Westminster (World Heritage Site) in the background to the London Eye. The
river embankment wall to the west of County Hall is also Grade II Listed. Part of
the Car Park and the adjacent Jubilee Gardens are designated as Metropolitan
Open Land.
3
Relevant Planning History
3.1
There are a suite of planning applications granting consent for temporary use of
various parts of the Car Park site. Some of these are as follows:
3.2
05/00691/FUL - Temporary use of Hungerford Coach Park and part of Queens
Walk as a beach and outdoor cinema, including cafe and bar, together with
associated entertainment facilities: beach volleyball, mobile BBQ'S, mobile
library, children's activities, water spray area, mobile masseuses, yoga &
community awareness campaigns. Also, the erection of 7 metre high temporary
cinema screen with associated 4 metre high 'raked' seating arc to form cinema
auditorium, 2 x single storey cinema box office structures, single storey café
building, 2 x single storey site cabins, and temporary WC structures. Installation
of decking across site. The period for implementation of the scheme lapsed on
7th July 2005 without the temporary use going ahead. Permission Granted 07.06.2005.
3.3
05/02266/FUL - An identical scheme to the aforementioned was granted
temporary planning permission by Members of the Planning Applications
Committee (PAC); however, this permission was never implemented.
Permission Granted - 10.11.2005
3.4
09/00767/FUL - Temporary installation (from 15th May 2009 - 27th July 2009) of
a theatre structure including an outdoor seating area, and the partial demolition
of the boundary wall between Hungerford coach park and Jubilee Gardens.
Permission Granted - 12.05.2009.
3.5
09/00766/ADV - Display of temporary signs including 1 x non-illuminated box
office sign, erection of an advertisement structure (theatre) incorporating 1 nonilluminated sign on the West and 1 externally illuminated sign on the South
elevations, 1 x externally illuminated entrance arch sign and 2 non-illuminated
concession stand signs. Consent Granted - 12.05.2009.
3.6
10/00495/FUL - Temporary installation (from 4th May 2010 - 26th July 2010) of
a theatre structure including an outdoor seating area and fencing in conjunction
with the 'Udderbelly' event being held at Hungerford Coach Park, part of
Queens Walk, part of Jubilee Gardens and part of the service road. Application
Approved – 28.04.2010.
3.7
10/00494/ADV - Temporary display of signage at Hungerford Coach Park and
part of Queens Walk from 4 May to 26 July 2010 in association with the
'Udderbelly' touring theatre structure, comprising: 2 Entrance Arch signs, 1
illuminated 'E4' sign on the west elevation and 1 illuminated 'E4 UDDERBELLY
AT SOUTHBANK CENTRE' sign on the south elevation of the Udderbelly
structure, 4 non-illuminated catering unit signs all located on Hungerford Coach
Park; and 1 non-illuminated box office sign, 1 non-illuminated Reception sign
and 2 non-illuminated signs, all located at the Queen's Walk entrance.
Application Approved - 13.04.2010.
3.8
11/00597/FUL - Temporary installation (from 11th April 2011 - 25th July 2011) of
a theatre structure including a box office, bar, catering units, outdoor seating,
fencing and other associated features in conjunction with the 'Udderbelly' event
being held at Hungerford Coach Park, part of Queens Walk, part of Jubilee
Gardens and part of the service road. Application Approved - 13.04.2011.
3.9
11/00598/ADV - Display of signage at Hungerford Coach Park and part of
Queens Walk from 11 April to 25 July 2011 in association with the 'Udderbelly'
touring theatre structure, comprising: 1 x illuminated E4 sign on the north
elevation of the ‘Udderbelly’ structure, 1 x illuminated E4 ‘Udderbelly’ at
Southbank Centre on the west elevation of the structure, 6 x non-illuminated
catering signs on Hungerford Coach Park, 1 x illuminated entrance arch sign, 1
non-illuminated box office sign, 1 x illuminated reception sign and 2 x illuminated
signs all located along Queens Walk. Application Permitted - 18.04.2011.
3.10
11/04332/FUL - Temporary installation (from 21st March 2012 to 7th October
2012) of art exhibits comprising sculptures, other settings for artist and
community events and related temporary structures, including 'pop up' cafes,
market stalls, bandstand and associated exhibits for the Festival for the World.
Including temporary display (from 21st March 2012 to 7th October) of signage
comprising graphic/artist, displays, way finding signs and light/film projections
for the festival of the world (Town Planning and Advertisement consent
applications). Application Permitted - 02.04.2012.
3.11
11/04333/ADV - Temporary installation (from 21st March 2012 to 7th October
2012) of displays, way finding signs and light/film projections signs for the
festival of the world. Application Permitted - 24.02.2012.
3.12
12/00162/FUL - Temporary installation (from 26th March 2012 - 7th October
2012) of two theatre structures including a box office, 2 bars, catering units,
outdoor seating, fencing and other associated features in conjunction with the
'Udderbelly' and 'London Wonderground' events being held at Hungerford
Coach Park, part of Queens Walk, part of Jubilee Gardens and part of the
service road. Application Permitted - 17.04.2012
3.13
12/00166/ADV - Display of signage for a temporary period (26th March 2012 7th October 2012) at Hungerford Coach Park, part of Queens Walk and part of
Jubilee Gardens in association with the 'Udderbelly' and 'Spiegeltent' touring
theatres comprising: 1 x illuminated E4 sign on the north elevation of the
‘Udderbelly’ structure, 1 x illuminated E4 ‘Udderbelly’ at Southbank Centre on
the west elevation of the structure, 6 x illuminated catering signs on Hungerford
Coach Park, 1 x illuminated entrance arch sign, 1 illuminated box office sign, 1 x
illuminated reception sign and 2 x illuminated signs located along Queens Walk.
Application Permitted - 28.03.2012
3.14
12/04478/ADV - Display of signage at Hungerford Coach Park and part of
Queens Walk from (1st April 2013 to 6th October 2013) in association with the
phased 'Udderbelly' and 'London Wonderground' touring theatres comprising: 1
x illuminated E4 sign on the north elevation of the Udderbelly structure, 1 x
illuminated E4 Udderbelly at Southbank Centre on the west elevation of the
Udderbelly structure, 6 x non-illuminated catering signs and 2 sideshow tent
signs on Hungerford Coach Park, 1 x illuminated entrance arch sign, 1 nonilluminated box office sign, 1 x non-illuminated reception sign and 2 x nonilluminated signs all located along Queens Walk. Application Permitted
3.15
12/04474/FUL – Temporary phased installation (from 1st April 2013 to 6th
October 2013) of two theatre structures including an aerial stage, 2 sideshow
tents, box office, reception booth, 3 bars, 3 catering units, toilets, storage,
outdoor seating, cycle parking, fencing and other associated features in
conjunction with the ‘Udderbelly’ and ‘London Wonderground’ events being held
at Hungerford Coach Park, part of Queens Walk and part of the service road
adjacent to Jubilee Gardens. Application Permitted
3.16
14/00432/FUL - Temporary phased installation (from 28th March to 5th October
2014) of the ‘Udderbelly’ touring theatre structure (seating no more than 410
visitors in total internally) and the Spiegeltent touring theatre structure (seating
no more than 606 visitors in total internally) and between 850 and 4,100 visitors
at any one time, 2 ‘sideshow’ tents, an Aerial stage, a box office, reception
booth, 3 bars, 3 catering units, toilets, storage, outdoor seating area, cycle
parking and fencing in conjunction with the ‘Udderbelly’ and ‘London
Wonderground’ events being held at the Hungerford coach/car park, part of
Queen’s Walk, part of the service road. Permission granted
3.17
In December 2012, an application for the neighbouring site to the subject site, 24 York Road, was submitted to the Planning Authority. The application was
given the following description going before the Planning Applications
Committee in May 2013 with a recommendation for approval:
Part demolition of Shell Centre comprising Hungerford, York and Chicheley
wings, upper level walkway, removal of raised podium deck, associated
structures and associated site clearance to enable a mixed use development of
8 buildings ranging from 5 to 37 storeys in height and 4 basement levels to
provide up to 218,147m2 of floorspace (GIA), comprising offices (B1),
residential (C3) (up to 877 units), retail (A1-A5), leisure (D2) and
community/leisure uses (D1/D2), parking and servicing space, hard and soft
landscaping together with the provision of a new public square, highway and
landscaping works to Belvedere Road, Chicheley Street and York Road,
modifications to York Road Underground station, 2 link bridges from new
buildings to the existing Shell Centre Tower, reconfiguration of York Road
footbridge if retained, creation of new vehicular access and other associated
works.
3.18
It had accompanying Conservation and Listed Building Consent Applications,
together with a second Full Planning Application for associated works. All four
applications were resolved for approval at the Planning Applications Committee.
All received the support of the Mayor of London.
3.19
In September 2014 the application was called-in for Public Inquiry by the
Secretary of State. A 3 week inquiry was held towards the end of 2014. The
Secretary of State sought further comments from all parties involved in the
inquiry following the issue of National Planning Policy Guidance in March 2014.
The final date for receipt and then subsequent responding comments on any
made was 22nd April 2014. A decision on the applications is expected, as so
advised in the Bespoke Timetable for the Public Inquiry, on or before the 5th
June 2014.
3.20
Those applications shall be hereon referred to as the ‘parent’ Shell
redevelopment site/scheme.
3.21
The subject application is sought in the event of Planning Permission being
granted on the parent, shell redevelopment site.
4
4.1
4.2
Proposal
Consent is sought for the temporary installation of a visitors pavilion to provide flexible
space for sales, marketing, exhibitions, offices, events and associated activities
together with hard and soft landscaping work, parking, servicing, ancillary works and
land reserved for recreation and event space.
The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing footbridge which runs from the
Shell Centre site down to the back edge of pavement with Hungerford Car Park. The
removal of the Footbridge would allow for the interface of the site with the pavement to
Belvedere Road to be reconfigured and achieve a new access into this part of
Hungerford Car Park. Due to the simplification of the Planning System in recent years,
those demolition works form part of the Planning Application and do not require their
own separate Conservation Area Consent where there may be an associated
permission that relates to such works.
4.3
The site would be accessible by foot off from Belvedere Road, with the site raised by a
meter to meet Belvedere’s pavement level. This would involve the removal of the
southern vehicular access way into the site. No vehicular access would be provided by
the proposals. The northern vehicular access to the site would not be affected.
4.4
A second pedestrian access would be provided, informally, from Jubilee Gardens,
across soft landscaping at Jubilee Gardens into the proposed site. This would be
between existing plant stations.
4.5
The proposal can be described in two parts: A. The pavilion and immediate landscape;
and B. The ‘recreation and Event Space.
A. The Pavilion and immediate landscape.
4.6
The pavilion would be a regular shaped, square, lightweight structure. It would rise to
four storeys, stepped in at ground and first floor level to provide a plinth. It is intended
that the top two floors would be clad in semi-reflective faceted facades, which would
appear to float above a recessed transparent glass base. Each façade would consists
of a number of flat sheets of low-iron semi-reflective glass to create an ethereal ‘skirt’
around the upper volume of the Pavilion. This would be completed by the use of a
semi-reflective material on the soffit of the second floor that would have a luminous
appearance, to clearly separate the base of the Pavilion from its floating top.
4.7
A diagrid structure fabricated in weathering steel, much like that used for the Angel of
the North and the Treetop Walkway at Kew Gardens, would fan out from ground floor to
support the edges of the top floor ‘floating’ floors. It would have a deep, reddish-brown
colour.
4.8
The same choice of material would be used for information boards that would be
interspersed within landscaping around the circumference of the building.
4.9
The proposed landscaping is designed by Townshend Architect; the Architects provided
the landscaping plans for the parent, Shell redevelopment scheme.
4.10 The landscaping intends to align up to the raised planters at Jubilee Gardens (JG), with
a mix of lawn and seasonal planting (in the same vein as that found at JG). The
landscaping would enclose the building through the provision of planting beds, semimature trees and seating, including the following elements:
-
A circular path around the base of the building
Grass mounding to allow for informal seating;
Areas of varied planting through the year; the planting beds would delineate the
boundary between road and public space
Seating areas at edge of beds
Semi-mature tress to act as a screen between this part of the site and that to the
west (and the Car Park beyond to the west and north);
Information boards describing the parent site
Surface materials akin to those found at JG
4.11 The planting would include evergreen, as well as blossoming trees and striking bark.
The pavilion itself would have a green sedum and grass roof.
4.12 A lighting strategy is integrated into the landscaping, with different parts individually lit.
Some trees will be up lit; benches will have integrated lighting as well as information
boards to reveal their content after dusk. Likewise, entrances would be lit. The south
west elevation of the pavilion, facing JG, would have a transparent (when unlit) LED
screen attached to it, which would allow for ‘temporary, curated space for public art’. It
would not allow for commercial advertising. The screen would be mounted via a steel
cable mesh that can be demounted (in sections) as necessary. All associated cabling
equipment can be housed within the building.
Building at night
Building with LED screen at night (indicative visual only)
4.12 The roofscape of the site, as well as being green, would incorporate som lighting too to
complement high level vistas of the site.
4.13 Different floors within the building would provide for different uses. The upper levels
would include the sales and marketing suites for the Shell redevelopment. Residential
apartment layouts would change dependent upon the phase of the development.
4.14 The ground floor of the development would provide exhibition space, open to members
of the public. The first floor would include meeting room space that would be used to
facilitate education groups. Accommodation for refuse would be provided within the
building.
B. Recreation and Event Space
4.15 This would include the provision of a five metre wide boardwalk, which would lead to a
ramp and stair to mediate level changes across the site, down to a hard landscaped
area.
4.16 This area would be formally demarcated but its eventual use determined subsequently
through the submission of a ‘meanwhile use strategy’ to provide detail as to its likely
events. Events would be expected to have a sport dominate theme, although also allow
on occasion complementary uses to the wider South Bank cultural quarter.
5
Consultations and Responses
5.1
Prior to the submission of the application, and in advance of the parent ‘Shell
redevelopment’ application having been called-in by the Secretary of State, the
applicant presented their proposals for the marketing suite to the authorities
‘Strategic Panel’. This is made up of senior officers of the Council, together with
members. The meeting was held on 6th August 2013. In summary, the
comments subsequently provided to the applicant by letter were as follows:
- It was acknowledged that the proposal would not stand in the way of
landscaping the car park, but be the first phase of the wider extension of Jubilee
Gardens
- The ground floor space should provide a cultural/artistic offer providing
information to the public of future developments occurring within this part of the
South Bank
- More information was required in respect of the ‘community function’ at first
floor level
- the size of the pavilion would need to be fully justified together with details of
the use of high quality materials
- details of the integrated signage strategy should be submitted as part of the
application
- Confirmation of public access would be required.
5.2
A total of 1486 neighbouring properties have been consulted including
addresses on Belvedere Road, York Road and Concert Hall Approach.
5.3
A total of four site notices were erected within the vicinity of the site on 3rd
February 2014 and 17th April 2014 respectively.
5.4
A press advertisement was published in the Lambeth Weekender on the 7th
February and the South Lambeth Press on 18th April 2014.
Internal consultation
5.5
Conservation and Design – No objection
5.6
Policy: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in
Lambeth is the London Plan (July 2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (January
2011) and the remaining saved, non-superseded policies in the Lambeth Unitary
Development Plan (UDP): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010. Material
considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (CLG March 2012).
The application site is located between Jubilee Gardens and Hungerford Viaduct in
an area known as Hungerford Car Park. This proposal is subject to planning
approval for the Shell site.
The proposal is for a part demolition of pedestrian footbridge that passes over
Belvedere Road into the Shell Centre and associated site reconfiguration and
clearance to enable the development of a temporary visitors pavilion (sui generis
use) on Hungerford Car Park to provide flexible space for sales, marketing,
exhibitions, offices, events and associated activists together with hard and soft
landscaping works, parking and service space, ancillary works and land reserved
for recreation and event space.
The site is located within the London Plan Central Activities Zone, London Plan
Waterloo Opportunity Area, London Plan Thames Policy Area, Metropolitan Open
Land and the Westminster Pier to St Pauls Cathedral Strategic Viewing Corridor. It
is in Flood Zone 3
Core Strategy Policy S3 – Economic Development supports leisure and cultural
activities and other tourist attractions in the Central Activities Zone. Policy PN1-
Waterloo also supports cultural and arts uses particularly in the South
Bank/Riverside area.
Core Strategy Policy PN1 also identifies Hungerford car park as an extension to
Jubilee Gardens in accordance with its Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)
designation, with a proportion given over to development for arts and culture uses
as shown on the LDF Proposals Map January 2011. The application is a departure
from the development plan; the site is outside the area designated for development
of arts and cultural uses and is within the MOL designation.
Core Strategy Policies S3 and PN1 are in conformity with London Plan policies on
the CAZ which also support and promote arts and cultural uses on the South Bank.
Core Strategy Policy S5 protects and maintains open space and refers to the
extension of Jubilee Gardens. The Core Strategy does not repeat policies in the
London Plan and as such does not refer to MOL in Policy S5 as it is adequately
covered by London Plan policy 3D.10 which advises that DPD policies should
include a presumption against inappropriate development of MOL and give the
same level of protection as the green belt. Essential facilities for appropriate uses
will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on the openness
of MOL.
The Waterloo Area Supplementary Planning Document sets out the priority for
Hungerford Car Park to be extended on to the part of the car park area to increase
green space provisions in the area. The applicant states that on project completion,
the Pavilion will be disassembled and moved to a new location. Beyond this the
applicant and the South Bank Centre have entered into an agreement to allow the
majority of the car park to be re-landscaped as an extension to Jubilee Garden’s
following South Bank Centres
In considering the appropriateness of the proposal, significant weight must also be
given to the proposal in consonance with the larger regeneration project for the
adjacent Shell site. This site will play an important role in the wider regeneration of
the Waterloo area, vastly improving and enhancing Waterloo as key part of Central
London and Lambeth and its economy.
In conclusion, although the application is a departure from the development plan, it
can be considered acceptable, provided it is only temporary and does not prevent
the longer term ambition of securing an extension to Jubilee Gardens as set out in
the adopted Core Strategy Jan 2011.
5.7
Transport and Highways – Included within the body of the report.
5.8
Climate Consulting – Comments have been provided with some queries put to
the applicant. These are provided within the body of the report. A response has
been given and is being considered by CC and shall be reported within the
addendum.
5.9
Secure by Design officer – This site is set within the Southbank which is a major
tourist attraction. It is close to The London Eye, major attractions at County Hall,
Jubilee Gardens and Queen's Walk. All of which have extremely high numbers
passing through, especially during the summer and weekends.
Very large numbers of people move through the space, many of whom are tourists
who are watching the sights rather than controlling their property. Opportunist
thieves then take property from them whilst distracted.
Other thefts are the predominant crime throughout the Southbank area particularly pick-pocketing, mobiles, lap tops, purses and other items of poorly
attended property. This area is an ongoing crime hotspot for these offences.
The area has a significant ‘street population’ and visitors to Waterloo and the South
Bank provided a source of people to beg from. The landscaping and design
process should mitigate rough sleeping, aggressive begging, groups gathering and
noise/nuisance.
There is significant night scene in this area, so there are people who move through
the area who are vulnerable through drink or drugs.
This is a 24 hour area - When the building is closed the public realm and garden
areas will still be accessible and vulnerable to all of the above - therefore the
landscaping, (including benches) lighting, and CCTV should all mitigate these
trends.
Design comments: The Pavilion will have 24 hour security which will be
coordinated with security at the Southbank Place construction site. Where possible
there will be dialog with other security personnel operating locally, including the
police and Jubilee Garden Trust. As a result, CCTV is not proposed.
It is important that the area under the diagrid structure and the entire garden is well
lit and observed throughout the day and the night.
The applicant is not proposing CCTV surveillance, however, would recommend
that this should be provided (day & night) around the building and in the garden
area.
Trees should not be allowed to obscure proposed security lighting / CCTV. This is
especially relevant during the growing period, which is the busiest time for tourists.
Advise that the lighting standard BS 5489; 2013 for external lighting should be
achieved throughout areas where the public have access.
The type of benches proposed should be designed to discourage rough sleeping
and reduce the likelihood of rough sleeping. The designs should also discourage /
resist damage from skateboarder’s graffiti.
The visual images show benches that may be vulnerable to the above and a
design solution may be necessary.
Recommendations: Should you decide to grant planning permission, recommend
conditions.
Regeneration – no representation received.
External consultation
5.10
Transport for London (TFL):
Access
Access to the pavilion will be on foot from Belvedere Road via a landscaped
pedestrian route. No vehicular access will be provided directly to the pavilion, and
the crossover at the southern access to the car park would be removed and
reinstated as footway.
Trip Generation, Highway and Public Transport Impact
TfL considers the trip generation methodology to be appropriate and is satisfied
that the low level of additional demand associated with the proposals can be
accommodated on the local public transport and strategic highway networks.
Car Parking
A Blue Badge parking space is proposed on Belvedere Road adjacent to the site.
The provision of the bay is welcomed in principal, subject to discussions on the
layout of the parking space and the proposed loading bay as detailed further
below.
The proposals would result in part of the Hungerford Car Park being removed, with
the remainder being reconfigured. The removal of parking spaces is welcomed by
TfL, as is the longer term Council aspiration to remove the car park in its entirety.
Cycle Parking
6 cycle parking spaces are proposed for staff and visitors. This provision is in line
with the standards set out in the London Plan and is welcomed by TfL.
Delivery and Servicing
A new loading bay is proposed on Belvedere Road to allow servicing of the site
and provide a drop off for visitors. The new bay would be located adjacent to the
existing bus stand, which in turn is adjacent to a coach parking bay. TfL is
concerned that a bus would not be able to access or egress the stand if vehicles
were parked in both the coach and loading bays, and the layout should therefore
be revised. Further discussions are required with the applicant and the Council to
agree a revised layout.
TfL welcomes the inclusion of a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) in the TS and
the measures proposed should be secured by condition.
Construction
TfL welcomes the proposals included in the TS to manage vehicular activity during
the construction and deconstruction phases of the scheme. Careful co-ordination
will be required with the main Shell Centre construction programme and proposed
highway works on Belvedere Road. The measures set out in the TS should be
secured by condition.
Travel Plan
TfL welcomes the inclusion of the Visitor Travel Management Plan in the TS and
the proposed measures should be secured by condition.
Community Infrastructure Levy
The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to
help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3 toward the
funding of Crossrail. The rate for Lambeth is £35 per square metre. Given that the
use is temporary, the Council should refer to paragraph 3.37 of the London Plan
Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2013) in determining whether a CIL
contribution is required in this case:
‘Where planning permission is granted for a limited period, the Mayor will and
boroughs should consider whether it is reasonable, having regard to the statutory
tests in regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations, to seek a contribution. It is likely that
of particular relevance in making this judgement will be:
•
The duration of the planning permission (where the period is two years or
more it is likely that a contribution should be sought)
•
The nature and extent of the impact the development will have on London’s
rail network, given the principles outlined.’
Summary
TfL considers the principles of the development to be acceptable, subject to further
discussions and agreement on the proposed layout of Belvedere Road and the
measures detailed above being secured by appropriate conditions.
5.11
English Heritage (EH) Comments received 7th March 2014: No objection to the proposed demolition of
the footbridge. Whilst some of the historic value as a remnant of the mid-20th
century planning of the South Bank area with pedestrians raised above vehicles on
elevated walkways, it now serves no purpose and is of little interest.
The proposed pavilion is of an interesting architectural design which potentially
enhance the character and appearance of the South Bank Conservation Area.
However, we are not comfortable with the concept of moving illuminated graphics
on the outside of the structure. We believe this could be damaging to the character
of the conservation area; the recently renovated Jubilee Gardens are a place of
quiet contrast in relation to the bustle of the nearby Queen’s Walk, and the
presence of the illuminated moving graphics will draw the eye away from the
various heritage assets seen in the same context as the building, such as the
Grade II* listed County Hall and the locally listed Shell Centre. Recommend the
moving illuminated graphics are removed.
Also query whether the pavilion will impact upon view of Parliament from Waterloo
Bridge. On passing Waterloo Bridge, a unique framed view of Big Ben/the
Elizabeth Tower is afforded to the viewer in the gap between the back of the RFH
and the White House Apartments. The ET stands centrally in the view encircled by
the skeletal frame of the London Eye. It is one of the most remarkable views of
Parliament, which is of course part of the Palaces of Westminster World Heritage
Site and a Grade I listed building. The proposed pavilion would sit beneath the
Elizabeth Tower in this view, and an accurate assessment. Illuminated moving
graphics would, also be entirely inappropriate in the context of this view.
Recommend seek further information from the applicant to allow the visual impact
of the proposed pavilion to be assessed in the context of views of WHS from
Waterloo Bridge. Welcome the opportunity to comment further.
Following receipt of further information further comments were received from
English Heritage, dated 4th April 2014, as follows:
Thank you for arranging the production of a wire line diagram. The requested
diagram demonstrates the potential impact of the proposed pavilion on views of the
Palace of Westminster from a point on Waterloo Bridge where it passes over
Belvedere Road.
This particular position affords an unusual view of the Palaces of Westminster. The
central element in the view is the Elizabeth Tower encircled by the skeletal frame
of the London Eye, with the gothic pinnacles of the Palace of Westminster visible to
the left of the Elizabeth Tower, and the upper elements of the Victoria Tower
projecting above the northwest corner of County Hall. The eye is drawn towards
the London Eye and Elizabeth Tower by the buildings flanking Belvedere Road in
the foreground; the Whitehouse Apartments to the left and the Grade 1 listed Royal
Festival Hall to the right. The proposed pavilion is a glazed box, raised above the
land on which it would stand by a two-storey structure containing stairs and a lift,
from which projecting structural members support the box above.
The height of the proposed pavilion means that it screens elements of the Palace
of Westminster from Waterloo Bridge. When adjacent to the Whitehouse
Apartments, the viewer would see the clock face of Big Ben above the pavilion but
the tower beneath would be screened. As the viewer moves across the bridge
towards Westminster, the Elizabeth Tower would become visible, but other than
the very top of the Victoria Tower other elements of the Palace of Westminster
would remain screened by the pavilion. In our view this would harm the setting of
its Grade 1 listed buildings, and the Outstanding Universal Value of the World
Heritage Site.
We also understand that the walls of the pavilion are to be illuminated with moving
images at night. This would give the pavilion a degree of visual prominence in the
context of this particular view during the hours of darkness, drawing the viewer’s
eye away from the Palace of Westminster and instead towards the pavilion. We
believe that this also causes harm to the historic environment; the view from
Waterloo Bridge at this point is particularly dramatic at night, when the Elizabeth
Tower is floodlit and framed by the subtle lighting of the London Eye.
This is perhaps not a key view of the Palaces of Westminster, but the serendipitous
juxtaposition of the old and new makes it is an attractive, and interesting, view
nonetheless. We also note the proposed pavilion is a temporary structure, and
therefore suggest that although the proposals cause harm to the historic
environment, that harm is less than substantial and as such should be treated
under the terms of NPPF paragraph 134; the harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal.
In our view, the public benefits offered by the proposal are limited. Although the
proposed pavilion will host a series of public events and performances, its primary
function is a venue from which to sell property within the proposed Shell Centre
development. That function could be achieved by a lower-scale structure which sits
beneath the parapet line of the Hungerford Railway Bridge in views from Waterloo
Bridge.
Recommendation
The proposed pavilion building is an interesting contemporary design, and were it
not for its impact on this particular view we would be unlikely to make comment.
However, as it causes harm to the significance of a highly graded heritage asset
through impact on its setting as detailed above, we object to the application.
View location:
Wire line shows building at foot of London Eye (to the left):
5.12
Greater London Authority – The Mayor considers that the application complies
with the London Plan, as follows:
5.13
The application has demonstrated that ‘very special circumstances’ exist for the
development on the basis of its temporary nature and the visual impact on the
*openness of the MOL will be limited.
5.14
TFL comments are provided above.
5.15
County Hall Residents Association - no representation received.
5.16
South Bank board – no representation received.
5.17
White house residents and owners association - This is MOL and it should
NOT be built on. This large, obtrusive building is intended to be on the site for as
long as five years. This is unacceptable to our members. It will alter the skyline,
and it is entirely unnecessary. It is simply intended to market an expensive
development, yet to receive planning permission, which will be sold to wealthy
foreigners. The pavilion will give a misleading impression to these future investors
who will be fooled into thinking that the apartments they buy off plan will have
views similar to those from this pavilion.
Planning permission must be refused for such an intrusive building on MOL.
5.18
City of Westminster – no comment on the basis that the pavilion is sought in
connection with the wider redevelopment scheme yet to be considered by the
Secretary of State.
5.19
South Bank Management Company Ltd– no representation received.
5.20
Waterloo Community Development Group – Object. Full comments shall be
reported within an addendum. In summary, key issues identified are as follows
•
•
•
•
The principle of land use vs MOL
Key elements of the design
Impact on heritage assets
Permanent v temporary
5.21
South Bank Employers Group– no representation received.
5.22
Friends of Hatfield Green – no representation received.
5.23
Friends of Jubilee Gardens – Object to the application. Proposal is a commercial
venture by a developer on MOL. Lambeth have acknowledged that HCP should be
an extension of Jubilee Gardens. The current Lambeth Plan states that HCP
should become an extension of Jubilee Gardens. A representative of Braeburn
Estates has said the idea of a building as a marketing suite here gives potential
buyers an idea of the views apartments will have overlooking Jubilee Gardens.
The Shell decision is yet to be reported. Therefore, the application is meaningless,
and must be seen as a stand alone, to build on Metropolitan Open Land. Braeburn
have claimed it is not possible to build the marketing suite on their building site for
some technical reason. If eight tower blocks, the highest of which is planned for 37
storeys, can be built on the site, then a mini marketing suite cannot present a
problem.
For over twenty years we have strived and eventually achieved building Jubilee
Gardens. Bishops Ward has very little open space left, and with the Mayor’s office
stating that we can expect up to 30 million visitors annually to the South Bank, it is
becoming critical that every inch of open space be protected from commercial
exploitation. JG is already crowded, with parents and minders having to queue to
put children on apparatus in the playground.
5.24
Friends of Lambeth High Street Rec – no representation received.
5.25
Friends of St John’s Courtyard- no representation received.
5.26
Waterloo Quarter BID – No representation received.
5.27
Environment Agency – no objection. Offer the following advice with respect to
flood risk and flood resistant and resilient measures:
Flood risk - We note that the site is located in Flood Zone 3 which is deemed to be
‘high risk’ and is within an area benefiting from the River Thames tidal flood
defences.
Flood resistant and resilient measures - Strongly recommend that the finished floor
levels for the proposed development are set at a minimum of 300mm above the 1
in 200 year breach flood level plus climate change or, if the former approach is
absolutely not possible, that the proposed development incorporates safe access
and egress and/or safe refuge for users.
Strongly recommend that flood resistant and resilient measures are incorporated in
to the design and construction of the proposed development, where practical
considerations allow, using the guidance contained within the document ‘Improving
the flood performance of new buildings: flood resilient construction’ which was
published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), as
also recommended within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by URS
Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd (dated January 2014) (Sections 8.4 and 11).
We advise that the operators of the proposed development register with our
Floodline Warnings Direct service, in order that they may prepare themselves and
any users in the case of a flood event, as also recommended within the submitted
FRA (Sections 8.2 and 11).
Recommend that a flood response plan (or flood warning and evacuation plan) is
produced and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, as also
recommended within the submitted FRA (Sections 8.2 and 11). Ultimately, the
Local Planning Authority’s Emergency Planning department should be satisfied
that safe access and egress is achievable and/or any emergency procedures are
appropriate and achievable.
5.28
Lambeth Residents Association - no representation received.
5.29
Association of Waterloo Group – no representation received.
Neighbour Consultation
The application has been accompanied by a Statement of community Involvement,
setting out details of the applicants ‘programme’ of community consultation.
No. of Letters
sent
1486
No. of Objections
No. in support
Comments
48
0
0
Objections:
Council’s Response:
Erection of commercial buildings on
Metropolitan Land cannot be allowed as this
land must be open for public use and must
not be used for a commercial undertaking
The site is currently operating as a Car
Park. It is recognised that two thirds of
the site, including that of the application
site, is designated as Metropolitan Open
Space. Nonetheless, the application is
for a temporary use and the interrelated
benefits
where
this
consent
is
implemented, need to be considered
against this. The latter is in reference to
the Shell redevelopment scheme. The
acceptability of the proposal is discussed
in detail below (see section 7 below). In
short, it is considered permissible in
meeting the intentions of London Plan
policy; an exception test provides for
‘very special’ circumstances to support
inappropriate development together with
the wider benefits of the application.
The application is contingent only on the
applicant achieving planning permission
for the neighbouring site; at the time of
writing this is outstanding. The intention
to landscape the car park as an
extension to Jubilee Garden is separate
to the parent, Shell redevelopment,
application. It too is contingent on the
applicant
achieving
consent
for
development. The arrangements are
separate to the planning application, and
the authority have no direct control over
its delivery. Should consent be secured
for the Shell site, it is intended (by
agreement between the applicant and
the South Bank Centre) that the car park
Part of the developers planning application
for the Shell site redevelopment included a
commitment of £2m to green this land for
public use.
Lambeth Council must
implement this immediately and not in five
years. The proposal would prevent the
(much needed) extension of Jubilee
Gardens across HCP.
be landscaped and handed over to the
Jubilee Gardens Trust towards 2018.
The application is for five years and would
result in an unacceptable loss of access to
Metropolitan land.
The developer has employed a high profile
architect to design this building. There is a
significant risk this temporary planning
application would allow the developer to
convert the building to a permanent
structure for onward sale.
The proposed six storeys is unacceptable.
It has commercial floor to ceiling heights
and therefore would not show off the
residential units in a realistic light.
The design and height of the building is
totally out of sympathy with the Royal
Festival Hall and other Southbank
Architecture. It will be nearly as high as the
RFH and appear overbearing and
dominating.
The application is only for a temporary
period, albeit up to five years. This
needs to be considered against its
current use as a car park, where access
is limited for such purpose; other than
when it is used for temporary events
during the summer by the South Bank
Centre.
The chosen design is intended to
illustrate the developer’s commitment to
delivering a high quality development at
the adjacent site. It would set down a
marker for future purchasers as to the
quality of development intended. The
building is intended, and designed with
that intent in mind, to market units. Any
subsequent desire by the applicant to
secure a long term use at the site would
require a new planning application and
would be required to be assessed
against the planning policies at such
subsequent time. The applicant has
confirmed that the building would be
reusable, but includes details of is
demounting and intention to take it off
site following expiry of any consent.
The building was originally presented in
late summer 2013 at six storeys.
Following officer and member comment
the proposal was reduced to four
storeys.
The floor space needs to be adaptable
to allow for suspended ceilings to amend
ceiling finishes for different prospective
units across the development.
The
development would be 19 metres tall.
The application site lies across a
protected vista, together with being
within a Conservation Area and in the
setting of and to statutory listed
buildings. The design approach to the
building is required to respond to this
townscape context. Hungerford Car Park
is set apart from the RFH by a service
road to the RFH as well as national
railway line going into Waterloo.
Secondly, a liner building at the South
Bank Centre complex, itself sitting above
the railway line, sits between the
application site and RFH. Whilst in
some views provided within the
application the scheme does appear to
rise above the RFH, these are peripheral
views and in cross section it is clearly
illustrated that it would sit below the liner
building (which in turn respects the
uniformity of the RFH). It would not
impact upon the enjoyment of the RFH
fully appreciated from either Belvedere
Road or its riverside aspect.
Indicative CGI visual of Proposal,
with the RFH to the left.
The proposal will be dominant and
overbearing upon views of the World
Heritage Site of the Houses of Parliament.
The building will result in a change of
skyline. It will mean the loss of world class
views currently enjoyed by residents of the
Borough and tourists walking west along
Belvedere Road.
South elevation, cross-section. Proposed
Building sits below both the liner and RFH.
The proposal is situated far to the west
of the ‘gap’ that is considered pertinent
in any consideration of the impact on the
WHS; English Heritage, despite their
objection, acknowledge that this is not a
key view. Furthermore, at four storeys it
is also low rise to not appear behind
Portcullis House from the WHS itself.
For the purposes of the planning
process, the application needs to be
considered in respect of its temporary
nature. The building would sit below the
protected vista line towards St Pauls.
Whilst it would affect currently clear
views from Waterloo Bridge and some
parts of Belvedere Road towards the
London Eye, this would not result in a
long term and irreversible impact by its
temporary nature. In the long term,
where the scheme is implemented and
therefore it follows so too the parent
application at the neighbouring site,
landscaping of the site would be
secured.
The application should not have been
submitted and a decision considered before
the Inspector’s decision on the above has
been made public.
There is space upon the Shell site itself to
provide a marketing suite. The Shell tower
is an ideal candidate. Building 7 could be
used, as it would have views of both the
London Eye and Jubilee Gardens.
The Authority are duty bound to consider
all applications submitted to it.
A
condition is proposed which would
attach implementation to the successful
grant of planning consent on the
associated parent application at the
adjacent Shell site.
Officers have discussed the provision of
the same form of development, or
similar, on the main Shell redevelopment
site. However, the main development is
a phased development, starting with the
demolition
of
the
wings
and
subsequently the ‘bath tub’, being the
entire basement floors of the site. This
limits the availability of providing a
marketing suite concurrent with the
development of the adjacent site.
The Shell Tower is a fully working office,
and is not in the control of the applicant;
it was set outside the site boundary for
the ‘Shell redevelopment’ application.
The landscaped areas around the legs of
the building would be private and fenced
benefiting only those intending to purchase
a unit within the new development.
Investment is needed immediately to green
the Car Park as an extensions of the highly
successful JG. This is urgently needed as
in the summer and weekends the whole
area is extremely crowded and desperately
needs extending.
By reason of being proposed as a
marketing suite, and the development
phasing of the site, the use of Building 7
would be too late in the process and be
ineffective consequently for the purpose
of marketing the parent site.
All landscaped parts of the site would be
publicly accessible, open and available
to use by all.
It has been a long standing objective of
both the Council, local residents and
groups that the car park be extended
into Jubilee Gardens. Jubilee Gardens
itself only reopened in 2012.
No
opportunity has arisen with the exception
of the associated parent application to
this application to secure such delivery
over HCP. An agreement between the
current landowner of the car park and
the applicant is discussed elsewhere.
But,
as
with
this
application,
implementation
and
delivery
is
contingent upon and only to occur in the
instance of Planning consent being
granted on the Shell site. The wider site
of the car park is already used for
The lighting strategy states that on one side
of the building an LED screen with lighting
on the roof to be constructed, no doubt for
further commercial, advertising, use by the
applicant.
Object to the removal of the pedestrian
bridge. This should be provided as public
right of way.
The South Bank Conservation Area in which
the site lies is acknowledged as a 'popular
leisure
and
culture
destination for
Londoners and tourists …theatre and film,
art galleries, food, performance art and
amusements …important route for joggers,
walkers, pedestrians … summer concerts,
book stall and occasional fair. (DAS 2.10).
There is no way that the proposed use of
the Pavilion - however temporary and five
years is a long time - is compatible with any
of the characteristic activities of the CA.
Hungerford Car Park has a secondary use
as a space for cultural events and activities,
such as the Udderbelly Festival and vintage
car boot fairs. These generate significant
income for local businesses, so by
alternative temporary events during the
summer period. This year’s proposals
received no objection from local groups
or residents. The application intends
that a portion of the wider site shall be
offered public access. This is compared
to the site otherwise being used as a car
park. In this way, it is considered that
the scheme will benefit the public in
allowing access of the site, maintaining
its openness as part of its MOL status, in
place of this car parking.
The lighting strategy is not intended to
be used for advertising; any advertising
intended by the applicant would require
separate advertisement consent.
The footbridge over Belvedere Road is
proposed to be demolished under the
Shell redevelopment.
This subject
application shall only be implemented
subject to the approval of the
aforementioned
parent
application.
Consequently, if approval is achieved,
the principal of the removal of the bridge
shall be secured too. The timing of
demolition between implementation of
the two schemes may be slightly
different. Consequently, it is included
within this application also in order to
have access and be able to fully
implement to completion the proposed
subject application.
The current use of the site is a Car Park.
By giving permission to the application
which will secure public access over
what would otherwise remain car
parking,
with
the
provision
of
landscaping for recreation, this is
considered an enhancement.
The
scheme does not intend to frustrate the
summer events on other parts of the Car
Park which provide for performance and
amusement. Similarly, the proposal will
offer the opportunity for sporting events,
exhibition space etc.
Notwithstanding their own separate
merits,
the
proposal
has
been
considered in line with this years
Udderbelly application.
It is not
envisaged that subsequent applications
developing the land, this opportunity and
amenity will be lost.
Whilst may present some benefits to
Lambeth and provide some revenue
towards the extension of Jubilee Gardens,
believe that the loss of MOL, desecration of
a Conservation Area and damage to local
amenity will not outweigh the cost.
for Udderbelly would consequently find
to be compromised by the subject
application. Likewise, it would not affect
the provision for vintage car boot fairs at
other times of the year either. The
application is associated with the Shell
redevelopment
scheme,
which
if
delivered
would
itself
generate
significant footfall and economic impetus
for local business.
The subject
application would only be implemented
where approval for the Shell scheme is
achieved.
The scheme should be considered in
light of being a temporary proposal, one
which is associated with the delivery of
long standing objectives for the
immediate area, including improvements
to the public realm, increase in jobs and
homes, and the extension of JG. In
particular, it is anticipated the latter
would not occur in the absence of the
shell scheme obtaining approval, similar
to the absence of any other alternative
proposal in the last decade or so.
A response has also been received from Whitehouse Apartments Freehold Ltd (WAFL)
on the following grounds:
1.
The proposal to build a structure on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is not valid
because
MOL is afforded the same protection in law as Metropolitan Green Belt and is
thus specifically protected as an area of landscape and/or for recreation.
2.
This proposal will curtail public access to the MOL area for at least 5 years, a
space enjoyed by residents and visitors.
3.
The developers already have a vast area on which to erect a marketing suite
without encroaching on MOL land. This latest application demonstrates the developer’s
complete disregard for the huge levels of anxiety that the Shell Centre development has
already generated. They are unconcerned that this latest application will further
antagonize the local residents by destroying views and causing loss of a much needed
public amenity.
4.
The proposed building will not only be on MOL but will also be immediately
adjacent a Grade 1 Listed Building (the Royal Festival Hall). The proposed design of the
temporary building is simply not in keeping with the Southbank’s existing architecture
and cultural status.
It would also bring about an unacceptable change to the local
skyline. The character of buildings in the immediate area and in particular the Riverside
is of low, wide buildings, many in Portland stone, cultural or arts uses and many are of a
considerable age or listed, the Royal Festival hall (Grade l) and, County Hall (Grade ll).
This will not in any way add to or complement the immediate area.
5.
We are not reassured of any safeguards being in place to ensure removal of the
supposedly temporary building at the end of its projected lifespan.
6
Planning Policy Considerations
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
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. It
was supplemented in March 2014 by the publication of National Planning Policy
Guidance to elaborate further on the framework.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Full weight
should be given to the NPPF as a material consideration in taking planning
decisions. 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 sets out 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.
6.2
The development plan in Lambeth is:
•
•
•
The London Plan (adopted July 2011);
Lambeth’s Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy (adopted
19 January 2011); and
The remaining saved policies in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan
(UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded
by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011.
The London Plan 2011
The London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous
versions which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008.
Revised Early Minor Alterations were published in November 2013. 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.
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,
The key policies of the London plan considered relevant in this case are:
•
Policy 1.1 – Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy 2.10 - Central Activities Zone – strategic priorities
Policy 2.11 – Central Activities Zone – Strategic functions
Policy 2.12 – Central Activities Zone – predominately local activities
Policy 2.13 – Opportunity areas and intensification areas
Policy 2.18 – Green infrastructure: the network of open and green spaces
Policy 3.1 – Ensuring equal life chances for all
Policy 4.6 – Support for and enhance of arts, culture, sport and
entertainment provision
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 7.10 – World Heritage Sites
Policy 7.11 – London View Management Framework
Policy 7.12 – Implementing the LVMF
Policy 7.17 – Metropolitan Open Land
Policy 7.18 – Protecting local open space and addressing local deficiency
Policy 8.2 – Planning Obligations
Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)
The key policies of the plan considered relevant in this case are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy S3:
Policy S4:
Policy S5:
Policy S7:
Policy S9:
Policy PN1:
Economic Development
Transport
Open Space
Sustainable Waste Management
Quality of the Built Environment
Waterloo
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 9:
Transport impact
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 39:
Streetscape, landscape and public realm design
Policy 45:
Listed buildings
Policy 47:
Conservation Areas
Policy 50:
Open Spaces and Sport Facilities
Other documents or guidance:
Waterloo Supplementary Planning Document, 2013
Waterloo Opportunity Area Planning Framework, 2007
Large Digital Screens in Public Spaces – Joint guidance from English Heritage
and CABE
London View Management Framework
7
Land Use
7.1
The application site is located within the London Plan designated ‘Central
Activities Zone’(CAZ), part of the Waterloo Opportunity Area(WOA) of the CAZ,
and forms part of an identified ‘mixed use with strong arts, cultural or
environment character’ area. It is currently operated as a car park, though has
had a number of temporary events operated across the wider HCP site in the
last four years. These have been promoted by the South Bank Centre and
related to the areas world class arts and culture status.
7.2
Policy 2.10 of the London Plan notes that in appropriate areas, development
capacity should be brought forward which serves to sustain and enhance the
CAZs varied strategic functions without compromising the attractions of
residential neighbourhoods. Furthermore, Boroughs should:
‘sustain and enhance the distinctive environment and heritage of the CAZ,
recognising both its strategic component such as the River Thames...[and]
World Heritage Sites, designated views and more local features including the
public realm and historic heritage, smaller open spaces and distinctive buildings,
through high quality design and urban management’.
7.3
Policy 2.11 goes further, anticipating development which will extend the offer
and enhance the environment along the South Bank. Albeit currently laid out as
a car park, two thirds of it is designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The
application falls within that part which is designated. The Waterloo Opportunity
Area Planning Framework (WOAPF) identifies the site as being within the
Riverside Character Area of the WOA. Specific matters within the WOAPF to
consider against any development coming forward on the site, include:
-
7.4
The objective to support the world class cultural quarter at the ‘Riverside’
and use it as a motor for regeneration;
Provide an extension to Jubilee Gardens on as much of the site as feasibly
possible; and
Improve pedestrian access from Hungerford Bridge to Belvedere
Road/Waterloo.
The aspiration to extend the neighbouring Jubilee Gardens across the site, is
synonymous with its MOL status. Policy 7.17 of the London Plan sets out the
Mayors support for extension to MOLs, and protection from development having
an adverse impact on the openness of MOL. In planning decisions, it is
anticipated that inappropriate development be refused, except in very special
circumstances.
7.5
For its part, the Waterloo SPD provides site specific guidance for the site, the
land use development principles of which are as follows:
-
Uses contributing to or otherwise supporting the South Bank’s world class
arts and cultural status
Extension of open spaces to create an enlarged, coherent public open
space
Active frontages on three sides (east, west and south) with facilities ancillary
to the primary arts and cultural use.
7.6
The proposal is intrinsically linked to the redevelopment of the Shell Centre to
the immediate east of the site, on the opposing side of Belvedere Road. It is a
temporary proposal. It would involve the erection of a temporary building, albeit
one with foundations and four-storeys high. The intended use of the building
involves commercial development being, principally, a marketing suite for the
neighbouring site. In addition, it would accommodate exhibition and office
space. The granting of consent would then only result in implementation and in
turn the principle of development is so linked to, the subsequent approval of the
Shell scheme.
7.7
At the time of writing the Secretary of State’s decision on the parent, Shell
redevelopment, application is outstanding. Should the parent application not
achieve planning approval, this proposal would not be implemented. It is
recognised that a number of residents in the area query why the Shell site is not
capable of hosting a marketing suite, and would therefore be more appropriate
than a MOL site. This is proposed by them on the basis that approval of the
scheme involves the erection of a series of buildings. Officers have discussed
the provision of the same form of development, or similar, on the main Shell
redevelopment site. However, the main development is a phased development,
starting with the demolition of the wings and subsequently the ‘bath tub’, being
the entire basement floors of the site. This limits the availability of providing a
marketing suite concurrent with the development of the adjacent site.
7.8
As set out above, the land use policy context for the site does not make
development on a part of the car park sacrosanct. Furthermore, the London
Plan does allow for exceptional circumstances of ‘inappropriate development’ on
MOL. The main objective for the site is that it be an extension of Jubilee
Gardens. In turn, enabling development that relates to this longstanding
objective but in all other respects would not present itself as a use that has ‘art’
or ‘cultural’ characteristics is consequently considered to meet the ‘very special
circumstance’’ scenario envisaged by the London Plan.
7.9
The Authority consider the Shell development would contribute and achieve
many of the objectives set out within the development plan, and certainly would
be a ‘motor’ for regeneration. The principle of the building component of the
proposal is therefore demonstrated to contribute towards the longstanding
objectives for the site, without which they may not come to fruition. No similar
catalyst has emerged for over a decade.
7.10
Separate to both the Shell application and the subject application, the applicant
has agreed terms with the landowner of the Car Park so that should they
achieve planning approval on the parent application, they would take it over.
This would involve first landscaping the site and then, it is intended, hand over
to the Jubilee Gardens Trust. The timeline for this is for such handover in 2018.
This would coincide with the temporary nature of the subject application. This
agreement is not however bound by planning consent. Yet, there is no reason
for the Authority to consider that where first comes consent for the parent
application, then the subject application, the landscaping of Hungerford Car
Park would not also be honoured.
7.11
In addition to the marketing of the Shell site, the proposed structure would
provide a host of out-reach and other related education activities to schools.
These would be particularly for those aged eleven to nineteen years. It is
recommended that full details are provided by way of a condition, including how
the applicant will advertise and attract interest from schools and other related
bodies. This would result in a further benefit of the development, and could
deliver a flagship for development and regeneration interest amongst future
generations.
7.12
Overall, whilst the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in land
use terms, the acceptability of the scheme cannot be separated from the urban
design implications. In particular the sites sensitive location, being within a
Conservation Area, in the setting of and to neighbouring listed buildings and the
World Heritage Site.
8
Heritage and Design
8.1
Policy S9 of the Core Strategy deals with the quality of the built environment by
safeguarding and promoting improvements to the borough’s heritage assets.
Saved Policies 45 and 47 of the UDP deal with conservation areas and listed
building respectively and state that the Council will require development
proposals to protect or enhance the character and appearance of the
conservation area and not have a detrimental impact on the setting of listed
buildings. London Plan policy 7.10 deals with the effect of development on
World Heritage sites.
8.2
The proposal involves the erection of a four storey structure as presented above
at section 4. It involves demolition of the footbridge which runs across
Belvedere Road, but as previously discussed, this is also associated with the
parent redevelopment scheme and were this application to proceed, it is done
so only in conjunction with approval of the aforementioned.
8.3
The scheme would deliver a temporary, and yet contemporary new standalone
piece of architecture to the South Bank Conservation Area. The CA has seen a
number of temporary structures over the last few years; this application
represents a high quality form of development that is equal in quality to a
permanent development. The applicant has appointed a well-recognised
architect, who has had prior experience of promoting development in the area.
Together with that experience, there is a very clear policy context as set out
above to guide development proposals. The Waterloo SPD provides ‘Urban
Layout’ and ‘Grain and Height’ development principles for the wider Hungerford
Car Park site. These are considered in turn, as follows:
Urban Layout:
8.4
-
Development at HCP will only be considered acceptable if it enabled the
extension of Jubilee Gardens;
As discussed elsewhere within the report, an agreement between the
applicant and the owner of HCP would allow for this extension contingent
upon the successful grant of planning permission to the Shell site. This
subject application would likewise only be implementable upon such
approval being achieved. Consequently, there is an association between
permitting temporary consent on the site and the long term objectives here.
It is noted within the applicants ‘Installation and De-installation Plan’ that in
reference to their agreement with the South Bank Centre to deliver an
extension of JG should such be delivered, then:
“the ground works and landscaping will remain and become incorporated
into the new scheme.”
It does also discuss returning it to car park where delivery of the extension is
not possible. Notwithstanding, neither proposition should fetter the
discretion of the Local Authority at a subsequent date. Landscaping of the
Car Park would require the detailed submission of a planning application
and consequently a condition is proposed that the site shall return to its
original state at the expiry of the consent. However, were the applicant or
other parties to bring forward a separate application in the meantime that
sought to include landscape works that are at that time ‘established’ within
the site and found to be acceptable in the context of an extension to JG,
then such an application would override the need to return the site to car
park.
8.5
-
At least 2/3 of the car park site would be required to be used as open space;
The application site only covers a portion of the car park, and itself is not
covered by less than two thirds open space.
8.6
-
Development should maintain the campus style building pattern on the
South Bank;
The South Bank is characterised by many singular, ‘stand alone’ quality
buildings, each a separate architectural piece. The proposal does not seek
to mimic the style of these buildings. However, it does intend to similarly,
albeit temporarily, be stand alone and of the highest architectural quality,
whilst respecting its sensitive urban context. This responds to NPPF
paragraph 60 which anticipates that great weight be given to outstanding or
innovative designs.
8.7
-
A direct pedestrian route from the Hungerford Bridge to the station via the
Shell Centre at Ground level should be provided;
This would be secured by the associated parent Shell redevelopment
scheme.
8.8
-
The protected view to St Paul’s Cathedral from Westminster Pier must be
maintained;
The proposed building within the site has been designed in mind of the
protected vista, and sits below both the liner and RFH and the does not
impinge upon it.
8.9
-
Building up to existing railway viaduct whilst providing sufficient servicing;
The site is set back from the viaduct, but is in any case only for a temporary
proposal. It would not affect the service road to the RFH that runs between
HCP and the viaduct.
8.10
-
Development around Jubilee Gardens should frame and enhance its setting
and relate to it in terms of access, frontages and public realm design.
The proposal incorporates landscaping that is complementary to that found
within JG. It respects the incidental meandering through JG, and does not
try to involve formal intrusions into the landscaped pathways within JG. The
frontage onto Belvedere Road shall be equally welcoming as that of JG, with
a widened access drawing the pedestrian into the site and to discover the
availability of recreation that it shall offer, in addition to the uses of the
building that would be provided.
Grain and Height
8.11
-
Development should minimise the footprint of the building above ground by
locating, where feasible and economic, as much of the proposals
underground as possible;
Given the proposal involves the erection of a temporary structure, it is
considered to be impractical and uneconomic to require subterranean
development. In any case, the building is of a moderate scale, at four
storeys. The floor area is rationalised to make the most economic use of
available space to best illustrate the layout of units within the parent
development.
8.12
-
Height restricted in central part of site by the need to retain linear view of St
Paul’s Cathedral from Westminster Pier
As discussed above, this view is not impinged by the proposal.
8.13
-
There is potential to rise to the height of the Royal Festival Hall to the west
of the view corridor facing onto Riverside Walk but views from the Festival
Hall to the London Eye and Houses of Parliament should be retained
The proposed building on the site would rise to nineteen metres, but as
illustrated previously within the report, it would sit below the roofline of the
RFH. Further, given both the position of and buildings in the intervening gap
between the site and RFH (in particular the liner building) the proposal would
not affect the view of either the London Eye or the Houses of Parliament
from the RFH.
8.14
-
New building should not adversely affect the character and setting of
adjacent Listed Buildings.
The SPD states further for sites within the Riverside character area that:
“to protect the setting of the WHS and the horizontal character of the South
Bank riverfront, new buildings in the County Hall/St Thomas Hospital area
should be of a contextual height. Views between the Houses of Parliament
and Lambeth Palace and the silhouette of County Hall need to be carefully
managed”.
Council policy 45 of the UDP expects development that would adversely
affect the setting of a listed building, or significant views of a listed building,
will be refused. The National Planning Policy framework reminds authorities
to take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the
significance of heritage assets and too the positive contribution new
development can make to an area.
The proposal does not seek to compete with adjacent listed buildings by its
height (low-rise of four storeys), position (set away from the River and
towards Belvedere Road) and detailed design (its contemporary form and
use of reflective panels will give it an ethereal appearance, one that
contribute to its subordinate manner). Consequently, the development
would result in no adverse impact upon either the character or the setting of
adjacent Listed Buildings (nor the Conservation Area).
World Heritage Site and response to English Heritage (EH)
8.15
English Heritage has objected to the scheme, as a consequence of it appearing
in an ‘incidental’ view towards the Houses of Parliament from Waterloo Bridge.
The applicant has provided the following response to EH’s comments:
“EH’s comments do not strike us as proportionate to the scale of effect this
temporary structure (the design of which they believe to be interesting) will have
on the limited views from this location (only identified as of interest in response
to this application), in an area where there are a large number of identified and
designated views of the Palace of Westminster (PoW) and the WHS (including
the LVMF views from further along Waterloo Bridge). The proposed temporary
pavilion will not obscure the view of the PoW or the London Eye.
This area that has been successively studied and assessed for views and to our
knowledge this view has not been previously identified or promoted as important
by EH. The important views of the PoW from Waterloo Bridge are those where it
is seen in conjunction with the River Thames (which it was built to address and
is the reason it is sited here). This is clearly illustrated in the LVMF view 15A.
Other views may be considered interesting by some but this does not afford
them special interest or mean that they contribute to the setting of the WHS or
the PoW.
Adopting a measured approach, a 4 storey temporary structure placed within a
foreground of 20th century (mostly post-war) development does not in our view
cause harm. The Southbank has a history as the location for innovative
temporary structures. We fail to see how a temporary structure of the scale
proposed, in an area characterised by 20th century buildings and designated as
a conservation area for this reason, can cause harm to this view.”
8.16
The above is considered a reasonable stance in mind of the temporary nature of
the scheme, notwithstanding the heritage context of the site that needs to be
regarded and that the view is, arguable, harmonious and of interest. The view
itself is also temporary, given that the London Eye itself is on a temporary
permission (albeit of a longer period than the subject application). There are
kinetic views towards the Palace of Westminster (PoW) between the
Whitehouse Apartments and Royal Festival Hall (RFH), for approximately 35
paces along this footway of Waterloo Bridge all of which comprise a foreground
that post-dates the PoW. The change to the view would be temporary and
limited. The position of the proposed building is set back from the viewing cone
towards St Pauls, linear view 8.A, also:
8.17
The NPPF states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial
harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, unless it can be
demonstrated the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that
outweigh the harm then it should be refused. However, the authority is not of
the view that there is substantial harm where by the temporary nature of the
proposal will result in no long term or irreversible detriment on the WHS. Whilst
special regard should be had to the significance of the Outstanding Universal
Value of the World Heritage site, the public benefits of the proposal, including
bringing part of the car park ( which is Metropolitan Open Land) into publicly
accessible landscape open space.
8.18
Furthermore, the view identified by English Heritage is not a strategic, identified
view of the London View Management Framework. Indeed, they note that it is
not a key view, and furthermore offers only a glimpse of the WHS. This
‘glimpse’ is maintained by the proposal; the Elizabeth Tower will still be visible
from the Waterloo Bridge in the gap between Whitehouse Apartments and the
RFH. Furthermore, for the temporary period that the Pavilion is in place it will
regenerate the Site and improve environmental quality. It will make currently
inaccessible parts of the MOL designated car park, public accessible. The open
visual aspect of JG from this viewing point will also be maintained.
The LED screen
8.19
English Heritage and CABE have produced guidance, ahead of the London
Olympics 2012 and mindful of the popularity of ‘big screens’ guidance on ‘Large
Digital Screens in Public Spaces. It acts as a guide to subsequent post-Olympic
development. However, the proposal is not intended as a permanent digital
screen that would transmit commercial visuals (it is not a conventional tv screen
for instance). It would offer the opportunity for cultural or artistic related display,
in keeping with the wider South Banks strong arts, culture and entertainment
character. It would not be used for advertisements, and if such a proposal was
subsequently sought it would require separate advertisement consent. The
lighting would be static only and would only be on at night time. Overall, this
part of the proposal would be acceptable in principle, with further details as to a
program of display.
Landscaping and the MOL
8.20
The proposal will provide formal landscaping on what is otherwise, and would
remain (for the short term at least) car parking. Given the sites Metropolitan
Open Land designation, this is considered to be a substantial benefit of the
scheme, that accords with the overarching policy context particular to the site. It
would bring about, albeit informally, an early extension to JG with both a visual
link and the opportunity to travel between the two.
8.21
The landscaping takes a cue from the surrounding context, particularly in regard
of Jubilee Gardens with the provision of ‘raised’ beds up and towards JG. Such
landscaping would provide an enhancement to the visual openness of the site,
notwithstanding the proposed building; the building would have an ethereal
appearance that would reflect its surroundings including JG gardens. Visual
openness is a key component to the Metropolitan Open Land designation.
8.22
In addition, the merits of the scheme with respect to opening up this portion of
Metropolitan Open Land for leisure use by visiting members of the public,
alongside the significant cultural offering, is considered to outweigh any harm.
London Plan policy 7.17 sets out criteria that are required of sites where MOL
status is to be established. Whilst the site is designated, those criteria offer a
benchmark to proposals on the site. One criterion is that the land may include
open air facilities, especially for leisure, creation, sport, the arts and cultural
activities. In this respect, that part of the site which is intended as ‘Recreation
and event space’ would include opportunities for all such activity and would
have a positive influence on sustaining both the openness of the MOL and the
public access of it.
Sustainability and renewable energy
8.23
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
8.24
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.
8.25
As a temporary building the requirements outlined in Part L of the building
regulations do not strictly apply. Given that the proposed development is to be
a modular construction with the intention of being re-constructed on other sites
in the future, the emissions associated with the buildings long term operation
become more important – these emissions are essentially “locked in” by the
design of the building.
Energy Efficiency
8.26
The sustainability statement confirms that the fabric u-values will be better than
those stipulated by the building regulations, which should be commended,
however the specific u-values (i.e. for floor, walls, roof, windows etc.) and details
of other energy efficiency measures have not been stated. These are to be
reported within the addendum.
Adaptability, Flexibility and Reuse
8.27
This feature of the proposal is strongly encouraged and from a sustainability
perspective should be commended.
Embodied Carbon & Materials
8.28
In the materials section of the report the applicant confirms that recycled
aggregates and cement replacements will be specified for the concrete
elements of the construction. This is strongly encouraged by CS policy S7, S8
and UDP 35. The applicant also states that it is likely that the concrete will be
reused for building or road base fill. A condition is recommended to secure this.
9
Amenity
9.1
Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan requires that development should
respect that people have the right for the quiet enjoyment of their homes. In
mixed use areas the scale, layout, hours of use intensity concentration and
location of non residential uses, will be controlled to protect residential amenity.
9.2
The proposed use of the building as a marketing suite is not anticipated to result
in any conflict with surrounding residential occupiers. It is envisaged that local
residential amenity would be safeguarded, if not enhanced in this respect. The
proposal will secure additional animation and thus improved passive
surveillance to this part of Belvedere Road. The proposal will not result in any
overshadowing, loss of daylight or sunlight, smells or fumes.
Noise
9.3
Whilst the meanwhile use strategy could result in increases in noise, from sport
activities or associated recreational enjoyment, it is not envisaged that these
would be above existing background levels to result in any detrimental impact
on adjacent residential properties. The proposal is therefore in compliance with
policy 7 of the UDP.
Lightspill
9.4
Given the intended location, on the south west façade of the building, the
proposed LED screen is not anticipated to result in any harm to neighbouring
residential occupiers. A full lighting strategy is requested by condition for further
details of the likely proposals for this part of the development.
Flood Risk
9.5
A flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application given that the
site is situated within a Flood Zone 3. However, the Thames Barrier and
associated flood walls ensure hat the risk is mitigated and there is only residual
flooding from the Thames where breaches in defences occur. The likelihood of
flood is anticipated to be very low; the Environment Agency have raised no
objection to the application.
Microclimate
9.6
A microclimate assessment has been carried out, and shows that the
development would not result in any undue harm to comfort levels for the
intended purpose of the ground conditions surrounding the site and its environ,
be it sitting or walking.
10
Traffic and Parking
10.1
Saved UDP Policy 9 advises that planning applications will be assessed for their
transport impact on highway safety, on the environment and road network and
on all transport modes including public transport. There should be adequate
access and servicing for development. Furthermore, Policy 31 requires that
layouts promote community safety by being designed to minimise traffic conflict
between vehicles and pedestrians and having efficient internal circulation as
well as integrating with the existing road network in a convenient manner
including for emergency service vehicles and where appropriate buses.
10.2
The proposed site has excellent public transport links and is in close proximity to
buses, rail and tube links. Given the location of the site and the quality of public
transport links serving the site it is considered that very few people will need to
arrive by car. Furthermore, the excellent transport links are considered to
ensure that the intensification of the site would not result in any transport
capacity issues.
Access
10.3
The plans submitted with the Transport Assessment, suggest that although the
southern access will close to accommodate the marketing suite, the main
central car park access will be retained. This is true, though it would be a
reduced width.
10.4
A temporary access is proposed adjacent to the existing car park access to
enable construction and delivery traffic to access the adjacent Udderbelly site as
part of another application ref 14/00432/FUL, but this is not mentioned in the
marketing suite TA. Confirmation is therefore required on this point, particularly
as it’s assumed that the remainder of the car park would still be available for
public car parking (when temporary uses such as Udderbelly are not on site).
Delivery & Servicing
10.5
A new on-street loading bay is proposed to accommodate deliveries associated
with the marketing suite. The bay is located on the site of the existing southern
access, but lies immediately adjacent to an existing bus stand. TfL raise no
objection to this proposal. Some six deliveries per week are expected. Given
the small number of deliveries required the need for this bay is questioned.
Furthermore, if it is proposed to retain an access point to the remainder of the
car park (see above), and an off-street servicing solution may be available,
albeit when the car park is otherwise not in use at other times of the year.
10.6
As part of another application ref 14/00432/FUL, Udderbelly proposed to use the
empty area behind the marketing suite as a turning area for construction and
delivery vehicles associated with the temporary event. This area was not within
the red line boundary for either application. The swept paths submitted with the
Udderbelly application demonstrated that only a portion of this area would be
required to turn vehicles and therefore the remainder of this area could be given
over to landscaping to create a larger area of public realm around the marketing
suite.
Car Parking
10.6
A new disabled parking bay is proposed outside the marketing suite, on an
existing section of footway. The need for this bay has been questioned, since
there are a number of disabled bays in the vicinity of the site in Belvedere Road,
and furthermore, if it is proposed to retain an access point to the remainder of
the car park (see above), it is not clear why disabled visitors cannot use the car
park. However, there may be some parts of the year where the car park is not
accessible. Consequently, it is recommended that this be dealt with by Section
106 obligation/278 works.
Cycle Parking
10.7
Six cycle parking spaces are shown outside the entrance to the marketing suite,
which are welcomed.
Transport for London
10.8
TfL have been consulted on the location of the proposed new loading bay, which
lies immediately adjacent to a bus stand, and raise no objection.
11
Crime Prevention
11.1
Saved UDP policy 32 states that development will not be permitted where
opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of
public disorder. The intensification of the property could contribute further to
passive surveillance of the surrounding area, and thereby aid security and
enhance community safety. Given the close proximity of the main development
site (shell) and the subject site, the use of CCTV here is not considered
necessary whereby onsite security will have a 24/7 presence. The provision of
lighting to mark entrances has been previously discussed. The landscaping is
in vogue with the larger JG site, and no anti-social behaviour is anticipated to
arise with the supervision of an on-site security presence. It will not be in the
developer’s interest to allow for any such behaviour to arise given the intended
use of the building and as such it is anticipated that the scheme will be carried
out so as to ensure minimal opportunity for crime can arise and thereby be in
accordance with policy.
12
Section 106 Obligations
12.1
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.
12.2
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.
12.3
The following obligations have been discussed with, and our sought by, Officers
in recommending approval of the application:
Payment by the developer of a revenue contribution of £50,000.00 towards
Jubilee Gardens
No Business permit for parking
Retention of Mark Barsfield Architects during construction
Monitoring Fee
Education project – including details how Schools and other education bodies
shall be able to book attendance at the site
The developer to make use of the South London Procurement Network in the
first instance
Details of the recycling of materials and re-use of the building prior to demolition
A ‘showpiece’ strategy in association with the parent application, including
details of the display of proposed design, public art and other related nonresidential details of the Shell development at the site.
14
Conclusion
14.1
The proposed theatres and associated activities represent an acceptable use of
this area of Metropolitan Open Land in this instance. The proposal will not have
a significant adverse affect on pedestrian flows along Queens Walk. This
section of Queens Walk is considered wide enough to cope with anticipated
pedestrian footfall. In this context the use of the site for a purpose such as that
proposed is considered acceptable.
14.2
The proposal is consistent with the Councils' policies for the area in relation to
arts, cultural and entertainment uses. The use is considered to be compatible
with other cultural uses in the vicinity.
14.3
The submitted supportive information adequately address the issues of visitor
management and other operational issues pertaining to the proposed use and
these shall be approved as part of this planning permission and will be
conditioned to ensure that the event operates in accordance with these
documents.
14.4
In terms of residential amenity, the submitted scheme is broadly similar to
previous events and is unlikely to result in any significant problems. The
proposed operating hours of the bar area were previously identified as concern
and as such a condition is attached limiting the sale of alcohol to times in
keeping with previous consents on this site and the wider South Bank area.
14.5
The temporary nature of the use is such that its impact will be limited and
therefore shall not prejudice long term objectives to see the extension of Jubilee
Gardens across the site. A condition will be attached to ensure that all structures
associated with the application will be removed and the site reinstated once the
use ceases.
15
Recommendation
15.1
Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a s106
agreement.
16
Conditions
1
The development hereby permitted may only be begun no earlier than the date
of a notice of approval from the Secretary of State for application reference(s)
12/04708/FUL.
Reason: In the absence of an associated application, the proposal would not
result in a ‘special circumstance’ as required by Policy 7.17 of the London Plan
and as such would otherwise result in refusal of planning consent.
2
All buildings and structures hereby permitted shall be removed by no later than
the date of 2nd January 2018 in accordance with the details set out within the
Installation and De-installation Plan date received 13.01.2014.
Reason: To ensure the delivery of Open Space in accordance with policy 50 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
3
All ground and landscaping hereby permitted shall be removed by no later than
the date of 1st December 2017 in accordance with the details set out within the
Installation and De-installation Plan date received 13.01.2014 unless the prior
approval of the authority in writing has been achieved.
Reason: To ensure the delivery of Open Space in accordance with policy 50 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
4
Prior to the use of the building hereby approved (safe in respect of Condition 1)
details of a ‘Meanwhile use Strategy’ shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Authority for the area labelled ‘Land reserved for recreation
and event space’ on plan no A-101. The strategy, as a minimum, shall include
the following details:
a. Phasing details of landscaping, set up and removal, including to assist
other temporary installations on the wider Car Park site;
b. A schedule of events, to be updated annually, including:
i.
No more than 10 days (whether consecutive or otherwise) for use as a
Market;
ii. Programme of sporting events, to be no shorter than 4 weeks
concurrently and no less than 12 weeks in all;
iii. Details shall include how the sporting calendar will be made available and
for use by Lambeth residents; and
iv. Pop-up ventures, such as outdoor cinema, theatre, retail outlets
(excluding market restrictions).
v. How annual events shall be reported, including prior consultation with
surrounding residents as agreed.
Reason: To safeguard the open aspect and public use of MOL.
5
The lighting hereby permitted shall not operate after the hours of 23:30 hrs
Monday to Sunday.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding
area. (Policy 7 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with policy 4A.20
of the London Plan.
6
The development hereby approved shall be managed strictly in accordance
with the visitor management plan, delivery and servicing plan (including the
construction and deconstruction phase) set out within the Transport Statement
(received 13th February 2014), safe for Condition 1 above.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding
area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with
policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.
7
There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audible from
outside the site at any time.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding
area. (Policies 7 and 29 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with
policy 4A.20 of the London Plan.
8
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
9
No pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the external faces of the
building, without prior written permission from the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: Such works may detract from the appearance of the building and be
detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to policies 7 and 33 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
10
Noise from any air conditioning units and any other plant, machinery, or
equipment should not exceed a level of 5dB(A) above the existing background
level (or 10dB(A) below if there is a particular tonal quality), when measured
according to British Standards BS4142-1997, at a point one metre external to
the nearest noise sensitive premises.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding
area in accordance with Policies 1, 7, and 54 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan (2007).
11
Except as otherwise required by condition of this consent, the landscaping
hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with approved drawing no.s
102SM-96001 and 96021 together with the landscape and public realm strategy
within the DAS (dated January 2014). Once installed, the landscaping shall be
maintained shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority for the lifetime of the development, 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).
12
Prior to the commencement of any relevant lighting 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 building is first occupied, or in
accordance with an agreed implementation strategy.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to detailed
design, to security and community safety (Policy 7, 32 and 33 of Lambeth’s
Unitary Development Plan and Policies S2, S9 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core
Strategy).
13
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the
provision to be made for cycle parking for the marketing suite staff and visiting
members of public shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the
approved details before the building hereby permitted is occupied and shall be
retained thereafter for the duration of this permission
Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote
sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with policies 9 and 14 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
Informatives
1
Counter Terrorism: The applicant be required to comply with CT measures
recommended by Counter Terrorist Security Advisor, Pam Bahia. This is to
ensure that CT measures are adequately complied with.
Contact details are Phone: 0207 161 3242
Mobile: 07769 887711: E-mail:
[email protected]
Secure by design: To comply with the relevant Design Principles & Physical
Protection Measures as defined in Secured by Design and for those measures
to be retained
2
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.
3
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.
4
You are advised to contact Council Officers within the Employment and Skills
Dept. with respect to any training opportunities for local young people and in
terms of any procurement opportunities. The Employment and Skills Dept. can be
contacted on 020 7926 3338 or [email protected]