Location 36-38 Abbeville Road London SW4 9NG

Ward Clapham Common

Proposal Application

Erection of a single storey ground floor rear side infill extension, removal of door to the rear elevation and new shopfront.

Applicant Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

Agent Turley Associates 25 Saville Row, London, W1S 2ES

Date valid

27 January 2011

Case Officer

Ms Astra Spyrou

Application Reference

11/00166/FUL

Recommendation(s)

Grant Planning Permission

1.0 Summary of Main Issues

• Land use and a question of the lawfulness of the proposed change of use to Use Class A1 (shops) and any intensification resulting from the proposed extension;

• The impact upon the existing levels of amenity enjoyed by residential occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance, visual intrusion, loss of light, light pollution and privacy;

• The effect of the proposal on the appearance of the host building, the street scene in general and whether the proposal would at least preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Abbeville Road conservation area,

• Implications for highway and pedestrian safety and refuse storage, and;

• A question of whether the application overcomes previous concerns.

2.0 Site 2.1 The application site comprises a traditional three-storey mid-terrace,

double fronted building that forms part of the Abbeville Road local shopping parade. The terrace is located between the junctions of Narbonne Road and Shandon Road.

2.2 Presently the application site is vacant and the ground floor unit was last

occupied by a restaurant (A3 Use Class) with residential flats above (C3 Use Class). Entrance to the flats is achieved from the front of the premises on Abbeville Road and servicing to the ground floor premise is achieved from Narbonne Road.

2.3 The existing shopfront comprises bi-folding doors with fascia above and

pilasters on either side. Materials are timber and glazing and there is also a decking area to the front for seating purposes and an awning.

2.4 The property is located within the Abbeville Road Conservation Area,

within which there is a common theme of traditional shopfronts in a timber construction. The site is also within a Local Centre as defined by the Saved Unitary Development Plan Proposals map. Abbeville Road is a Local Distributor Road in the borough highways hierarchy.

3.0 Planning History 3.1 The planning history of the site is outlined below: 90/00069/PLANAP: Change of use of the ground floor from a retail shop unit to a fast food take-away restaurant together with elevational alterations. Granted planning permission at the Planning Applications Committee meeting in January 1990. 95/02380/PLANAP: Change of use of the ground floor from a retail shop unit to a fast food take-away restaurant together with external alterations including enlargement of existing WC rear extension, and provision of fume extract flue at rear. Granted planning permission at the Planning Applications Committee meeting in January 1995. 97/00227/FUL: Change of use of ground floor shop from off-licence (A1) to a restaurant (Class A3), together with the erection of a single storey rear extension. Planning permission refused at the Planning Applications Committee meeting in April 1997. This application was refused on the following ground:

• The proposed change of use would adversely affect the retail character of the parade and vitality of the Neighbourhood Centre by virtue of it resulting in an undue concentration of four non-A1 (retail) uses within the parade; as such, it would be contrary to Policy S19 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development plan (as amended).

The above was allowed on appeal in January 1998 (Ref: T/APP/N5660/A/97/285280/P8) 97/00252/FUL: Erection of a single storey rear extension. Granted planning permission subject to conditions in April 1997. 98/02572/ADV: Installation of internally illuminated fascia and projecting box signs. Granted advertisement consent in February 1999. 00/02217/FUL: Re-development of the rear single storey. No further action taken 00/02220/ADV: Display of illuminated fascia shop signage and canopy as integral part of shop front. Granted advertisement consent in December 2000. 02/02015/FUL: Installation of an air conditioning unit with new water storage tank, secured by new timber fence along with associated alterations. No further action taken 02/01336/DET: Approval of details, pursuant to condition 4 (sound proofing and insulation works) of appeal decision T/APP/N5660/A/97/285280/P8 of planning

permission 97/00227/FUL dated 19/01/1998 (Retrospective application). Granted permission in July 2002. 02/02360/DET: Approval of details, pursuant to condition 3 (sound proofing) and condition 5 (installation of extract duct) of appeal decision T/APP/N5660/A/97/285280/P8 of planning application 97/00227/FUL. No further action taken. 10/03603/FUL: Erection of a single storey ground floor rear side infill extension, alterations to doors and windows to the rear elevation and alterations to existing shopfront including installation of an ATM (automated teller machine). Refused under delegated powers in December 2010 for the following reasons:

• The design of the proposed replacement shopfront fails to respect the traditional proportions of the existing building. In addition the use of powder coated aluminium materials and setting of the ATM (automatic teller machine) by reason of its use of a solid panel fails to respond to the host building or the parade of which it forms a part. The proposed development therefore fails to preserve or enhance the character of appearance of this part of the Abbeville Road Conservation Area and is contrary to Policies 37 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan policies saved beyond 5 August 2010.

• The proposed ATM (automatic teller machine) would be in a prominent location visible to passing drivers and is likely to result in injudicious parking thereby disrupting the free flow of traffic in the area and having an adverse impact on highway safety on Abbeville Road. The proposal would therefore by contrary to Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan policies saved beyond 5 August 2010.

10/03604/ADV: Display of 2x externally illuminated fascia signs and 1x externally illuminated projecting sign. Refused under delegated powers in December 2010 for the following reasons:

• The proposed fascia signs, by virtue of their material and design with inlaid lettering, constitutes an inappropriate and visually detrimental addition to the parent building, which when considered within the context of the existing signage within Abbeville Road would have a unduly harmful impact on the visual amenity of both the host building and the surrounding Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 37 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document for Shopfronts and Signage (2008).

• The proposed projecting sign, by reason of its excessive length, constitutes a disproportionate addition to the host property which would

appear overly dominant and cause harm to the visual amenity of the host building and surrounding Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 37 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document for Shopfronts and Signage (2008).

3.2 At present the following applications are being determined by the Local

Planning Authority and are yet to be decided: 11/00167/ADV: Display of 2x externally illuminated fascia signs to the front elevation and 1 x externally illuminated projection sign. 10/03606/FUL: Installation of an enclosed mechanical plant and air conditioning units to the rear roof at first floor level. 3.3 Enforcement history: 02/00021/UNADEV: Creation of illuminated/heated terrace on street. Case closed. 00/00288/UNADEV: Internal works and rear extension. Case closed 05/00457/4ADV: Estate agent sign. Case closed 06/00564/4ADV: Estate agent sign. Case closed 4.0 Proposal: 4.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey ground

floor rear side infill extension, removal of doors to the rear elevation and replacement shopfront. Unlike the earlier refused scheme (ref: 10/03603/FUL) this application does not propose the installation of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM).

4.2 The proposed rear extension would infill an existing rear courtyard which

extends to rear boundary of the application site and would stand no higher than the existing single storey roof structure.

4.3 The replacement shopfront proposes the installation of a new timber

shopfront with a single sliding door. In total six vertical divisions are proposed to include a stallriser, fascia and retained pilasters.

5.0 Consultation 5.1 Consultation on the application was carried out from 3 February 2011.

5.3 Letters of notification were to 117 neighbouring properties in the vicinity to include the following roads surrounding the site: Abbeville Road, Narbonne Avenue and Shandon Road.

5.4 As part of the consultation process a site notice was erected in the vicinity

of the site on 18th February 2011. 5.5 The application was advertised in Lambeth Life on the 1st March 2011. 5.6 The application was subject to two rounds of public consultation given that

the description of development was corrected to remove the reference of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) and alterations to windows the rear elevation.

5.7 The Clapham Society, the Clapham Park Partners in Action Group and the

Crescent Grove Trustees were also notified of the application. The Clapham Society objects to the application and there representations are summarised in Table 1.

5.7 Following the consultation process, 30 occupiers of neighbouring residences

as well as the Clapham Society have raised objections/concerns. The objections are summarised below:-

(Table 1)

Material planning objections

Response

Land Use

• The introduction of this business would be detrimental to the character and ‘village’ feel of Abbeville Road.

• Damage to the diversity of the parade

• A further supermarket is not required and the local area is becoming saturated with supermarkets.

• The scheme would be harmful to existing retail businesses

The application site is currently vacant however was last occupied as a restaurant on the ground floor. Upon examination of the sites planning history the change of use of ground floor shop from off-licence (A1) to a restaurant (Class A3), together with the erection of a single storey rear extension was allowed on appeal in January 1998. In accordance with the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) changes of use from A3 Use Class (restaurants) to Use Class A1 (Shops) is permitted. Therefore express planning permission is not required for the use of the premises as a retail unit.

The Clapham Society have objected on the following grounds:

• Section 3 of the character statement produced by the Council notes that the conservation area is made up solely of the local shopping parade and that . "The proliferation of independent businesses, despite the presence of some larger chains, adds to the distinctiveness of the area and differentiates it from shopping parades dominated by more familiar high street businesses."

• To date, the 'larger chains' referred to have been restaurants and cafes. Sainsbury's would be the first national supermarket chain in the conservation area and its presence in two of the shop units will dilute that aspect of the area's character generated by

This application is a re-submission of a previously refused application (LBL Ref: 10/03603/FUL) and this application was refused on two grounds, none of which related to the land use merits of the scheme. The principle of the development from a land use policy viewpoint therefore remains unchanged. The development would provide an active A class use at ground floor level in line with Core Strategy Policy S3 and saved UDP policies 4, 19 and 47. It is re-iterated that express planning permission is not required for the use of the premises as a retail unit. It is officer comment that business competition is not a material planning consideration.

the independent nature of most of the traders.

• No consideration is given in the application to the economic impact of a new Sainsbury's store on the viability of existing traders. At a recent public meeting, the applicant's agents stated that the presence of a Sainsbury's Local would stimulate the local economy. But no evidence, in the form of an impact assessment to measure the effect of the proposal on trade and turnover in the conservation area, has been produced with the application to demonstrate whether it would have either a positive or negative effect.

• There are presently two general grocers in the parade who are likely to lose business to a Sainsbury's store selling directly comparable goods, and other independent traders that will be affected as well. Both general grocers have been there for years and contribute to the 'independent' character of the conservation area.

• In the absence of any retail impact assessment to demonstrate otherwise, the inevitable conclusion is that Sainsbury's presence will draw trade away from comparable stores and may lead to their closure, damaging the character of the conservation area created by its independent traders.

Design

It is re-iterated that planning permission is not required for the use of the premises as a retail unit.

• The design of the shop-front is harmful to the character or appearance of the conservation area. This is terms of its detailed design and proportions.

The Clapham Society have objected on

The Councils Conservation Officer has commented that this conservation area is notable for its good quality timber shopfronts with traditional detailing and signage. The existing building does not have a shopfront of note, but it is timber and retains its pilasters, console brackets and cornice. There is also an awning located above the shopfront. The proposal follows concerns regarding the previous application which sought to remove the existing shopfront and replace it with a new powder coated aluminium one, with automatic sliding doors and a new ATM. The latest proposed shopfront is timber and incorporates more traditional proportioning, including a larger stallriser. In total four vertical divisions are proposed. In this case the revised scheme does not include an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) neither the use of powder coated aluminium. Previously under the refused the scheme such elements were considered un-sympathetic to the character and appearance of the conservation area. In response to the above, in this instance the Councils Conservation Officer considers that the application has overcome previous concerns and that the design and proportions would suitably respond to the host building and its context of the conservation area. No objections are raised in response to the removal of the existing awning and raised decking. In the event of granting planning permission details of the shopfront would be secured by condition. Please refer to the above comments

the following grounds

• The development proposals would be harmful to the continuity, character and appearance of both the host building and the wider Abbeville Road conservation area. The scheme would not overcome previous concerns

• The proposed shopfront is predominantly glazed, featureless, two dimensional and lacking sufficient features or period quality. It would provide clear unobstructed views into the store and afford large flat surfaces for screened corporate graphics, posters and oversized lettering to be applied - a feature of other Sainsbury Local stores.

• The present proposal remains inferior to the shopfront it is replacing. Existing features such as the external canvas awning and the planted outdoor seating would be removed. The awning should be replaced.

Amenity

• The opening hours are excessive and would result in noise and disturbance impact.

No objections are raised in response to the removal of the existing awning and raised decking. They are not considered to be features worthy of retention. In response to the proposed opening hours which are 7am to 11pm Monday- Sundays (to include Bank holidays) given that the existing use of the premises is a restaurant (A3 use class) that would result in more intensive patterns of use such as the consumption of alcohol on the premises, the gathering of people outside to observe menus and the presence of outdoor seating in this instance the opening hours are considered acceptable. In comparison to the use of the restaurant

• Light pollution

• Sense of enclosure of the rear infill extension

• Opposition to selling of alcohol Highways

• Highway safety impact from deliveries

it is not considered that a demonstrable increase in noise and disturbance would result through the use of a shop. In any event given that a change of use is not required it is not considered reasonable to restrict the hours of operation. The replacement shopfront would not result in an undue light pollution impact over and above the existing situation given that it would be replacing an existing glazed shopfront that can be opened onto the street. It is also recognised that the character of the vicinity observes commercial premises at ground floor all observing glazed shop fronts. The proposed rear extension would infill a rear courtyard adjacent to an existing rear extension which extends to rear boundary of the application site. It would stand no higher than the existing single storey roof structure. Given this, the separation distances involved between the nearest residential occupiers and that immediate neighbours to the ground floor are commercial uses, it would not result in an undue un-neighbourly impact in terms of overlooking, visual intrusion and loss of light impacts. It is re-iterated that planning permission is not required for an A1 shop use. In any case in order to sell alcohol permission would be required under licensing legislation. Under the refused scheme the Councils Transport Officer raised objections to the installation of the ATM as it would be prominently visible to passing drivers and this may result in injudicious

• Congestion

• Parking pressures Waste

• Increased litter

• Collection of refuse

• Noise and disturbance from construction works.

parking. In this case as the ATM has been removed from the revised proposal no objections are raised. In response to the deliveries of the premises, car parking and trip generation impacts, as the proposed change to A1 shops is permitted under the use class order any in principle objection would not be sustainable. It is re-iterated that express planning is not required for the change of use. The Transport Officer has further commented that there is an existing Loading Bay outside the property and this would provide a facility for servicing to some extent. It is understood the applicant is attempting to get the loading restrictions altered to extend the loading restrictions to Saturdays and Sundays. This would be addressed by highway legislation. The submission has not addressed the storage of refuse associated with premises however it is re-iterated that the change of use to shops is permitted under the use class order. However in the event of granting planning permission a condition could be imposed securing details of a refuse management plan to include litter management. This is not a material planning consideration.

5.9 Representations have also been received from two ward members

(Councillors Memery and Cosgrove) which are summarised below. Such concerns are similar to those raised above and are addressed in Table 1.

It is also requested that the application is brought before the members of the Planning Application Committee meeting if recommended for approval by Officers.

• The proposal is not in keeping with the existing buildings, and no effort has been made to replicate the existing style of the road.

• In summary the design of the shopfront would not be compliant to UDP policy by virtue of its detailed design and proportions.

• The presence of an extension would result in an undue sense of an enclosure.

• The whole of the Clapham area is becoming saturated with the brand

• The deliveries to the supermarket would result in undue noise and disturbance and highway safety issues.

• Noise and disturbance and unsightly visual impact from refuse and its collection.

• Reference is made to a document produced by the London Assembly Planning Housing Committee entitled ‘Cornered shops – London’s small shops and the planning system’ July 2010. This document states that ‘it is evident from our investigations that it is lawful, and perfectly acceptable in planning terms, for local planning authorities to seek to protect and strengthen established shopping centres through specific planning policies. This legitimacy must be recognised and boroughs must be confident that they can act to protect their small shops’.

5.10 One further letter from a ward member (Councillor Barrett) and such

concerns are addressed in Table 1:

• The proposal would harm the ‘village feel’ of Abbeville Road and would harm local businesses.

• The proposal would result in increase litter, noise and traffic issues

• The design of shopfront is unacceptable.

• The erection of the extension would negatively impact adjacent residents and would harm outlook.

5.11 One letter has been received from Chuka Umunna (MP) raising the

following objections and such concerns are addressed in Table 1:

• I have received a high volume of correspondence from my constituents regarding this issue.

• The applications will have significant detrimental effects on the character of the local area and the quality of life for residents.

• I am also concerned that the revised designs for the shop front and illuminated fascia signs are still out of keeping in a shopping parade of distinctive independent businesses with a strong sense of local identity.

• I must also reiterate the issue of light pollution raised in my previous representations, and feel that the illuminated shop front would be unsuitable within the context of the local area and constitute a further nuisance for local residents.

5.12 A petition has also been received stating that the residents of Abbeville Road would like to oppose opening of the Supermarket as they believe it would destroy the community and result in the closure of at least half a dozen shops causing a number of derelict buildings.

5.13 The petition includes approximately 2050 signatures.

5.14 One letter of support has been received stating the following:

• The signage would be in keeping with the 'village' atmosphere. There are examples in Clapham Old Town, and Old York Road (in Wandsworth)

• It would not result in anti-social behaviour

• There are now six empty commercial properties on Abbeville Road.

5.15 The following consultees within the Council were consulted:

• Conservation and Design – No objections raised.

• Transport – No objections raised.

• Environmental Health (Noise) – No comments received

• Crime Prevention – No objections raised.

• Planning Policy – No objections raised 5.16 The full comments and observations of internal consultations, where

appropriate are included in the relevant sections of the report. 6.0 Planning Policy Considerations 6.1 National Policy

The following national policy guidance is considered relevant to this application:

• PPS 1- (Delivering Sustainable Development) sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It promotes good design that ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places.

• PPS 4 - (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) sets out the Government's comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable economic development in urban and rural areas.

• PPS 5 - (Planning and the Historic Environment) provides guidance for development that affects Conservation Areas.

• PPG 13 - (Transport) addresses transport and seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices and accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and discourages the need to travel by car.

• PPG 24 – (Planning and Pollution Control) is intended to complement the pollution control framework under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the PPC Regulations 2000.

6.2 The London Plan (as amended 2008)

The London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now includes alterations that have been made since it was adopted in February 2004. 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.

It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and, proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

The following national policy guidance is considered relevant to this application:

• 4B.8 Respect local context and communities

• 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city

• 4B.11 London’s built heritage

• 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes

6.3 Development Plan 6.4 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 (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008), 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 supersede by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.

6.5 Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007)

The following policies are considered relevant to this application:

• Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity

• Policy 9: Transport Impact

• Policy 19: Active Frontage Uses

• Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout

• Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing Out Crime

• Policy 36: Alterations and Extensions

• Policy 37: Shopfronts and Advertisements

• Policy 47: Conservation Areas

6.6 Core Strategy

The following policies are considered particularly relevant to this application:

• Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives

• Policy S3 Economic Development

• Policy S4 Transport

• Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management

• Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment 6.7 Supplementary Planning Document on Shopfronts and Signage (2008).

The Council has adopted a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), Shopfronts and Signage, which provides guidance in the preparation of proposals for shopfronts, external security grilles and shop signs. It explains relevant national planning policies and Lambeth UDP policies

relating to shopfronts and provides further detail in order to assist with securing good design. The SPD has been through the statutory consultation process and is therefore a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

7.0 Planning considerations 7.1 Land use 7.2 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey ground

floor rear side infill extension, removal of doors to the rear elevation and replacement shopfront. This would serve the change of use of the ground floor from a restaurant (Class A3) to a supermarket (Class A1). Additionally minor internal alterations are proposed through the removal of some partitions to provide a larger internal space.

7.3 The application site is currently vacant however was last occupied as a

restaurant on the ground floor. Upon examination of the sites planning history the change of use of ground floor shop from off-licence (A1) to a restaurant (Class A3), together with the erection of a single storey rear extension was allowed on appeal in January 1998. In accordance with the use classes order 1987 (as amended) changes of use from A3 use class (restaurants) to A1 (Shops) are permitted and therefore express planning permission is not required for the change of use. This is explained in further detail below.

7.4 This government legislation groups the use of land and buildings into 4

main categories, comprising retail (A), business and employment (B), residential (C) and leisure and assembly (D). These categories are further separated into different Use Classes.

7.5 Within the retail category are shops (Class A1), financial and professional

services (Class A2), restaurants and cafes (Class A3), drinking establishments (Class A4) and hot food takeaways (Class A5). The UCO 1987 states the use of a building or other land for purposes identified to fall within the same use class does not constitute a material change of use, and is therefore not to be taken to involve development.

7.6 In addition, another piece of government legislation known as the Town

and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (the “GPDO 1995”) specifies various types of development which may be undertaken without the permission of the local planning authority. Such development, referred to as “permitted development”, is automatically granted planning permission by Order of Parliament, and therefore does not require an application for planning permission to be submitted to the Council. Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO 1995 grants

automatic planning permission for certain changes of use between certain classes of the UCO 1987.

7.7 In particular, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class A of the GPDO 1995 grants

planning permission for the following:

“Development consisting of a change of use of a building to a use falling within Class A1 (shops) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order from a use falling within Class A3 (food and drink), A4 (drinking establishments) or A5 (hot food takeaways) of the Schedule”.

7.8 The above Class of permitted development is not subject to any limitations

or conditions. 7.9 By virtue of the above government legislation, the proposed change from

a restaurant (Use Class A3) to a food retail shop (Use Class A1) is permitted development, and is granted planning permission by this government legislation. As such, an application for planning permission is not required for the proposed use of the building as a Sainsbury’s Local food store.

7.10 Saved UDP Policy 19 states that development in town centres, local

centres, along the main pedestrian routes and elsewhere where it would promote urban vitality and/or regeneration, should have uses with active frontages open to the public. Uses within Classes A and D would be appropriate as would other publicly accessible uses with frontages and entrances oriented towards the street. In line with saved Policy 31 in the UDP (II), buildings should address streets with their frontages and entrances (ii) and maintain continuous building lines and street blocks which “turn the corner”.

7.11 The site is located within the Abbeville Road Conservation Area. Policy 47

sets out that development within conservation areas should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. As the premises could be used as an A1 Shop without the requirement for express planning permission and that the active frontage would be maintained it is not considered that the an objection on land use grounds could be sustained.

7.12 However the acceptability of the proposal is subject to a scheme that

either preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area and that which safeguards the amenity of local residential occupiers.

8.0 Design

Shopfront

8.1 Policy S9 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2011) states that the Council will

improve and maintain the quality of the building environment by seeking the highest quality of design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions. Saved Policy 37 (a) addresses shopfronts and aims to preserve surviving traditional shopfronts and alterations to existing shopfronts should retain, repair, restore or reinstate original features, materials and characterful detailing. Policy 47 requires proposals for development located in a conservation area to preserve or enhance its character and appearance.

8.2 The Supplementary Planning Document on Shopfronts and Signage

states that new shopfronts, irrespective of their style, should integrate well with their host building by respecting the scale, style and general building forms. In Conservation Areas particular care should be taken to ensure the design preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

8.3 This application relates to an unlisted property in the Abbeville Road

conservation area. The Councils Conservation Officer has commented that this conservation area is notable for its good quality timber shopfronts with traditional detailing and signage. The existing building does not have a shopfront of note, but it is timber and retains its pilasters, console brackets and cornice. There is also an awning located above the shopfront.

8.4 The proposal follows concerns regarding the previous application which

sought to remove the existing shopfront and replace it with a new powder coated aluminium one, with automatic sliding doors and a new ATM. The latest proposed shopfront is timber and incorporates more traditional proportioning, including a larger stallriser. In total four vertical divisions are proposed. In this case the revised scheme does not include an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) neither the use of powder coated aluminium. Previously under the refused the scheme such elements were considered un-sympathetic to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

8.5 In response to the above, in this instance the Councils Conservation

Officer considers that the application has overcome previous concerns and that the design and proportions would suitably respond to the host building and its context of the conservation area. No objections are raised in response to the removal of the existing awning and raised decking. They are not considered to be features worthy of retention. In the event of granting planning permission details of the shopfront would be secured by condition.

8.6 With regard to the erection of the side extension given that this addition is

generally narrow and modest and is located at the rear part of the building no objection is raised in design terms. It would appear suitably subordinate in the context of the host building. The removal of two rear doors is also considered acceptable. The new door proposed is also considered acceptable subject to details being secured by condition.

8.7 In summary, by virtue of the amended design the replacement shopfront is

considered acceptable and as before no objections are raised to the proposed rear extension and removal of doors. As such the development would at least preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and would appear in-keeping with the character of the building and the parade. Therefore the proposed development is compliant to saved UDP Policy 37 and 47, Core Strategy Policy S9 and the adopted SPD entitled Shopfronts and Signage.

9.0 Amenity 9.1 Policy 7 states that the right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their

homes will be respected and Policy 36 states that development should not unacceptable harm the amenities (privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight) of adjoining residents.

9.2 The proposed rear extension would infill a rear courtyard adjacent to an

existing rear extension which extends to rear boundary of the application site. It would stand no higher than the existing single storey roof structure. Given this, the separation distances involved between the nearest residential occupiers and that immediate neighbours to the ground floor are commercial uses, it would not result in an undue un-neighbourly impact in terms of overlooking, visual intrusion and loss of light impacts. The proposal would pass the first stage Building Research Establishment (BRE) test for daylight/sunlight loss, therefore would not incur unacceptable levels of loss of light. The scale of the increased floorspace is generally modest and would not result in any additional noise and disturbance issues over that existing.

9.3 In addition the replacement shopfront would not result in an undue un-

neighbourly impact over and above the existing situation given that it would be replacing an existing glazed shopfront that can be opened onto the street. This is in terms of undue and excessive light pollution.

9.4 In response to the proposed opening hours which are 7am to 11pm

Monday- Sundays (to include Bank holidays) given that the existing use of the premises is a restaurant (A3 use class) that would result in more

intensive patterns of use such as the consumption of alcohol on the premises, the gathering of people outside to observe menus and the presence of outdoor seating in this instance the opening hours are considered acceptable. In comparison to the use of the restaurant it is not considered that a demonstrable increase in noise and disturbance would result through the use of a shop. In any event given that a change of use is not required it is not considered reasonable to restrict the hours of operation.

9.5 In summary, the proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with

Policies 7 and 36 of the UDP. 10.0 Highway and pedestrian impacts

10.1 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.

10.2 Saved Policy 31 relates to Streets, Character and Layout specifically this

policy seeks proposals which are designed around the needs of pedestrians, responding and adding to connected patterns of streets, landmarks, the topography and landscape features. Development should also respond to and enhance the architectural character of the area.

10.3 Previously under the refused scheme the Councils Transport Officer

raised objections to the installation of the ATM as it would be prominently visible to passing drivers and this may result in injudicious parking. In this case as the ATM has been removed from the revised proposal no objections are raised.

10.4 In response to the deliveries of the premises, as the proposed change to

A1 shops is permitted under the use class order and any in principle objection on the management of deliveries would not be sustainable. The Transport Officer has further commented that there is an existing Loading Bay outside the property and this will provide a facility for servicing to some extent and as it is understood the applicant is attempting to get the loading restrictions altered to extend the loading restrictions to Saturdays and Sundays.

11.0 Access

11.1 Policy 8 of the adopted UDP indicates that development should, where

possible, be designed to be accessible by the whole community. Policy 31

(part f) also establishes that the layout and design of development should include full access for the whole community including the disabled, the elderly, children and parents with children

11.2 The submitted plans indicate that there would be level access to the

ground floor of the premises. The development would have to meet Part M of the Building Regulations, which deals with aspects of the Disability and Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA) including width of doors and corridors, level thresholds, toilet facilities, stairs etc. It is considered that the scheme complies with the aims of the disability and discrimination legislation and Policy 31 (Streets, Character and Layout).

12.0 Community Safety

12.1 It is considered that the proposal would not have an unduly negative

impact on community safety or increase opportunities for crime to occur. The Councils Crime prevention Officer has commented that the area is generally a low crime area and the proposal seems acceptable. However any glass should be laminated to 7.5 mm thickness and windows should be LPS 1175 grade 3 or above. Closed Circuit Television is advised for the exterior and a good uniformity of lighting is also recommended. In the event of granting planning permission such advice would be advised by way of an informative.

13.0 Refuse Storage:

13.1 The submission has not addressed the storage of refuse associated with

premises however it is re-iterated that the change of use to shops is permitted under the use class order. However in the event of granting planning permission a condition could be imposed securing details of a refuse management plan to include litter management.

14.0 Conclusion 14.1 For the reasons given above in design terms the replacement shopfront

has now overcome previous concerns in response to the refused scheme. As such the development would at least preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the building and the parade as a whole or residential neighbour amenity. In addition it has now been demonstrated that the proposal would not cause any unacceptable safety impact to the surrounding highway network on Abbeville road.

14.2 In accordance with the use classes order (as amended) changes of use

from A3 use class (restaurants) to A1 (Shops) are permitted and therefore express planning permission is not required for the change of use. The

development would provide an active A class use at ground floor level in line with Core Strategy Policy S3 and saved UDP policies 4 and 19.

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 Notwithstanding the details of the application, hereby approved, further

detailed drawings of the fascia mouldings and junctions of the shopfront and new rear door, at a scale of 1:1, 1:10 and 1:20 where appropriate, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the aesthetic value of the shopfront and the character and appearance of the shopfront (Policies 37 and 47 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan 2007 - Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Core Strategy - January 2011) 4 Details of a waste management plan, incorporating provision for refuse storage

and recycling facilities on the site an litter management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to commencement of the use and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use.

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. (Policies 9 and 35 of the saved Unitary Development Plan (2007) and policies S8 and S9 of the core strategy (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 The Councils Crime prevention Officer has advised that any glass should be laminated to 7.5 mm thickness and windows should be LPS 1175 grade 3 or above. Closed Circuit Television is advised for the exterior and a good uniformity of lighting is also recommended. 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 proposals 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 Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S3 Economic Development Policy S4 Transport Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011:

• Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity

• Policy 9: Transport Impact

• Policy 19: Active Frontage Uses

• Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout

• Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing Out Crime

• Policy 36: Alterations and Extensions

• Policy 37: Shopfronts and Advertisements

• Policy 47: Conservation Areas

Section 4 – Decision Notice

Date of Application: 17.01.2011 Date of Decision: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of THREE years from the date hereof. Proposed Development At: 36-38 Abbeville Road London SW4 9NG

Section 5 - Appendices

Appendix 1 - List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies And Local Amenity Groups Consulted. Development Control Enforcement Team Ext 61250 LBL Crime Prevention Unit Ext 61243 Conservation & Design Ext 64065 Planning Policy Ext 61212 Streetcare Ext 63030 Transport/Highways Ext 60208 Regulatory Services Noise Pollution Ext 66132 Clapham Society Clapham Park Partners In Action Crescent Grove Trustees Worksheet