For advice on how to make further written submissions or... please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing
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 Land to the rear of 219-225 Kings Avenue, London SW12 0AT Ward Thornton Proposal Construction of a two storey development of 4 x 4 bedroom family dwellings, with hard and soft landscaping, car parking, refuse and cycle storage, with pedestrian and vehicular access from Birkwood Close. Application type Full Planning Application Application ref(s) 12/04526/FUL: Validation date 28th November 2012 Case officer details Name: Sarah Lowes Tel: 020 7926 1248 Email: [email protected] Applicant Mr Kamaran Mahmoud Agent Mr Stephen Ibbotson Considerations/constraints No Planning Constraints Approved plans Arboricultural Method Statement, Transport Statement, Daylight/Sunlight Report, Pre-development Tree Survey, Tree Protection Plan, Tree Constraints Plan, 101-00, 10101, 101-02, 101-03, 102-01, 103-01, 103-02 P1, 103-03 P1, 103-04 P1, 103-05, 103-06 and Design and Access Statement. Recommendation(s) Grant Conditional Planning Permission 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 consulted Date response received 30/04/2013 Comments summarised in para N/A Governance & Democracy (legal) 30/04/2013 Consulted? (y/n) Date response received Comments summarised in report? (y/n) Internal Highways & Transport Conservation & Urban Design Tree Officer Crime Prevention Design Advisor Y Y Y Y 12/12/2012 07/01/2013 29/01/2013 24/01/2013 Y Y Y Y External Clapham Park Partners In Action Y N/A Consultation Department(s) or Organisation(s) Background Documents Case File (this can be accessed via the Planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7926 1180) For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy 1 Summary of Main Issues 1.1 The main issues involved in this application are: • • • • • • • • • • The principle of the proposed land use within this location The role of the development in meeting housing needs in the Borough; 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 for the function of the surrounding road network, conditions of on-street parking, highway safety and public transport capacity; Whether the development would include suitable measures to minimise opportunities for crime; and Whether the proposal overcomes the previous dismissed appeal decision. 2 Site Description 2.1 The site is located to the rear of properties situated on the western side of Kings Avenue (Nos.219-225) and was historically part of the rear gardens of the same properties. The site appears to have been fenced off and in separate ownership for a number of years. Kings Avenue is a wide residential street lined with mature trees. This part of King’s Road is mostly characterised by with detached and semi-detached villas of red brick and/or render, most over two to three storeys. The site backs onto Birkwood Close a low density 2 storey residential development c.1950 constructed in brick. The properties within Birkwood Close create an L shaped perimeter block with a central open space. The site is overgrown in areas, and contains a number of mature trees. 2.2 Directly north of the site is Langholm Close with rows of single storey garages located on the boundary with the application site. To the north east of the site are the 1930’s five storey London County Council blocks and Clapham Park Estate. Along the site’s eastern boundary and within Birkwood Close are garages between which is access to the site. Birkwood Close central open space is located along the southern boundary of the site. Directly west of the site are the properties of 219-225 Kings Avenue, whose gardens back onto the western edge of the site. 2.3 There are trees on the site which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO 177); the trees are located to the rear of 219 Kings Avenue and include 2 x Oak trees and 1 x large Bay tree. 3 Planning History 3.1 Planning Application (89/00689/PLANAP) In outline, the erection of 2 x 2 storey houses with attached garages, 1 x 2 storey house with detached garage and 3 x 2 storey houses, together with the provision of 3 car parking spaces was refused on the 7th November 1989. 3.2 Planning Application (94/03073/PLANAP) Granted for the Erection of 3 x 3 bedroom 2 storey houses and 2 x 2 bedroomed detached houses, with ancillary car parking on the 27th October 1994. 3.3 Planning Application (96/03123/PLANAP) granted for the Erection of 3 x 3 bed houses and 2 x 2 bed houses with ancillary car parking on the 27th August 1996. 3.4 Planning Application (96/03123/FUL) granted for the Erection of 5 dwelling Houses with associated car parking and amenity space on the 17th January 2002. 3.5 Planning Application (11/03315/FUL) for the Erection of a part 1/ part 2 storey building to provide 5 houses with the provisions of associated hard and soft landscaping, 6 car parking spaces, refuse and recycling storage and the formation of pedestrian and vehicular access from Birkwood Close was refused on the 31st May 2012 for the following reasons: 1 The proposed development, by reason of its site coverage, siting, scale and layout, would be an overdevelopment of the site resulting in the excessive loss of a Greenfield land which contributes to the character and openness of the area; in detrimental impacts on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers; and in potential for security and community safety impacts. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the townscape and character of the area contrary to Saved Policies 31, 32, 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010, Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) and National Planning Policy Framework (2012). 2 The proposed development, by reason of quality and the lack of private amenity space would result in substandard accommodation detrimental to the residential amenity of future occupiers, indicating that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. As such the proposal would fail to comply with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010, Policy S2 of the Core Strategy, the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Developments and House Conversions’ (2008) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 3 The proposed development, by reason of its site coverage, scale and siting, would appear overbearing and visually intrusive to the neighbouring properties at 221-223 Kings Avenue particularly when view from their rear gardens, resulting in a detrimental impact on residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy. 3 The proposed development, by reason of the siting, secluded nature of the site and lack of overlooking and passive surveillance, would have unacceptable and detrimental impact on community safety and would be likely to create opportunities for crime. The proposal is therefore contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy 32 saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment. 3.6 The refused planning application (11/03315/FUL) was appealed. The appeal decision was issued on the 5th March 2013 and the appeal was dismissed. The application was dismissed on the grounds that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the locality which is derived from its undeveloped green setting. The Inspectors decision notice ref. APP/N5660/A/122179130) is attached to this report as Appendix 1. 4 Proposal 4.1 The applicant seeks planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide four 2 storey dwellings along with the provision of associated hard and soft landscaping, 4 car parking spaces, refuse and recycling storage and the formation of pedestrian and vehicular access from Birkwood Close. 4.2 The proposal would result in a terrace of four houses orientated north south with front and rear garden areas. The terrace would extend 23.6m wide, 11.45m deep and 5.7m high. The development would provide 4 x 4 bedroom houses. 4.3 Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site would be via the eastern boundary of the site, with the frontage of the development north facing. Four car parking spaces would be provided on site, along with cycle storage and a refuse and recycling storage enclosure. 4.4 The proposed houses would be constructed in brick with aluminium windows and doors and glass guarding to balconettes. The northern elevation would be partly recessed and would be constructed in slightly lighter brickwork. 4.5 4 trees are proposed to be removed within the application site, T1 (Bay Laurel), T4 (dead), T5 (Black Mulberry) and T10 (Ash). The remaining trees would be retained in and around the application site. 5 Consultations and Responses 5.1 Letters were sent to 74 neighbouring properties within the vicinity of the site, details of which can be found on the application file. 5.2 A site notice was erected in the vicinity of the site on 7th December 2012. Internal consultation 5.3 Conservation and Urban Design – Considers that the amendments to the layout and scale of the development are acceptable. Concerns were raised in regards to the use of timber on the front elevations of the proposed houses, this has been removed from the proposal and replace with a brick construction which is considered to overcome the Urban Design Officers concerns. 5.4 Transport and Highways – No objections to the proposal. 5.5 Crime Prevention Officer – No objections to the development subject to compliance with secure by design standards 5.6 Trees – No objections subject to appropriate tree protection conditions. 5.7 Streetcare - No comments received to date. External consultation 5.8 The Clapham Park Partners In Action have been consulted on the application but no response has been received to date. 5.9 The Birkwood Close Tenants and Residents Association have objected to the development, their objections are detailed within the table below. 5.10 A total of 6 objection letters were received. The details of the objections are outlined below: No. of sent 74 Letters No. of Objections No. in support Comments 6 0 0 Issue raised by Objector Impact on parking and the increase in traffic for the existing residents of Birkwood Close Officer response The Council’s Transport Planner has reviewed the submission and considers that the proposal would not have a significant impact on local highway network and parking stresses within the local area. The development is unlikely to generate additional cars needing to park on street given that 4 off street car parking spaces are proposed. This additional number of cars would not result in undue harm to the residential amenity of properties on Birkwood Close. The potential impacts on The previous application (11/03315/FUL) was refused on the security of the grounds that the development would result in harm to residential properties. security and community safety of future residential occupiers. Within the Appeal Decision (APP/N5660/A/12/2179130) the inspector disagreed with the Council stating ‘…. The proposal therefore does not achieve ideal conditions in terms of community safety, but within the limitations of the setting makes reasonable provision for crime prevention. There would be no serious conflict with Policy 32 of the UDP or Policy S9 of the Core Strategy.’ With this in mind, along with the revisions in this scheme which see the development set away from the site boundaries and the single storey garages, is it considered that the proposal would not result in undue harm to the security and community safety of future occupiers. With regard to existing occupiers, the proposal is for a residential development within an existing residential area. The proposed development would not result in further opportunities for crime or harm to community safety which would be detrimental to neighbouring and surrounding residential properties. The existing road is already weak and sloping and concerns are raised with regards to other large construction vehicles which may come within the application site This is not a material planning consideration. Nevertheless issues of how the construction of the development would take place would be addressed via a method of construction statement, a condition to secure these details is recommended. The proposal would result in an undue impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring and surrounding properties. The boundary of the application is sited at least 24m from the front elevation of properties on Birkbeck Close and approximately 13m from the rear elevations of properties on Kings Avenue. Within the appeal decision relating to the previous application (APP/N560/A/12/2179130) the Inspector did not considered that the proposal would have any significant impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring and surrounding residential properties. With this in mind and considering the revisions within the proposed development it is considered that the proposal would not have any significant impact on residential amenity. This is discussed in detail within section 9 of this report. Overdevelopment of the The previous application was refused as it was considered site and the resultant loss that the proposed level of development would result in an of Greenfield land. excessive loss of open green space and was an over development of the site. The current application has reduced the overall built footprint of the development and increased the levels of open green spaces and as such officers consider that the revised proposal would overcome the previous reason for refusal. This is discussed in further detail within Section 7 of this report. Noise and disturbance from the proposed development would be detrimental to the living condition of neighbouring and surrounding residential properties. The proposed development is for four additional residential units within an existing residential area. There is no evidence before the LPA to suggest that the proposed development would result in any undue noise which would not be compatible with the nature residential of the area. The site is contaminated An informative would be added to any decision advising with Japanese Knotweed. the applicant about the legal procedures relating to Japanese Knotweed. Trees within the site are The application site includes a number of trees that are protected by a trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The Council’s preservation order. Arboricultural Officer has reviewed the submission and raises no objections to the development. This is discussed in detail within Section 10 of this report. The proposal would result in a sub standard of accommodation for future occupiers. The proposal would meet the Council’s minimum residential space standards and would provide sufficient levels of amenity space in line with the Council’s guidance. Therefore in this regard it is considered that the proposal would result in a good standard of residential accommodation for future occupiers. 5.10 The application has been called in to Planning Applications Committee by Councillor Edward Davie (Thornton Ward Councillor). 6 Planning Policy Considerations National Guidance 6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and forms the national planning policy basis. The London Plan 2011 6.2 The London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. The London Plan is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region. 6.3 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital over the next 20-25 years. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies 6.4 The key policies of the plan considered relevant in this case are: Policy 3.3 Policy 3.4 Policy 3.5 Policy 3.8 Policy 5.3 Policy 6.9 Policy 6.13 Policy 7.1 Policy 7.2 Policy 7.3 Policy 7.4 Policy 7.6 Increasing Housing Supply Optimising Housing Supply Quality and Design of Housing Developments Housing choice Sustainable Design and Construction Cycling Parking Building London’s Neighbourhood and Communities An Inclusive Environment Designing out Crime Local Character Architecture Local Planning Policies 6.5 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 (adopted 22nd July 2011), the Lambeth Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’. Material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework. 6.6 Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 Policy 9 Policy 14 Policy 31 Policy 32 Policy 33 Policy 35 Policy 38 Policy 39 6.7 Transport impact Parking and Traffic Restraint 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 Policy S2 Policy S4 Policy S5 Policy S7 Policy S8 Policy S9 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Housing Transport Open Space Sustainable Construction and Design Sustainable Waste Management Quality of the Built Environment Supplementary Planning Documents The following Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) are considered relevant to this application:- • • • 7 Housing Developments and House Conversions (July 2008) Sustainable Design and Construction (July 2008) Safer Built Environments (April 2008) Land Use Principle of intensification of residential use 7.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to achieve high quality housing that is well-designed and built to a high standard and a mix of housing, to support a wide variety of households in all areas, both urban and rural. The NPPF promotes residential development that would utilise previously developed (Brownfield) land. The NPPF defines previously development land and states that this does not include private residential gardens. 7.2 London Plan Policy 3.3 set out borough housing targets, and in line with this the Council’s Local Development Framework 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’. 7.3 The proposal seeks permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide four residential units. Historic ordnance survey maps confirm that originally the site formed part of the rear gardens of 219-225 Kings Avenue and therefore the site is Greenfield land. From the planning history, the site visit and a review of historic OS map it can be seen that site has never been developed. The site has been fenced off and appears to be in separate ownership from the residential properties in Kings Avenue. A number of planning permissions have been granted for the development of the site for residential dating back to 1989; however none of the proposals have been implemented. 7.4 Given the planning history of the site the principle of developing the site for residential purpose has been established as being acceptable and this is not disputed within the inspectors appeal decision. It is acknowledged that the NPPF makes it clear that residential gardens are not brownfield. The NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens for example where development would cause harm to the local area. This indicates therefore that appropriate development of former residential gardens would be acceptable in circumstances where it does not cause harm to the environment. The NPPF maintains the primacy of the local development plan. Therefore development proposal within the curtliage of a residential property including former garden land must still be assessed on its own merits in the context of development plan policies and other material considerations. 7.5 Lambeth planning policy contained within Saved 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. Buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that are appropriate to their site characteristics, setting, civic function and/or importance and location in the townscape”. This design led approach does not distinguish between previously developed (‘brownfield’) land and undeveloped (‘greenfield’) land and therefore the recently adopted NPPF does not alter the policy position in Lambeth. An assessment of the design merits of the proposal, neighbouring residential amenity and the provision of amenity space for the proposed development is detailed further on in this report. In summary the principle of the redevelopment of the site is considered to be acceptable however the level and amount of development should be reflective of the verdant and open character of the site. 7.6 The site is Greenfield and a backland site therefore saved policies 33 and 38 of the UDP is applicable. Saved Policy 33 of the UDP states that buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that are appropriate to their site characteristics, setting and location in the townscape. Saved Policy 38 of the UDP sets out that the layout, scale and form of housing visible from the street should be compatible with the predominant scale of housing on the street. 7.7 The application site is Greenfield and it is considered that the development should reflect the open character and setting of the site including the retained rear gardens of 219-225 Kings Avenue and the central green within Birkwood Close. In response to the refusal of the previous application (11/03315/FUL) the scheme has been amended as • • • • • • 7.8 reduction in the number of dwellings from 5 to 4 reduction in the depth of the terrace of dwellings 18m to 11m the terrace would be set off from the boundary of the rear gardens of properties 219-225 King Avenue by between 4 and 9m. the terrace would be sited 2.5m from the single storey garages within Birkbeck Close no integral garages would be provided 4 on site car parking spaces are proposed, a reduction from the 6 proposed within the previous scheme. During consideration of the current proposal the Planning Inspectorate issued the appeal decision relating to the previously refused scheme (11/03315/FUL). The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the locality which is derived from the undeveloped green setting of the site. The character and appearance of the site was considered by the Inspector to be an open, green and undeveloped. The current proposal seeks to reduce the footprint of built form within the site retaining a higher percentage of the site as open and green. 7.9 The built form of the houses within the current proposal would cover approximately 30% of the site area (272m2). This is a considerable reduction from the previous scheme which would have resulted in 64% of the area of the site occupied by the built form. Within the current scheme 40% of the site would be provided as open amenity space for the residents of the proposed dwellings and a further 30% of the site would be given over to hardsurfacing for access and car parking. Given the reduced amount of built form on the application site it is considered that the proposal would retain a considerable amount of the site as open Greenfield land. 7.10 In the circumstance and given the planning history of the site, the Planning Inspectors decision, the current proposal is considered to respond to the open nature of the application site. The reduced built footprint and site area proposed as gardens is considered to be reflective of the character of the existing site and as such it is considered that the proposal would not significantly erode the open character of the site. The proposed level of development is considered to be acceptable and would not constitute an overdevelopment of the site. In this regard it is considered that the proposal would overcome the previous reason for refusal and concerns raised by the Planning Inspector within appeal decision (APP/N5660/A/12/2179130). 7.11 The proposal would provide four additional units within the application site which is considered to comply with Saved Policy S2 of the Core Strategy. Dwelling Mix 7.12 Policy S2 of the Core Strategy part (d) sets out that a mix of housing sizes and types would be sought to meet the needs of different sections of the community. The proposal, comprising 4 four bedroom dwellings, would provide family sized units for between 3-6 persons. The Council’s Housing Needs Survey Update (2009) indicates that the borough is in need of family sized accommodation. 8 Conservation and Design Issues 8.1 Guidance given in the NPPF states that good design is indivisible from good planning, with high quality and inclusive design being the aim of all of those involved in the development process. 8.2 Saved Policy 38 of the UDP states that proposals to intensify existing residential/mixed-use areas are welcomed where this can be achieved through good design and without harming local amenities. Any attractive prevailing character and appearance of the area should also be protected, particularly within conservation areas and other areas of significant townscape quality. 8.3 In relation to the surrounding built environment, the area is characterised by domestic scale development and the site has an open and green nature. To the west of the site are residential gardens of 219-225 Kings Avenue; to the south of the site is the central green within Birkwood Close. The character and appearance of the application site is considered to be open, green and undeveloped. Therefore it is considered that the development should reflect this character in order to comply with Saved Policy 38 of the UDP. The scale and layout of the development has been significantly amended within the current scheme and is now considered to be more reflective of the character and nature of the application site and surrounding area. 8.4 The Council’s Urban Design officer has reviewed the submission and considers that the development has overcome the previous concerns in regards to the level and amount of development on the application site and the issues raised by the appeal decision. Layout and Siting 8.5 The proposal is for a backland development with a linear layout. The development would be orientated north to south and the proposed dwellings would be accessed from Birkwood Close. The layout of the development within the previous application was considered to result in an overdevelopment of the site. The layout of the current scheme, whilst still linear in nature, is considered to address previous concerns given the reduction in the overall footprint of the development (depth reduced from 18m to 11m) and the additional amenity space provision for future occupiers. 8.6 The layout of the development and the main access to the site is constrained by land ownership and the position of the existing garages, resulting in the main entrance to the proposed dwelling being via the northern elevation. This would results in the rear elevation of the dwellings backing onto the central green within Birkwood Close. This concern was previously raised within the first application. Whilst this layout is not ideal, the site ownership issues constrains the layout of the development and the consequence is that the proposed dwellings can not be accessed from the south of the site. Height, scale and massing 8.7 The height of the proposal given the surrounding context is considered acceptable as is the massing of the development. Given the reduced footprint and scale of the development is considered that the proposal would be appropriate within its context and would overcome the previous reason for refusal on these grounds. Detailed design and materials 8.8 Saved Policy 33 of the UDP- Building Scale and Design states that all development should be of high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area. Policy S9 of the Core Strategy seeks the high quality of design in all new building and development which enhances the existing built environment. 8.9 The contemporary design of the proposal is considered to be acceptable as are the proposal materials. Should the application be granted permission a condition would require details of all materials to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. 9 Amenity Issues Amenity of Neighbouring Residents 9.1 The proposal has been assessed having regard to Saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy which seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents from inappropriate development. Policy 33 of the UDP seeks to ensure that new developments do not create an overbearing sense of enclosure while maintaining acceptable levels of sunlight, daylight and privacy. 9.2 The proposal would not result in any unacceptable impacts on the privacy or the daylight/sunlight of neighbouring and surrounding residential properties given the distances between the application site and the surrounding residential properties. The rear elevations of properties on Kings Avenue are sited approximately 13m from the site boundary and properties to the east on Birkbeck Close are sited 24m from the boundary of the application site. These separation distances would limit any potential harm to the daylight/sunlight levels received at the neighbouring residential properties. In addition to this no windows are proposed within the side elevations facing onto residential properties and as such would not lead to a loss of privacy. Sense of enclosure/Overbearing Development 9.3 The previous development was refused as it was considered that the siting and layout of the development would result an overbearing impact and appear visually intrusive to the properties at 221-223 Kings Avenue. The previous scheme was proposed to be sited on the rear boundary with no.221 and 5.5m from the boundary with 223 Kings Avenue. Within the Inspectors appeal decision (APP/N5660/A/12/2179130), the inspector considered that the development would not appear overbearing or create any undue sense of enclosure. 9.4 The current scheme would set the development back from the boundary with 221 by approximately 4m and from the boundary with no.223 by 9m. The maximum height of the development is approximately 5.5m on this boundary. These distances from the boundaries and the reduced overall height and scale of the development are considered to overcome the previous reason for refusal on grounds of overbearing impacts. It is considered that the development would not appear overbearing or visually intrusive thereby protecting the living conditions of neighbouring and surrounding residential properties in line with saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy. Standard of Proposed Accommodation 9.5 Proposed accommodation should comply with the room size standards and ceiling heights as laid out in the Council’s adopted 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). 9.6 All of the proposed units meet and exceed the minimum overall unit sizes set out in the SPD, indicating a good quality of accommodation. In terms of individual rooms sizes all units meet and exceed the SPD standards. 9.7 All of the individual houses would be orientated in a north-south direction and all the main living spaces would face south and windows would serve all habitable rooms. Given this the proposal is considered acceptable in terms on natural light and outlook. In addition a BRE compliant daylight/sunlight report has been submitted which indicates that the daylight/sunlight levels within the proposed dwellings would meet the BRE guidelines. Further to this the layout is such that future occupiers would achieve a satisfactorily level of privacy. Amenity Space 9.8 The SPD ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Developments and House Conversions’ sets out that 30m2 of private amenity space should be provided for houses within new developments. 9.9 The amenity space provision within the development was a previous reason for refusal and it was considered that there were not sufficient levels of functional and useable amenity space proposed for future occupiers. However the Inspector within appeal decision (APP/N5660/A/12/2179130) did not agree with the Council on this matter. The current proposal has significantly increased the levels of amenity space due to the reduced built footprint of the development. Each dwelling would be provided with at least 30m2 of amenity space. Previous concerns were raised as it was proposed that only a 1m high boundary would enclose the rear amenity space which would have impacted on the privacy levels of existing occupiers. No details of the rear boundary treatment have been provided within the current application, however it is considered that this could be dealt with by way of condition should planning permission be granted. 9.10 The proposal is considered to provide sufficient private and functional amenity space which is considered to help provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupiers in compliance with Saved Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy. 10 Trees/Landscaping 10.1 Saved Policy 39 of the UDP provides advice on the retention and protection of existing trees in new development and requires the provision of hard and soft landscaping as part of a planting and landscaping scheme for new development sites, where appropriate. 10.2 Trees T1 (Bay), T2 (Oak) and T3 (Oak) as identified in the Arboricultural Report (David Brown Landscape Design) are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (No.177). The proposal would result in the removal of T1 but retain the 2 x larger Oak trees that are the main landscape features within the site. The proposal would also result in the removal of trees T4 (dead) and T5 (Mulberry) that are situated on the southern boundary of the site. T5 is not a significant specimen in terms of landscape value (it is suppressed by a larger adjacent tree, T9). Trees T7 (Walnut), T9 (Ash) and T11 (Oak) situated on the southern boundary of the site are to be retained. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has reviewed the submission and has raised no objection to the loss of trees. 10.3 In addition conditions requiring the protection of all trees retained on site are recommended should planning permission be granted along with a condition which requires details of a hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development can commence. 10.4 In this regard it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable and would comply with Saved Policy 39 of the UDP. 11 Transport and Highways 11.1 This part of Kings Avenue is within Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Thornton ‘R’ and has a poor level of access to public transport (PTAL 2). Having a relatively low PTAL means that residents are likely to be relatively car-dependent. Access is proposed from Birkwood Close, which is a Housing Estate road and is therefore not part of the adopted highway. 11.2 Vehicular access is proposed via Birkwood Close, between two existing garages. The access appears to measure approximately 2.5m wide, which is likely to be too narrow to allow refuse trucks, removals vehicles and fire tenders to enter the site. However, the furthest dwelling from Birkwood Close appears to be within 45m of Kings Avenue, allowing London Fire Brigade to attend the site. 11.3 An automatic vehicle gate is proposed, with a separate pedestrian gate. No detail is given on the proposed security of these gates and therefore should planning permission be granted details of these elements of the development would be secured by way of condition. 11.4 Eight garages adjoin the site on Birkwood Close. These are located outside the application site and would not be affected by the proposed development and as such parking is not expected to be displaced from these onto surrounding streets. Four parking spaces are proposed on site, although there is an area beyond the marked out bays which could be used as extra car parking. Regardless of whether 4 or 5 spaces are proposed, given the low PTAL level and the size of the proposed units, this level of parking meets London Plan standards. The dimensions of the bays are appropriate, and measure some 6m long making them suitable for disabled users. The Transport Statement includes swept path analyses demonstrating that cars would be able to enter and leave the site in forward gear. 11.5 Given that at least one parking space is proposed per dwelling, the proposals are not expected to generate a significant number of vehicles requiring on-street parking, so a permit cap is not considered necessary. Details of this aspect of the development would be secured by way condition. 11.6 Cycle parking store would be provided within the north-western corner of the site. The plans indicate this would serve as storage for 8 cycles this would accord with the London Plan Standards. 11.7 The proposal would not result in undue harm to the local highway network or pedestrian or highway safety. As such it is considered that the development would comply with saved Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy. 12 Other Matters Sustainability and Renewable Energy Issues 12.1 Saved Policy 35 of the UDP and Policy S7 of the Core Strategy states that all development proposals should show, by means of a Sustainability Assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. 12.2 The applicant has provided a sustainability statement which sets out the level of sustainable construction and design that has been incorporated within the scheme. The proposal would comply with saved policy 35 of the UDP and Policy S7 of the Core Strategy. The SPD ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ states that under the Code for Sustainable Homes, the Council seeks three stars as a minimum standard and aspires to four or more stars on the majority of developments. The applicant has provided a Code for Sustainable Homes Pre Assessment which indicates that level 3 would be met. If the application is recommended for approval this would be secured by way of condition. Community Safety/Designing Out Crime 12.3 The previous application was refused as it was considered that the layout of the development would result in potential harm to the security and community safety of the future occupiers of the development. This was due to the single storey aspects of the previous development being sited against the single storey garages. The current proposal would site the terrace of houses approximately 4m from the existing garages, this distance is considered to address the concerns previously raised. The lack of passive surveillance and the secluded nature of the site added to this concern. The applicant has included windows within the side (east) elevation at first floor level which would over look Birkbeck Close and the route to the entrance of the site. In addition an automatic vehicle gate and pedestrian gate are proposed, which would increase security within the site. 12.4 The measures proposed are considered to help overcome the previous reason for refusal. The plans indicate propose external lighting, details of this would be secured by way of condition should the application be granted permission. In addition to this it is considered that the development should meet secured by design standards in order to comply with Saved Policy 32 of the UDP, again this would be secured by way of condition should planning permission be granted. 13 Conclusion 13.1 The proposed development represents an effective and efficient use of urban land to provide a residential scheme in accordance with current government guidelines and the local development plan policies. 13.2 The proposed development is considered to be an appropriate response to the character and appearance of the local area. It is considered that the proposal is compatible with the scale of development located on either side of the application site. 13.3 The proposal would not unduly detract from the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers by reason of loss of outlook, sunlight, daylight or privacy. The scheme would provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation. 14 Recommendation 14.1 It is recommended that the application be Granted Planning Permission subject to the following conditions: Summary of the 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. The development plan in Lambeth is the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy adopted in January 2011’ and the London Plan (adopted July 2011). 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 31 Policy 32 Policy 33 Policy 35 Policy 38 Policy 39 Transport impact Parking and Traffic Restraint 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 LDF Core Strategy January 2011 Policy S1 Policy S2 Policy S4 Policy S5 Policy S7 Policy S8 Policy S9 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Housing Transport Open Space Sustainable Construction and Design Sustainable Waste Management Quality of the Built Environment 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 3 No development shall take place until detailed drawings, samples and a schedule of materials to be used within the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications to these matters which have been given on the approved plans and in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the details approved in writing. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies 33 and 38 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). 4 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the external faces of the building, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained. Reason: Such works would detract from the appearance of the building and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with saved Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. 5 Details of the siting and design of all walls and/or fencing including all boundary treatment between plots shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the development hereby approved. Such walls or fencing as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the buildings unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning authority to any variation has been obtained. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory resultant appearance and in the interests of the privacy of future and existing residents in accordance with Polices 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policies S5 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) 6 Notwithstanding the approved drawings, details of the refuse and recycle storage area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted. The provision shall comply with the requirements of the Council's Guidance document for architects and developers 'Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements'. This provision shall be implemented before first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained permanently. The facilities will need to be incorporated within the main envelope of the building and not along the front boundary of the property. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policies S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). 7 The development hereby approved shall achieve a Final Code for Sustainable Homes minimum of Level 3 ‘Very Good’ in accordance with the requirements of the relevant BREEAM scheme. Within 6 months of the first occupation a Final Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate shall be obtained stating the BREEAM Level achieved, and shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of securing a sustainable development in accordance with Saved Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Policy S7 (2011). 8 The development shall be constructed and thereafter operated so as to achieve ‘Secured by Design accreditation. 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. 9 Prior to the 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 before the building hereby permitted is occupied/the use hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use. Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). 10 Details of a scheme to light the access drive/road and vehicle parking areas hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development and shall be implemented in full before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied/used. The approved lighting shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interest of public safety in accordance with policies 9 and 14 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). 11 No development shall take place until a ‘Method of Construction Statement’ has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety in accordance with Policies 9 and 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond the 5th August 2010 and Policy S1 and S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). 12 13 No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Approved Drwg Tree Constraints Plan by David Brown Landscape Design Ltd dated October 2012, 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)). All tree protection measures, including foundation design, as outlined on the Approved Drwg Tree Protection Plan and the Approved Document Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by David Brown Landscape Design Ltd dated August 2011 shall be strictly adhered to and implemented before the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved. The tree protection measures shall remain in place for the duration of the construction of the development, and only be dismantled or removed following the 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)). 14 All Tree Surgery Work shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Approved Document Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by David Brown Landscape Design Ltd dated August 2011. The tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998:2010 and in line with current arboricultural best practice. 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)). 15 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of all arboricultural site monitoring, site supervision and subsequent recording keeping of all tree protection measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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)). 16 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)). 17 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)). 18 No demolition works or development shall take place until a specification of all proposed soft landscaping and tree planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of the quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all trees and shrubs to be planted, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and protection. In addition all shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape shall be similarly specified. All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 best practice. and current Arboricultural Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development (Policy 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)). 19 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development (Policy 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)). 20 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). 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 to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division concerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or regulations made thereunder. 5 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. 6 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 - register new flats or new buildings with Royal Mail 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. The correct street number or number and name must be displayed prominently on the premises in accordance with regulations made under Section 12 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939. Contact details are listed below. Tom Brown tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 0780 email: [email protected] __________________________
© Copyright 2024