SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations:

None

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area 76 sqm

Use Class Use Description

Existing C3 Residential garages (vacant)

Proposed Class B8 Storage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of a block of vacant residential garages and the erection of a single storey plus basement storage facility for motorcycles. The building would facilitate the storage of the applicant’s personal collection of motorcycles and would not host any commercial activities. The site would continue to be accessed via a lane leading from Kingsmead Road. The application was originally presented to members on 16th August 2016. Members resolved

ADDRESS: 70 Kingsmead Road, London

Application Number: 15/06299/FUL Case Officer: Sinead Winship

Ward: Streatham Hill Date Received: 20.11.2015

Proposal: Demolition of existing garages for the erection of a single storey building with basement for storage of motorcycles.

Drawing numbers: 070/PL/200; 070/PL/210; 070/PL/211; 070/PL/212; 070/PL/201 (rev a); 070/PL/250 070/PL/251; 070/PL/300; 070/EX/011; 070/EX/012; 070/EX/050

Documents: Design and Access Statement by YOOP Architects (rev A dated November 2015); arboricultural method statement by PJC Consultancy (rev 2 dated 6 January 2016); arboricultural impact assessment by PJC Consultancy (dated 16 December 2015); basement method statement ref 16/10672/SW by Albury S.I . Ltd (dated April 2016); basement impact assessment scoping study report by Geo-Environmental (dated May 2016); email from Martin Wright received 07/12/2015; email from Martin Wright received 08/12/2015; email from Martin Wright received 14/12/2015

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conditional Planning Permission

Applicant: Mr Henry James Bartlett-Ellis Flat 20 Heron House Pelican Estate Peckham London SE15 5NJ

Agent: Mr Gordon Evans YOOP Architects First Floor Compass House Pynnacles Close Stanmore Middlesex HA7 4AF

to defer the application and requested that a construction management plan (CMP) be submitted prior to determination. To date, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that construction could be undertaken without causing unacceptable disruption to the highway despite submitting a number of documents. Full details of the documents submitted pursuant to members’ requirements in section 6.5 of this report. Nonetheless, Officers maintain that the most appropriate way to secure an acceptable construction management plan is by way of a pre-commencement condition. Officers have sought advice from the Council’s Legal Services team who have confirmed that the lack of an acceptable construction management plan would not be a robust reason for refusal. The application has been fully assessed against national, regional and local policies and Officers are of the opinion that the application is in general compliance with the relevant policies. The proposed building would not result in any harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding area and there is not considered to be any detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers. OFFICER’S REPORT Reason for referral to PAC: The applications are reported to the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with section 4 of the Committee’s terms of reference; the application has been requested to be reported to the Committee by Councillor Liz Atkins and this request has been agreed by the Chair. 1 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site is located on the eastern side of Kingsmead Road and is a ‘backland’ site, to the rear of residential properties which front Kingsmead Road to the west and south, properties which front Northstead Road to the east and properties which front Palace Road to the north. Immediately to the south of the application site is an area of unused and undeveloped land.

1.2 The site contains 10 garages located in two separate single storey blocks occupying the northern and southern sides of the site, with 5 garages in each block. The site is accessed from Kingsmead Road via a narrow driveway located between No. 72 and No. 68 Kingsmead Road.

1.3 There are no significant trees located entirely within the site but there are a number located close to the boundary whose canopies and root areas encroach into it.

1.4 The surrounding area is predominantly residential, characterised by large scale residential dwellings with large plot sizes and rear gardens

1.5 The site is not located within a conservation area and does not contain any listed buildings. There are no listed buildings within the vicinity of the site.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: View of the existing access lane from Kingsmead Road

Figure 3: View of the application site as existing, facing the rear boundaries of No. 6 and 8

Northstead Road.

Figure 4: View of the existing garage block to be retained, facing the rear boundaries of No. 4 and 6 Northstead Road

Figure 5: View from the access lane, facing east towards the application site

Figure 6: Bird’s eye view of existing garages, facing west (approximate location of proposed building outlined in red)

2 PROPOSAL

2.1 The applicant has submitted an application for full planning permission for the demolition of one of the existing garage blocks and for the erection of a single storey building with basement for storage of motorcycles.

Description of Development

2.2 It is proposed to demolish the block of 5 garages currently occupying the southern portion of the subject site and construct a new single-storey plus basement B8 storage unit. It is proposed that he unit be used to store the applicant’s personal collection of twelve motorcycles.

2.3 The proposed building would measure 14.1m wide and have a depth of 5.2m to match the existing garage block. The siting of the proposed building would be unchanged from that of the garages it is replacing. A pitched roof is proposed with an eaves height of 2.4m rising to 4m at the ridge. The existing garage block has a flat roof with an overall height of 2.5m.

2.4 To facilitate the storage of motorcycles underground, a basement would be excavated to a height of 2.85m. No lightwells are proposed and the basement would not be visible externally.

2.5 To the front elevation, two sets of grey painted steel double doors are proposed to provide access to the unit. With the exception of five small rooflights to the southern roof slope, no other fenestration is proposed. The building is proposed to be constructed in red stretcher bond brickwork with red tiling on the roof slopes.

2.6 The proposed use of the building is to store a personal collection of no more than twelve motorcycles. The proposed use falls within the B8 (storage and distribution) use class.

2.7 The application site would continue to be accessed via the existing lane leading from Kingsmead Road. No alterations or works are proposed to the access lane.

Figure 7: Proposed ground floor front elevation, facing south

Figure 8: Proposed ground floor rear elevation, facing north

Figure 9: Proposed east elevation Figure 10: Proposed west elevation

Figure 11: Proposed site plan showing the proposed building (outlined in red) in the context of the existing garages to be retained

3 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There is no record of any planning applications having been received pertaining to this site, the garage block to the north of the site, or the undeveloped land to the immediate south of the site.

3.2 Prior to the submission of this application, the applicant sought pre-application advice regarding the erection of a building largely similar to that now proposed. The development proposed by the pre-application was for a B1 office use.

3.3 The Council responded to the request for pre-application advice in August 2015 and advised that B1 office use on the site was unacceptable in principle for a number of reasons which are summarised as follows:

Policy 21 of the UDP stated that smaller scale offices would only be supported where they were appropriate to the character and function of the area. Specifically, the area must have been: (a) In district centres; or (b) In the Central London Activities Zone and are essential at that location to support the operation of central London activities (e.g. essential ancillary cultural offices on the South Bank); or

(c) In local centres with good, very good or exceptional public transport accessibility; or (d) In a Key Industrial and Business Area; or (e) On sites previously or currently used for employment purposes appropriate in scale to the character and public transport accessibility of the area; or (f) Scheme of less than 200m2 as part of a mixed-use development”.

Insufficient site size to accommodate staff car parking that would likely be required owing to the sites poor access to public transport. It should be noted that the Unitary Development Plan was superseded by the Local Plan in September 2015, approximately one month after the Council provided the pre-application response.

3.4 The pre-application advice stated that Officers considered the bulk, scale and massing of the proposed building to be acceptable in principle with regard to design and neighbouring amenity. However, concerns were raised regarding the proposed use of timber cladding.

3.5 Within the pre-application advice, Officers stated that owing to the presence of a number of mature trees in the vicinity of the site, an arboricultural method statement must accompany any application for planning permission.

4 CONSULATIONS

4.1 Statutory Consultees

4.1.1 None

4.2 Other Consultees

4.2.1 Regulatory Services Noise Pollution – No response

4.2.2 Streetcare – No response

4.2.3 Urban Design – Comments received 07.12.2015 raising no objection to the scheme subject to one condition requiring the proposed rooflights to be of a traditional appearance with a central glazing bar.

4.2.4 Transport – Comments received 02.12.2015 and 08.12.2015 raising no objection to the scheme subject to a condition requiring a construction management plan to be submitted prior to commencement of development. Transport officers have also reviewed the numerous documents submitted by the applicant relating to construction management and have advised that they are not sufficient. Further commentary on transport’s comments and the CMP documents is provided in section 6.5 of this report.

4.2.5 Legal Services – Comments received 18.12.2016 raising no objection to the wording of condition 8. Further comments received 20.04.2016. Further comments received 20.04.2017 advising that it is not standard practice to refuse an application based on the lack of a construction management plan.

4.2.6 Arboricultural Officer – Comments received 22.12.2015 raising no objection to the scheme subject to one condition requiring the submission of a completed schedule of supervision and monitoring for the agreed arboricultural protection measures.

4.2.7 Building Control – Comments received on 29.06.2016. The Council’s Building Control team were asked to assess the basement impact assessment submitted by the applicant and stated that they had no adverse comments to make on the report.

4.2.8 Flood Risk Officer – Comments received 16.06.2016. The Council’s Flood Risk Officer assessed the basement impact assessment and stated that the report was sufficient.

4.2.9 Streatham Society – No response

4.2.10 Streatham Action – No response

4.3 Adjoining owners/occupiers

4.3.1 Public consultation was undertaken in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. Letters were sent to the occupiers of all properties with a boundary adjoining the application site on 20th November 2015. It was brought to the case officer’s attention that some adjoining occupiers had not received a copy of the neighbour notification letter and so the letters were resent on 14th December 2015.

4.3.2 Article 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 sets out the statutory requirements for public consultation by Local Planning Authorities. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), adopted in September 2015, sets out how the Council will meet statutory requirements with regard to public consultation.

4.3.3 In line with the requirements of the SCI, a site notice was not displayed during the consultation period for this application as the proposal does not constitute a major development as defined in Article 2 of the Development Management Procedure Order nor is it within a conservation area.

4.3.4 Following discussions with Cllr Liz Atkins, it was agreed that a further public consultation would be undertaken that would exceed the requirements within the SCI. Neighbour notification letters were sent to the occupiers of seven additional properties in the vicinity of the application site on 18th December 2015. The addresses of all properties consulted are as follows:

58 Kingsmead Road

60 Kingsmead Road

62 Kingsmead Road

64 Kingsmead Road

66 Kingsmead Road

68 Kingsmead Road

70 Kingsmead Road

72 Kingsmead Road

74 Kingsmead Road

76 Kingsmead Road

4 Northstead Road

6 Northstead Road

8 Northstead Road

10 Northstead Road

4.3.5 At the time of writing, 52 letters objecting to the development have been received from

50 members of the public. Should any further comments be received prior to the Planning Applications Committee meeting these will be reported in an addendum to this report. A summary of the concerns raised is set out in the table below:

Summary of objections

Officer’s Response

Consultation

The application has been granted planning permission without any public consultation.

No determination has been made on this application.

No site notice was displayed during the public consultation period.

A site notice was not posted as the application does not constitute a major development nor is it within a conservation area or contain a listed building. This is in line with statutory requirements and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

Local residents were not advised of the planning application.

Neighbour notification letters were sent to all properties with a boundary adjoining the application site on 20th November 2015 and again on the 14th December 2015. Neighbour notification letters were sent out to additional properties in the vicinity of the site as listed in paragraph 4.3.4 of this report. This exceeds statutory requirements and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

There has been a lack of community engagement.

Whilst Officer’s in their pre-application response did strongly recommend that the applicant undertake a consultation exercise with residents prior to submission of any application at the site, there is no statutory requirement for the applicant to do so.

No public consultation has taken place. The public consultation undertaken by the Council is described in paragraphs 4.3.1 – 4.3.4 of this report.

Lambeth have failed to consult with the community after being alerted to concerns by neighbours during pre-application discussions.

Public consultation has been undertaken as described in paragraphs 4.3.1 – 4.3.4 of this report. Owing to the concerns raised by neighbours during pre-application discussions, the applicant was strongly recommended to undertake a public consultation with the community prior to submitting any future application. It is understood that this was not done, however, there is no statutory requirement for the applicant to do so.

The proposal is a major development and should have been advertised as such.

The Development Management Procedure Order (2015) defines major development as “the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more”. The proposed development would therefore not constitute a major application.

Local residents were not made aware of the planning application until it was too late to object.

A further public consultation was undertaken on 18th December 2015 which notified the addresses listed in paragraph 4.3.4 of this report of the planning application. The neighbour notification letter stated that comments on the application would be accepted up to and including 8th January 2016.

No neighbour notification letters were sent to residents of Palace Road.

The application site does not share a boundary with any properties along Palace Road and as such neighbour notification letters were not sent to these residents. This is in line with statutory requirements and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

Land-use

The application is clearly for commercial premises which is not appropriate for a residential area.

The application seeks planning permission for a building to store a private collection of motorcycles. No commercial activities are proposed and Officers can assess only the impacts of the use that has been proposed. However, Officers do agree that a commercial unit would likely be unacceptable in this location and as such a condition is recommended restricting the use to the storage of motorcycles only. It is also recommended that Permitted development rights allowing a change between use class B8 (storage) and B1 (office) be removed by way of a condition. Should planning permission be granted and any other use subsequently be implemented at the site then the applicant would be liable to enforcement action.

The additional storey and proposed lift suggest that the application is for a change of use from residential to commercial.

The garage block was historically ancillary to the nearby residential properties and as such the current lawful use is C3 residential. The storage of a private collection of vehicles falls within use class B8 as it is not a use that is considered ancillary to a dwellinghouse. Nonetheless, the proposed use would not be considered to be commercial insofar as it would not be a business premises. Should permission be granted it would be expressly for the storage of a private collection of motorcycles only.

The unit may later be used for commercial storage purposes and not for motorcycles.

Officers do share resident’s concerns regarding future use of the site and as such a condition is recommended to strictly control the use. The use of the building for anything other than the storage of a private collection of motorcycles would require planning permission.

Neighbours have been informed by the applicant that he intends to use the building as an office for his business.

The applicant sought pre-application advice from the Council regarding a proposed B1 office at the site in August 2015. Officers advised that such a use would be unacceptable in principle. Officers maintain this objection to any future B1 use at the site. The application does not seek planning permission for a B1 office use and a condition is recommended restricting the use to that applied for, i.e. a private motorcycle storage unit. Should the applicant at a later date use any part of the unit as an office they would be in breach of this permission, should it be granted, and would be liable to enforcement action. It is not considered that an office could be ancillary to a storage unit for a private motorcycle collection.

The application represents a change of use from residential garages to B1 (office) / B2 (general industry) which is inappropriate for this area and contrary to LLP policies.

This application seeks planning permission for a change of use from residential garages to a storage use that would fall within class B8. Permission for a change of use to B1/B2 is not sought.

The proposal lends itself to business rather than person use.

Should planning permission be granted, a condition is recommended strictly controlling the use to the storage of a personal collection of motorcycles.

The site is unsuitable for commercial development.

Permission is not sought for a commercial development and as such Officers cannot assess the suitability of the site for such a use in the determination of this application.

Design

The proposals are not in keeping with the local architecture

The existing garages are in a dilapidated state and do not positively contribute to the area. The footprint of the existing garage block at ground floor level will be maintained although the massing will increase with the installation of a pitched roof. Although the roof form would not replicate that of the existing garage, it would not appear incongruous when considered in the context of the frontage properties to Kingsmead Road and Northstead Road. The proposed construction materials are characteristic of the local area. The Council’s Conservation and Design Officer has raised no objections to the proposals and does not consider that it would be harmful to the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed building would not be subordinate to its built context i.e. a flat roofed garage attached to a residential home.

Policy Q14 requires backland developments to be subordinate to the frontage properties. In this instance, the frontage properties are substantial two storey dwellings, many of which feature roof extensions. As such, it is not considered that the single storey plus basement building would fail to be subordinate to these sizeable dwellings.

Amenity

The proposed development will impact upon the visual amenity of a number of houses that surround the site due to a significant increase in height.

The existing garage block has a flat roof with a maximum height of 2.5m. The proposed building will have a pitched roof with a height to eaves of 2.4m rising to 4m at the ridge. As such, there would be an overall increase in height of 1.5m. The nearest window serving a habitable room is to the rear elevation of no. 72 Kingsmead Road and is located 28m from the proposed building. Windows to the rear of no. 8 and no. 10 Northstead Road are located approximately 35m from the proposed building. Owing to the distance of the proposed building from the closest habitable windows of the aforementioned properties, an increase in height of 1.5m would not result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure nor would it appear overbearing.

The proposed pitched roof would radically transform views across the area for those that have them.

The loss of views are not a material planning consideration and cannot be considered in the determination of an application. Nonetheless, the building would have a maximum height of 4m and be set 28m away from the nearest window serving a habitable room. The building would appear single storey above ground level and therefore would not be visually intrusive when viewed from neighbouring properties.

The site does not have access to electricity and the applicant will therefore be required to run a generator which will cause excessive noise for local residents.

Owing to the distance from the site to the nearest residential property it is not considered that a generator would result in excessive noise levels or an unacceptable level of disturbance for neighbours.

The proposed building will reduce privacy to neighbouring properties.

The proposed building would be single storey above ground level. The only glazing proposed to the building would be five rooflights to the southern roof slope. Owing to the siting, angle and height of the rooflights they would not allow for any unacceptable views of residential properties. The proposed building would not benefit from permitted development rights and therefore no alterations to install additional glazing could be undertaken without an application for planning permission.

The escalation in usage of what are small residential garages will reduce the amenity value of people’s gardens which are much needed quiet and private spaces.

The garage block that is proposed to be demolished is currently unused and as such it is accepted that this application would see an intensification of use. The proposed use would not be considered to cause excessive noise or disruption to residents. The use would see the storage of a maximum of twelve motorcycles and it is not anticipated that there would be frequent movements of vehicles to and from the site. Other uses within class B8 would be considered unacceptable with regard to noise and disturbance to neighbours at this site and as such a condition is recommended controlling the use to that applied for only.

Works to construct the building will affect the quality of life of neighbours.

Should planning permission be granted, a condition is recommended requiring a construction management plan to be submitted prior to the commencement of any works on site. This would ensure that measures to minimise impacts during construction would be employed.

The noise volumes of such a business will be unbearable and very disrupting to lives in the road.

The application does not propose the use of the building for the operation of a business. Should permission be granted, a condition is recommended to remove the permitted change between B8 and other use classes to prevent any future business use being implemented without planning permission.

Transport

The commercial nature of this application would lead to an increase in road traffic which would be dangerous for children living nearby.

The application does not seek permission for a commercial use. The Council’s Transport Officer has assessed the application and is satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable increase in road traffic. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that the motorcycles in storage would rarely be moved and as such vehicular movements would be very limited.

Daily use of the garage for storage with items being delivered and collected will be an ongoing source of noise in our quiet residential street.

As above, the agent has confirmed that the proposed building would be used for the storage of a personal collection of motorcycles which would rarely be moved. The proposed use would not result in daily collections and deliveries of items.

Object to the noise associated with commercial traffic delivering and picking up storage items overnight.

The proposed use would permit the storage of twelve motorcycles only. No commercial traffic would be associated with this use.

Increased traffic would lead to air pollution. Owing to the nature of the use proposed, it is considered that any increase in traffic would not be significant enough to result in an unacceptable increase in air pollution.

The access to the site is unsuitable for commercial use.

Whilst Officers do agree with this assessment, the application does not seek permission for a commercial use.

There is insufficient space for fire appliances to access the site.

Generally, fire vehicles must be able to be within 45m of a building or alternatively a fire hydrant can be installed at the applicant’s expense. The distance from Kingsmead Road to the application site is 46.8m. The London Fire Brigade Emergency Planning team have been consulted on the application and have stated that owing to the nature of the development (i.e. non-residential and with no employees on site) that the length of the lane is acceptable in this instance.

Access of residents to their garages will be severely affected.

The Council’s transport officer has not raised any concerns regarding ongoing access to the retained garages should the application be permitted. At ground floor level, the proposed building would have a footprint no larger than the existing garage. As such, the building itself would not impact upon access to the retained garages. Should permission be granted, a condition is recommended requiring a construction management plan be submitted and approved by the Council prior to the commencement of development. This would ensure that measures to minimise impacts during construction would be employed.

This appears to be a commercial development in a purely residential area where there is no access for services and where travel to the location will cause considerable disruption to local people.

The proposed use of the building is not commercial. Officers agree that owing to the poor access to public transport and lack of available space for staff car parking that the site would likely be unsuitable for a commercial use. As such, a condition is recommended restricting the use to the storage of motorcycles only.

Other issues raised

Why is the application being considered All planning applications submitted that meet the Council’s validation requirements must be considered and a determination made.

Owners will not give applicant permission to install utilities

This is a civil matter between the applicant and the land owners.

The proposed development would significantly affect the resale value of houses around it.

Impacts upon property values are not a material planning consideration and cannot be assessed in the determination of an application.

The neighbourhood is very concerned about this development as it is clearly a garage for the five homes to be built on the small plot besides the garage.

At the time of writing, the Council has not received any application for planning permission on the land to the south of the application site. Nonetheless, each application must be considered on its own merits and any use other than that applied for in this application would require the benefit of planning permission.

The applicant wishes to repave the area outside his garages and to gravel the access lane. The applicant does not own either the land to be repaved or the access lane and does not have permission to carry out the works.

This application does not propose any works to land outside of the garages or to the access lane.

The application will set a precedent for multi-storey houses on the land south of the site.

All applications are considered on their own merits.

The development may be a target for burglars.

Should planning permission be granted, a condition is recommended requiring that the proposed building comply with Secured by Design standards.

The proposed building would increase surface run off.

This has been addressed in the Basement Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant and will be discussed further in this report.

The application includes no mitigation measures for flood prevention contrary to Policy EN5.

This has been addressed in the Basement Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant and will be discussed further in this report.

The application does not incorporate sustainable design, including a living roof.

There is no policy requirement for a development to incorporate a living roof. However, a condition is recommended requiring the development to achieve BREEAM excellent. A further condition is recommended requiring the applicant to incorporate achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of 35% over that required by Part L of the Building Regulations 2013.

5 POLICIES

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The development plan in Lambeth is the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the London Plan (2015).

5.3 The National Planning Policy Framework was published in 2012. This document sets out the Government’s planning policies for England including the presumption in favour of sustainable development and is a material consideration in the determination of all applications.

5.4 The current planning application has been considered against all relevant national, regional and local planning policies as well as any relevant guidance. Set out below are

those policies most relevant to the application, however, consideration is made against the development plan as a whole.

The London Plan (2015) (FALP)

Policy 1.1 Delivering the Strategic Vision and Objectives for London

Policy 5.12 Flood risk management

Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage

Policy 6.1 Strategic Approach

Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity

Policy 7.2 An Inclusive Environment

Policy 7.4 Local Character

Policy 7.6 Architecture

Lambeth Local Plan (2015)

Policy D1 Delivering and Monitoring

Policy D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Policy D3 Infrastructure

Policy ED2 Business, industrial and storage uses outside KIBAs

Policy T1 Sustainable Travel

Policy T2 Walking

Policy T3 Cycling

Policy T6 Assessing impacts of development on transport capacity and infrastructure

Policy T7 Parking

Policy T8 Servicing

Policy EN4 Sustainable drainage and construction

Policy EN5 Flood risk

Policy EN6 Sustainable drainage systems and water management

Policy EN7 Sustainable waste management

Policy Q1 Inclusive environments

Policy Q2 Amenity

Policy Q3 Community safety

Policy Q5 Local Distinctiveness

Policy Q7 Urban design: new development

Policy Q8 Design quality: construction detailing

Policy Q10 Trees

Policy Q12 Refuse/recycling storage

Policy Q14 Development in gardens and on backland sites

6 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Land Use and Principle of Change of Use

6.1.1 Policy ED2 states that new B8 uses greater than 500sqm are most appropriately located in Key Industrial and Business Areas (KIBAs) or in railway arches.

6.1.2 Policy Q14 supports the redevelopment of previously developed backland sites but acknowledged that such development can be problematic with regard to amenity.

6.1.3 The application site comprises a block of five garages located on a backland site. The site is abutted by the rear boundaries of residential gardens in addition to an area of undeveloped land to the south. A further block of five garages to the north of the site are to be retained.

6.1.4 The garage block was historically ancillary to the nearby residential properties and as such the current lawful use is C3 residential. The garage block proposed to be demolished is understood to have been vacant for a significant period of time. The application site is not located within a district centre, the Central Activities Zone, a local centre or a Key Industrial Business Area (KIBA).

6.1.5 The proposed use is for the storage of a personal collection of twelve motorcycles. Although the use proposed is not commercial in nature it would nonetheless fall within use class B8, storage and distribution. The proposed storage unit would not be considered ancillary to a C3 planning unit. As such there would be a change of use from use class C3 (residential) to B8 (storage and distribution).

6.1.6 Although the existing garage does fall within use class C3 it is not a dwelling and the proposed change of use would not result in the loss of a housing unit.

6.1.7 The proposed building would have a gross internal area of 124sq m (including basement level) and therefore meets the policy aspiration that new B8 uses greater than 500 sqm be located either in KIBAs or in railway arches.

6.1.8 The proposal would constitute the redevelopment of a backland site for the purposes of Policy Q14. Policy Q14 (e) states that redevelopment is acceptable where:

(i) the replacement buildings are sited to maintain or improve upon

existing neighbour relationships; (ii) any increase in height (in relation to the existing development on the

site) will not have any adverse impact; (iii) forms and heights remain subordinate to its built context; (iv) existing accesses are maintained and adequately provides pedestrian

access, vehicle turning and access for fire appliances; and (v) access arrangements will cause no nuisance

6.1.9 Requirements (i) and (iii) of Policy Q14 (e) will be considered in the design section of this report. Requirement (ii) will be considered in the amenity section and requirements (iv) and (v) considered in the transport section. The proposed development would not result in the loss of any amenity space currently available to any residential properties and as such parts (a) – (d) of Policy Q14 do not apply in this instance.

6.1.10 Use class B8 is defined in the Use Classes Order as “Use for storage or as a distribution centre”. The General Permitted Development Order permits the change from B8 uses to B1 uses provided that the change relates to an area of no more than

235 sq m. Whilst the principle of the use of the site for the storage of twelve motorcycles is acceptable in principle, other uses permitted under class B8 and B1 would be inappropriate at this site.

6.1.11 The site is not considered appropriate for commercial uses falling within classes B1 and B8 owing principally to the existing access lane which is of an inadequate standard to allow for frequent vehicular movements. Furthermore, the application site is within an area of poor access to public transport and has a PTAL rating of 2. As such, provision would need to be made for staff parking which, due to its size, the site is not capable of providing. For these reasons, a condition is recommended restricting the use of the proposed building to the storage of the applicant’s private collection of motorcycles. Should the applicant wish to use the site for any other purpose an application for planning permission will be required.

6.2 Design

6.2.1 Policy Q5 of the Local Plan (2015) states that proposals will be supported where it is shown that design of development is a response to positive aspects of the local context and historic character.

6.2.2 Policy Q7 relates to urban design and requires new development to be of a quality design and have a bulk, scale/mass, siting, building line and orientation which adequately preserves or enhances the prevailing local character. Policy Q8 requires proposed building designs to be buildable and visually attractive. Poorly detailed and undeliverable built forms will be resisted.

6.2.3 Policy Q14 states that the redevelopment of previously developed backland sites (outbuildings, garage blocks etc.) has the potential to improve the appearance of what are often unkempt sites but can be problematic in terms of amenity. With regard to design, development is supported where the form and height of the proposed building remains subordinate to its built context. The replacement building must also be sited as to maintain or improve upon existing neighbour relationships.

6.2.4 The proposed building would have the appearance of a single storey structure at ground floor level and would match the footprint and siting of the existing garage. The existing garages, including those to be retained, are in a dilapidated state and do not make a positive contribution to the appearance of the area. As such, it is not considered that it would be desirable to maintain the existing character of the backland site.

6.2.5 Although it is acknowledged that the proposed building would not replicate the roof form of the existing garage blocks this is not in itself a consideration when assessing a development against Policy Q14. Instead, where an increase in height is proposed, impacts upon amenity are a key consideration. This will be assessed in the amenity section of this report.

6.2.6 In accordance with Policy Q14, the form and height of the proposed building would remaining subordinate to the frontage properties along Kingsmead Road and Northstead Road. In this instance, the frontage properties are substantial two storey dwellings, many of which feature roof extensions allowing for those buildings to appear three storeys in height. As such, it is not considered that the proposed single storey plus basement building would fail to be subordinate to the frontage properties.

6.2.7 Policy Q14 (e) (i) requires replacement buildings to be sited to maintain or improve upon existing neighbour relationships. The replacement building would have the same

siting and footprint at ground floor level as the existing garage and as such is acceptable in this regard. The existing building has a flat roof with a maximum height of 2.5m whilst the proposed building would have a pitched roof with an eaves height of 2.4m rising to 4m at the ridge. The maximum height of the proposed building would be 1.5m above that of the existing building. However, as the siting and footprint at ground floor level would be maintained it is not considered that the increase in height would unacceptably harm the sense of openness or stand out as a visually obtrusive element when viewed from neighbouring gardens.

6.2.8 The proposed construction materials, red brickwork and red/brown roof tiles, are durable and characteristic of the area and therefore comply with Policy Q7 of the Local Plan. Access to the proposed building would be from the courtyard via the existing access from Kingsmead Road and so there would be no disruption of existing frontages.

6.2.9 It is therefore considered that the proposed building would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the frontage buildings to Kingsmead Road and Northstead Road. Furthermore, the proposed building would not appear overly visually intrusive when viewed from neighbouring gardens nor would it fail to appear subordinate to the frontage properties. As such, it is considered that the proposed building accords with Policy Q5, Q7 and Q14 of the Local Plan.

6.3 Trees

6.3.1 Policy Q10 requires that new development take particular account of existing trees on the site and on adjoining land. Development will not be permitted where it would result in the loss of trees of significant amenity, historic or ecological/habitat conservation value, or give rise to a threat, immediate or long term, to the continued wellbeing of such trees.

6.3.2 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has reviewed the submitted arboricultural method statement and arboricultural impact assessment and has no objections to the proposals. Conditions are recommended requiring compliance with the arboricultural method statement and requiring the submission of a completed schedule of supervision following completion of construction works on site.

6.3.3 It is proposed to remove one tree, an elder, to allow for sufficient future vehicular access to the retained garages. This tree removal has been recommended regardless of the development and it is not a protected tree. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has raised no objections to the proposed removal of this tree.

6.4 Basement Construction and Flooding

6.4.1 Policy EN5(f) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) states that basement proposals (excluding self-contained dwellings in Flood Zone 3) shall incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to ensure the development is safe from all forms of flooding and does not increase flood risk elsewhere.

6.4.2 The applicant has submitted a basement impact assessment and basement method statement which have been reviewed by the Council’s Building Control team and the Flood Risk Officer. The Building Control Officer and Flood Risk Officer both stated that the conclusions within the reports are acceptable and that the basement excavation would be unlikely to result in any land instability or increased flood risk. The conclusions of the reports are summarised below.

6.4.3 The site is not located within Flood Zone 2 or 3 and is therefore at low risk of flooding. The nearest surface water feature noted within the Envirocheck Report was an unspecified water body located 218m to the south of the site boundary. Reference has been made to the publication “The Lost Rivers of London” which indicated the nearest lost river was the River Falcon c. 1000m to the north-west of the site which flowed from a source in Streatham into the Thames just to the west of Battersea . It is considered unlikely that the influence of this lost river on the water table stretches as far as Kingsmead Road. With reference to Environment Agency mapping, the site was indicated to be outside of any indicative tidal or fluvial flood zones, and any surface water flood zones or associated flood warning areas.

6.4.4 During site investigations no continuous groundwater body was encountered and water recorded within boreholes is thought to have been perched within the Made Ground. It is considered that any rain water infiltrating the London Clay will generally tend to flow vertically downwards at a very slow rate towards the underlying chalk aquifer at a significant depth beneath the site, or be contained as perched water within the more sandy and silty lenses and horizons. Due to the cohesive nature of the soils, the groundwater flow rate is anticipated to be very slow. Published data for the permeability of the London Clay indicates the horizontal permeability to generally range between 1 x 10-10 m/s and 1 x 10-8 m/s, with an even lower vertical permeability. The nearest recorded water abstraction point from groundwater (anticipated to be from the Chalk Aquifer located at depth) was a Public Water Supply located approximately 1.7km North-west of the site at Brixton Pumping Station operated by Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

6.4.5 As ‘perched’ water was present during the intrusive site investigations, it is deemed possible that water would enter the excavation and therefore may require some dewatering from sumps. This method would allow the ‘perched’ water within the basement area to be removed. A condition is therefore recommended requiring the development to be constructed strictly in accordance with the details set out in the basement impact assessment.

6.4.6 It is noted that concerns have been raised by neighbours regarding noise during the construction period associated with the excavation of land for the proposed basement. It is recommended that a condition is attached prohibiting works outside of 8am and 6pm Monday – Friday to minimise disruption to neighbours. Consequently, the imposition of such a condition, together with the separate regulatory remits of Building Regulations and Environmental Health, no significant detriment to the amenity of the surrounding residents is envisaged.

6.5 Traffic and Transport

6.5.1 Policy T1 states that the council will promote a sustainable pattern of development in the borough minimising the need for travel and reducing dependence on the private car.

6.5.2 Policy T3 requires cycle parking to be provided in accordance with the standards set in the London Plan (2015). Policy Q13 states that cycle storage in all development should be i) fully integrated into proposals from the initial design stage; ii) directly and conveniently accessed from outside the building; iii) inclusive, secure and safe to use; iv) in individual lockers/cupboards, or if necessary, in cycle stores shared by small groups of immediate neighbours; and v) covered, fully ventilated, robustly constructed and easy to maintain.

6.5.3 Policy T8 states that new development, and in particular non-residential and mixed-

use development, will be permitted where adequate provision is made for servicing appropriate to the scale, form and location of the proposed development

6.5.4 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 2 which is considered to be poor.

6.5.5 The existing garage block is understood to have been vacant for a considerable period of time and was noted to not be in use during the Officer’s site visit in January 2016. As such, the proposed demolition of the garages would not result in a loss of parking or a displacement of parking onto the surrounding roads.

6.5.6 Owing to the nature of the proposed use of the site as storage for a private collection of motorcycles, it is not considered necessary for the applicant to provide cycle parking.

6.5.7 Policy Q14 (e) (iv) states that where the redevelopment of backland sites is proposed, existing accesses should be maintained and adequately provide pedestrian access, vehicle turning and access for fire appliances. Policy Q14 (e) (v) states that access arrangements should cause no nuisance.

6.5.8 The application does not propose any alterations to the existing access lane or additional entrances to the site. The access lane is approximately 46.8m long and measures between 3.2m and 3.5m wide. Although the initial design and access statement submitted made reference to proposals to lay gravel on the lane, all references to this were removed in a revised statement. Access to the lane is controlled by a locked steel gate which it is understood only land owners and users of the garages have keys to.

6.5.9 The applicant has confirmed that motorcycles would be pushed down the lane and not driven. Furthermore, the applicant has stated that the motorcycles would rarely be moved from the site. As such, the nature of the use would not result in the creation of an unacceptable number of vehicular movements along the access lane.

6.5.10 Although the access lane is acceptable for the specific use proposed, it would not be adequate to serve a use falling within class B1 (offices) or other uses falling with class B8 (storage and distribution). The site suffers from poor access to public transport meaning that any staff and visitors related to any other use would likely be highly reliant on private cars. Furthermore, there is no space available within the curtilage of the application site for the provision of staff car parking or servicing and delivery areas. Therefore, as described in paragraph 6.1.10 of this report a condition is recommended restricting the use of the building.

6.5.11 Generally, fire vehicles must be able to be within 45m of a building or alternatively a fire hydrant can be installed at the applicant’s expense. The distance from Kingsmead Road to the application site is 46.8m.

6.5.12 The London Fire Brigade Emergency Planning team have been consulted on the application and have stated that owing to the nature of the development (i.e. non-residential and with no employees on site) that the length of the lane is acceptable in this instance.

Construction Management Plan (CMP)

6.5.13 Following a presentation by officers, members resolved to defer consideration of this application at August 2016 PAC until a CMP is received. The agreed minutes for the committee state:

“The Chair stated that the issues surrounding construction could not be left to a condition, as moving a condition that could not be fulfilled would essentially be a

refusal. She proposed that the decision be deferred to require the applicant to submit a construction management plan before the Committee make the decision.”

6.5.14 A CMP was received on 14 September 2016. The CMP was incredibly brief and failed to comply with parts a) – g) of condition 12. The applicant and their agent were advised that the CMP was wholly inadequate and failed to demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable impact upon the highway or neighbouring occupiers.

6.5.15 A revised CMP and associated site plan were received on 1 November 2016. The Council’s Highways team concluded that the CMP would be acceptable as a draft but not as the final document. The CMP stated that site operatives would arrive by public transport and that no skips would be left outside of the site boundary. All material deliveries were to be made on a ‘just in time’ basis at the boundary of the site.

6.5.16 The CMP site plan showed an area between the two existing garage blocks that would be used for deliveries and waste removal. Transport officers stated that this would not be acceptable as it would inhibit vehicular access to the retained garages. The applicant was requested to submit swept path analyses to demonstrate that access to all retained garages could be maintained through the construction period.

6.5.17 On 13 February 2017, the applicant prepared and submitted an access report and two site plans. The access report stated that machinery and materials would be stored in a small area demarcated on the site plans which the applicant owns. The access report states that materials will be taken from this area to skips on the road (i.e. Kingsmead Road). The access report was not prepared by a professional, was incredibly brief and contradicted the submitted CMP. The applicant was advised that this latest submission was unacceptable and that swept path analyses were still required.

6.5.18 Two swept path analyses were received on 28th May 2017. The first swept path shows a mid-sized car entering and exiting one of the retained garages. The swept path shows the existing scenario only and does not consider any areas that may be unavailable during construction. The second swept path demonstrates that an excavator could enter and leave the site in a forward gear, albeit only once approximately half of the existing garage is demolished. The swept path analyses again contradict the details provided in the CMP.

6.5.19 In the absence of a robust CMP, supported by swept path analyses, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that construction could be undertaken without causing unacceptable obstruction to the highway. Nonetheless, officers do not consider the lack of an acceptable CMP to be, in itself, a robust reason for refusal. Officers therefore strongly recommend that an acceptable CMP be secured by way of a pre-commencement condition. The applicant would then be unable to commence work until the Council are satisfied that construction can be undertaken without causing unacceptable disturbance.

6.5.20 Given the above discussion, it is considered that the proposed building and use would be acceptable with regard to transport and traffic subject to conditions.

6.6 Refuse and Recycling

6.6.1 Policy EN7 of the Local Plan deals with sustainable waste management and provides overarching requirements for waste management. Policy Q12 states that adequate refuse and recycling storage should be provided for all development.

6.6.2 No provision for refuse or recycling is shown on the submitted plans. However, owing to the nature of the use it is not considered that any waste would be generated. Again,

a condition restricting the use of the site to the storage of twelve motorcycles only is recommended to prevent any future change to a waste generating use.

6.7 Amenity

6.7.1 Policy Q2 states that development will be supported if it does not unacceptably harm the visual amenities of adjoining sites with regard to overlooking, loss of sunlight and daylight, creation of a sense of enclosure and noise.

6.7.2 The proposed use of the building for the storage of motorcycles is not anticipated to give rise to unacceptable noise levels. The applicant has stated that motorcycles would be pushed down the access lane and moved from the site infrequently. As such, any noise generated from the proposed use would not be considered to exceed that which would be expected from the existing lawful use as five residential garages.

6.7.3 The existing garage block has a flat roof with a maximum height of 2.5m. The proposed building will have a pitched roof with a height to eaves of 2.4m rising to 4m at the ridge. As such, there would be an overall increase in height of 1.5m. The nearest window serving a habitable room is to the rear elevation of no. 72 Kingsmead Road and is located 28m from the proposed building. Windows to the rear of no. 8 and no. 10 Northstead Road are located approximately 35m from the proposed building. Owing to the distance of the proposed building from the closest habitable windows of the aforementioned properties, an increase in height of 1.5m would not result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure nor would it appear overbearing

6.7.4 With regard to privacy, the proposed building would be single storey above ground level and the only glazing proposed is five roof lights to the southern roof slope. Owing to the siting, angle and height of the rooflights they would not allow for any unacceptable views of residential properties. The proposed building would not benefit from permitted development rights and therefore no alterations to install additional glazing could be undertaken without an application for planning permission.

6.7.5 Therefore, the proposed development would accord with Policy Q2 of the Local Plan.

6.8 Sustainable Design and Construction

6.8.1 Policy EN4 requires all non-residential development to achieve BREEAM ‘excellent’. London Plan Policy 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) notes that development proposals should be designed in accordance with the London Plan energy hierarchy, and should meet a 35% carbon dioxide emissions reduction over the 2013 Building Regulations.

6.8.2 No reference to sustainability measures have been included in the application materials however these details can be secured by condition. Conditions requiring the submission of a BREEAM assessment and energy statement demonstrating compliance with the above policies are recommended.

6.9 Community Safety/Designing out Crime

6.9.1 Policy Q3 seeks to create a safe borough for all users and to design out opportunistic crime, paying particular regard to shared space and communal areas within developments, and to ensure that materials and construction details are robust, durable and resistant to damage.

6.9.2 A condition requiring that the development meets ‘Secured by Design Standards’ is recommended should permission be granted.

7 Planning Obligations

7.1 No Lambeth Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution would be due as the development would be a storage unit which is not liable for CIL contributions in this area.

7.2 However, if the application is approved the London Mayoral CIL would be applicable and the estimated contribution would be £2,170. The London Mayoral CIL will be applied towards the cost of Crossrail

8 CONCLUSION

8.1 Subject to the recommended conditions set out below, it is considered that the proposed development of a building for the storage of twelve motorcycles would comply with the objectives of the Lambeth Local Plan. The principle of development is considered acceptable, particularly when considered in the context of the existing garages within the backland site.

8.2 The proposed building would be of an appropriate design and remain subordinate to the frontage properties along Kingsmead Road and Northstead Road. The proposed construction materials are characteristic of the surrounding area and the building would not appear overly visually intrusive when viewed from neighbouring properties.

8.3 The use proposed would not result in an unacceptable increase in vehicular movements and would be acceptable with regard to transport and traffic.

8.4 There would be no loss of sunlight/daylight or privacy to neighbouring residential properties and as such it is not considered that the development would give rise to any harmful amenity impacts.

8.5 The use of the building can be strictly controlled through the imposition of a condition requiring a further application for full planning permission should the building be brought into any other use.

8.6 The proposed development would be in general accordance with the London Plan (2015) and the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

9 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 Grant full planning permission, subject to conditions.

Conditions and Reasons

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the building hereby permitted, samples of the materials to be used in the external elevations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development hereby permitted shall be thereafter built in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and that it protects or enhances the character and appearance of the area (policies Q2, Q7 and Q14 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

4. No trees other than the 1 x elder tree as identified on the Approved Plan Drwg No. PJC/3087AO/15/B Rev: 01 within the approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by PJC Consultancy dated 16th December 2015, shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality. (Policies Q2, and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

5. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the details set out in the Arboricultural Method Statement Rev: 2 (PJC Consultancy dated 6th January 2016).

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality. (Policies Q2 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

6. The completed schedule of supervision and monitoring for the arboricultural protection measures as agreed under tree protection details submitted as part of the approved plans and documents under condition 5 shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 28 days from completion of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the approved tree protection details and to ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on the site which represent an important visual amenity to the locality. (Policies Q2 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

7. The use hereby permitted shall be carried on by only Henry James Bartlett-Ellis and

no other person, party or company. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or users of the area generally and to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway (policies Q2, T1 and T6 or the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any orders revoking and re-enacting those orders with or without modification) the building hereby permitted shall be used only for the storage of a private collection of motorcycles and for no other use. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or users of the area generally and to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway (policies Q2, T1 and T6 or the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

9. Prior to occupation of any part of the development a final code certificate shall be obtained confirming the development hereby permitted has achieved a minimum BREEAM New Construction rating of ‘Excellent’. Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability (policy EN4 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015))

10. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the building hereby permitted, plans and details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which demonstrate that the development will achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of 35% over that required by Part L of the Building Regulations 2013. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: The details are required ahead of work commencing to ensure that construction is undertaken in a way which does not preclude incorporation of energy efficiency measures. The condition is necessary to ensure that the achievement of the objectives of sustainable development identified in London Plan (2015) Policies 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

11. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the details set out in the Basement Impact Assessment (Geo-Environmental, May 2016). Reason: To avoid hazard in relation to land instability and increased flood risk caused by the basement excavation (Paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy EN5 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

12. No demolition or development shall commence until full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding:

a) The notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; b) Advance notification of road closures; c) Details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; d) Details regarding dust mitigation; e) Details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway; f) Details specifying how spoil is to be removed from the site; and g) Any other measures to mitigate the impact of construction upon the amenity of the area and the function and safety of the highway network.

No demolition or development shall commence until provision has been made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site or otherwise during the construction period in accordance with the approved details. The demolition and development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details and measures approved in the Method of Construction Statement. Reason: Development must not commence before this condition is discharged to avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and to safeguard residential amenity from the start of the construction process (policies 7.14 of the London Plan (2015); and policies T6 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

13. A certificate of accreditation to Secured by Design Standards shall be submitted to

the local planning authority for approval in writing prior to the occupation of the development. The development shall be constructed and operated to ‘Secured by Design Standards’. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

14. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted, details of the generator or any other service equipment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the approved details are implemented and the equipment shall therefore be retained for the duration of the use and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure appropriate appearance and that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers (policy Q2 and Q7 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

15. No demolition or construction works shall take place other than at the following hours: 08.00 Hours to 18.00 Hours Monday to Friday There shall be no demolition or construction works related to the development hereby permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers in accordance with policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).

Informatives 1 Building to Approved Drawing You are advised this permission is based on the dimensions provided on the approved drawings as numbered above. The development hereby approved must be constructed precisely in accordance with the approved drawings. Any deviation from these drawings requires the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

2. Nuisance Nuisance from construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:- A. Demolition and construction works which are audible at the site boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009. C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition. D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents. 3. Building Regs Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. 4. Party Wall Act The Party Wall Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify, and obtain formal agreement from, any adjoining owner, where the building owner proposes to: - carry out work to an existing party wall; - build on the boundary with a neighbouring property; - in some circumstances, carry out groundworks within 6 metres of an adjoining building. Notification and agreements under this Act are the responsibility of the building owner and are quite separate from Building Regulations, or Planning Controls. The Building Control Service will assume that an applicant has obtained any necessary agreements with the adjoining owner, and nothing said or implied by the Council should be taken as removing the necessity for the building owner to comply fully with the Party Wall Act. Further information and advice is to be found in "the Party Walls etc. Act 1996 - explanatory booklet" published by the ODPM, available free of charge from the Planning, Environment and Community Services Reception, Civic Centre, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW. 5. Private Property Rights Your attention is drawn to the fact that the planning permission does not override property rights and any ancient rights of light that may exist. This permission does not empower you to enter onto land not in your ownership without the specific consent of the owner. If you require further information or advice, you should consult a solicitor.