1. home and garden

For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item,
please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or
telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website
www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy
Site address
The Livity School, Mandrell Road, London, SW2 5DW.
Ward
Brixton Hill
Proposal
Re-development of the site comprising the demolition of
existing buildings and the erection of 3 storey
development to provide 43 residential units.
Application type
Full Planning Application
Application ref(s)
12/03539/RG4
Validation date
16.10.2012
Case officer details
Name: Sarah Lowes
Tel: 020 7926 1248
Email: [email protected]
Applicant
Genesis Housing Association
Agent
Mr Ben Thomas c/o Savills
Considerations/constraints
None
Approved plans
1123(PL)001 Rev A, H2311-T, H2311-E (S1), H2311-E
(S2), 1123(PL)100 Rev K, 1123 (PL)101 Rev I, 1123
(PL)102 Rev I, 1123 (PL)103 Rev H, 1123 (PL) 201 Rev
F, 1123 (PL) 203 Rev F, 1123 (PL)202 Rev F, 1123 (PL)
204 Rev E, 1123 (PL)205 Rev B, 1123 (PL) 206 Rev B,
1123 (PL) 207 Rev A, 1123 (PL) 208
Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment (Sept
2012), Arboricultural Survey (May 2012), Statement of
Community Involvement (September 2012), Transport
Assessment (August 2012), Energy Strategy Report
(September 2012), Daylight/Sunlight Report (September
2012) Planning Statement (September 2012) and Design
and Access Statement (May 2013 Rev A).
Recommendation(s)
Grant conditional planning permission subject to the
completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item,
please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or
telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website
www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy
Report Review
Department(s) or Organisation(s)
Date
response
received
14/03/2013 and 18/03/2013
06/06/2013
and
14/06/2013
Comments
summarised
in para
N/A
Consulted?
(y/n)
Date
response
received
Comments
summarised
in
report?
(y/n)
Internal
Highways & Transport
Conservation & Urban Design
Tree Officer
Crime Prevention Design Advisor
Housing Officer
Planning Implementation (S106)
Sustainability
Education
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
29/10/2012
13/12/2012
04/02/2013
20/11/2012
26/11/2012
19/11/2012
22/01/2013
05/02/2013
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
External
TFL
Brixton Society
Brixton Business Forum
Blenheim Gardens TMO
Arlington Lodge Residents Ass
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
31/10/2012
N/A
N/A
23/11/2012
N/A
Y
Governance & Democracy (legal)
Date
consulted
Consultation
Department(s) or Organisation(s)
Y
Background Documents
Case File (this can be accessed via the Planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020
79261180)
For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item,
please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or
telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website
www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
1.1
This application was previously presented to Planning Applications Committee
(PAC) on 30th April 2013. At that meeting Members resolved to defer
determination in order to address a number of concerns.
1.2
A copy of the report previously presented to PAC (and updated with addendum
items) is appended below. The description of development and the approved
plans have been updated at the start of this report.
2.0
Reasons for Deferral
2.1
The committee minutes detail the reasons for deferral and are set out below:
1. Whilst the principle of residential development and overall design was
considered to be acceptable a redesign was needed to deal with a pinch point
on Strathleven Road and the sense of enclosure caused to 89/91 Lambert
Road.
2. There should be a reappraisal as to whether it was possible to increase the
amount of rented accommodation which fell short of 70%-30% i.e. 35%,
assuming that a grant was available.
3. There needed to be details of the refuse arrangements for the properties
fronting onto Prague Place.
4. An evaluation was required of whether a contribution could be made to the
maintenance of footpaths on the estate as a whole as this was the natural
route to the open space on Windmill Road and the retail area on Lyham
Road.
5. A need for the maximum number of mature trees to be retained.
6. A re-appraisal of the height of the development with the possibility of a further
setback.
3.0
Consultation
3.1
Following the receipt of additional information and a revised proposal, a 14 day
neighbour consultation has been carried out. The 248 neighbours as originally
consulted were notified of the additional and amended information along with the
15 original objectors to the proposal.
3.2
Following the consultation 16 objections have been received all objections are
from previous objectors. The objections raise a number of new issues that were
not raised originally and addressed within the original officer report. These are
detailed and responded to below. All previously raised objections have been
responded to and are detailed within paragraph 5.16 of the original officer report:
No. of
sent
263
Letters
No. of Objections
No. in support
Comments
16
0
0
Issue raised by Objector
• Loss of mature trees.
Officer response
The proposal would retain the existing mature tree on the
corner of Mandrell and Strathleven Roads (T16). T15
would be felled as part of the proposal however this would
be replaced with an appropriately aged tree. It was
incorrectly suggested at the previous committee meeting
that both of these trees would be felled as part of the
development.
T17 the sliver maple (fronting onto Mandrell Road) is
proposed to be felled along with 12 trees along Prague
Place, two trees which are outside the application
boundary T14 (adjacent to Ashby Mews) and T3 (adjacent
to Glanville Road) would be retained. The applicant has
recognised the impact of the loss of trees and within the
landscaping plan proposed to plan 19 new street trees to
the site frontage and 13 additional trees within the rear
gardens and around the communal amenity area.
Therefore whilst the proposal would result in a loss of
existing trees the proposed landscaping plan and planting
would compensate for this loss. This would be secured by
way of condition should planning permission be granted.
The existing trees within the site are not protected and
could be felled without any prior permission from the local
planning authority. Therefore whilst every effort is made
to retain the existing trees there is no statutory mechanism
to resist their loss.
•
Development does not The proposal would provide 51% affordable housing and
represent
an would comply with Policy S2 of the Core Strategy. In
appropriate
mix
of addition there is a mix of dwelling sizes across the
affordable housing provision:
affordable housing.
7 x 1 bed units
10x2 bed units
5 x 3 bed units
This would provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes and
is considered to be appropriate. The tenure mix of the
affordable housing would be 68% affordable rent and 32%
shared ownership which is in line with the Core Strategy
policy S2. The level, mix and tenure of the affordable
housing is considered to be appropriate and reflective of
the Local Development Plan Policies.
•
Loss of light to 89/91
Lambert Road and other
surrounding
and
neighbouring properties.
The revised scheme has reduced the overall height of the
building from 4 to 3 storeys (reduction in height from
12.6m to 9.8m). The officer report concluded that the
original proposal would not result in significant harm to
light levels within the residential property 89/91 Lambert
Road. This was supported by a BRE daylight/sunlight
assessment. Given the reduced height, Officers consider
that the revised proposal would have less of an impact
than the original scheme. This is full discussed in section
11 of the original officer report.
The application was defered on enclosure grounds to
89/91 Lambeth Road. Loss of light was not raised as an
issue.
•
Impact
on
infrastructure
•
How will anti social There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal would
behaviour be managed? result in any increase in anti social behaviour within the
local area. However a condition would be added to any
permission requiring the development to be built to secure
by design standards.
•
The proposed units are All of the units meet the Council’s Supplementary
Planning Document minimum standards and the London
small and cramped.
Housing Design Guide in terms of units sizes. 81% of the
units proposed within the development are considered to
be family sized (two bed or larger) and 39% of the units
are three and four bedroom units and houses. The
proposed dwellings would meet and exceed minimum
standards set by the Local Planning Authority and the
Greater London Authority and are considered to provide a
good level of accommodation for future occupiers.
•
Removal
of
the
boundary wall in Prague
Place and Glanville
Road will result in a loss
of defined areas of
management
responsibility.
local Financial contributions would be secured as detailed
within paragraphs 6.1 of this update. These contributions
are required to mitigate the direct impact of the proposal
on local infrastructure within the local area.
This relates to land ownership and falls outside the remit
of planning legislation. The removal of the boundary wall
would not require planning permission. This is not
considered to be a material planning consideration.
4.0
Response to Reasons for Deferral
4.1
In order to address the first and last points of the reasons for deferral the
applicant has removed the fourth storey across the whole of block B to the
eastern boundary. This would result in a reduction in height from 12.6m to 9.8m
which brings the height of block B in line with the maximum height of 89/91
Lambert Road. The third storey would be set back by 0.2m from the main two
storey frame of the building and would also include three 2.2m sets backs, each
of which would be 6.7m in length. The third storey would be constructed of lead
cladding as previously proposed and the two storeys below would be constructed
in orange brick. The siting of the building and the separation distances between
block B and properties on Strathleven and Lambert Roads would remain as
previously proposed.
4.2
With respect to the second reason for deferral, the removal of the complete fourth
storey has reduced the number of units from 51 to 43. This has also had an
impact on the amount of affordable housing which is now being proposed. 51%
of the development would be provided as affordable housing with 15 units as
affordable rent and 7 units as shared ownership. This equates to 68% of the
affordable units proposed as affordable rent and 32% as shared ownership. The
remaining units would be private sales. The following table shows a comparison
between the previous scheme reported to PAC on the 30th April 2013 and the
scheme currently before members:
Number of units
% of affordable House
Affordable Rent units
Shared Ownerships units
Private Sales units
4.3
Current Scheme being
presented to members
on 2nd July 2013
43
51%
15 (68%)
7 (32%)
21
The mix of units has also been altered following the amendments; the following
table compares the previous and current schemes:
Number of units
One bed units
Two bed units
Three bed units
Three bed houses
Four bed houses
4.4
Previous scheme
presented to PAC on
30th April 2013
51
76%
14 (36%)
25 (64%)
12
Previous scheme
presented to PAC on
30th April 2013
51
12 (23%)
21 (41%)
3 (5%)
4 (9%)
11 (22%)
Current Scheme being
presented to members
on 2nd July 2013
43
8 (19%)
18 (42%)
2 (5%)
4 (9%)
11 (25%)
Following on from the internal reconfiguration relating to the reduction in the
number of units the rear amenity spaces for block B have been amended which
in turn has resulted in changes to the communal amenity space. All of the ground
floor units would be provided with private rear amenity space, with five of the
seven ground floor units fronting onto Lambeth/Glanville Roads having at least
10m2 of private space. The total amount of communal amenity space provided
would be 380m2, given the large amount of private amenity space provided this
would meet the Council’s SPD requirements and provide sufficient communal
amenity space for the development.
4.5
The refuse arrangements for the properties fronting onto Prague Place have
been amended to address the third reason for deferral. All refuse and recycling
storage would be accessed from the rear gardens of these properties through the
central communal space, refuse and recycling would be moved by management
operatives on collection days. There would be no movement of refuse and
recycling along Prague Place. The waste management plan would be secured
way of condition. The Council’s Streetcare team have reviewed the proposed
waste management arrangements and considered them to be acceptable.
4.6
With regards reason for deferral 4 in regards to the management and impact on
the pavements on Prague Place the applicant has advised that ‘…as part of the
land deal, Genesis will be provided with a right of way to access the properties
on Prague Place. As such Genesis will ensure that the area is maintained. As
part of the development, part of the pavement on Prague Place will need to be
replaced and Genesis will undertake this work.’
5.0
Assessment of revised scheme
5.1
Committee members identified a pinch point where it was considered that the
development would unacceptably impact on the residential amenity of 89/91
Lambert Road and create an undue sense of enclosure. The proposal has been
amended through the reduction in height of block B (resulting in a reduced height
from 12.6 to 9.8m) along the 0.2m set back of the third storey with three further
2.2m set backs. Officers consider this would overcome concerns relating to the
sense of enclosure. Whilst the siting of the block B would remain its reduced
height of 9.8m along with the set backs at third floor level and the contrasting
materials are considered to reduce the actual and perceived bulk and mass of
the building. The height of the building would be similar to that of the two storey
terrace along Lambert Road and the three storey housing block on Glanville
Road. This in turn is considered to result in a building which would not appear
overbearing and would not create an undue sense of enclosure to residential
occupiers of 89/91 Lambert Road.
5.2
The change in the number of units has resulted in amendments to the mix of
dwelling which is considered to be acceptable and similar to that within the
previous scheme. The affordable housing provision has been reduced from 76%
within the previous scheme to 51% within the current proposal. Whilst this is
regrettable this would still provide a policy compliant scheme and would comply
with Saved Policy S2 of the Core Strategy. The tenure mix as proposed would be
68% affordable rent (15 units) and 32% shared ownership (7 units) and is
considered to be acceptable. The revised proposal would provide an appropriate
level/mix of affordable housing in line with Policy S2 of the Core Strategy.
5.3
Committee members asked for the maximum amount of mature trees to be
retained within the site. A number of objectors have raised this as well. Firstly
officers would point out that the previous scheme and current proposal seeks to
retain the one of the prominent mature trees (T16) on the corner of Lambert and
Strathleven Road. It was incorrectly suggested by objectors at the previous
committee meeting that all trees were proposed to be removed. T15 adjacent to
T16 is proposed to be removed however this will be replaced with an
appropriately aged tree. In order to address the loss of trees the applicant has
proposed that 32 new trees are planted within the application site, 19 along the
street frontage and 13 within the rear gardens and communal amenity spaces to
compensate for the loss of trees. This would be secured by way of condition and
is considered to be acceptable. It should also be noted that none of the trees are
protected and could be felled without any prior permission, within these
circumstance whilst it is regrettable that a number of mature trees would be
felled, through planning conditions replacement trees can be sought.
6.0
S106 Contributions
6.1
Given the change in the number of units and affordable housing provision, the
level of S106 contributions will be altered from that originally reported within the
officer report to PAC. The S106 contributions sought for the revised scheme will
as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Education - £137,537.20
Health - £30,581.00
Libraries - £6,416.75
Sport & Leisure - £23,937.74
Parks & Open Spaces - £64,370.00
A contribution towards local public realm improvements required for
improvements to the local pedestrian environment - £20,024.04
Travel Plan - £1000
A further contribution of 5% of the overall financial contribution should
be required to enable the Local Planning Authority to suitably meet the
costs of monitoring the planning contributions - £14,193.04
6.2
The above contributions come to a total of £ £298,053.77. (£6,931.48 per
individual dwelling).
6.3
It is considered that the above provisions, once secured under s.106 of the Act,
would appropriately mitigate against any potentially harmful impacts of the
development in accordance with saved Policies 9, 14, 16 and 50 of the UDP,
Policies S2 and S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), and with the Council’s
associated SPD on s106 obligations.
7.0
Conclusions
7.1
Following the revisions to the proposal officers considered that the amendment to
the scheme would address member concerns and would comply with all the
relevant local development plan policies.
7.2
Officers therefore recommend approval of the scheme in line with the
recommendation as detailed within section 15 of the original report along with the
S106 head of terms set out in 13.13 and the updated S106 contributions detailed
in paragraph 6.1 of this update to the report and the amendment to the following
condition:
Updated conditions
20.
No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Approved Plan 1123 (PL)
100 K Proposed Ground Floor Plan shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged
or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on
the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies 31,
33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th
August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Original Officers Report as Presented to Planning Applications Committee on the 30th
April 2013
1
Summary of Main Issues
1.1
The main issues involved in this application are: • The principle of the change of use;
• The acceptability of the land swap in securing replacement
education land within the borough;
• The role of the development in meeting housing needs in the
Borough;
• Whether the affordable housing tenure and dwelling mix is suitable
for the location;
• The acceptability of the standard of internal accommodation for
future occupiers;
• Whether the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping of the
development shown would relate satisfactorily to site, local context
and surrounding area;
• The acceptability of the tree felling necessary to facilitate the
development and other landscaping and tree implications;
• The sustainability of the development;
• The impact of the development upon the amenity of neighbouring
residential properties;
• The implications of the development on the function of the
surrounding road network, conditions of on-street parking, highway
safety and public transport capacity;
• The ecological implications of the development;
• Planning Obligations;
• Whether the development would include suitable measures to
minimise opportunities for crime.
2
Site Description
2.1
The application site is a school site (Use Class D1) currently hosting a
Special Educational Needs School called the Livity School. It should be
noted that the school will be relocating to a newly built facility on Adare
Walk in Streatham. The site consists of two attached single storey octagon
shaped buildings with a central courtyard. In addition there is a single
storey extension sited within the northwest corner of the application site.
The site area is 0.44 hectares. The site is located on a prominent corner
situated at the junction of Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road within the
Brixton Hill ward.
2.2
The site is located within a residential area. The site is bound to the north
by Mandrell Road, to the east by Strathleven, Lambert and Granville
Roads, to the south by Prague Place (a pedestrian accessway to Blenheim
Gardens) and to the west by Ashby Mews a converted Victorian School
building and new mews development. The buildings within the local area
are between 2-4 storeys in height with architectural styles from early
Victorian to post war development. In addition to some more recent
development to the west of the site.
2.3
The southern part of the site is 1.7m lower than the adjoining ground level
on Prague Place. This southern elevation presents a 1.5m brick wall with
1m high mesh fencing on top to the pedestrian walkway on Prague Place.
Fourteen trees are located along the southern boundary of the site, 3 large
mature trees are sited within the north eastern corner of the site and a
group of 4 trees are located on the pavement to the north of the application
site.
2.4
The main access to the site is from Mandrell Road for both pedestrians and
vehicles however there is a secondary vehicle access off at the junction
with Lambert Road. This is due to Strathleven Road been closed to
through traffic by bollards at the junction with Mandrell Road which only
allow cyclists to pass through.
2.5
To the east of the site is Brixton Hill and to the north of the site is Acre
Lane. To the south and west of the site is the Blenheim Gardens Estate
and further south is Windmill Gardens and Brixton Windmill.
2.6
The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 4 along Strathleven
and Lambert Road and PTAL of 2 from Mandrell Road and Prague Place.
Clapham Common, Clapham North and Brixton underground stations
within the local vicinity along with a large number of bus routes accessible
from Brixton Hill and Acre Lane.
2.7
The application site is not located within a Conservation Area and none of
the buildings in or adjoining the application site are listed.
3
Planning History
3.1
Planning Application (07/02425/RG3) for the ‘Partial demolition, rebuilding
and refurbishment of the school, involving the demolition of the existing
extension to the western side of the site, removal of a portakabin, internal
and external alterations and erection of a first floor extension with green
roof, incorporating solar panels to upgrade the school facilities and
increase the capacity from 69 pupils to 80 pupils, together with
reconfiguration of car parking to provide 15 car parking spaces, provision
of one visiting amenity drop off and 6 bus spaces, plus alterations to
boundary walls and fences and landscaping’ GRANTED on the 19th
October 2007.
3.2
Planning Application (09/01326/RG4) for the ‘Removal of existing
temporary classroom and the erection of a temporary single storey building
with covered walkway and the installation of three solar/weather covered
areas’ on the 17th July 2009 was REFUSED for the following reasons:
1
In the absence of necessary detail in terms of the overall height of the
proposed walkway it has not been fully demonstrated that this proposed
structure would be in accordance with policies 33 and 36 of the Unitary
Development Plan (2007).
2
In the absence of necessary detail in terms of the overall height of the
proposed canopies it has not been fully demonstrated that this proposed
structure would be in accordance with policies 33 and 36 of the Unitary
Development Plan (2007).
3.3
Planning Application (09/02417/RG4) for the ‘Replacement of existing
modular building with a new single storey ground floor modular building
and replacement of existing ramp with a new ramp to the side elevation for
a temporary period of 3 years, formation of a covered walkway between
the existing school and the new modular building and installation of 3
solar/weather covered areas’ on the 15th September 2009.
Adare Walk – Planning Permission for the replacement Livity School
3.4
Planning Permission (10/02642/RG3) for the Demolition of existing
buildings and redevelopment of site involving the erection of a part 2 part 3
storey building to provide a primary school (Use Class D1) the works
include the erection of a refuse and recycling store, cycle storage and
enclosures for a generator, substation and air handling unit; the provision
of solar panels at second floor level; provision of external play space with
the installation of a canopy to create a covered play area; 7 visitor car
parking spaces with separate bus, car/taxi and delivery drop off points and
associated landscaping and erection of boundary treatment.
The
development would also include the installation of a gate and works to the
footpath fronting Leigham Court Road and the realignment of footpath,
highway and boundary fencing at the junction of Adare Walk and Mountearl
Gardens was Approved on the 19th November 2010.
Land to the rear of 47-49 Acre Lane (Acre Lane Land Swap Site)
3.5
Planning Application (10/04260/FUL) was Refused on the 21.03.2011 for
the ‘Redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of existing
warehouse buildings and the erection of a 3 storey building to provide 21
self contained flats and a part 2 part 3 storey terrace to provide 7 houses
which would be accessed from Sudbourne Road, along with associated
landscaping, two disabled car parking spaces and cycle and refuse and
recycling storage’ for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would, by reasons of the height and
proximity of blocks A and B to adjoining residential boundaries, create
an unacceptable sense of enclosure and overbearing development to
the rear gardens and for the occupiers of neighbouring properties in
Sudbourne Road, in particular Nos. 55 and 57 and 63 and 65
Sudbourne. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies 31, 33
and 38 of Unitary Development Plan: policies as saved beyond the 5th
August 2010 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy.
2. The proposed development would, by reason of the balconies at first
and second floor level of Block A adjacent to the boundaries with
adjoining residential properties on Sudbourne Road, create elevated
viewing platforms which would result in undue overlooking to the rear
gardens and rear elevations of nos. 57, 59 and 61 Sudbourne Road to
the detriment of privacy levels. The proposal is therefore contrary to
saved policies 31, 33 and 38 of Unitary Development Plan: policies as
saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S2 of the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy.
3. The proposed access route, by virtue of its narrow width and dog leg
formation, presents an inappropriate and unsafe vehicular route.
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate
emergency access strategy is in place. As such, the proposal would be
contrary to saved Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: policies as
saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)
4. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation under s106 of the
Act, the application fails to provide the affordable housing proposed in
perpetuity; fails to include commitments to a car club membership and
contribution to a car club bay, a permit free scheme and fails to secure
financial contributions to mitigate its potential impacts would result in an
increase in demand on Council provided initiatives and services within
the location to their unacceptable detriment. In the circumstances the
development would be contrary to policies 9, 14, 16, 23, 31, and 50 of
the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan: Policies
as saved beyond the 5th August 2010, Policies S2, S4, S5 and S10 of
the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and
the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document on s106
obligations (2008)
3.6
The refused application was appealed (APP/N5660/A/11/2151244) on the
26.04.2011 the appeal was heard at an Informal Hearing on the
03.08.2011. The appeal was allowed subject to conditions.
4
Proposal
4.1
The application involves the redevelopment of the site comprising the
demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of part 3 part 4 storey
development to provide 51 residential units (15 houses and 36 flats).
4.2
The development would involve the erection of three blocks of residential
dwellings. A terrace of 11 three storey houses facing onto Mandrell Road
(Block A) all of which would be private market housing. A part three part
four storey building sited on the corner of Mandrell Road and Strathleven
Road which would provide 36 residential flats, 18 of which would be split
level (Block B) and a three storey terrace of 4 houses fronting onto and
accessed via Prague Place (Block C).
4.3
The development would result in 39 or 76.5% of the units being of an
affordable housing tenure, of these 39 units 64% would be shared
ownership and 36% would be affordable rent. 12 units would be private
market housing.
4.4
The development would provide ground floor private amenity spaces for all
the houses (15) and for all ground floor flats (10). All of the ground floor
units would be accessed directly from the street, communal entrances on
Strathleven and Mandrell Roads would provide access to the upper floor
units. In addition all of the upper floor flats would be provided with
balconies. Communal amenity space would be provided centrally within
the development with children’s play space, raised planters and miniature
allotments along with hard and soft landscaping and seating features. This
area would be accessed via an undercroft off Mandrell Road and would be
secured with steel railings and a pedestrian gate. Cycle parking in the form
of 14 Sheffield stands would be provided within this area.
4.5
No off street car parking is proposed within the development, it is proposed
that the 15 family sized houses on Mandrell Road and Prague Place would
benefit from resident parking permits however the remaining development
would be car free to be secured through a S106 planning obligation. All the
houses would be provided within individual cycle parking storage for
between 2 and 4 cycles and two communal cycle storages areas are
proposed for the flats. A total of 91 cycle parking spaces would be provided
within the development.
4.6
The development would result in the loss of 15 trees within the application
site, 14 trees along the southern boundary of the site and one within the
north eastern corner. The development proposes a full landscaping
scheme inclusive of planting of trees within and around the application site
to compensate for the loss of trees.
4.7
The development is proposed to be constructed mainly of orange bricks,
with lead cladding to the fourth floor of block B. In addition the rear
elevations of block A would be constructed in grey brick. The windows and
doors are proposed to be grey aluminium/timber framed windows and
doors.
Details of Land Swap Agreement
4.8
A land swap forms part of the submitted application, the application site is
current owned by the Local Education Authority. The proposal would see
the applicant swap a site they own ‘The land to the rear of 47-49 Acre
Lane’ (Acre Lane Land Swap Site) for the application site. This would allow
the Council to construction an extension to the Sudbourne Road Primary
School on the Acre Lane Swap Site which access directly onto Sudbourne
Road. This would be secured by way of a S106 legal agreement.
5
Consultations and Responses
5.1
Letters were sent to 249 neighbouring properties within the vicinity of the
site. The addresses are as follows:
All addresses including flats at: 1-4 Ashby Mews
All addresses including flats at: 1-12 and 154-169 Glanville Road
All addresses including flats at: 1-16 and 20-30 (evens) Mandrell Road
All addresses including flats at: 1-78 Prague Place
All addresses including flats at: 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 106, 108, 109, 110,
111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129 and 131
Strathleven Road
All addresses including flats at: 54, 56, 56, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73,
75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87 and 89 Lambert Road
All addresses including flats at: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30
and 32 Mauleverer Road
All addresses including flats at: 63, 89 and 91 Lyham Road
5.2
A site notice was erected and a press advert was published in the Lambeth
Weekender on 22nd October 2012.
Internal consultation
5.3
Conservation and Urban Design – No objections to the proposed
development subject to conditions relating to the detail of the development.
5.4
Transport and Highways – No objections to the proposal subject to S106
obligations and compliance with conditions.
5.5
Crime Prevention Officer – No objections to the development subject to
conditions
5.6
Trees – No objections subject to tree protection and replacement
conditions
5.7
Housing – comments received in support of the application with regards to
the affordable house provision, tenure and mix.
5.8
Parks and Open – No objections to the proposal.
5.9
Environment Health (Noise and Pollution) – No objections to the
proposed development.
5.10
Planning Implementation – Comments received in regards to required
planning obligations
5.11
Streetcare - No comments received.
5.12
Education – Responded in support of the land swap and the provision of
an extension to Sudbourne Primary School on the Acre Lane Site.
5.13
Planning Policy – No comments received on the application
External consultation
5.14
The Brixton Society, Brixton Business Forum, Arlington Lodge Residents
Association and Blenheim Gardens Tenant Management Organisation
have been consulted on the application. The Blenheim Gardens TMO has
objected to the proposal.
5.15
Transport for London has been consulted and raised no objections to the
proposal.
5.16
14 objection letters from neighbours have been received. A petition with
179 signatures was submitted to the Council in response to the proposed
land swap agreement, a copy of this was submitted to the Local Planning
Authority with the objection to the proposal from the Livity Action Group.
The details of the objections are outlined below:
No. of
sent
249
Letters
No. of Objections
No. in support
Comments
16
0
0
Issue raised by Objector
Officer response
• Impact on parking within • The parking survey submitted with the application
surrounding streets
indicates that local parking stresses are calculated to
be approximately 58%.
•
•
The proposal does not include any off street car
parking and there would be a parking permit cap on
the one and two bedroom units. The Council’s
Transport Planner has reviewed the submission and
considers that the proposal would not unduly impact on
the local area in regards to parking stresses. The
additional cars which may generated by the larger 3
and 4 bedroom dwellings could be accommodated on
street and would not result in parking stresses above
the 90% threshold. In addition all eligible residents
would benefit from two years of car club membership
and two car club bays are sited on Mandrell Road.
These measures are considered appropriate mitigation
to ensure that the proposal would not unduly harm the
local highway network or unacceptably increase
parking stress within the local area.
Noise and disturbance •
from the construction of
the development
Construction of the development should not cause
undue harm through noise and disturbance. In order
therefore to ensure minimum disturbance or nuisance
to local residents it is recommended that a condition of
this consent be the submission of a Construction
Management Plan. The Plan would include details
regarding the hours of construction; parking, deliveries
and storage (including details of the routing if delivery
vehicles to and from the site and the accommodation
of all site operatives’, visitors’ and construction
vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within
the site during the construction period); dust mitigation
measures and; measures to prevent the deposit of
mud and debris on the public highway.
•
The proposal would •
result in a loss of light
and privacy to Ashby
Mews to the southwest
corner of the site.
With regards to the impact on daylight/sunlight a BRE
compliant daylight/sunlight study has been submitted
with the application and officer consider that the
proposal would not cause significant harm to light
levels to warrant a reason for refusal.
This is
discussed in further detail in section 11 of this report.
•
There are no windows proposed in the side elevation
of block C which would overlook Ashby Mews and all
of the windows within the front elevation would serve
non habitable rooms. Officer considered there would
not be any significant harm to the privacy levels of
occupiers. This is discussed in detail in section 11 of
this report.
•
Lack of recreational •
space
within
the
development and the
surrounding area.
Communal amenity space around the application
development is proposed and the amenity space
provision would comply with the Council’s Guidance. In
addition the applicant would be required to provide a
planning obligation of £75,925.20 towards parks and
open space which would enhance the environment and
open spaces within the local area.
•
The density of the •
development is out of
keeping with the local
area
The development would comply with the London Plan
standards in regards to housing density. The
development would provide 419hr/hectare and
114units/hectare in the urban area with a good to poor
PTAL rating. The urban design of the development is
considered to be appropriate and proposal would not
result in significant harm to residential amenity to
warrant a reason for refusal. The development is
considered to appropriately respond to the urban
context of the application site.
•
The proposal would •
have impact on property
values
This is not a material planning consideration
•
Prague
Place
will •
become
more
dangerous as it would
be enclosed and dark.
The introduction of additional dwellings along Prague
Place would provide more active and passive
surveillance for this pedestrian access way along with
additional light spillage. This is considered to be a
positive contribution to the local area and is considered
to enhance community safety. The route would be
more actively used by the occupiers of the proposed
dwellings increasing the footfall. Whilst the pathway
maybe more enclosed its use would be increased and
additional light from the proposed dwellings along with
active surveillance is considered to positively
contribute to the public realm and enhance community
safety. A condition would secure details of external
lighting within the development should planning
permission be granted.
•
•
•
Loss
of
shared •
community
facilities
provide by the school
like the swimming pool.
The existing school on the application site is to be
relocated to a new purpose built facility on Adare Walk
in Streatham. The relocation of the Livity School pre
dates any proposal for the development of the
application site. Within the existing School there is a
small swimming pool. This was used once a week for a
baby group, the Council’s Education department has
indicated that this use has ceased and that the pool
was never available for general hire. The new Livity
school would provide a replacement swimming pool for
use by the school.
•
Given the limited community use of the swimming pool
it is considered that there would not be a significant
loss of community facilities.
Loss of education use •
on the site.
Firstly it should be noted that the Livity School will
relocate to the new purpose built facility on Adare Walk
in Streatham which would allow an increase in pupil
numbers from 69 to 80.
•
In addition this application involves a land swap
(between the Council’s Education Department and the
Applicant) which would result in the Council swapping
the application site for a replacement site (the Acre
Lane Swap Site) which could only be used for
educational purposes. This would be secured by way
of planning obligation and is required to make this
application policy compliant in land use terms. The
application site 0.44 ha and the Acre Lane Land Swap
Site is 0.38 ha. So whilst there would be some overall
loss of education land, it is considered that the
provision of land within 200m of the existing
Sudbourne Road Primary School to facilitate its
enlargement and provision of additional educational
facilities, on balance would outweigh this overall
reduction in site area.
The proposal would •
result in a loss of trees
The proposal would result in a loss of a number of
mature trees specifically along the southern boundary
of the application site. Whilst any loss of trees is
regrettable the proposal would include an extensive
landscaping scheme which would be secured by way
of condition. The condition would also ensure that
replacement trees are proposed as part of the wider
landscaping of the development.
•
The proposed design, •
scale and height of the
development and use of
materials is out of
keeping
with
the
surrounding area
The proposed development is considered to reflect the
surrounding pattern of development. The Council’s
Urban Design Officer has reviewed the submission and
raises no objections.
The use of materials is
considered to reflect the character and appearance of
the local area. This is discussed in detail within
section 9 of this report.
•
There
would
be •
overlooking from the
proposed balconies to
the detriment of the
privacy of neighbouring
and
surrounding
residential properties.
Balconies are proposed within Block B which fronts
onto Mandrell, Strathleven, Lambert and Glanville
Roads. Block B would be sited between 15-17m from
properties on Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road.
Balconies would be inset with 1.1m high privacy
screens at first and second floor levels. The number,
insert nature of the balconies and the distance is
considered to be sufficient in order to limit any potential
impact from overlooking to properties on Mandrell and
Strathleven Roads.
•
In regards to 89-91 Lambert Road the proposed
development would be sited 12.5m from the side
elevation of this property, only two windows within the
elevation of the rear return are habitable. The
balconies would be inset and a 1.1m high screen
would be provided. Whilst this does represent an ideal
relationship it is considered that the proposal would not
result in significant harm to warrant a reason for
refusal. There is a similar relationship to the rear of the
site within the Blenheim Garden Estate; 161-162
Glanville Road has rear balconies within 10m of the
rear boundary of the 89-91 Lambert Road.
The proposal would •
result in undue noise
and disturbance within
the local area harmful to
the living conditions of
existing local residents.
The proposed development is for the change of use of
the application site from an education use to residential
to provide 51 dwellings. The surrounding area is
residential and the proposal would result in a
conforming use. The provision of additional residential
units within this location would not result in undue
harm to the residential amenity through noise and
disturbance of existing occupiers.
•
6
Planning Policy Considerations
6.1
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in
Lambeth is the London Plan (July 2011), the Lambeth Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (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)’.
6.2
Other material considerations include national, regional and local planning
policy documents and guidance.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
6.3
Central Government guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), which was published on the 27th March 2012. This
replaced all Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance
Notes (PPGs) that preceded it and, sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
6.4
The NPPF 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 must now be taken into account in the preparation of local
and neighbourhood plans and, is a material consideration in planning
decisions.
6.5
It should be noted that the NPPF requires local planning authorities to apply
the presumption in favour of sustainable development when assessing and
determining development proposals. The following sections are of specific
relevance to this application:
Chapter 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
Chapter 7 – Requiring good design
Chapter 8 – Promoting healthy communities
The London Plan 2011
6.6
The London Plan was adopted in July 2011. The London Plan is the Mayor’s
development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning
guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London
region.
6.7
The key policies of the plan considered relevant in this case are:
Policy 3.3
Policy 3.4
Policy 3.5
Policy 3.6
facilities
Policy 3.8
Policy 3.9
Policy 3.10
Policy 3.11
Policy 3.13
Policy 3.16
Policy 3.18
Policy 5.2
Increasing Housing Supply
Optimising Housing Potential
Quality and Design of Housing Developments
Children and young people’s play and informal recreation
Housing choice
Mixed and balanced communities
Definition of affordable housing
Affordable housing targets
Affordable housing thresholds
Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure
Education Facilities
Minimising carbon dioxide emissions
Policy 5.3
Policy 5.7
Policy 5.21
Policy 6.3
Policy 6.9
Policy 6.13
Policy 7.1
Policy 7.2
Policy 7.3
Policy 7.4
Policy 7.5
Policy 7.6
Policy 7.15
Policy 7.21
Policy 8.2
Policy 8.3
Sustainable Design and Construction
Renewable energy
Contaminated land
Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity
Cycling
Parking
Building London’s Neighbourhood and Communities
An Inclusive Environment
Designing out Crime
Local Character
Public realm
Architecture
Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes
Trees and woodlands
Planning obligations
Community infrastructure levy
Local Planning Policies
6.8
Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5th
August 2010
Policy 9
Policy 14
Policy 16
Policy 26
Policy 31
Policy 32
Policy 33
Policy 35
Policy 38
Policy 39
6.9
Transport impact
Parking and Traffic Restraint
Affordable Housing
Community Facilities
Streets, Character and Layout
Community Safety/Designing out Crime
Building Scale and Design
Sustainable Design and Construction
Design in Existing Residential / Mixed Use Areas
Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design
Local Development Framework: Core Strategy January 2011
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives
Policy S2 – Housing
Policy S4 – Transport
Policy S5 – Open Space
Policy S7 –Sustainable Design and Construction
Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management
Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment
Policy S10 – Planning Obligations
Supplementary Planning Guidance
6.10
The Council has adopted the following Supplementary Planning Documents,
which are considered to be of relevance to this application:
•
•
SPD: Safer Built Environments
SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction
•
SPD: S106 Planning Obligations
6.11
The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements:
Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006).
7
Land Use
7.1
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that ‘Housing
applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour
of sustainable development.’
7.2
London Plan Policy 3.18 sets out that development proposals which enhance
education and skills provision will be supported and those which address the
current projected shortage of primary schools places will be particularly
encouraged.
7.3
Policy 26 of the UDP seeks to protect community facilities (which include
education facilities) and states that the loss of community facilities within the
D1 use class will be resisted unless:
(i) A facility of equivalent functionality is replaced locally, or adequate
planning obligations are secured to mitigate against its loss. This would
require securing or improving facilities of equivalent functionality in the area
and ensuring their long-term viability; and
(ii) Both the site and any buildings are unsuitable and/or unviable for
redevelopment for community uses for which there is a local shortage or
deficiency.
Principle of the change of use from Education (Use Class D1) to Residential
(Use Class C3)
7.4
The proposal seeks permission for the change of use of the application site
from education use to residential. National, Regional and Local planning policy
seek to enhance existing education provision. Saved Policy 26 of the UDP
seeks to protect community facilities within the D1 use class and any loss is
resisted unless is meets the exceptions. The application site is currently a
school within the D1 use class. Part (i) of the policy sets out that a facility of
equivalent functionality should be replaced locally, the Livity School who
currently occupy the site are moving (within this school year) to a newly
constructed school on Adare Walk in Streatham, which would allow an
increase in pupil numbers from 69 to 80. In addition to this a land swap which
would be secured by a Section 106 agreement would provide the Local
Education Department with land to facilitate additional educational facilities.
7.5
A land swap agreement between the Council’s Education Department and the
applicant (Genesis Housing Association) forms part of this application. The
application site which is currently in the ownership of the Council is proposed
to be ‘swapped’ for a site Land to the rear of 47-49 Acre Lane (Acre Lane
Swap Site) (currently owned by Genesis). The Acre Lane Swap Site has
access onto and is in close proximity to Sudbourne Road and Sudbourne
Primary School. The application site (currently occupied by the Livity School
(who will move within the current school year to a newly constructed school in
Streatham)) was earmarked as a site for an extension to the Sudbourne Road
Primary School.
7.6
Sudbourne Road Primary School is 700m from the application site. The Acre
Land Swap Site is approximately 200m from Sudbourne Primary school and
has been considered by the Council’s Education Department as a more
appropriate location for an extension to the School. The land swap agreement
would allow the extension of Sudbourne Road Primary School on the Acre
Lane Swap Site which is sited within 200m of the existing school site. An
outline application is current running concurrently with this application for a
school extension to Sudbourne Primary allowing the school to move from 1.5
forms of entry to 3 forms. The Council’s Education Department has
progressed the Sudbourne Road School extension at the Acre Lane site
through Cabinet and has applied to the Secretary of State for permission to go
ahead with the Land Swap (no response has been received to date). The
draft local plan identifies the Acre Lane site as a site for the extension of
Sudbourne Road Primary School.
7.7
The existing Livity School is a Special Educational Needs (SEN) school and
the school building would not be suitable for reuse for as part of the
Sudbourne Road Primary School given the nature of the existing SEN schools
use. The site would need to be completely redeveloped to be used for non
SEN pupils. The land swap agreement would allow a new education provision
to be provided on the Acre Lane Swap Site which has direct access onto
Sudbourne Road and is within 200m of the existing School. In this regard it is
considered that the proposal would comply with the spirit of Saved policy 26 of
the UDP.
7.8
The application site is 0.44 hectares and Acre Lane Swap Site is 0.38
hectares. The replacement land proposed for educational purpose is smaller
than the existing site however given the proximity to the existing school (500m
closer than the Livity School site) it is considered that this benefit outweighs
the small overall loss in land. In addition given the industrial nature of the area
surrounding the Acre Lane site there are less constraints with regards to the
potential impacts on residential amenity than the Livity School site.
7.9
On balance the principle of the change of use of the application site from an
education use to residential is considered to be acceptable given that a
replacement provision of land would be given to the Council’s Education
department for educational purposes through the land swap agreement and
would be secured by a section 106 legal agreement. The proposal would
allow an existing school within the borough to expand and enhance its facilities
within 200m of the existing school site. This is considered to be in the spirit of
national, regional and local planning policies and would enhance the provision
of primary school places within the borough and in addition provide fifty one
residential units of which 76% would be affordable.
Suitability of the site to accommodate an additional housing
7.10
The NPPF promotes the effective use of land by re-using land that has been
previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high
environmental value. The application site is considered to be previously
developed land and not of high environmental value.
7.11
London Plan Policy 3.3 set out borough housing targets, and in line with this
the Council’s LDF Core Strategy Policy S2 states ‘ The Council will meet the
borough’s housing needs to 2025 by the provision of at least 7,700 net
additional dwelling across the borough between 2010/2011 and 2016/2017 in
line with London Plan targets’.
7.12
The proposal would provide 51 residential units within an existing residential
area. The surrounding area is made up of a number of different housing styles
and tenures and the provision of 51 additional units (76% affordable Housing
Units) is considered to be appropriate for the application site. The site has a
PTAL of 4 indicating a good level of public transport accessibility.
7.13
The site is previously developed land and is located within an established
residential area it is considered the site is suitable for the provision of
residential dwellings subject to compliance with other land use policies as
discussed above.
Density of development
7.14
Policy 3.4 of the London Plan states that development should optimise
housing output taking into account local context and character, the design
principles in Chapter 7 of the London Plan and public transport capacity.
Reference is also made to indicative density ranges for different types of
locations contained within Table 3.2 of the Plan.
7.15
Saved UDP Policy 33 states that the primary consideration in determining the
appropriate density and scale of new residential development will be achieving
an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the
amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Proposals for higher
densities than that prevalent in the surrounding area will be encouraged in
appropriate locations, which include areas of good, very good or exceptional
public transport accessibility. Schemes that under-develop a site will be
refused. In all cases, however, development should not unacceptably overbear
on surrounding development or harm residential amenity. Illustrations of
densities that can be achieved are given within the supporting text to the
Policy. This indicates that densities of 300-450 Habitable Rooms per Hectare
(HRH) are achievable in urban areas with good/poor levels of public transport
accessibility.
7.16
Policy S2(g) of the Core Strategy seeks levels of residential density consistent
with London Plan guidelines, having regard to the provision of other uses on
the site, availability of local services, access to and capacity of public
transport, urban design context, quality of design and impact on existing and
future residents. The London plan Table 3.2 sets out in urban areas with good
public transport accessibility 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha)
should be provided and in urban areas of average to poor 200-450 hr/ha
should be provided.
7.17
In this case the site lies within an urban location characterised by a mix of
terrace housing, housing blocks and apartment block. The site is located
within an area of poor to good PTAL 2-4 and sited within 1km from Brixton Hill
and Acre Lane. The proposed development would provide 114 dwelling per
hectare or 419 habitable rooms per hectare. This would be in line with the
guidance set out within the Lambeth UDP, Policy S2 of the Core Strategy and
the London Plan and as such the density of the development is considered
acceptable.
Affordable Housing
7.18
The NPPF defines affordable housing as ‘Social rented, affordable rented and
intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not
met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and
local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at
an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be
recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.’
7.19
Core Strategy Policy S2 states that on sites capable of accommodating 10 or
more homes the provision of affordable housing should be sought. Further to
this the policy states that at least 50% of housing should be affordable housing
where public subsidy is available and 40% if not. The proposal would provide
76.5% affordable housing with 100% nomination rights for Lambeth.
7.20
The provision of 76% affordable housing is considered to be in line with Policy
S2 of the Core Strategy and saved policy 16 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The acceptability of the dwelling mix and tenure of the proposed affordable
housing
7.21
Core Strategy Policy S2 (d) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types to meet
the needs of the community including through applying Lifetimes Homes and
Building for Life Standards and providing wheelchair accessible housing.
7.22
Saved policy 16 of the UDP states a range of unit sizes of affordable housing
should be provided having regard for local circumstances, site characteristics
and the aims of the boroughs annual Housing Strategy.
7.23
The dwelling mix proposed would reflect the local housing need and would
provide a high percentage of larger family sized units. The mix is as follows:
1 Bedroom = 12 Units
2 Bedroom = 21 Units
3 Bedroom = 7 Units
4 Bedroom = 11 units
7.24
The proposal would provide 18 three and four bedroom units which would be
35 % of the total units; this is considered to reflect the need of the borough.
Further to this the proposal also provides 21 two bedroom units which are also
considered to be family sized. Therefore 76% of the proposed units within the
scheme would be family sized and this is considered to meet the needs of the
borough creating a mixed and balance community.
7.25
The proposal seeks to provide 76% of the units as affordable housing, with 25
units as shared ownership and 14 as Affordable Rent. The NPPF defines
affordable rent housing as being let by local authorities or private registered
providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented
housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no
more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where
applicable).
7.26
Policy S2 of the Core Strategy states the tenure mix of housing should be 70%
social rent and 30% intermediate. The proposal would provide 64%
intermediate housing/shared ownership and 36% affordable rent. The proposal
would not full comply with this part of the policy when assessed against the
level of affordable housing proposed. For the application to be acceptable and
policy compliant only 50% (with grant) of the proposed dwellings would need
to affordable, i.e. 25 of the units, therefore the 14 affordable rent units that are
proposed would equate to 56% of a policy compliant affordable housing
provision. The applicant is proposing 25 shared ownership units however only
7.5 of these are required to ensure that the proposal would comply with Policy
S2. The additional 19 unit shared ownership are additional affordable housing
which is proposed by the applicant which are considered to compensate for
the shortfall in affordable rented units. Whilst the tenure mix does not full
comply with Policy S2, it is considered to be a significant affordable housing
offer with a large number of 3 and 4 bedroom units which are considered in
need within the borough. On balance it is considered that the level and tenure
mix of the affordable housing proposed would be acceptable. The Council’s
Housing Officer is in support for the application.
7.27
The rent levels proposed are considered to be line with the Council’s Policy of
a blended approach, which seeks target rents (Social Rents), for three and
four bedroom units and 1 and 2 bedroom units should be 60% of market rents.
Within this scheme the 3 and 4 bedroom units are at target rents and the 1
and 2 bedroom units are at proposed at 60% of market rent levels within the
local area. The council’s Housing Officer has reviewed these rent levels and
are in support of the proposal as it is in line with the Housing Department
policy.
7.28
In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development would be suitably
located on previously developed land, providing 76.5% affordable housing and
much needed larger family sized units which meet the local housing need. The
affordable housing tenure is considered to be acceptable and appropriate for
the application site. As such it is considered that the proposal would comply
with Core Strategy Policy S2, Saved Policy 15, London Plan Policies and the
NPPF.
8
Standard of Residential Accommodation
8.1
Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (2011) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types
to meet the needs of different sections of the community. Saved Policy 33 of
the UDP states that all development should be of a high design quality that
makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of potential
residents. In terms of the quality of residential units to be provided, saved
Policies 15 and 33 are also supplemented by the Council’s SPD: Guidance
and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.
8.2
The SPD advises on requirements such as minimum unit and room sizes and
space standards, amenity space requirements, daylight/sunlight provision,
privacy and spacing between buildings and lifetimes homes standards.
Size and layout
8.3
Proposed accommodation should comply with the room size standards and
ceiling heights as laid out in Supplementary Planning Document - Guidance
and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions. All the
proposed units have been considered against the Standards of the
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
8.4
The proposed 51 additional units would all meet the minimum overall floor
areas as set out in the SPD and have been designed in line with the London
Housing Design Guide. With the large three and four bedroom units exceeding
the minimum standards. The generous floor areas within the units are
considered to reflect well designed internal layout. This is further identified by
each unit being provided with circulation space and storage space and
additional pram and cycle storage is proposed at ground floor levels.
8.5
In addition to this all of the rooms within the units would meet and exceed the
SPD minimums indicating that a good quality of accommodation is proposed
for future occupiers.
Daylight/Sunlight, Privacy and Outlook
8.6
The majority of the units within the development would have a dual aspect. All
habitable rooms would be provided with windows that are considered to
provide a good level of outlook. The layout of the units is considered
adequate in order to provide sufficient levels of light. A BRE daylight/sunlight
study has been submitted with the application indicating that all of the
proposed units would receive adqaute levels of daylight/sunlight.
8.7
In terms of privacy all of the proposed units would be provided with balconies
or outdoor privacy amenity space. The layout of the development is such that
there is no direct overlooking between habitable windows within the
development. There would be a degree of overlooking from balconies to the
communal amenity space and some rear gardens; however this is considered
to be appropriate and reflective of the nature of urban developments. There is
considered to be sufficient separate distances between the existing
surrounding development and the proposal in order to ensure that future
occupiers would benefit from a good standard of accommodation.
8.8
A number of private rear gardens and terraces within the development would
back onto the proposed communal amenity space. The private rear gardens
would be enclosed by 2m high brick wall, which is considered sufficient to
protect the residential amenity of future occupiers. The terraces which are
proposed at ground floor in Block B would have 1.2m high balustrades
separating the terrace area from the communal space to provide defensible
space; in addition this small area would provide a degree of natural
surveillance over the proposed communal space.
Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair Accessible Housing
8.9
London plan policy 3.8 (Housing Choice), Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2
(d) of the Core Strategy provide guidance on Lifetime Homes and wheelchair
accessible housing. This is further expanded on in Section 7 of the SPD
‘Guidance and standards for housing development and house conversions’.
This requires Lambeth to ensure that all new housing is built to Lifetime
Homes. In addition, within a development, ten per cent of all new homes
should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for
residents who are wheelchair users.
8.10
The applicant submitted a Design and Access Statement indicates that
development would meet lifetime home standards. Five wheelchair adaptable
units are proposed, two houses within block A, two three bedroom split level
flats and a two bedroom flat within Block B. This is in accordance with saved
Policy 33 of the UDP, Policy S2 (d) of the Core Strategy and the SPD on
Housing Development and House Conversions. A condition of consent would
be attached to secure this commitment.
Amenity Space
8.11
The requirement for amenity space provision as part of new residential
developments is detailed both in the London Plan and the Council’s Local Plan
policies within the Core Strategy and Saved Unitary Development Plan
policies. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(h) of the Core Strategy
requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing
and future residents by, where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity
space.
8.12
This is expanded on in section 2 of the Council’s SPD (Guidance and
Standards for Housing Developments and House Conversions) which seeks to
ensure that new housing developments provide an appropriate standard of
useable amenity space for occupiers, both private and communal space.
8.13
With respect to amenity space the SPD on Housing Development and House
Conversions sets out that for new flatted developments, shared amenity space
of at least 50m2 per scheme should be provided. A further 10m2 per flat should
also be provided, either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated
with the communal space. Communal gardens should comply with the
following standards: (i) receive natural light; (ii) be screened from parking
areas; (iii) be easily accessible to all occupants; (iv) be overlooked by
habitable rooms to ensure safety and surveillance; and (v) have a landscape,
management and maintenance plan. In addition the SPD sets out that new
build houses should have at least 30m2 of amenity space.
8.14
All of the proposed units would have some form of private amenity space, the
houses would have private rear gardens, ground floor units would have either
private rear garden or terrace areas and the upper floors would have
balconies. All of the rear gardens for the houses within blocks A and C would
be over 30m2, all of the ground floor gardens within Block B for the flats would
be over 10m2 and the majority of the balconies would be between 5-7m2. An
area of 235m2 of communal amenity space would be provided centrally within
the site.
8.15
The SPD sets out that 860m2 of amenity space should be provided, this
include 30m2 for each of the proposed houses, 50m2 of communal space and
10m2 for each of the proposed flats. The proposal includes 235m2 of
communal amenity space, 582.5m2 of private amenity space in the form of
balconies within block B and 750m2 which is proposed at private rear gardens
for the houses (blocks A and C). The level of amenity space proposed is
considered to be acceptable and in compliance with the SPD guidance. The
communal amenity space would be centrally located within the development
allowing all occupants easy access; the space would be overlooked by units
within all blocks and would receive natural light. This amenity space is
considered to be positive contributor to the development and would add to the
level of amenity that would be experienced by future occupiers.
Children and Young Peoples Play Space
8.16
In respect to Children’s Play space, Saved UDP Policy 50 (i) and the SPD
relating to Housing Development set out that the provision of suitable play
areas for pre-school and junior children will be sought, where appropriate, in
residential developments of 10 or more units, or on sites of 0.1 Ha or more, or
in large mixed use developments. Play areas should be easily accessible,
overlooked by habitable rooms and enclosed either through fencing, railings or
other safety features. Further guidance on the amount of provision is provided
in the GLA’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Providing for Children and
Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (adopted March 2008). This
indicates that new residential development generating more than 10 children
(as determined by the application of child occupancy assessments) should
provide suitable play space as part of the development scheme. It states that
provision should be based on 10sqm per child and that the provision should be
considered as part of the overall open space provision rather than ‘over and
above’ the requirements for private or shared amenity space as set out above.
The Child Yield expected from this development is 34, therefore 340m2 of play
space should be provided within the development.
8.17
The proposal does not include a defined play area and the communal amenity
space has been designed to accommodate children’s play equipment. The
GLA’s guidance states that play space should be incorporated as part of the
overall amenity space provision. All of the proposed houses would have over
and above 30m2 of rear amenity space which indicates that children within
these dwelling would have adqaute play areas outside of the communal play
provision. In addition the communal amenity space includes some play
equipment and would promote play for children and young people. Details of
play equipment would be secured by way of condition should the application
be granted approval. Therefore the level of communal play space when
considered with the level of private amenity space that would be provided for
the houses and ground floor units of block B, it is considered that an adequate
quantum of play space for children and young people would be provided on
site
8.18
In summary the level and nature of amenity space is considered acceptable
and would not prejudice the aims of the SPD. In line with Policy requirements
officers advise that a landscape management and maintenance plan for the
communal amenity space and further details of play equipment and play space
should be secured by condition should planning approval be granted.
9
Design
9.1
NPPF states that ‘Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is
indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making
places better for people.’
9.2
Saved Policy 33 of the UDP is relevant in as far as it sets out that all
development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its
surrounding area. Saved policy 33 goes further to state that Major
development should relate satisfactorily to adjacent townscape taking into
account its scale, character, historic street layout and uses; improve the sense
of place and legibility, and define edges by retaining characterful buildings,
appropriate building lines and extending frontages; and provide servicing and
parking that is sensitively sited and designed.
9.3
Saved Policy 31 of the UDP adds to this further by stating development should
respond to and enhance the architectural character of the area, having regard
to its overall urban or suburban characteristics, particularly in conversation
areas and other areas of townscape of significant quality
Siting/Layout
9.4
The application site has a number of street frontages therefore the
development has been designed to address this. The proposal would have a
perimeter block layout with the three blocks fronting on to the existing streets.
9.5
Block A which fronts onto Mandrell Road would consists of 11 terraced houses
along Mandrell Road and has a continuous street block, narrow plot widths
and regular entrances along the street which reflects the fine urban grain
within the area and promotes active frontages. Block C which fronts onto
Prague Place would also have a continuous street block and regular entrances
along the street.
9.6
Block B has two main elements separated by a glazed communal core. Both
elements address the street and turn the corner successfully. Whilst the block
has a different urban grain and massing to the rest of the proposed
development and the residential hinterland, regular entrances along the street,
the form of the building and the set back of the upper floor result in a
development which has a very residential and domestic quality responding to
the character of the area.
9.7
The layout of the development is considered to be appropriate and would
successfully integrate into the local area. The perimeter block layout is
considered to be the most appropriate way to redevelop the site and is
considered to respect the historic pattern of development within the locale.
Scale/Bulk/Height
9.8
The scheme proposes a development which is between two and four storey in
height. Block A (terraced houses) would be three storeys, Block B (flats) along
Strathleven Road would be part three, part four storeys and Block C (terraced
houses) along Prague Place would be part two part three storeys. The general
height of development within the area is between two and three storeys with a
relatively fine urban grain. As such the proposed scheme being a maximum of
four storeys is considered not to be significantly taller than neighbouring
properties and as such would not dominate or overbear surrounding
development.
9.9
The three blocks of different housing types would break up the overall mass of
development, the housing on Mandrell Road (Block A) reflects the existing
pattern of development, the flatted block (Block B) has a greater height and
mass however this broken up by set back top floor and Block C is smaller
housing which reflect the adjacent pattern of development at Prague Place.
The bulk scale and mass of the development is considered to be appropriate
to the application site.
9.10
The height, scale, bulk and massing of the proposed buildings are considered
to be acceptable and would reflect the streetscape. Officers are of the opinion
that the proposal would reflect the character and appearance of the application
site and surrounding area and the development would integrate well within the
local area.
Form and Appearance
9.11
The Council’s Urban Design Officer has been consulted on the application and
has provided comments in regards to the detailed design of the proposal and
does not have any in principle objections. Samples of the material proposed
have been submitted and officers have agreed that these would be suitable
within the local context, given the strong historic use of orange brick within
local area. The development would mainly be constructed of an orange brick,
the rear elevations of the houses constructed in a grey brick with lead cladding
panels proposed for the upper floor of the flatted block and grey
aluminium/timber framed windows and doors.
9.12
The proposal would also include a number of feature elements; at the two
entrance cores to the Block B Terracotta relief feature panels are proposed
which would include the Genesis Housing Association Logo. This is
considered to reflect the historic architectural styles of the properties on
Lambert and Strathleven Roads and would be a positive contribution to the
visual amenity within the local area.
9.13
The detailed design and external appearance of the proposed development
would provide buildings which would reflect the character and appearance of
the surrounding area with contemporary design. It is officer opinion that the
proposal would enhance the local environment and the detailed design would
be appropriate to the context of the existing site.
9.14
Overall, the proposed development is considered an appropriate response to
the constraints of the site. The building would add to the existing variety in built
form in the immediate and wider townscape.
10
Trees/Landscaping
10.1
Saved Policy 39 of the UDP sets out that as much attention should be paid to
the design of the areas between buildings as to buildings themselves.
Development should provide or enhance an uncluttered, consistent, simple,
accessible and co-ordinated public realm, with robust and appropriate
materials and landscape design which enhances the setting, connections and
spaces between buildings. Trees of high amenity value will be protected.
10.2
The proposal involves the removal of the fifteen (15) trees within the site. T17
(Silver Maple) and T15 (Sycamore) sited within the north eastern corner of the
site are proposed to be removed. In addition 13 trees along the southern
boundary of the site are proposed to be removed in order to facilitate the
proposed development.
10.3
The loss of trees to facilitate the development is accepted by officers however
it is felt that the applicant should compensate for this loss. The Council’s
Arboricultural Officer has commented on the application and suggests that a
comprehensive soft landscape scheme is secured to mitigate the tree removal
and that the scheme concentrates on softening and greening the front
boundaries of the site as a whole. In addition this should include appropriate
structural planting and replacement of trees where appropriate.
10.4
Further to this it has been recommended that all trees to be retained on site
should be subject to tree protection measures for the duration of the
construction of the development. If permission is granted a condition would
require further details to be submitted in regard to the tree protection
measures that would be undertaken on site.
10.5
Subject to compliance with the suggested conditions it is considered that the
proposal would comply with saved Policy 39 of the UDP and Policy S5 of the
Core Strategy.
11
Residential Amenity
11.1
Saved Policies 33 and 38 of the UDP are relevant with regards to the impact
of the development upon residential amenity.
11.2
Saved Policy 33 of the UDP sets out that building scale and design should
protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by having an
acceptable standard of privacy; having an acceptable impact on levels of,
daylight and sunlight; not creating unacceptable overlooking; not creating an
undue sense of enclosure; and where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor
amenity space.
11.3
The application site faces onto or is adjoined on all boundaries by residential
properties. To the north of the site the application site faces onto two storey
terrace properties on Mandrell Road. To the east of the site the development
would face onto two/three storey residential properties on Strathleven Road
and Lambert Road. To the south the development would face on two storey
residential properties on Prague Place within the Blenheim Gardens Estate
and to the west the site adjoins Ashby Mews, which include a mix of three
storey apartment block and two storey mew houses.
Daylight/Sunlight
11.4
Saved Policy 33 of the UDP seeks to protect residential amenity which
includes levels of daylight and sunlight received in existing and proposed
residential units. The supporting paragraphs to this policy states in addressing
daylight and sunlight regards will be had to the BRE (British Research
Establishments) guide to good practice.
11.6
The applicant has submitted with the application a Daylight and Sunlight
Report in accordance with the British Research Establishment Guidance
detailed within the document ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight A
Guide to Good Practice’.
11.7
The report has identified a number of local residential properties which could
be affected by the proposed development and therefore requiring further
analysis. These are as follows:
2-28 Mandrell Road (Evens)
108 Strathleven Road
125-127 Strathleven Road
129-131 Strathleven Road
60-62 Lambert Road
89-91 Lambert Road
68-77 Prague Place
1 Ashby Mews
11.8
Block A: The proposed terrace of houses on Mandrell Road would have a
maximum high of 10m and would be sited 17m from the front elevation of
existing properties on Mandrell Road. The submitted report follows the BRE
guidance and assesses the Vertical Sky Component of windows which may be
affected; the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) is the amount of skylight falling on
a vertical wall or window. The optimum value for the VSC is 27% and any
reduction below this level should be at a minimum. If the VSC, with the new
development in place, is both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former
value, then it is considered that the occupants of the existing building will
notice the reduction in the amount of daylight.
11.9
The report shows that all the windows, within properties on Mandrell Road,
would have a VSC value of 27% or more which would not be reduced by less
than 0.8 times its former value and would not have a detrimental impact on the
daylight levels received.
11.10
Block B: The development of Block B on the corner of Mandrell Road,
Strathleven Road and Lambert Road would be a maximum of 12.6m high at 4
storeys. The proposed development on this site would be located
approximately 10.2m from 89-91 Lambert Road, approximately 14m from the
side elevation of 108 Strathleven Road and 17m from 60-62 Lambert Road.
The Daylight/Sunlight report indicates that proposed development would not
unduly impact on the daylight levels received to 60-62 Lambert Road. The
report indicates that one ground floor window within the south facing elevation
of 108 Strathleven Road, window W2/70, with the development in place would
have a VSC of less than 27% and less than 0.8 times it former value.
However this room is served by two windows, the second window would meet
the BRS guidance in regards to the VSC and as such this is considered to
indicate that adequate light levels would be provided.
11.11
With regard to 89-91 Lambert Road the daylight/sunlight report shows that all
the windows tested within the western elevation of the property facing onto the
development would fail to meet the BRE guidance in regards to the VSC.
Further testing has been carried out and the room uses have been identified.
This has indicates that out of these five windows only two are habitable W2/40
at ground floor and W2/41 at first floor. The other three windows are
considered to be bathrooms and one is a solid door. The additional Average
Daylight Factor (ADF) test has been carried out in line with the BRE guidance.
The BRE indicates that the ADF should be 1% for bedrooms and 1.5% for
living rooms. From the case officer site visit W2/41 appears to be a bedroom
and would have an Average Daylight Factor of 1.84% and W2/40 appears to
either be a living room or bedroom and has an ADF of 1.7%. These further
tests are considered to indicate that whilst the development would have some
impacts on the light levels received within these windows this would not be
significant to warrant a reason for refusal.
11.12
Block C: Block C of the development would face onto Prague Place and
would have a maximum height of 9.3m. The proposed development would
sited approximately 10m from the rear elevations of 68-77 Prague Place. In
addition Block C would 3.2m from 1 Ashby Mews at its closest point. The
daylight/sunlight report submitted by the applicant indicates that the ground
floor rear windows (large glazed panels and glazed rear door) within 73-77
Prague Place would fail the VSC, which indicates that the development would
have some impact on the daylighting of these properties. Further testing has
been carried out for these windows, with respect to the Average Daylight
Factor. The BRE guidance ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight A
Guide to Good Practice’ sets out that ADF for Kitchen there should be 2%,
1.5% Living Rooms and 1% for Bedrooms. The ADF for all of these ground
floor windows would be at least 3%, thereby in line with the BRE guidance.
This is considered to indicate that whilst there would be some impacts on the
daylight received by the ground floor windows of 69, 73-77 Prague Place that
these impacts would not result in significant harm to the living condition of the
existing occupiers.
11.13
Block C would be sited within 3.2m of 1 Ashby Mews contained nine self
contained flats. The daylight/sunlight report indicates that one window within
the eastern elevation which would face onto the development would fail the
VSC, window number W3/20 at ground floor level. For this window the existing
VSC would be 35% and would reduce down to 24%. It should be noted that
the BRE guidance states that these standards should be applied flexibly. The
ADF for this window is 1% and in this regard the proposal would comply with
the BRE guidance. So whilst there would be some impacts on the daylight
levels received within this window it is considered that the proposal would not
result in significant harm so far as to warrant a reason for refusal.
Privacy and overlooking
11.14
Block A: The development at Block A would be located approximately 17m
from the properties on Mandrell Road and would face onto the existing terrace
of housing. Block A would be a similar terrace of properties and 17m is
considered to be sufficient separation distance to ensure that the no significant
overlooking would occur resulting in harm to the privacy levels of existing
occupiers. This is similar to the relationship of the properties on Mauleverer
Road to the north of Mandrell Road and the application site.
11.15
The rear of Block A would back onto the proposed development and there
would be a distance of 17m between the rear elevations of blocks A and C.
11.16
Block B: The flatted block would be sited on the corner of Mandrell Road and
Strathleven Road extending along to meet Prague Place. Insert balconies with
1.1m screens would be provided within the front elevation of Block B. There
would be a distance of between 15-17m between the properties on Mandrell
Road and Strathleven Road and the proposed development; this distance is
considered to limit any harmful overlooking and detrimental impacts on privacy
levels of existing occupiers.
With regards to 89-91 Lambert Road there would be a minimum distance of
10m between the proposed developments however this would be a flank
elevation with no window. The rear return would be 12.5m away from the
proposed development and the elevation facing onto the development would
host five windows of which two are habitable. Whilst this does not represent
an ideal relationship, the proposed balconies would be inset within the
development and screened by a 1.1m high balustrade, helping reduce any
direct views of nos. 89-91. A similar relationship has been identified to the rear
of this property within the Blenheim Garden Estate. 156-162 Glanville Road
which backs onto 89-91 Lambert Road has rear balconies within 10m of the
rear boundary of no.89-91. As such it is considered that the proposal would
not result in significant harm to the privacy levels to warrant a reason for
refusal.
11.17
Block C: Block C would face onto Prague Place and 1 Ashby Mews, there is a
distance of 10m between the front elevation of the proposed Block C and the
rear elevation of Prague Place. None of the windows proposed to the front
elevation of Block C would serve habitable rooms in addition the upper floor
windows within the rear elevation of Prague Place are high level narrow
windows in this regard it is considered that the siting of block C within this
location is considered would have a minimal impact on the privacy levels of
residents of Prague Place.
11.18
The flank (west) elevation of block C adjacent to Ashby Mews would be blank
and no windows are proposed facing onto Ashby Mews. As such in regards to
privacy it is considered that the development of Block C would not give rise to
unacceptable levels of overlooking detrimental to the privacy levels of existing
occupiers.
Sense of enclosure and overbearing impact
11.19
Block A: The distance between the existing properties on Mandrell Road and
the proposed terrace of housing of 17m is considered acceptable and the
development would not result in any undue sense of enclosure nor would the
development appear overbearing or visually intrusive to the properties on
Mandrell Road.
11.20
Block B: The flatted block is the largest building within the development sited
on the corner of Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road. The distances
between the existing properties on Mandrell Road and Strathleven Road and
the proposed development are considered to be sufficient in order to limit any
potential harmful sense of enclosure. With regards to the relationship of the
proposed development with 89-91 Lambert Road there would be a distance of
10m and the maximum height of the development would be 12m. The flank
elevation of this property that would face onto the development is blank, the
rear return is set back a further 2m, as previously discussed two of the
windows within this elevation would be habitable. The ground floor window
would be enclosed by a 2m high boundary wall and the upper floor window
would serve a bedroom. Whilst the proposed development would be sited
closer to 89-91 Lambert Road than any of the existing building, it is considered
that the development would not result in an undue sense of enclosure or
development which would appear overbearing which would detrimental harm
to the living conditions of existing residential occupiers.
11.21
Block C: Block C would be a part 2 part 3 storey development (with a lower
ground floor level), given the change in land level the application site is 1.7m
lower than Prague Place resulting in Block C appearing as a two storey
property along Prague Place. The maximum height of the houses above
ground level of Prague Place would be approximately 7.2m and the first floor
would be set back from the main frontage by 1.7m. Given this and the distance
of 10m between the rear elevation of the Prague Place properties and the front
of Block C it is considered that the proposal would not result in an undue
sense of enclosure nor would the development appear overbearing resulting in
harm to the living conditions of existing occupiers within Prague Place.
11.22
Ashby Mews would be located 3.2m from the side of Block C. Whilst the
development would be sited closer to Ashby Mews than any existing buildings
it is considered that this would not be significant to cause considerable harm.
There is an existing retaining wall around the application site given the change
in land level, which acts as the boundary between the existing Livity School,
Prague Place and Ashby Mews. This retaining wall is adjacent to a number of
windows within Ashby Mews; therefore it is considered that the proposed
development would not result in additional enclosure which would significantly
harm the living conditions of existing occupiers.
Noise and Disturbance
11.30
The development would result in additional residential units within an existing
residential area. The proposal would not create any harmful or undue
additional noise and disturbance that is likely to be detrimental to existing
residential amenity.
Amenity Conclusion
11.31
In summary it is considered that the development proposed would not
detrimentally impact on neighbouring residential properties to such a degree
that would contradict the objectives of saved policies 7 and 33 of the UDP.
12
Transport and Highways
12.1
Saved Policy 9 of the UDP states that planning applications will be assessed
for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts on highway safety; on
the environment and the road network; and on all transport modes, including
public transport (in particular, the impact on demand for and the operation of
public transport), walking and cycling.
12.2
Policy S4 of the Core Strategy seek to ensure that on-site car parking at new
developments is the minimum necessary and that there is no over-provision
that could undermine the use of more sustainable non-car modes of travel.
12.3
The Council’s Transport Planner has undertaken an assessment of the
planning application having regard to the information contained within the
submitted Transport Assessment and to the objectives of saved Policies 9 and
14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the LDF Core Strategy. Transport for London
(TfL) have also provided comments. Neither party has raised any ‘in-principle’
objections to the development.
12.4
The application site is located within an existing residential area, with the A23
Brixton Hill to the east of the site and Acre Lane to the north of the site. The
site has a PTAL score of 2 to 4 (Strathleven and Lambert Road have a PTAL
of 4 and Prague Place and Mandrell Road have a PTAL of 2), which is
considered ‘poor to good’. Increased housing density is encouraged within
areas of good public transport accessibility.
Access
12.5
Pedestrian access to all units except the 4 houses within Block C to the south
of the site will be from Mandrell and Glanville/Strathleven Roads. Block C
would be accessed from Prague Place via an existing pedestrian walkway.
This runs along the back of dwellings on the Blenheim Gardens Estate.
12.6
12.7
There are two existing vehicular crossovers on Mandrell Road and Strathleven
Road which currently provide access into the car park for the school. As part
of the development these would need to be removed along with the two
redundant bellmouths on Mandrell Road and the footways reinstated this
would be secured by way of condition.
Car Parking
2001 census data for the Brixton Hill ward has been used to estimate the
number of vehicles which could be generated by the 51 residential units. The
proposed tenure mix and size of units could be expected to generate some 29
vehicles.
12.8
The Transport Assessment includes a parking survey and the average parking
stress on surrounding streets is calculated to be approximately 54%. By
removing the ‘School Keep Clear’ markings on Mandrell Road some 3 or 4
additional cars could be accommodated on-street. The removal of the
redundant markings and replacement with on-street parking bays would
require changes to Traffic Orders (which would be secured through the S106
legal agreement), and the cost of this would need to be met by the applicant.
12.9
The site is located within Brixton ‘E’ CPZ, which is operational Monday-Friday
08:30-18:30. It is proposed that the parking permits would be provided solely
for the three and four bedroom houses give the low parking stress levels within
the local area. It is considered that cars from these 15 units would be able to
be accommodated within the local area. The remaining development would be
car free. It is also proposed to provide car club membership for a minimum of
two years for all eligible residents. Two car club bays are sited on Mandrell
Road.
Traffic Impacts
12.10
The Transport Assessment includes a comparison of the traffic generated by
the existing school on the site, and the expected trip generation associated
with the proposed use. Given the significant number of parking bays on the
existing school site, the proposed development is not expected to generate a
significant net increase in traffic generation.
Cycle Parking
12.11
The proposal includes 91 cycle parking spaces. To meet TfL’s guidelines on
cycle parking at least 72 spaces are required (1 per 1/2 bed unit and 2 per 3+
bed unit). 14 x Sheffield stands are shown in the communal courtyard area,
which would accommodate 28 x cycles, and in the rear gardens of all the
houses and ground floor split level units individual cycle parking storages
would be provided. For the four bedroom units, 4 cycle parking spaces would
be provided per unit and for the three bed units 2 cycle parking spaces would
be provided. This provision of cycle parking storage is considered to be
acceptable and would be in line with the London Plan standards.
12.12
In conclusion it is considered that the proposal would not significantly impact
on the local highway network and highway and pedestrian safety. The
mitigation measures proposed in the form of conditions and contribution
secured by a Section 106 Agreement are considered to allow the proposal to
be considered acceptable and in compliance with London Plan Policies, Core
Strategy Policy S4 and saved Policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development
Plan.
13
Other Matters
Sustainability and Renewable Energy Issues
13.1
Saved Policy 35 of the UDP states that all development proposals should
show, by means of a Sustainability Assessment, how they incorporate
sustainable design and construction principles. LDF Core Strategy Policy S7
Sustainable Design and Construction requires all major development to
achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emission in line with the London Plan
targets.
13.2
London Plan Policy 5.2 sets a presumption that development will achieve a
reduction in carbon emission the targets are expressed as minimum
improvements over the Target Emission Rate (TER) outlined in the national
Building Regulations. For 2010-2013 a 25% improvement on TER is required.
13.3
The applicant has submitted with the application, an Energy Statement and an
assessment in regards to the Code for Sustainable Homes. The Council’s
SPD ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ sets out that housing
developments should aspire to meet Level 4 of the code for sustainable
homes and at least meet a minimum of Level 3.
13.4
The submitted report carries out a pre-assessment of the development and
indicates that the development would achieve a Code Level 4. This would be
line with the SPD guidance and saved Policy 35 and Core Strategy Policy S7.
Should the application be granted permission post construction assessments
and certificates indicating the achievement of at least code level 4 would be
secured by conditions. In addition to this the Energy Report states that there
would be at least a 25% reduction in Carbon Emissions. The report suggests
that there would be a 38% reduction in CO2 within this development.
13.5
The report goes onto say of the 38% Co2 reduction 21.42% of the reduction
would be provided through the use of Solar PV arrays which would be sited on
the flat roofs of the proposed development.
13.6
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with London Plan Policy 5.2,
Policy S7 of the Core Strategy and Saved Policy 35 of the UDP.
Crime
13.7
Saved Policy 32 of the UDP sets out that development should enhance
community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for
crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder.
13.8
The Crime Prevention Design Advisor was consulted on the scheme at preapplication stage prior to its submission and the current proposal. The CPDA
has not objected in principle to the development and has required that Secure
by Design Standards for New Homes are meet, this would be conditioned
should the application be granted approval. In addition a scheme of external
lighting would be secured by way of condition. On this basis no in-principle
objection has been raised and the development is considered to accord with
saved Policy 32 of the UDP.
Waste
13.9
Core Strategy Policy S8 and NPPF seek to achieve sustainable waste
management. The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection
Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) supplements
Policy S8 and sets out that for development of more than 10 households 60
litres of refuse storage should be provided per bedroom and in addition 50% of
this should storage capacity should be provided for recyclable materials.
13.10
The drawings indicate that refuse and recycling areas would be provided for
each building and each house. All of houses along Mandrell Road and Prague
Place would be provided with individual purpose built refuse storage areas, as
would all of the ground floor units within Block B. Two communal refuse areas
are proposed for the upper floor flats, one area is proposed outside the
communal entrance area fronting onto Strathleven Road and one internally
within the core area of the flatted block. The applicant has submitted details of
a refuse management plan which includes details of how the movement of the
bins would be managed. Notwithstanding this further detail in regards to refuse
and recycling storage and sustainable waste management would be required,
these details would be secured by way of condition should the application be
granted permission.
Planning Obligations and Mayoral CIL
13.11
Policy S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), supplemented by the other
policies of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and UDP and the SPD on s106
planning obligations, sets out the circumstances in which the Council will seek
planning obligations from a developer to mitigate against the potential impacts
of a scheme.
13.12
As already stated, the scheme proposes 76.5% affordable housing and 100%
nomination rights would be afforded to the Local Authority. Such matters
would need to be secured by way of s.106 legal agreement. Further to this, it
is considered that financial contributions should be secured by way of s.106 to
mitigate against its impact:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Education - £137,537.20
Health - £13,848.00
Libraries - £3,804.94
Sport & Leisure - £14,190.68
Parks & Open Spaces - £75,925.20
Revenue Contribution - £7592.52
•
•
13.13
A contribution towards local public realm improvements
required for improvements to the local pedestrian
environment at the time of writing this is still being negotiated
and will be report by way of published addendum.
A further contribution of 2.5% of the overall financial
contribution should be required to enable the Local Planning
Authority to suitably meet the costs of monitoring the planning
contributions.
Further commitment should be required by way of the s106 legal agreement
for the following measures:
•
•
•
Provision of membership to a car club for all of the residential units for a
minimum period of 2 years.
Parking Permit cap on 1 and 2 bedroom units
A clause preventing the implementation of the permission before the
transfer of the freehold interest in the Acre Lane Site (land to the rear of
47-49 Acre Lane) to the Council for the purpose of Extended School
Facilities
13.14
It is advised that the scheme may also be liable for Mayoral Community
Infrastructure Levy payment towards Crossrail implementation. The final
amount will need to be discussed with the Council’s CIL team due to the
possibility of social housing exemption for some of the development. This
contribution does form part of the Lambeth development plan policy
obligations and, is to be secured and monitored by the Council on behalf of the
Mayor.
13.15
In summary it is considered that the above provisions, once secured under
s.106 of the Act, would appropriately mitigate against any potentially harmful
impacts of the development in accordance with saved Policies 9, 14, 16 and
50 of the UDP, Policies S2 and S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), and
with the Council’s associated SPD on s106 obligations.
14
Conclusion
14.1
The change of use of the application site from an education use (Use Class
D1) to residential (Use Class C3) is considered to be acceptable subject to a
planning obligation securing the ‘land swap’ for the site ‘Land to the rear of 4749 Acre Lane’ to provide replacement land for education purposes.
14.2
The proposed redevelopment of the site is acceptable in that it would be of an
appropriate design; it would provide an acceptable living environment for
future occupiers; it would not prejudice the amenity of neighbouring properties;
it would not harm conditions of on-street parking or prejudice conditions of the
free flow of traffic and highway safety; and, would not unacceptably impact
upon local infrastructure.
14.3
The development shows sufficient commitment to sustainable design and
construction, the provision of renewable energy technologies, promoting more
sustainable modes of transport, the achievement of Lifetime Homes Standards
and the achievement of ‘Designing Out Crime’ Standards. Provisions are to be
secured under s.106 of the Act to secure contributions towards, education
health, libraries, parks and open spaces, parking and highway conditions.
14.4
It is therefore considered that the development is compliant with the planning
policies of the development plan and that no other material planning
considerations of sufficient weight exist that would dictate that the application
should nevertheless be refused.
15
Recommendation
A.
Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a
Section 106 Obligation (Heads of Terms set out in section 13.2 of this report)
and the attached conditions; or
B.
In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission
and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers,
having regard to the Heads of Terms set out in the report, to negotiate and
complete a Section 106 agreement with the appellants in order to meet the
requirements of the Planning Inspector.
Summary of Reasons
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the
relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material
considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of
these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted
subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following
Policies were relevant:
Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5th
August 2010
Policy 9
Policy 14
Policy 16
Policy 26
Policy 31
Policy 32
Policy 33
Policy 35
Policy 38
Policy 39
Transport impact
Parking and Traffic Restraint
Affordable Housing
Community Facilities
Streets, Character and Layout
Community Safety/Designing out Crime
Building Scale and Design
Sustainable Design and Construction
Design in Existing Residential / Mixed Use Areas
Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design
Local Development Framework: Core Strategy January 2011
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives
Policy S2 – Housing
Policy S4 – Transport
Policy S5 – Open Space
Policy S7 –Sustainable Design and Construction
Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management
Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment
Policy S10 – Planning Obligations
Conditions
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later
than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision
notice.
Reason:
To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Design
3
No development works shall take place until samples and a schedule of
materials to be used in the elevations within the scheme hereby permitted are
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this
condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which
have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be
carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard
and
enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with saved Policies
31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond
the 5th August 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (January 2011).
4
No development works shall take place until detailed drawings (scale of 1:20)
to confirm the detailed design and materials of the:
i) balconies and terraces
ii) window and door systems (including, plans, elevations, cross sections and
reveal depths)
iii) front door entrances (including surrounds),
iv) roof construction including roofing details and roof terraces,
v) solar photovoltaic arrays to roofs (including sections),
vi) rain water pipes (including material, colour and location).
are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and
this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters
which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be
carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard
and
enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies 31, 33,
38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th
August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (January 2011).
5
Details of the siting and design of all walls and/or fencing at the site shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before
any part of the development hereby approved is first brought into use. Such
walls or fencing as may be approved shall be erected prior to first occupation
unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority to any
variation has been obtained and thereafter permanently retained.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory resultant appearance and standard of
amenity of the site, to prevent unacceptable harm to the amenity of
neighbouring properties and to minimise the opportunities for crime in
accordance with policies 7, 32, 33 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and
Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
6
Notwithstanding the application drawings No works above ground shall take
place until details of the refuse/recycling stores (details at 1:20) shall be
submitted to and approved by in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
the commencement of development. The development shall thereafter be
completed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained
as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has
been obtained for any variation.
Reason: In order to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of
the local area in accordance with policy 32, 33 and 24 of the Lambeth Unitary
Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy
S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).
7
No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external
faces of the buildings.
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard
and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of
the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and
not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January
2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (January 2011)).
Transport
8
No development shall commence until full details of the proposed construction
methodology, in the form of a Method of Demolition and Construction
Statement, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The Method of Demolition and Construction Statement
shall include details and arrangements regarding:
• the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance
notification of road closures;
• details regarding parking, deliveries and storage (including details of the
routing if delivery vehicles to and from the site and the accommodation
of all site operatives’, visitors’ and construction vehicles loading, offloading, parking and turning within the site during the construction
period);
• details regarding dust mitigation;
• details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the
public highway; and
• other measures to mitigate the impact of construction upon the
operation of the highway and the amenity of the area.
• details of the hours of operation for construction and deliveries to
the site.
The details of the approved Method of Demolition and Construction Statement
must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and
construction process.
Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the
detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally,
and to avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway (Policies 7 and 9 of
the London Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010
and Policy S4 of the Lambeth Core Strategy (2011)).
9
Notwithstanding the approved drawings and prior to first occupation of any of
the residential units hereby permitted, details of the provision to be made for
cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the
approved details and shall thereafter be retained and maintained solely for its
designated use.
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
London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved
beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (2011).
10
Within 3 months of the development being brought into use all existing access
points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped
up by raising the existing dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and
reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level
and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary.
Reason:
To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for
the safety and convenience of the highway users in accordance with Policies 9
and 14 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies
as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (2011)
Secure by Design
11
The development shall be constructed and thereafter operated so as to
achieve ‘Secured by Design; accreditation. Evidence of such shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3
months from the commencement of occupation of any of the buildings hereby
approved, or within any other timetable agreed by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To reduce opportunities for crime as far as is reasonable in
accordance with Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary
Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy
S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
12
No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until there has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a strategy for the
exterior lighting of the site including the lighting of the car parking areas and all
communal areas. The details shall include a specification of the lighting,
location, lux, hours of operation, details of light spillage and details of shielding
to neighbouring properties.The details approved shall be implemented prior to
the commencement of use of the development hereby permitted and shall
thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use, unless the written
approval is received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the
details of the proposal in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring
occupiers and the security of the site. (Policies 7, 32 and 33 of the Adopted
Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August
2010 refer, Policies S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document, Safer
Built Environments).
Landscaping
13
No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until there has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailed schemes of
soft and hard landscaping showing the treatment of all parts of the site not
covered by buildings, details of play equipment and raised planers. The
proposals shall include the planting of specified trees, hedges, grass, shrubs,
ground flora or climbers, and cover areas of communal and private open
space within the development, including boundary features. The landscaping
scheme shall include an indication of how the planting would integrate with the
proposal in the long term with regard to anticipated routine maintenance and
protection. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above
specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989
and current Arboricultural best practice. The landscaping scheme shall include
full details of the proposed communal amenity space incorporating a
designated Children’s Play space showing its layout, boundary and surface
treatment and specifications for any play equipment.
Reasons: In order to introduce high quality soft and hard landscaping in and
around the site, in the interests of the ecological value of the site and to
ensure a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers, particularly
with regard to families and children (Policies 39 and 50(i) of the Unitary
Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not
superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and
Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy
(2011) and Policy 5.3 of the London Plan (July 2011).
Waste Management
14
Prior to the occupation of the residential units as approved as part of the
development, full details of a waste management plan (including
arrangements for the collection, storage and disposal of general refuse,
recyclables) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. All provision associated with the waste management plan
shall be provided prior to the commencement of the relevant uses, and the use
of the site shall not thereafter be operated other than in strict accordance with
the details of the approved waste management plan, unless written approval is
obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variations.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage, disposal,
collection and recycling of waste on the site in the interests of the amenities
of the area, in the interests of the provision of sustainable waste management
and in the interests of minimising the impact of the development upon the
function of the highway network and conditions of highway and pedestrian
safety in accordance with Policies 9, 14, 33 and 39 of the Unitary
Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy
S8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011).
Sustainability
15
The solar photovoltaic cells to be installed on the flat roofs of the buildings
approved as described in the applicant's Energy Strategy Report Appendix D
and shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development and shall be
permanently retained for the duration of the use hereby approved.
Reason: In the interests of sustainable development in accordance with Policy
35 of the Unitary Development: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010,
Policy S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and
Policy 5.2 of the London Plan (2011).
16
Prior to first occupation of any of the buildings hereby approved, evidence
(e.g. photographs, installation contracts and as-built certificates under the
Standard Assessment Procedure) showing that the development has been
constructed in accordance with Price & Myers Energy Strategy Report dated
September 2012, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy
35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010
and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy
January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary
Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
17
The dwellings hereby permitted shall achieve at least Level 4 of the Code for
Sustainable Homes (CSH) (or such equivalent national measure of
sustainability which replaces that scheme). No dwelling shall be occupied until
a Final Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate has been issued certifying that
at least Code Level 4 has been achieved. The development shall be carried
out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and achieve the agreed
rating. The development shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy
35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010
and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy
January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (January2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning
Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).
18
All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes
Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of
which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to first occupation of any of the units. The approved details shall be
implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained.
Reason: In order that the development is made more accessible to all in
accordance with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved
beyond the 5th August 2010, Policy S2(d) of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (2011) and the related Supplementary Planning
Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House
Conversions (2008).
19
The residential accommodation hereby approved shall be constructed to
include at least 5 of the units as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for
residents who are wheelchair users and permanently retained as such for the
duration of the use.
Reason: To ensure that an adequate proportion of units are wheelchair
accessible or adaptable for wheelchair use in compliance with Policy 3A.4 of
The London Plan, Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: policies as
saved beyond the 5th August 2010, Policy S2 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (2011), and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary
Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and
House Conversions’ (2008).
20
Trees
No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Approved Plan 1123
(PL) 100 G Proposed Ground Floor Plan shall be felled, pruned, uprooted,
damaged or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees
on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies
31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th
August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
21
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Tree
Protection Plan that accords with BS5837:2012 and relates to all retained
trees on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The Tree Protection Plan shall be implemented in strict
accordance with the approved details and put in place before any machinery,
demolition, materials storage or development commences on the site.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees
on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies
31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th
August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
22
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an
Arboricultural Method Statement in accordance with BS5837;2012 relating
to groundworks within the Root Protection Area of retained trees shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter,
the Method Statement shall be implemented in strict accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees
on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies
31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th
August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
23
A drawing showing the confirmed route of all service and drainage routes
outside of all retained tree root protection areas (BS5837:2010) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing before any part of the development
commences. The development shall thereafter be implemented in strict
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees
on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies
31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th
August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
24
The arboricultural method statement relating to the installation of parking bays
using a 'No-dig' construction method around the retained trees T2, T3 & T6 as
identified on the approved drawings shall be carried out in strict accordance
with the Approved Document Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by
David Brown Landscape Design Ltd dated August 2011.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees
on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality (Policies
31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th
August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy January 2011 and Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).
Living Conditions
25
The areas of flat roof as shown on the drawings hereby approved, shall only
be accessed for maintenance purposes, and shall not be used as a sitting out
area or be used for any other recreational purposes whatsoever unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of occupiers of adjoining
residential properties and the surrounding area (Policies 7 and 33 of the
Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not
superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January
2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy
(January 2011).
26
Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B & C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of
the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order,
1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no enlargement,
improvement or other alteration of, or to, any dwellinghouse the subject of this
permission shall be carried out without planning permission having first been
obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning
Authority; nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental
to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed
on any part of the land covered by this permission without such planning
permission having been obtained.
Reason: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, strict control is required
over the form of any additional development which may be proposed in the
interests of maintaining a satisfactory residential environment, to safeguard
the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 7, 31, 33, 38 and 47 of the London
Borough of Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and
Policies S1 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy
(January 2011)).
Informatives
1
This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be
required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section
57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2
Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and
related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the
Council's Building Control Officer.
3
You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior
to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain
necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the
Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers,
Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections,
Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements,
etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
4
You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team
within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse
storage and collection facilities
5
You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of
advertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from
the Local Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of
Advertisements) Regulations 1992.
6
You are advised to contact Thames Water Utilities regarding mains/supply
pipe connections for the development at Network Services Waterloo District,
Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Waterworks Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1SB.
Contact Mr D Kirk on 0645 200800 for details.
8
As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the
Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following:
- name a new street
- name a new or existing building
- apply new street numbers to a new or existing building
This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before
use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and
the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise
you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new
names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below.
Street Naming and Numbering Officer
e-mail: [email protected]
tel: 020 7926 2283
fax: 020 7926 9104
9
You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior
to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain
necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the
Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers,
Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections,
Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements,
etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
10
You are advised that there is a Thames Water Main crossing the development
site, which may/will need to be diverted at the Developer's cost, or necessitate
amendments to the proposed development design so that the aforementioned
main can be retained. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for
maintenance and repair. Please contact Thames Water Developer Services,
Contact Centre on telephone 08458502777 for further information.