no - lambeth jan pa… · around the crowne plaza. the methodist mission site was in a mixed use...

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 21.01.2020 ADDENDUM: AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS Page / Paragraph No Report Changes Decision Letter Changes ITEM 3

Land Adjacent To 156 Stonhouse Street To The Rear Of 154-164 Clapham High Street

19/01554/FUL

Page Number Report Changes Decision Letter Changes

32 Insert after Figure 8 (Figure 8 also included for reference):

Figure 8 Proposed Clapham High Street block front elevation

No

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 21.01.2020 ADDENDUM: AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGENDA ITEMS Page / Paragraph No Report Changes Decision Letter Changes

Figure 8b Existing Clapham High Street block front elevation

33 Insert after Figure 10:

No


Figure 10b South view on Stonhouse Street, towards the Clapham High Street CA (existing application building annotated in red)

37 Amend the second paragraph of 9.1 as follows:

16/05293/FUL - Application Withdrawn - Decision date: 20.11.2017 The part change of use, conversion and extension of the site to deliver new homes and commercial space - commercial units at ground floor fronting Clapham High Street and 28 residential apartments (including one, two and three bed units) with shared amenity space, landscaping and associated works.

No


Case Officer Comments: The above application formed the previous submission, which was not supported by officers. During the assessment process, several matters were raised and the applicant was advised to withdraw the proposal and resubmit a revised scheme having addressed the concerns. Issues which have since been addressed include the following:

The scale of the rear extension was previously larger and impacted on

neighbouring properties on Stonhouse Street.

Coordination between the Council and developers of both the current site and

the neighbouring development site on Stonhouse Street in order to ensure

neither development is prejudiced

Retention of features to the existing façade

Increased quality of amenity space

Daylight and Sunlight issues resolved

42 Amend the sixth paragraph of 10.3 as follows:

RSS – Environmental Health

There is no objection to the proposal, subject to the following: o Submission of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan

(Condition 8) o Submission of an asbestos survey (Condition 10) o Submission of a remediation strategy, should any land contamination be

found on site during development (Condition 11) o Submission of a noise impact assessment in relation to all machinery and

plant (Condition 23) o Submission of an noise assessment showing proposed units to have

applicable levels of internal noise (Condition 24) and a post installation noise assessment (Condition 25)

o The applicant has provided an Acoustic Assessment Report which states that noise impact from the nearby ‘Infernos’ nightclub on

No


Clapham High Street could be mitigated through appropriate glazing and ventilation. This is accepted; however, noting that many of the peak levels of noise result during antisocial hours and is difficult for the nightclub to control. As such, in addition to the sealed windows, it should be demonstrated that all units can achieve NR25 criteria, including a post-installation noise assessment to ensure there is no impact (Conditions 24 and 25).

o Due to windows being fixed shut, mechanical ventilation will be required in some units and must achieve noise levels less than existing background noise (Condition 22).

o Submission of an external lighting scheme to show that the proposed lighting will not have an unacceptable impact on any existing or proposed dwellings (Conditions 26 and 27)

46 Amend Paragraph 12.1.4 as follows:

12.1.4 Within the current report however, the worst case scenario in terms of retention of A1 floorspace is taken and it is assumed that the enlarged basement and mezzanine floors would come into use as ancillary storage space rather than trading floorspace. Taking this position, there would be a 59sqm loss of A1 retail floorspace to the double fronted unit; however the 195sqm trading floorspace proposed to be retained is considered sufficient to maintain the commercial viability of the unit. It should be noted that retail occupants would have the ability to use basement and mezzanine levels if required. There would be an overall net loss of approximately 454sqm of storage space; however the majority of the existing space is of poor quality and usability, located multiple floors above the shop floor with only inhibited stepped access to it. On inspection, it was noted that the current occupier uses only the 266sqm within the first floor for storage, albeit very sparsely, and both the second and third floors remain unused (see Figure 15b). The improved quality and accessibility of the 462.6sqm of space proposed is considered to sufficiently compensate for the loss in floorspace and would ensure that the viability of the retail unit is not compromised. The proposal therefore complies with LLP Policies ED6 and PN5.

No


Figure 15b Existing front block second floor

60 Insert Figure 16b below Paragraph 13.6.7

No


Figure 16b Stonhouse Street (east) elevation. Windows to be fixed shut annotated in blue.

ITEM 4 36-46 Albert Embankment 19/03500/FUL

Page number Amendment Change to decision notice?

119 The table of the ‘Relevant Site Designations’ incorrectly reports that Vintage House is Locally Listed Building. It is not.

No.

125. Members are advised that the only changes made to the exterior of the building compared to the extant planning permission are:

No.


No changes made to the north elevation as consented.

Two areas of change proposed to the external appearance on the east-facing (railway) elevation;

o to reduce the extent of louvres at third floor, to be replaced by glazing to hotel rooms; o amend some pedestrian access doors at ground floor level that support a revised twin

escape stair per core strategy required for the proposed hotel use

No changes to the south elevation as consented except for the widening of the cycle entrance door to improve ease of access to the cycle parking area.

No changes to the west elevation (albert Embankment) as consented.

129 Paragraph 5.2.2 is corrected to advise that a total of 10 (ten) representations were received. One (1) making a neutral contribution, four (4) in support and five (5) objecting. All grounds of objection were reported in the officer report.

No.

131 In Table 1 under the heading “Transport” the following is added to the officer response to the neighbour ground of objection: Officers can confirm that service and delivery vehicles will be directed along Goding Street and not along Vauxhall Walk. This represents an improvement to the extant permission (16/00795/FUL), where service and delivery vehicles are directed along local residential streets.

No.

134 Table 2 reports that Staybridge Suites Mews in an existing hotel, however it is actually serviced apartments.

No.

134 Paragraphs 7.1.14 to 7.1.18 discuss whether the proposal would harm the balance of uses in the area. In addition to this, officers provide the following information. Both the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 and the draft London Plan 2019 provide limited guidance about how to determine when an area would have an over-concentration of hotel uses that would result in harm to the balance and mix of uses in an area. The supporting text at paragraph 6.102 of Policy ED14 of the draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan 2020 provides some additional guidance and states that generally two hotel uses should not be located together. The proposal would be consistent with this guidance. The issue of over-concentration and harm from hotels was discussed by the Inspector in the November 2019 appeal decision for the Lambeth Methodist Mission, 3-5 Lambeth Road – LBL ref. 18/03890/FUL (the Methodist Mission decision). In this decision the Inspector considered

No.


that harm could result from a loss of facilities and services that were important to the community or from a shift in the mix of uses. In regards to the current application, the principal of the loss of the petrol filling station was established under application 16/00795/FUL. The image below shows the location of alternative petrol filling stations. The loss of the petrol station may cause inconvenience for some residents, but there are alternatives available, and its loss is supported overall given the council’s policies supporting the reduction of car usage and encouraging sustainable modes of transport. Importantly, the proposal will not result in any harm from the loss of any community facilities and services or specialist shops.

Other factors that the Inspector found material in the Methodist Mission decision that are relevant to the current application are:


The hotels around the Methodist Mission site were generally scattered around the area, with no significant clustering of hotels. A review of Figure 12 in the officer report demonstrates that the application site would not itself be part of a cluster of hotels, with the nearest clusters beginning to form in the Vauxhall district centre or further to the north around the Crowne Plaza.

The Methodist Mission site was in a mixed use block that was distinctly different to the character of nearby residential areas. The application site is similarly located in a mixed use area (see Figure 13), with predominately residential areas being to the east beyond the railway tracks. The proposal would not harm residential areas.

The Inspector considered there was little evidence that hotel guests would be drawn to nearby residential streets, given that transport infrastructure (Waterloo station and Lambeth North tube) was in the opposite direction to residential areas. The nearest transport infrastructure to the application site is Vauxhall station and bus and cycle services along Albert Embankment. The majority of hotel guests are projected to travel towards Vauxhall and along Albert Embankment and not into residential streets.

Factors would have suggested the proposal resulted in a harm to the balance and mix of uses would have been:

i) that the hotel was to be constructed in an area that was predominantly residential in character;

ii) that large numbers of guests would have been drawn to predominately residential streets;

iii) that the hotel resulted in the loss of facilities and services important to the local community;

iv) that the hotel was next to another hotel or in a significant cluster with other hotels; v) that the hotel was preventing the development of other uses needed in the area. In

this regard please refer to paragraph 7.1.16 which advises that the council is forecast to meet its housing growth targets even if the site comes forward as a hotel. Please also refer to council policy (ED6) that directs retail uses into the Vauxhall district centre and neighbourhood centres; and

vi) that roads and paths were not able to cope with additional traffic, cyclists or pedestrians. In this regard, please note that the applicant has agreed to a contribution of £150,000 to install pedestrian and cycle paths along Goding Street as required;


vii) it was not possible to mitigate other impacts of the hotel. In summary, officers are of the view that the proposal will not result in any unacceptable harm to the balance and mix of uses in the area surrounding the application site.

137 The second bullet point in paragraph 7.2.4 should read as follows: The Council’s conservation and design officer has advised the proposal would achieve design excellence in terms of form, silhouette, materials and detailing (subject to conditions), would make a positive contribution to the skyline; and that there would be no adverse impact on the significance of strategic of local views (this is discussed separately at paragraphs 7.2.42 to 7.2.47);

No.

137 Paragraph 7.2.7 should read as follows: The proposal would also comply with Policy Q24 (River Thames) of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015. Although most of this policy applies to properties with a direct frontage to the River Thames, the proposal would comply with this policy because it would not have any unacceptable impacts on views from the river or from the opposite bank. Strategic and local views are discussed separately at paragraphs 7.2.42 to 7.2.47 of this report.

No.

142-143 Paragraph 7.2.37 provides a list of the public benefits that flow from the development. In addition to these the following benefits are reported:

Low Traffic Neighbourhood contributions: £20,000 payment towards the implementation of the Council’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood project. This project aims to reduce traffic in local streets and prioritise cycling and walking including for staff to the hotel.

The carbon reduction public benefit is amended as follows:

Carbon reduction: the proposed hotel building would far exceed London Plan carbon reduction targets. A carbon offset contribution to be used towards sustainability projects.

(note: no offset contribution is required as the proposal meets reduction targets)

No.

145-149 Paragraphs 7.4.1 to 7.4.10 provide an assessment of the daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development. In addition to this information officers provide the following information.

No.


The sunlight information for Peninsula Heights (p. 149) is to be entirely replaced with the information below. Spring Gardens Spring Gardens is located to northeast of the application site on the opposite side of the railway tracks. The building is used as a mix of student housing and hotel rooms. VSC: In total 180 windows were tested. Of these 127 passed the VSC test. Of the 53 windows that did not pass the VSC test, 44 would have a VSC value above 20.0. The remaining 9 windows all serve bedrooms in the student accommodation, achieve VSC results shown in the table below. All of these windows achieve the NSL/DD guidelines. NSL/DD: Of the 180 windows tested, 176 passed the NSL/DD test. The four windows that did not pass this test belonged to three bedrooms in the student accommodation and achieve the NSL results shown in the table below. All of the windows achieve the VSC guidelines.

Window VSC before proposal

VSC after proposal

Fraction of former VSC value

NSL before proposal

NSL after proposal

Fraction of former value

W1/2401 bedroom 1 22.5 17.5 0.78 pass pass pass

W2/2401 bedroom 2 21.5 17 0.79 pass pass pass

W4/2401 bedroom 3 7.5 6.5 0.87 27.55 20.07 0.73

W5/2401 bedroom 4 12 9.5 0.79 pass pass pass



W8/2401 bedroom 7 22 16.5 0.75 pass pass pass

W11/2401 bedroom 8 17 14.5 0.85 48.51 37.62 0.78




W10/3401 bedroom 12 26.5 23 0.87 89.90 70.12 0.78


W11/3401 bedroom 12 27 23.5 0.87

The BRE Guide states that impacts to bedrooms are less important than impacts to living rooms, dining rooms and kitchens. On this basis, and considering that all of the 13 windows (in 12 bedrooms) pass either the VSC or NSL test, it is officer’s view that the impacts to daylight should be considered as minor for all of these bedrooms. All others losses are considered to be negligible. 1-10 Shaftsbury House, 1-10 Cromwell House and The Black Dog public house, Vauxhall Walk In total 24 windows serving 15 rooms have been assessed at 1-10 Shaftsbury House, 23 windows serving 14 rooms at 1-10 Cromwell House, and nine windows serving seven rooms at The Black Dog public house. Of these windows only four do not pass the VSC test – two windows at 1-10 Shaftsbury House and two windows at 1-10 Cromwell House. All rooms passed the NSL test. The two windows that do not pass the VSC test in 1-10 Shaftsbury House are secondary windows to rooms with other windows that pass the VSC test. The primary windows achieve a VSC value that is 0.97 their former value. The two windows that do not pass the VSC test in 1-10 Cromwell House achieve a fraction of 0.75 and 0.79 of their former value. It is officer view that any impacts to these four windows would be minor. The proposed achieves the BRE Guidelines related to sunlight for all windows and to overshadowing of private open space. Peninsula Heights Peninsula Heights is the closest residential building to the application site and is the building that will experience the greatest reductions in daylight and sunlight if the proposed building is construction. In regards to daylight, the proposed development will result in VSC and NSL (DD) losses to flats in Peninsula Heights as shown in the table at Attachment 1. In summary, the results show that


the greatest reductions in daylight will be at the flats at the lower levels, and that reductions decrease at higher levels. The results also show that the proposal scores poorly against the VSC test, but in all cases except for Flat 5, Flat 6 and Flat 10 that the proposal achieves the NSL test. Based on these results, it is officer’s view that the impacts to daylight should be considered as moderate for Flats 5, 6 and 10, and minor to moderate for Flat 11 and Flat 16, and minor for all other flats in the building. In regards to sunlight, 68 rooms were assessed for loss of sunlight and it was found that of these 53 (78%) meet BRE Guidelines. The 15 rooms that do not meet BRE Guidelines are located in flats, 5, 6, 10, 11, 27, 30, 33, 35 and 38. Of these 15 rooms:

Annual APSH: 10 of the rooms would reach an annual APSH of at least 15% (and 7 would reach an annual APSH of 20%). The remaining 5 rooms (one located in each of flats 27, 30, 33, 35 and 38) contain windows that are part of dual aspect rooms that are predominately south facing – these windows are secondary windows.

Winter APSH: 14 of the 15 rooms would achieve the winter APSH target of 5%, and the final room only misses the target by 1%.

Officers are of the view that the impact to individual flats should be considered as follows:

Flats 5 and 10 – moderate harm. All of the rooms in these flats (2 bedrooms, a kitchen and reception room for Flat 5, and 1 bedroom a kitchen and reception for Flat 10) will not achieve the annual APSH of 25%, but would achieve values ranging between 15% and 22%, and the kitchen of Flat 10 would only achieve a winter APSH of 4%.

Flats 6 and 11 – minor to moderate harm. Flat 6 would have one bedroom, and Flat 11 would have a kitchen and bedroom that will not achieve the annual APSH of 25%. The achieved values would range from 20-21%.

Flats 27 and 30 – minor harm. Only one room would be impacted in each flat, and the effected windows are secondary windows.

Flats 33, 35 and 38 – negligible harm. These are very large flats with multiple rooms. The relatively minor loss of annual APSH to one window in each flat is unlikely to be noticeable for these flats.

In regards to overshadowing, there is no shadowing of the Peninsula Heights and its associated amenity space by the proposal after 11am at any time of the year.


Merano (formerly Eastbury House) The Merano building has been designed such that rooms are orientated to the east and west and do not rely on the application site (to the south) for good levels of daylight. The only windows impacted are to non-habitable bathrooms. In regards to sunlight, the proposal would only impact bathrooms, which are not habitable rooms considered for sunlight purposes. Therefore a technical analysis of this property is not required. 5 Glasshouse Walk (The Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre) The proposed development would impact on the levels of daylight to the Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre. The known results of all habitable rooms (18 windows in 7 rooms) is provided in the table below. In summary, there will be some minor to moderate impacts to some of the smaller rooms (offices and a kitchen) in the community centre. However, both of the main community rooms (indicated as open room 1 and open room 2 in the table below), which are of the greatest benefit to the community, will still continue to receive good amounts of daylight. Given that community members will still enjoy good daylight levels while using the main community rooms, the overall impacts from the reduction in daylight to the building is considered to be minor to moderate overall. The BRE Guidelines are intended for residential use, but may also be applied to non-domestic buildings where the occupants have a reasonable expectation of daylight.


VSC after proposal


NSL before proposal

NSL after proposal


W1/100 open room 1 21.7 28.6 0.86 69.84 69.47 0.99

W2/100 open room 1 21.2 18.6 0.88

W3/100 open room 1 14.4 8.6 0.60

W8/100 open room 1 22.8 22.8 1.00

W7/100 open room 1 22.7 22.7 1.00


W8/100 open room 1 22.5 22.5 1.00

W5/100 open room 1 22.2 22.2 1.00

W4/100 open room 1 22.1 18.7 0.85

W1/101 open room 2 31 24.8 0.80 42.96 41.76 0.97

W2/101 open room 2 30.9 13.9 0.45

W3/101 open room 2 30.8 14.4 0.47

W4/101 open room 2 32.2 32.2 1.00

W5/101 open room 2 33 33 1.00

W7/101 office 1 30.3 16.1 0.53 unknown

W1/102 office 2 31.8 14.6 0.46 98.70 85.81 0.87

W2/102 kitchen 31.7 15 0.47 98.66 75.91 0.77

W5/102 office 3 31.6 16.4 0.52 99.92 99.83 0.99

W6/102 office 4 31.5 17.1 0.54 unknown

Analysis The proposed development would result in some reductions in daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties. The greatest impacts are to Peninsular Heights. Other properties, including the Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre, are impacted but this is to a far less degree. Officers are of the view that the proposed impacts are appropriate for this part of the borough, particularly given that the application site is in an opportunity area, the CAZ and a dense urban area developed with buildings of a similar scale and bulk.

150 Paragraph 7.4.13 should read as follows: The potential noise impacts from the development include from the restaurant/bar, extraction equipment, and plant and trunking. The application was referred to the Council’s environment health consultant which recommended the following conditions to ensure the development would not result in unacceptable noise disturbance to future guests of the hotel, workers in the offices or neighbouring residents: condition 42 (Environmental noise), condition 43 (Insulation of noise and vibration for the commercial uses), condition 44 (Details of plant and trunking), condition 45 (Plant acoustic assessment) condition 46 (Noise and vibration from plant and services), condition 47 (No amplified noise above background levels), condition Error! Reference source not found. (Hours of operation) and condition 48 (Operational management plan for A class

No.


uses). The environmental health consultant raised no concerns, subject to these conditions being imposed.

156 A new paragraph is added after paragraph 7.7.9: Policy G5 Urban greening of the London Plan 2019 states that developments that are predominately commercial should achieve an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) of 0.3. The proposed development would exceed this requirement and achieve an UGF of 0.4.

No.

159 The list of planning obligations is updated to include the following new or modified obligations:

Obligation Description

Cycle hire membership Cycle hire membership for hotel employees for a period of 3 years.

Highway Works Entry into s278 agreement with TfL in relation to Albert Embankment highway works (repairs/improvement) being in keeping with the wider Albert Embankment improvements and obligation to liaise with TfL on any proposed works. This could include (but not be limited to) works associated with changes to existing crossover and reallocation of existing utility cabinets (located on Albert Embankment near the junction with Glasshouse walk). Details to be agreed with TfL; and Entry into s278 agreement with Lambeth Council in relation to Glasshouse Walk highways works. This would include (but not be limited to) works associated with the creation of a new crossover for servicing. Details to be agreed with Lambeth.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods contribution

Financial contribution of £20,000 to be used towards the Council’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods project. This is in response to

No, but the list of planning obligations is updated.


additional pedestrians and cyclists that will use the local street network.

159 Members are advised that the CIL amount is £6,392,280.

No.

166 Condition 2 is replaced with the following condition: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans with reference numbers 1003-P000-00, P0001-00, P1000-00, P0002-00, P0003-00, P0004-00, P0005-00, P0006-00, P0007-00, P0100-00, P0101-00, P102-00, P0200-00, P0201-00, P0300-00, P4000-00, P4100-01, P4101-01 to 4104-01; 2993-JW-100-P02, 101-P01, 102-P02, 103-P01, 104-P03, 105-P01 to 114-P01, 116-P01 to 129-P01, 200-P01, 201-P02, 202- P02, 203-P01, 210-P01, 211-P02, 212-P02, 213-P01 to 216- P01, 220-P01 to 222-P01 other than where those details are altered pursuant to the requirements of the conditions of this planning permission. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Yes, condition 2 replaced.

170 The first paragraph of Condition 16 is reworded as follows:

A. No demolition or development (excluding demolition) shall commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions, and all of the following:

Yes, condition 16 modified.

181 Condition 61 is replaced with the following condition: Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, an external foyer management plan with design details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted plan shall include details of: - Proposed drop off and pick up arrangements for taxis; - Measures to ensure the safety of pedestrians; - Proposed monitoring arrangements of use by taxis of the foyer; and - The kerb showing a height of 125mm for disabled ramp access.

Yes, condition 61 replaced.


The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained for the duration of the development. Reason: To mitigate unacceptable impacts on the local highway network (policy T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2015 and T4 of the draft London Plan 2019).

183 New informatives 10 and 11 are added as follows to clarify discharge of condition 34 and 61: 10. In relation to condition 61, you are advised that the management plan should give consideration to the drop off and pick up of passengers from both Black Cab and Private Hire Vehicles. The submitted plan to include details which demonstrate the taxi rank shall be clearly marked and provided with a kerb height of 125 mm for disabled ramp access. 11. In relation to condition 34, a number of recommendations related to the ecological value of the Site are discussed in the EcIA. These include; the provision of new and increased areas of soft landscaping, including enhanced green infrastructure across the Site both at ground and roof level.

Yes, new informative 10 and 11.

ATTACHMENT 1 – VSC and NSL results for Peninsula Heights.


VSC after proposal


NSL before proposal

NSL after proposal


93 Peninsula Heights, Flat 5

W7/201 bedroom 1 35.5 11.5 0.33 82.17 52.24 0.62

W8/201 bedroom 2 34.5 11 0.32 98.06 80.59 0.82

W9/201 kitchen 34.56 11 0.32 94.83 71.45 0.75

W10/201 reception 34 11.5 0.34 99.97 99.83 1.00

W11/201 reception 33.5 11 0.33

W12/201 reception 33.5 31 0.92

93 Peninsula Height, Flat 6

W1/201 bedroom 1 20 17 0.85 83.50 82.92 0.99

W2/201 kitchen 22.5 18.5 0.82 89.58 89.49 0.99

W3/201 reception 25 19.5 0.78 100.00 96.27 0.96

W4/201 reception 36.5 10.5 0.29

W5/201 reception 36.5 11.5 0.32

W6/201 bedroom 2 36 12 0.33 98.65 66.15 0.63

93 Peninsula Height, Flat 10

W9/202 bedroom 32 9.5 0.30 97.97 89.70 0.92

W10/202 kitchen 31 9 0.29 93.44 69.65 0.75

W11/202 reception 31.5 9.5 0.30 99.98 99.98 1.00

W12/202 reception 32.5 10 0.31

W13/202 reception 34.5 31.5 0.91


W2/202 bedroom 1 23.5 19.5 0.83 87.84 87.57 0.99

W3/202 reception 37 11 0.30 99.75 99.75 1.00

W4/202 reception 25.5 20.5 0.80

W5/202 reception 37 12 0.32

W6/202 kitchen 37 12.5 0.33 99.14 95.61 0.96

W8/202 bedroom 2 34.5 11.5 0.33 99.14 94.53 0.95


W2/203 bedroom 1 28.5 22 0.73 93.84 92.44 0.99

W8/203 bedroom 2 4 4 1.00 99.83 99.83 1.00

W9/203 bedroom 2 11 4.5 0.61

W10/203 bedroom 2 37 14 0.38

W11/203 kitchen 37 14.5 0.39 94.61 84.06 0.89

W12/203 reception 37 14.5 0.39 100.0 100.0 1.00

W13/203 reception 36.5 14 0.38

W14/203 reception 10 6.5 0.65

W15/203 reception 8.5 8.5 1.0


W2/204 bedroom 1 31.5 25 0.79 95.28 93.92 0.99

W8/204 bedroom 2 4 4 1.00 99.83 99.83 1.00

W9/204 bedroom 2 11 4.5 0.41

W10/204 bedroom 2 37.5 15 0.40

W11/204 kitchen 37.5 15.5 0.41 94.61 83.69 0.88

W12/204 reception 37.5 15.5 0.41 100.0 100.0 1.00

W13/204 reception 37 15 0.40

W14/204 reception 10.5 6.5 0.92

W15/204 reception 8.5 8.5 1.00


W2/205 bedroom 1 32 26 0.81 95.99 94.94 0.99

W8/205 bedroom 2 4 4 1.00 99.83 99.83 1.00

W9/205 bedroom 2 11 4.5 0.41

W10/205 bedroom 2 38 16 0.42

W11/205 kitchen 38 16 0.42 94.61 83.66 0.88

W12/205 reception 37.5 16 0.42 100.0 100.0 1.00

W13/205 reception 37.5 15.5 0.41

W14/205 reception 10.5 6.5 0.62

W15/205 reception 8.5 8.5 1.00


W2/206 bedroom 1 33 27 0.82 96.23 95.40 0.99

W8/206 bedroom 2 4.5 4.5 1.00 100.0 100.0 1.00

W9/206 bedroom 2 11.5 5 0.43

W10/206 bedroom 2 38.5 16.5 0.43

W11/206 kitchen 38 16.5 0.43 94.61 83.79 0.89

W12/206 reception 38 16.5 0.43 100.0 100.0 1.00

W13/206 reception 38 16 0.42

W14/206 reception 10.5 6.5 0.62

W15/206 reception 8.5 8.5 1.00


W12/207 kitchen 38 17 0.45 95.88 82.64 0.86

W13/207 dining 38 16 0.42 100.0 100.0 1.00

W14/207 dining 10.5 6.5 0.62

W15/207 dining 9 9 1.00

W16/207 reception 8 4 0.50 99.73 99.57 0.99

W17/207 reception 36.5 33.5 0.92


W8/207 reception 4.5 4.5 1.0 99.98 99.98 1.00

W9/207 reception 11.5 5 0.43

W10/207 reception 38.5 17 0.44

W11/207 reception 38.5 17 0.44


W12/208 kitchen 38.5 17.5 0.45 95.90 82.60 0.82

W13/208 dining 38 16.5 0.43 100.0 100.0 1.00

W14/208 dining 10.5 6.5 0.62

W15/208 dining 9 9 1.00

W16/208 reception 8 4 0.50 99.73 99.57 0.99

W17/208 reception 36.5 33.5 0.92


W8/208 reception 4.5 4.5 1.00 99.98 99.98 1.00

W9/208 reception 11.5 5 0.43

W10/208 reception 38.5 17.5 0.45

W11/208 reception 38.5 17.5 0.45


W2/209 bedroom 1 36 30.5 0.85 99.40 98.55 0.99

W8/209 bedroom 2 4.5 4.5 1.00 10.0 100.0 1.00

W9/209 bedroom 2 12 5.5 0.46

W10/209 bedroom 2 38.5 18 0.47

W11/209 bedroom 3 38.5 18 0.47 98.83 96.30 0.97

W12/209 kitchen 38.5 17.5 0.45 99.15 97.65 0.99

W13/209 reception 1 38 17 0.45 100.0 100.0 1.00

W14/209 reception 1 11 6.5 0.59

W15/209 reception 1 9.5 9 0.95

W16/209 reception 2 8.5 4 0.47 99.57 99.53 0.99

W17/209 reception 2 36.5 34 0.93

W18/209 reception 2 37 34.5 0.93


W2/210 bedroom 1 37 31.5 0.95 99.40 98.69 0.99

W8/210 bedroom 2 4.5 4.5 1.00 100.0 100.0 1.00

W9/210 bedroom 2 12.5 6 0.48

W10/210 bedroom 2 38.5 18.5 0.48

W11/210 bedroom 3 38.5 18.5 0.48 98.83 96.02 0.97

W12/210 kitchen 38.5 18 0.47 99.15 97.48 0.98

W13/210 reception 1 38.5 17.5 0.45 100.0 100.0 1.00

W14/210 reception 1 11 6.5 0.59

W15/210 reception 1 9.5 9 0.95

W16/210 reception 2 8.5 4 0.47 99.62 99.58 0.99

W17/210 reception 2 37 34 0.92

W18/210 reception 2 37 35 0.95


W2/211 bedroom 1 38 33 0.87 99.40 98.71 0.99

W1/211 reception 38 32 0.84 99.44 99.39 0.99

W8/211 reception 5 5 1.00

W9/211 reception 12.5 6.5 0.42

W10/211 reception 38.5 19 0.49

W11/211 reception 38.5 19 0.49

W12/211 reception 38.5 19 0.49

W13/211 reception 38.5 18 0.47

W14/211 reception 11 6.5 0.59

W15/211 reception 9.5 9 0.95

W16/211 reception 8.5 4.5 0.53

W17/211 reception 37 34.5 0.93


W2/212 bedroom 1 38.5 33.5 0.87 99.40 98.67 0.99

W8/212 bedroom 2 5 5 1.00 100.0 100.0 1.00

W9/212 bedroom 2 13 7 0.54

W10/212 bedroom 2 39 20 0.51

W11/212 bedroom 2 38.5 19.5 0.51

W12/212 bedroom 3 38.5 19.5 0.51 100.0 99.43 0.99

W13/212 bedroom 3 38.5 19 0.49

W14/212 bedroom 3 11 7 0.64

W15/212 bedroom 3 9.5 9.5 1.00

W16/212 bedroom 4 8.5 4.5 0.53 100.0 99.98 0.99

W17/212 bedroom 4 37 35 0.95

W18/212 bedroom 4 37.5 35.2 0.95

no - lambeth jan pa… · around the crowne plaza. the methodist mission site was in a mixed use...

Documents