Location Plot 417 - 419 Streatham High Road London

Ward Streatham South Proposal Redevelopment of the site, involving the erection of part 2, part 3 and part 4 storey building to provide 56 flats comprising 11 x 1 bed and 45 x 2 bed, together with provision of 12 car parking spaces, cycle storage, landscaping and boundary treatment. Application Type Full Planning Permission Application No 06/04282/FUL/DC_LDO/23221 Applicant Aitch Group Agent KKM Architects - Andrew Prime

81 Maygrove Road West Hampstead NW6 2EG Date Valid 5 January 2007 Considerations Within 100m of Trunk Road Within 100m of Trunk Road Adopted UDP Archaeological area UDP Archaeological Area : A4 : Roman Road Approved Plans 205156/001, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 110, 120A, 121A, 122A, 123A, 130A, 131, 132, 133A, 134A, 135

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT

Officer Report 06/04282/FUL 1.0 KEY ISSUES 1.1 The main issues arising from this proposal relates to:

� The principle of the loss of the commercial use. � The appropriateness of the bulk and design of the building within

the context of the street scene. � The appropriate of the accommodation and the dwelling mix. � The impact of the proposal upon the amenity of neighbouring

residential occupiers. � The parking and transport implications of the proposal. � Sustainable development and renewable energy considerations. � The level of affordable housing provision.

2.0 SITE 2.1 The site is located on the eastern side of Streatham High Road, at its

southern end, just north of Norbury Station and the boundary with London Borough of Croydon. Streatham High Road is a Red Route, operated by Transport for London (TfL)

2.2 The site is currently vacant, but until recently was occupied by a part

two/part three storey purpose built public house, known as William IV. This was sold by Whitbread Group to the applicant in 2003 who has since demolished the building.

2.3 The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of building styles,

including two storey terraced houses to the north, a petrol station to the north west, 3-4 storey flat blocks to the west, and single storey commercial units to the south and south east.

2.4 The site directly adjoins a former petrol station to the north that has

also recently been demolished. 2.5 Norbury District Centre lies to the south of the site. The adopted UDP

maps show the site as being a secondary frontage, however the emerging UDP gives the site no designation. The application site does not lie within a conservation area, nor are there any listed buildings within the setting of the site.

3.0 PROPOSAL 3.1 The application is the fifth to be made for development of this site and

is for the erection of a part 2, part 3 and part 4 storey building containing 56 flats (28 of which would be for affordable housing) and

12 parking spaces. The proposal is identical to that which was refused in March 2006. (ref. 05/03850/FUL.)

4.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of planning

applications in the past and subsequent appeals have resulted in this application for the development as described above.

4.2 On 23 January 2004 planning permission was refused for the

redevelopment of the site involving the erection of a part five / part six storey building comprising 87 self contained flats together with 12 on site parking spaces and associated landscaping. (Ref 03/02649/FUL.)

4.3 The application was refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would result in the loss of an A class use on the subject site, with insufficient supporting evidence to demonstrate that the site is no longer viable for an A or D Class use. The proposal would fail to contribute to an active street frontage and would therefore undermine the vitality of the Norbury District Centre. 2. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, height, mass, bulk, footprint and design, would result in an overdominant and incongruous form of development in the street scene and would have an adverse effect on the character and visual amenities of the locality. 3. The proposed development by reason of its scale, mass, height, bulk, footprint and design, would appear dominant, overbearing and visually intrusive when viewed from the properties opposite on Streatham High Road and Green Lane, thereby resulting in an unacceptable sense of enclosure and loss of outlook, to the detriment of residential amenities. 4. The proposed development, by reason of the proximity to residential properties opposite on Green Lane, would result in unacceptable overlooking and an undue loss of privacy to habitable windows. 5. The proposed development would be likely to result in an increase in demand for on-street parking in an area where parking stress levels are at such a level that further development would be likely to lead to illegal parking, to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety. 6. The proposed development would fail to provide a satisfactory mix of residential units, resulting in a lack of larger units. The proposal would therefore fail to meet the housing needs of the Borough and would fail to provide a balanced and mixed community.

4.4 On 28 July 2004 a second planning application was refused for

the redevelopment of the site involving the erection of a part four/ part

five storey building comprising 71 self-contained flats together with on site parking spaces, cycle parking and associated landscaping (Ref. 04/01480/FUL). This application was refused for the same 6 reasons as stated above.

4.5 The first application referenced 03/02649/FUL and refused in January 2004, was considered at an Appeal Hearing and was dismissed on 21 December 2004 (Appeal Reference APP/N5660/A/04/1143644. However, when considering the Council’s reasons for refusal the planning inspector determined that, “the proposal would be acceptable in relation to vitality and viability of the area, living conditions of nearby occupiers, proposed mix of dwellings and car parking provision.“ The appeal was therefore dismissed only in respect of reason for refusal number 2 as “the proposal would be unacceptable because of the harm it would cause to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.”

4.6 In June 2005 the Council refused a third planning application for a

proposal to redevelop the site involving the erection of a part five storey building with a lightweight setback storey and part three storey building to provide 65 flats with associated car parking and landscaping. (Ref. 05/00999/FUL). The reasons for refusal were;

1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, height, mass,

bulk and footprint would result in an over dominant and incongruous form of development in the street scene and would have an adverse effect on the character and visual amenities of the locality.

2. Inadequate cycle parking is shown on site as part of the proposal.

4.9 In November 2005 The Planning Inspectorate dismissed a co-joined appeal against the decisions to refuse the second planning application refused in July 2004 (ref. 04/01480/FUL) and the third planning application refused in June 2005 (ref. 05/00999/FUL). However, the only grounds he agreed for dismissal were that both proposals would be, “harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the general streetscene”. He did not consider the cycle policy as sufficient grounds for a refusal.

4.10 In March 2006 the Council refused planning consent for a fourth

application for the redevelopment of the site involving erection of part 4 storey and part 3 storey building to provide 56 flats with associated carparking and landscaping. (ref 05/03850/FUL). The reasons for refusal were as follows; 1 The proposed development, by reason of its mass, bulk and footprint would result in an incongruous form of development in the street scene and would have an adverse effect on the character and visual amenities of the locality. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies H10 and CD15 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development

Plan (1998) and to policies 31, 32 and 35 of the emerging Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (2004 - 2017).

2 The proposal does not include any information on renewable energy or indicate that it is incorporating any renewable energy sources. This is contrary to policy 32a of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004)

3 The proposal fails to include any information on sustainable design and construction. This is contrary to Policy 32b of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004).

4 No information has been submitted to demonstrate the development will not place additional demand for existing educational places in the Borough, nor has any undertaking been given to provide an appropriate financial contribution to improve educational provision within the Borough, as such the proposal is contrary to Policies 27 and Policy 50a of the Revised Deposit Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2004).

4.11 In November 2006 the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal

against the fourth planning application on this site however, in regards to the first reason for refusal he concluded that, “This seems to me to be a suitable scaling down of the building” and “that on the main issue of character and appearance I conclude that the latest proposals would be satisfactory. ”

4.12 He also found that in regards to renewable energy requirements, given

the lack of any detailed guidance on good practice and as the proposal was a smaller building than the three previous proposals, none of which attracted renewable energy provision, “It would be unreasonable to dismiss the appeal on this basis” and in regards to sustainability, “Its provision (and subsequent compliance with agreed measures) could, I believe, be adequately covered by a condition.”

4.13 In order to try and overcome the 4th reason for refusal relating to a lack

of a contribution towards education provision the appellants agent had submitted a deed of undertaking on behalf of the applicants for a conditional payment of £30,000 towards educational purposes, however no information was submitted in regards to how they reached this figure or whether it was agreeable to the Council and as such this appeal was dismissed on the uncertainty surrounding the content and deed of the unilateral undertaking. All other aspects of the proposal were found to be compliant with policy by the Planning Inspector.

5.0 CONSULTATION 5.1 In total 401 consultation letters were sent to local amenity groups,

previous objectors and adjoining neighbours, including occupiers on

Streatham High Road, Green Lane, Briar Avenue, Granville Gardens, Pavilion Court, St Leonard Walk, Strathbrook Road, Commodore Road and Colmer Road.

5.2 4 site notices were displayed on the 25th of January 2007 and a press

advert was displayed on the 12th of January 2007. Responses

44 letters of objection from neighbouring occupiers have been received.

No. Letters sent No. of

Objections No. in support

No. of comments

360 43

1 0

Assessment

Material planning objections Response

� Unacceptable impact upon

parking.

� The planning inspector concluded in his decision notice in regards to the first two applications on this site for 87 and 71 units that even though parking stress in the area was at 90% and there might be displacement parking and inconvenience for existing residents, there were no exceptional circumstances that would have implications for road safety. Also as the site is close to a train station and a number of bus routes with regular buses, future occupiers would be encouraged to use means of transport other than the car. Given the current parking restrictions in the area the impact in relation to highway and pedestrian safety and convenience of existing users of the parking spaces would not be unacceptable. As such it is considered that scheme for 56 units with the same level of parking (12 spaces)

� Appearance and design of the development. � Loss of light, privacy and visual domination due to the scale and proximity of the development. � Loss of public house and lack of replacement facilities. � Impact on Local Transport infrastructure.

could not be refused on these grounds. � The planning inspector concluded in his decision notice regarding the appeal against the fourth scheme on this site (which is identical in appearance to this under consideration) that the appearance of the proposal and its impact upon the street scene was acceptable. � The planning inspector concluded in his decision notice regarding the appeals against the refusal of the first and second scheme that the distance to neighbouring properties was such that there would not be a loss of amenity due to loss of light, privacy or visual domination / loss of outlook. Given that this proposal is smaller in scale and massing than the first two schemes it is considered that a refusal on these ground could not be sustained. � The planning inspector concluded in his decision notice regarding the appeals against the refusal of the first and second scheme that the loss of the public house and the A class uses on the site in general would not harm the vitality and viability of the district centre and an entirely residential scheme on this site is acceptable. � Transport for London had no objections to the scheme and in fact stated that they would like to see a car

� Impact on trees. � Impact on health and

education services.

free development at this location. In addition the Inspector has previously concluded that impact of the development upon the area would not be unacceptable. � There are two trees subject to tree preservation orders located at the northern edge of the site. The proximity of the proposed development’s footprint is such that it is considered that these would suffer no damage from the new buildings’ foundations and, with adequate conditions these could be protected during the construction period. � Money would be secured via section 106 to off set the increased demand on education resources within the borough from new residents living within the borough. There is no planning mechanism in place to do the same in regards to health services.

5.3 LBL Transport and Highways: Have concerns in regards to the

application as the parking pressure within the area is at over 90% and additional stress is likely to cause a problem to pedestrian and highways safety.

5.4 LBL Design: Objects to the proposed development, the bulk and

massing is considered unresponsive to the local environment. 5.5 LBL Housing: States that the boroughs needs are for larger family

housing and as such the dwelling mix is not acceptable. 5.6 Thames Water: No objection. 5.7 English Heritage: No objection. 5.8 TfL: No objection.

5.9 Met Police Designing Out Crime: Has concerns in regards to security of the proposed development.

6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES

National Guidance 6.1 The following national guidance is considered particularly relevant to

this application: PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development. PPS3 – Housing. PPG13 – Transport. Adopted UDP:

6.2 The following policies of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) are considered relevant to this application: H1 Housing Provision H6 New Housing H7 Affordable Housing H10 Residential Development Standards H11 Dwelling Mix EMP6 Protection of land and buildings generating employment S9 Changes of use in secondary frontages CD14 Archaeology CD15 Design of New Development T10 On-Street Parking T17 Transport Implications of Development

Revised Deposit Draft

6.3 The following policies of the replacement Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2006) are considered relevant to this application: Policy 4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration Policy 9 Transport Impact Policy 10 Walking and Cycling Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint (interim) Policy 15 Additional Housing Policy 16 Affordable Housing Policy 27 Loss of Pubs (Interim) Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout Policy 31a Community Safety/ Designing out Crime Policy 32 Building Scale and Design Policy 32a Renewable Energy In Major Development Policy 32b Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 36 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Policy 43 Archaeology

6.4 The current up to date statement of the Council's planning policies is contained in the Replacement Lambeth UDP. This is now at an advanced stage in the process of adoption. Proposed Modifications were placed on deposit ending on 1 December 2006. The Council's Cabinet, in approving the Proposed Modifications recommended that:

"The Proposed Modifications, together with the unaltered parts of the Revised Deposit UDP, are approved for use for development control purposes".

6.5 Considerable weight can now therefore be attached to policies which

were not subject to objection at the Proposed Modifications stage and those that were recommended by the Inspector.

Other (including SPG) 6.6 The Council's following Supplementary Planning Guidance were also

considered relevant: � Guidelines / Policies for Residential Extensions and Alterations.

7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Land-use Issues 7.1 Two of the previous three applications (03/02649/FUL and 04/01480/FUL)

were refused on the grounds that the proposals would result in a loss of an A class use on the application site with insufficient supporting evidence to demonstrate that the site is no longer viable for an A or D class use. The schemes were also refused because the proposals failed to contribute to an active street frontage and would therefore undermine the vitality of the Norbury District Centre.

7.2 The loss of the public house was considered at the first appeal

hearing. The Inspector stated in the appeal decision (AAP/N5660/A/04/1143644) that the loss of the activity and associated frontage of a Pub (class A4) use at the site, would be likely to have a small effect on the vitality and viability if this part of the district centre. In addition, the Inspector made reference to the large number of retail vacancies in some of Lambeth’s District Centres.

7.3 Consequently, the Inspector considered that there was no need for

marketing evidence to support the loss of the public house and the loss of the A class uses on the site in general, as it would not harm the vitality and viability of the centre. The Inspector concluded that the proposal did not conflict with aims and objectives of UDP Policy 9 and the emerging UDP policies 4 and 27 and an entirely residential scheme on this site was acceptable.

7.4 Given this appeal decision the Council was not able to sustain an

argument for the loss of the public house during the assessment of the third application and nor are we able to do so for the proposal now under consideration.

Design Issues 7.5 PPS1 highlights Good Design as a key element of delivering

sustainable communities. For instance Para 33 states: ‘Good design ensures attractive, useable, durable and adaptable places and is a key

element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good planning.

7.6 Para 13 of PPS1 states, ‘Planning policies should promote high quality

inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. Design which fails to take into account the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted’.

7.7 Para 35 of PPS1 states: High quality and inclusive design should be

the aim of all those involved in the development process’. 7.8 CD15 [Design of New Development] of the adopted UDP and Policy 31

[Streets, Character and Layout] and 32 [Building Scale and Design] of the replacement Lambeth UDP requires development proposals to pay regard to the surrounding urban landscape in terms of established building lines and scale and the heights, massing, rhythm and roofscapes of the local streetscape.

7.9 All four previous applications on this site have been refused by the

Council due to the inappropriate scale, design and layout and the consequent impact upon the quality of the street scene.

7.10 However, the Inspector when considering the first appeal

acknowledged that the predominant height of buildings within the local area is between two and three storeys and the main buildings surrounding the site have a moderate scale and this is an important aspect of the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the Inspector stated that a five/six storey building over a large part of the site would result in a very substantial and bulky building of a completely different scale to the surrounding buildings.

7.11 Key points were raised by the Inspector in the first appeal decision

relating to design. Of particular importance to the assessment of the current application are the assertions that the site was considered to be suitable for a landmark building of high quality. However, in the Inspector’s opinion, a landmark building does not necessarily have to be very large. The aim of providing a landmark building of note can be achieved in a way that would be more in keeping with the predominant scale and character of the area.

7.12 In considering the first scheme the Inspector dismissed the appeal

scheme as it would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would conflict with aims and objectives of UDP Policies H10 and CD15 and EUDP Policies 31, 32 and 35. The Inspector also stipulated that the combination of the plan dimensions and height, would result in an incongruous and over dominant building that would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area.

7.13 The Inspector who determined the co-joined appeal in relation to the

second and third scheme determined that these schemes which were of part four and part five storeys and part three, part four and part five storeys had not overcome the conclusions of the first Inspector in this respect.

7.14 The fourth proposal (and therefore this fifth proposal) was for a part

two, part three and part four storey building. It was considered by the Council during the assessment of the fourth scheme that this site does lend itself to a scheme of 3-4 storeys if appropriately massed, laid out and designed. It was also considered that a development of 45-50 units would be possible.

7.15 In addition it was also considered that the northern corner has potential

for a 'landmark' building but that it should not prejudice development on the triangular site adjacent and that it should not present a blank frontage to the vista along Streatham High Road when looking south, but address this view. Since the site is awkwardly shaped, dual aspect units and clever positioning of different blocks on the site could be appropriate.

7.16 When considering the design of the fourth application, and so also this

proposal, the building was seen to present itself as one single block with a horizontal emphasis not responding to the different parts of the site in terms of its townscape relationship or site layout. The turret features present themselves as squat ungainly features that further add to the mass of the building rather than providing definition on these prominent corner elements of the site and the proposal made no transition in respect of height and mass. As such the Council was still concerned about overbearing and dominance of the building which would negatively impact on the overall vista.

7.17 The considered inappropriateness of the design, layout and massing of

the proposal comprised the first Council reason for refusal of the fourth scheme. However, when appealed the Planning Inspector dismissed this conclusion stating, “This seems to me to be a suitable scaling down of the building” and “that on the main issue of character and appearance I conclude that the latest proposals would be satisfactory.”

7.18 Given the fact that this fifth scheme exactly replicates the fourth, which

has been found by the Planning Inspectorate to be acceptable in terms of design, scale, layout and massing, it is considered that the Council cannot sustain a reason for refusal on this ground.

7.19 The proposal incorporates off white render and yellow stock brick walls,

galvanised metal balconies, lightweight aluminium cladding and a metal profile roof. The materials will be reserved for approval by condition to ensure satisfactory quality.

7.20 Policy 31a Community Safety / Designing Out Crime of the emerging UDP states that new development should enhance community safety and that development will not be permitted where it will increase opportunities for crime.

7.21 The Metropolitan Police crime prevention officer has highlighted

concerns in regards to security performance for the windows and doors and recessed door entries which could be crime generators. It is considered that these issues could be satisfactorily resolved using conditions. The general layout of the building and access to the site (if controlled and gated) are not considered to be of concern again conditions will be attached to ensure this.

Transportation Issues

7.22 The first and second applications were refused by the Council on the grounds that the developments were likely to result in an increase in demand for on-street parking in an area where parking stress levels are at such a level that further development would likely lead to illegal parking, to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety.

7.23 These schemes provided 12 parking spaces for 87 and 71 flats

respectively. The Inspector noted that parking surveys indicated that there is a significant demand for parking spaces and that stress within the area is severe and in the region of 90%. However he concluded that “while acknowledging that the significant demand for on-street parking which might lead to some displacement parking and inconvenience for existing residents, I do not consider that there would be exceptional circumstances that would have implications for road safety and that because it would be close to a train station and a number of bus routes with regular buses, future occupiers would be encouraged to use means of transport other than the car and given the current parking restrictions in the area the impact in relation to highway and pedestrian safety and convenience of existing users of the parking spaces would not be unacceptable”.

7.24 Given the above the Council was unable to sustain an argument for an

unacceptable impact upon parking and transport during the consideration of the third and fourth application. As this proposal (like the fourth) features 12 parking spaces for 56 flats, it is considered that the Council could not refuse this proposal on parking and highway grounds.

7.25 There have not been any highways and transport schemes identified

within the local area that would benefit from a s106 contribution.

Accommodation and Dwelling Mix 7.26 Policy H10 [Residential Development Standards] and H11 [Dwelling

Mix] of the adopted UDP, Policy 15 of the emerging UDP and supplementary planning guidance of the adopted and emerging UDPs require that that proposals of this nature meet the standards and

criteria set by the Council in terms of dwelling mix, minimum floor space for habitable rooms, window provision and ceiling heights.

7.27 The Council refused the first and the second schemes on the grounds

that with a mix of only one and two bedroom units there were insufficient numbers of family sized dwellings provided. However, the Inspector concluded that, “The project has been produced in conjunction with the Presentation Housing Association and the Council's housing department and has been designed to address the aspirations identified in the council's housing needs study 'Balancing Housing Markets'. This identified in the key implications a need for affordable housing and in the owner occupied sector encouraging the building of smaller one and two bedroom homes. It would be possible to provide larger units within the development, but given the identified local circumstances and assessed housing need, I consider that the mix of units proposed, which includes many affordable houses and one and two bedroom units, would help achieve the Council's aim for a balanced and mixed community.”

7.28 Consequently no objection was raised to the dwelling mix for the third

proposed scheme or the fourth. 7.29 The Housing department has stated that the aspirations of the borough

have changed and that there is a greater demand for family sized accommodation within the borough. However, this need has not yet been qualified in an updated housing needs study to replace the one used when the first and second schemes were determined. Without such up to date information it is considered that this reason for refusal cannot be legitimately reintroduced at this stage and therefore the dwelling mix for this application is considered acceptable.

Amenity Issues

7.30 The proposed development would sit 28ms away at its closest point to its neighbouring occupiers on Green Lane, 13-15ms away from the single storey commercial units located on he opposite side of Hermitage Lane and 26ms away from the nearest neighbouring occupiers on the opposite side of Streatham Road.

7.31 The Council refused the first and second schemes on the grounds that

the proximity to residential properties opposite on Green Lane would result in unacceptable overlooking and an undue loss of privacy to habitable windows.

7.32 When the Inspector considered amenity based issues in relation the

appeal against the refusal of the first and largest scheme of 87 units he looked at the loss of outlook, loss of privacy and loss of sunlight/daylight. He concluded that “while there may be some perception of overlooking from the windows of the proposal, I do not consider that this would be substantial or unacceptable” that “because the separation distances would be reasonable, the proposal would not

have additional and unacceptable visual impact in relation to the living conditions of nearby occupiers” and “the effect [of the proposal on sunlight and daylight] would not cause unacceptable harm to nearby occupiers.”

7.33 As such the Council was unable to sustain an argument for an

unacceptable impact upon neighbouring amenity during consideration of the third and fourth applications and as such the Council could not refuse this proposal on grounds of loss of amenity.

Sustainable development

7.34 Policy 32b [Sustainable Design and Construction] of the replacement UDP states that development of this nature should show, by mean of a sustainability assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. This should include, among other things, utilising environmentally friendly specification and materials and specifying the use of sustainable sources.

7.35 Given the stages of adoption at which the replacement development

plan was at during the consideration of the first three planning applications little weight was given to these policies. However it was given weight when considering the fourth application and as no information on sustainable design and construction was submitted at that time it was considered that the application failed to accord with development plan policy in that respect.

7.36 However when this decision was appealed the Inspector concluded

that the requirements of this policy could adequately be covered by condition. With this application the applicants have stated that the dwellings are designed and constructed to improve on the existing Building Regulations Part L, including improved u-values and air-tightness to save 11% energy demand, use of low water use fittings to save 11% hot water demand, high performance low-e glazing provided to reduce heat loss through the glazed areas, Low energy lighting specified for all apartments with 100% provision for affordable and private units, low energy lighting with timer and PIR controls specified for all common areas, external space and security lighting specified with low energy fittings, daylight controls and designed to reduce light pollution, energy efficient white goods with an A rating to reduce residents cont and energy consumption.

7.37 In light of the above conditions will be attached to any consent granted

to ensure the above and to enable the development to gain a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ Ecohomes Rating.

Renewable Energy

7.38 Policy 32a [Renewable Energy in Major Developments] states that within developments of this nature it is required to incorporate equipment for renewable power generation so as to provide at least 10% of their predicted energy requirement. It is considered appropriate

that a development of this size and nature, which is used intensively over regular occasions, should incorporate a renewable energy resource in line with government objectives to secure 10% of electricity generation from renewable resources by 2010. This policy has been endorsed by the recent planning inspectors report following the Inquiry into the emerging UDP.

7.39 This policy was not given weight during consideration of the first three

planning applications, however it was given weight when considering the fourth application and as no information on renewable energy was submitted it was considered that the application failed to accord with development plan policy in that respect.

7.40 However, when this decision was appealed the Inspector concluded

that, “the Policy states that further best practice guidance on the incorporation of renewable energy systems into new development may be introduced by the Council in the form of supplementary planning guidance during the lifetime of the Plan. The proposed qualification of the policy, and the lack, as far as I am aware, of any detailed guidance on good practice, brings a level of uncertainty. Given that the latest proposal is for a smaller building than the three previous proposals, none of which attracted the lack of renewable energy provision as reason for refusal, I consider it would be unreasonable to dismiss the appeal on this basis.”

7.41 Despite the Inspectors conclusions, with this proposal the applicants

have supplied full details of how renewable energy resources could be incorporated into the scheme and have committed to either using solar thermal power or solar photovoltaic cells to offset 10% CO2 emissions as well as signing up apartments to a green tariff provider. The incorporation of solar thermal panels or photovoltaic cells would have an impact upon the appearance of the development, for this reason, and as the applicants have asked that they reserve final decision between the two renewable energy options, conditions will be attached to any consent given to ask for further details on these matters.

Trees

7.42 There are two trees subject to tree preservation orders located at the northern edge of the site. The proximity of the proposed development’s footprint is such that it is considered that these would not suffer from damage from the new buildings foundations and that with adequate conditions these could be protected during the construction period. Harm to trees was never a previous reason for refusal in any of the other applications. As such Policy ENV8 of the adopted UDP that seeks to protect trees on construction sites and Policy 36 of the emerging UDP are considered satisfied.

Affordable Housing Provision

7.43 Policy H7 [Affordable Housing] of the adopted UDP and Policy 16 [Affordable Housing] of the Replacement UDP require the provision of

affordable housing in association with development of this scale. Under both policies, the normal expected level of provision is 50% of habitable rooms assuming a public subsidy, or 40% of habitable rooms with no public subsidy.

7.44 The applicants have provided a break down of the proposed allocation

of affordable housing stating that 9 one bedroom units and 11 two bedroom units would be for social rented housing, 2 one bedroom units and 6 two bedroom units would be for shared ownership and the remaining 28 2 bedroom units would be for private housing. This works out at 73 out of 157 habitable rooms being allocated to affordable housing which is 45% of the proposed habitable rooms. Given that there is no public subsidy to the scheme this is compliant with policy requirements.

7.45 The split between social rented housing and intermediate housing

would be 70:30 as policy requires.

Educational contribution 7.46 Policy 26, (Community Facilities) states that in developments capable

of accommodating 10 or more residential units where the development creates or exacerbates an existing shortage of community facilities (such as increasing the residential population) then new facilities or contributions towards improving the existing facilities will be required.

7.47 Under Policy 50a, Planning Obligations, the Council will, where

appropriate, enter into legal agreements with developers, and seek the attainment of planning obligations, having regard to any Government guidance and supplementary planning guidance.

7.48 Policy 26 and 50a tie in together and define contributions to education

as an appropriate example where planning obligations can be sought. The education department have recently issued an executive report that highlights the population projection for Lambeth and the resulting growth in the school population suggests that a significant increase in school places will be needed by 2015 in both the primary and secondary sectors. As such contributions to school places will be sought from all residential new build, change of use and conversion development proposals where the scheme results in a net increase of 10 or more dwellings. All dwelling sizes are included in the calculations, the child yield accounts for less children living in small flats and there is a deduction of 75% for affordable homes.

7.49 Consideration has been given to the likely impact of the development

on the demand for primary school places within the Borough. An assessment of future numbers of primary and secondary school children, likely to occupy the proposed development and require education within the Borough, has been carried out in accordance with the Councils Draft Supplementary Planning Document for education contributions. This calculation indicates a likely child yield for Primary

education of 7.065 and a child yield of 2.415 for Secondary education. This would result in a contribution of £69,763 for primary education and £36,436 for Secondary education. This gives a total contribution of £106,198 which the applicants have agreed to pay.

S106 Summary

7.50 To safeguard the Council’s position regarding Affordable housing, and to secure contributions towards primary and secondary education needs likely to arise from the development it is recommended that the applicant be required to enter into a Section 106 to secure :-

(i) the provision of 45% Affordable residential accommodation with a 70:30 split between social and intermediate housing.

(ii) a contribution of £106,5198 for primary and secondary

school education facilities within Lambeth. 8.0 CONCLUSION: 8.1 The planning inspectorate has determined that the design, massing

and layout of the proposed development is acceptable. 8.2 The planning inspectorate has also determined that the dwelling mix

and the impact upon parking and highway safety is acceptable. 8.3 Sustainable development and renewable energy requirements are

considered met subject to conditions. 8.4 The planning obligations of the proposal are considered to be

satisfactory subject to s106 agreement. 9.0 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted

subject to a section 106.

Summary of Reasons: In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant: Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) Policies:H1 Housing Provision, H6 New Housing H7 Affordable Housing, H10 Residential Development Standards, H11Dwelling Mix, EMP6Protection of land and buildings generating employment, S9 Changes of use in secondary frontages, CD14 Archaeology, CD15 Design of New Development, T10 On-Street ParkingT17 Transport Implications of Development. Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) Policies: Policy 4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration, Policy 9 Transport Impact, Policy 10 Walking and Cycling, Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint (interim), Policy 15 Additional Housing, Policy 16 Affordable Housing, Policy 27 Loss of Pubs (Interim), Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout, Policy 31a Community Safety/ Designing out Crime, Policy 32 Building Scale and Design, Policy 32a Renewable Energy In Major Development, Policy 32b Sustainable Design and Construction, Policy 36 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design, Policy 43 Archaeology 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 Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2 Prior to the commencement of any site works the implementation (Stage 1) of the Tree Protection Method Statement by ACS Consulting received 19/08/05 shall be agreed in writing between the Planning Arboricultural Officer and appointed Arboricultural Consultant. Reason: The existing trees on site represent an important amenity feature which, if lost, would impair the character of the area. (Policies G10, H10, ST7, ST31, CD15 and ENV7 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 3 Following approval of Stage 1 of the Tree Protection Method Statement by the Local Planning Authority, all approved pruning works shall be carried out in accordance with the 'Tree Work Schedule' (Stage 2) contained in the Tree Protection Method Statement document by ACS Consulting received 19/08/05.Reason: The existing trees on site represent an important amenity

feature which, if lost, would impair the character of the area. (Policies G10, H10, ST7, ST31, CD15 and ENV7 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 4 The entire root areas of the trees to be retained shall be protected in accordance with the 'Tree Protection Fencing' specification (Stage 3) outlined in the Tree Protection Method Statement document by ACS Consulting received 19/08/05.Reason: The existing trees on site represent an important amenity feature which, if lost, would impair the character of the area. (Policies G10, H10, ST7, ST31, CD15 and ENV7 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 5 The installation of hardstanding and all boundary treatment in proximity to trees shall be carried out in accordance with the 'Construction of Access Routes and Hard Standing' specification (Stage 5) contained in the Tree Protection Method Statement document by ACS received 19/08/05.Reason: The existing trees on site represent an important amenity feature which, if lost, would impair the character of the area. (Policies G10, H10, ST7, ST31, CD15 and ENV7 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 6 Samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building work commences and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies CD15 and G17 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 32 and 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 7 Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on drawings already submitted, no development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping which shall include indications of all existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows on the site and details, including crown spreads, of those to be retained. None of the trees, shrubs or hedgerows shown for retention shall be removed or felled, lopped or topped, without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity. (Policies CD15, ENV7, ENV9, G10, H10, and ST31 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 8 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any

trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme, which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development. (Policies CD15, ENV7, ENV9, G10 H10, and ST31 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 9 The protective fencing to protect existing vegetation on the site during construction shall be erected, retained and maintained in accordance with the approved Tree Survey and Tree Protection Method Statement prepared by ACS Consulting. The approved fencing, shall be erected prior to and works commencing on the site and shall be retained and maintained until all building, engineering or other operations have been completed. No work shall be carried out or materials stored within the fenced area without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Any variation in the protective fencing must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to erection. Reason: To ensure that the crowns, boles and root systems of the shrubs, trees and hedgerows are not damaged during the period of construction and in the long term interests of local amenities. (Policies G10, H10, ST31 and ENV8 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 10 The refuse and recycling storage hereby approved to serve the development shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and recyclables on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies ENV24 and CD15 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policies 9, 32 the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 11 Prior to the first occupation of the proposed development full details of a car park management strategy to include means of control of access to the site, maintenance strategy for the car park gates, parking control within the site, etc shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the car park management strategy is to be implemented prior to first occupation and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Head of Planning .Reason: To manage parking for the safety of highway users. (Policies T9, CD15 and ST28 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 12 Prior to the first occupation of the development all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and

reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary. Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users (Policies T9, CD15 and ST28 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 13 No part of the development shall be occupied until the visibility splays shown on the approved drawings have been provided on both sides of the access and the area contained within the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction, including vegetation, exceeding 600mm metres in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway. Reason: To provide adequate intervisibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access (Policies T9, CD15 and ST28 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 14 A sign reading 'No Reversing Into Street' shall be erected in a prominent position adjoining the exit before the use commences and shall thereafter be retained in the approved position for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway (Policies T18, T34 and T38 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 15 No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until the provision for cycle parking shown on the application drawings has been implemented in full and the cycle parking shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use. Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport. (Policies G39, G40 and T36 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 16 Adequate precautions shall be taken during the construction period to prevent the deposit of mud and similar debris on the adjacent public highways in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users (Policies T17 and T18 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policies 9 and 31 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 17 No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policy T17 and T18 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9 and 31 of

the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 18 A Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the use hereby permitted commencing. The measures approved in the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the residential use hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained in writing to any variation. Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the site are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (Policy T17 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (1998), and Policy 9 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 19 No works or development shall take place until full details of how the proposal will incorporate sustainable design and construction principles that enable the development to gain a 'very good' or 'excellent' Ecohomes Rating have been submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The proposal will thereafter be constructed in accordance with these standards. Reason: In order to adequately address sustainable design and construction considerations. (Policy 32b of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 20 Not withstanding the drawings hereby approved, prior to construction details for the installation of equipment for renewable power generation so as to provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement of the development will be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The proposal will thereafter be constructed in accordance with these details. Reason: In order to gain the required wider benefits to the environment and future occupiers of the development. (Policy 32a of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) 21 Not withstanding the drawings hereby approved, prior to construction of development details of how the proposal shall comply with the principles of secure by design shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposal will thereafter be constructed in accordance with these details. (Policy 31a of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006) refer.) Notes to Applicants: 1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.

3 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division. 4 As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following- name a new street- name a new or existing building- apply new street numbers to a new or existing building. This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below. Rachel Harrison Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: rharrison1@lambeth.gov.uk tel: 020 - 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9131