Location - Lambeth Council Str… · Location Nursery School, 10 Lollard Street, London, SE11 6UP Ward Princes Proposal Application Demolition of raised podium deck, existing day

2

Location Nursery School, 10 Lollard Street, London, SE11 6UP

Ward Princes

Proposal Application Demolition of raised podium deck, existing day nursery, management office and associated structures. Redevelopment of the site involving the creation of a replacement day nursery and external play area (Use Class D1) along with provision of 89 residential units (Use Class C3) in buildings ranging from 1 to 16 storeys in height; public realm improvements; parking and servicing space; creation of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses; and associated works.

Applicant Braburn Estates Ltd Partnership

Agent Quod

Date valid 27th January 2014

Case Officer Mr David Smith Tel: 0207 926 1256 e-mail: [email protected]

Application References

14/00509/FUL

Recommendation(s) Grant Planning Permission, subject to the recommended conditions and to the s106 planning obligations set out within this report.

Constraints Environment Agency Flood Zone Major Development Opportunity

Advert Publication Date

21 February 2014

Site Notice posted on

13 February 2014

3

Consultation

Department(s) or Organisation(s) Consulted? (y/n)

Date response received

Comments summarised in report? (y/n)

Internal

Conservation and Design Y 18/03/14 Y

Crime Prevention Design Advisor Y

Housing Y 20/02/14 Y

Parks and Open Spaces Y 25/02/14 Y

Planning Policy Y

Regulatory Services – Noise & Pollution Y

Streetcare Y

Sustainability – Climate Consulting Y 11/02/14 Y

Transport Y

Tree Officer Y

External

English Heritage Y

English Heritage – Archaeology Y 24/02/14 Y

Environment Agency Y 26/02/14 Y

GLA/Mayor/TFL Y

Natural England Y 07/02/14 Y

Thames Water Y

LB Camden Y

LB Southwark Y

LB Wandsworth Y

LB Westminster Y

Association of Waterloo Groups Y

Friends of Kennington Park Y 06/02/14 Y

Friends of Lambeth High Street Recreation Ground

Y

Friends of Old Paradise Gardens Y

Friends of Spring Gardens Y

Heart of Kennington Residents Association Y

Kennington Association Planning Forum Y

Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association

Y

Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association

Y

Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum Y

Manor of Kennington Residents Association

Y

Regents Bridge Gardens Ltd Y

Tradescant Area Residents Association Y

Vauxhall BID Y

Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum Y

Vauxhall Society Y

Waterloo Community Development Group Y 20/02/14 Y

Waterloo Quarter Bid Y

Households

Y Various Y

Background Papers: Case File (this can be accessed via the Planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7926 1180)

4

Executive Summary The Site is Council owned and located in the north of Lambeth. The site lies within a predominantly residential area and comprises part of the Ethelred Estate, one of the largest housing estates in south London which was built in the 1960s. The application site itself comprises the former LBL estate office currently occupied by the Ethelred Tenant Management Organisation (TWO), Ethelred Nursery, a plant room and a two storey car park. Planning permission is sought to redevelop the site for new housing and a replacement nursery. The pre-application and application processes have been managed via a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA). PPAs are increasingly being used by Lambeth on schemes of this nature to proactively and positively engage with developers to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. It is advised that in this instance the applicant has responded positively and openly to all advice given. It must therefore be borne in mind that whilst this officer recommendation of approval is being presented having regard to the merits of the scheme currently before the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for consideration, those 'merits' have been largely and positively influenced by the extensive pre-application negotiations and discussions that preceded the application submission. The development would deliver 89 residential units, 70 of which would be affordable; together with a replacement nursery. The 70 affordable units are proposed to satisfy the planning requirements of the Shell Centre redevelopment and would deliver a significant uplift in affordable housing delivery than could otherwise have been viably provided on the Shell Centre site itself. The delivery of the development would therefore be contingent upon a positive resolution by the Secretary of State on the Shell Centre Planning application. In addition, the reinvestment of the net profits from the sale of the additional 19 units will be committed by the Council to further new affordable housing provision in the borough. It is therefore the case that the development would contribute significantly towards addressing Lambeth's (and London's) housing needs and demand. This is without doubt a substantial public benefit that weighs heavily in favour of the development. The development would also secure qualitative and quantitative improvements to the nursery; a popular and well used facility. The re-provision cost will be borne by the applicant and will form part of the development works programme. In addition, the development would improve the appearance of the site which currently provides a bleak and utilitarian environment to existing residents. The scheme would open up the site creating extensive permeability and accessibility. The increased permeability of the estate together with the significant townscape improvements to this locality are significant regeneration and aesthetic benefits of the development that weigh in favour of approval. Overall, the proposal is of good and robust architectural quality which will radically improve the appearance of the estate. Elevations have good fenestration proportions and arrangement with an appropriate level of detail and ornamentation that result in attractive buildings. The use of brick relates well to the immediate context, whilst consistent architectural features create a visually cohesive and well considered group of buildings that relate successfully to the context. It is considered that the development presents a carefully considered and high quality design in accordance with the relevant design policies of the Development Plan. All of the new dwellings have been designed to meet the Mayor's London Housing Design Guide and the Council's SPD (Housing Development and House Conversions) in terms of size and layout. In addition, all of the new units would be designed and constructed to the Lifetime Homes Standards, whilst 9 (10%) of the units would be easily adaptable for wheelchair accessibility in accordance with the relevant London Plan target. Further, the development is inclusive of generous on-site amenity and play space provision. A range of economic benefits would also derive from the development. These would include: the creation of a range of construction jobs and opportunities; additional on-site jobs associated with the on-going operations, maintenance and management of the development/uses following construction; increases in resident expenditure in the locality providing a boost to the local

5

economy; creation of "spin-off" jobs in services and other firms resultant from wage spending and supplier sourcing from the occupiers of the new development; and the generation of New Homes Bonus money to spend on Council priorities. These economic benefits align well with a wide range of national, regional and local policy objectives, in particular, increasing the supply of high quality, sustainable housing to meet projected increases in population and enhancing economic prosperity through creating employment opportunities for local people. All necessary reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the development would be achieved within the framework of the Mayor's energy hierarchy to satisfy the Development Plan policy requirements. In addition, the development has been designed in conjunction with advice offered by the Council's Crime Prevention Design Advisor so as to minimise the opportunity for crime as far as is practicable. Furthermore, both Lambeth Transport Planners and TfL accept that the development would not impact unacceptably upon the function or safety of the surrounding highway network. In addition to the nursery replacement, the development would be inclusive of a range of s.106 obligations that would reasonably mitigate the otherwise unacceptable impacts of the development upon local infrastructure. The package of s.106 contributions has been negotiated having full regard to the nature of the development, to the normal expectations conferred upon developers by the Council's s.106 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), and to the statutory tests for s.106 obligations set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The scheme has been designed to minimise its impact upon nearby residents. The application is accompanied by a daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment, which identifies that a number of neighbouring properties would experience noticeable losses of daylight to a greater or lesser degree. However, officers are satisfied that the impacts of the development in this regard would not warrant refusing planning permission; especially when having regard to this central London location, to the development plan’s aspirations for regenerating the estate and when weighing the impacts against the substantial public benefit that the development would deliver. In summary, this is a sustainable development that would deliver substantial public benefit. The development would be in general compliance with the Development Plan for the Borough and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would dictate that the application should nevertheless be refused. Officers are therefore recommending approval of the scheme in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development conferred upon Local Planning Authorities by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

6

1 Summary of Main Issues

1.1 The main issues for consideration are as follows:

• The provision of the Shell Centre affordable housing requirements;

• The residential densification of the site;

• The quality of the nursery re-provision;

• Whether the size and tenure mix and the quality of the residential accommodation appropriately reflects Lambeth’s housing needs and demand;

• The design quality of the development;

• Whether sufficient commitment would be given to reducing carbon emissions and towards sustainable design and construction;

• The impact of the development upon neighbouring residential amenity;

• Whether the development suitably minimises opportunities for crime and disorder;

• Whether the development suitably promotes sustainable modes of transport and the impacts of the development upon the surrounding highway network and conditions of highway safety; and

• Whether the development is inclusive of a sufficient package of mitigation to address otherwise unacceptable impacts upon the locality and upon local infrastructure.

2 Site Description

2.1 The Council owns the site. The Site is approximately 0.75 ha in area and is broadly

rectangular in shape. The planning application Site boundary is indicated with a red line on the existing site plan provided below. The existing buildings hatched in red, Elkington Point and Brittany Point, are excluded from the planning application Site.

Figure 1: Application site, which excludes Elkington Point and Brittany Point

7

2.2 The Site lies to the west of the A23 Kennington Road and is bounded by Lollard Street to the north and west, a Texaco Service Station to the east, and residential buildings to the south. The Site is located approximately 1km south east of the Shell Centre.

2.3 The site lies within a predominantly residential area. It comprises part of the Ethelred Estate, one of the largest housing estates in south London which was built in the 1960s. The Ethelred Towers were refurbished in 2008 as part of an initiative to improve living conditions.

2.4 The application site itself comprises the former LBL estate office (currently occupied by the Ethelred Tenant Management Organisation (TWO)), Ethelred Nursery, a plant room and a two storey car park. The car park is accommodated within a concrete podium which covers the majority of the site and currently provides short term let parking for up to 74 cars.

2.5 The nursery is located broadly in the centre of the site on the roof of the podium, which also accommodates the nursery’s play space. The TMO office is located at ground level in the north west corner of the site, fronting onto Lollard Street.

2.6 As shown in the aerial photo below, the high rise residential tower blocks of Brittany Point (22 storeys to the north), Elkington Point (18 storeys to the west) and Ward Point (20 storeys to the south) border the site, rising above the podium. These blocks provide a total of 297 flats. A multi use games area (MUGA) and children’s play area is also located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.

Figure 2: Aerial photo of application site and surrounds

2.7 The site itself does not sit within a Conservation Area; although it is located adjacent to the Kennington Road Conservation Area and close to the Walcot Conservation Area, the Lambeth Walk and China Walk Conservation Area and the Vauxhall Gardens Conservation Area. There are no listed buildings on site; but

8

there are a number in the area, including a terrace on Kennington Road.

2.8 The site has good public transport accessibility, having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 4.

3 Relevant Planning History

3.1 The Ethelred Estate was built in the 1960s.

3.2 The Ethelred Towers were refurbished in 2008 as part of an initiative to improve living conditions (ref: 07/04922/RG3). These works formed part of the Eco refurbishment project for the estate. The Eco refurbishment project reduced the carbon emissions of the blocks by an average of 80% and comprised a range of repair works, the installation of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant, the installation of solar photovoltaic panels on the south facing elevations and the provision of green sedum roofs.

3.3 Kerrin Point, Hotspur Street (Kennington Park Square)

3.4 This site accommodates the most substantial recent development in the immediate surrounding area. The Kerrin Point site is approximately 1 ha in size and lies to the immediate south of the application Site. It is bounded by Hotspur Street to the south and west, a short stretch of Black Prince Road to the south, and a petrol filling station and Kennington Road to the east. The site wraps around, but does not include, Ward Point to the north.

3.5 The site was previously occupied by Kerrin Point, a 20-storey residential tower that was built in the 1960s and formed part of the Ethelred Estate. This was demolished following a gas explosion in the late 1990s. In 2007 Barratt Homes was granted planning permission for the erection of a new predominantly residential development. This comprised buildings ranging in height from 5 to 10 storeys to provide 214 residential flats, 403 sqm of retail/community space (Class A1/D1), together with the provision of 64 car parking spaces at basement level, cycle storage and a communal garden (07/01355/RG4). This development has been built out and the buildings are known locally as Kennington Park Square – it can be seen in the foreground of figure 2.

3.6 Shell Centre – Waterloo

3.7 The applicant has submitted the subject planning application in order to deliver the 'off-site' component of affordable housing for the redevelopment of the Shell Centre in Waterloo. The 70 affordable units proposed are intended to fulfil this function. The delivery of the development set out in the subject planning application is therefore contingent upon both a positive resolution of the PAC and also upon a positive determination by the SoS with respect to the Shell Centre redevelopment.

3.8 LBL's Planning Applications Committee resolved in May 2013 to grant planning permission, Conservation Area Consent and Listed Building Consent for the redevelopment of the Shell Centre site (LPA ref. 12/04708/FUL, 12/04702/FUL, 12/04699/FUL and 12/04701/LB). This redevelopment comprises the demolition of part of the existing Shell Centre and associated structures and the construction of 8 new buildings for residential and commercial use as well as associated public realm and landscaping works. In July 2013 the Greater London Authority issued their Stage 2 Report which confirmed that they were content to allow LBL to determine the application.

3.9 In September 2013 the Secretary of State issued a letter that directed under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the Shell Centre applications be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the Local Planning Authority (Planning Inspectorate ref. APP/N5660/V/13/2205181, APP/N5660/V/13/2205182, APP/N5660/V/13/2205183 and

9

APP/N5660/V/13/2205185). A local inquiry was held in November/ December 2013 and a decision is imminent.

4 Proposal

4.1 Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the site to provide a replacement day nursery and external play area (Use Class D1) along with 89 residential units (Use Class C3).

4.2 The new development would comprise a mix of buildings, ranging from 2 to 16 storeys high, integrated with the existing three tower blocks that border the Site and which would be retained (Brittany Point (22 storeys), Elkington Point (18 storeys) and Ward Point (20 storeys)). At the centre of the proposals is a new pedestrian route that runs through the Site connecting Lollard Street to the north and Hotspur Street to the south. This principal route would open up the existing Site, enabling the new development to be accommodated in two smaller blocks as part of a more permeable layout – see figure 3.

Figure 3: Ground floor layout

4.3 To the west of this new pedestrian route, it is proposed to erect 15x 3-storey houses and 3x 4-storey residential buildings, each of which would accommodate 4 flats (Block A; Block B and Block C – see figure 4 for a Block Plan). These buildings would be built around the perimeter of the Site, being arranged around a new central landscaped deck /communal gardens. Existing residents of Elkington Point, which lies adjacent to the south-west corner of the Site and would be retained, would have access to the gardens.

10

Figure 4: Block Plan

Figure 5: Development

4.4 To the east of the new pedestrian route, it is proposed to erect 3 further residential buildings and the new two-storey nursery, integrating with Brittany Point which would be retained. The residential buildings comprise Block D which would be 4-storeys high and accommodate 7 flats; Block E which would be 16-storeys high and accommodate 43 flats; and Block F which would be 7-storeys high and accommodate 12 flats (figure 5). These buildings would be arranged around a

11

second communal garden.

4.5 A second proposed principal pedestrian route is proposed along the southern boundary of the Site, linking to Kennington Road to the east and Lollard Street to the west.

4.6 70 of the residential units are proposed to be affordable housing, providing the ‘off-site’ component of affordable housing for the redevelopment of the Shell Centre in Waterloo (LPA ref. 12/04708/FUL). The remaining 19 homes will be transferred to Lambeth; where after the Council would sell the properties and utilise the net profits to deliver new affordable housing elsewhere in the borough.

4.7 In total the development would provide 89 new dwellings as follows:

Affordable Rented Units

Remaining units

TOTALS

1 bed units 6 7 13

2 bed units 35 5 40

3 bed units 12 12

4 bed units 9 9

4 bed houses

8 7 15

TOTALS 70 19 89

4.8 The residential units will be constructed tenure blind, to Lifetime Homes Standards and would achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

4.9 The replacement community nursery would provide improved facilities in a new building for the existing Ethelred Nursery. The replacement nursery would be accommodated along the eastern boundary of the Site. It would be 1,062 sqm GIA in size, which is significantly larger than the existing facility (483 sqm GIA). The new nursery would also have direct access from ground level. The ground floor would accommodate teaching rooms and the lunch hall. The first floor would accommodate a crèche, a parents’ room, training rooms and other staff and support facilities. A new external playground is proposed at ground level which would include a covered play area, with another external play area provided at first floor level on part of the nursery’s roof.

4.10 The former LBL Housing office, currently the temporary office for the Ethelred Tenant Management Organisation (TMO), is being relocated from the Site to help facilitate its redevelopment. The existing Estate playground and multi-use game area (MUGA), which lie to the immediate south of the Site, will be retained. These lie outside of the application Site boundary and do not form part of the scheme.

5 Consultations and Responses

5.1 Following receipt of the application, letters of consultation were sent out to 1,225 neighbouring property addresses. A further 14 day consultation was undertaken on 17 April 2014, following receipt of further information on the daylight and sunlight impacts of the development.

5.2 The application was also advertised by way of site notices and a press advert.

5.3 Internal consultation

5.3.1 Sustainability – Climate Consulting - The proposals are excellent and in line with all of the relevant sustainable design and energy policies.

5.3.2 Crime Prevention Design Advisor – No in principle objections. Requests conditions to secure a Community Safety and Management Plan and compliance with

12

Secured by Design physical protection standards.

5.3.3 Parks and Open Spaces Officer - Happy to support the application. The applicant proposes positive enhancements to the site, including extensive brown roofs and appropriate soft landscaping.

5.3.4 Highways – Supportive of the scheme in principle, subject to imposition of conditions – see section 7.11 of this report.

5.3.5 Conservation and Design – Overall, the proposal is of good and robust architectural quality which will radically improve the appearance of the estate. Elevations have good fenestration proportions and arrangement with an appropriate level of detail and ornamentation that result in attractive buildings. The use of brick relates well to the immediate context whilst consistent architectural features such as chamfered recessed brick panels adjacent to windows, aluminium fins, balconies, brick surrounds and vertical emphasis to the fenestration creates a visually cohesive and well considered group of buildings that relate successfully to the context.

5.3.6 Housing – Fully supports the redevelopment. The department has been working collaboratively with a series of key stakeholders to develop it. One of the key drivers for Lambeth Council’s Housing Strategy 2012 – 2016 includes facilitating inward investment and housing growth. This is to enhance a mix of housing types and tenures to meet current and future need and to maximise the delivery of affordable housing. To assist in this strategy the Council aims to explore opportunities by maximising its assets for housing development. This development is a prime example as the development will be delivered by Braeburn Estates Limited Partnership (BELP) through an off-site contribution generated by the redevelopment of the Shell Centre in Waterloo. The intention is that the site will provide much needed high quality housing in the borough whilst also providing a significantly enhanced environment for current and future residents through new and improved public realm, including new safe, secure and accessible pedestrian routes and landscaping. The regeneration of the site also provides an opportunity to provide a brand new facility for the existing Ethelred Nursery and Children’s Centre, currently located on the podium, which is recognised as a poor location, limiting its potential to expand in any significant way in the future. The provision of nursery places from the Ethelred Nursery is essential to the Pupil Places Strategy the Council has adopted with regard to the forthcoming provision for 2 year olds. The Borough is also projecting a rapid increase in pupil places across the Borough in the coming years, which will see a sustained increase in the demand for early years provision. The redevelopment of Lollard Street and Ethelred Estate and the available primary school places in the area will make it an attractive place to live and produce this increased demand.

5.4 External consultation

5.4.1 Kennington Park Square Residents Association – Do not object to the principle of the development, but do however object to the current application on a number of grounds which they believe can be addressed by the developer but, if not, should result in rejection of the planning application. The objections are as follows: 1. Lack of Consultation – Residents of Kennington Park Square were not

directly contacted by the developer in advance of the submissions of the planning application. As the residents were neither consulted nor taken into account by the developers, no ameliorations have been made to lessen the impact. 2. The Application does not show the aspect from the Hotspur Street frontage,

13

in particular from Aragon Court of which at least 30 units directly face Ward Point and the existing raised podium. This means that the overall impact of the development cannot be properly assessed and as such, the Application presents a misleading view. The focus instead is on views from the park and Lollard Street. 3. The developer’s light impact report does not include Kennington Park Square as a whole, only Prichard House – this is a material omission as the light to the facing Aragon Court units is from the gaps either side of Ward Point. The proposal to build a five storey block to the left of Ward Point (looking at it from Hotspur Street) and a seven storey block to the right of Ward Point will have a dramatic impact on the available light and will create a solid mass of buildings at height across that frontage. 4. ‘Block F’ faces Lollard Street and so the aperture currently existing to the right of Ward Point will become a solid seven storey mass with apparently no windows or redeeming features and it appears that dark materials are proposed to be used as opposed to the lighter yellow bricks which are common in the surrounding area and which reflect more light. 5. 149 new units are already being created on Lollard Street at the Lillian Baylis Old School site and an additional 89 units would create too much strain on the local area. The highly dense Ethelred Estate is already an area where gang culture is rife and creating denser, high rise areas can only serve to exacerbate this. In addition, no public realm ameliorations such as improved lighting and more open plan routes to the main road have been made from the Kennington Park Square perspective. 6. The proposed development will increase the noise in Kennington Park Square as it will be used as a thoroughfare for access to the new buildings. 7. There are already issues with parking in the area and whilst the proposed development is stated to be ‘car free’ this will mean that there is no parking for visitors or workmen attending the new units once built. There is already a problem with illegal parking on Hotspur Street and behind Prichard House and this will only be exacerbated. 8. Whilst the Application takes great care to detail how the new green spaces which will be available to the new residents will be maintained and orientated to ensure they receive enough light, no consideration s given to the existing green space immediately behind Kennington Park Square.

The Association makes the following suggestions for amendments to the scheme:

• Remove ‘Block F’ to reduce the impact of the development on Prichard House and also to leave a channel of light for Aragon Court;

• Reduce the height of ‘Block D’ in order to minimise the loss of light to the residents of Aragon Court;

• Should further units be required to compensate, these should be added to the new tower (‘Block E’);

• The materials should include light bricks to maximise the reflected light available to surrounding properties; and

• Ameliorations such as improved walkways and lighting should be addressed.

5.4.2 Friends of Kennington Park – Do not wish to comment.

5.4.3 Waterloo Community Development Group – "Makes no comment at this time".

5.4.4 Natural England – No objection. Based upon the information provided, the proposal

is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

5.4.5 Environment Agency – No objection, subject to a condition to secure a surface water management strategy for the site.

5.4.6 English Heritage (Archaeology) – “The proposal is unlikely to have a significant

14

effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest. No further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary”.

5.4.7 GLA/Mayor/TfL – Stage 1 response: Agreed that the application broadly complies with the London Plan, although they have requested further information and/or confirmation on certain issues.

• Principle of use: Making use of vacant land within the estate for the provision of additional housing is welcomed in principle.

• Housing: The provision of affordable and private homes, with the mix proposed, is welcomed in terms of delivering mixed and balanced communities. The correct density calculation should be made, and confirmation is required that the existing and proposed play space provision is sufficient.

• Tall buildings and urban design: The scheme is of high architectural quality and would not adversely impact upon strategic views however, there are concerns regarding the east-west route that requires resolution. The housing quality is in accordance with the Mayor’s SPG.

• Inclusive design: The inclusive design provisions are welcomed. The 100% Lifetime Homes and 10% wheelchair accessible flats should be secured by condition.

• Climate change: The proposed 45% carbon dioxide savings are welcomed, exceeding the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan.

• Transport: The scheme is generally acceptable in transport terms, and would not result in parking stress or adverse highways impact. This is subject to conditions and s106 obligations being secured.

5.5 Neighbour Consultation

No. of Letters sent No. of Objections No. in support Comments

1,225 43 0 0

Assessment

Comments Officer Response

Use

This will increase the density of an already overpopulated area. It will increase anti-social behaviour. This may adversely affect the long term health and well being of the community. The development would not be best use of the area and in the neighbourhood’s future interest. The emphasis should be on making Kennington a desirable place to live. This building work could prevent Kennington's socio economic development.

At 333 units per hectare, the development would not introduce a residential density greater than has successfully been delivered at many London sites. The development would contribute positively to the identified aspirations for the regeneration of the Ethelred Estate, as they are set out in the development plan. The estate offers opportunities to provide quality high-density developments, providing housing at a range of affordability and that exploits the site's location in relation to central London. The development would include the provision of a new and improved community facility well suited to local needs; would reconfigure the street pattern to provide improved links from the Ethelred Estate to Kennington Road/Cross; and would increase population of the area to provide more local customers for shops and services as well as new services which are lacking. There is no evidence that the development would in

15

any way stifle Kennington’s economic development – quite the opposite in fact.

Adverse effect on the potential to develop the neighbouring petrol station.

There are no currently approved plans to redevelop the neighbouring petrol station. Neither is there any evidence to suggest that the subject development would stifle neighbouring development potential.

If Ethelred Nursery needs new premises this should be assessed on its own merits as a separate issue, not linked into the building of a 16 story tower block above it.

The LPA has a duty to consider the application in front of them on its planning merits. The application is inclusive of housing and the nursery. The improvements to the nursery would unlikely occur other than as a mixed use redevelopment scheme.

A swimming pool would provide recreation, for a much wider cross section of residents than just a play area.

The LPA has a duty to consider the application in front of them on its planning merits. The application does not include a swimming pool.

Amenity

A 16 storeys building will block out light to neighbouring properties. The third tower, if granted approval, would create the effect of a solid towering wall comprising the three blocks. Loss of outlook Overlooking of Kennington Park Square dwellings

The application is accompanied by a daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment, which has been independently verified by GL Hearn on behalf of the Council. Having regard to the BRE guidelines, the report identifies that a number of neighbouring properties would experience noticeable losses of daylight to a greater or lesser degree. However, officers are satisfied that the impacts of the development in this regard would not be so adverse as to warrant refusing planning permission; especially when having regard to this central London location, to the Development Plan’s aspirations for regenerating the estate and when weighing the impacts against the substantial public benefit that the development would deliver. Whilst the development is seeking to insert a new tower between two existing towers (Brittany Point and Ward Point), the architect has cleverly split and laterally slid the north and south facades of the new tower (Block E) to avoid unacceptable facing relationships. The minimum separation between the towers is 8m – 13m between facing windows. Facing windows in Prichard House (the closest Kennington Park Square property) are located at least 33m from the new tower. This is a very good separation distance for a central London location and well in excess of facing relationships previously accepted by Lambeth on other development schemes. Given the separation distances and the high quality of architecture, it is considered that the development would not present an unacceptable wall of development and/or give rise to an unacceptable sense of enclosure and/or unacceptably impact upon neighbouring privacy. It must be remembered that the existing outlook from neighbouring properties is across a bleak and utilitarian podium.

Additional noise and disturbance in an There is no evidence to suggest that the

16

already highly populated residential area. Anti-social noise is already commonplace. Additional rubbish and litter.

development would give rise to conditions of antisocial noise and behaviour that would be uncommon or unexpected for such a central London location. Such matters would need to be managed through the general estate management and/or noise and pollution legislation.

Design

This proposal is out of character in this environment. Kennington is a low rise area, punctuated only by the existing three tower blocks which are already out of keeping. Further such development detrimentally changes the character of the area and of Kennington Cross in particular. Just because two blocks are already out of keeping, this is no justification for granting consent for a third. Excessive density of buildings in a small area. The third tower, if granted approval, would create the effect of a solid towering wall comprising the three blocks. The bulk of the development is excessive. Kennington Road frontage is established around four stories in the neighbourhood. This development raises the height considerably, changing the outlook of the landscape. These buildings are unsightly.

As set out more comprehensively in the design section of this report, overall both Lambeth and GLA Officers consider that the scale, layout, mass and appearance are well considered. The proposal is of good and robust architectural quality which will radically improve the appearance of the estate. Elevations have good fenestration proportions and arrangement with an appropriate level of detail and ornamentation that result in attractive buildings. The use of brick relates well to the immediate context, whilst the consistent architectural features create a visually cohesive and well considered group of buildings that relate successfully to the context. Overall it is considered that the development presents a carefully considered and high quality of design in accordance with the relevant design policies of the Development Plan.

Highways

It will generate a great deal more traffic, impacting on surrounding highway safety. This development would mean that further residents are using only one road for access, without the improvement to any parking or road networks. As there are many children in the area this would have a massive impact on highway safety especially when traffic from the main road has already caused one bus accident this year. It will greatly hamper current road access to the Kennington Park Square development.

For the reasons set out in the highways section of this report, Lambeth officers are satisfied that the development, subject to conditions and s106 obligations, would not impact unacceptably upon the function or safety of the surrounding highway network. The application submissions have been reviewed by both Lambeth Transport Planners and TfL on behalf of both Highway Authorities; neither of which have raised objection to the development.

Impacts of Construction

The development will cause noise and disturbance during construction. Local

Noise, disturbance and inconvenience during the construction period can be appropriately minimised

17

residents have already had to endure prolonged redevelopment of neighbouring sites.

through good practice and the recommended conditions and s106 agreement. Moreover, the short term disturbance likely to occur does not outweigh the longer term regeneration and public benefit of the development. As part of the s106 agreement, the developer will be required to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme and to only construct the development in accordance with the Council’s own Code of Practice for Construction Sites.

Infrastructure

The existing density of development already exceeds existing transport infrastructure in the locality. The development would add to the strain. A larger number of people confined to a small area will place pressure on local public services (incl. collection of waste). Waste disposal is a problem already. It will put extra stress on community facilities such as schools and GPs.

The development would provide additional capacity for the nursery, which is a well used and valued local facility. This additional capacity is not limited to the new residents of the development, but would be available to the wider community. In addition, the development would be subject to a package of s106 mitigation considered reasonable to mitigate the impacts of the development upon local infrastructure – see section 7.13 of this report. The package has been negotiated having regard to the expectations set out in policy (Core Strategy Policy S10 and the Council's adopted SPD: S106 Obligations), to the details of the scheme and to the substantial planning/public benefits that the scheme would deliver.

Health and Safety

Safety issues relating to the proximity of the petrol station. Underground petrol tanks are located close to the development. Any vibrations during construction process in relation to movement of heavy machinery, deep excavations, piling and drainage works have the potential of damaging the tanks with catastrophic impacts.

This matter will need to be considered in more detail when the developer works up their construction methodology. Subject to the adoption of appropriate safeguarding measures this matter would not prove a barrier to redevelopment.

Application submissions

Neither the noise nor loss of light reports shows the building known as Kennington Park Square (in particular Aragon Court) as having been part of the survey on which the expert's report is based. This calls into question the completeness of the submitted reports. Why is it only the daylight/sunlight report that the Council is having independently verified.

Lambeth Officers are satisfied that the reports submitted are sufficient for the purpose of demonstrating the impacts of the development. The parameters of the noise assessment were drawn up in consultation with the Council’s Environment and Noise Officer. As is normal for applications of this nature, the noise assessment concentrates upon the suitability of the site for the proposed use given the existing noise environment. The report makes no attempt to quantify the extent to which the development will increase noise levels to neighbouring properties. In this regard however officers are satisfied that the development is not introducing any ‘unneighbourly’ uses and that the development is not proposing an excessive density.

18

There is therefore no reason to suggest that a development built to modern building regulation standards would cause unreasonable or unexpected noise impacts to neighbouring properties in this central London location. No specific assessment of the facing Aragon Court properties has been included in the daylight/sunlight report because, given they are located 75m from the site boundary, the daylight experts (both the applicant’s and the Council’s independent verifier) are satisfied that those properties will not experience noticeable losses of light. Moreover, given the separation distance these properties satisfy the ‘25 degree test’ (the first test for daylighting impacts set out in the BRE guidelines) such that no further investigation is necessary. The daylight/sunlight report does include analysis of Prichard House and Oakley House (both in the Kennington Park Square development), which are located closer. Given the degree of impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight, the Council considered it necessary to have independent verification of the submitted daylight/sunlight report and to seek further expert advice. No other reports/submissions have been independently verified because the Council has sufficient in-house expertise to appropriately consider the matters.

Consultation

Disappointment that Kennington Park Square Residents Association was not notified about the application. Lambeth Council has failed to observe due process in the planning application procedure. It has failed to inform residents that the plans for the Lollard Street redevelopment had been submitted, it has failed to invite comments and objections, and it has failed to inform us of the deadline for comments and objections. Neither I nor any of my neighbours in Prichard House have received any communication from Lambeth Council on this matter.

The applicant advises that: The Kennington Park Square Residents Association is not registered on the Council’s system to be consulted on planning applications. That however does not mean they can not make comment on the planning application if they wish to do so. ‘Occupiers’ in Kennington Park Square were written to individually. The Kennington Park Square Residents Association is aware of the application and their comments are summarised above. Following receipt of the planning application, the application was advertised by both site notice and press advert. Notification letters were also sent to 1,225 neighbouring property addresses (including to occupiers in Prichard House) and to registered amenity groups. The Local Planning Authority has therefore undertaken all reasonable and necessary steps to advertise the planning application and offer local residents a chance to comment on the development scheme. In addition to the above, through local ward Councillors Officers have also advised local residents that representations received after the official consultation expiry date would be accepted provided

19

they arrive in sufficient time for the case officer to consider them prior to finalising his recommendation report. Members will see, through the neighbour representations received and summarised, that there is good knowledge of this planning application locally. Moreover, Members may be confident that they may make a resolution on the planning application in the knowledge that the Local Planning Authority has undertaken all reasonable and necessary advertisement of the planning application; in accordance with the requirements conferred by current planning legislation.

At the public consultation in January, representatives of Lambeth Council admitted that the impact the proposed development would have on local residents other than those living in Ward Point, Brittany Point had not yet been considered. They assured that members of the Council and the architects would come to flats to assess the impact the proposed tower would have on residents of Kennington Park Square before the planning application was submitted for approval. This did not happen. Kennington Park Square residents did not receive any communications or any offer to discuss the proposals prior to submission of the application.

Pre-application consultation on the proposals began in late 2012 and involved engagement with local residents and key stakeholders to help inform the development of the proposals. Two key public events were held for the local community to view the proposals and for individuals to provide feedback on the scheme. Meetings were held throughout the process to consult and engage with key local stakeholders and groups. A consultation website has been available for the local community to view the proposal and register comments. The proposal has evolved through taking in consideration feedback received alongside analysis of the existing site. The list of the key stakeholders the Housing department has been working with to develop the scheme is listed below;

• Ethelred Nursery’s - Headteacher, Governors and the Children’s Centre Manager

• Ethelred Nursery Staff

• Lambeth’s Building Schools for the future team

• Lambeth Living (Lambeth Council’s housing managing agent)

• Local residents and groups – including individual residents directly impacted by the proposed scheme

• Ethelred Tenants & Residents Association

• Ethelred Tenant Management Organisation

• Politicians – Local MP and Councillors

• Braeburn Estates Limited Partnership (BELP) and their consultants

• Lambeth Council’s Planning department Whilst it is understood that the Kennington Park Square Residents’ Association was not written to directly, it is understood that numerous residents from that development both visited the consultation events and contributed comments.

Non-planning matters

Devaluation of property

Planning is exercised in the public interest. It is not the role of the planning system to protect either

20

Impact upon private views across the site – including to the London Eye.

private property values or private views across someone else’s property.

6 Planning Policy Considerations

6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning

decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.2 The development plan in Lambeth is:

• The London Plan (adopted July 2011);

• Lambeth’s Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy (adopted 19 January 2011); and

• The remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not supersede by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011’.

6.3 Material considerations include national, regional and local planning policy statements,

planning policy guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents.

6.4 London Plan

6.4.1 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 to 2031. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London. London boroughs’ local plans need to be in general conformity with the London Plan, and its policies guide decisions on planning applications by councils and the Mayor.

6.4.2 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:

Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities Policy 3.8 Housing choice Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities Policy 3.10 Definition of Affordable Housing Policy 3.11 Affordable Housing Targets Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes Policy 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure Policy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.5 Decentralised energy networks Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals Policy 5.7 Renewable energy Policy 5.8 Innovative energy technologies Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling Policy 5.10 Urban greening Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs Policy 5.12 Flood risk management Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage Policy 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies Policy 5.16 Waste self-sufficiency Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity

21

Policy 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure Policy 6.7 Better streets and surface transport Policy 6.9 Cycling Policy 6.10 Walking Policy 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion Policy 6.12 Road network capacity Policy 6.13 Parking Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.3 Designing out crime Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.11 London View Management Framework Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes Policy 7.18 Protecting local open space and addressing local deficiency Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature Policy 8.2 Planning obligations Policy 8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy

6.5 Lambeth’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy

6.5.1 The following Policies of the Council’s Core Strategy are relevant to the current planning application: Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 – Housing Policy S4 – Transport Policy S5 – Open Space Policy S6 – Flood Risk Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment Policy S10 – Planning Obligations

6.6 UDP Policies, saved beyond 5th August 2010

6.6.1 The following policies (whole or part thereof) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007), saved beyond 05 August 2010 and not superseded by the adoption of the Core Strategy, are relevant to this application:

Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 16 Affordable Housing; Policy 26 Community Facilities; Policy 30 Arts and Culture; Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing Out Crime; Policy 33 Building Scale and Design; Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction; Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas; Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design; Policy 41 Views; Policy 47 Conservation Areas; and Policy 50 Open Space and Sports Facilities.

6.7 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

6.7.1 On 27th March 2012, the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for

22

England and how these are expected to be applied. It reinforces the Development Plan led system and does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The NPPF sets out that the National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Of significance, it sets out that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

6.8 Regional Guidance

6.8.1 The following regional guidance is relevant to the application proposal:

• Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2012)

• London View Management Framework SPG March 2012

• SPG: Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (2007);

• SPG: Sustainable Design and Construction (2006);

• London Housing Design Guide Interim Addition (August 2010);

• London Housing Strategy (2010) and Revised Consultation Document (2011);

• Delivering London's Energy Future: the Mayor's climate change mitigation and energy strategy (2011);

• SPG: Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (April 2004);

• BPG: Wheelchair Accessible Housing (September 2007); and

• Play and Informal Recreation SPG (2012)

6.9 Local Guidance

6.9.1 The council has adopted the following Supplementary Planning Documents, which are relevant:

• SPD: Housing Development and House Conversions

• SPD: Safer Built Environments

• SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction

• SPD: S106 Planning Obligations

6.9.2 The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is also relevant.

7. Assessment

7.1 Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) Application

7.1.1 The application is the subject of a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA). This is a public document which sets out an agreement between the developer and the Council on how the pre-application and application processes would be managed.

7.1.2 As part of this agreement the scheme has been referred to the Council's Strategic Sites Panel. The application was received generally favourably by the Panel. The applicant team were commended upon the way that they had progressed the scheme as it would provide much needed benefits on a site which currently provides a bleak and utilitarian environment to existing residents. The provision of family accommodation was particularly welcomed and it was considered that the scheme could be used as a model for the delivery of future affordable housing schemes in the Borough. The Panel's response was made on a strategic basis on the understanding that matters of detailed design, including the relationship between the new tower and its environs, would be refined and proven acceptable in the application submissions.

7.1.3 Whilst entering into a PPA by no way means that a subsequent application will be rubber stamped, PPAs are increasingly being used by Lambeth on schemes of this nature to proactively and positively engage with developers to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area; in accordance with the expectations conferred upon LPAs by the NPPF. It is advised that in this instance the

23

applicant has responded positively and openly to all advice given. It must therefore be borne in mind that whilst this officer recommendation of approval is being presented having regard to the merits of the scheme currently before the LPA for consideration, those 'merits' have been largely and positively influenced by the extensive pre-application negotiations and discussions that preceded the application submission.

7.2 Land Use/Regeneration

7.2.1 Housing

7.2.2 In order to meet both Lambeth’s and London’s housing demand and need, Core Strategy Policy S2 (housing) seeks the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/2011 and 2017/17 in line with the London Plan. The London Plan sets an annual monitoring target for Lambeth of 1,195 new homes. In addition, the London Plan seeks to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in London over the term of the Plan.

7.2.3 The site is owned by the Council. It is the Council's intention to enter into a conditional Development Agreement with the developer to provide 70 new affordable houses, a new Ethelred Nursery school and Children's Centre and 19 homes for sale.

7.2.4 Key actions for the Council's Housing Strategy 2012-16 include facilitating inward investment and housing growth, providing a mix of housing types and tenures to meet current and future need, maximising the delivery of affordable housing and using Council assets to maximise the opportunities for housing development where possible. The subject planning application would contribute significantly to this strategy.

7.2.5 One route to securing new affordable housing is through the planning process. Planning policy requires that 40% of new homes on residential developments should be affordable, subject to viability testing. However, on some sites, particularly in the north of the borough, a higher level of provision could potentially be secured offsite than would otherwise be secured onsite as costs are prohibitive. In the case of the Shell Centre, only 14 affordable homes could have viably been provided on-site, whereas 70 homes can be provided offsite on the Ethelred Estate (within 1 mile of the Shell Centre site).

7.2.6 During their consideration of the Shell Centre planning application, both the Council and the Mayor of London accepted that 70 homes of affordable housing could be commuted off-site. The Shell Centre Section 106 Agreement therefore sets out the Affordable Housing requirement for that development as follows:

• Onsite - 46 intermediate rent homes and 52 affordable extra care homes • Offsite - 70 affordable rent homes

7.2.7 The Ethelred Nursery site offers a very good outcome in terms of both affordable housing

delivery and securing regenerative improvements to the existing estate. This location has capacity for 70 new homes for affordable rent, with a range of flats and houses from 1 to 4 bedrooms; a new, purpose built Ethelred Nursery and Children's Centre; 19 new homes for sale; and new routes and improved public realm at ground level reconnecting homes to adjacent open space and amenities.

7.2.8 This location, where the Council is the landowner and has existing homes immediately adjacent, offers the opportunity for new affordable homes which will be let at target rents. The further homes which are proposed can be sold to generate investment by the Council in further new affordable housing elsewhere in the borough. The land will remain in Council ownership, except for the new houses for sale which will be disposed of freehold.

7.2.9 The development therefore would deliver 89 residential units, 70 of which would be affordable. The delivery of the Shell Centre affordable housing on Lollard Street facilitates a significant uplift in affordable housing delivery than could otherwise have been viably provided on the Shell Centre site itself, whilst the reinvestment of the net profits from the sale of the additional 19 units will be committed by the Council to further new affordable

24

housing provision. It is therefore the case that as part of the Council’s Housing Strategy the development would contribute significantly towards addressing Lambeth's (and London's) housing needs and demand. This is without doubt a substantial public benefit that weighs heavily in favour of the development.

7.2.10 Replacement Nursery

7.2.11 The Ethelred Nursery and Children’s Centre are currently located on the site. The Children’s Centre offers a range of services for families, including support for parents, child and family health services, family activities and helping parents into work with links with Jobcentre Plus and training. This is a popular and well used facility, albeit that it operates from a constrained building in poor condition and it does not have good accessibility.

7.2.12 The replacement nursery will be significantly larger and offer much improved facilities as part of an integrated redevelopment scheme. The provision of nursery places from the Ethelred Nursery is essential to the Pupil Places Strategy the Council has adopted with regard to the forthcoming provision for 2 year olds. This constitutes a substantial public benefit of the development. Saved UDP Policy 26 and MDO 89 are supportive and promoting of the development and improvement of community facilities, including nurseries.

Figures 6: Nursery

7.2.13 The replacement nursery and external play area is to be located along the eastern boundary of the site and is an integral part of the redevelopment. The new nursery would provide

25

1,062sqm of floorspace – a significant uplift from the existing 483sqm facility. It would be provided with ground level access, whereas the existing facility is accessed from the existing podium which itself is accessed by stairs or ramps. A new external playground with covered area is proposed at ground level, together with another external play area at first floor level on part of the nursery's roof.

7.2.14 The Nursery Head, Governors and the Children’s Centre Manager have been involved in design workshops with HLM architects (client design advisor), Darling Associates and BELP over the last few months. Lambeth staff have been present at the meetings providing input and advising the stakeholders. The design has been discussed and amended to the point now where the stakeholders are comfortable with the overall layout subject to detailed design development.

7.2.15 In addition to the improved facility, two nearby sites are now agreed for accommodating the temporary relocation of the nursery during the construction works. It is proposed that the nursery will share the Shelly school site and that the Little Stars Nursery on White Hart Street will accommodate the children's centre. Works will be carried out by the Developer to enable their use as temporary accommodation. The continuity of operations during the redevelopment of the application site is a considerable public benefit. The developer's undertaking of the works to enable the use of the temporary accommodation will be secured through the development agreement that the Council will enter into with the applicant.

7.2.16 Relocation of the Ethelred TMO Office

7.2.17 Currently, the Ethelred TMO uses portacabins on the site as its local office. Although the Ethelred TMO transferred out of Council ownership to join the WATMOS housing group in 2012, this land was not included in the transfer. The Council has now served notice on Ethelred TMO in order to take the land back into its possession.

7.2.18 The TMO has detailed plans for a permanent housing office and improved community space on Lambeth Walk. This cannot be developed until some local leases have expired, which is expected in 2017. The TMO is prepared to move temporarily to allow redevelopment at Lollard Street and has identified suitable space within the new Black Prince Trust facility. This relocation maintains the TMO office within its estate, consistent with its commitments to residents.

7.2.19 Regeneration, Economic Benefit and Jobs

7.2.20 In addition to the new homes and nursery, the scheme would also provide much needed benefits on a site which currently provides a bleak and utilitarian environment to existing residents. The scheme would open up the site creating extensive permeability and accessibility. The increased permeability of the estate together with the significant townscape improvements to this locality, are significant regeneration and aesthetic benefits of the development that weigh in favour of approval.

7.2.21 The site falls within the Ethelred Estate. The Ethelred Estate is subject to an MDO designation within the development plan (MDO 89 – Lambeth's UDP), which sets out the Council's regeneration aspirations across the estate. The estate offers opportunities to provide quality high-density developments, providing housing at a range of affordability and that exploits the site's location in relation to central London. The MDO sets out that development and improvements of the Lambeth Walk/Ethelred Estate area is supported, especially where it addresses the needs of the local community and where it fulfils, amongst others, the following criteria:

• The provision of new and improved community facilities well suited to local needs; • The reconfiguration of street patterns to provide improved links from the Ethelred

Estate to Kennington Road/Cross; and • That increases population of the area to approaching that before comprehensive

redevelopment in the 60s and 70s, to provide more local customers for shops and services as well as new services which are lacking.

26

The development would contribute to each of these identified aspirations for the regeneration of the Ethelred Estate.

7.2.22 In addition, the development would deliver construction jobs at a range of skill levels over the build period. As part of the s.106 agreement, the developer would contribute £50k towards promoting local labour in the construction of the development in addition to non-financial commitments for promoting opportunities for local residents in association with Lambeth's Construction Employee/Employer Accord. The creation and promotion of local jobs for local people is a significant planning benefit that aligns neatly with the council's aspirations of reducing worklessness.

7.2.23 The development would also create additional job opportunities directly on site once the development is complete. The larger nursery facility would generate additional employment opportunities, together with the on-going management, maintenance and upkeep of the communal areas of the development. In addition, wage spending and supplier sourcing is expected to boost the local economy and support a range of further "spin-off" jobs in services and other firms. The application submission estimates household spend from the new households will be circa £1.1m per annum, a large proportion of which will be retained within the local area. This additional spending will support the vitality and viability of local centres including Lambeth Walk and Kennington Road. The development would also generate circa £845k of New Homes Bonus payments over six years that can be applied by the Council to secure further public benefit.

7.2.24 These economic effects align well with a wide range of national, regional and local policy objectives, in particular, increasing the supply of high quality, sustainable housing to meet projected increases in population and enhancing economic prosperity through creating employment opportunities for local people. These substantial physical and economic regeneration benefits that would derive from the development are in themselves material planning considerations that weigh heavily in favour of approving the planning application.

7.3 Residential Accommodation - Size Mix, Tenure and Quality

7.3.1 Policy S2 sets out that with a residential major development, at least 50 per cent of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is available, or 40 per cent without public subsidy, other than where there is a clearly demonstrable benefit in a different mix in the case of housing estate regeneration.

7.3.2 London Plan Policies 3.9 to 3.12 assert the need for mixed and balanced communities and in this context seek to maximise affordable housing provision. It sets out that affordable housing is usually required on-site; albeit that in exceptional circumstances it may be provided off-site or through a cash in lieu contribution ring fenced, and if appropriate pooled, to secure efficient delivery of new affordable housing on sites elsewhere. These exceptional circumstances include those where it would be possible to: secure a higher level of provision; better address priority needs, especially for affordable family housing; and secure a more balanced community.

7.3.3 It is advised that the principle of providing the Shell Centre affordable housing offsite has already been accepted by the Council, albeit subject to the SoS's ruling on the Public Inquiry.

Affordable Housing Offer and Dwelling Mix

7.3.4 In total the development would provide 89 new dwellings, of which 70 would be provided as Affordable Rented Units at target rents. The dwelling size and tenure mix would be as follows:

Market Affordable Rented

Units TOTALS

1 bed units 7 6 13

2 bed units 5 35 40

3 bed units - 12 12

27

4 bed units 7 17 24

TOTALS 19 70 89

7.3.5 The on-site affordable housing provision therefore only meets the Shell Centre affordable housing requirements. Under Core Strategy Policy S2 there would also be an expectation that the development site delivers affordable housing in its own right. In this circumstance that delivery would be through the commuting of the net profits received for the sale of the market units to be applied to the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the borough. The development constitutes housing estate regeneration such that there is a clearly demonstrable benefit in providing a mix of tenures on the site rather than a 100% affordable housing offer. There is already a high proportion of affordable homes on the estate, including the 70 further homes that will be delivered by the development, so that the 19 private sale units would act to contribute to a more mixed and balance community inclusive of a full range of tenures. In the second instance the Council is the landowner and will ensure that the net profits received from the sales of the private houses are reinvested in new affordable housing provision within the Borough in accordance with the Council's Housing Strategy 2012-16.

7.3.6 The development has been designed as tenure blind. 41% (by unit) of the Affordable Rent accommodation would be provided as family sized units (3+ bed), including 8 houses. These provisions are in general accordance with the draft revised London Housing Strategy and the Council's own Housing Needs Survey. By contrast, the market housing provision would be skewed towards 1 and 2 units, but with provision of family accommodation; also in conjunction with the recommendations of Lambeth's Housing Needs Survey.

7.3.7 For the reasons set out above, the residential mix is considered acceptable.

Quality of the Resident Units

7.3.9 All of the new dwellings have been designed to meet the Mayor’s London Housing Design Guide and the Council’s SPD (Housing Development and House Conversions) in terms of size and layout. In addition, all of the homes would be designed and constructed to the Lifetime Homes Standards. The application submissions also confirm that 9 (10%) of the units are designed to be easily adaptable to meet the needs of wheelchair users, in accordance with the relevant London Plan target.

7.3.10 In terms of daylighting, the majority of rooms would achieve the BRE recommended Average Daylight Factors (ADF). Six of the proposed rooms would not – demonstrating marginal shortfalls. The balconies required for the upper floors affects the scheme’s ability to achieve full compliance. The architect has however worked to mitigate the issues by improving the window opening to room size ratio and seeking to orientate the effected rooms away from the towers. The BRE guide is not mandatory and the values given therein are only a guideline. Officers acknowledge that there are marginal failures against the BRE guidelines, but, having regard to the overall quality of residential accommodation to be provided and the public benefits that would be delivered, consider these acceptable.

Amenity & Play Space

7.3.11 The key aspirations of the landscape master plan at the site are to create permeability through the site which does not currently exist due to the raised platform as well as creating a range of different activities and uses where people feel comfortable to use. The residential streets to be created run along the southern boundary of the site and will dissect the site north/south. It is intended that the residential streets will provide an attractive setting for the new residential buildings and will offer an amenity value in themselves, including a community growing area to the South of Elkington Point.

7.3.12 The main communal amenity space areas for the residents of the development are to be provided in two courtyard spaces. The first courtyard is to be provided to the west of the site enclosed by new blocks A, B and C, the new houses and Elkington Point – this space would include a children’s play area. The ground floor external amenity areas of the houses would back directly onto this space. The second court yard would be provided between new Block

28

E and Brittany Point, also inclusive of a children’s play area. It should be noted that the existing residents of Elkington Point and Brittany Point will be afforded access to the newly created communal amenity spaces. The private communal amenity space for the development amounts to 822 sqm.

7.3.13 In terms of private amenity spaces, each of the flats are provided with their own balconies and the houses would be provided with both ground floor external areas and upper floor balconies. The balconies range from 5 sqm to 12 sqm in size. The private amenity space provision totals 1,097 sqm across the development.

7.3.14 Therefore, in addition to the public realm and landscaping benefits of the development, the scheme would deliver a total of 1,919 sqm of amenity space for the new residents, either as communal space or private gardens/balconies. This provision is considerably over the minimum 940 sqm amenity space requirement (either as communal or as private space) which the Council’s SPD (Housing Development and House Conversions) would dictate a residential development of this quantum should provide. It is considered to be a generous provision.

7.3.15 Using the methodology within the Mayor's Play and Informal Recreation SPG, the anticipated child yield of the development would be 124 (43 children under 5, 46 children between 5 and 11, and 35 children over 12). The guidance sets a benchmark requirement of 10sqm of useable child play space to be provided per child, with a presumption that under 5 child play space is to be provided on site and that provision for over 4s may be provided via off-site contributions if there are suitable facilities in the locality. In this context the development would be expected to make provision for 1,240 sqm of play space, with at least 430 sqm of under 5s provision on site. It should be noted that Lambeth's SPD is explicit in that the delivery requirements for children's play space provision should be considered as part and parcel of the overall amenity space provision for the site, and not over and above.

7.3.16 As set out above, the applicant has committed to providing two designated play spaces in total: one centrally within the new communal amenity space to the west of the site and one along the north/south central thoroughfare of the site (proposed for the residents of the development but open to wider public access if Lambeth so wish). This amounts to a 112 sqm formal provision and final details of the play areas and their actual delivery would be dealt with through the recommended conditions. Whilst short of the expectations set out in the Mayor’s SPD, it must be remembered that the communal amenity areas and public realm will also provide ‘playable spaces’ and that there is an existing ball court and play area immediately to the south of site.

7.3.17 The Multi-Use Games Area already located within the Ethelred Estate has recently been invested in and upgraded. In addition, the site sits opposite the Lollard Street Open Space just to the north of the Estate. There are also a number of other local green spaces ranging from small recreational spaces within residential areas, such as Cleaver Square, to 15 acre formal parks, such as Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park. These spaces include a variety of facilities including children’s play areas and extensive sports facilities.

7..3.18 In addition to the on-site amenity and play space provision, the development would be inclusive of s.106 financial contributions of i) £100,000 and ii) £92,833 towards improvements to off-site i) parks and open spaces and ii) children’s’ play space provision respectively. Such monies would be directed, via the council’s s.106 protocol, towards facilities within the vicinity of the site so as to mitigate the impacts of the development.

7.3.19 Given the overarching regeneration benefits brought about by re-instating a traditional street pattern and by creating permeability through the site, the above provisions are considered appropriate to cater for the amenity space and play space needs that would likely arise from the development.

7.4 Design

7.4.1 Officers have assessed the proposals in relation to national, strategic and local design

29

policy guidance contained within the NPPF, London Plan Policies, Saved UDP Policies and the Adopted Core Strategy.

7.4.2 Density

7.4.3 The site area including Brittany Point and Elkington Point is 0.87ha. It has an existing residential density of 231 units/hectare. The development would increase that density to 333 units per hectare. Whilst this is above the figure of 260 u/ha set out in Table 3.2 of the London Plan for ‘urban areas’ with a PTAL of 4 – 6, it is nevertheless considered an appropriate density led by an appropriate design response to the site. The site is within 500m of the London Plan Central Activities Zone and is surrounded by buildings that are 4 storeys or over in height. As such, the site has a number of elements of the ‘central areas’ as described in Table 3.2 of the London Plan. In central areas the density range is up to 405 u/ha. Moreover, the London Plan makes clear that Table 3.2 should not be used “mechanistically” whereas the Mayor’s Housing SPG (2012) identifies that density is only one among a much wider range of policies to manage development.

7.4.4 This density increase proposed aligns neatly with the Council’s aspirations around the regeneration of the Ethelred Estate. Moreover, as set out in MDO 89, the estate offers opportunities to provide quality high-density developments, providing housing at a range of affordability and that exploits the site's location in relation to central London. One of the key aspirations is to facilitate development that, amongst other things, increases population of the area to approaching that before comprehensive redevelopment in the 60s and 70s, to provide more local customers for shops and services as well as new services which are lacking.

7.4.5 As set out in Saved UDP Policy 33, the primary consideration in determining appropriate density and scale will be achieving an appropriate urban design. Given the design quality, the substantial public benefits of the development and the comprehensive package of s106 obligations, officers are satisfied that the development suitably optimises the housing output of this highly accessible site in a sustainable and appropriate manner; in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.4.

7.4.6 Layout and Landscaping

7.4.7 Similar to other housing estates of its time the layout of Ethelred Estate is problematic. The existing two storey podium deck that connects Brittany Point and Elkington Point at their base results in a lack of permeability through the site, illegibility, weak and unattractive street frontages, poor natural surveillance and an underutilized podium level which provides an unpleasant outlook for existing residents. The proposed application seeks to address many of these design failings by removing the imposing podium, and subdividing the site into two plots. Subdividing the site into two plots creates two new pedestrian routes that connect to the existing network of streets (Kennington Road and Lollard Street) including routes through the estate, drastically improving movement through the estate and legibility. The new north/south route which connects to Lollard Street also provides direct access to the Lambeth Walk Open Space; connecting the estate to local community facilities and improving views from the site.

7.4.8 A perimeter block layout is proposed for each plot, where buildings wrap around the base of Brittany Point and Elkington Point. The perimeter block layout creates well defined street frontages where buildings successfully address the street/routes. The continuous building lines along the street/routes provide good enclosure to the street and relates well to the surrounding context which is characterised by the traditional terrace. The proposed layout makes a clear distinction between public, semi private and private spaces and creates the opportunity for secured communal courtyard spaces and private gardens. Regular doors and windows at ground floor level animate the street/routes and will provide increased natural surveillance.

7.4.9 At present, public realm within the site is stark, dominated by hard surfaces with very little soft landscaping. As part of the application a well considered landscaping/public realm strategy has been put forward to improve the quality of spaces between buildings - both

30

private and public. The strategy introduces appropriate surface treatments, interesting street furniture (that in places can be used for informal play) and soft landscaping which will result in a good quality public and private realm.

7.4.10 The GLA has raised concern regarding “the lack of legibility of the east-west route”. The GLA set out that whilst the provision of a new east-west route through the site is strongly supported, the legibility of this route is compromised by the building line of the tower at street level. They comment that views deeper into the site are interrupted by the ground floor unit at the base of the tower and advise that these units should be relocated so that a clear line of sight is allowed all the way to the proposed north-south route.

7.4.11 The GLA’s suggestion would involve the removal of affordable housing units at the base of proposed block D to allow a view at ground through to proposed block C. Given the constraints of the site, the units could not be re-provided elsewhere within the scheme without reducing the size of other units and lowering the number of family units that are proposed. It is important to consider that at present there is no route or view through this part of the site; the current view from Kennington Road in this area is of the podium car park. The proposed east-west route is a significant improvement on the existing layout of the site, providing a new route from Kennington Road into the Ethelred Estate. The proposed route is of a generous width being between 7m and 14m wide – see figure 7 below. It is also considered that any gains from opening up further the view of this route would be minimal given that the view would look straight onto block C. Lambeth Officers therefore do not share the concerns set out in the GLA stage 1 response and consider that the removal of the two residential units is not necessary and would run contrary to the NPPF and London Plan which seek to optimise development, especially housing and affordable housing delivery.

Figure 7: The public space at the entrance to the Nursery and Block E behind

7.4.12 Scale and Mass

7.4.13 The surrounding scale of development is mixed, comprising terraced properties between two and four storeys in height, as well as a number of housing estates mostly containing medium sized blocks (between four and ten storeys). Ethelred Estate and Cotton Estate located along Kennington Lane, both have three tall tower blocks.

7.4.14 Three storey houses and four storey apartment blocks would form the perimeter layout around Elkington Point. The apartment blocks frame and give emphasis to the corners of the perimeter, whilst the houses replicate the traditional terrace. The variation in height creates interest. The proposed scale will provide adequate enclosure to the street without

31

overbearing the Lambeth Walk Open Space.

7.4.15 The perimeter block around Brittany Point would be formed of a two storey nursery located immediately adjacent to the petrol station, a seven storey apartment block at the junction of Kennington Road and Lollard Street and a part four part sixteen storey residential block (figure 8).

Figure 8: Height of development in context

7.4.16 Block F, at seven storeys, provides a focal point at the prominent corner of site, visible in views along Kennington Lane without appearing overly tall. In terms of the taller element, it will not appear unacceptable in longer townscape and strategic views as it will integrate neatly with the existing three towers. At 50.7m tall, it sits comfortably below Ward Point (54m) and Brittany Point (61.5m). A full townscape, heritage and views assessment has been submitted which satisfies officers to this effect. Moreover, the perimeter block layout can easily accommodate various scales whilst retaining appropriate enclosure for the internal spaces at ground level.

32

Figure 9: CGI view looking east down new east/west pedestrian route

7.4.17 Appearance and Materials

7.4.18 The proposal is in a contemporary architectural style, clad in brick. The use of brick resonates strongly with the prevailing brick character of the area and as such will support local distinctiveness. Two colour bricks will be incorporated into elevations. A red/brown coloured brick is proposed throughout the development responding to the existing medium sized blocks within the estate which are also constructed in a red/brown brick. The visual connection through materials strengthens the relationship between existing and proposed, resulting in the proposal fitting into the context successfully.

7.4.19 A paler brick in a mixed cream colour is also proposed and serves several functions. Firstly it is used to highlight architectural features such as the two storey projecting brick surround to houses and taller surrounds to Blocks E and F. Secondly it assists in breaking up the visual mass of the building. Lastly, the pale colour seeks to respond to the white coloured render panels of Elkington Point, Brittany Point and Ward Point. It is considered that the selection of proposed brick colours successfully mediates between the opposing white render and red/brown brick material palette of existing buildings within the estate.

7.4.20 In addition to the brick, metal fins are used as an architectural accent to create depth and light to elevations. Whilst officers are supportive of the used of brick and metal, the use of timber does raise concern. There are a number of inherent problems with the use of timber such as weathering, staining, durability and on-going maintenance burden. Timber refuse doors and vents are proposed in Blocks A, B and C. Timber is also proposed extensively in the nursery court yard elevations as cladding and projecting fins. Design officers have requested that the use of timber is avoided wherever possible. For that reason a condition of consent is recommended to require the developer to explore alternative materials.

7.4.21 The elevational treatments of the family houses and lower residential blocks are successful. Houses are expressed as individual homes incorporating a two storey projecting brick bay

33

on the upper level of the frontage which creates a rhythm along the street and reinforces the idea of the traditional terrace found locally. The bays give depth and relief to the elevations, whilst the metal fins support the vertical rhythm.

7.4.22 Blocks A, B, C and D act as bookends (figure 10). Where windows are organised in vertical groups within the façade they pick up on the vertical rhythms of the proposed terrace, resulting in a seamless integration of both housing typologies. The cantilevered balconies act in a similar way to the housing bays, giving depth and modelling to the elevations.

Figure 10: Block B and houses – View of Lollard Street and new central pedestrian walk

7.4.23 Block E comprises three vertical elements in a staggered composition. The outer elements comprise recessed balconies grouped vertically and encased within a slender brick frame which echoes the brick surround of the family houses. The light and open aspect of the balconies placed on either side of a predominantly solid brick core creates contrast; whilst the off-set aluminium anodised fins within the balustrade and the recess balconies break up the repetitive balcony arrangement to create an additional layer of interest (figure 11).

Figure 11: Artist’s impression of Block E

34

7.4.24 Block F continues the same architectural language as Block E. There is a slight concern regarding the lack of openings and interest within the southern elevation. Although the proximity of the block to the nursery is acknowledged, the use of blind windows, obscured glazing and/or vertical recessed strips - similar to those used in Block E - could be introduced into this elevation without compromising the required safety and privacy of the nursery. This matter would be explored more fully pursuant to the recommended condition.

7.4.25 Design Conclusions

7.4.26 Overall, the proposal is of good and robust architectural quality which will radically improve the appearance of the estate. Elevations have good fenestration proportions and arrangement, with an appropriate level of detail and ornamentation that result in attractive buildings. The use of brick relates well to the immediate context whilst the consistent architectural features such as chamfered recessed brick panels adjacent to windows, aluminium fins, balconies, brick surrounds and vertical emphasis to the fenestration creates a visually cohesive and well considered group of buildings that relate successfully to the context.

7.4.27 Overall it is considered that the development presents a high quality and considered design in accordance with the relevant design policies of the Development Plan; those being London Plan Policies 7.1, 7.4,7.5, 7.6 and 7.11, Saved UDP Policies 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 47 and Core Strategy Policy S9.

7.5 Sustainability

7.5.1 Lambeth Core Strategy Policy S7 requires all major developments to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in line with the London Plan targets through energy efficient design, decentralised heat, cooling and power systems, and on site renewable energy generation.

7.5.2 The London Plan requires developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures and prioritising decentralised energy, including renewables. Policy 5.2 sets out a minimum target reduction for carbon dioxide emissions in buildings of 40% over the Target Emission Rates outlined in the national Building Regulations. The London Plan sets out that development proposals should contribute to this by minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the "be lean, be clean, be green" hierarchy:

i. Be Lean: The reduction of energy demand and CO² emissions from using less energy, in particular by adopting sustainable and passive design and construction measures;

ii. Be Clean: Proposals for the reduction of energy demand and CO² emissions through supplying energy efficiently;

iii. Be Green: Renewable energy technologies to be incorporated.

7.5.3 Policy 5.7 of the London Plan seeks to increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources. There is a presumption that all major development proposals will seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20 per cent through the use of on-site renewable energy generation wherever feasible.

7.5.4 The proposed building fabric specification for both the residential units and the nursery is excellent, with low u-values and low air leakage proposed together with energy efficient building services including mechanical ventilation with heat recovery for the apartments. The energy efficiency measures will result in a 22% reduction in CO2 emissions below the Part L 2010 baseline in the residential units and a 1% reduction in CO2 emissions for the nursery school – a total of 19% reduction for the proposal as a whole, demonstrating a clear commitment to the first stage of the energy hierarchy 'Be Lean'.

7.5.5 The applicant proposes that the new residential block and nursery school will connect into the existing site-wide heat network. This currently consists of one CHP engine and two gas boilers to provide 'top-up' heat. Initial studies suggest that the existing energy centre will

35

have sufficient capacity to provide heat and electricity to the proposed dwellings and replacement nursery school However, if during detailed design stage it is discovered that additional capacity is required, an additional gas boiler will be installed in the existing energy centre. The energy statement reports that connection to the site heat network reduces emissions of the proposal to 40.3% below the Part L 2010 baseline.

7.5.6 A full feasibility study for all renewable technologies has been carried out, identifying that a Photovoltaic (PV) installation is suitable for the site. A 51sqm PV array will be installed on the residential element and 83sqm PV on the roof of the nursery. This will reduce emission to 45.6% below the baseline emissions in the residential units and 44.5% in the nursery, exceeding the requirements of London Plan policy 5.2 (i.e. 40% reduction), and fulfilling the requirement of London Plan policy 5.7 (i.e. provision of a reduction in CO2 emissions through renewable technologies). Site-wide emissions will be reduced by 45.5% below the Part L 2010 baseline emissions.

7.5.7 The residential units will be designed to meet code for sustainable homes level 4, in accordance with Lambeth's policy aspirations outlined in the SPD. The nursery building will be designed to meet a BREEAM 'Very Good'. The proposals go beyond the minimum policy requirements.

7.5.8 A brown roof is also proposed on the nursery building. This should be commended.

7.5.9 It is therefore concluded that all necessary reductions in total carbon dioxide emissions from the development have been achieved within the framework of the energy hierarchy to satisfy the policy requirements of the London Plan and Lambeth's Core Strategy Policy S7.

7.6 Neighbouring Amenity

7.6.1 The development would not be introducing of a use or uses inappropriate to this locality. Whilst activity associated with the nursery use may potentially impact upon the surrounding residential uses, the nursery has been long established in this location. It should be remembered that it is common across London for residential and D class uses to exist side by side without undue conflict. It is also the case that at 333 units per hectare, the development would not introduce a residential density greater than has successfully been delivered at many London sites.

Noise

7.6.2 The application submissions are accompanied by a Noise Assessment. Based on the measured noise levels, outline recommendations for glazing and ventilation have been made and plant noise limits for any proposed plant items have been set. It should be noted that the outdoor space for the nursery is located within a court yard surrounded by the massing of the new nursery building such that noise from the outdoor spaces of that use would be largely contained.

7.6.3 There is no evidence to suggest that the development would give rise to increased incidences of antisocial behaviour. Any noise emanating from the residential element of the scheme by reason of antisocial behaviour would need to be managed in the normal way through the tenancy agreements and/or environmental health legislation.

7.6.4 Daylight/Sunlight

7.6.5 The application is accompanied by a daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment, which has been independently verified by GL Hearn on behalf of the Council. Having regard to the BRE guidelines, the report identifies that a number of neighbouring properties would experience noticeable losses of daylight to a greater or lesser degree. However, officers are satisfied that the impacts of the development in this regard would not be so adverse as to warrant refusing planning permission; especially when having regard to this central London location, to the Development Plan’s aspirations for regenerating the estate and when weighing the impacts against the substantial public benefit that the development would deliver.

36

7.6.6 The BRE guidelines provide a series of tests for daylight and sunlight assessment,

acknowledging that in some circumstances, such as that of a dense urban environment as found with the application site, some allowances beyond the limits may be considered reasonable. The BRE Guidelines provide two principle methods for assessing daylight to existing residential accommodation: • The Vertical Sky Component (VSC) method; and • The No Sky Line (NSL)

7.6.7 VSC is a quantified measurement of the amount of skylight falling on a vertical wall or window. If, as a result of development, the VSC measured at the neighbouring property is both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value, then occupants of the existing building will notice the reduction in the amount of skylight.

7.6.8 The NSL method is a measure of the distribution of daylight at the 'working plane' within a room (i.e. a point 0.85m above the floor) and it provides an indication of daylight distribution within a room. If following construction the NSL moves so that the area of the existing room which does not receive direct skylight is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value, then this will be noticeable and more of the room would appear poorly lit.

7.6.9 Further guidance has been provided in the Second Edition of the BRE report in relation to existing windows with balconies: ‘Existing windows with balconies above them typically receive less daylight. Because the balcony cuts out light from the top part of the sky, even a modest obstruction may result in a large relative impact on the VSC, and on the area receiving direct skylight. One way to demonstrate this would be to carry out an additional calculation of the VSC and area receiving direct skylight, for both the existing and proposed situations, without the balcony in place.’

7.6.10 Appendix F of the BRE document also gives guidelines on setting alternative target values for skylight and sunlight access. This allows a developer to set alternative targets for vertical sky component levels which can be generated from the layout dimensions of existing development or derived from the internal layouts and direct day lighting needs of the proposed development itself. The BRE report uses the example of a mews in an historic city centre, where a typical obstruction angle from the ground floor window level might be closer to 40 degrees, which would correspond to a VSC of 18%. This can then be used as a target value for development in that street if new development is to match the existing layout.

7.6.11 Using a VSC target of 27% and the method of removing obstructions for the purposes of calculating impact advocated in the second edition of the BRE guidelines, the table below sets out the number of windows in neighbouring buildings which will experience noticeable reductions in VSC values:

Number of windows which would experience noticeable reductions in VSC levels – i.e. a resultant VSC both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value.

Address Minor adverse losses – 20-30% reduction of VSC

Moderate adverse losses – 30-40% reduction in VSC

Major adverse losses – more than 40% reduction in VSC

Elkington Point 2 2 1

Brittany Point 17 8 4

Ward Point 9 0 0

Prichard House 28 2 0

Sambrook House 10 1 0

TOTAL 66 13 5

7.6.12 In terms of NSL, again using the method of removing obstructions for the purposes of

37

calculating impact advocated in the second edition of the BRE guidelines, the table below shows the number of windows which will experience noticeable reductions in daylight:

Number of windows which would experience noticeable reductions in NSL levels – i.e. NSL reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value

Address Minor adverse losses – 20-30% reduction in NSL

Moderate adverse losses – 30-40% reduction in NSL

Major adverse losses – more than 40% reduction in NSL

Elkington Point 2 1 0

Brittany Point 6 0 3

Ward Point 2 2 0

Prichard House 4 2 6

Toplaide House 5 0 0

Rupert House 10 0 0

TOTAL 29 5 12

7.6.13 For Elkington Point, the vast majority of the property will maintain adequate natural light. Where noticeable reductions do occur, they are limited to secondary use rooms where access to natural light is considered less important by the BRE Report. The rooms most effected are bedrooms, with the main living rooms and kitchens of the effected accommodation situated on the north-west face of the tower where they will be unaffected by the proposals. It should also be noted that balanced against these impacts the residents of Elkington Point will be afforded direct access to the newly created communal areas and their outlook will be vastly improved by the removal of the podium car park; both significant improvements to the amenity of the existing residents.

7.6.14 For Brittany Point, the plans show that where transgressions occur, they occur predominantly within bedrooms and, hence, should be considered as less important when following the BRE guidelines. Again, the residents of Brittany Point will also be afforded direct access to the newly created communal areas and their outlook will be vastly improved by the removal of the podium car park; both significant improvements to the amenity of the existing residents.

7.6.15 Certain rooms within Ward Point will experience noticeable reductions in daylight. These however are only to a minor adverse or moderate adverse degree. The daylight distribution drawings supplied by the applicant show the distribution of light within the affected living rooms is such that the vast majority of the main living areas will continue to maintain good access to natural daylight.

7.6.16 For Prichard House, study of the daylight distribution drawings supplied shows, where transgressions within living rooms occur, the pattern of daylight remaining is such that large proportions of the main living areas will maintain good access to daylight. Study of internal layout information shows that the rear of these rooms are occupied by kitchen areas. Given the provision of balconies above the main windows serving the lounge/kitchen/dining rooms and the positioning of the kitchens to the rear of these rooms, it is clear that the design intent is for daylight access to be concentrated within the living area of the room. The daylight distribution drawings show that where the modifications to existing daylight distribution occur, it is mainly within the kitchen areas of the rooms and, as such, the main usage of the rooms, as living space, will be unaffected by the proposals. Given the compliance levels shown in the VSC analysis, the clear design intent and urban context of this property, the daylight amenity maintained by this property is in keeping with the BRE guidelines.

7.6.17 For Toplaide House, Sambrook House and Rupert House the impacts shown are only minor to moderate adverse. The results supplied satisfy that these properties will not experience losses of light to levels uncommon for such a central London location.

7.6.18 Officers therefore accept the advice of the Council’s independently appointed

38

daylight/sunlight consultant, who sets out that the impact of the development upon the natural light levels at neighbouring properties will be acceptable. The BRE guidelines are not mandatory and are only intended as a guide to assessing the impact of a development; acknowledging that in some circumstances, such as that of a dense urban environment as found with the application site, allowances beyond the limits contained therein may be acceptable. Where transgressions to surrounding properties occur, they are predominantly within secondary spaces and, as such, would be considered as less important by the BRE Report. Where transgressions within main living spaces occur, the distribution of light indicated by the applicant’s analysis shows that adequate levels of daylight amenity will be maintained across the majority of the living spaces.

7.6.19 Outlook, Sense of Enclosure and Loss of privacy

7.6.20 The development has been carefully designed such that it would not unacceptably impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residential properties in terms of loss of outlook or privacy.

7.6.21 Whilst the development is seeking to insert a new tower between two existing towers (Brittany Point and Ward Point), the architect has cleverly split and laterally slid the north and south façades of the new tower (Block E) so as to avoid unacceptable facing relationships with the existing towers. The newly introduced balconies of Block E are east or west facing and are flanked by walls which prevent overlooking relationships. In terms of Brittany Point, direct facing relationships between habitable rooms only occur at first to third floor level at a distance of 13m (block D). The northern elevation of the tower (Block E) is positioned such that where north facing rooms therein do face Brittany Point they only do so to a blank projection of that tower. Similarly, the sliding westwards of the southern elevation of the tower (Block E) cleverly removes direct facing relationships between habitable rooms.

7.6.22 Notwithstanding the objection received from residents in Prichard House regarding the creation of a ‘wall of tall buildings’, facing windows in that development are located at least 33m from the new tower. This is a very good separation distance for a central London location and well in excess of facing relationships previously accepted by Lambeth on other development schemes. At the closest, the towers will be 8m apart which will provide visual separation when directly facing the run of towers and in kinetic views as you move round the site. Given the separation distances and the high quality architecture proposed, it is considered that the development would not present an unacceptable wall of development and sense of enclosure. It must be remembered that the existing outlook of these properties is across the bleak and utilitarian podium. Moreover, whilst undoubtedly the development would remove certain views currently experienced by those properties between the existing towers, it is essential to remember that planning is operated in the public interest and does not protect private views.

7.6.23 Impacts During Construction

7.6.24 Noise, disturbance and inconvenience during the construction period can be appropriately minimised through good practice and the recommended conditions. Moreover, the localised short term disturbance likely to occur does not outweigh the longer term regeneration and public benefit of the development.

7.6.25 As part of the s106 agreement, the developer will be required to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme and to only construct the development in accordance with the Council’s own Code of Practice for Construction Sites. This latter code sets out, amongst other things, hours of working.

7.6.26 Amenity Conclusions

7.6.27 In terms of its impact upon neighbouring residential amenity, the development need not therefore fail against the relevant policies of the Development Plan; namely UDP Policies 7, 9 and 33.

7.7 Crime

39

7.7.1 At the pre-application stage the architect for the scheme has engaged with the Council’s

Crime Prevention Design Advisor in an attempt to design out opportunities for crime wherever practicable. As a result, particular attention has been given to promoting a sense of ownership, maximizing activity and passive surveillance, effective boundary/landscaping treatments and external communal lighting. Subject to the recommended conditions the Council may be satisfied that the development would sufficiently minimise the opportunity for crime in accordance with the objectives set out in Policy 32 of the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy.

7.8 Archaeology

7.8.1 The application site is not located within or in close proximity to an archaeological priority zone, as identified in the development plan. The site therefore has a generally low potential for archaeological interest and further archaeological mitigation measures are not necessary.

7.9 Bio-diversity/Ecology

7.9.1 The existing site has limited bio-diversity value. Subject to the recommended conditions officers are accepting that the redevelopment of the site need not prove unacceptably harmful to any bio-diversity features of acknowledged value and that opportunities could be secured to improve the bio-diversity value of the site and of the surrounding open spaces. It follows that the development need not fail against UDP Policy 39 and Core Strategy Policy S5 in these regards.

7.10 Management of Surface Water/Flood Risk

7.10.1 The application submissions are inclusive of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA); which has been referred to the Environment Agency for review/comment. The Environment Agency is on the whole satisfied with the submissions. They do however request that a further surface water drainage scheme for the site should be provided. Officers accept the Environment Agency's advice and thus conclude that subject to the recommended conditions, the development need not fail against the relevant policies of the Development Plan with regard to flood risk and surface water management (London Plan Policies 5.12 and 5.13 and Core Strategy Policy S6).

7.11 Transport Matters

7.11.1 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score of 4, which is considered ‘good’. Increased housing density is encouraged within areas of good public transport accessibility, as are car free developments. The site is located on Lollard Street, near the junction with Kennington Road. Not being a through route, Lollard Street is a lightly trafficked road, while Kennington Road is a major traffic artery and forms part of the TfL road network.

7.11.2 The existing site is dominated by a podium which severely restricts pedestrian movement through the site, and the majority of pedestrians who do use it to cross the site are going to the nursery which is located on the podium. The proposed removal of the podium level will significantly improve pedestrian and cyclist permeability through the site, and is welcomed. Multiple pedestrian routes through the site will be opened up as a result of the proposals, linking into surrounding highways and housing estates.

7.11.3 No general vehicular access to the site is proposed, and the two existing underground car park access points on Lollard Street will be removed, or altered, to provide servicing / emergency access only. The third car park access point behind the Texaco garage will also be removed. These matters will be secured by condition.

7.11.4 The scheme is proposed to be car free, and the existing 74 space car park which is accommodated beneath the podium will be lost as a result of the proposals. Currently, vehicle activity in the car park is low. The loss of the car park is supported, given the site’s

40

central location and the good level of accessibility by public transport.

7.11.5 Eight new on-street parking bays are proposed on Lollard Street, which will reduce the width of the carriageway on Lollard Street to 4.8m. The parking spaces will align with the eastern section of Lollard Street. These will initially be standard residents parking bays, but can be converted to disabled parking bays should new residents of the proposed development require them. The needs basis approach to on-street disabled parking is supported. A further disabled parking bay is shown in the south west corner of the site, on a section of Distin Street which is managed by Lambeth Living.

7.11.6 The original application submissions indicated that two of the new bays on Lollard Street (20%) were proposed to have electric charging points. However, since these bays are located on the public highway a traffic order would be required to prevent any vehicle for staying longer than three hours - electric charging bays are meant to allow open access to electric vehicle users. The bays therefore could not function as a standard residents’ parking bay or disabled bay. In addition, management responsibility of the bays would fall to the Council following the completion of the development agreement. Lambeth does not currently have the resources to manage additional electric charging points on the public highway, and there is no programme to install additional bays within the borough. For these reasons, officers have negotiated the removal of the electric charging bays from the highway.

7.11.7 The eligibility of future residents of the development (other than blue badge holders) to obtain parking permits for the vicinity would be removed by way of the S106 agreement. This approach is welcomed.

7.11.8 A trip generation analysis for the nursery and residential uses is included in the TA. Officers are satisfied that the uses, including the nursery, would not increase vehicular trips to a degree that would generate a need for further highways safety works. Despite additional parking being provided, which has been noted as narrowing Lollard Street at the western end, there are still significant sections of Lollard Street available for pick-up and drop-off which are controlled by single yellow lines to prevent parking. In addition the Travel Plan contains numerous measures and targets that seek to reduce the number of pupils, their parents/carers and the staff travelling to the site by car or as a passenger. A formal provision of a drop-off facility for the nursery would act to encourage further use of private vehicles to the site and goes against the targets set out in the Nursery Travel Plan.

7.11.9 A total of 183 cycle parking spaces are proposed for the residential units, which exceeds the London Plan standards. The provision for the 2bed and 4bed units is particularly generous and is therefore welcomed. Further detail is required on this point to ensure that high quality cycle parking is included within the proposals, and that sufficient space is safeguarded within the plans to accommodate this. Such matters would be dealt with by condition.

7.11.10 A total of 15 cycle parking spaces are also proposed for the nursery staff and pupils, which are welcomed. Buggy storage is proposed in a covered area in the external space of the nursery.

7.11.11 Refuse and recycling storage is provided in line with Lambeth’s Guidance, and a suitable management strategy is proposed. It is proposed that refuse collection vehicles enter the site and officers have been provided with appropriate evidence that the accessing arrangements are suitable for purpose.

7.11.12 A suitable draft Delivery and Servicing Plan is included in the TA. This would be secured via condition.

7.11.13 A draft Construction Logistics Plan is included in the TA. An updated version of the Plan would be secured via condition.

7.11.14 To promote the use of sustainable transport TfL requests that one Legible London sign, at a cost of £6,859, is secured through the Section 106 agreement. The sign should be positioned close to the junction of Kennington Road and Lollard Street.

41

7.11.15 Subject to the conditions and s.106 obligations, officers are of the opinion that the development will not impact unacceptably upon either the function or safety of the surrounding highway network. The development would be inclusive of a range of mitigation measures that would mitigate as far as is practicable the impacts of the development upon parking stress in the area. In addition, the development would be inclusive of cycle parking, car club membership and a travel plan; each reducing reliance on the private car and/or promoting more sustainable modes of transport. It is therefore considered that the development fully complies with the relevant transport policies of the Development Plan.

7.12 Refuse Storage

7.12.1 Policy S8 of the Core Strategy sets out that the Council will contribute to the sustainable management of waste in Lambeth.

7.12.2 The application is accompanied by a Site Waste Management Strategy, which covers both the construction and operational phases of the development. The submissions include details for both the nursery and the residential units. The proposed refuse storage and disposal arrangements/facilities have been devised and calculated in accordance with Lambeth's document 'Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements - Guidance for Architects & Developers'. The recommended condition would ensure suitable provision and management in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S8.

7.13 S106 Obligations

7.13.1 The development would deliver the following s.106 obligations: • Affordable housing – The delivery of the 70 units of Affordable Rent units and an

obligation that the net profits from the sales of the market housing is invested elsewhere within the borough on new affordable housing;

• Entire development to be Car Parking Permit Free; • Free membership of a car club to residents of the development for a period of two

years; • Travel Plan Submission and a monitoring fee of £1,000; • Parks and Open Spaces Contribution of £75,000; • Off Site Children's Play Space Contribution of £92,833; • Local Labour in Construction Contribution of £50,000; • Local Labour in Construction Commitments: Promotion of opportunities for local

residents; • Legible London Signage contribution of £6,859; • Compliance with the Considerate Constructors Scheme and with Lambeth’s Code of

Practice for Construction Sites; and • S106 Monitoring fee of £10,000.

7.13.2 The above package is considered reasonable to mitigate the otherwise unacceptable

impacts of the development upon local infrastructure. The package has been negotiated having regard to the expectations set out in policy (Core Strategy Policy S10 and the Council's adopted SPD: S106 Obligations), to the details of the scheme and to the substantial planning/public benefits that the scheme would deliver. Each of the obligations above has also been negotiated having regard to the statutory tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010; namely they are considered: (i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (ii) directly related to the development; and (iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

7.13.3 It has been advised that the construction cost of the nursery re-provision amounts to approximately £1.43m. Officers accept that this provision, together with the significant benefits to the public realm of the estate, would offset the need for an education contribution, health contribution, libraries contribution and would justify a reduced parks and open spaces contribution; as would otherwise be expected under the Council’s S106 SPD.

7.13.4 The scheme will also be liable to a Mayoral CIL payment towards Crossrail implementation. This is in addition to the s.106 package set out above.

42

8. Procedural Matters

8.1 By reason of its height, the application is a PSI application referable to the Mayor under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. It was referred to the Mayor following receipt and the Council will again need to refer the application again to the Mayor prior to being able to issue a decision. The Mayor's comments from the stage 1 referral are included above.

8.2 The development is not however EIA development, for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

9 Conclusion/Summary

9.1 The Site is Council owned and located in the north of Lambeth Borough. The site lies within a predominantly residential area and comprises part of the Ethelred Estate, one of the largest housing estates in south London which was built in the 1960s. The application site itself comprises the former LBL estate office currently occupied by the Ethelred Tenant Management Organisation (TWO), Ethelred Nursery, a plant room and a two storey car park.

9.2 The development proposed would deliver 89 residential units, 70 of which would be affordable; together with a replacement nursery. The 70 affordable units are proposed to satisfy the planning requirements of the Shell Centre redevelopment and would deliver a significant uplift in affordable housing delivery than could otherwise have been viably provided on the Shell Centre site itself. In addition, the reinvestment of the net profits from the sale of the additional 19 units will be committed by the Council to further new affordable housing provision in the borough. It is therefore the case that the development would contribute significantly towards addressing Lambeth's (and London's) housing needs and demand. This is without doubt a substantial public benefit that weighs heavily in favour of the development.

9.3 The development would also secure qualitative and quantitative improvements to the nursery; a popular and well used facility. The re-provision cost will be borne by the applicant and will form part of the development works programme.

9.4 The development would also improve the appearance of the site which currently provides a bleak and utilitarian environment to existing residents. The scheme would open up the site creating extensive permeability and accessibility. The increased permeability of the estate together with the significant townscape improvements to this locality are significant regeneration and aesthetic benefits of the development that weigh in favour of approval.

9.5 Overall, the proposal is of good and robust architectural quality which will radically improve the appearance of the estate. Elevations have good fenestration proportions and arrangement with an appropriate level of detail and ornamentation that result in attractive buildings. The use of brick relates well to the immediate context, whilst the consistent architectural features such as chamfered recessed brick panels adjacent to windows, aluminium fins, balconies, brick surrounds and vertical emphasis to the fenestration creates a visually cohesive and well considered group of buildings that relate successfully to the context. Overall it is considered that the development presents a carefully considered and high quality of design in accordance with the relevant design policies of the Development Plan.

9.6 The development would provide a high quality residential environment for all future occupiers. All of the new dwellings have been designed to meet the Mayor's London Housing Design Guide and the Council's SPD (Housing Development and House Conversions) in terms of size and layout. In addition, all of the new units would be designed and constructed to the Lifetime Homes Standards, whilst 9 (10%) of the units would be easily adaptable for wheelchair accessibility in accordance with the relevant London Plan target. Further, the development is inclusive of generous on-site amenity and play space provision. A small number of properties would not meet the BRE guidelines on daylight, but these breaches are not considered significant.

43

9.7 A range of economic benefits would also derive from the development. These are likely to

include: the creation of a range of construction jobs and opportunities; additional on-site jobs associated with the on-going operations, maintenance and management of the development/uses following construction; increases in resident expenditure in the locality providing a boost to the local economy; creation of "spin-off" jobs in services and other firms resultant from wage spending and supplier sourcing from the occupiers of the new development; and the generation of New Homes Bonus money to spend on Council priorities. These economic benefits align well with a wide range of national, regional and local policy objectives, in particular, increasing the supply of high quality, sustainable housing to meet projected increases in population and enhancing economic prosperity through creating employment opportunities for local people.

9.8 All necessary reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the development would be achieved within the framework of the Mayor's energy hierarchy to satisfy the Development Plan policy requirements. In addition, the development has been designed in conjunction with advice offered by the Council's Crime Prevention Design Advisor so as to minimise the opportunity for crime as far as is practicable. Furthermore, the development would not impact unacceptably upon the function or safety of the surrounding highway network.

9.9 The development would also be inclusive of a range of s.106 obligations that would reasonably mitigate the otherwise unacceptable impacts of the development upon local infrastructure. The package of s.106 contributions has been negotiated having full regard to the nature of the development, to the normal expectations conferred upon developers by the Council's s.106 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), and to the statutory tests for s.106 obligations set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

9.10 The development has been designed to minimise its impact upon the amenity of existing residents. The application is accompanied by a daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment, which has been independently verified by GL Hearn on behalf of the Council. Having regard to the BRE guidelines, the report identifies that a number of neighbouring properties would experience noticeable losses of daylight to a greater or lesser degree. However, officers are satisfied that the impacts of the development in this regard would not be so adverse as to warrant refusing planning permission; especially when having regard to this central London location, to the development’s plan aspirations for regenerating the estate and when weighing the impacts against the substantial public benefit that the development would deliver.

9.11 This is a sustainable development that would deliver substantial public benefit. The development would be in general compliance with the Development Plan for the Borough and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would suggest that the application should nevertheless be refused. Officers are therefore recommending approval of the application in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development conferred upon Local Planning Authorities by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

10 Recommendation

Resolve to grant conditional planning permission, subject to the successful completion of a S.106 agreement and to further referral to the Mayor of London.

11 Summary of the Reasons

11.1 In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant:

44

London Plan: Policy 3.3 (Increasing housing supply); Policy 3.4 (Optimising housing potential); Policy 3.5 (Quality and design of housing developments); Policy 3.6 (Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities); Policy 3.8 (Housing choice); Policy 3.9 (Mixed and balanced communities); Policy 3.12 (Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes); Policy 3.16 (Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure); Policy 4.12 (Improving opportunities for all); Policy 5.1 (Climate change mitigation); Policy 5.2 (Minimising carbon dioxide emissions); Policy 5.3 (Sustainable design and construction); Policy 5.5 (Decentralised energy networks); Policy 5.6 (Decentralised energy in development proposals); Policy 5.7 (Renewable energy); Policy 5.8 (Innovative energy technologies); Policy 5.9 (Overheating and cooling); Policy 5.10 (Urban greening); Policy 5.11 (Green roofs and development site environs); Policy 5.12 (Flood risk management); Policy 5.13 (Sustainable drainage); Policy 5.14 (Water quality and wastewater infrastructure); Policy 5.15 (Water use and supplies); Policy 5.16 (Waste self-sufficiency); Policy 6.3 (Assessing effects of development on transport capacity); Policy 6.5 (Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure); Policy 6.7 (Better streets and surface transport); Policy 6.9 (Cycling); Policy 6.10 (Walking); Policy 6.11 (Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion); Policy 6.12 9Road network capacity); Policy 6.13 (Parking); Policy 7.1 (Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities); Policy 7.2 (An inclusive environment); Policy 7.3 (Designing out crime); Policy 7.4 (Local character); Policy 7.5 (Public realm); Policy 7.6 (Architecture); Policy 7.11 (London View Management Framework); Policy 7.15 (Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes); Policy 7.18 (Protecting local open space and addressing local deficiency); Policy 7.19 (Biodiversity and access to nature); Policy 8.2 (Planning obligations); and Policy 8.3 (Community Infrastructure Levy).

Lambeth’s Core Strategy: Policy S1 (Delivering the Vision and Objectives); Policy S2 (Housing); Policy S4 (Transport); Policy S5 (Open Space); Policy S6 (Flood Risk); Policy S7 (Sustainable Design and Construction); Policy S8 (Sustainable Waste Management); Policy S9 (Quality of the Built Environment); and Policy S10 (Planning Obligations).

Lambeth’s Saved UDP Policies: Policy 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity); Policy 9 (Transport Impact); Policy 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint); Policy 16 (Affordable Housing); Policy 26 (Community Facilities); Policy 30 (Arts and Culture); Policy 31 (Streets, Character and Layout); Policy 32 (Community Safety/Designing Out Crime); Policy 33 (Building Scale and Design); Policy 35 (Sustainable Design and Construction); Policy 38 (Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas); Policy 39 (Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design); Policy 41 (Views); Policy 47 (Conservation Areas); and Policy 50 (Open Space and Sports Facilities).

45

12 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 Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 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 below, other than where those details may be superseded by details as may be approved pursuant to the requirements of the listed planning conditions. Schedule of Approved Plans: 102LS-61910 Proposed Site Plan – Ground Floor Level 102LS-61911 Proposed Site Plan – Roof Level 102LS-61930 Blocks A, B, C – Proposed Floor Plans 102LS-61931 Blocks A, B, C – Proposed Elevations 102LS-61940 Blocks D,E – Proposed Floor Plans 102LS-61941 Blocks D,E – Proposed Elevations 102LS-61950 Block F – Proposed Floor Plans 102LS-61951 Block F – Proposed Elevations 102LS-61960 Family Houses – Proposed Floor Plans 102LS-61961 Family Houses – Proposed Elevations 102LS-61970 Nursery – Proposed Floor Plans 102LS-61971 Nursery – Proposed Elevations 102LS-61972 Nursery – Proposed Courtyard Elevations Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved planning consent.

3 Before any development commences, full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement and a Construction Logistics Plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submissions shall include details and arrangements regarding: the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures; details regarding parking, deliveries and storage (including details of the routing of delivery vehicles to and from the site and the accommodation of all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site during the construction period); details regarding dust mitigation; details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway; and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction upon the operations of the highway and the amenity of the area. The details of the approved Method of Construction Statement and Construction Logistics Plan must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process. Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and to avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway (Policies 7 and 9 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

4 Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans, no development works above ground (excluding demolition) shall commence until samples, a schedule of all external materials (where applicable) and detailed plans of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In particular the following details must be submitted:

(a) Details of the brick; (b) Details of the windows and doors (scale 1:10); (c) Details of the balconies (scale 1:20);

46

(d) Details of the roof, coping and terrace balustrades (scale 1:10 and 1:20) (e) Details of the canopies (scale 1:20); (f) Details of rain water goods; (g) Details of cladding; (h) Details of the metal fins; and (i) Details of boundary treatment.

The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a high standard of design and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality (Saved UDP Policies 31 and 33 and Core Strategy Policy S9).

5 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, the refuse doors and vents proposed in Blocks A, B and C and the cladding and projecting fins of the nursery court yard shall not be constructed in timber unless it is demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority’s satisfaction that the use of such material will not prejudice the on-going design quality of the development. Reason: The Local Planning Authority has concerns with the proposed use of timber due to inherent problems such as weathering, staining, durability and on-going maintenance (Saved UDP Policies 31 and 33 and Core Strategy Policies S9).

6 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development of Block F full details of the southern elevation of Block F shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The elevations shall be inclusive of reasonable steps to relieve the visual massing of the elevation through the use of design features such as blind windows, obscured glazing and/or vertical recessed strips - similar to those used in Block E. Thereafter, Block F shall only be constructed in accordance with the details approved. Reason: To ensure that steps are considered and undertaken where appropriate to relieve what could otherwise be a quite monotonous elevation (Saved UDP Policies 31 and 33 and Core Strategy Policies S9).

7 No occupation of the development shall occur until a Community Safety, Management and Maintenance Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall be inclusive of measures for on-going liaison with relevant partners. Thereafter, the Community Safety, Management and Maintenance Plan shall be operated for the duration of the development. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and a continuing standard of landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity and community safety (Policies 7, 32 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth's Unitary Development Plan and Policies S2 and S9 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

8 Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans, prior to the residential occupation of the development full details of the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details for submission shall include:

1. Full details of the children’s play areas and play equipment; 2. Full details of the community growing area, together with a management

strategy; 3. Detailed schemes of soft landscaping, including selection of species, planting

plans and programme, and schedules for management and maintenance of the landscaped features;

4. Materials for the hard surfaces; 5. Details of the raised planters, climbers and ‘playable edges’; 6. Full details of street furniture, including seating, lighting columns and signage; 7. Full details of all walls, fences, railings, gates and other boundary features; 8. Access arrangements for the various character areas; and

47

9. A comprehensive lighting strategy. The details of landscaping as approved shall thereafter be carried out in/by 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 a continuing standard of landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers, particularly with regard to families and children under 5 (Policy 3D.13 of The London Plan; Policies 7, 39 and 50(i) of the London Borough of Lambeth's Unitary Development Plan and Policies S2 and S9 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

9 The refuse and recyclables storage areas for the development shown on the approved drawings shall be provided prior to the residential occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use. Thereafter, the refuse strategy set out in the hereby approved Site Waste Management Strategy (AECOM – LSP09) shall be operated for the duration of the development. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area and the setting of the building (Policy S8 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

10 No occupation of the nursery shall commence until such time as a scheme for the collection, storage and disposal of waste cooking oil has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme for the collection, storage and disposal of waste cooking oil shall be operated for the duration of the nursery use. Reason: No such details were included in the Site Waste Management Strategy and so as to ensure that adequate provision is made for the collection, storage and disposal of waste cooking oil (Policy S8 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

11 The development shall be constructed and operated thereafter to ‘Secured by Design’ key principles, including as a minimum compliance with all relevant Secured by Design – design principles & minimum standards for physical protection (to include entrance door-sets, communal entrance door-sets, windows, access control measures and external lighting and CCTV coverage). The physical protection measures provided shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the development. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

12 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Classes A, B & E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of, or to, any dwellinghouse the subject of this permission shall be carried out without planning permission having first been obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority; nor shall any building or enclosure required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of any said dwellinghouse as such be constructed or placed on any part of the land covered by this permission without such planning permission having been obtained.

48

Reason: In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the nature and density of the layout requires strict control over the form of any additional development which may be proposed in the interests of maintaining a satisfactory residential environment (Policy 33 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth's Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 and S9 of Lambeth’s core Strategy).

13 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure, other than those that may be approved pursuant to other conditions of this consent, shall be erected within the application site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenity is provided and maintained in connection with the development and so as to preserve the setting of the listed buildings (Policy 33, 39 and 45 of the London Borough of Lambeth's Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 and S9 of Lambeth’s core Strategy).

14 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of buildings, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of design (Policy 33 Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 and PN4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

15 Noise from any mechanical equipment or building services plant shall not exceed the background noise level when measured outside the window of the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises, when measured as a L90 dB(A) 1 hour. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 7 and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core strategy).

16 All residential houses and flats shall be constructed in full compliance with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation ‘Life Time Homes Standards’. Reason: To secure accommodation to meet the needs for different section of the community, in accordance with Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy.

17 At least 9 of the residential flats hereby permitted shall be constructed so that they are easily adaptable for wheel chair users as set out in the Mayor of London’s Best Practice Guidance – Wheelchair Accessible Housing 2007. Reason: To secure accommodation to meet the needs for different section of the community, in accordance with Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy and London Plan Policy 3.8.

18 The development shall achieve a BREEAM Very Good rating for the Nursery (or such equivalent standard that replaces this). Within three months of works to the nursery starting on site (excluding demolition), evidence of the submission of the BREEAM Design Stage assessment to the BRE, together with a summary score sheet shall be submitted to for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show that the relevant rating will be achieved. A copy of the Design Stage Certificate is to be submitted once received. Thereafter no occupation of the relevant parts of the building shall occur until evidence of the submission of the BREEAM Post Construction Review assessment to the BRE, together with a summary score sheet, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A copy of the Final BREEAM certificate is to be submitted once received.

49

Reason: To ensure sustainable design and construction (Policy 35 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S7 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

19 The development shall achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 rating for the residential units (or such equivalent standard that replaces this). Within three months of works to the residential development starting on site (excluding demolition), evidence of the submission of the Design Stage Code for Sustainable Homes assessments to the BRE, together with summary score sheets shall be submitted to for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show that the relevant rating will be achieved. A copy of the Design Stage Certificates is to be submitted once received. Thereafter no occupation of the relevant parts of the buildings shall occur until evidence of the submission of the Code for Sustainable Homes Post Construction Review assessments to the BRE, together with summary score sheets, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A copy of each of the Final Code for Sustainable Homes certificates is to be submitted once received. Reason: To ensure sustainable design and construction (Policy 35 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S7 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

20 The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy (AECOM, 22/01/2013) and shall not commence until finalised detail of the decentralised energy proposals (including confirmation of any increased capacity required in addition to the existing energy centre to meet the required load and revised calculation of the CO2emissions reduction, and including full Design Stage calculations under the Standard Assessment Procedure and National Calculation Method) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the development will be constructed in accordance with the proposals within the Approved Energy Strategy (AECOM, 22/01/2013) to achieve at least a 40% reduction in CO2emissions below the Part L 2010 baseline. Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and Core Strategy Policies S7 and PN2.

21 Prior to first occupation of the relevant parts of the development, evidence (e.g. photographs, installation contracts and as-built certificates under the Standard Assessment Procedure and National Calculation Method) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that the development has been constructed in accordance with the energy efficiency and renewable energy technology proposals within the Approved Energy Strategy (AECOM, 22/01/2013) and the approved decentralised energy details to achieve at least a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions below the Part L 2010 baseline. Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and Core Strategy Policies S7 and PN2.

22 Full details of the brown roof (which shall be compliant with GRO Green Roof Code 2011) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the implementation of the relevant part of the development hereby approved. The submission must provide/comprise the following information: a) Details on materials used in the design, construction and installation of the brown roof based on the Green Roof Code and the use of biodiversity based extensive/semi-intensive soils; b) Details on substrate and plants used in the brown roof; c) Details on additional features to the proposed brown roof, such as areas of bare shingle, areas of sand for burrowing invertebrates and individual logs or log piles; and d) An ecological management and maintenance plan including landscape features and

50

a cross section of the brown roof. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details approved, shall be maintained as such thereafter and no alterations to the approved scheme shall be permitted without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (Policy 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January 2011, and Policies S7 and S9 of the London Borough of Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011)).

23 Prior to the commencement of occupation of the development 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 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 (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

24 The means of access shall be altered in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of occupation of the development. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

25 Prior to the occupation of the development all existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary. Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).

26 No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until a strategy for the management of deliveries and servicing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Deliveries and servicing shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policies 9 and 14 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and core strategy Policy S4).

27 Prior to either the residential use or the nursery use hereby permitted commencing, a Travel Plan pertaining to the relevant use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures approved in the Travel Plan(s) shall be implemented prior to the relevant uses hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the uses. Reason: To promote more sustainable modes of transport and to ensure that the travel arrangements to the development are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (Policies 9 and 14 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and core strategy Policy S4).

51

The development permitted by this planning permission shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, where possible, and on an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage strategy should strive to implement a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) hierarchy that achieves reductions in surface water run-off rates in line with the London Plan (Policy 5.13) and the standards within the associated Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (Section 2.4.4). Reason: So as to reduce the risk of surface water flooding, both on and off the site, subsequent to the implementation of the proposed development (London Plan Policy 5.13 and Core Strategy Policy S6).

13 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 You are advised that this consent is without prejudice to any rights which may be enjoyed by any tenants/occupiers of the premises.

3 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.

4 Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings (B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled.

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 You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of advertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from the Local Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

7 As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following: - name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below. Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: [email protected] tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9104

8 Landscaping scheme for the development required pursuant to the conditions should

52

endeavour to include, within reason and not entailing excessive cost, measures to promote biodiversity including use of native species typical of locality and ground conditions or any naturalised areas. The scheme should act on good practice to maximise the site's landscape, visual and horticultural quality, ease of maintenance and to provide long-term environmental benefit. The scheme should also endeavour to include, within reason, measures to encourage protected species to occupy the application site, such as installation of bat and bird boxes on buildings, or bat bricks within buildings, or creation of naturalised areas within communal areas.

9 Your attention is drawn to the advice provided by the Environment Agency with regards to the surface water drainage scheme. A copy of that advice has been forwarded to the applicant. The advice is also available on the planning file.

10 It is strongly advised that a final assessment of the application site is undertaken before demolition or clearance works commence to ensure no features have been occupied by protected species or habitats in the intervening period between application and site clearance. The developer should be mindful of a need to operate a watching brief on the site as to protected species during demolition, clearance and rebuilding. Appropriate procedures should be in place to alert staff and management as to findings of protected species or roosts/nests, and enable them to report these findings to the Local Planning Authority, qualified ecological advisors or a statutory nature conservation agency so effective mitigation or compensatory measures are in place to prevent destruction or loss of protected species or habitats.