Wayland Action Group opbjections

7/30/2019 Wayland Action Group opbjections

1/27

1

Wayland Action Group

Kevin Tohilll,

Lambeth Planning,

Regeneration and Enterprise,

Phoenix House,

10 Wandsworth Road,

London SW8 2LL 26 November 2012

Dear Mr Tohill,

Reference No: 12/03487/FUL. Wayland House Robsart Street SW9

Wayland Action Group (WAG) was formed in 2011 to give a voice to the wider community and to speak to CTH

while their proposals were developed for Wayland House and could seek to find a solution more appropriate to

the area. There is complete consensus that development to improve Wayland is overdue and can and should

bring significant improvement for those to live there and to the neighbourhood. But there is unanimity that,

whatever may be the design merits of the building put forward, its height scale and mass are entirelyinappropriate for its location and that its negative impacts are unjustifiable. It is simply the wrong building for the

site. This gives rise inevitably to significant objection to this proposal.

Overleaf are summarised the impacted communitys objections put forward by the WAG on behalf of the excess

of 250 people who have petitioned, contacted us and attended public meetings to express their views and ask for

them to be represented.

These individual objections and the detailed arguments which support them also presented later in more detail

within the framework of four analyses.

A) looks at the answers given by Lambeth Planning to questions put to them after the June 11th PublicMeeting which Lambeth officers refused to attend.

B)analyses the Applicants Planning Statement within its Summary and Conclusions

C) analyses the most relevant planning issues and constraints

D) examines the Applicants supporting documentation

All the objections are properly founded and require serious consideration within any report or determination.

They and their supporting analyses will be published and disseminated to petitioners, objectors, Councillors and

the PAC.

The objections are numerous and this reflects simply the fact that the objectors are numerous too! The number

and importance of the planning objections is such that they overwhelm the dubious value of what the schemesdeparture from the OPP delivered - just 17 additional units and these only for open market sales.

Regards,

Maurice Cronly

For *& on behalf ofWayland Action Group

24 Groveway SW90AR Tel 020 7582 3207


2/27

2

Summary List of Objections

1. There is complete consensus of view that development to improve Wayland is overdue and can andshould bring significant improvement for those to live there and to the neighbourhood. But there is

unanimity that, whatever may be the design merits of the building put forward, its height scale and mass ,

which would make it Brixtons highest and largest tower block, are entirely inappropriate for its locationand that its negative impacts are unjustifiable. It is simply the wrong building to place in front of a low rise

estate, encroaching and overwhelming the park and conservation area it faces.

2. The number and importance of the planning objections and the demerits of the proposal are such thatthey overwhelm the dubious value of what the schemes departure from the OPP delivers, just 17

additional units and these only for open market sales.

3. Possibly the most important objection, arising from all the analyses, relates to the issues of viability andthe financial necessity adduced as justification for the increased bulk and height over the Outline Planning

Permission (OPP). If and only if the financial surpluses within the actual CTH latest forecast for the

WHOLE estate can be proved to be less than those agreed within the Stock Transfer Agreement (STA)Business Plan, is there any financial or viability argument for the present proposals deviation from the

OPP and the negative amenity impacts that result. We believe that the PAC is not the competent

Committee to adjudge this, more particularly as it requires formal, open and accountable consideration

by Housing and Councillors. This has to be done within the framework agreeing the legally required and

overdue modifications to the present STA, so that CTH books can be opened and examined and the

financial arguments assessed.

4. By refusing to facilitate or attend an open pre-application discussion meeting in June 2012 to discuss allthe issues raised by this development, councillors and Council officers have denied the community a

voice, in preference to the applicant who has had continuous access to and discussions with officers and

Councillors. The Council has failed to comply with it own cooperative council principles and also theNPPF, specifically para 69.

5. CTH have failed properly to engage with those most impacted by their proposals in contravention of NPPFpara 65.

6. Demolition of Wayland House does not comply with UDP Policy 35 because the Council has taken nosteps to analyse the feasibility of reuse through refurbishment and has failed in its policy commitment.

7. No revised Overall Phasing Plan has been submitted by the applicant as required to maintain discharge ofCondition 4 of the OPP. The same is true of Condition 54

8. With regard to Condition 54 of the OPP, no revised assessment of the total loss of open space within theEstate has been produced hence no proper judgement can be made of whether the further loss proposed

is justified.

9. The Council has not produced its own independent assessment of light loss and shadowing as promisedand this must be done before the application can be considered.

10. Wind tunnel testing, in line with the recommendation of the applicants consultant should be carried outbefore the application is determined so that the identified ill effects can be calibrated and the

particularly questionable value of the roof gardens , which are adding the equivalent of two unwelcome

storeys to the height, can be assessed.


3/27

3

11. The applicant has not enabled any review of the achievement of the Business Plan (of the original StockTransfer Agreement). This must be done and in its absence any viability arguments fall.

12. The applicant should reveal the financial surplus over and above the original OPP that accrues to Lambethand its financial gain from the additional height and bulk proposed for Wayland by comparison with the

outline consent.

13.

The increased height and mass beyond the outline consent does not comply with Core Strategy, Policy S9para D. This policy is fully compatible with sustainable development and is not superseded by the NPPF.

14. The number of petitioners and objectors and the of objections by true stakeholders to the impact on theConservation Area and Slade Gardens should count more heavily than the subjective views of two officers

who may influenced by Planning Departments pre-application commitment to support the application.

15. The applicant,s Planning Statement contains so many assertions that are either unsupported by evidenceor are plain misrepresentations that it should be disregarded.

16. Nowhere has the applicant provided evidence for the infeasibility, practical of financial, of the OPP agreedoption for Wayland being abandoned. Neither in the application or pre application consultations, has it

been demonstrated that demolition is a necessity. Of the dozens of blocks in Lambeth similar to Wayland,

many have been satisfactorily refurbished and re-clad. We know of none that have been demolished.

17. The applicant claims that the increase in the increasing in the number of bedroom is to accord withLambeths housing need but Lambeths figures show the greatest overall requirement is for smaller (1

and 2 bed units) and conformity would reduce the floor space requirement. There is no evidence of a

need to increase the average number of bedrooms at all and, without the increase proposed the

required bulk would reduce.

18. The housing justification for the proposed departure from the OPP is spurious. Lambeth is already ontrack to meet its needs, before even taking Vauxhall into account. This departure has a huge amenity

price but produces only an additional 17 housing units and those are not reserved for Lambeth residents

but are for open market sale. Net contribution to Lambeth residents needs is zero.

19. The applicant argues that the present proposal is somehow better than the OPP scheme. But becauseCTH have refused to put forward any design within the OPP envelope, as they properly should have done

at consultation stages, no improvement can be assessed. By contrast the increase in negative impacts is

self evident.

20. The viability and estate regeneration arguments are not sustained by the evidence provided. Should theexisting Business Plan be in deficit by the amount implied, CTH had a legal obligation to promptly to notify

the Council and agree modifications to the Stock Transfer Agreement . No shortfall was notified. Either it

does not exist, as we believe the evidence available indicates, or there are serious breaches of the STA by

the failure of CTH in failing to notify and/or by Lambeth in failing to monitor. This and the general

viability arguments adduced to justify such a gross departure from the OPP and its cost in amenity impact

are serious matters that require urgent and open scrutiny before and not at the PAC.

21. The applicant claims that the proposal has the support of local residents which is a grossmisrepresentation in the face of evidence from public meetings, petition and representation. While it is

true that there is support for the overdue improvement of Wayland,

there is universal preference for a lower build solution that remains unexplored ; There has been considerable dissatisfaction among Estate residents with the CTH consultation

approach;


4/27

4

No residents felt that CTH had adequately explained or justified why they were departing soradically from what had been agreed at the time of the STA and OPP. They also felt that

discussion was fruitless as CTH dont listen.

22. The Applicants claim of residents approvals to the proposals through a poll are unreliable, not leastbecause residents have complained that no consultation was conducted by an independent party able

properly to advise tenants of their options. Residents were given the impression that the only option was

demolition and replacement with a tower block.

23. The supposed 3,000 sq m increase in amenity space over the OPP is based on the roof gardens (20%)and the increased number of balconies (80%) to go with the increased number of floors. But neither roof

gardens nor balconies can be taken into account when assessing either this proposal or the scheme as a

whole because private gardens and semi/secured housing amenity space are removed from calculation

of public open space. Further balconies would form a mandatory part of a lower build option.

24. Lambeth planning policies in respect to tall buildings in this location are clear and in no respectcountermanded or reduced in force of application either by the NPPF nor by the London Plan with which

they conform. Taken together these Lambeth policies determine the issue and preclude the increased

bulk and height of Wayland on Robsart Street. To locate Brixtons largest and tallest tower block, bursting

out of such a small site, in front of the park on the edge of a conservation area has to be what these

policies are designed to prevent. : UDP Policy 40 Tall Buildings generally and specifically also Paras

4.14.3, 4.14.36 and 4.14.3; Core Strategy Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment especially 4.45;

Conservation Area Policy Statement.

25. The negative amenity impacts of the proposed increase in scale and mass are also precluded by inter alia:Strategic Policy 3.3: Policy 33 Building Scale and Design and Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction

whose purpose is to protect the community from such degradation of their environment

26. The applicant proposes further to reduce the open space by increasing the footprint of Wayland and isthus in breach of the undertakings made in its discharge of OPP conditions. The combined loss of open

space quantum for the whole Estate needs to be presented bearing in mind both the Wayland Proposals

but also any new builds, actual or planned and a revised Open Space Plan must be delivered and

approved.

27. A new Phasing Plan for the whole estate development is required for prior approval to rectify a furtherbreach of OPP conditions

28. Cumulative impact assessments (parking, overshadowing, light impact, visual impacts, conservation areaassessment, park etc) need to be presented for the whole scheme if the OPP is to stand. This must take

into account the increased mass and height of Cumnor & Lidcote, which also represented significant

departures from the maximum.

29. The viability assessment is not independently done and fails entirely to isolate the net financialcontribution of the extra 17 units proposed and hence to justify them or the accompanying additional

height and construction cost, by comparison with the OPP.

30. CTH have consistently argued both with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that changes to theOPP are necessary to produce the revenues to deliver the STA. But they provide no evidence. Its worth

noting that CTH have refused to open their books. Further, they obstructed for months tenants and our

ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan which reveals all. The changes proposed for

Wayland bring Lambeth no housing gain, just 17 units for open market sale. The only justification is thus

that additional revenue may be required for the overall estate scheme.


5/27

5

31. Outside the PAC a full assessment of the Estates regeneration financial outcomes need to be made and isoverdue. This should also identify any shortfalls that there may be to justify the additional 17 units to be

built for sale. It should also identify the present estimated surplus of the STA that will accrue to Lambeth

with and without this additional new build. Only then can an assessment be made of whether the cost in

amenity impact can be justified.

32. A viability assessment for the whole estate needs to be updated and agreed by the Council before PACattempt to determine this application because, if the revenues accruing from the extra 17 units are notrequired, then the departure from the OPP envelope and the STA Business Plan is without justification of

any kind.

33. The Light assessment report is unsatisfactory at a technical level because it assesses only the impact ofWayland and the loss it will contribute. But it should make a cumulative assessment including also the

losses already suffered from increases in from Lidcote and Cumnor. Overshadowing impact on the

outlook for Denchworth House residents is missing and no visits or observations have been made from

within properties.

34. Light assessment of the park is a perfunctory single page. BRE figures are at best a guide. Inunderstanding how to apply them a visit is necessary and would quickly reveal that the defining

characteristic of the parks appeal lies in its unique light and open aspect and its outlook, not in formal

plantings or gardens as in some parks. The assessment of light effect needs to be made in conjunction

with the assessment of the impact of the change in outlook. The light assessment gives no accurate

picture of the present light and shade levels. Changing them fundamentally, as this proposal does, alters

entirely the character of the open space and devalues the park in its entirety.

35. There is a risk of unacceptable wind conditions in some parts at ground level and that the amenity valueof the vaunted roof gardens is suspect with a similar risk identified there. Hence the firm

recommendations of the consultant should be followed. Alleviating measures must be devised to address

the identified risks and the whole structure should be subjected to wind testing of models before designs

are finalised. In view of the potential severity of the conditions, and of the fact that the amenity value of

the roof gardens is questioned by the desk research, this must be done before consent can be given.

Wind conditions on the balconies at 100- 200 ft should also be included. All should include the effect not

just of normal expected winds but of thermal up-draughts caused by the building and its site.

36. The verified view report is not an adequate basis for determining the visual impact of the development.The views shown in the assessment have been selected by the applicant and, excepting that of the park,

are all streetscape views. None have been provided to show the appalling impact on individual properties

and gardens which are the one of the biggest issues and are the key amenity planning policies exist to

protect. The PAC must be shown the most relevant views, including those from houses and gardens,

showing the impact of the additional height in single illustrations either with photo montage or wireline.

Without these they can make no assessment. Any assessment should also be informed by a site visit.

37. The applicants own illustrations prove the devastating impact of the enlarged footprint on the view downRobsart Street from the Brixton Road. The tower rises up from the very edge of the pavement and in

consequence there is no through view now available. So there is no available sense of place any more.

The failure properly to respect the streetscape and its frontage is manifest and complies neither with

decent design nor the Councils urban design policies.

38. The illustrations shown in the applicants interior visualisation are dishonest, misle ading and inaccurate.For easiest example, the balcony visualisations suggest a balcony width of 3-4 metres whereas the

application says that the present design width of the balconies is 1.5 metres (Daylight Sunlight

Assessment).


6/27

6

39. While the devices within the surface design wrapping the building may be to the best of Shanghaisstandards, they do not succeed in concealing the sheer bulk and mass proposed. The attempts to disguise

its gigantist form with colour and vertical stripes are ineffective, especially when viewed from within the

street or immediate neighbourhood. This building looms over its neighbours like and elephant with a

giant giraffe attached and is so close to them that however it may be or polished or painted with stripes it

will always do so.


7/27

7

Analysis A Answers from Lambeth Planning to WAG questions: June 2012

Tabled below are the questions put to Andy Gutherson, Acting Head of Planning, by Wayland Action Group.

These questions emerged from the Open Meeting WAG held in June, which Lambeth officers refused to attend.

Below each is shown the answer given in writing and our comments.

i) Will Planning require evidence/justification of the case for demolition, in view of sustainability

policies?

The proposed application does not fall within a Conservation Area and on this basis there is no reason for

the applicant to provide a justification for the demolition of the existing building from the site. However,

the new proposal will be assessed against current sustainability policies to ensure that the development is

energy efficient and reduces carbon emissions into the environment.

This reply ignores:

Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction

The Council will also seek the maximum reuse of existing buildings, subject to protecting their characterand local residential amenity.

(ii) The phasing plan for the estate submitted by CTH to discharge Condition 4 of the outline planning

consent is already not being followed. Will they be required to submit a revised plan to be agreed, along

with any planning application that varies further the schedules already agreed?

If the approved phasing plan is not going to be followed then a revised plan should be submitted for

approval.

No revised phasing of the Masterplan has been submitted by the applicant.

(iii) The open spaces and amenity plan for the whole estate submitted by CTH to discharge Condition

54 of the outline planning consent is contradicted by the present proposal. Can we assume that an

alternative discharge of that condition must also be submitted and agreed

If the approved open space and amenity plan is not going to be followed then a revised plan should be

submitted for approval.

No overall assessment has been presented. The erosion of open space within the estate was identified as a

key issue at Outline stage because in this respect 5.1.2 The application is considered a departure from the

adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998, in that the proposals would result in a loss of public open space,

contrary to the aims of policy RL20. ... the overall provision of public open space as proposed by theindicative masterplan would fall from 12235 to 11018 square metres, a reduction of 0.11 hectares. It

remains a key issue and is not redeemed by the provision of balconies or roof gardens becauseFor the

purpose of the Council's adopted open space(policy RL20) those areas of open space identified as private

and semi/secured amenity space are not considered to be public open space.

(iv) Will Planning undertake its own independent studies to assess the effect of light loss and shadowing

of any proposal?

Yes the submitted sunlight and daylight report would be independently assessed by the Council.

This has not been done an, given earlier evidence of flawed assessments produced by CTH in support of theOutline application, must be. The flimsy desk assessment offered has been produced by the main

contracting architect with vested interest. No determination should be given prior to the independent


8/27

8

assessment promised by the Council.

(v) Will Planning undertake its own independent studies of wind tunnelling at lower levels and also of

wind at higher levels to assess also the usability of balconies and any roof gardens proposed?

This will be assessed by the applicant throughout the design stage. If considered necessary the Council

would commission independent advice.

The applicants consultant identifies a number of areas of real concern, most particularly on the roof top

gardens whose amenity value is in question. Their recommendation is that the only way to be certain is to

do wind tunnel testing of scale models. This must be done prior to determination.

(vi) Can the impact of the development on CTHs business plan and the revenues available for estate

regeneration be considered as a material consideration in any planning decision?

The viability of a development can be a material planning consideration. The weight to be given to this

would depend on the circumstances of the case.

CTH have consistently argued, with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that the changes are

necessary to produce the revenues to deliver the estate regeneration. Having examined the evidence webelieve this is untrue and untruthful. Its worth noting thatCTH have refused to open their books. Further,

they obstructed for months tenants and our ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan

which reveals all.

Wayland residents and the wider community are being asked to pay a very high amenity impact price for

the extra revenue CTH claim to need. Except that the evidence is produced and examined the viability

argument falls and can form no part of the determination.

(vii) Lambeth gains 40% of any surplus income generated through the whole project. Can the financial

impact of the proposal on Lambeth be considered a material consideration ?

This is not a material planning consideration.

True. However it is likely a temptation that cannot help but put pressure on Councillors and transparency

principles would require the figures at least to be produced so that the scale of temptation can be

subjected to some scrutiny.

(viii) The proposal for demolition of the existing and construction of a new taller building conflicts with

a number of key Planning policies. What Planning Policies can be adduced to defend the proposal?

The underlying position set out in the NPPF as national policy is a presumption in favour of sustainable

development. It is clear that local authorities are expected to reflect that positive position in their

development plans and their decision making. Lambeth has a clear position on delivering growth. The

starting position for the Council is therefore unlikely to be one of looking to resist development. It is ofcourse incumbent on the Council to ensure that the quality of development is appropriate when judged

against all of our policies.

Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delaya presumption in favour of sustainable

development that is the basis for every plan. ....In order to fulfil its purpose of helping achieve sustainable

development, planning must not simply be about scrutiny. Planning must be a creative exercise in finding

ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives ... planning policy itself has become so

elaborate and forbidding the preserve of specialists, rather than people in communities. NPPF

The following policies relating to tall buildings are considered relevant: Policy S9 of the Core Strategy,

paragraph D supports tall buildings where they are an appropriate development form for the area,particularly where this contributes to the areas regeneration and local distinctiveness, makes the most

effective use of land.


9/27

9

Refer to the full text for the true answer: Supporting tall buildings where they are an appropriate

development form for the area, particularly where this contributes to area regeneration and local

distinctiveness, makes the most effective use of land and is consistent with national and London Plan

policies and guidance. Appropriate locations for tall buildings are parts of the Vauxhall and Waterloo

London Plan Opportunity Areas and Brixton town centre, subject to appropriate accompanying urban

design assessments. The height of buildings should be appropriate to the surrounding townscape.

Core Strategy, Policy S9 para D.

Hard to imagine how all this could imply acceptance of Brixtons largest and tallest tower block just here.

Policy 40 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan states tall buildings should be of the highest

architectural and constructional quality. It should enhance the skyline through profile and use of

materials.

Refer to the full text for the true answer: New tall buildings, including extensions to existing buildings, will

be permitted where the following criteria are satisfied. Location:

Tall Buildings should enhance and not detract from London's character, and should enhancethe skyline, respecting its historic character.

Any proposal should be very carefully related to its surroundings, both existing and proposedand especially to the height and form of any other tall buildings or prominent features in the

vicinity. To assist assessment, plans should be accompanied by accurate representations of the

appearance of the building in all significant views affected, including the relevant London

panoramas, riverscape and local townscapes. Tall buildings should not be located where they

would harm the character or settings of:

Conservation areas

Listed buildings UDP Policy 40 Tall Buildings

(ix) How will the impact on the Conservation Area and amenity be assessed and by whom, in view of

the fact that there are already over 200 objections to the proposal on these grounds?

The impact on the Conservation Area would be assessed by Lambeth Conservation and Design team.

Impact on amenity would be assessed by a Development Management officer. All representation received

will be taken into account by officers and reported to the Councils Planning Applications Committee.

The sheer volume and number of objections in itself is not a material consideration although it does of

course indicate the level of concern and we would advise developers to address these concerns in their

ongoing submissions and considerations of the scheme.

The number and vehemence of the subjective assessments made by the hundreds of people who are true

stakeholders who know the area intimately should perhaps weigh more heavily than those of just twoCouncil officers.

(x) In the event of this further development of Wayland, can the S106 discussions be re-opened in

order to secure some funding for the Adventure Playground?

The proposed application would be subject to a new Section 106 agreement which would secure

contributions for parks and open spaces within the local area.

(xi) Are there any discussions taking place between CTH and Planning on Thrayle House?

No pre-application discussions have taken place on Thrayle House.

Is this still the case?

Analysis A gives rise to these objections


10/27

10

(i) Demolition of Wayland House does not comply with Policy 35 because the Council has taken no steps toanalyse the feasibility of reuse through refurbishment and has failed in its policy commitment.

(ii) No revised Overall Phasing Plan has been submitted by the applicant as required to maintain discharge ofCondition 4 of the outline consent.

(iii)

Similarly with regard to Condition 54, no revised assessment of the total loss of open space within theEstate has been produced hence no proper judgement can be made of whether this is justified.

(iv) The Council has not produced its own independent assessment of light loss and shadowing as promisedand this must be done before the application can be considered.

(v) Wind tunnel testing, in line with the recommendation of the applicants consultant should be carried outbefore consent is considered so that the ill effects can be calibrated and the value of the roof gardens

assessed.

(vi) The applicant has not enabled any review of the achievement of the Business Plan (of the original StockTransfer Agreement). This must be done and in its absence any viability arguments fall.

(vii) The applicant should also reveal the surplus over and above the same plan that accrues to Lambeth andthe contribution made by the additional height and bulk proposed for Wayland by comparison with the

outline consent.

(viii) The increased height and mass beyond the outline consent does not comply with Core Strategy, Policy S9para D. This policy is fully compatible with sustainable development and not supersede by the NPPF.

(ix) The number of petitioners and objectors and the of objections by true stakeholders to the impact on theConservation Area and Slade Gardens should count more heavily than the subjective views of officers

who will have been advised of Plannings pre-application commitment to support the application.


11/27

11

Analysis B Commentson the Applicants Planning Statement

Given within the complete text of the chapter Summary & Conclusions.

Application Planning Statement: Summary and Conclusions

6.1. In consultation with existing residents on the Stockwell Park Estate, Community Trust Housing (CTH) which ispart of the Network Housing Group (NHG) devised a masterplan for the redevelopment of the Stockwell ParkEstate. Outline planning permission was granted in 2007 for the redevelopment of estate and included permissionfor the extension and refurbishment of the existing Wayland House, increasing the number of flats from 86 to 142.

1. The masterplan and OPP did NOT give consent to the number of units. It just defined and limited themaximum bulk and height for Wayland and ALL new build in the plan. (CTH have already exceeded this

once with Cumnor & Lidcote increasing from 6 storeys to 8 storeys!). The spatial envelopes were

accompanied by a number of acknowledged negative amenity impact (light, overshadowing, privacy etc)

which were ultimately accepted as a reasonable maximum trade off for the Stock Transfer and

refurbishment. The trade off assumed that all new build would be within the envelopes considered and

that the negative impacts would not increase.

... The outline planning permission did not fix the number of units and tenure within each block Statement by

the applicant at PAC for Cumnor & Lidcote when, in order to access further funds through HAC Grants, they

argued for an increase in the numbers of social housing units dwellings and the accompanying breach of the

scale and mass limits for Cumnor & Lidcote.

2. The OPP and the related Stock Transfer Agreement set minimum numbers for social housing units andmaximum numbers of new units for sale, with a definitive split between affordable and open market.

6.2. There are a number of constraints that have informed the decision to review the scheme with residents. Theseinclude:

physical impediments in the existing building (such as the presence of asbestos);3. Hardly a major impediment. The applicants accompanying documents cost the removal of asbestos from

the building at 17,000.

4. In earlier presentations of the OPP option for Wayland the applicant stated that present Wayland isstructurally sound.

5. In its consultations the applicant presented an entirely different key reason for departing from the OPPscheme; it claimed that the footprint of the site was not large enough to accommodate the extension. This

reason has been quietly dropped, presumably because it is untrue/improvable. In no presentation or

discussion have other impediments been identified.

6. Nowhere has the applicant provided evidence for the infeasibility, practical of financial, of the OPP agreedoption for Wayland being abandoned. Neither in the application or pre application consultations, has it

been demonstrated that demolition is a necessity. Of the dozens blocks in Lambeth similar to Wayland

,many have been satisfactorily refurbished and re-clad. We know of none that have been demolished.

7. The applicant has not considered at allPolicy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction: The Council willalso seek the maximum reuse of existing buildings.

the desire to meet the latest housing standards for all homes, and not just the extension;8. A fine aspiration but perhaps not enough to justify the demolition. This aspiration has not been enough to

allow demolition of other tower blocks. No other towers in Lambeth have been. But it is only an aspiration

and is not a requirement from the OPP.

9. The implication is that the wider community should accept a high amenity impact price for its fulfilmentregardless of the fact that the amenity impact to be suffered was considered and capped at a maximum by

the OPP.

viability issues that have arisen since the original permission;10. Under the terms of the STA, any significant issues of viability are to be raised by CTH with Housing. None

have been raised. If there are viability issues the correct place for them to be assessed and evaluated is not


12/27

12

at PAC but with Housing and, if material, appropriate modifications to the overall Business Plan can be

agreed after due scrutiny.

11. CTH have argued, first with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that the departing from the OPPlimits is necessary to produce the revenues to deliver the STA. We believe this is untrue and untruthful.(Its

worth noting that CTH have refused to open their books. Further, they obstructedfor months tenants and

our ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan which reveals all. )

12. The Business Plan submitted as part of the STA was independently tested for adequate robustness towithstand major market shocks and found to be adequate. It showed for 2012 a balance sheet value of55.4m and cumulative surplus of 9.5m. These figures excluded any funding received from grants that we

know to have materialised. Thus it appears clear, and no evidence has been supplied to the contrary, that

CTH have adequate resources to fulfil their STA obligations without imposing the extra units for sale on the

mass of Wayland.

13. This suggests further that, quite apart from the community being asked for a second time to pay anunnecessary price in amenity loss, the residents of the Estate whom CTH are supposedly working for, have

also been duped instead of being openly and honestly consulted and also protected by Lambeth.

14. The most extreme case is that of residents of Wayland. They were invited to vote for the STA on theunderstanding that they would only need to endure its horrors until end 2011 and be back in refurbishedaccommodation by 2013. Open ended decanting has commenced without any agreed modification to the

STA, residents are steam-rollered into acquiescence with hints of poor alternative accommodation

otherwise ensuing and without any attempt by Lambeth to protect their interests, as required by the STA.

and ensuring the building lasts for generations to come, both in terms of maintenance and tenantsneeds.

15. This was also stated as being the case for the OPP refurbishment and extension option and is a generalrequirement that Building Regulations control.1

16. None of the cited constraints sustain the departure from the OPP scheme. The viability concern has notbeen formallyraised with Lambeth and no figures have been provided to Estate residents or indeed anyone

else.

6.3. In devising a subsequent new-build solution, it became clear that any redevelopment would necessitate an increase inscale. There are three key reasons for the increased scale.

Firstly, the floorspace of the individual flats will need to increase (to comply with the London Plan and HCA spacestandards).

17. This is true, though the real drivers are the increased number of bedrooms proposed, the potentiallyirrelevant inclusion of roof gardens and the fanciful introduction of the cafe on the ground floor.

Secondly, the mix in the outline was heavily based towards one-bedroom units. Having surveyed residents needs,it is evident that a number are over-occupying and will require a greater proportion of two-bedroom units.

18. Existing residents of Wayland were told that many were UNDER occupying and were given incentives toreduce the size of replacement accommodation.

19. The applicant argues earlier that the increase in the number of bedrooms is to accord with Lambethshousing need. In fact Lambeths own survey says the opposite, namely : that the greatest overallrequirement is for smaller (1 and 2 bed units) units (39% and 32% respectively), 24% for 3-bed and 5% for

4-bed or larger. This reflects changing household composition, with one person households expected to

account for 71% of household growth from 2011.2

Thirdly, the economic conditions have changed substantially since 2007. This has meant that the scheme needscross-subsidisation from private sale units.

20. Of course conditions have changed but the Business Plan appears to be in surplus.21. The applicant argues earlier and in their separately presented Viability Study that: because the profit

contribution from the additional Wayland is less than the cost of the affordable housing the new build is

therefore cross subsidising the affordable (by c 3.6m) and thus by implication the extra new build units

and increased height and mass are necessary for viability.

1See Outline Planning Application Design and access Statement and Conditions attached to the consent.

2Lambeths 2012 Housing Needs Survey


13/27

13

This viability justification is spurious as shown in more detail in Analysis 4 later. Cross subsidy in Wayland is

nothing new: as proposed in the OPP & STA the affordable element in the Wayland scheme would require

subsidy from new build, simply by virtue of their weight of numbers. Viability and the amount of cross

subsidy required needs to be assessed within the overall estate plan, not on a block by block basis.

Redmayne House is to be exclusively for market sales. It is also of note that the Viability Assessment is not

independent but produced by the Project Manager for Wayland.

The proposal has been designed with significant input from officers, the Metropolitan Police, and has also beensubject to local consultation at fun days and through a local leaflet drop.

22. Throughout the application documents the proposal is FALSELY presented as though it is approved by thelocal community and residents of the estate and is based on their feedback. See below. 6.4. The development of Wayland House is in accordance with planning policy framework at a National, London, and Local

level.

23. All these policies exist both to guide development and to protect amenities and the community. The NPPFand the London Policy both support Lambeths own considered policy on Tall buildings.(UDP Policy 40 and

Core Strategy S9) This explicitly excludes tall buildings or additions to existing tall buildings from this area.

Therefore the community can rightly expect to rely upon its protection. The many respects in which the

proposal fails to meet policy requirements are detailed separately and show that the assertion above is

contentious at best.

Furthermore, the scheme would also deliver the following benefits:

24. To the limited extent that the commendations below are true, they would equally apply to a lower buildsolution. They do not begin to justify the amenity impact or policy deviation of the proposal.

Improves on the Existing Outline Permission

Unsubstantiated. The OPP approved only the envelope. No detailed proposal has been presented for

comparison, Neither here nor in any consultation with residents.

Delivers Better Homes for Local Residents25. This is not true. Except for those returning the accommodation is not reserved for local residents Of the

159 housing units proposed:

CTH have so managed Wayland that only 30+ units will be occupied by present residents; 75 are for open market sales to people from anywhere; The remaining c 55 are equally not reserved for local residents.

Its worth noting that the applicant has also revealed that The new tenure of affordable rent is not being

proposed

26. The suggestion more generally is that this proposal responds to Lambeths desperate need for housing. Butby comparison with the OPP this proposal creates only 17 additional private sale units, not reserved for

Lambeths need. In fact the need is being fulfilled, even before we take Vauxhall developments into

account, and a disproportionate share has been contributed already by Ferndale, Stockwell and Vassal

wards.

In 2010/11 a total of 1,289 dwellings were completed. In addition 313 vacant

dwellings were returned to use. The development pipeline consisting of homes

under construction and sites with unimplemented planning permissions totalled

5,545 at the end of 2010/11.

In 2010/11 there were 694 net affordable housing completions in Lambeth out of

the total 1,289 net completions, representing 54 per cent of net completions, and

50 per cent of gross completions, being affordable.

Lambeth has traditionally delivered on or above targets for new development.

Lambeth Strategy (Housing) 2012-2016 Version 4 June 18 2012

Delivers more amenity space for Residents27. In terms of the Estate as a whole this is false. Even at the OPP stage the overall estate plans reduced

amenity space to the extent that it was considered a departure from the adopted Unitary Development

Plan in that the proposals would result in a loss of public open space3. The overall provision of public open

was reduced by c 1100 sq m. This is now further to be reduced by the increased footprint of this proposal.

In terms of planning issue, this was the most important problem for the OPP to resolve, more particularly

as the lack of open space is recognised as a major problem in the estate.

28. The supposed 3,000 sq m increase in amenity space over the OPP is based on the roof gardens (20%)and the increased number of balconies (80%) to go with the increased number of floors. The wind

306/01769/OUT OPP Officers Report


14/27

14

assessment questions the amenity value of the roof gardens so the extra 2 storeys of height they require

for this small contribution is not justified. But , most important, neither roof gardens nor balconies can be

taken into account when assessing either this proposal or the scheme as a whole. This is because private

gardens and semi/secured housing amenity space are removed from calculation of public open space and

it is here that the issue revolves.

29.At OPP stage the PAC was persuaded that the palpable loss might (just) be balanced by the improvementin quality of some of the open space and public realm. But to ensure this it required, as a condition, a

detailed landscape plan for the whole development to be produced, confirming quantum and quality, forofficers to approve and for CTH to adhere to. This was done. But this proposal now breaches the discharge

of that condition and requires a reassessment of the overall estate plan approval.

Has the Support of Local Residents Of the many misrepresentations made within the application is the grossest.

Residents of the Estate

31. The nearest to hard evidence of consultation isthe assertion In a poll of existing residents at

Wayland House, there was an overwhelming

preference for a total redevelopment (83%).

According to some participants it was not a poll,

there was no formal voting and no independentadvice or observation.

32. The applicant, here and elsewhere, has declinedto reveal what questions were put, nor have they

made clear how many residents were consulted.

Closer inspection reveals that only qualified

tenants were eligible. Presently there are only c

32 qualified residents. How many was this 83%

and should this handful of people, rather than the

estate as a whole and the wider community, be

the only residents to approve what happens?

Were they told that the tower would finally be somuch higher than then discussed?

33. Participants say that no option for aredevelopment within the OPP limits was

presented; nor were they told that they could

require it to be presented in equal detail. . Rather

that this was the only option that allowed decent

replacement accommodation and that demurral

might also compromise their temporary

accommodation offers during the 2 year decant.

34. This major change of plan for Wayland and itstiming is a material departure from the plan

voted for by the Estate at the time of the transfer

and, under its own terms, there is a requirement

for full and formal sanction from residents of the

Estate. The STA sets out consultation

requirements and it seems that these have not

been met. .

National guidelines make clear that this kind ofconsultation should be carried out by an

independent party able also to advise residents.

This independent party is able then ensure that a

fair process is followed and reported.

The Wider Community

36. WaylandAction Group (WAG) was formed in2011 to give a voice to the wider community that

could speak to CTH while proposals were

developed and could seek to find a solution more

appropriate to the area.

37. In early meetings with CTH it became clear thatthey would entertain no discussion of change in

the overall scheme whose parameters were set by

housing finance constraints. These also they were

not prepared to discuss or reveal. All that was up

for discussion was the design.

38. With the help of the Vauxhall Civic Society,information was posted on the web in March and

a petition was opened during the following 12

weeks This was supported by 237 local residents

We want the developer to abandon any idea of anew tower block and to come forward with a

more appropriate design for Wayland House

reflecting the views of local residents and groups,

and we ask Lambeth Planning and local

councillors to press them to do so.

39. Residents were alerted to the proposal through adoor to door leaflet and the WAG mandate was

further developed through two open meetings in

March and June. These gathered the views of

those attending which included residents of

Wayland and the Estate. These were attended by

CTH.

40. The evidence from this was: there is total support for the overdue

improvement of Wayland

there is universal preference for a lower buildsolution;

There was considerable dissatisfaction amongEstate residents with the CH consultation

approach;

None felt that CTH had adequately explained orjustified why they were departing so radically

from what had been agreed at the time of the

STA and OPP. They also felt that discussion was

fruitless as CTH dont listen.


15/27

15

41. CTH have seen and heard for themselves that there is no support for the scale and height of what theypropose. In this area there has never been such a widely objected and strongly detested proposal.

42. Based on their disillusioning experiences of CTH consultation for this scheme (reinforced by similarexperience of consultation over Cumnor &Lidcote and also Redmayne House) a conviction that CTH have

no real wish to engage. Not surprising therefore that their final presentation/consultation was so poorly

attended.

43. Following the open meeting in July WAG has continued to gather comments from the community, toidentify the breaches by both the Council and CTH of their legal obligations under the STA and thecompliance of the application with planning policy and existing CTH commitments.

Deliver the Next Phase of the Stockwell Park Regeneration44. CTH are legally obliged to do so though they are significantly in breach of the timing undertakings they

gave to tenants and the council within the STA. The delays sufferer are quite unnecessary and could have

been avoided. Based on the OPP it was open to CTH to proceed with construction in 2011 subject, only to

approval of detail,s rather than delay to 2013 with this inappropriate solution.

45. The net contribution of the extra units from the increased height is c 1-2m. If it were the case that therewas a shortfall event of this magnitude in the delivery of their Business Plan, then CTH had a legal

obligation to notify the Council and agree modifications. No shortfall was notified. Either it does not exist,

as we believe the evidence available indicates, or there are serious breaches of the STA by CTH in failing tonotify and/or by Lambeth in failing to monitor.

This and the general viability arguments adduced elsewhere to justify the gross departure from the OPPand the cost in amenity impact are serious matters that require urgent and open scrutiny before and not at

the PAC.

Introduces Activity on the Ground Floor Help Deter Criminal Activities Creates a Landmark Entrance to the Northern End of the Estate

47. All this would be equally true of the OPP scheme, with the possible exception of the newly introducedcafe beneath the private tower. This has the effect of further driving the space increase in the

development. No evidence of any demand for this has been shown nor of any other tangible benefit.

Meanwhile CTH seem not to have found a sponsor committed to offer a subsidy in perpetuity, furtherreducing funds available to meet their existing obligations.

6.5. By comparing the existing, part vacant, structurally unsound building with the proposed new moderndevelopment, the case for granting planning permission is compelling. The development will help invigorate and revitalisethis area of Stockwell, creating synergies with the extensive redevelopment of the estate currently taking place.

48. There is no opposition to a new modern development and planning permission for this exists subject onlyto CTH agreeing details with officer. Any such development of more reasonable bulk and height, including

the OPP scheme for Wayland as the Design & Access Statement for the application made clear, would

bring these overdue benefits and have the support of the whole community. At issue here is not the

development, nor its surface design. The issue is the increase in bulk height and the attendant ills and

that remains unjustified and seems unjustifiable.

6.6. The proposal accords with the National, London and Local planning policies, and would represent a sustainablemodern development in an accessible location in need of regeneration. The proposed design is of considerablearchitectural merit, and represents an improvement on both the existing building and the permitted outline,development.

49. The same would be true of a design within the agreed envelope. Because CTH have refused to put forwardany design within that envelope, as they properly should have done, no improvement can be assessed.

By contrast the increase in negative impacts is self evident and not disputed. Of course, significant

architectural merit is a necessary condition for any tall buildings, But the requirement is that first they

must meet the location criteria.

Analysis B gives rise to the following objections:

(i) The applicants Planning Statement contains so many assertions that are either unsupported by evidenceor are plain misrepresentations that it should be disregarded.


16/27

16

(ii) Nowhere has the applicant provided evidence for the infeasibility, practical of financial, of the OPP agreedoption for Wayland being abandoned. Neither in the application or pre application consultations, has it

been demonstrated that demolition is a necessity. Of the dozens blocks in Lambeth similar to Wayland,

many have been satisfactorily refurbished and re-clad. We know of none that have been demolished.

(iii) The applicant claims that the increase in the increasing in the number of bedroom is to accord withLambeths housing need. Lambeths figures show that, on the contrary, the greatest overall requirement

is for smaller (1 and 2 bed units). Meeting the actual need would reduce the floor space requirement.

(iv) The housing justification for the proposed departure from the OPP is spurious. Lambeth is already ontrack to meet its needs, before even taking Vauxhall into account. This departure has a huge amenity

price but produces only an additional 17 housing units and those are not reserved for Lambeth residents

but are for open market sale. Net contribution to housing need is zero.

(v) The applicant argues that the present proposal is somehow better than the OPP scheme. But becauseCTH have refused to put forward any design within the OPP envelope, as they properly should have done

at consultation stages, no improvement can be assessed. By contrast the increase in negative impacts is

self evident.

(vi) The viability and estate regeneration arguments are not sustained by the evidence provided. Should theexisting Business Plan be in deficit by the amount implied, CTH has a legal obligation to promptly to notify

the Council and agree modifications to the Stock Transfer Agreement. No shortfall has been notified.

Either it does not exist, as we believe the evidence available indicates, or there are serious breaches of

the STA by CTH in failing to notify and/or by Lambeth in failing to monitor. This and the general viability

arguments adduced to justify such a gross departure from the OPP and the cost in amenity impact are

serious matters that require urgent and open scrutiny before and not at the PAC.

(vii) The applicant claims that the proposal has the support of local residents which is a grossmisrepresentation in the face of evidence from public meetings, petition and representation. While it is

true that there is support for the overdue improvement of Wayland,

there is universal preference for a lower build solution that remains unexplored ; There has been considerable dissatisfaction among Estate residents with the CTH consultation

approach;

No residents felt that CTH had adequately explained or justified why they were departing soradically from what had been agreed at the time of the STA and OPP. They also felt that discussion

was fruitless as CTH dont listen.

(viii) The Applicants claim of residents approvals to the proposals through a poll are unreliable not leastbecause residents have complained that no consultation was conducted by an independent party able

properly to advise tenants of their options. Residents were given the impression that the only option was

demolition and replacement with a tower block. No others were presented

(ix) The supposed 3,000 sq m increase in amenity space over the OPP is based on the roof gardens (20%)and the increased number of balconies (80%) to go with the increased number of floors. But neither roof

gardens nor balconies can be taken into account when assessing either this proposal or the scheme as a

whole because private gardens and semi/secured housing amenity space are removed from calculation

of public open space. Further, balconies would also form part of a lower build option because they are

now mandatory.


17/27

17

Analysis C Planning Issues

1. Lambeth planning policies in respect to tall buildings in this location are clear and in no respectcountermanded or reduced in force of application by either by the NPPF nor by the London Plan with which

they conform. These policies determine the issue.

2. In the UDP, Lambeths policy for tall buildings was rather reserved and uncertain. But was later carefullyrefined and made explicit within the Core Strategy document, which in key parts (S9) supersedes the UDP. Atall building (above 30m) is not now permitted in this location, by any sensible reading of the latest policy

documents.

UDP Policy 40 Tall Buildingsstates

New tall buildings, including extensions to existing buildings, will be permitted where the following

criteria are satisfied.

Location:

- Tall Buildings should enhance and not detract from London's character, and should enhance the skyline,

respecting its historic character.

- Any proposal should be very carefully related to its surroundings, both existing and proposed and

especially to the height and form of any other tall buildings or prominent features in the vicinity. To assistassessment, plans should be accompanied by accurate representations of the appearance of the building

in all significant views affected, including the relevant London panoramas, riverscape and local

townscapes.

- Tall buildings should not be located where they would harm the character or settings of:

Conservation areas (For what this actually means see 8 Below)

Listed buildings

3. While the UDP policy statement says little about the location criteria, the explanations go further inexpressing reservations about the appropriateness of tall buildings, without yet being explicit as to where

they might be appropriate.

4.14.35. The impact that tall buildings have upon London's skyline has always been highly controversial.

For some, the absence of tall buildings is seen as an advantagemaintaining London's character as a

predominantly lowrise city. For others it is seen as a disadvantage harming London's international

competitiveness. The policy responds to the widespread concern for a clear policy on assessing the

aesthetics and skyline impact of tall buildings in London. It takes account of guidance produced by

CABE/EH and the GLA. It provides a balanced approach. Lambeth will support tall buildings in appropriate

locations and strongly resists them in inappropriate ones. The policy protects the setting and historic

skyline in the most sensitive areas whilst supporting tall buildings of outstanding design where their visual

and transport impact can be most easily accommodated. ..

4.14.36. Lambeth recognises that tall buildings can have, on the limited sites where they are appropriate,

significant benefits in providing the housing and employment space that London so badly needs. Of

course the vast majority of new employment and residential development in Lambeth and London will be

high density but not in the form of tall buildings

4. The reason for the hesitancy about appropriate areas criteria was made clear in the further explanation.Simply it was that further work needed to be done to define the appropriate areas and, until it was

completed, Lambeth reserved its position.

4.14.37 Lambeth will use the criteria in the policy to select areas which might be most appropriate for tallbuildings. These are more likely to be locations that would provide a focus and momentum for

regeneration or growth or which have (or with the potential to have) high public transport accessibility


18/27

18

and capacity. The Council intends to carry out further work, in accordance with the English Heritage and

CABE Guidance on Tall Buildings to assess if there are areas in the borough that can be specifically

identified as appropriate for tall buildings.

5. The work referred to was completed later and, after consultation, its results were enshrined in the CoreStrategy Policy S9, which in this part only supersedes the earlier UDP 40 because it is this policy that has

always been intended to define those locations that are appropriate and acceptable.

6. The consultations on the Core Strategy examined alternative options for addressing 10 key spatial issuesspatial issues and options. One of these was Where to locate tall buildings. The further work referred to in

the UDP had been completed and policy for tall buildings was then made , still stands and is binding.

Core Strategy Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment states

The Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability, in order

to sustain stable communities, by: ...

(d) Supporting tall buildings where they are an appropriate development form for the area, particularly4

where this contributes to area regeneration and local distinctiveness, makes the most effective use of landand is consistent with national and London Plan policies and guidance.

Appropriate locations for tall buildings are: parts of the Vauxhall and Waterloo London Plan Opportunity

Areas and Brixton town centre, subject to appropriate accompanying urban design assessments. The

height of buildings should be appropriate to the surrounding townscape.

7. For the avoidance of doubt, this policy is further explained and justified4.45 The London Plan identifies parts of the Central Activities Zone and Opportunity Areas as suitable

locations for tall buildings. The Council has carried out urban design studies to define the potential for thedevelopment of tall buildings in Lambeth and these have identified parts of Waterloo, Vauxhall and

Brixton as appropriate locations. The evidence to justify the location of tall buildings in these areas is

summarised in Topic Paper 3.

8. Some have seized upon the subjective language (e.g. of settings enhancement etc) used when referringto amenity protection in the policies above and argue that somehow this new monster tower is an

enhancement! But the meaning of these terms, particularly in this area, is made explicit in e.g. the

Conservation Area Policy Statement. A bulkier block and tower of the dimensions and shadowing proposed

simply cannot rationally be presented as an enhancement to Stockwell Park Conservation Area or Slade

Gardens. By any interpretation the increase in mass and height is excluded.

Conservation Area Policy Statement

... At the corner of Lorn Road and Stockwell Road is the open space of Slade Gardens and a visually

intrusive tower block dominates the view and detracts from the character of the conservation area...

3.2 New Buildings

The Council will resist the loss of buildings that make a positive contribution to the character of the

conservation area. Care should be taken to ensure that new buildings in and adjoining the conservation

area preserve or enhance the character of the area and its setting.

4Important to note that contribution to regeneration is not an alternative to appropriate location.


19/27

19

Tall or bulky buildings in these instances are unlikely to be appropriate if they dominate or over shadow

the conservation area or impact ... Proposals and their accompanying Design Statement should be

respectful of the existing character of neighbouring buildings and the wider street scene ...

9. Any decision to approve the application on the grounds of conformity with the above policies would lay theCouncil open to Judicial Review. Policies are both for the guidance of development and the protection of

communities who can reasonably expect the protections to be maintained. Further similar protections also

apply e.g.

Strategic Policy 3.3: The Council will protect and enhance the boroughs open spaces, and ensure that

recreational, sporting and play needs are met.

Policy 33 Building Scale and Design

c) Residential Density and Scale

In all cases, however, development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding development or

harm residential amenity. For development affecting conservation areas or listed buildings (or their

setting), protecting or enhancing their character and appearance takes precedence.

Policy 35 Sustainable Design and ConstructionThe Council will also seek the maximum reuse of existing buildings, subject to protecting their character

and local residential amenity.

10.When OPP was given for the entire development, the individual amenity impacts of ALL NEW BUILDenvelopes and their cumulative impact was assessed. There were a number of clearly identified negative

impacts but, taking these together and setting them against the overall gains of regeneration, it was decided

that the negative impacts were, just, balanced.

The most critical in planning terms was the loss of open space within an estate already lamentably deficient. It

was for this reason that the officers report said the departure from Unitary Development Plan policy in

relation to reduction of public open space on the site (Section 7.3). The then calculated loss was c 1100 sq m, aloss of c 8%.

7.3.1.2 ... For the purpose of the Council's adopted open space (policy RL20) those areas of open space

identified as private and semi/secured amenity space are not considered to be public open space. In this

regard, the overall provision of public open space as proposed by the indicative masterplan would fall

from 12235 to 11018 square metres, a reduction of 0.11 hectares. Policy RL20 states that the Council will

resist the loss of public open space throughout the borough; for this reason, the outline planning

application has been treated as a departure from the adopted Unitary Development Plan in accordance

with the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. Any resolution to

grant outline planning permission would be subject to direction by the First Secretary of State.

11.Ultimately it was decided to accept the officers recommendation to weigh the positive improvements to thequality of accessible public open space and against the loss of existing open space but to impose conditions to

ensure that the balance visible at that stage would actually be delivered.

7Prior to the commencement of new-build development hereby permitted in the relevant phase, as set

out in the approved Phasing Plan, details of all publicly accessible open space shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be in accordance with the

approved details.

This condition was ultimately discharged (document seems to be dated Feb 2011 !!!)


20/27

20

12.The applicant now proposes further to reduce the open space by increasing the footprint of Wayland and isthus in breach of the undertakings made in its discharge of this condition. The combined loss of open space

quantity for the whole Estate needs to be presented bearing in mind both the Wayland proposals and also

any new builds, actual or planned, A revised Open Space Plan must be delivered and approved.

The OPP exits and is dependent on the discharge of conditions and where these are breached they invalidate

the OPP except that they are satisfactorily discharged now. Similarly the phasing conditions have been

breached and a new Phasing Plan is required and needs to be agreed.

4 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Phasing Plan has been submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Phasing Plan will identify and describe all of

the phases of construction of new development (excluding works of refurbishment and alteration to

existing buildings), including the following:

(a) The use (by Use Class), quantum, location and timing of provision of the non-residential uses hereby

permitted;

(b) The type, quantum, location and timing of provision of the 'market' and 'affordable housing' hereby

permitted;

(c) The type, quantum, location and timing of provision of the residential amenity space, publicly

accessible open space and formal play space hereby permitted; and(d) The number, location and timing of provision of the car and cycle parking spaces hereby

permitted.

5 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the

approved Phasing Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The breach of this plan is also a breach of the STA of which it is an integral part.

13.It follows also that all impact assessments (parking, overshadowing, light impact, visual impacts, conservationarea assessment, park etc) need to be re-assessed for the whole scheme if the OPP is to stand. This must take

into account the increased mass and height of Cumnor & Lidcote, which also represented significant

departures from the maximum permitted envelope of the OPP and any other changes CTH have in mind. Any

loss of X % (against what was agreed) that has already suffered needs to be added to the Y% now proposed

and any Z% of any other changes CTH may have in mind. Light assessments must be made independently by

the Council and assess cumulative impact of all deviations from the OPP.

Analysis C gives rise to the following objections:

(i) Lambeth planning policies in respect to tall buildings in this location are clear and in no respectcountermanded or reduced in force of application either by the NPPF nor by the London Plan with whichthey conform. Taken together these Lambeth policies determine the issue and preclude the increased

bulk and height of Wayland: UDP Policy 40 Tall Buildings generally and specifically also Paras 4.14.3 ,

4.14.36 and 4.14.3; Core Strategy Policy S9 Quality of the Built Environment especially 4.45;

Conservation Area Policy Statement. Except that the location criteria are met design attributes are

irrelevant.

(ii) The negative amenity impacts of the proposed increase in scale and mass are also precluded by inter alia:Strategic Policy 3.3: Policy 33 Building Scale and Design and Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction

whose purpose is to protect the community from such degradation of their environment

(iii) The applicant proposes further to reduce the Estates open space by increasing the footprint of Waylandand is thus in breach of the undertakings made in its discharge of OPP conditions. The combined loss of

open space quantity for the whole Estate needs to be presented, bearing in mind both the Wayland


21/27

21

proposals and any new builds, actual or planned. A revised Open Space Plan must be delivered and

approved.

(iv) A new Phasing Plan for the whole estate development is required for prior approval to rectify a furtherbreach of OPP conditions

(v) Cumulative impact assessments (parking, overshadowing, light impact, visual impacts, conservation areaassessment, park etc) need to be presented for the whole scheme if the OPP is to stand. This must takeinto account the increased mass and height of Cumnor & Lidcote, which also represented significant

departures from the maximum permitted envelope of the OPP and any other changes CTH have in mind.

Any loss of X % (against what was agreed at OPP) that has already suffered needs to be added to the Y%

now proposed together any Z% of any other changes CTH may have in mind. Similarly cumulative light

assessments must be made independently by the Council to assess cumulative impact of all deviations

from the OPP.


22/27

22

Analysis D Applicants supporting documentation

I Viability Assessment

1. The Viability assessment is presented as though it is independent. But it is not. The Assessment, produced byRedloft Consultants, is signed off by Danny Sutcliffe who is also Project Manager for Wayland, albeit not on

the payroll of CTH but of Network Housing. It represents a vested financial interest.

The assessment has been completed by Red Loft LLP in September 2012. Red Loft LLP is a specialist

housing development consultancy based in London with substantial experience in carrying out this type of

analysis. Further information can be found atwww.redloft.co.uk.

Further it, by its own admission is not an assessment, rather it is:

intended to assist the developer in demonstrating to the Local Authority that the scheme does not

generate a profit, other than a surplus that is reinvested into Affordable Housing on the site.

2. Unsurprisingly the assessment, based on its own model, concludes triumphantly that because the profitcontribution from the Wayland private sale now planned is less than the cost of the affordable housing this is

therefore cross subsidising the affordable (by c 3.6m.) The unspoken implication is that the extra new build

units and increased height and mass are necessary for viability. But the assessment fails entirely to isolate the

effect of the extra 17 units proposed and hence to justify them or the accompanying additional height and

construction cost, by comparison with the OPP.

3. Cross subsidy in Wayland is nothing new, it is a requirement and legal obligation: as proposed in the OPP&the STA, the affordable element in the Wayland scheme would be cross subsidised , simply by virtue of their

weight of numbers. Viability needs to be assessed in relation to the WHOLE project and the revenues from

ALL 329 new market sales on the Estate. Yes, Wayland has a mix and market sales subsidise as previously. Butequally Redmayne House is to be exclusively for market sales. One subsidises the other as always planned.

The question is, are the extra units required?

4. Thus CTH does not justify the additional storeys. They argue only that, because Wayland overall shows a netsubsidy, they are not profiteering, but contributing a lot to the regeneration fund. This is true, but it is part of

their contractual obligation under the original Stock Transfer Agreement. From their figures it seems that the

net profit contribution of storeys 15-19 is between 0.5 and 1.5m, which will bring them above the revenues

agreed at that time. But the whole scheme seems likely to be already ahead of its necessary revenues without

an additional 17 units to be sold, given that multi-million grants have been received and none were assumed

in the original business plan.

5. Quite aside from the OPP, CTH were required to complete a formal Stock Transfer Agreement with Lambeth.An integral part of the STA was the Business Plan. This showed annual and cumulative financial outcomes,

demonstrating that:

(i) These were necessary and sufficientfor the delivery ofallbut not more than the refurbishment;(ii) That the new build cap was not too low.

This plan was third party tested for adequate robustness to withstand any shocks to the housing/financial

scenarios. The fact that, while the revenues required to support the regeneration in the STA Business Plan

were deemed more than adequate without any grant receipts, CTH have received extra revenue from multi-

million grants suggests that they are already well ahead financially without needing to exceed the agreed cap

on open market sales.
http://www.redloft.co.uk/http://www.redloft.co.uk/http://www.redloft.co.uk/http://www.redloft.co.uk/


23/27

23

6. If we are right, and we have evidence to support our assertion, then quite apart from the community beingasked again to pay an unnecessary price in amenity loss, the residents of the Estate whom CTH are

supposedly working for, have also been duped instead of being openly and honestly consulted and also

protected by Lambeth, as the STA requires.

7. If we are wrong and CTH is in need of extra revenue to make Wayland and the whole scheme viable, then,under the terms of the STA, they are required formally to advise this to Lambeth. But they have not done so

and hence can be assumed not to require the extra revenue to make Wayland viable.

8. CTH have consistently argued, both with Cumnor & Lidcote and now with Wayland, that the changes arenecessary to produce the revenues to deliver the STA. We believe this is untrue and untruthful. Its worth

noting that CTH have refused to open their books. Further, they obstructed for months tenants and our

ability to obtain first the STA and, finally, the Business Plan which reveals all.

9. The STA contained a condition that any material change to plans would require a separate agreement tomodify the STA. Changes to Cumnor & Lidcote were material but not sanctioned by any modification. Failure

by CTH to deliver its timetable is material and remains unsanctioned. Wayland Towers is hugely material and

WILL REQUIRE Council Agreement. Part of this has to be a full viability assessment and this must be made by

Lambeth Council, not by the PAC.

10.There was also a condition, standard within STAs, that 40% of any surplus, beyond that shown in the business,would accrue to Lambeth, ring fenced for housing. The remainder would be similarly dedicated by CTH to

social housing in Lambeth. This was designed to ensure that development windfalls would not be entirely lost

to Lambeths housing need. It would be appropriate, in the light of what CTH have said about viability that the

PAC and public should know: what if anything is the gain that will accrue to Lambeth and how much of this is

dependent upon the extra 17 private sale units?

11.This means that consent to the present Wayland proposal and its financial setting will need separately to begiven by the Council, along with other STA modifications, and not by the PAC.

II Daylight Sunlight Assessment

1. The assessment produced of light loss impact should be impartial and not contrived by the main projectarchitects, as it is in this Application. It assesses only the impact of Wayland .But it should properly make a

cumulative assessment including also the loss from Lidcote and Cumnor and the increases in their mass and

height. It is only reasonable that any properties or amenities affected have taken onto account also any

losses that they have already suffered through deviations from the OPP.

The findings are perfunctory desk work only, with no existing building accessed as good practice would

suggest; the excuse given is without foundation:

In the case we have not sought or obtained access an adjoining property, we therefore have made

reasonable assumptions as to the geometry of these buildings based on OS map data, site photographs,

and aerial photographs for adjoining properties. This is normal practice where access to adjoining

properties is limited due to development confidentiality issues.

2. The appalling overshadowing impact on Slade Gardens is similarly too lightly dismissed, with just 1 of the 66pages. The assessment shows only the shadowing with the proposal itself. Because it does not show the

extent of open daylight before, no assessment of impact can be made. Given also that the issues revolve

around the increase in height, this effect of the increase in height should be disaggregated.

3. Of course BRE gives only a guide. In understanding how to apply it a visit is necessary and would quicklyreveal that the defining characteristic of the parks appeal lies in its unique open aspect and outlook, not in

formal plantings or gardens as in some parks. The assessment gives no accurate picture of the present light


24/27

24

and shade levels. Changing them fundamentally, as this proposal does but the assessment does not reveal,

alters entirely the character of the open space and devalues the park in its entirety. The numbers give no

guide here, though common sense and observation would.

4. No overshadowing assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of this development combined withLidcote & Cumnor on the already dismal outlook for residents of Denchworth House.

5. According to the light assessment, the light levels in most planned apartments on the lower floors arepoor because of the proximity of other blocks, and throughout impaired to below standard by the additional

obstruction of the planned balconies. Nonetheless, the balconies are claimed as a positive addition to the

amenity of their occupiers. Given that balconies are now almost mandatory these designs are questionable.

The presence of the balconies means that 3/4 of the living rooms in the development would not

have good solar access. However, we cannot ignore the added amenity that these balconies

represent, as well as their key role in providing solar shading during summer periods, when

overheating is most likely to occur. The BRE guidelines are meant to be taken with a degree of

flexibility, as obviously daylight and sunlight is only one of many design issues that a designer is

tasked with addressing.

III Wind Assessment

1. The submitted wind assessment says The proposed development is exposed to prevailing south-westerly andwesterly winds, and represents a significant structure with respect to wind. There is potential for winds

travelling over Denchworth House and the New Lidcote & Cumnor development to impact the proposed

development and create the potential for strong downdraughts to reach the ground level, where they are

subsequently accelerated around building corners. As a result, the pedestrian level wind environment within

the proposed development site is expected to have the potential to rate as unsuitable, in terms of safety, for

the general public at the south-western, north-western and south-eastern building corners.

2. The west sides of the rooftop terraces (in Spring) when north-easterly winds are relatively common, ... may betoo windy for prolonged periods of outdoor sitting ...the northwest corner of the south rooftop terrace is

expected to be susceptible to downdraughts from the 20-storey northern block, reaching the south rooftop

terrace. This area is therefore expected to be marginally windy for outdoor sitting during summer. Wind

conditions across the remaining parts of rooftop terraces are likely be suitable for a viewing platform. It is

recommended that wind mitigation measures be developed throughout the development in order to locally

alleviate unwelcome conditions.

3. Translating these and its other reservations into plain English shows both that there is a risk of unacceptablewind conditions in some parts at ground level and that the amenity value of the vaunted roof gardens is

suspect. Hence the firm recommendations, first to ensure that alleviating measures be devised to alleviate

unwelcome conditions and second, that the whole structure be subjected to wind testing of models before

designs are finalised. In view of the potential severity of the unwelcome conditions and the fact that the

amenity value of the roof gardens is thrown into question by the desk research this must be done before

consent can be given.

4. Further assessment needs to be made of the usability of the balconies at heights of c 200 ft and this has notbeen done. The effects must also take into account not just normally expected winds, but also the effect of

thermal up-draughts created by the fabric of the building and its hard standing.


25/27

25

IV Verified Views

1. The views shown, carefully selected by the applicant, with the exception of one of the park, are allstreetscape views. None have been provided to show the impact on individual proper

Documents

Wayland Action Group opbjections