Item No.

1

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE

Date: 29 September 2020

Classification

For General Release

Report of

Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning

Ward(s) involved

Maida Vale

Subject of Report Lauderdale Mansions, Lauderdale Road, London, W9 1LX,

Proposal Erection of a roof extensions, creation of terraces and fire escapes, installation of lift to the lightwell, cycle parking and refuse storage, all in association with the creation of 9 self-contained residential units (5 x 3 bedroom 4 x 1 bedroom) with associated works. (Sites 118-258 Lauderdale Mansions).

Agent Ms Zenab Haji-Ismail

On behalf of Park City Ltd

Registered Number 19/01391/FULL Date amended/ completed

8 April 2019

Date Application Received

22 February 2019

Historic Building Grade Unlisted

Conservation Area Maida Vale

1. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse permission - Failure to optimise residential units on site to maximise housing delivery in the borough,

2. SUMMARY

The application site is located on the east side of Lauderdale Road and is the most northern of the blocks. The block is a six storey red brick building of purpose built flats with shared gardens to the rear at ground floor and balconies to the front and rear elevations. Permission is sought for the erection of a roof extension across the whole block to provide nine new dwellings with terraces consisting of five 3 x bedroom flats and 4 x 1 bedroom flats with associated cycle storage to the rear gardens near the existing entrance/exit from Biddulph Road and the north of the site accessed from Lauderdale Road and waste storage to the north of the site accessed from Lauderdale Road, lifts in the existing lightwells and fire escapes at roof level. Two Ward Councillors objections, Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society objection and a total of 280 letters of objection have been received across two rounds of consultation together with one letter of support. The objections relate to the scale of development, the structural impact on the building, harm to the conservation area, loss of light, noise, the impact of the construction works on residents of Lauderdale Mansions and the surrounding buildings, whether the freeholders have the

Item No.

1

right legally to develop the building and over-development. The Key issues are:

• The impact of the development of the building and Maida Vale Conservation Area

• The impact of the Structural Integrity of the building

• The density of the development

• The impact of the proposed lift on the amenity of existing residents

• Increased pressure on parking in the surrounding streets

• Overlooking caused by the location of cycle storage facilities

• Lack of optimisation of the site For the reasons set out in this report, notwithstanding the objections received, the proposals are considered acceptable in design and amenity terms. However, the application fails to optimise the number of residential units on the site to maximise housing delivery in the borough. This is contrary to policy S14 of the City Plan and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Item No.

1

3. LOCATION PLAN

..

This production includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with the

permission if the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (C) Crown Copyright and /or

database rights 2013. All rights reserved License Number LA

100019597

Item No.

1

4. PHOTOGRAPHS

Aerial picture of the site outlined in red

Item No.

1

View looking south east along Lauderdale Road

Item No.

1

View looking at the corner of Lauderdale Road and Biddulph Road

Item No.

1

View looking east along the rear of application site

Item No.

1

View looking north along the roof of the site

Item No.

1

Existing high level railings

Item No.

1

View of the rear of the site from Biddulph Road

Item No.

1

5. CONSULTATIONS

KAREN BUCK MP Objection. The works harm the Maida Vale Conservation Area and the amenity of the residents.

COUNCILLOR BARRACLOOUGH (WARD COUNCILLOR FOR MAIDA VALE): Objection. Harm to the existing building, conservation area, the standard of accommodation provided, undermining of the subsidence works carried out to the building. PADDINGTON WATERWAYS AND MAIDA VALE SOCIETY: Objection. Harm to both the host building and wider conservation area. No precedent for the creation of the rooflight above the existing dormer to the front elevation. The mansard will result in a significant increase in the massing of the building. The installation of the glass box infills will result in "glowing boxes" and significant light pollution Please take neighbours views into consideration

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: No objection in general terms. Means of escape for one bedroom flats are inadequate and should be revised. Agree with acoustic assessment and mitigation in relation to proposed lifts. BUILDING CONTROL: No response WASTE PROJECT OFFICER: Objection on the grounds drawing submitted do not show the area of the ground where this storage is located HIGHWAYS PLANNING: No objection. Secure cycle parking via condition

ADJOINING OWNERS/OCCUPIERS AND OTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: No. Consulted: 433 Total No. of replies: 152 No. of objections: 151 No. in support: 1 Objection were received on one or more of the following grounds. Land use

• Overdevelopment/to many residents already

• Increased density of the area

• Westminster policy states that development in heritage areas should lead to a decrease in density

• The density calculations are misleading

• Lack of affordable housing

Item No.

1

Design

• Harmful to the existing appearance of the building, specifically the east elevation

• Lifts would harm the appearance of the interior of block

• Harm to the Maida Vale Conservation Area

• Height and bulk of the new flats harms the road, block and area

• Windows to front elevation ham the appearance of the building and conservation area

• Loss of uniformity with surrounding blocks

• Ugly windows in the mansard roof

• Guard rails unsightly

• Raising of ridge line and chimney stacks unacceptable

• Lifts would diminish the existing internal areas

• The rear of the block would become unsightly when viewed from Biddulph Mansions and the houses on Biddulph Road

• Harm to a grade II listed building

Amenity

• Windows to front elevation harm the amenity of properties on the other side of Lauderdale Road

• Noise for the flats below the proposed.

• The lifts will block light to flats and cause overlooking

• Bike access would cause overlooking for flats 138, 138A and 118 and at night would trigger security lights

• Poor standard of accommodation regarding size and natural light

• Overlooking to gardens on Biddulph Road

• Loss of light for the shared garden, houses on Biddulph Road and Biddulph Mansions

• Overlooking towards Biddulph Mansions

• The proposed roof terraces will cause noise and pollution

• Disturbance for residents on the top floors from additional residents and stairs

Highways

• Road congestion

• Parking congestion

• Deliveries during construction will disrupt the road network, specifically to Biddulph Road

• Incorrect information in the Highways Report

• The bike store would impact access to the existing waste store and restrict parking for builders/trads people

Structural

• Existing subsidence issues, remedial works carried out at cost to council and leaseholders

• Additional units would harm the structural integrity of the building

• Lack of structural information provided

• Impact on the existing drains

Item No.

1

• Structural appraisal by Barnard & Associates is flawed

• Structural impact of new lifts not assessed

• May not be possible to obtain subsidence insurance

• Lack of drainage details in the application

• No details to support the statement that the site is not contaminated

Other

• Costs of managing lifts

• Noise from lifts

• Lifts are a safety risk to children

• Noise and congestion from construction works

• Why build new properties when there are some in the area for sale already

• How would future residents be prevented from using the existing flat roofs

• No acoustic report

• New flats would not be sustainable regarding energy

• Increased air pollution

• Detrimental to water pressure of the flats on the upper floors

• The one bedroom flats will be occupied by 2 residents

• Reduction in property prices

• Existing services at breaking point

• Flats would be investments or Air b and b

• Loss of light to the shared garden

• Dangerous president would be set if approved

• Lack of Arboriculture report

• The works fail to meet sustainability requirements

• Consultation letter received 6 days after dated PRESS ADVERTISEMENT / SITE NOTICE: Yes SECOND CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT ON THE 28th November 2019 including revised drawings which removed the windows to the front roof elevations, additional structural details for the works and acoustic details for the lifts. KAREN BUCK MP Objection. Harm to the Maida Vale Conservation Area, harm to the amenity of the property’s residents, subsidence to the host building and the financial impact this will have on residents who have already had to pay for remedial works and the substandard nature of the housing. WARD COUNCILLORS OF MAIDA VALE Any response to be reported verbally.

PADDINGTON WATERWAYS AND MAIDA VALE SOCIETY: No new comments

Item No.

1

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: No objection in general terms. Means of escape for one bedroom flats are inadequate and should be revised. Agree with acoustic assessment and mitigation in relation to proposed lifts. BUILDING CONTROL: The details provided are adequate at this stage. Further information would be requested at building control application. WASTE PROJECT OFFICER: No objection. Secure what is offered by condition. HIGHWAYS PLANNING: No objection. Secure cycle parking via condition.

ADJOINING OWNERS/OCCUPIERS AND OTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: No. Consulted: 568 Total No. of replies: 129 No. of objections: 129 No. in support: 0 No new issues to those already listed above were raised in the second round of consultation. PRESS ADVERTISEMENT / SITE NOTICE: Yes

6. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

6.1 The Application Site

The application site is 118-258 Lauderdale Mansions (referred to in some documents and consultation responses as Lauderdale Mansion West). It is a series of blocks of mansion flats on the north side of the street, close to the junction with Biddulph Road. The site forms part of a group buildings which date from c.1899. The site lies within the Maida Vale Conservation Area and is an unlisted building. There are 79 flats as existing, ranging in size from one to five bedrooms. The main access to the blocks is at upper ground floor level via steps leading up from Lauderdale Road. They typically comprise lower ground floor, raised ground floor and three upper storeys. Some of the blocks are taller and have a fourth floor. The top storey in either case is within the roof storey, which to Lauderdale Road comprises a steeply pitched tiled roof, with highly ornate Dutch gables to the centre. The front facades are predominantly red brick, but with embellishments picked out in render/stone. All have full-height canted bays, bracketed balconies with cast-iron details, single-pane casements and columned porches. To the rear the blocks are rather more utilitarian, with series of large and deep canted wings, with gaps between them, faced in brick. To the rear there are shared

Item No.

1

landscaped gardens which are accessed from the lower ground floor or the side of the building.

6.2 Recent Relevant History No relevant history

7. THE PROPOSAL

Permission is sought to undertake alterations at roof level to create an additional storey of accommodation to all of the blocks, with the exception of the western most (containing flats 250-258) to create nine new flats consisting of 5 x 3beds and 4 x 1beds. In addition to the new residential accommodation the proposals include an external terrace to each flat; the introduction of lifts within the existing lightwells, the formation of a fire escape route with associated structures, 20 cycle storage spaces and waste storage. The new flats are formed by modifying and increasing in height the taller, typically void spaces, that form the front half of the roof and introducing full height glazing to the north east facing elevation. The lift will be housed in a glass framed enclosure and there will also be a glazed enclosure to the extended staircase which will lead to the rooftop escape route.

Use Existing GIA (sqm) Proposed GIA (sqm)

+/-

Residential 9370 10487 757

Total 9370 10487 757

8. DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Land Use

The relevant City Plan Policies are, S14 Optimising housing delivery, S15 Meeting Housing Needs, S16 Affordable Housing, Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies H3 To Encourage the Provision of More Housing, H5 Providing a Range of Housing Sizes. There are 79 flats in the existing blocks of which there are 8 one bed, 18 two bed, 48 three bed flats, 4 four bed flats and 1 five bed flat. There are no on-site car parking spaces. The existing site has an area of 0.314 hectares. There is a mixture of tenures. None of the existing flats have off street parking. Standard of accommodation The proposed scheme would provide five, three bedroom flats of 89 sqm and four, one bedroom flats of 45 sqm all of which are in accordance with the London Plan and Nationally Described Standards. The three bedroom flats provide two double bedrooms with en-suite bathrooms and a single bedroom. The open plan Kitchen/living space has a large window facing north with a skylight above the kitchen area. The bedroom annotated as B1 on the plans has

Item No.

1

windows facing north and a terrace. Bedrooms annotated B2 and B3 do not have windows offering outlook and contain skylights only. The one bedroom flats have windows facing north serving the living/kitchen space. The bedrooms have rooflights and do not have windows providing outlook. The living spaces in all the flats will have a good level of light and outlook as will bedrooms B1 in the 3bedroom flats. During the course of the application windows were removed from the front elevation which served the bedrooms following officers’ concerns regarding impact on the Maida Vale Conservation Area. The provision of rooflights only for some of the bedrooms is not ideal, however it is acknowledged that the primary living spaces have full height glazing and that bedrooms are considered as secondary rooms. The lack of outlook for some bedrooms is not a reason to withhold planning permission. Density Policy H11 within the UDP relates to housing density and recommends 250-500 habitable rooms per hectare in this location. The London Plan is also a relevant consideration and includes a recommendation for housing density in Suburban, Urban and Central locations. The London Plan is the most up to date published document and considers densities across the city, and in this instance is given greater weight than the UDP when considering density.

While the site is greater than 800m from a district centre it is most in keeping with the description of an ‘urban’ location identified as areas with ‘predominantly dense development such as, for example, terraced houses, mansion blocks, a mix of different uses, medium building footprints and typically buildings of two to four storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of a District centre or, along main arterial routes’ in the notes for table 3.2 of the London plan. The application site has a PTAL rating of 4 meaning that the recommended density is 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha). The proposed works would result in a density of 1006 hr/ha when including the existing and proposed dwellings.

However, part 3.28 of the supporting text for Policy 3.4 of the London Plan Optimising Housing Delivery, states that it is not always appropriate to apply the table 3.2. The supporting text goes onto state that ‘Its density ranges for particular types of location are broad, enabling account to be taken of other factors relevant to optimising potential – local context, design and transport capacity are particularly important, as well as social infrastructure, open space and play. Local context and design There is an established context of mansion blocks and high density buildings in the surrounding area dating back to the mid-19th Century when the mansion blocks of Lauderdale Road, Castellain Road, Delaware Road, parts of Elgin Avenue, Widley Road, Wymering Road, Morshead Road and Essendine Road were erected. Regarding the design of the proposed extension, the extension would not harm the appearance of the host building or Maida Vale Conservation Area (as outlined in the

Item No.

1

relevant part of this report). In addition, the City Council have approved existing flats utilising the roof space which have a similar impact on the appearance of the relevant buildings elsewhere in Lauderdale Mansions and it can be considered that altering a whole block at once, would have less of an intrusive impact than the piecemeal approach taken elsewhere, given it would retain the uniformity of the roof. Transport capacity The site is within walking distance of Maida Vale and Warwick Avenue London Underground stations as well as major bus routes. Additionally, the City Council’s Highways Planning Manager has advised that there is capacity in the surrounding streets to absorb the additional demand for on-street car parking, likely from these nine flats, according to the latest parking survey data from 2018. Social infrastructure, open space and play Lauderdale Mansions contains private communal gardens to the rear, providing open and play space. The site is also located within 350 meters of the Paddington Recreation Ground and does not fall within an area with either an open space or public playground deficiency. The site is also located within walking distance of social infrastructure including shops, pubs, cafes, cinemas, schools and religious centres including churches and a synagogue. New London plan It is acknowledged that the new London Plan has not been adopted and therefore is given minimal weighting, however it should be recognised that the New London Plan removes the density matrix in favour of a design-led approach, taking account of the site context and infrastructure capacity. Given the above, while it is recognised that the site would deliver a scheme which is greater in density that the matrix guidance for the site, officers consider the additional nine residential units at the site would not be out of context in the surrounding area and would not cause harm. It also benefits from transport and social infrastructure capacity to accommodate the increase in flats and the density is therefore acceptable. Objections have been received on the grounds that the works would consist of over-development of the site/area, the area is already overpopulated and that the density calculations are inaccurate and misleading due to the applicant’s underestimation of the number of habitable rooms. Density can be an indicator of over-development. However, if no harm is resultant from the proposal, it is unreasonable to withhold permission on density alone. There is no specific definition of habitable rooms in the London Plan and the habitable rooms calculation has been carried out on assuming the number of habitable rooms per unit. As outlined above, given the location of the site, that the density matrix should not be applied mechanistically and in the absence of harm, it is not considered that the objections relating to density can be upheld in this instance.

Optimising Housing Delivery S14 of the City Plan states the number of residential units on development sites will be optimised. The current proposal includes nine units consisting of five x 3bedroom flats and four x 1bedroom flats. H5 of the UDP states that 33% of units in developments must

Item No.

1

be family sized housing which in a proposal for nine units would represent three units, the emerging plan specifics 25% of developments should be family sized units. As proposed, the five family sized units represent 56% of the development. The optimum number of units on the site could have delivered while being policy compliant in terms of family sized units and delivering a mix of units could have been 11, comprising of three x 3bed and eight x 1bed units. It is recognised that in some locations where a site is particularly suited to family sized dwellings proposals for in excess of 33% family sized units may be welcomed. However, this site is on the top floor of a mansion block with minimal outside amenity space. As such it is not considered the mix of units being provided is in accordance with the requirement of S14 for the optimisation of development sites. Consequently, the site is not used efficiently to maximise housing delivery in the borough, contrary to Policy S14 in the City Plan that we adopted in November 2016.

Meeting housing need/affordable housing The proposals provide a mix of one and three bed units and therefore meet the requirements of H5 and S15 which require a mix of sizes of flats within new developments. The proposals would provide less than 1000sqm of additional floor space, the site is less than 0.5 hectares and due to the mix of units which does not maximise the potential of the site, provides less than 10 flats. Therefore, the application does not trigger the requirement for affordable housing. Objections have been received on the grounds that no affordable housing has been provided however due to the above, the objection cannot be sustained.

In summary the proposed works are not considered to be in accordance with S14 of the City Plan as stated above, on the grounds that the proposed nine units, five of which are family sized does not optimise the potential number of residential units on site. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused on the basis that the proposals are contrary to S14 of the City Plan. It should be noted that the optimisation of the site for residential, would also likely result in triggering the requirement for the provision for affordable housing.

8.2 Townscape and Design

The key legislative requirements in respect to designated heritage assets are as follows: Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that “In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”

Item No.

1

Section 66 of the same Act requires that “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” Section 72 of the same Act requires that “In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area…special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.” Whilst there is no statutory duty to take account of effect on the setting of a conservation area, Policy DES 9 (F) in the UDP requires that where development will have a visibly adverse effect upon a conservation area’s recognised special character or appearance, including intrusiveness with respect to any recognised and recorded familiar local views into, out of, within or across the area, it will not be permitted. Furthermore Chapters 12 and 16 of the NPPF require great weight be placed on design quality and the preservation of designated heritage assets including their setting. Chapter 16 of the NPPF clarifies that harmful proposals should only be approved where the harm caused would be clearly outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, taking into account the statutory duty to have special regard or pay special attention, as relevant. This should also take into account the relative significance of the affected asset and the severity of the harm caused. Assessment 118-258 Lauderdale Mansions (referred to in some documents and consultation responses as Lauderdale Mansion West) is a series of blocks of mansion flats on the north side of the street, close to the junction with Biddulph Road. Along with 2-116 Lauderdale Mansions (to the east) and 1-273 Lauderdale Mansions (to the south) it forms a group of contemporary buildings which date from c.1899. All of Lauderdale Mansions lie within the Maida Vale Conservation Area and are unlisted buildings. Lauderdale Mansions were built in 1897-99 to designs by Boehmer & Gibbs in a free Queen Anne style. They typically comprise lower ground floor, raised ground floor and three upper storeys. Some of the blocks are taller and have a fourth floor. The top storey in either case is within the roof storey, which to Lauderdale Road comprises a steeply pitched tiled roof, with highly ornate Dutch gables to the centre. Upstands often with stacks and serried ranks of chimney pots subdivided the roofscape. The front facades are predominantly red brick, but with embellishments picked out in render/stone. All have full-height canted bays, bracketed balconies with cast-iron details, single-pane casements and columned porches. To the rear the blocks are rather more utilitarian, with none of the architectural flourishes of the front. They present as a series of large and deep canted wings, with gaps between them, faced in brick, typically with a centrally positioned chimney stack and a regular arrangement of sash windows. There are clear, street level views of this rear façade from Biddulph Road. Each block has a central lightwell and in each case the front half of the building is taller than the rear, with almost a storey height of roof void within the lower blocks, creating a distinct step in the section profile of the blocks. The front taller section of roof has a very

Item No.

1

slight stepped and sloping top, which then at the midpoint terminates in a steeply-pitched tiled roof. The rear half of the blocks represents the wide canted elements and the roofs to these are lower, flat and surrounded by a brick parapet. There is a regular distribution of chimney stacks across the roofscape. The end blocks of this group (118-138 and 250-258) are atypical occupying different plots sizes and with return elevations. The block containing flats 118-138, located at the eastern end of the group has a prominent townscape presence and its façade to Biddulph Road receives the same level of architectural embellishment as the front façade. The Maida Vale Conservation Area is primarily a Victorian and Edwardian residential suburb. Prior to the nineteenth century it was open farmland, but with the construction of the Grand Union Canal and the Regents Canal in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the suburban expansion commenced. The southern part of the area nearer to Little Venice is where the earlier residential properties are located, dating from the mid-nineteenth century, these tend to be classically detailed stucco houses, villas and terraces. During the course of the second half of the nineteenth century and during the early years of the twentieth century, the residential development progressed further north and west, but the housing differed with a greater number of red-brick mansion blocks appearing, in an eclectic range of styles, but often utilising Queen Anne Revival and Arts and Crafts features. The mansion blocks of Lauderdale Road, Castellain Road, Delaware Road, parts of Elgin Avenue, Widley Road, Wymering Road, Morshead Road and Essendine Road are all examples of this later phase of residential development. Lauderdale Mansions is a fine example of this very late-nineteenth century development in Maida Vale and all of the mansion blocks make a very positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Maida Vale Conservation Area. The proposal is to undertake alterations at roof level to create an additional storey of accommodation to all of the blocks, with the exception of the westernmost (containing flats 250-258). This will enable the creation of nine new flats. These new flats are formed by modifying and increasing in height the taller, typically void space, that form the front half of the roof. In addition to the new residential accommodation the proposals also include small areas of external terrace to each flat; the introduction of lifts within the lightwells and the formation of a fire escape route with associated structures. The lift will be housed in a glass framed enclosure and there will also be a glazed enclosure to the extended staircase which will lead to the rooftop escape route. These glazed elements will project above the rooftop, sitting between raised chimney stacks and have a pitched roof. The fire escape route will have metal railings for safety. The impact of the proposals to the front façade will be negligible, with the height of the tiled pitched roofs and the Dutch gables unchanged. The one exception to this is the easternmost block (containing flats 118-138) where the height of the tiled, pitched roof will rise by 1.05m, with the flanking chimney stacks raised proportionally. The main changes will be apparent to the rear where the new accommodation will result in a new rooftop façade replacing the current tiled pitched roof with an articulated arrangement of doors and windows, roof terraces and the glazed enclosures of the lifts and escape stairs. The large flat roofed areas of the large canted elements remain unaltered. The roofscape changes to the rear of the easternmost block (flats 118-138)

Item No.

1

are different because the roof shapes differ and there is already a lift within the lightwell of this block, which is roofed over. While the changes to the rear will certainly modify the appearance of the roofscape, it is assessed that the visual impact of these changes is very minor and not harmful. This is due to the fact that the alterations are mainly located to the front half of the roof and because of the presence of the large canted wings to the rear (the roofs of which largely remain unaltered), this part of the roof is not prominent, with almost no street level views. It is likely that a small area of the alterations will be visible from Biddulph Road in the space between the rear wings of the blocks containing flats 118-138 and 140-156; and between 140-156 and 158-174, but other than that any views of the changes are only likely to be possible from non-street level views, principally the upper floors of properties on Elgin Avenue. Even in these views, which have been modelled both by the applicant and by those objecting to the scheme, it is evident that the irregular but attractive roofscape and its silhouette will be maintained. The glazed enclosures and railings associated with the escape route will be discordant elements in these views, but their impact is still assessed to be minor. There are numerous similar examples of the alterations proposed to convert/replace the roof space to provide an additional level of residential accommodation (albeit without the glazed enclosures and lifts) which have been approved and built to the other two Lauderdale Mansion blocks, albeit in a less co-ordinated and uniform fashion than is proposed in this case. The key design policies against which such a proposal is considered are S25 (Heritage) and S28 (Design) of the City Plan; and DES 1 (Principles of Design), DES 6 (Roof Extensions and Alterations) and DES 9 (Conservation Areas) of the UDP. Of these policy DES 6 is particularly clear on the circumstances where alterations/extensions at roof level may be refused or granted permission. It is considered that the current proposals would not give rise to the circumstances which would indicate a proposal should be refused, i.e.:

• there would be no adverse effect on character or unity;

• while these mansion blocks are completed compositions, the effect of the proposal would leave this appearance unchanged;

• the building’s skyline profile, as it contributes to the area would be unaffected;

• the alterations would be neither visually intrusive nor unsightly;

• the distinctive roof form, which is appreciated from the front facades, with the Dutch gables and pitched tiled roofs would be almost completely unaltered. The exception to this is the raising in height of the tiled roof of the corner (easternmost) block by 1.05m. However, the change is not considered to adversely affect the appearance of the roofscape and will still ensure that the gables remain the prominent and dominant architectural feature.

It is considered that the impact of the current proposals would ensure that the character and appearance of Lauderdale Mansions is maintained and as such the statutory duty is fulfilled in accordance with S72 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Item No.

1

Finally, with regard to the NPPF, this sets out that heritage assets (in this case Lauderdale Mansions and the Maida Vale Conservation Area) should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance and that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets (the Maida Vale Conservation Area). It is considered that these requirements are achieved by the current proposals, however, there are a large number of objections to the proposal and among the points of objection is the harm caused to the building and to the conservation area. While the assessment of this report is that no harm occurs to any affected heritage assets by this proposal, but if the level of change is assessed to be harmful for the reasons set out by objectors, then it is certainly the case that the level of harm, using the terminology of the NPPF, is ‘less than substantial harm’. In such circumstances paragraph 196 of the NPPF makes clear that less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset (in this case the Maida Vale Conservation Area) should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate securing its optimum viable use. In this case the public benefit is the provision of 9 additional housing units. There are other benefits of the scheme such as provision of lift access to the blocks and improved fire escape measures, however, these are considered to be in the category of a private benefit accruing only to the occupants of the blocks and thus should be discounted. As such, whilst being mindful of policies DES5 and DES9 of the UDP, S25 and S28 of the City Plan, given the public benefits that would be delivered, which comprise the provision of 5 x 3bed flats and 4 x 1bed flats, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on the designated heritage asset(s). Therefore, the recommendation to grant conditional permission is compliant with the requirements of the NPPF and the statutory duties of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.”

8.3 Residential Amenity

Policies ENV13 in the UDP and S29 in the City Plan set out the amenity protections afforded more generally to existing occupiers and seeks to ensure that where there is an opportunity, new developments enhance the residential environment of surrounding properties.

Sunlight and Daylight With regard to the impact on daylight and sunlight, Policy ENV13 sets out that material losses of daylight and sunlight will normally be unacceptable: “The City Council will normally resist proposals which result in a material loss of daylight/sunlight, particularly to existing dwellings and educational buildings. In cases where the resulting level is unacceptable, permission will be refused.” In assessing the impact of development on daylight and sunlight the City Council follows the BRE guidance document "Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight, A good practice guide'. Objections have been received on the grounds of loss of light to the houses on Biddulph Road, Biddulph Mansions on Elgin Avenue, Lauderdale Mansions and the shared gardens of Lauderdale Mansions caused by the raising of the ridge line of the roof

Item No.

1

chimney stacks and enclosure of the fire escape stairs. Further objections have been raised relating to loss of light for the residents of Lauderdale Mansions from the inclusion of the lift shafts in the lightwells, raising of the ridge line of the roof chimney stacks and enclosure of the fire escape stairs. Biddulph Road, Biddulph Mansions on Elgin Avenue and shared gardens The new flats are contained largely within the envelope of the existing roof void of the building. The ridge line is to be raised marginally. The proposed enclosures for the new fire escape and lift shaft would increase the height of the building in places. However, the proposed new flats are set on the main body of the host building and not the large canted wings which are approximately 9 meters deep and as existing are the closets parts of the host building to the properties at the rear of the closest buildings on Biddulph Road 18.5 meters minimum and Elgin Avenue 22 meters minimum. Due to the height and depth of the existing canted wings and the distance between the works and surrounding buildings, when applying the BRE guidance 25º rule, It is evident the proposed extensions would not exclude light to a greater degree than is already experienced due to the height, mass and location of Lauderdale Mansions West in relation to the surrounding buildings. Due to the location of the closest buildings, the existing height of Lauderdale Mansions West and the location of the proposed extensions which are set back from the rear elevation of the canted wings by approximately 9 meters the works would not result in a loss of light for the surrounding residential buildings. Lifts in lightwells The lightwells as existing provide light into the stairwell of the main block and into spaces in the middle of the existing flats. It is officer’s understanding that in the original layouts of the flats and currently in many cases the windows facing the lightwells serve circulation space and bathrooms which are not offered the same protection as habitable rooms regarding light in the BRE guidance which states ‘that in the loss of light to circulation spaces and bathrooms does not need to be assessed as daylight is not required in the same way as for habitable rooms such as bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens.’ During officers site visit it was observed that many of the windows facing the lightwells were obscure glazed to prevent overlooking between flats on the opposite side of the lightwell. The applicant has submitted floor plans of flats which are available online which support the position that the lightwells do not serve habitable rooms. In addition, a letter from the planning agent appointed to represent residents’ states that the windows facing the lightwell serve hallways and bathrooms. However, flats have not been surveyed and officers have not visited the flats who have raised objections on loss of light due to the proposed lift shaft. The proposed lift shaft would not fill the whole light well and is proposed to be glazed allowing light to pass through it. The lift itself would be opaque so as to not allow views from those using it into flats, when not in use the lift would rest at ground floor level.

Item No.

1

Given the glazed nature of the lift shaft, the nature of the areas served by the windows onto the lightwell and that the shaft would not fill the whole lightwell it is not considered the introduction of the lift would result in a significant loss of light to existing residents which would justify the withholding of planning permission. Given the above it is not considered that the proposed works would result in a loss of light to the residential buildings which would justify the withholding of planning permission. Sense of Enclosure Due to the location of the extensions at roof top level and the relatively minor increase in roof height to accommodate the new flats their presence would not cause a material increase in the feeling of being enclosed for neighbouring flats. The proposed lift shaft, increased chimney stack height and glass enclosure to the fire escape stairs would appear in some views from the windows in the flank elevations of the canted wings at upper levels, however, given the existing presence of the chimneys and the glazed nature of the enclosure it is not considered the works would result in an increased sense of enclosure which would justify a refusal of the application.

Privacy Objections have been received on the grounds of overlooking towards the buildings to the north on Biddulph Road, Biddulph Mansions on Elgin Avenue and the residents in Lauderdale Mansions. Further objections have been received relating to overlooking from the proposed lifts into flats, from residents accessing the new cycle storage to the south east of the site in the communal gardens into ground floor flats, and from the private outside amenity space into neighbouring flats. Due to the location of the new flats which have windows and terraces on the north facing elevation only, a greater separation distance away than the existing windows on the rear of the canted wings to the lower floors of the host building and the distance between the host building and adjoining properties, it is not considered proposed flats would result in a level of overlooking towards neighbouring buildings on Biddulph Road or Biddulph Mansions on Elgin Avenue, than already exists. Residents using the lift would not be afforded views into flats due to the opaque glass of the lift which will be secured by condition. Screens have been added to the terraces to prevent overlooking towards windows in the upper floors of the canted wings. An objection has been received on the grounds that the new bike storage would increase overlooking into some of the ground floor flats. The bike storage is accessed via existing footpaths which all residents have access to creating an existing degree of overlooking from passing residents from time to time. The introduction of cycle storage would therefore not introduce overlooking to windows that do not already experience overlooking to some extent and it is not considered that any additional journeys past the windows would constitute a reason for refusal on the grounds of loss of privacy. Other amenity related objections Objections have been received on the grounds that the private amenity space would result in noise pollution for the existing residents and that the new flats would increase

Item No.

1

noise levels in the existing top floor flats. Given the size of the terraces which would not accommodate large numbers of people it is not considered there would be the potential for noise pollution. The new flats will be subject to building control and the requirement for noise insulation between the proposed and existing flats. Additionally, officers have added a condition ensuring that the construction of the new flats must not cause noise or vibration for the existing residents above a specified level. Objections have been received on the grounds that the residents of the top floor flats would suffer from increased disturbance due to the comings and goings of the new flats. The comings and goings would be no different to those experienced by the residents of all the other floors and no different to that expected in a block of flats and therefore not considered as a reason for refusal.

Given the above it is not considered the works would harm the amenity of neighbouring residents and are therefore in accordance with Policies ENV13 in the UDP and S29.

8.4 Transportation/Parking and Waste

Car Parking Several objections have been raised on the grounds that the proposed works would increase pressure on parking in an already congested area, increase congestion, the new bike store would restrict access to the bins and restrict parking for buildings and trades people working at the site. Objections have been raised contesting the parking assessment submitted by the applicant. The details as set out below address objections relating to parking.

Policy TRANS23 details an 80% on-street car park occupancy threshold above which the provision of additional vehicles to the on-street parking environment will result in an unacceptable level of deficiency. The addition of even one additional residential unit is likely to have a significantly adverse impact on parking levels in the area and this may lead to a reduction in road safety and operation. The most recent parking survey carried out in the area was in 2018. Broadly speaking this data has seen a downward trend for on-street car parking occupancy. With this in mind the evidence of the Council’s most recent nighttime parking survey in (2018 Buchanan’s) indicates that parking occupancy of ResPark bays within a 200 metre radius of the site is 79%. However, TRANS23 includes all legal parking spaces (e.g. Single Yellow Lines, Metered Bays, P&D, and Shared Use) as such with the addition of Single Yellow Line availability at night, the stress level reduces to 78%. In addition, the evidence of the Council’s most recent daytime parking survey in (2018 Buchanan’s) indicates that parking occupancy of ResPark bays within a 200 metre radius of the site is 68%. During the daytime within the area, the only legal on-street spaces for permit holders are Residential and Shared Use Bays. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site has a high level of public transport accessibility,

Item No.

1

households with 1 or more car in the Maida Vale Ward is 44% (2011 Census figures). The above indicates that considering the public transport options in the area a comparatively high number of residents still choose to own cars. The introduction of increased levels of residential in this area without off-street parking or on-street parking restraint is likely to increase the stress levels. However, on the basis of the Council’s latest data and car ownership levels any additional on-street parking generated by the proposed residential units can be absorbed into the surrounding street network. The Highways Manager has assessed the application based on the City Council[‘s latest survey data and not that provided by the applicant and the objection on the grounds of inaccurate information being presented in the applicants’ highways assessment is therefore not considered as a reason for refusal. The development is consistent with TRANS23 and the objections received on parking and congestion grounds are not grounds for refusal of the application.

Cycle Parking The LP requires 1 cycle parking space per 1 bed residential dwelling and 2 spaces for all larger units. Cycle parking will encourage residents away from less sustainable transport modes. Cycle parking must be suitable for use by all types of bike, in addition to being secure, accessible, weatherproof and within the development site. 20 cycle parking spaces are to be provided. A condition has been added to the permission to secure what is offered. Neither the Highways or Waste officer has raised objections to the location of the cycle or waste storage in relating to them obstructing each other. Similarly, no objection has been raised in relation to the impact on parking for trades people at site which is at present an informal arrangement. As such the objections relating to blocking access to bin storage and loss of parking are not sustained. Waste The Waste Project Officer raised an initial objection to the proposals. Following the submission of revised drawings, the Waste Project Officer has stated that the waste and recycling details as proposed are acceptable. A condition has been added to the permission to secure what is offered. The scheme is in accordance with TRANS 23 and would not increase parking and traffic in the surrounding streets to an unacceptable level and the objections on parking and congestion grounds are not sustained.

8.5 Economic Considerations

No economic considerations are applicable for a development of this size

8.6 Access

The flats will be accessed through the existing main entrances to the building accessed from street level. The new lifts will make the proposed and existing flats more accessible

Item No.

1

for people with mobility issues. 8.7 Other UDP/Westminster Policy Considerations

Noise There is no external plant proposed. Objections have been raised on the grounds of noise and vibration caused by the proposed lifts. The applicant has submitted a letter front Hepworth Acoustics dated the 6th June detailing the relevant guidelines relating to lift noise in residential buildings and the proposed mitigation measures required for the proposals at the site to meet the guidelines. The City Council’s Environmental Health Officer has stated that they have no objection to the proposed lifts and mitigation measures. A condition has been recommended to secure specific details of the mitigation measures prior to installation of the lifts. Biodiversity The site is location within s wildlife deficiency area. Due to the nature of the site opportunities for wildlife improvements are limited. The applicant has stated they will install bat and bird boxes to the shared gardens. The locations of the boxes are to be secured via condition and are not considered to harm the appearance of the building or the wider conservation area.

Sustainability The proposed works to provide the additional dwellings consist of extensions at roof level of the existing building with much of the existing building being retained for many of the new flats. The sustainability report submitted with the application outlines the measure that will be undertaken to improve the sustainability of the existing structure at roof level. The new works will be in accordance with current building regulations and will therefore be more efficient than the existing building. In terms of heating, the new flats will be powered by gas boilers as found in the rest of the building. Given the works are for an extension to the existing structure of the building there are limited opportunities to implement sustainability measures.

8.8 Westminster City Plan

The City Council is currently working on a complete review of its City Plan. Formal consultation on Westminster’s City Plan 2019-2040 was carried out under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 between Wednesday 19 June 2019 and Wednesday 31 July 2019 and on the 19 November 2019 the plan was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination. In the case of a draft local plan that has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public, under Regulation 22(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, having regard to the tests set out in para. 48 of the NPPF, it will generally attract very limited weight at this present time.

Item No.

1

8.9 London Plan

This application raises no strategic issues.

8.10 National Policy/Guidance Considerations

The City Plan and UDP policies referred to in the consideration of this application are consistent with the NPPF unless stated otherwise. Further to the Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018, the City Council cannot impose a pre-commencement condition (a condition which must be discharged before works can start on site) on a planning permission without the written agreement of the applicant, unless the applicant fails to provide a substantive response within a 10 day period following notification of the proposed condition, the reason for the condition and justification for the condition by the City Council. During the course of this application a notice was served relating to the proposed imposition of a pre-commencement condition to secure the applicant’s adherence to the City Council’s Code of Construction Practice during the construction phases of the development. The applicant has agreed to the imposition of the condition.

8.11 Planning Obligations

The estimated Westminster CIL payment is: £302,800 The estimated London CIL payment is: £60,560

8.12 Environmental Impact Assessment Not required

8.13 Other Issues

Construction impact on the structural integrity of the building A large number of objections have been received on the grounds that the proposed works would harm the structure of the building, principally caused by the additional weight. The objections state that the building has a long history of structural instability and which has resulted in numerous remedial works to stabilise the building over many years at a great cost to leaseholders and Westminster City Council. The objections also state that insufficient details have been submitted with the application. The lack of detail objections were received in relation to the initial neighbour consultation following which additional details were provided. On behalf of the resident’s objectors’ group, letters from Falcon Structural Repairs and The Morton Partnership have been submitted support the objections on structural grounds both of which are listed in the objection documents. Additionally, a letter from Matthew Reed QC relating to the consideration of the impact on the structure of the building, the potential harm to the building and residents should further remedial works be required and whether such factors should be considered as a material consideration has been submitted. Mathew

Item No.

1

Reed QC concludes that all three should indeed be considered. Accordingly, the structural detail submitted with the application, the objections from Falcon Structural Repairs, The Morton Partnership and legal opinion of Matthew Reed QC have been provided to the Head of Building Control. In assessing the details provided, the Head of Building Control has provided comment on the application stating that the details provided at this stage are adequate to demonstrate that the works can be carried out without causing further damage to the building and that there is no objection to the works on building control grounds. Regarding the impact of the works on the residents, the applicant has agreed to sign up to the City Councils COCP to allow the construction to be monitored by the Environmental Sciences Team. Further objections on structural grounds include the impact of the new lift on the building, the impact on existing drains, lack of drainage details in the application. As previously stated, the works would be subject to a Building Control application in which details of the above would be secured. Objections have been received on the grounds that the freeholder may not be able to secure subsidence insurance for/following the works. This is not a planning matter.

(Please note: All the application drawings and other relevant documents and Background Papers are available to view on the Council’s website)

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT PLEASE CONTACT THE PRESENTING OFFICER: SARAH WHITNALL BY EMAIL AT swhitnall@westminster.gov.uk.

Item No.

1

9. KEY DRAWINGS

Existing and Proposed front elevations

Existing and Proposed rear elevations

Item No.

1

Proposed floor plans

Item No.

1

DRAFT DECISION LETTER

Address: Lauderdale Mansions, Lauderdale Road, London, W9 1LX, Proposal: Erection of a roof extensions, creation of terraces and fire escapes, installation of lift

to the lightwell, cycle parking refuse storage all in association with the creation of 9 no self-contained residential units (5 x 3 bedroom 4 x 1 bedroom) with associated works. (Sites 118-258 Lauderdale Mansions).

Reference: 19/01391/FULL Plan Nos: 755/102 Rev A, 755/103 Rev C, 755/104 Rev C, 755/105 Rev A, 755/106 Rev A,

755/107 Rev C, 755 108 Rev B, 755/109 Rev B, 755/110 Rev D, 755/111 Rev B, 755/112 Rev B, 755/113 Rev A, 755/114 Rev B, 755/115 Rev B, 755/117 Rev A,

Case Officer: Max Jones Direct Tel. No. 020 7641

07866036849 Recommended Condition(s) and Reason(s) 1. The mix of residential units proposed, including five family sized units, fails to optimise the number of residential units on the site. Consequently, the site is not used efficiently to maximise housing delivery in the borough, contrary to Policy S14 in the City Plan that we adopted in November 2016.