PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE AGENDA 22 APRIL 2003 Applications Committee... · South Woodford London E18 2DX Date Valid 7 October 2002 Considerations Conservation AreaMinet Estate

i

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE AGENDA 22 APRIL 2003

ADDRESS CASE NO RECOMMENDATION PAGENO

1 VASSALL 6 Calais Street LondonSE5 9LP_

02/02665/FUL/DCCD/29407

GRANT PERMISSION 3

2 VASSALL 6 Calais Street LondonSE5 9LP_

02/02779/FUL/DCCD/29407

GRANT PERMISSION 10

3 PRINCES 277 Kennington RoadLondon SE11 6BY_

03/00530/FUL/DCHL/32317

GRANT PERMISSION 16

4 PRINCES 277 Kennington RoadLondon SE11 6BY_

03/00531/LB/DCHL/32317

GRANT LISTEDBUILDING CONSENT

25

5 COLDHARBOUR 360-366 ColdharbourLane, SW9.

03/00200/FUL/DCAD/16394

GRANT PERMISSIONSUBJECT TO S.106AGREEMENT

32

6 COLDHARBOUR 360-366 ColdharbourLane, SW9.

03/00201/CON/DCAD/16394

GRANTCONSERVATIONAREA CONSENT

48

7 TULSE HILL Nevena Court Effra RoadLondon SW2 1BT_

02/01663/FUL/DCJF/29181

GRANT PERMISSION 53

8 OVAL Kennington ParkKennington Park RoadLondon_

03/00004/FUL/DCJJC/32198/ 18644

GRANT PERMISSION 58

9 OVAL Kennington ParkKennington Park RoadLondon_

03/00005/FUL/DCJJC/32198/ 18644

GRANT PERMISSION 67

10 LARKHALL Police Depot 157 LarkhallLane London SW4 6RF_

02/02919/FUL/DCJJC/20922

GRANT PERMISSION 75

11 LARKHALL Police Depot 157 LarkhallLane London SW4 6RF_

02/03056/FUL/DCJJC/20922

GRANT PERMISSION 84

12 CLAPHAMCOMMON

Barnsbury AndBloomsbury Houses,Clarence Avenue, SW4.

03/00484/FUL/DCBD/37961

GRANT PERMISSION 92

13 CLAPHAMCOMMON

Hallam House Hostel 43-45 Cavendish RoadLondon SW12 0BH_

02/02009/FUL/RJE/20156

GRANT PERMISSION 97

14 CLAPHAMTOWN

Shop & Flat 62 ClaphamManor Street London SW46DZ_

02/02486/FUL/DCBD/32855

GRANT PERMISSION 104

15 OVAL Land At St George WharfLondon_

02/01250/FUL/DCHJE/18576

MINDED TO REFUSEPERMISSION

110

16 ST. LEONARDS 26 Mount Ephraim LaneLondon SW16 1JG_

02/02604/FUL/DCSM/21548


17 OVAL The Effra Site,Wandsworth Road London

_02/03425/FUL/DCHJE/


18 COLDHARBOUR 25 Saltoun Road LondonSW2 1EN_

02/02780/LDCE/DCHL/31149

GRANT CERTIFICATEOF LAWFUL USE -EXISTING

144

19 PRINCES Land Rear Of 173-175Kennington Lane WithAccess From Under 1

02/02543/FUL/REM/27196

GRANT PERMISSIONSUBJECT TO S.106AGREEMENT

152

20 FERNDALE 135-143 Stockwell RoadLondon SW9 9TN_

02/01598/FUL/DCJJC/16301

GRANT PERMISSIONSUBJECT TO S.106

166

ii

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE AGENDA 22 APRIL 2003

ADDRESS CASE NO RECOMMENDATION PAGENO

AGREEMENT21 KNIGHTS HILL 2 Flats 95 Thurlestone

Road London SE27 0PE_02/03491/FUL/DCAG/20993


22 TULSE HILL 2 Flats 48 Beechdale RoadLondon SW2 2BE_

02/01289/FUL/DCKS/25231


23 FERNDALE 16 Solon Road LondonSW2 5UY_

03/00275/FUL/REM/40416


24 CLAPHAMTOWN

Clapham High Street BRStation Voltaire RoadLondon_

02/02215/FUL/RJE/20642


25 BRIXTON HILL 2 Flats 29 Hayter RoadLondon SW2 5AR_

02/01735/FUL/RJE/22825


26 CLAPHAMCOMMON

68 Crescent Lane LondonSW4 9PU_

03/00194/FUL/DCSM/40500


27 STOCKWELL 328 South Lambeth RoadLondon SW8 1UQ_

03/00142/FUL/DCGC/40327


28 BRIXTON HILL Location_36-38 HayterRoad London SW2 5AP__

02/02879/FUL/DCSW/23299


29 STREATHAMSOUTH

21 Hawkhurst Road,SW16.

03/00015/FUL/DCHL/31355


3

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

9.6m

73

65

Shelt er

LB

PC s D Fn

BM 8.04m

8.9m

1

32

30

28

7

57

20

37

36

46

13

35

1a1

29BM 7 .02m

6.4m

9

21

18

14 to 17

22

18b

14b

14a

12c

12b

12a

House

BM 10.21m

10

41 to 38

42to45

Fields

51

Playground

Playground

CALA IS STRE ET

Henry Wood

5

18a

16b

16a

10c

10b

10a

8b8a11

HALSMERE ROAD

Neub

Ber

Ho

Bro

(S

FLOD

D EN

RO A

D

61

51

29

23

19a

b21

a 2119

1915

1 t

17

Bor o Const and LB BdyDef

1

11

11

1

1

1

1

1 1 11

1 1 1

11

11

11

11

1

1

1LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/02665/FUL

6 Calais StreetLondonSE5 9LP

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

4

Location 6 Calais Street London SE5 9LP

Ward VASSALLProposal

Erection of first floor pitched roof extension to rear together with associated alterations.

Application No 02/02665/FUL/DCCD/29407

Applicant PFN Ltd

Agent Mr Robert Mathison2 Malford GroveSouth WoodfordLondonE18 2DX

Date Valid 7 October 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaMinet EstateUDP ViewPrimrose Hill to Palace of Westminster

PlansSite location plan, 101/100A, 101/01A, 101/101A, 101/102A, 101/103

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

5

Officer Report

02/02665/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The main issues are the impact of the proposed development on the characterand appearance of the Minet Estate Conservation Area and the potential foradverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

2. Site Description

2.1. The site is a single family end-of-terrace dwelling located on the north-east side ofCalais Street within the Minet Estate Conservation Area. The terrace ischaracterised by typical ‘L’ shaped original rear additions separated by lightwellpassage ways. The application premises has a large ground floor extension to therear of the original two storey rear addition.

3. Planning History

3.1. There is no planning history for the site.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first floor pitched roof extensionover the existing ground floor rear extension to form a living room and attic space.

4.2. The ridge height and pitch of the roof slopes would match the adjacent section ofroof over the existing two storey rear addition. A new gable end would be formedat the rear end, facing the garden. The extension would be 6.2m long and 5mwide at the base. A section of the existing north-west flank wall of the ground floorrear extension would be built up by an additional 1.2m.

4.3. The roof extension would include two rooflights in each roof slope and wouldinclude a rear window in the gable end, overlooking the garden.

4.4. The proposed brickwork and tiling are to match existing.

4.5. This application is simultaneously being considered with an application for theenclosure of the courtyard on the south east elevation by raising of the boundarywall and installation of a monopitched glazed roof (Ref. 02/02779/FUL) which canbe found elsewhere on the agenda.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. Letters of consultation have been sent to numbers 4-8 Calais Street inclusive and51 to 52 Halsmere Road inclusive. The application has been advertised on siteand in the local press.

5.2. Three letters of objection have been received which raise the following points:� There is no objection if the extension is small (1 floor) to the back of the

house. However, any additional height to the rear boundary wall orobstructions to available light would be objected to.

� The proposed roof extension would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight toneighbouring windows of 5 Calais Street (illustrative photos are included).

� The building has already been extended and a further extension would beexcessive and out of keeping with the Conservation Area.

6

� The proposed extension will affect the view from neighbouring windows of 5Calais Street.

� There is concern that the building is to be used as offices and this will result ina further increase in parking difficulties in the area.

� Members are requested to visit the adjoining property, 5 Calais Street, toobserve the impact which the proposed extension would have.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. Adopted Unitary Development Plan:� H10: Residential Development Standards� CD2: Proposals for development� CD15: Design of new development� CD18: Extensions� ST8: Residential extensions

6.1.2. Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan:� 32 Building Scale and Design� 33 Alterations and Extensions

6.1.3. SPG: Guidelines for Residential Extensions and Alterations

6.1.4. The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weightat the moment due to the early stage of the adoption process. Howeverthe 'Interim' policies carry more weight in that they have been the subjectof consultation as part of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes innational policy or guidance to which the Council must have regard inmaking planning decisions. In considering material considerations otherthan the Adopted Development Plan regard should be had to the mostup to date national and regional policy.

6.2. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.2.1. The house has been extensively altered in the past. It is considered thatthe addition of a pitched roof over the existing rear extension wouldrepresent a modest change to the appearance of the existing building.

6.2.2. A variety of roof types are visible from the rear garden of the subjectdwelling. Gable, hipped and monopitched roofs can be seen at the rearof neighbouring Calais Street properties.

6.2.3. Whilst the roofscape in the vicinity of the application dwelling is varied,the existing flat roof over the rear extension is atypical of the immediatesurroundings, except for the much more modern properties on HalsmareRoad, which adjoin the site’s rear boundary.

6.2.4. It is considered that the proposed pitched roof would be more in keepingwith the type of roofscape which predominates on this part of CalaisStreet and would help to visually integrate the existing flat-roofedextension with the parent property. For these reasons it is consideredthat the proposed roof extension would be in keeping with the buildingand its setting and would preserve the character and appearance of theMinet Estate Conservation Area, in compliance with Adopted PoliciesCD2, CD15, CD18, ST8 and Draft Deposit Policies 32 and 33 and incompliance with the aims and principles of the Council’s Guidelines forResidential Extensions and Alterations.

7

6.2.5. In order to ensure that the detailed design of the proposal preserves thecharacter and appearance of the Conservation Area, it is considerednecessary to attach conditions to any approval to ensure that therooflights are conservation grade and that the proposed rear gablewindow is of painted timber.

6.3. Amenity Impact

6.3.1. The ridge of the proposed roof extension would be 2.2m higher than theflat roof of the existing ground floor rear extension. Given the relativelymodest increase in height and the fact that the roof slopes would pitchaway from the adjoining neighbours on either side, it is judged that thesunlight and daylight of neighbouring properties would be preserved.The case officer has visited the premises of the adjoining neighbour at 5Calais Street, at the request of an objector. It was observed that, out ofthe four ground floor windows directly facing number 6 Calais Street, oneis a cloak room window and the other three are windows for the kitchen,which is also lit by a large pair of French windows at the rear. It was alsoobserved that, of the three first floor windows directly facing 6 CalaisStreet, two are bathroom windows and one is the window of a bedroomwhich is also lit by a pair of windows on the rear elevation. It was furtherobserved that the ground floor French windows on the main rear wall ofthe house provide light to the living room which receives its main lightfrom a front window.

6.3.2. It is therefore concluded that there would be no loss of daylight orsunlight to any habitable rooms of 5 Calais Street. The proposed roofextension would be too far away (some 25m) to affect the daylight orsunlight of properties on Halsmere Road to the rear.

6.3.3. The modest increase in roof height and the fact that the roof pitch wouldslope away from the adjoining neighbours on either side also ensuresthat the visual amenity of neighbouring properties would be safeguarded.Whilst the views from neighbouring flank and rear windows would clearlybe altered, it is not considered that the proposed roof extension would beunduly visually intrusive or result in an unacceptable loss of outlook.

6.3.4. The only new window which is proposed is rear facing and would belocated just above floor level. It would be approximately 25m away fromthe nearest facing rear windows of properties on Halsmere Road to therear. Any views of neighbouring rear gardens would be difficult to seegiven the location of the window just above floor level and would besimilar to those which can be achieved from existing rear facingwindows.

6.3.5. In view of the above considerations the proposal is judged to accord withAdopted Policies H10, CD15 and ST8 and Draft Deposit Policies 32 and33 with respect to amenity.

6.4. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.4.1. There are no highways and transportation issues surrounding theproposed development. The objection on the grounds of increasedparking difficulties arising from the possible future use of the building asoffices is not material to the current application which is for a residentialroof extension only. A change of use to offices would require a separateapplication for planning permission.

8

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed extension would be in keeping with the building and its setting andwould preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Theamenity of neighbouring properties would be safeguarded. Accordingly theproposal complies with Adopted Policies H10, CD2, CD15, CD18 and ST8 andDraft Deposit Policies 32 and 33.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

9

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished tomatch the adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, textureand profile. (Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) issatisfactory.)

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (GeneralPermitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order withor without modification) no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorisedby this permission, if any, shall be constructed. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities ofneighbouring residential properties.)

4 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

5 No vents, extracts, plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed onthe external face of the building, unless shown on the approved drawings. New rainwaterpipes shall be painted cast metal. (Reason: In order to safeguard the character andappearance of this part of the Conservation Area)

6 Any damage to the building caused by the works shall be made good. (Reason:In order to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.)

7 Any new rooflights shall be of conservation grade specifications (i.e. flush with theprofile of the roof, not protruding above the roof slope.) (Reason: In order to safeguard thecharacter and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area)

8 The rear window of the extension hereby approved shall be of painted timber.(Reason: In order to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of theConservation Area)

Notes to Applicant

1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may berequired under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and relatedlegislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's BuildingControl Officer.

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the London Building Acts (Amendment)Act 1939 - Part VI in relation to the rights of adjoining owners regarding party wallsetc. These rights are a matter for civil enforcement and you may wish to consult asurveyor or architect.

5. In considering this application Policies H10, CD2, CD15, CD18 and ST8 of theAdopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies 32 and 33 of the Draft DepositUnitary Development Plan were relevant to the Council's Decision.

10

N



9.6m

73

65

Shelt er

LB

PC s D Fn

BM 8 .0 4m

8.9m

1

32

30

28

7

57

20

37

36

46

13

35

1a1

29

BM 7.02m

6.4m

9

21

18

14 to 17

22

18b

14b

14a

12c

12b

12a

House

BM 10.21m

10

41 to 38

42to45

's Fields

51Playground

Playground

CALAIS STREET

Henry Wood

5

18a

16b

16a

10c

10b

10a

8b8a11

HALSMERE ROAD

k

Ne

B

FLOD

DEN

ROA

D

61

51

29

23

19a

b21

a 2119

1915

17

Boro Const and

LB BdyDef

1

11

11

1

1

1

1

1 1 11

1 1 1

11

11

11

11

1

1


Case Number:


02/02779/FUL

6 Calais StreetLondonSE5 9LP


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

11

Location 6 Calais Street London SE5 9LP

Ward VASSALLProposal

Enclosure of courtyard on south east elevation by raising of boundary wall and installation ofmono pitch glazed roof.

Application No 02/02779/FUL/DCCD/29407

Applicant PFN Ltd

Agent Mr Robert Mathison2 Malford GroveSouth WoodfordLondonE18 2DX

Date Valid 28 October 2002

Considerations

Plans104/00, 104/01, 104/100, 104/101


12

Officer Report

02/02779/FUL


1.1. The main issues are the impact of the proposed development on the characterand appearance of the Minet Estate Conservation Area and the potential foradverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

2. Site Description

2.1. The site is a single family end-of-terrace dwelling located on the north-east side ofCalais Street within the Minet Estate Conservation Area. The terrace ischaracterised by typical ‘L’ shaped original rear additions separated by lightwellpassage ways. The application premises has a large ground floor extension to therear of the original two storey rear addition.

3. Planning History

3.1. There is no planning history for the site.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Planning permission is sought for a flank extension involving the enclosure of thecourtyard on the south-east elevation by erecting a 2.7m high brick boundary walland a monopitched glazed roof above.

4.2. The proposed extension would infill the gap between the main rear wall of thehouse and the ground floor rear extension to the rear of the original two storeyrear addition.

4.3. The area of boundary wall to be built up would be 4.7m long. The glazed roofwould slope up from the boundary wall to a maximum height of 3.1m adjacent tothe flank wall of the original rear addition. Due to the angle of the existing flankwall, the width of the extension would vary between 1.6m (adjacent to the mainrear wall of the house) and 1.1m (adjacent to the existing ground floor rearextension).

4.4. This application is simultaneously being considered with an application for theerection of a first floor pitched roof extension to the rear (Ref. 02/02665/FUL)which can be found elsewhere on the agenda.


5.1. Letters of consultation have been sent to numbers 4-7 Calais Street inclusive and51 to 52 Halsmere Road inclusive. The application has been advertised on siteand in the local press.

5.2. One letter of objection has been received which states that if the proposalinvolves any heightening of the boundary fence this would severely reducedaylight into a neighbouring kitchen window at 5 Calais Street.



6.1.1. Adopted Unitary Development Plan:

13

H10: Residential Development StandardsCD2: Proposals for developmentCD15: Design of new developmentCD18: ExtensionsST8: Residential extensions

6.1.2. Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan:32 Building Scale and Design33 Alterations and Extensions

6.1.3. SPG: Guidelines for Residential Extensions and Alterations

6.1.4. The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weightat the moment due to the early stage of the adoption process. Howeverthe 'Interim' policies carry more weight, in that they have been thesubject of consultation as part of the Key Issues Paper and representchanges in National policy or guidance to which the Council must haveregard in making planning decisions. In considering materialconsiderations, other than the adopted development plan, regard shouldbe had to the most up to date National and Regional policy.


6.2.1. The proposed extension is modest in scale and complies with theCouncil’s Guidelines for Residential Extensions and Alterationsrequirement that the enclosure of rear light well areas should be of atransparent pitched-roofed design. The flank wall would be in brickworkto match existing.

6.2.2. Given its position between the main rear wall of the house and theexisting substantial ground floor rear extension, the proposal would haveminimal visibility and would not adversely affect the character of thebuilding nor undermine the group character of the row.

6.2.3. In view of these considerations it is judged that the proposal wouldpreserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area andcomplies with Adopted Policies CD2, CD15, CD18, ST8 and DraftDeposit Policies 32 and 33 with respect to design.

6.3. Amenity Impact

6.3.1. The flank wall of the proposed extension would be 2.7m high, resulting ina 0.8m increase in height from the existing 1.9m high fence. It would be1.8m distant from the facing flank wall of number 5 Calais Street. Giventhat there is an existing 5.2m high wall 3m distant from the flank wall ofnumber 5 Calais Street, it is not considered that there would be anyundue loss of daylight or sunlight to any windows in that wall, nor to anyof the recessed windows in the main rear elevation.

6.3.2. The case officer has visited the adjacent premises of 5 Calais Street, atthe request of the objector. It was observed that, out of the four groundfloor windows directly facing number 6 Calais Street, one is a cloak roomwindow and the other three are windows for the kitchen, which is also litby a large pair of French windows at the rear. It was also observed thatthe ground floor French windows on the main rear wall of the houseprovide light to the living room which receives its main light from a frontwindow. It is therefore concluded that there would be no loss of daylightor sunlight to any habitable rooms of number 5 Calais Street.

14

6.3.3. The alleyway between the flank walls of 5 and 6 Calais Street is, by itsinherent nature, enclosed in character, with 5.2m high walls on eitherside. The new section of flank wall would be 4.7m long and theremaining 5.2m of the alleyway already has a 4.5m high wall on theboundary of the two properties.

6.3.4. Whilst the proposed 2.7m high flank wall is 0.7m higher than a typical2m high boundary wall or fence, it is not considered that it would result inan undue sense of enclosure or loss of outlook or visual amenity giventhe already enclosed nature of the alleyway.

6.3.5. As the proposed extension does not include any new windows therewould be no loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

6.3.6. In view of the above considerations the proposal is judged to accord withAdopted Policies H10, CD15 and ST8 and Draft Deposit Policies 32 and33 with respect to amenity.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed extension would be in keeping with the building and its setting andwould preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Theamenity of neighbouring properties would be safeguarded. Accordingly theproposal complies with Adopted Policies H10, CD2, CD15, CD18 and ST8 andDraft Deposit Policies 32 and 33.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

15



2 Except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works andworks of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent workwith regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. (Reason: Toensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)



5 No vents, extracts, plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed onthe external face of the building, unless shown on the approved drawings. New rainwaterpipes shall be painted cast metal. (Reason: In order to safeguard the character andappearance of this part of the Conservation Area)

6 Any damage to the building cause by the works shall be made good. (Reason: Inorder to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.)

Notes to Applicant





5. In considering this application Policies H10, CD2, CD15, CD18 and ST8 of theAdopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies 32 and 33 of the Draft DepositUnitary Development Plan were relevant to the Council's Decision.

16

N



Games Cour t

Play Ar ea39

249239

16

21

1 2

12

10

STREET

DEN

NY

47

TCP

13

6

PH

Club

War d Bdy

CR

BM3.91m

14

13ub StaEl

St Anselm 's

7 to 1 4

15 to 2 2

Tamar House

to

61

6

147

140

134

16

142

DEN

NY

STR

EET

Fo

Library

WHITE

1

1 to 24

2

3

149

155

157

159

163

165

167

253265

27914

71

291 152

173 175

183

PH

TCB

Trough

PC

TCBs

LB

4.1m

3.6m

177

171

153

3.9m

CRES

DE N NY

Church

165a 1

KENNINGTON

6

11

11

BM

4.43m

3.5m

Games

Court

TCBs

Tr esc oHouse

Br yher

Court

1 to 28

1

11

11

11

11

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:


03/00530/FUL

277 Kennington RoadLondonSE11 6BY


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

17

Location 277 Kennington Road London SE11 6BY

Ward PRINCESProposal

Erection of a part single and part two storey rear extension and new balcony at upperground with a cast iron verandah together with associated alterations. (Town Planning andListed Building applications).

Application No 03/00530/FUL/DCHL/32317

Applicant Camilla Ashforth

Agent Ambo Architects377 Kennington RoadLondonSE11 4PT

Date Valid 25 February 2003

Considerations

Conservation AreaKennington

Plans277/01, 277/02, 277/03, 277/04, 277/05, 277/06, 277/07, 277/08, 277/11, 277/12,277/13, 277/14, 277/15, 277/16, 277/17, 277/18, 277/19, 277/SoW/01


18

Officer Report

03/00530/FUL


1.1 The main considerations are the effects that the proposed part single and part twostorey rear extension and rear verandah and staircase would have on the characterand appearance of this Grade II listed building, the terrace within which it is located,this part of the Kennington Conservation Area, and on the amenity of neighbouringresidents.

2 Site Description

2.1 The application site consists of a three-storey plus basement, mid-terrace Grade IIlisted building located on the eastern side of Kennington Road. The property,located within a residential area, includes a flat back and features a mansard roofthat extends over the entire main building. All of the dwellings within the terrace arelisted buildings.

2.2 The rear of properties to the south of the subject site are predominantly flat backed.The rear of properties to the north of the site feature a variety of two and three storeyrear additions, with a mix of flat and mono-pitched roofs. The adjoining property tothe north, no.275, has a three storey rear addition that is built up to the sideboundary of the application site. This addition extends 2.1m in length along this sideboundary.

2.3 The subject property is currently in use as a single family dwellinghouse.

2.4 The application site is located within the Kennington Conservation Area.

3 Planning History

3.1 There is no relevant planning history pertaining to the application site.

3.2 On 30th October 2002 planning permission and listed building consent (Ref:02/01812/FUL; 02/01814/LB) was granted at the adjoining property, 279 KenningtonRoad, for the erection of a part one and part two storey rear extension together withthe installation of a cast iron verandah and staircase to rear of building. Thispermission mirrors that which is the subject of this planning and listed buildingconsent application.

4 Scheme Details

4.1 The current application involves the erection of a part one and part two storey rearextension together with the installation of a steel fabricated verandah and staircaseto the rear of the main building.

4.2 The proposed two storey rear extension would measure 2.6m wide, 2.1m in depth,6.1m in height to ridge and 5.2m in height to eaves level. This extension wouldinclude a mono-pitched roof that would fall in height towards the rear of the property.One timber framed, double hung, three over four pane sash window is proposed tothe rear elevation at first floor level.

4.3 The proposed single storey rear extension at semi-basement level would measure2.4m wide, 2.9m in depth (from the rear building line of the proposed two storey rearaddition), 2.4m in height to the ridge and 1.4m in height to eaves level (from existing

19

natural ground level). This extension would include two small sash windows and adoor providing access from the scullery/WC to the rear garden at basement level.The semi-basement extension would feature a mono-pitched roof that would fall inheight towards the side boundary adjoining no.275 Kennington Road.

4.4 The roofs of the rear additions would be finished in natural slate whilst theextensions would be constructed of yellow stock brickwork (in flemish bond) tomatch the main building. No openings are proposed to the southern flank walls(adjoining no. 279) of the proposed extensions.

4.5 The proposed verandah, with a pitched glazed roof, would measure 2.9m wide, 1.1min depth and 4.6m in height to the ridge. The verandah, to be constructed ofgalvanised metalwork and finished in either black or dark bronze green, wouldfeature decorative cast iron supports, an ornamental frieze, balustrading and a stonebalcony surface. Stone steps coupled with galvanised metal railings would provideaccess from the upper ground floor verandah to the rear garden amenity space.

4.6 The area beneath the external steps/railings would be used as a storeroom, to beconstructed of brick with access provided by a door at semi- basement level.

4.7 The proposal would also involve the building up of the side boundary wall adjoiningno.275 by an additional 900mm, to a height level with the existing basementextension at no.275 (2.5m from garden level).

5 Consultation Responses

5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to the Kennington Estates Residents Association,Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association, Manor of Kennington ResidentsAssociation, 1-6 Denny Street (consecutive) and 269-283 (odd) Kennington Road.

5.2 Three objections have been received in response to consultation. The objectionsare based on the following grounds: the proposed design is not in accordance withthe original Georgian design of the listed building; any rear extensions to the terraceare not in keeping with the architecture and to approve this would be to create adangerous precedent; loss of two Georgian window spaces; the proposal wouldbreak the pattern of low windows and steps at the rear of the terrace; loss of privacyto the rear of properties in Kennington Lane and Denny Street; lessen the charm ofthe small walled gardens and attraction to wildlife; and the house could be convertedinto flats in the future.

6 Planning Considerations

Relevant adopted Unitary Development Plan Policies (AUDP) include:Policy H10: Residential Development StandardsPolicy CD 2: Proposals for new developmentPolicy CD 9: Listed buildingsPolicy CD18: ExtensionsPolicy ST8: Residential extensions

The following draft deposit Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP) Policies are alsorelevant to the application:

Policy 33: Extensions and AlterationsPolicy 41: Listed BuildingsPolicy 42: Conservation Areas

The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weight at themoment due the early stage of the adoption process. However the 'Interim' policies

20

carry more weight in that they have been the subject of consultation as part of theKey Issues Paper and represent changes in national policy or guidance to which theCouncil must have regard in making planning decisions.

In considering material considerations other than the adopted development planregard should be had to the most up to date national and regional policy.

The Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on ResidentialExtensions and Alterations is also relevant.

6.1 Design and Conservation Considerations

6.1.2 AUDP Policy CD9 and DDUDP Policy 41 indicate that extensions to listed buildingswill only be acceptable where they relate sensitively to the original building and thatthe Council will favour the retention of existing original features of architectural andhistoric interest.

6.1.3 AUDP Policy CD2 and DDUDP Policy 42 aim to ensure that any developmentproposal within or adjoining a conservation area should preserve or enhance thecharacter and appearance of that conservation area.

6.1.4 Three storey rear additions with mono-pitched roofs are located to the north of thesubject site, including those at numbers 265, 267, 273 and Kennington Road.Numbers 269 and 271 feature flat roofed two storey additions. These additionsprovide the terrace with a varied rear façade. The proposed two storey additionwould mirror the design and form of the existing three storey rear additions and in sodoing would not detract from the varied rear façade of the subject terrace. Oftraditional design, including pitched roofs and a first floor three over four pane rearwindow (to follow the pattern of existing original windows), coupled with traditionalmaterials, including yellow stock brick work, natural slate and timber framed slidingsash windows, the proposed part single and part two rear additions would relatesympathetically to the main building. Given the substantial scale of the terrace, inexcess of 12m in height, the proposed additions would be subordinate to the mainbuilding and the terrace within which it is located.

6.1.5 It is noted that the rear of the terrace to the south of the application site retains itsoriginal flat back form. However, given the existing three storey rear additions to thenorth and that an identical proposal has recently been granted planning permissionand listed building consent at no.279, directly south of the subject site, it isconsidered that the proposal would be viewed in the context of the row of propertiesfeaturing rear additions, and not as an element of the flat backed part of the terracefurther to the south.

6.1.6 The proposed verandah and staircase, with its classical decorative fretwork andfinishing in either black or dark bronze green, would provide a visually appealing andelegant feature that would enhance the appearance of this part of the rear of theterrace.

6.1.7 An objection is raised regarding the loss of two Georgian windows. The proposalinvolves the loss of only one rear, upper ground floor original sash window.However it is considered that the harm caused as a result of the loss of this smallpiece of historic fabric would be outweighed by the enhancement that the proposedhigh quality designed scheme would bring to the rear elevation of the main buildingand the terrace generally. The remaining upper ground floor window/door would notbe altered and would remain in situ, retaining its attractive architrave and windowframe. This is considered acceptable, as, in any event, this is not an original windowthat contributes to the historic fabric of the original building.

21

6.1.8 The scheme incorporates one Victorian sash window to the side elevation of thebasement extension. The Council’s Conservation Officer considers that, given itsscarcely visible location and the high quality classical design of the overall scheme,this design is certainly not objectionable.

6.1.9 The overall proposal is a visually attractive scheme of traditional proportions thatwould preserve the architectural and historic interest of this listed building. Thescheme would contribute positively to the character and appearance of this part ofthe Kennington Conservation Area. For these reasons the proposal is considered toaccord with AUDP Policies H10, CD2, CD9, CD18 and DDUDP Policies 33, 41 and42.

6.2 Amenity Impact

Overlooking

6.2.1 A concern is raised regarding a loss of privacy to the rear of neighbouring dwellingsfrom increased overlooking from the proposed verandah. Given that the proposedverandah would be located at the same level as the existing upper ground floor rearaccess door (only 1.1m above natural ground level), the depth of the verandahwould be limited to 1.1m and the verandah would be sandwiched between two rearadditions 2.6m in depth, it is considered that overlooking of neighbouring propertieswould not be increased beyond that which currently exists from the upper ground,first, second and third floor rear windows of the subject property.

Loss of Daylight/Sunlight

6.2.2 The proposed part single and two storey rear addition would be located inclose proximity and perpendicular to an existing upper ground floor diningroom french door of 279 Kennington Road. Given that the two storey additionwould project only 2.6m from the rear wall of the main building and would belocated due north of this window, the two storey projection would not result inan unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight to the dining room. Theproposed single storey addition would be located at basement level and as aresult the highest point of this addition (the ridge) would be located 1.4mabove the base of the door. Given the considerable height of this door, at2.4m, and its relationship to the single storey addition that would be locatedat a much lower level, the scheme would not result in an unacceptable loss ofdaylight or sunlight to the dining room of no.274.

6.2.3 A similar proposal incorporating an upper ground floor verandah has recentlybeen granted planning permission and listed building consent at no.279.Given the limited depth of the proposed two storey addition, the much lowerlevel of the proposed single storey rear addition in relation to the upperground floor verandah, and the orientation of the proposed additions, to belocated due north of no.279, the scheme would not result in an undue loss ofsunlight or daylight to the verandah at no.279.

Other

6.2.3 A concern is raised regarding the potential for the house to be converted into flats.Conversion of the property would be the subject of a separate planning applicationand therefore cannot be considered further in the assessment of this application.

7 Conclusion

22

7.1 In view of the above assessment, it is concluded that the proposal would not detractfrom the character and appearance of this listed building, the terrace within which itis located, or this part of the Kennington Conservation Area, and would notadversely affect visual amenity in general. The proposal would not result in anunacceptable increase in overlooking for neighbouring occupiers. The proposeddevelopment complies with AUDP Policies H10, CD2, CD9, CD18, and DDUDPPolicies 33, 41 and 42 and adopted SPG – Residential Extensions and Alterations.

8 Recommendation

8.1 That planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

23




3 All external and internal works and finishes, and works of making good, shall matchthe existing original work in respect of materials used, detailed execution and finishedappearance except where otherwise indicated on the drawings hereby approved. (Reason:In order to safeguard the special or historic interest of this listed building and the characterand appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.)

4 Any damage to the building caused by the works should be made good. (Reason:In order to safeguard the special or historic interest of this listed building and the characterand appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.)

5 No vents, extracts, plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed onthe external faces of the buildings unless shown on the approved drawings. New rainwaterpipes shall be painted cast metal. (Reason: In order to safeguard the special or historicinterest of this listed building and the character and appearance of this part of theConservation Area.)

6 Any new rooflights shall be of conservation grade specifications (i.e. flush with theprofile of the roof, not protruding above the roof slope.) (Reason: In order to safeguard thespecial or historic interest of this listed building and the character and appearance of thispart of the Conservation Area.)

7 All new windows shall be of clear glass in vertical sliding sash frames within arecessed box frame. They must also be of painted softwood with the sashescounterbalanced by weighting cords and pulleys. They must match the design, mouldingsand glazing bar pattern of any original windows that survive on the same floor level.(Reason: In order to safeguard the special or historic interest of this listed building and thecharacter and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area).

8 All new windows shall be set within a 115mm (minimum) reveal from the face of thebuilding. (Reason: In order to safeguard the special or historic interest of this listed buildingand the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area).

9 The new joinery work shall match the materials, dimensions and profiles of existingjoinery work (unless specifically specified on the drawings approved by the PlanningAuthority). (Reason: In order to safeguard the special or historic interest of this listedbuilding and the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area).

10 Any new external doors are to be of painted softwood with traditional raised andfielded panels with bolection mouldings (not flush doors with applied beadings). (Reason: Inorder to safeguard the special or historic interest of this listed building and the character andappearance of this part of the Conservation Area).

Notes to Applicant

1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may berequired under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of

24

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 BuildingControl Officer.



5. In determining this application the following policies of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan were relevant to the decision: H10 (Standard ST8), CD2, CD9,CD18; Policies 33, 41 and 42 of the Draft Replacement Unitary Development Planand SPG - Residential Extensions.

25

N



Games Cour t

Play Ar ea39

249239

16

21

1 2

12

10

STREET

DEN

NY

47

TCP

13

6

PH

Club

War d Bdy

CR

BM3.91m

14

13ub StaEl

St Anselm 's

7 to 1 4

15 to 2 2

Tamar House

to

61

6

147

140

134

16

142

DEN

NY

STR

EET

Fo

Library

WHITE

1

1 to 24

2

3

149

155

157

159

163

165

167

253265

27914

71

291 152

173 175

183

PH

TCB

Trough

PC

TCBs

LB

4.1m

3.6m

177

171

153

3.9m

CRES

DE N NY

Church

165a 1

KENNINGTON

6

11

11

BM

4.43m

3.5m

Games

Court

TCBs

Tr esc oHouse

Br yher

Court

1 to 28

1

11

11

11

11


Case Number:


03/00531/LB

277 Kennington RoadLondonSE11 6BY


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

26

Location 277 Kennington Road London SE11 6BY


Erection of a part single and part two storey rear extension and new balcony at upperground with a cast iron verandah together with associated alterations.

Application No 03/00531/LB/DCHL/32317

Applicant Camilla Ashforth

Agent Ambo Architects377 Kennington RoadLondonSE11 4PT


Considerations


Plans277/01, 277/02, 277/03, 277/04, 277/05, 277/06, 277/07, 277/08, 277/11, 277/12,277/13, 277/14, 277/15, 277/16, 277/17, 277/18, 277/19, 277/SoW/01

Recommendation GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT

27

Officer Report

03/00531/LB


1.1 The main considerations are the effects that the proposed part one and part two rearadditions and rear verandah and staircase would have on the character andappearance of this Grade II listed building and its setting within the terrace of listedbuildings.

1.2 All of the remaining main issues, as well as the site description, planning history andscheme details have been addressed in the town planning committee report thatprecedes this listed building consent report.

2. Consultation

2.1 Letters of consultation were sent to the Kennington Estates Residents Association,Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association, Manor of Kennington ResidentsAssociation, 1-6 Denny Street (consecutive) and 269-283 (odd) Kennington Road.

2.2 Three objections have been received in response to consultation. The objections arebased on the following grounds: the proposed design is not in accordance with theoriginal Georgian design of the listed building; any rear extensions to the terrace arenot in keeping with the architecture and to approve this would be to create adangerous precedent; loss of two Georgian window spaces; the proposal wouldbreak the pattern of low windows and steps at the rear of the terrace; loss of privacyto the rear of properties in Kennington Lane and Denny Street; lessen the charm ofthe small walled gardens and attraction to wildlife; and the house could be convertedinto flats in the future.

2.3 The Council’s Conservation Section consider that, on balance, the application involves avery well detailed and attractive proposal. They note that the small window to theside elevation of the proposed basement would be of Victorian design but considerthat, given its scarcely visible location and the wider context of the high qualityscheme, this design is certainly not objectionable.


Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies include:Policy CD 9: Listed Building Consent

The following draft deposit Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP) Policies are alsorelevant to the application:

Policy 41: Listed Buildings

The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weight at themoment due the early stage of the adoption process. However the 'Interim' policiescarry more weight in that they have been the subject of consultation as part of theKey Issues Paper and represent changes in national policy or guidance to which theCouncil must have regard in making planning decisions.

The Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Extensionsand Alterations is also relevant.

3.1 Listed Building Considerations

28

3.1.1 AUDP Policy CD9 and DDUDP Policy 41 indicate that extensions to listed buildingswill only be acceptable where they relate sensitively to the original building and thatthe Council will favour the retention of existing original features of architectural andhistoric interest.

3.1.2 Three storey rear additions with mono-pitched roofs are located to the north of thesubject site, including those at numbers 265, 267, 273 and Kennington Road.Numbers 269 and 271 feature flat roofed two storey additions. These additionsprovide the terrace with a varied rear façade. The proposed two storey additionwould mirror the design and form of the existing three storey rear additions and in sodoing would not detract from the varied rear façade of the subject terrace. Oftraditional design, including pitched roofs and a first floor three over four pane rearwindow (to follow the pattern of existing original windows), coupled with traditionalmaterials, including yellow stock brick work, natural slate and timber framed slidingsash windows, the proposed part single and part two rear additions would relatesympathetically to the main building. Given the substantial scale of the terrace, inexcess of 12m in height, the proposed additions would be subordinate to the mainbuilding and the terrace within which it is located.

3.1.3 It is noted that the rear of the terrace to the south of the application site retains itsoriginal flat back form. However, given the existing three storey rear additions to thenorth and that an identical proposal has recently been granted planning permissionand listed building consent at no.279, directly south of the subject site, it isconsidered that the proposal would be viewed in the context of the row of propertiesfeaturing rear additions, and not as an element of the flat backed part of the terracefurther to the south.

3.1.4 The proposed verandah and staircase, with its classical decorative fretwork andfinishing in either black or dark bronze green, would provide a visually appealing andelegant feature that would enhance the appearance of this part of the rear of theterrace.

3.1.5 An objection is raised regarding the loss of two Georgian windows. The proposalinvolves the loss of only one rear, upper ground floor original sash window.However it is considered that the harm caused as a result of the loss of this smallpiece of historic fabric would be outweighed by the enhancement that the proposedhigh quality designed scheme would bring to the rear elevation of the main buildingand the terrace generally. The remaining upper ground floor window/door would notbe altered and would remain in situ, retaining its attractive architrave and windowframe. This is considered acceptable, as, in any event, this is not an original windowthat contributes to the historic fabric of the original building.

3.1.6 The scheme incorporates one Victorian sash window to the side elevation of thebasement extension. The Council’s Conservation Officer considers that, given itsscarcely visible location and the high quality classical design of the overall scheme,this design is certainly not objectionable.

3.1.7 The overall proposal is a visually attractive scheme of traditional proportions thatwould preserve the architectural and historic interest of this listed building. Theproposal is considered to accord with AUDP Policy CD9 and DDUDP Policy 41.

4. Conclusion

4.1 The proposed development is considered to accord with UDP Policy CD9, DDUDPPolicy 41 and SPG – Residential Extensions and Alterations.

5. Recommendation

29

5.1 That listed building consent be granted subject to the attached conditions.

30


1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than theexpiration of five years from the date hereof.Reason:(To comply with Section 18 of thePlanning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990)

2 Internal or external historic decorative or functional features, including plasterwork,ironwork, fitted cupboards, bookcases, ceramic tiling, shelving, fireplaces and grates,pelmets, fitted furniture, doors, windows, staircases, staircase balustrading and otherwoodwork, shall not be removed or altered unless expressly specified in the approveddrawings These features should also be fully protected during the course of works on site.Any missing stairway joinery, skirtings, cornices, architraves, window panelling, and doorsshall be copied to match the original.(Reason:In order that the special architectural andhistoric interest of this Listed Building and its setting is safeguarded).

3 All external and internal works and finishes, and works of making good, shallmatch the existing original work in respect of materials used, detailed execution and finishedappearance except where otherwise indicated on the drawings hereby approved. (Reason:In order that the special architectural and historic interest of this Listed Building and itssetting is safeguarded.)

4 The new joinery work shall match the materials, dimensions and profiles of existingjoinery work (unless specifically specified on the drawings approved by the PlanningAuthority). (Reason In order that the special architectural and historic interest of this ListedBuilding and its setting is safeguarded.)

5 Any new sash windows shall be of clear glass in vertically sliding sash frameswithin a recessed box frame. They must also be of painted softwood with the sashescounterbalanced by weighted cords and pulleys. They must match the design, mouldingsand glazing bar pattern of any original windows, which survive on the same floor level.(Reason: In order that the special architectural and historic interest of this Listed Buildingand its setting is safeguarded.)

6 The works hereby approved are only those specifically indicated on the approveddrawings.(Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of thebuilding.)

7 The brickwork shall be laid in Flemish bond, in a lime-based mortar withoutmovement joints, with semi-recessed pointing. (Reason: In order that the specialarchitectural and historic interest of this Listed Building and its setting is safeguarded.)

8 All windows on the external faces of the building shall be set within115mm(minimum) reveals from the face of the building.(Reason: In order that the specialarchitectural and historic interest of this Listed Building and its setting is safeguarded.)

9 Any new external doors are to be of painted softwood with traditional raised andfielded panels with bolection mouldings (not flush doors with applied beadings) (Reason: Inorder that the special architectural and historic interest of this Listed Building and its settingis safeguarded.)

10 Any new rooflights shall be of a conservation grade specification (i.e. flush with theprofile of the roof, not protruding above the roofslope) (Reason: In order that thespecial architectural and historic interest of this Listed Building and its setting issafeguarded.)

Notes to Applicant

31

1. In determining this application the following policies of the Unitary DevelopmentPlan were relevant to the decision: CD9 and SPG - Residential Extensions.

32

N



1

53

Sub Sta

El

Nor

thga

te C

o urt

1 to

36

11. 9m

Canterbury Road J unction

Depot

BRI XTON STATI ON ROAD

El Sub Sta

84

BM 12 .22m

86aViaduct

Wes

tga Station

6

12

7

South

wyck

House

207 to 214

215 to 222

LB

374

BM

1 to 6

BRIXTON

MP 3.25

SL

El Sub Sta

368 to 370

360 to 366358

356

MP 5 .25

Warehouse

Works

Depot

336

350Angel

(PH)356a

VALENTIA

PLACE

Granville Court

306 to 321 107 to 113

322 to 337

114 to 120

Laun dry

Roof Car Park

11. 9m

BM 12 .8 1m

Mansi ons

Carlton

4

372

12.8m

12. 5m

13. 0m

TCBs

Clarewood

Walk

TCB1 1

11

11

1

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11 1

11

11

11

11

1 1 1 1


Case Number:


03/00200/FUL

360-366 Coldharbour LaneAnd Buildings Known As9-13 Valentia PlaceLondon


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

33

Location 360-366 Coldharbour Lane And Buildings Known As 9-13 ValentiaPlace London

Ward COLDHARBOURProposal

Redevelopment involving the demolition of 3 light industrial buildings and the erection of 5storey building, a 7 storey building and a part 4/part 6 storey building surrounding a centralcourt raised over a car park. The developmentcontains 60 residential units, including 21 units as affordable housing, and 9 B1 office units(varying in size between 23m2 and 195m2) with associated landscaping and works.

Application No 03/00200/FUL/DCAD/16394

Applicant Mr Anthony Thomas

Agent McMorran & Gatehouse Architects2A Aldebert TerraceLondonSW8 1BL


Considerations

Conservation AreaLoughboroughUDP Sites DataPreferred hotel/office area site

PlansMG/157/50; MG/157/100D;MG/157/101D; MG/157/102B;MG/157/103C;MG/157104D;MG/157/105D; MG/157/106D;MG/157/107D;MG/157/109C;MG/157/110C;MG/157/112F; MG/157113A;MG/157/114B; MG/157/115B

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT

34

Officer Report

03/00200/FUL


1.1. Contribution of proposed building to character and appearance of LoughboroughConservation Area

1.2. Transport Implications1.3. Whether the proposed development provides acceptable living conditions for

prospective occupiers1.4. The level of affordable housing1.5. Impact of proposed development on amenity of adjoining residents

2. Site Description

2.1. 360-366 Coldharbour Lane is located on the northern side of Coldharbour Lane.The site also has a frontage to Valentia Place, encompassing buildings known as9-13 Valentia Place. Railway lines are located to the immediate north of the site,368-370 Coldharbour Lane is located to the west and 356-358 Coldharbour Lane(a pair of villas) are located to the east.

2.2. The site is in the Loughborough Conservation Area and it is identified in theAdopted UDP as (A) a preferred site for hotel and/or office development and (B)as a major development opportunity in the Deposit Draft UDP.

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission was granted in November 1961 for formation of a petrol fillingstation and erection of ancillary buildings.

3.2. Various planning permissions were granted between 1961 and 1971 foralterations to the petrol station at 360-366 Coldharbour Lane.

3.3. Planning permission was granted in February 1974 for a building at the rear of360-366 Coldharbour Lane for use as a building for baling/storage of waste paper,aluminium steel and for storage/consigning used toner cartridges from laserprinters.

3.4. Planning permission was granted in February 1979 for erection of a single storeyextension and vehicular ramp to the front of the service station building.

3.5. Planning permission was granted in January 1980 for erection of a new canopy,pumps and sales/office building.

3.6. Outline planning permission was refused in February 1985 to redevelopment thesite and erection a part 3/part 4 storey building consisting of 16 flats with provisionfor landscaping and car parking facilities.

3.7. Planning permission was granted in January 1989 for erection of a 3 storeybuilding containing 7 light industrial units and alterations to an existing access.

3.8. Planning permission was refused at Committee in November 2002 forredevelopment of the site involving demolition of 3 light industrial buildings andthe erection of 5 storey building, a 7 storey building and a part4/part 6 storeybuilding surrounding a central court raised over a car park. The developmentcomprised 60 residential units, 21 of which were affordable housing and 9 B1

35

units (varying in size between 23m2 and 195m2) with associated landscaping andworks. The reasons for refusal were as follows:

� The design of Building A, by virtue of failure to achieve design unity between theroof element and the ground, first, second and third floors, failure to create astrong visual structure comprising a base, middle and roof element and a lack ofstrong vertical elements fails to re-create an acceptable facade to addressColdharbour Lane, causing demonstrable harm to the character and appearanceof the Loughborough Conservation Area. This does not comply with policy CD2and CD15 in the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policies 32 and 42 inthe Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

� The proposed scheme is unacceptable in terms of highways considerations andparking impacts. More specifically, the narrow radius of the turning area at therear of the site and the layout, number of parking spaces and width of the vehicleaccesses from Coldharbour Lane represents a potential hazard to pedestriansand vehicles entering and exiting the site and using the highway. Furthermorethe scheme would increase parking in surrounding roads and in the BrixtonControlled Parking Zone. This would be detrimental to the amenity of users ofthe highways in the immediate area. This fails to comply with policies T17 andT18 and standard ST11 in the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy 9 inthe Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

The previous application is currently the subject of an appeal.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The scheme proposes the redevelopment of the site involving demolition of 3 lightindustrial buildings and the erection of 5 storey building, a 7 storey building and apart4/part 6 storey building surrounding a central court raised over a car park. Thedevelopment comprises 60 residential units, 21 of which are affordable housing,an artist’s studio and 9 B1 office units (varying in size between 23m2 and 195m2)with associated landscaping and works.

4.2. The current scheme represents the negotiated scheme that was previouslyrefused however alterations have made to the design of building A and alterationsto the vehicle access from Coldharbour Lane. The changes have been made inresponse to the reasons the previous application was refused.

4.3. The buildings would contain 60 self-contained flats, an artist’s studio and 9 B1ground floor office units. There would be 23 one-bed units, 35 two-bed units and 2three-bed units. Twenty-one of the residential units would be allocated asaffordable housing, in Building C, in conjunction with Metropolitan HousingAssociation (which is one of the preferred providers in Brixton). The number ofparking spaces is reduced to 23, including 2 disabled parking spaces, and thereare 38 cycle stands and 2 delivery bays. The residential dwelling mix remains thesame, a combination of one, two and three bedroom units.

4.4. The main pedestrian access to the site is via Coldharbour Lane. Pedestrianaccess is also provided to Building C from Valentia Place and to Building B fromValentia Place. Vehicular access is provided via a delivery area on theColdharbour Lane elevation, with the existing two accesses operating as a one-way ingress and egress. A further access at the rear of the site, adjacent to therailway lines, from Valentia Place, would be used for access to the ground floorparking area and for deliveries to the B1 units at the rear of the site.

4.5. The major differences between the previous application and the currentapplication can be summarised as follows:

36

� Building A has been redesigned in line with advice from Council’sConservation Officer. The design incorporates square and rounded baywindows, dormer windows and an overall vertical emphasis than thepervious design.

� The roof of Building A has been reconfigured to provide a more varied formand pitch, in line with comments received from Council’s ConservationOfficer. The roof has been inverted with the tall section moved away from thevillas at number 358 – 356 Coldharbour Lane.

� Minor amendments such as the shape of balconies and rooms have beenmade to the floorplans to reflect the changes in the design alterations to thefaçade and roof.

� Changes to the layout of car parking and vehicular access have been madewith the radius of the rear turning area increased to 6 metres and thedeletion of a car parking space.

� Two car parking spaces have been deleted from the parking/delivery area atthe front of the site, adjacent to Coldharbour Lane. Four parallel parkingspaces are proposed, each measuring 4 metres wide by 6 metres long andthe provision of a 2 metre wide access from Coldharbour Lane.

The schedule of accommodation, mix, floorspace, siting and design of Build B andC remain unchanged. The transport assessment and noise/vibration assessmentreports apply to this application and 21 units (35%) are allocated as AffordableHousing.


5.1. The Council posted a site notice, advertised the application in the South LondonPress and directly notified the following parties:� Brixton Society� Brixton Residents and Traders Association� Central Brixton Housing Forum� Southwyck House Tenants Association� Transport For London Integration Department� Brixton Town Centre Manager� 107-337 Southwyck House, Coldharbour Lane� 350-374 Coldharbour Lane

5.2. The Council received three letters of representations, two of which are objections.The issues can be summarised as the following:� The design should be of a light appearance with no dark brick;� Trees should not be harmed;� Car parking spaces should be minimised in accordance with the Mayors

Transport Plan;� Bicycle parking in a secure shed should be available for all units;� Security of my garden will be diminished if the building at Dorey’s Scrap yard

is demolished;� The development would block out all light to my flat as well as introduce

overlooking.� The value of my flat will plummet.

The above issues have been addressed below in the relevant sections of the report.



37

National Guidance� Circular 6/98 – Affordable housing� PPG24 – Planning and Noise 1994

Adopted Unitary Development Plan (AUDP)� B6: Office (Use Class B1a)� EMP6: Protection of land and buildings generating employment� EMP10: B1 offices� H6: New housing development� H7: Affordable housing� H10: Residential development standards� H11: Dwelling mix� H12: Mobility and wheelchair standard housing� T17: Transport implications of development proposals� T18: Access, loading and parking� T36: Cycle parking� CD2: Proposals for development� CD15: Design of new development� SPG2: Amenity space� SPG4: Internal layout and room sizes� ST3: Daylight and sunlight� ST4: Security and safety� ST5: Privacy and space between buildings� ST7: Landscaping� ST9: Protection from noise� ST11: Layout, parking, servicing, roads and footpaths� ST13: Refuse storage and collection� ST14: Parking for disabled people� ST28: Accesses

Deposit Draft UDP� Policy 9 – Transport impact� Policy 14 – Parking and traffic restraint� Policy 15 – Additional housing� Policy 16 – Affordable housing� Policy 20 – Mixed use development� Policy 23 – Protection and location of other employment uses� Policy 32 – Building scale and design� Policy 42 – Conservation areas� Policy 48 – Pollution, public health and safety� MDO6 – East Brixton Regeneration Arc

6.1.1. The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weightat the moment due the early stage of the adoption process. However the'Interim' policies carry more weight in that they have been the subject ofconsultation as part of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes innational policy or guidance to which the Council must have regard inmaking planning decisions. Policies 14, 16 and 23 in the DDUDP areinterim policies.

6.1.2. In considering material considerations other than the adopteddevelopment plan regard should be had to the most up to date nationaland regional policy.

38

Other Documents

� Draft Urban Design Framework for East Brixton – December 2001

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The appropriateness of the use of the site for residential, employmentuse and affordable housing was determined to be acceptable under theprevious application.

6.2.2. It is considered that this site is suitable for residential development inaccordance with policy H6 in the AUDP. An assessment of the amendedscheme against the relevant residential development standards iscovered in section 6.4 of this report.

Employment

6.2.3. 360-366 Coldharbour Lane is identified as a preferred office location inthe AUDP. Policy B6 states that office development at preferred officelocations is normally permitted, provided it complies with EMP10, whichstates that developments over 400m2 must be suitable for the full rangeof employment uses. B1 office space is located on the ground floor, in 9units ranging in size from 23m2 to 195m2. Several of the units can becombined to create larger units if required. All vehicles will enter andexit the site in a forwards direction and all units are serviced for deliveryand refuse collection from either the accesses from Coldharbour Lane orthe access from Valentia Place. All B1 units have a minimum floor toceiling height of 6 metres. It is considered that all the units are suitablefor the full range of B1 uses in accordance with EMP6 and no objectionis raised to this aspect of the application.

6.2.4. 360-366 Coldharbour Lane is currently occupied by two light industrialengineering workshops and a tyre-fitting workshop. Policy EMP6 in theAUDP requires that the Council resists the loss of employmentgenerating sites to non-employment uses, while policy 23 in the DDUDPrequires that redevelopment of employment sites must provide the sameor greater area of employment floorspace.

6.2.5. The existing site has approximately 300m2 of employment floorspace.The amended scheme provides over 850m2 of ground floor employmentfloorspace, ranging in size from 23m2 to 195m2, plus a 54m2 artist’sstudio. The scheme will retain the employment generating potential ofthe site, and will provide higher quality employment space over a greaterarea. The application complies with policy EMP6 and no objection israised.

6.2.6. The scheme complies with the requirements of policy 19 and 54 in theDDUDP, which seek to incorporate active frontage uses intodevelopments in the Brixton Town Centre and elsewhere where it wouldassist a varied neighbourhood and regeneration.

Affordable Housing

6.2.7. Policy H7 in the AUDP, as amended by Circular 6/98, requires thatschemes of more than 15 units secure 25% of the housing as affordable,to be managed by a housing association. Affordable housing is not

39

subject to the dwelling mix requirements. Policy 16 in the DDUDPrequires that all housing developments on sites that are 0.3ha or larger,and/or proposing 15 or more residential units (on a site of any size) willbe required to provide 50% of the housing as affordable housing.Proposals for affordable housing must be supported by the preferredregistered social landlord (RSL). In Brixton, the preferred RSL isMetropolitan Housing Trust, which confirms that they will manage theaffordable housing provided in this development.

6.2.8. The scheme proposes affordable housing at 35%. It is recognised thatthis is a significant increase on the requirements of affordable housingrequired in the AUDP. Although the provision is below the 50% asrequired by Policy 16 of the DDUDP, the proposed amount of 35%moves towards Council and Government future requirements. As Policy16 is not an interim policy it currently carries less weight than the AUDP.No objection is raised to this aspect of the application.


6.3.1. The three existing single storey industrial buildings do not contribute tothe character or appearance of the Loughborough Conservation Area.An assessment of whether demolition is acceptable is included in thereport for conservation area consent (03/00201/CON) report elsewhereon this agenda.

6.3.2. The previous Officer’s report outlined concerns with the former design ofthe proposal as;A more traditional roof to Building A was introduced, at the ConservationOfficer’s suggestion. Introduction of this roof style would also haverequired changes to the lower levels of the façade to ensure that theresultant building had design unity and character, and made a genuinecontribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.However, these changes have not been made, and the altered roof stylenow clashes with the detailing of the lower floors. The roof looksunbalanced. The ground floor now appears weak and the middle floorsretain an undesirable horizontal emphasis, rather than maintaining amore vertical structure.

6.3.3. A meeting was held with Council Officers and the applicant where uponit was agreed that the current application as a whole was animprovement on the previous scheme and was generally acceptable,subject to minor modifications. The applicant amended the design toincorporate the comments of Council’s Design Officer. The changesinclude increased vertical emphasis in the fenestration and theintroduction of narrower dormer windows with glazing bars expressed insteel.

6.3.4. The above changes in conjunction with the amended design haveovercome the previous shortcomings of the proposal resulting in a strongfaçade with a vertical emphasis which sits comfortably with the roof form.Council’s Conservation Officer considers the design of the proposal tobe acceptable.

6.3.5. In response to the resident representation made concerning the designof the façade, it is considered that the design of the façade is in keepingwith the area and is appropriate to the Conservation Area.

6.4. Amenity Impact

40

6.4.1. All room sizes in the residential units comply with the requirements ofSPG4 in the AUDP and the DDUDP. No objection is raised.

6.4.2. SPG2 in the AUDP requires a minimum of 50m2 of communal amenityspace plus an additional 5m2 for each unit over 5 units. A total of 325m2,therefore, is required. The amended scheme provides for 480m2 ofcommunal amenity space.

6.4.3. SPG2 states that communal amenity space for the exclusive use of thedevelopment is acceptable provided that it’s location, size, shape andaspect allow it to be enjoyed by occupants. The amenity space islocated on the first floor of the development, on a deck above the groundfloor carpark. This area is accessed from a spiral staircase from theground floor and from the first floor of buildings A and B. There is nodirect access from Building C, although there is access through thecarpark. The proposed artist’s studio also does not have direct accessto the first floor deck, but requires access through the ground floor carpark.

6.4.4. Detailed landscaping details of the amenity space are not provided, andwould have to be secured by condition if the application was approved,in accordance with standard ST7 in the AUDP. A three metre wideplanting area must be provided against the outer edges of the amenityspace, to protect the privacy of residents in the first floor units that lookover the central deck area.

6.4.5. Communal roof gardens are provided on the fourth and fifth floors ofBuilding C, measuring 45m2 and 35m2 respectively.

6.4.6. The three bedroom units on the fourth floor of Building A and the sixthfloor of Building B all have a private terrace, measuring 54m2 and 45m2

respectively.

6.4.7. The amount of amenity space is considered to be acceptable. Thecentral deck area will receive daylight/sunlight throughout the day, as willthe roof gardens and private terraces. No objection, therefore, is raisedto this aspect of the application in terms of policy H10 and SPG2 in theAUDP and policy 7 in the DDUDP.

6.4.8. Policy H10 and standard ST3 in the AUDP and policy 32 in the DDUDPrequires that a good standard of daylight and sunlight should beachieved in new development. All habitable rooms in the developmentmeet the BRE Guidelines. No objections are raised to this aspect of theapplication.

6.4.9. Policy H10 and standard ST4 in the AUDP and policy 32 in the DDUDPrequire that careful consideration is given to security in newdevelopments. Although access to the site is limited, there remain anumber of access points, both vehicular and pedestrian to various partsof the site, and there is a through access from Coldharbour Lane toValencia Place. It is considered that details of means of enclosure andsecuring the site are provided to the Council for approval, through acondition if the application is approved.

6.4.10. Policy H10 and standard ST5 in the AUDP and policy 32 in the DDUDPrequire that the layout of residential development should provide

41

adequate privacy for residents in the dwelling, in the garden, and inadjoining properties.

6.4.11. There is no existing residential development at the rear of the site, onthe north side of the railway lines. Both the east and west elevations ofBuildings A and B do not have windows, thereby protecting the privacyof adjoining properties. There is a maximum distance of 22 metresbetween Buildings A and B, which directly face each other. AlthoughST5 states that a minimum separation of 30 metres should be soughtwhere either building is four storeys or more, it is considered that 22metres is acceptable. This is because this is an internal distance, ratherthan a distance between two adjoining sites. Hence the objection raisedby the resident of 358 Coldharbour Lane is addressed as there will be nooverlooking or loss of daylight or sunlight. No objection, therefore, israised to this aspect of the application.

6.4.12. Standard ST9 in the AUDP and policy 48 in the DDUDP state thatresidential development will not generally be permitted where dwellingswould be subject to unacceptably high noise. 360-366 ColdharbourLane is identified as a Category C site in PPG24 because of its proximityto the railway line at the rear of the site. This means that residentialdevelopment will only be acceptable if noise mitigation measures areincluded in the design.

6.4.13. The railway lines to the north of 360-366 Coldharbour Lane carry a largeamount of passenger and freight traffic, including the Eurostar. Therailway viaduct provides shielding from train noise for any developmentbelow the level of the railway lines. However, any development locatedabove the viaduct will not be protected. The floors at most risk fromnoise impacts are those in Building B, above the third floor.

6.4.14. The previous application saw the scheme amended after discussionswith Regulatory Services Officers. The internal layout of rooms on thethird, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh floors was altered, and noiseshielding built into the design of the north elevation of Building B. Inaddition, all habitable rooms facing the viaduct on the fourth, fifth, sixthand seventh floors would be fitted with attenuated ventilation systems, toallow these rooms to be naturally ventilated in accordance with theBuilding Regulations, without any need for openable windows. As perthe previous application, these requirements should be secured by acondition if the application is approved. In addition, a condition wouldneed to be imposed stating that windows on the north elevation ofBuilding B, on the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh floors are permanentlyfixed shut.

6.4.15. It is considered that, subject to implementation of the mitigationmeasures described in paragraph 6.4.14, this aspect of the application isacceptable, and no objection is raised.

6.4.16. Standard ST13 in the AUDP requires that adequate provision is madefor refuse storage and disposal in new developments. The schemeprovides refuse storage areas for both the commercial and residentialaspects of the scheme. The front storage areas are accessible fromColdharbour Lane, while the rear storage areas meet the Council’srequirements that they should not be more that 22m from a vehicularaccess. No objection is raised to this aspect of the application.

42

6.4.17. Policy H11 in the AUDP and policy 15 in the DDUDP state thatdevelopment of larger sites should provide a mix of unit sizes, havingregard to local circumstances and site characteristics. The amendedscheme proposed 60 residential units, of which 21 are proposed asaffordable housing. Of the remaining 39 units, these are a mix of one,two and three bed units, which is considered to be acceptable. Noobjection is raised to this aspect of the application.

6.4.18. In respect to objections raised regarding the security of the neighbouringsite during construction, although it is accepted that some disruption willoccur to the neighbouring properties it is not a valid reason upon whichto refuse the application. During construction sites are generallycontained with hoardings and temporary fencing to secure the site. Thedecrease in the value of a property is not a material planningconsideration and cannot be considered as a reason for refusal.


6.5.1. Council’s Transportation Officer is satisfied with the traffic and transportaspects of the proposal subject to conditions. The reason for refusal ofthe previous application has been addressed under this application. Thechanges to address the previous concerns are:

� An increase in the radius of the turning area at the rear of the site to 6metres with the deletion of a car parking space.

� A reduction in the number of parking spaces in the parking/delivery areaat the front of the site, adjacent to Coldharbour Lane, to four parallelparking spaces measuring 4 metres wide by 6 metres long and theprovision of a 2 metre wide access from Coldharbour Lane.

6.5.2. Transport For London have no objection to the proposal.

6.5.3. In response to the resident objection comment received, bicycle storageis provided above the required UDP requirements (24 spaces) with 38spaces provided. Car parking has been provided in accordance with theCouncil’s requirements. The transport aspects of the scheme complywith policies T17, T18 and ST11 in the AUDP and policy 9 in theDDUDP.

6.6. Regeneration and Town Centre Issues

6.6.1. 360-366 Coldharbour Lane is identified as a Major DevelopmentOpportunity in the DDUDP. MDO6 – the East Brixton Regeneration Arccovers an area of 7.4ha, bounded to the north by Canterbury Crescent,to the east by Gresham Place, to the west by Atlantic Road and to thesouth by Coldharbour Lane. In relation to 360-366 Coldharbour LaneMDO6 states that sites along Coldharbour Lane can be developed inadvance of sites to the north of the railway lines, as a singlecomprehensive development. Any development should safeguard a 12carriage length area establishment of high level platforms on the railwayline.

6.6.2. The Draft Urban Design Framework for East Brixton identified threedevelopment options for the study area, which includes 360-366, 368-370 and 372 Coldharbour Lane. Option 1 utilised 372 Coldharbour Lanefor an anchor/landmark development, which 360-366 and 368-370Coldharbour Lane were identified as new town centre parking . All threesites could be used for a 13,000m2 retail store with high density

43

residential development above. Option 2 identified all three sites assuitable for primarily residential accommodation, with active frontages atground floor level and amenity space at the centre of the development.Housing should be high density. Option 3 focused on moving potentialretail development north of the railway lines, leaving 360-372Coldharbour Lane for housing and ground floor active frontage uses. Allthree options favoured development of a boulevard along both sides ofColdharbour Lane, between Moorlands Road and Atlantic Road.

6.6.3. Previous applications at 368-370 and 372 Coldharbour Lane wererefused on the grounds that development would be premature to theCouncil’s development aims for these sites, including the desire for acomprehensive development. However, the Council has reconsidereddevelopment on these sites and it is considered that future retaildevelopments in the Brixton Town Centre are more likely to occur to thenorth of the railway line. This means that a comprehensive developmentof 360-372 Coldharbour Lane, in order to accommodate a major retailspace, is no longer an absolute requirement. Accordingly, individualschemes may be acceptable, provided they do not compromisedevelopment on adjoining sites, they provide a mix of uses and there areactive frontage developments provided on the ground floor. Schemesalso need to comply with the design brief for 360-372 Coldharbour Lane(refer to section 6.3 for the design assessment).

6.6.4. The scheme for 360-366 Coldharbour Lane would provide for an activefrontage along Coldharbour Lane and would assist with the creation of astreet frontage. The north elevation of Building B is set back between 8and 10 metres from the railway line, which would provide sufficientspace for the introduction of high level platforms. However, it is notedthat Railtrack do not have any such works programmed. The schemecomplies with the design and the current application provides a highquality designed development. The siting of the development within thesite, and provision of a central area of amenity space, does not prejudicedevelopment at 368-370 and 372 Coldharbour Lane.

6.6.5. It is considered that re-development of 360-366 Coldharbour Lane in themix proposed is not inconsistent with the aim of the East BrixtonRegeneration Arc MDO. Therefore, no objection is raised todevelopment of the site in advance of the adjoining sites and the issue ofprematurity is no longer a reason for refusal.

6.7. Other

6.7.1. As per the previous proposal a Section 106 agreement is required in theevent that the proposal is granted planning permission. 360-366Coldharbour Lane is located on the boundary of the Brixton ControlledParking Zone. However, Moorlands Road and Somerleyton Road are notlocated within the CPZ and residents at 360-366 Coldharbour Lanecould legitimately park on these roads. A Section 106 agreement isrequired to control access to parking permits for residents in thisdevelopment. The Section 106 agreement should also require a financialcontribution to assist in making sure that highway safety is notcompromised by additional on-street parking. This could be used toconsult residents on the potential for introducing controlled parking orintroducing other traffic/parking management measures. The Councilconsiders that a contribution of £10,000 towards the cost of consultationfor a CPZ/other parking management features would and that a furthercontribution of £20,000 would go some way to implementing a CPZ on

44

the ground. Should the consultation results not be in favour of a CPZ thiscontribution would allow other features such as kerb build outs, junctionprotection markings, etc. and a pedestrian refuge on Coldharbour Laneto be provided. In addition, a contribution of £30,000 is required towardsthe capital costs of implementing a scheme of landscaping on the openspace at the corner of Somerleyton Road and Coldharbour Lane.

6.7.2. The figures referred to in the above paragraphs reflect similar sumsagreed on a scheme on the south side of Coldharbour Lane.

6.7.3. If the application is approved, any affordable housing proposed in thisscheme would need to be secured through a Section 106 agreement,covering the provider and the ratio between rented and sharedownership accommodation.

7. Conclusion

7.1. It is considered that the current proposal overcomes the concerns that Councilhad with the previous proposal in the areas of design and transportation. Thescheme complies with the requirements of the AUDP and the DDUDP. Theredevelopment would bring an active use to a site which is currently under-utilisedand will bring further employment and residential uses to the area.

7.2. The design of the replacement scheme will result in a high quality developmentthat maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the Loughboroughconservation area.

7.3. The proposed scheme provides 35% affordable housing, which as discussedabove, is more than the AUDP and although less than the requirements of policy16 in the DDUDP, represents a step in the right direction in terms of future Counciland Government requirements.

7.4. The scheme is now compliant in terms of highway considerations and parkingimpacts.

8. Recommendation

8.1. APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

45


1 Full details, including samples of external finishes shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced andthe development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

2 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the externalfaces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract from theappearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

3 Before any plant/machinery is used on the premises it shall be enclosed withsound insulating material and mounted in a way which will minimise transmission ofstructure borne sound, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local PlanningAuthority, and be retained for the duration of its use. (Reason: To safeguard the amenitiesof neighbouring residential properties.)

4 No vehicles shall enter or leave the site otherwise than in a forward direction.(Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway.)

5 No part of any building(s) hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until thevehicle parking and turning space herein approved has been provided wholly within the siteto the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, such space to be permanently maintainedand used for no other purposes. (Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development,maximum traffic efficiency and public safety, and minimum interference with traffic in thepublic highway..)

6 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is begun, a parking anddelivery management plan for the entire site shall be submitted to, and approved in writingby the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development,maximum traffic efficiency and public safety, and minimum interference with traffic in thepublic highway.


8 Full details of the materials and planting to be used in the hard and softlandscaped areas hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by theLocal Planning Authority, prior to commencement of any site works, and such landscapedareas shall be permanently retained for the enjoyment of occupiers of the scheme.(Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping areas are laid out in a satisfactorymanner.)

9 A three metre wide planting area is to be provided against the outer edges of theamenity space. Reasons: In order that the privacy of the future occupants of the units isprotected.

10 All planting, seeding or turfing comprising in the approved scheme of landscaping,shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of thebuilding(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees orplants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, areremoved or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next plantingseason with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority giveswritten consent to any variation. (Reason: To ensure that the landscaped areas are laidout in accordance with the approved plans.)

46

11 The internal layout of the rooms of Building B on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth andseventh floors shall have noise shielding measures built into the design. Reason: Tosafeguard the amenities of the future occupants of the units from noise impacts of therailway.

12 All habitable rooms of Building B facing the viaduct on the fourth, fifth, sixth andseventh floors shall be fitted with attenuated ventilation systems. Reason: To safeguard theamenities of the future occupants of the units.


13 Those windows in the northern elevation of Building B on the fourth, fifth, sixth andseventh are to be permanently fixed shut. Reason To safeguard the amenities of the futureoccupants of the units from noise impacts of the railway.

Notes to Applicant


2. You are advised that this consent is without prejudice to any rights which may beenjoyed by any tenants/occupiers of the premises.



5. Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and DisabledPersons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings(B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities andsanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at thebuilding or premises who are disabled.

6. Your attention is drawn to Sections 7 and 8A of the Chronically Sick and DisabledPersons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings(B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities andsanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at thebuilding or premises who are disabled.

7. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Civil Engineering Divisionof the Directorate of Environmental Services, with regard to any alterations affectingthe public footway.

8. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Directorate ofOperational Services with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collectionfacilities.

9. You are advised that this property lies within a Conservation Area andConservation Area Consent may be required for any demolition works.

10. The Applicant should take into account Railtrack's Comments/Conditions whichwere forwarded to the applicant on 21 September, 2001.

11. The following policies were considered relevant to the assessment of thisapplication; AUDP policies B6, EMP6, EMP10, H6, H7, H10, H11, H12, T17, T18,T36, CD2, CD15, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST7, ST9, ST11, ST13, ST14, ST28 and DDUDPpolicies 9, 14, 15, Policy 16, 20, 23, 32, 42, 48, MDO6.

47

48

N



53

Sub Sta

El

Nor

thga

te

Cou

rt

1

to

36

11. 9m

Canter bury Road J unction

Depot

BRI XTON STATI ON ROAD

El Sub Sta

BM 12 .22m

86aViaduct

Wes

6

12

7

South

wyck

House

207 to 214

215 to 222

LB

374

BM 13

1 to 6

BRIXTON

MP 3.25

SL

El Sub Sta

368 to 370

360 to 366358

356

MP 5.25

Warehouse

Works

Depot

336

350Angel

(PH )356a

VALENTIA

PL ACE

Granville

Court

306 to 321 107 to 113

322 to 337

114 to 120

Laundr y

Roof Car Park

11. 9m

BM 12.81m

PO

Mansions

Carlton

4

372

12.8m

12. 5m

13. 0m

TCBs

Clarewood

Walk

TCBs1

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

111

11

1

11

11

11

11

1 11

1 1 1 1


Case Number:


03/00201/CON

360-366 Coldharbour Lane & 9-13Valencia PlaceLondonSW9


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

49

Location 360-366 Coldharbour Lane And Buildings Known As 9-13 ValentiaPlace London


Redevelopment involving the demolition of 3 light industrial buildings and the erection of 5storey building, a 7 storey building and a part 4/part 6 storey building surrounding a centralcourt raised over a car park. The developmentcontains 60 residential units, including 15 units as affordable housing, and 9 B1 office units(varying in size between 23m2 and 195m2) with associated landscaping and works

Application No 03/00201/CON/DCAD/16394

Applicant Mr Anthony Thomas

Agent Mc Morran & Gatehouse Architects2A Aldebert TerraceLondonSW8 1BL


Considerations

Conservation AreaLoughboroughUDP Sites DataPreferred hotel/office area site

PlansMG/157/50; MG/157/100D;MG/157/101D; MG/157/102B;MG/157/103C;MG/157/104D; MG/157/105D; MG/157/106C;MG/157/107D;MG/157109C;MG/157/112F; MG/157/114B

Recommendation GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

50

Officer Report

03/00201/CON


1.1. Demolition of existing industrial buildings.

2. Site Description

2.1. Please refer to report 03/00200/FUL reported elsewhere on this agenda.

3. Planning History

3.1. Please refer to report 03/00200/FUL reported elsewhere on this agenda.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. This application is for conservation area consent for demolition of the existingindustrial buildings, in anticipation of their replacement with the schemeconsidered in report 03/00200/FUL reported elsewhere on this agenda.


5.1. Please refer to report 03/00200/FUL reported elsewhere on this agenda



National Guidance� PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment 1994

Adopted Unitary Development Plan (AUDP)� CD3: Demolition

Deposit Draft UDP� Policy 42: Conservation areas


6.2.1. The existing buildings, which comprise three light industrial single storeyworkshops, are considered to make a negative contribution to theLoughborough conservation area. The age, appearance and materialsused in the construction do nothing to maintain or enhance the characteror appearance of the conservation area and the Council would welcomean acceptable replacement scheme.

6.2.2. As outlined in report 03/00200/FUL after minor amendments the designof the proposed replacement scheme is considered appropriate.

6.2.3. A meeting was held with Council Officers and the applicant where uponit was agreed that the current application as a whole was animprovement on the previous scheme and was generally acceptable,with the requirement of some minor modifications. The applicant

51

amended the design to incorporate the comments of Council’s DesignOfficer. The changes include increased vertical emphasis in thefenestration and the introduction of narrower dormer windows withglazing bars expressed in steel.

6.2.4. The above changes in conjunction with the amended design haveovercome the previous shortcomings of the proposal resulting in a strongfaçade with a vertical emphasis which sits comfortably with the roof form.Council’s Conservation Officer considers the design of the proposal tobe acceptable. The proposal is considered to comply with policy CD3 inthe AUDP and policy 42 in the DDUDP.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Demolition of the existing industrial buildings is acceptable as is the replacementscheme, considered in the report for 03/00200/FUL, and will result in a highquality development that maintains and enhances the character and appearanceof the Loughborough conservation area.

8. Recommendation

8.1. APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

52


1 The building(s) shall not be demolished before a contract for the carrying out ofworks of redevelopment of the site has been made and planning permission has beengranted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides.. (Reason: To ensure thatpremature demolition does not take place before development works start in order that thevisual amenities of the area are safeguarded.)

2 Once demolition has been completed the construction of the replacement buildingsas approved in planning Applicaiton 02/02501/FUL must commence within one year.

Notes to Applicant

1. The following policies were considered relevant in the assessment of thisapplicaiton: AUDP CD3 and DDUDP policy 42.

53

Location Nevena Court Effra Road London SW2 1BT

Ward TULSE HILLProposal

Removal of existing boundary railings on dwarf brick wall and replacement with higherrailings along Effra Road and Brixton Water Lane together with the installation of newcontrolled access gates & demolitionof existing bin store and construction of new bin store. (Amended description)

Application No 02/01663/FUL/DCJF/29181

Applicant Nevena Court Ltd

Agent John Barker5 Penton StreetLondonN1 9PT

Date Valid 28 June 2002

Considerations

Rush Common

Plans01NC 03C, 01NC 0401NC 023B, 01NC 024B01NC 014B, 01NC 01501NC 021B,01NC 001D


54

Officer Report

02/01663/FUL


1.1. The main issues considered relevant to this application are the potential impactupon the open character of Rush Common, and the potential impact uponcharacter and amenities of the area as a whole.

2. Site Description

2.1. Nevena Court is a four storey block of seventeen flats on the north-western cornerof the junction of Effra Road and Brixton Water Lane within a mixed area withresidential to the north, west and south-west and commercial premises to thesouth-east and a mix to the east.

2.2 The block is brick built with open views across the lawn area that frontsEffra Road.

2.3 The proposal site is covered by the Rush Common Act 1806.Therefore an application for Rush Common consent has also beensubmitted (02/02633/RUS). That application is the subject of aseparate report on this agenda.

3. Planning History

3.1. 2002 – Permission refused and appeal dismissed for rooftop telecommunicationsinstallation comprising 6 x no pole mounted antennas, all within or shrouded by 2x GRP chimney stacks (1.4m x 0.7m x 3.5m high), 1x equipment cabin (3.725m x2.525m x 2.805m high), and ancillary apparatus. (02/01724/GDOT)

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The proposal is for the removal of the existing dwarf brick wall, 1.0 metre highpiers and 1.3 metre high railings and its replacement with new 1.6 metres highbrick piers with stone cappings and new 1.4 metre high railings to Effra Road andBrixton Water Lane boundaries, and new vehicular gates to both Effra Road andBrixton Water Lane.

4.2. The proposal also includes the demolition of the existing bin store and theerection a 1.8 metre high brick screen wall to enclose enlarged bin store.


5.1. Press & Site Notices and Neighbour Notification. Three responses received: onewith no comment and two objections. The objections related to an unrelatedproposal for the erection of a mobile mast to be put on top of Nevena Court.’

5.2 Brixton Residents and Traders Association, Brixton Society, Friends ofRush Common, Tulse Hill Estate Residents Association, JosephineAvenue Group, Water Lane Society were also consulted. No responseswere received.



55

6.1.1. The following advice is given by Central Government in the series ofPlanning Policy Guidance Notes and is considered relevant:PPG1: General Policy and Principles (February 1997)PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002) (July2002)

6.1.2 The following policies of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan areconsidered relevant:RL22 – Rush CommonCD15 – Design of new development

6.1.3 The following policy of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan isconsidered relevant:Policy 45 – Protection and Enhancement of Open Space and Sportsfacilities

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The application solely proposes boundary and refuse storage alterations.


6.3.1 It is not considered that the replacement dwarf wall and railings wouldsignificantly alter the appearance of the site or impact negatively on thecharacter of the area as a whole.

6.3.2 The Council’s Design and Conservation officer has advised that theblock suffers from anti-social behaviour and security problems and 1.4metre high railings should effectively address these issues withoutcausing undue impact on the openness of this part of Rush Common.This proposal would serve to improve the appearance of the boundary tothe block as well as the amenity of residents.

6.3.3 The bin store would be located adjacent to an existing vehicular accessto the site and would abut a neighbouring building. The elevation of thebin store facing the road would have a height of approximately 2.2metres. It is not considered that the proposed bin store would be undulyprominent, in view of its location and scale.

6.3.4. The site lies within Rush Common. Rush Common Guidelines(Safeguarding the Character of Rush Common) state that:

Para 4.1 ‘The Council will promote and encourage appropriate boundarytreatment in order to protect the Common form litter, dumping, improve safetyfor children and enclose private residential properties.’

Para 4.2 ‘A higher means of enclosure with railings or a combination of brickwall and railings may be allowed up to a maximum height of 2m with theappropriate brick piers.

Para 4.3 ‘Other means of enclosure e.g. fencing may be allowed on areas ofRush Common so long as it would not affect the open character of the mainpart of the Common’.

6.3.5. The Council’s Design and Conservation Group raise no objections to theproposal which is considered to preserve the open character of RushCommon in accordance with policy RL22 of the Unitary Development

56

Plan and the purpose of the Rush Common Act 1806 which is to keepthe open character of the Common.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.4. It is not considered that the proposed developments would have adetrimental impact upon the amenities of adjoining premises. Theproposed railings would improve the amenity, through improved securityat Nevena Court.

6.4.5. The proposed bin store would be relatively small scale and should notsignificantly impact on the character of the area or the amenities of anynearby properties.


6.5.4. The application solely proposes boundary and refuse storage alterations.No highway or transportation issues arise from the proposal.

7. Conclusion

7.2 The proposed boundary treatment is considered to be acceptable and in accordancewith Council Policy to retain the open character of Rush Common. It is alsoconsidered that the proposed bin store would be acceptable and not detrimental tothe character of Rush Common, the area generally, or the amenities of neighbouringproperties.

7.3 The objection raised stated that the proposal was ‘obviously in conjunction with theproposed erection of the mobile mast also to be put on top of Nevena Court.’ Thisobjection relates to an entirely separate proposal, which was refused planningpermission and dismissed at appeal.

8. Recommendation

8.3. Grant Permission subject to the following Conditions:

57




3 the railings shall be painted in a colour to be submitted and approved in writing bythe local planning authority and retained at all times thereafter. Reason: in order tosafeguard the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area

Notes to Applicant




4.determining this application, Policy RL22 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan andPolicy 45 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan were considered relevant to thedecision.

58

N



6

37

41

39

OTT

O

101

14

1 to 68

1 to 68

1 to 68

Bateman House

Walters House

Cornish House

MEAD

CRO F

T RO

AD

1 to 68

1 to

1

to

68

El Su b Sta

Brawne Hou

Cruden House

PrescottHouse

HILL INGD

O N

STREE

T

40

BO

LTO

N

CR

ES

ME AD CROFT ROAD

Vi c

arag

e

es Chu rch

Sub

St aEl

1 t o 58

Mol eswort h Hou se

El

Su b Sta

Kennington P ark

9

13

15

4

8

As pen H ous e

Sc hool

75

3.6m

3.3m

73

1 to

6

20

22

Und

Boro Con st & LB B dy

CW

CF

CR

Pl ay grou nd

ST

AG

NE

S

PLA

CE

3.3m

93

74

64 81

52

3.4m

28

3.4m

34

Sh

elte

r

Ad ve nture Pl ay grou nd

Ch arl ie Cha pl in

89

99

2.9m

Play gr ound

Pre sco tt

Ho us e

Kennington P ark

BM

3.41 m

95

HIL LI NGD

ON ST

Ha

FB

HI LL

INGD

ON S

TR EE

T

3.1m

2.9m

1 to 68

CR

ES

CE

NTB

OL

TON

SM

Po sts

CF

Bo ro Cons t & LB Bd y

CP

CR

70

8257

49

BOL TON CRES CENT

Pl ay grou nd

Pl ay grou nd

3.7m8 to

10 Boro Co nst & LB Bd y

CR

11

11

111

1

1

11


Case Number:


03/00004/FUL

Kennington ParkKennington Park RoadLondonConservation Area

Boundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

59

Location Kennington Park Kennington Park Road London

Ward OVALProposal

Erection of cricket practice nets on parkland adjacent to Aspen House School and BatemanHouse.

Application No 03/00004/FUL/DCJJC/32198 / 18644

Applicant Lambeth Sports & Recreation

Agent Carl Callaghan141 Kennington Park RoadLondonSE11 4JJ

Date Valid 19 December 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaSt. MarksUDP ViewPrimrose Hill to Palace of Westminster

Plans410070; 410071; 410073 (x 2).


60

Officer Report

03/00004/FUL


1.1. Acceptability of the impacts of the proposed cricket practise nets on the amenityof nearby residential occupiers.

1.2. Acceptability of the appearance of the proposed cricket practise nets.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application site is Kennington Park extension located to the east of KenningtonPark on the eastern side of St Agnes Place. Specifically this application concernsthe curved portion of the site near its northern boundary, adjacent to the AspenHouse Special School and the adjacent housing block, Bateman House.

2.2 In recent times this part of the park has been used for the playing and practising ofcricket. Under the Deposited Draft Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP) the parkis designated as a Parks Regeneration Area. These areas have been designatedas park areas where improvements to their accessibility and facilities will beparticularly promoted and supported.

3. Planning History

3.1 Numerous planning applications have been granted for various activities anddevelopments within the park over the years.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The application is for the erection and use of cricket practice nets on thenorthernmost corner of the site, adjacent to the Aspen House Special School andBateman House.

4.2. The dimensions of the proposed nets are as follows: 14.6 m length by 7.3 m widthby 3.6 m high. The nets comprise of 15 black painted tubular metal posts andblack nylon netting. A 6.2 m wide strip of ‘Astro turf’ type artificial grass surfacewill extend beyond the nets for a length of 16 m.

4.3. The posts would be a permanent fixture but the nylon netting would be put up atthe start of each cricket season and taken down at the end of each cricketseason.

4.4. Although an independent scheme in its own right, this scheme forms part of anumber of proposals to improve the cricket facilities at the park includingprotective netting (application reference 03/00005/FUL, elsewhere on thisagenda). There are also future plans for applications for a pavilion, equipmentstorage yard, and re-alignment of a path.

4.5. This planning application originally proposed the nets to the rear of 51 – 73 StAgnes Place. Following a number of objections the applicant has amended theproposal to the current location.

61


5.1 Consultation letters were sent to the occupiers of the Aspen House SpecialSchool, Flat 40, Hanworth House, John Ruskin Street, the Charlie ChaplinAdventure Playground, Kennington Park, Bolton Crescent, 47-53 and 73-93 oddinclusive St Agnes Place. Consultation letters were also sent to the VauxhallNeighbourhood Housing Forum, the Vauxhall Society, the Kennington ParkTenants Association, the Manor of Kennington Residents Association, Friends ofthe Oval and the London Borough of Southwark. In addition a site notice wasdisplayed and a press notice was published.

5.2 The application has been amended since it was first submitted. Originally fiveobjections were received. The grounds of objection from the first consultationwere as follows:

1. I would rather look at waste green grass than cricket practice nets from mybedroom window.

2. Noise from actual cricket / practice games would make me ill. I would neverhave a chance for peace and quiet.

3. Masses of people would move to the field under my bedroom window andplay football there instead of playing on the field.

4. What if the cricket ball breaks my window ? Will Lambeth Council pay for thereplaced window ?

5. The nets will cause noise disturbance and lead to a loss of privacy and lightat our home and garden.

6. I don’t like cricket anyway.7. St Agnes Place has a high proportion of disabled, vulnerable and

marginalized tenants. To site a facility on public land that excludesindividuals on grounds of disability and gender is illegal under the DisabilityDiscrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.

8. Further to point one, Lambeth has a duty of care as a service provider underthe DDA to be inclusive in all aspects of service provision. Under the DDAsport and recreation, even if provided free of charge, is defined as a service.

9. St Agnes Place is a resident only parking area. There is no provision, oravailable space to make provision, for any additional parking. During the firstseason of the clubs activities there was illegal occupancy of residents parkingbays and the private car park of 47-51 St Agnes Place, cars parked on thepavement denying wheelchair users and parents with buggies access, andparking on the park extension itself. None of this was made any better byLambeth parking attendants’ refusal to provide their service in St AgnesPlace.

10. Further to point three, Camberwell New Road is a red route, and the width ofJohn Ruskin St, also a red route, does not lend itself to on-street Parking.

11. There is no wheelchair access for spectators, contrary to DDA requirements.12. There was no provision of disabled toilets during the first season, contrary to

DDA requirements.13. Kennington Park extension is needed for the use of local Lambeth and

Southwark residents and their children. KPCCG has effectively displacedand alienated the local community. Any further expansion of KPCCGactivities can only harm relations between the community and the council.

14. Cricket is NOT the favoured activity of local children. Any planned expansionof sports and recreational facilities in the St Agnes Place area MUST focuson meeting the needs of local children/youth, and MUST be indoor andoutdoor facilities that operate on 52 weeks a year basis.

15. No consultation with the immediate communities was entered into by thecouncil in respect of KPCCG before the first season, and no formalconsultation has been entered into with regards its expansion.

62

16. We have not been provided with details of KPCCG’s public liability insuranceprovision, despite repeated requests. In view of one incident involving acricket ball landing in a tenant’s living room, when major injury could haveoccurred, and damage to local property caused by broadcast vehicles andvisitors to the site, this is a major concern.

17. No attempt appears to have been made by KPCCG to meet Health andSafety requirements.

18. In a community with a large number of disabled and elderly residents, andwith a large population of very young children, the threat posed by a cricketball traveling at speed is a serious concern. There is a heavily used publicfootpath across the park extension and councils have a duty of care to thevulnerable that is governed by best possible practice.

19. KPCCG is sited far too close to 47-51 St Agnes Place and we would drawyour attention to the requirements governing sports installations andproximity to housing.

20. Following their first season, we as residents have no confidence in themanagement of KPCCG, and would question it being granted a secondyear’s occupancy never mind an extension of its activities.

21. The drawings which we have had access to show a series of nylon panels 7meters by 5 meters being erected along the back garden wall of 47 through51 St. Agnes Place 4 meters away from the wall. Nylon is a highly flammablesubstance. The back walls of the properties are topped by wooden trellis, andthe gardens themselves are separated by wooden overlap fence panels. Thespace between the panels and wall are not wide enough to accommodateemergency service vehicles in the event of fire breaking out, a fire scenario inwhich the nylon netting has played a significant contributory factor. Furtherthe netting would seriously impede the use of rescue equipment in the eventof tenants being trapped on the first or second floors of the properties.Special needs tenants, which form the bulk of the occupancies, already faceconsiderable problems in the event of any rescue being necessitated;creating further obstacles that may not only place their lives at risk but reducethe “golden” four minute medical resuscitation window is criminallydangerous.

22. The nets will be supported by metal posting that will interrupt TV/radioreception, mobile phone signals [wheelchair users in particular use mobilephones in preference to land lines – numbers 47 and 53 are special buildwheelchair properties], and medical equipment.

23. The nets will block out a lot of natural light to the fourteen properties, whichcomprise 47 through 53 St. Agnes Place.

24. The tenants of 47 through 53 St. Agnes Place have been subjected toconsiderable stress by the users of the cricket facilities during the last seasonand this has led to an increase in cases of mental anguish.

25. The cricket facility was designed solely for the use of young cricketers andwhat little detailing we were able to access made reference to the UnitedDominion Cricket Club; however, the current application makes referenceonly to Kennington Cricket Club, which appears to be a London Borough ofSouthwark based adult cricket club.

26. There is clear indication that the United Dominion initiative has been used asa smoke screen to facilitate adult cricket.

27. Further there is strong anecdotal evidence that Surrey Cricket County Club,the key funder behind United Dominion, is unaware of Kennington CricketClub.

28. When the lack of local consultation was raised with a Surrey Cricket CountyClub representative the admission was made that they lacked sufficientfunding for such an exercise.

29. The officer responsible for sports and leisure facilities in the London Boroughof Lambeth not only refuses to discuss any issue relating to the cricketground with local residents, but refers them to two individuals living in the

63

London Borough of Southwark., ie the Chair and Secretary of the Friends ofKennington Park. This alienates local residents and creates a feeling thatrepresentation without taxation is council policy. We trust we do not need tostress the fiscal problems the council would face if a significant number ofLambeth residents put this feeling into action.

30. The cricket ground is the property of the London Borough of Lambeth, andtherefore the people of Lambeth; yet, Lambeth and its residents are notreceiving any financial revenues in terms of any leasing or licensing structure.

31. The plans show the Transco operated gas mains but do not show theNational Grid line and sewers that run across the common. Any structuresuch as poles, which require below soil penetration must take into account allbelow surface mains and cable services.

32. The consultant’s report that was prepared prior to the initial season clearlyfound against the site on grounds of insufficient space and public safety; thisreport has been ignored.

33. There has been no consultants report, or feasibility study, attached to thecurrent application.

34. All sports facilities delivered on council property must be fully inclusive in theterms of service provision; they must be fully accessible irrespective of age,gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation and disability. It is clear thatshould the London Borough of Lambeth grant planning permission in thisinstance it would be failing the equalities policies that its residents rely on.

5.3 The application was amended, changing the siting of the nets from the areaadjacent to 71 – 93 St Agnes Place to the northernmost corner of the site,adjacent to the Aspen House Special School and Bateman House. Accordinglyre-consultation was undertaken on 4 March 2003. One submission has beenreceived in respect of the amended location of the practice nets from theKennington Day Nursery. This is not an objection as such but asks for assurancethat stray cricket balls will not come flying into the nursery playground. Anyfurther comments received as a result of the re-consultation will be reported orallyat committee.


6.1 Relevant Policies

Adopted Unitary Development Plan (AUDP):

� RL34 – Preservation and use of sports facilities� RL35 –Sports and play facilities in parks� RL20 – Preserving public open space� ENV19 – Noise Control� CD15 – Design of new development

Deposited Draft Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP):

� Policy 45 – Protection and Enhancement of Open Space and Sports Facilities� Policy 7 – Residential Amenity

6.1.2 The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weight at themoment due the early stage of the adoption process. However the 'Interim'policies carry more weight in that they have been the subject of consultation aspart of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes in national policy orguidance to which the Council must have regard in making planning decisions.In this case none of the interim policies are relevant to the scheme.

64

6.1.3 In considering material considerations other than the adopted developmentplan regard should be had to the most up to date national and regional policy.

6.2 Land Use

6.2.1 The park has previously been used as a cricket ground for community cricketduring last summer for approximately four months. As stated earlier thisapplication forms one of a number of proposals to improve the facilities forplaying cricket at Kennington Park.

6.2.2 The park is a public park owned by the Council, and is therefore available foruse by the general public. Lambeth Sport & Recreation manage this part of thepark. Users are able to make bookings with Lambeth Sport & Recreation to usethese cricket facilities.

6.2.3 In this case the proposal concerns the erection of cricket practice nets forpractice use in conjunction with the main cricket pitch and field itself. The use ofthe park for the playing of cricket is not a relevant matter for consideration in thisplanning application. In addition planning permission would not be required fora cricket pitch for practise use without netting.

6.2.4 No AUDP policies are directly relevant to this proposal, however policies RL34,RL35 and RL20 of the AUDP are indirectly relevant and policy 45 of the DDUDPis relevant to the application. Policy ENV19 of the AUDP, regarding noise isalso relevant to the proposal.

6.2.5 Part (c) of policy 45 relates to areas designated as a Parks Regeneration Area.This policy promotes improvements to these open spaces in partnership withthe community. As the proposed cricket practice nets are an additional facilityplaying and recreation facility at the park, it is considered that the nets wouldcontribute to the recreational amenity value of the park, consistent with thispolicy or policies RL34 and RL35 of the AUDP.

6.2.6 Policy RL20 states that the Council will resist proposals to provide private sportsfacilities on public open space. Some of the objectors opposed the use of thispark space for cricket, excluding use of this part of the park by the generalpublic. In this case it is important to distinguish between the sports use of thespace (playing cricket) with the proposed practice nets subject to thisapplication. The nets themselves take up a very small proportion of the park’sarea, and as such will not preclude members of the public from using the park.Accordingly it is considered that the scheme will not contravene policy RL20.


6.3.1 In terms of the design and appearance of the poles and nets, it is considered thatthis is acceptable, as they would relate to their surroundings. As a facility forcricket practices, design options are very limited. Unlike bulky solid structures,which may adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining residentialproperties, the nets and poles are not solid or bulky. Accordingly it isconsidered that the scheme complies with CD15.

6.4 Amenity Impacts

6.4.1 Some of the objectors from St Agnes Place were concerned about reducedamenity from an increase in noise from the use of the practice nets so close tothe residential properties on the eastern side of St Agnes Place. Policy ENV19

65

of the AUDP and policy 7 of the DDUDP state that “Developments which arelikely to generate noise inappropriate to the local environment will be refused….In addition, the Council will encourage the most appropriate siting of noisesources within developments and, where appropriate, will impose conditions onplanning permissions to limit the hours of operation of noisy processes oractivities”.

6.4.2 The Council’s Enforcement Officer (noise) was concerned about the siting of thenets within close proximity to these residential occupiers. Accordingly theCouncil recommended the applicant to change the siting of the nets to analternative location where any noise created would have less impact onresidential occupiers. The amended location involves separation distances of aminimum of 27 m from the nearest residential flats at Bateman House. TheCouncil’s Enforcement Officer (Noise/Pollution) has no objections to theamended scheme. It is considered that imposing conditions in this case wouldbe inappropriate.

6.4.3 The Kennington Day Nursery were concerned about stray balls being hit into theplayground. The purpose of the nets is to prevent this from happening. Thenets are orientated such that the open front faces the main cricket ground ratherthan any adjoining properties. It is also noted that the protective nettingproposed by 03/00005/FUL will alleviate these concerns as the nursery liesadjacent to the Aspen House School where the proposed protective netting issited.

6.4.4 The objectors raised concerns that the cricket facilities are not in compliancewith the Disability Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act and do notprovide for disabled access. This is a not a material planning matter. It is arequirement of another form of legislation. One objector also raised concernsregarding the reduction of daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties. Thepractice nets are located a minimum of 27 metres from the nearest residentialdwelling. Therefore it is considered that they would not have an adverse impactupon daylight and sunlight received by adjoining properties.

6.5 Transport and Highways Considerations

6.5.1 It is considered that the proposal would have no more than a minor impact ontraffic generation or parking. Nevertheless the Council’s Highways Departmenthave been consulted. They have no objections to the amended scheme.

8. Conclusions

8.1 The proposed development comprises of the installation of cricket practice nets atthe northernmost corner of Kennington Park. It is considered that the scheme isconsistent with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan,being policies RL20, RL34, RL35, ENV19 and CD15 and the Deposited DraftUnitary Development Plan, being policy 45(c). For the reasons outlined in thisreport it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Grant Planning Permission subject to the conditions attached.

66



Notes to Applicant





5. In determining this application the following policies RL34, RL35 and ENV19 ofthe Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policies 7 and 45 of the Deposited DraftUnitary Development Plan were relevant to the decision.

67

N



6

37

41

39

OTT

O

101

14

1 to 68

1 to 68

1 to 68

Bateman House

Walters House

Cornish House

MEAD

CRO F

T RO

AD

1 to 68

1 to

1

to

68

El Su b Sta

Brawne Hou

Cruden House

PrescottHouse

HILLINGD

O N

STREE

T

40

BO

LTO

N

CR

ES

ME AD CROFT ROAD

Vi c

arag

e

es Chu rch

Sub

St aEl

1 t o 58

Mol eswort h Hou se

El

Su b Sta

Kennington P ark

9

13

15

4

8

As pen H ous e

Sc hool

75

3.6m

3.3m

73

1 to

6

20

22

Und

Boro Con st & LB B dy

CW

CF

CR

Pl ay grou nd

ST

AG

NE

S

PLA

CE

3.3m

93

74

64 81

52

3.4m

28

3.4m

34

Sh

elte

r

Ad ve nture Pl ay grou nd

Ch arl ie Cha pl in

89

99

2.9m

Play gr ound

Pre sco tt

Ho us e

Kennington P ark

BM

3.41 m

95

HIL LI NGD

ON ST

Ha

FB

HI LL

INGD

ON S

TR EE

T

3.1m

2.9m

1 to 68

CR

ES

CE

NTB

OL

TON

SM

Po sts

CF

Bo ro Cons t & LB Bd y

CP

CR

70

8257

49

BOL TON CRES CENT

Pl ay grou nd

Pl ay grou nd

3.7m8 to

10 Boro Co nst & LB Bd y

CR

11

11

111

1

1

11


Case Number:


03/00005/FUL

Kennington ParkKennington Park RoadLondonConservation Area

Boundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

68

Location Kennington Park Kennington Park Road London

Ward OVALProposal

Erection of nine permanent posts, to support temporary ball stop safety nets, adjacent toAspen House School at the northern boundary of the existing cricket ground.

Application No 03/00005/FUL/DCJJC/32198 / 18644

Applicant Lambeth Sports & Recreation

Agent Carl Callaghan141 Kennington Park RoadLondonSE11 4JJ


Considerations

Conservation AreaSt. MarksUDP ViewPrimrose Hill to Palace of Westminster

Plans410059; 410060; 410061.


69

Officer Report

03/00005/FUL


1.1. Acceptability of the impacts of the proposed ball stop safety nets on the amenityof nearby residential occupiers.

1.2. Acceptability of the appearance of the proposed ball stop safety nets.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application site is Kennington Park extension located to the east of KenningtonPark on the eastern side of St Agnes Place. Specifically this application concernsthe curved portion of the site near its northern boundary, adjacent to the AspenHouse Special School and the adjacent housing block, Bateman House.

2.2 In recent times this part of the park has been used for the playing and practising ofcricket, facilitated by Lambeth Sport and Recreation. Under the Deposited DraftUnitary Development Plan (DDUDP) the park is designated as a ParksRegeneration Area. These areas have been designated as park areas whereimprovements to their accessibility and facilities will be particularly promoted andsupported.

3. Planning History

3.1 Numerous planning applications have been granted for various activities anddevelopments within the park over the years.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The application is for the erection of nine permanent 7.7 m high posts to supporttemporary ballstop safety netting adjacent to Aspen House Special School. Thepurpose of the netting is to protect the block of flats adjacent to the school fromcricket balls hit in that area from the pitch.

4.2. The posts would be a permanent fixture but the nylon netting would be put up andtaken down when required for cricket fixtures, estimated to be approximately eighttimes per year. The netting would be operated by a pulley system.

4.3. Although an independent scheme in its own right this scheme forms part of anumber of proposals to improve the cricket facilities at the park including cricketpractice nets (application reference 03/00004/FUL, elsewhere on this agenda).There are also future plans for applications for a pavilion, equipment storage yard,and re-alignment of a path.


5.1 Consultation letters were sent to the occupiers of the Aspen House Special School,47-53 St Agnes Place odd inclusive and 1-8 inclusive Bateman House, MeadcroftRoad. Consultation letters were also sent to the Vauxhall NeighbourhoodHousing Forum, the Vauxhall Society, the Kennington Park Tenants Association,the Manor of Kennington Residents Association, Friends of the Oval and the

70

London Borough of Southwark. In addition a site notice was displayed and apress notice was published.

5.2 Two objections were received. The grounds of objection were as follows:

35. St Agnes Place has a high proportion of disabled, vulnerable andmarginalized tenants. To site a facility on public land that excludesindividuals on grounds of disability and gender is illegal under the DisabilityDiscrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.

36. Further to point one, Lambeth has a duty of care as a service provider underthe DDA to be inclusive in all aspects of service provision. Under the DDAsport and recreation, even if provided free of charge, is defined as a service.

37. St Agnes Place is a resident only parking area. There is no provision, oravailable space to make provision, for any additional parking. During the firstseason of the clubs activities there was illegal occupancy of residents parkingbays and the private car park of 47-51 St Agnes Place, cars parked on thepavement denying wheelchair users and parents with buggies access, andparking on the park extension itself. None of this was made any better byLambeth parking attendants’ refusal to provide their service in St AgnesPlace.

38. Further to point three, Camberwell New Road is a red route, and the width ofJohn Ruskin St, also a red route, does not lend itself to on-street Parking.

39. There is no wheelchair access for spectators, contrary to DDA requirements.40. There was no provision of disabled toilets during the first season, contrary to

DDA requirements.41. Kennington Park extension is needed for the use of local Lambeth and

Southwark residents and their children. KPCCG has effectively displacedand alienated the local community. Any further expansion of KPCCGactivities can only harm relations between the community and the council.

42. Cricket is NOT the favoured activity of local children. Any planned expansionof sports and recreational facilities in the St Agnes Place area MUST focuson meeting the needs of local children/youth, and MUST be indoor andoutdoor facilities that operate on 52 weeks a year basis.

43. No consultation with the immediate communities was entered into by thecouncil in respect of KPCCG before the first season, and no formalconsultation has been entered into with regards its expansion.

44. We have not been provided with details of KPCCG’s public liability insuranceprovision, despite repeated requests. In view of one incident involving acricket ball landing in a tenant’s living room, when major injury could haveoccurred, and damage to local property caused by broadcast vehicles andvisitors to the site, this is a major concern.

45. No attempt appears to have been made by KPCCG to meet Health andSafety requirements.

46. In a community with a large number of disabled and elderly residents, andwith a large population of very young children, the threat posed by a cricketball traveling at speed is a serious concern. There is a heavily used publicfootpath across the park extension and councils have a duty of care to thevulnerable that is governed by best possible practice.

47. KPCCG is sited far too close to 47-51 St Agnes Place and we would drawyour attention to the requirements governing sports installations andproximity to housing.

48. Following their first season, we as residents have no confidence in themanagement of KPCCG, and would question it being granted a secondyear’s occupancy never mind an extension of its activities.

49. The drawings which we have had access to show a series of nylon panels 7meters by 5 meters being erected along the back garden wall of 47 through51 St. Agnes Place 4 meters away from the wall. Nylon is a highly flammablesubstance. The back walls of the properties are topped by wooden trellis, and

71

the gardens themselves are separated by wooden overlap fence panels. Thespace between the panels and wall are not wide enough to accommodateemergency service vehicles in the event of fire breaking out, a fire scenario inwhich the nylon netting has played a significant contributory factor. Furtherthe netting would seriously impede the use of rescue equipment in the eventof tenants being trapped on the first or second floors of the properties.Special needs tenants, which form the bulk of the occupancies, already faceconsiderable problems in the event of any rescue being necessitated;creating further obstacles that may not only place their lives at risk but reducethe “golden” four minute medical resuscitation window is criminallydangerous.

50. The nets will be supported by metal posting that will interrupt TV/radioreception, mobile phone signals [wheelchair users in particular use mobilephones in preference to land lines – numbers 47 and 53 are special buildwheelchair properties], and medical equipment.

51. The nets will block out a lot of natural light to the fourteen properties, whichcomprise 47 through 53 St. Agnes Place.

52. The tenants of 47 through 53 St. Agnes Place have been subjected toconsiderable stress by the users of the cricket facilities during the last seasonand this has led to an increase in cases of mental anguish.

53. The cricket facility was designed solely for the use of young cricketers andwhat little detailing we were able to access made reference to the UnitedDominion Cricket Club; however, the current application makes referenceonly to Kennington Cricket Club, which appears to be a London Borough ofSouthwark based adult cricket club.

54. There is clear indication that the United Dominion initiative has been used asa smoke screen to facilitate adult cricket.

55. Further there is strong anecdotal evidence that Surrey Cricket County Club,the key funder behind United Dominion, is unaware of Kennington CricketClub.

56. When the lack of local consultation was raised with a Surrey Cricket CountyClub representative the admission was made that they lacked sufficientfunding for such an exercise.

57. The officer responsible for sports and leisure facilities in the London Boroughof Lambeth not only refuses to discuss any issue relating to the cricketground with local residents, but refers them to two individuals living in theLondon Borough of Southwark., ie the Chair and Secretary of the Friends ofKennington Park. This alienates local residents and creates a feeling thatrepresentation without taxation is council policy. We trust we do not need tostress the fiscal problems the council would face if a significant number ofLambeth residents put this feeling into action.

58. The cricket ground is the property of the London Borough of Lambeth, andtherefore the people of Lambeth; yet, Lambeth and its residents are notreceiving any financial revenues in terms of any leasing or licensing structure.

59. The plans show the Transco operated gas mains but do not show theNational Grid line and sewers that run across the common. Any structuresuch as poles, which require below soil penetration must take into account allbelow surface mains and cable services.

60. The consultant’s report that was prepared prior to the initial season clearlyfound against the site on grounds of insufficient space and public safety; thisreport has been ignored.

61. There has been no consultants report, or feasibility study, attached to thecurrent application.

62. All sports facilities delivered on council property must be fully inclusive in theterms of service provision; they must be fully accessible irrespective of age,gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation and disability. It is clear thatshould the London Borough of Lambeth grant planning permission in thisinstance it would be failing the equalities policies that its residents rely on.

72

63. Assuming a height of 7 meters, in line with a previous application, then theirdepth must be 3.5 meters subground level. In the area assigned there are thefollowing obstructions: (1) National Grid line and subsidiary channelledcable serving Kennington Park Place, Otto Street, John Ruskin Street andSaint Agnes Place. (2) Gas mains and subsidiary channelling servingthe same parameters. (3) Water and sewerage mains and subsidiarychannelling serving the same parameters.



Adopted Unitary Development Plan (AUDP):

� RL34 – Preservation and use of sports facilities� RL35 – Sports and play facilities in parks� RL20 – Preserving public open space� CD15 – Design of new development

Deposited Draft Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP):

� Policy 45 – Protection and Enhancement of Open Space and Sports Facilities� Policy 7 – Residential Amenity

The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weight at the moment due theearly stage of the adoption process. However the 'Interim' policies carry more weight inthat they have been the subject of consultation as part of the Key Issues Paper andrepresent changes in national policy or guidance to which the Council must have regardin making planning decisions. In this case none of the interim policies are relevant tothe scheme.

In considering material considerations other than the adopted development plan regardshould be had to the most up to date national and regional policy.

6.2 Land Use

6.2.7 The park has previously been used as a cricket ground for community clubcricket during last summer for approximately four months. As stated earlier thisapplication forms one of a number of proposals to improve the facilities forplaying cricket at Kennington Park.

6.2.8 The park is a public park owned by the Council, and is therefore available foruse by the general public. Lambeth Sport & Recreation manage this part of thepark. Users are able to make bookings with Lambeth Sport & Recreation to usethese cricket facilities.

6.2.9 In this case the relates to the protection of buildings and people at St AgnesPlace within close proximity of the boundary from cricket balls hit in that area.The use of the park for the playing of cricket is not a material consideration withrespect to this planning application. The erection of the posts requires planningpermission but the temporary netting is not a material consideration as theactivity itself does not require planning permission.

6.2.10 No AUDP policies are directly relevant to this proposal, however policies RL34,RL35 and RL20 of the AUDP are indirectly relevant and policy 45 of the DDUDPis relevant to the application.

73

6.2.11 Part (c) of policy 45 relates to areas designated as a Parks Regeneration Area.This policy promotes improvements to these open spaces in partnership withthe community. As the proposed safety nets are an additional facilityspecifically designed to protect nearby property from an existing use of the park,it is considered that they would not be inconsistent with policies RL34 and RL35of the AUDP or policy 45 of the DDUDP.

6.2.12 Policy RL20 states that the Council will resist proposals to provide private sportsfacilities on public open space. Some of the objectors opposed the use of thispark space for cricket, excluding use of this part of the park by the generalpublic. In this case it is important to distinguish between the sports use of thespace (playing cricket) with the proposed safety nets subject to this application.The poles themselves will not preclude members of the public from using thepark. The nets will only be erected during match time. Accordingly it isconsidered that the scheme will not contravene policy RL20.


6.3.1 In terms of the design and appearance of the poles and nets, it is consideredthat this is acceptable, as they would relate to their surroundings. As a facilityfor stopping cricket balls, design options are very limited. Unlike bulky solidstructures, which may adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoiningresidential properties, the nets and poles are not solid or bulky. Accordingly it isconsidered that the scheme complies with CD15.

6.4 Amenity Impact

6.4.1 It is considered that the proposal would have no adverse impacts upon theresidential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers. Rather it would protectthe safety of these occupiers and their buildings.

6.4.2 The objectors raised concerns that the cricket facilities are not in compliancewith the Disability Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act and do notprovide for disabled access. This is a not a material planning matter. It is arequirement of another form` of legislation. One objector also raised concernsregarding the reduction of daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties. Asstated above the netting does not require planning permission. The poles wouldnot have an adverse impact upon daylight and sunlight received by adjoiningproperties.

7. Conclusions

7.1 The proposed development comprises of the installation of safety netting arounda small portion of the perimeter of Kennington Park. It is considered that thescheme is consistent with the relevant policies of the Adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan, being policies RL20, RL34 RL35 and CD15 and the DepositedDraft Unitary Development Plan, being policy 45. For the reasons outlined in thisreport it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

9. Recommendation

8.1 Grant Planning Permission subject to the conditions attached.

74



2 The protective netting shall only be erected on a maximum of 28 days per year.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties).

Notes to Applicant





5. In determining this application the following policies RL34 and RL35 of the AdoptedUnitary Development Plan and policy 45 of the Deposited Draft Unitary DevelopmentPlan were relevant to the decision.

75

N



12.0 m

10.9 m 25

49

3758

LB

Bro

mfel

de

Wal k

78

1 t o 12Hal tone Ho us e

Surco t House76

1 t o 12

Pl ay grou nd

Lar khall

Inf ants

School92

49

53

63

71

75

79

73

77

81

93

12

2

111

Ga ra ge

KEL

MAN

CLO

SE

1

S

2

1

93a

Surg

ery

13

23

LB

LL RISE

10.8 m

25

Surgery

Ryd

al Ho

use

Oakw

el l Ho us

e

1 t o

12

1 t o

26

BM 10. 23m

El

Su b

Sta

13.0 m

TCB

1 to 102

Rushton House

1 t o

24

1 to 24

Newto

n Ho us

e

Nethe rby Ho use9.1m

157

155

Play grou nd

TCB

BM 7.38m

1 t o

12

Eshe

r Ho us

e

6.5m

1 to 32

Cl ive Hou se

6.8m

Coro

nat io

n

Hal l

6.3m

TCB

BM 6.63m

Ha ll

6.5m

PoliceStation

Ru shbro ok House1 to 22

1 t o 44

Da rti ngt on Hou se

1 t o

16

1 to 24

1 to 6Wi nslow

House

GAS KE LLSTREE T

1 to 16

1 t o 16

Lark ha ll

Jun io r

Sc ho ol

1 t o

38

LARK

HALL

LANE

Dukeof York

(PH)

80

137135

123

10

2

29

23

1

3

5

105

107

109

111

113

121

118

55

57

139

139a

139b

139c141

13

Hard wi ck

Ho use

1 to 18

El Su b Sta

El Su b Sta

UNI

ON G

ROV

E

UNION

RO A

D

BM

7.42

m

1 t o

48

Farn

le y Ho use

18

SMEDL

EY STRE E

T

10

9

43

El

Su b Sta

13

PH

Dale

mai n

Hou

se

Fallodon House

6. 8m

7.0m

Garag e

Wood Hou

se

Kingsl ey Hous e

Stan

mor

e Hou

se

143

6.7m

11

Playgroun

d

Gam

e s

Cour

t

Mar lowHouse

Bourne

House

1 t o

9

Spri

ngfi e

ld

Cou

rt

Co mmu ni tyCe ntre

Gor ingHouseSonningHouse

Pl ay grou nd

UNION ROAD

2

to

12

14

to

24


Case Number:


02/02919/FUL

Police Depot157 Larkhall LaneLondonSW4 6RF


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

76

Location Police Depot 157 Larkhall Lane London SW4 6RF

Ward LARKHALLProposal

Installation of a stand-by generator. (retrospective)

Application No 02/02919/FUL/DCJJC/20922

Applicant Metropolitan Police Authority

Agent Miss J RaganEstate GroupMetropolitan Police ServiceCobalt Square1 South Lambeth RoadLondonSW8 1SU

Date Valid 22 November 2002

Considerations

PlansALP/01 A; EGEN/02; 04 B; Photos; Technical details; Acoustic report51603/E1b1/RH.


77

Officer Report

02/02919/FUL


1.1. Acceptability of the appearance of the existing stand-by generator at the PoliceDepot at 157 Larkhall Lane.

1.2. Acceptability of the noise and air pollution impacts of the existing stand-bygenerator on the amenity of nearby residential occupiers.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application site and buildings occupy a parcel of land approximately 0.6hectares in size situated on the south east side of Larkhall Lane betweenSmedley Street and Union Road. The site is used as a depot for operationalrequirements of the Metropolitan Police. It contains both Class B1 (offices,laboratories and light industrial) and Sui Generis (non-categorised) uses.Vehicular access to the site is gained only from Union Road.

2.2 The site comprises of two main buildings, identified as Block ‘A’ and Block ‘B’,which are located on either end of the site and separated by a large yard area.This proposal relates to the existing generator located near Block ‘B’ and the brickboundary wall adjacent to the Union Road entrance to the site.

2.3 The site does not lie within a conservation area but the opposite side of UnionRoad is within the Sibella Road Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

3.1 The site was redeveloped following planning permissions granted in 1979, toprovide light industrial floorspace together with the construction of a new meansof access to Union Road.

3.2 In 1980, the Metropolitan Police sought confirmation from the Council that use ofthe site for the location of their forensic science laboratories and the buildingsurveyor's workshops would not require consultation under the then applicableCircular 7/77. A letter dated 2 June 1980 gave confirmation that formalconsultation under the Circular was not required.

3.3 Since that date there have been three formal consultations under Circular 18/84.The first was for the temporary use of the building as a 'Forward ReceptionCentre', against which the Council raised objection. The second was a minoralteration to accommodate ventilation equipment, to which the Council raised noobjection. The third proposal was to use the premises to base a uniformed policeestablishment described as the Territorial Support Group and storage of theirvehicles in unit B and to locate their Forensic Science Unit in unit A. This wasimplemented in 1999.

3.4 Planning permission was granted on 11 July 2002 for the provision of an increasein internal office accommodation to accommodate a maximum of 68 staff, alongwith external alterations to the existing building such as new doors, windows androoflights (ref. 02/00238/FUL).

78

3.5 Planning permission was granted on 13 December 2002 for the installation of 1cluster aerial, 4 omnidirectional antennas and 4 directional aerials to the aerialplatform on block ‘B’ (ref. 02/02194/FUL).

3.6 Planning permission was refused in April 2003 for a diesel-powered generator tosupply continuous electricity to block ‘B’ (ref. 02/03058/FUL). The application wasrefused because emissions from the generator would adversely effect air qualityand the amenity of residential occupiers in the vicinity.

3.7 There is also another current application (ref. 02/03056/FUL) being considered bythe Council for an electrical sub-station proposed to supply continuous electricityto block ‘B’.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Retrospective planning permission is sought for the installation of a stand-bygenerator unit adjacent to Block ‘B’ and the brick boundary wall adjacent to theUnion Road entrance to the site.

4.2. The structure housing the generator has approximate dimensions of 13 m long by3.2 m wide by 3.1 m high (at the highest point of the air in/outlet on top of themain generator casing), although the structure does not have a rectangular shapebut rather has a kinked ‘V’ footprint shape. The structure comprises of metalcasing painted the same blue colour as the adjacent metal railings on theretaining wall.

4.3. The structure includes an air inlet and air outlet on top of the main generator alongwith a 22,000 litre capacity fuel tank attached at one end.

4.4. The generator is located at a lower level than street/pavement level, due to theretaining wall at the boundary.

4.5. The generator already exists on the site without the benefit of an extant planningpermission. To date the generator has been used as a ‘primary’ generatoroperating on a daily basis used for running the electrical requirements of building‘B’. This application is to regularise the existence of the generator on the site andallow its continued use but only on an emergency (stand-by) basis.

4.6. Since the application was submitted to the Council, the generator has undergonesubstantial remedial works through internal modification following advice from theapplicant’s Acoustic Consultant. The modification includes the installation ofimproved vibration isolation and attenuation in order to reduce operational noiselevels.

4.7. The visual appearance and dimensions of the generator are shown in thedrawings and photographs enclosed as part of the application.

5. Background

5.1 The Council received complaints from residents in Union Grove concerning noisefrom the unauthorised diesel generator at the Larkhall Lane Police Depot on 30August 2002. Officers were advised by the Metropolitan Police Service that themains power supply to the premises had been underestimated and that theequipment, intended for emergency use, was run to provide power during workinghours and at night when the premises were in use.

79

5.2 The equipment produced a tonal noise causing noise nuisance to residents atnight which was also intrusive to nearby homes during the day. At a meeting withofficers on 7 October 2002 the Metropolitan Police Service agreed to control thehours of operation to between 0800 to 1900 hours as a measure to abate anynight time noise nuisance. The Metropolitan Police Service were also informedthat they must either stop the use of the generator altogether or make animmediate retrospective planning application for its continued use for any amountof time and further planning applications for external structures proposed for theprimary generation of electricity.

5.3 The Council continued to receive complaints concerning the tonal noise from theequipment and further investigations by an Acoustic Consultant employed by theMetropolitan Police Service identified remedial works that were subsequentlycompleted on 21 February 2003. The Council’s Noise Enforcement Officer visiteda resident in Union Grove on 24 February 2003 and reported that the tonal noisewas no longer audible in the house. Another resident has since contacted theCouncil to express her satisfaction with the outcome of the noise remedial works.

5.4 It is now proposed to continue the use of the existing generator on an emergencybasis only, whilst the other two applications have been made as alternativesolutions to a permanent supply of electricity for block ‘B’. One of theseapplications (a diesel powered generator ref. 02/03058/FUL) has been refusedunder delegated authority as the emissions would lead to air pollution levelsgreater than the Council’s standards. The other application for the sub-station issubject to determination at this committee.


6.1 Consultation letters were sent to 65-93A (odd inclusive), 80 – 90 (even inclusive),92A and 92B Union Road, flats 1-12 (inclusive) Surcot House, Union Road, 11and 13 Smedley Street, 1-26 (inclusive) Oakwell House, Larkhall Rise, 1-9(inclusive) Springfield Court, Larkhall Lane, 1-6 (inclusive) Winslow House,Larkhall Lane, 1-38 (inclusive) Stanmore House, Larkhall Lane, Larkhall ArmsPH, 155 Larkhall Lane and Duke of York PH, Larkhall Lane. Consultation letterswere also sent to the Clapham Society and the Larkhall Park ResidentsAssociation. A site notice was also displayed.

6.2 Four objections to the scheme have been received. One of the objections alsocontains seven other signatures.

6.3 In summary the points of objection are:

� “I was wondering what the noise increase opposite (my address) was;� This is a residential area and the increased noise level is not acceptable;� The noise from this installation as heard from my home is intolerable at all

times and has been particularly invasive over this Christmas period when wewere forced to suffer a generative hum;

� The generator is a health hazard as it not only vibrates Union Rd with a ‘hum’and ‘buzz’ but emits petroleum smells straight into Union Road which issupposed to be a conservation area;

� Our front door, living room, bedrooms and staircase are affected by this as thegenerator vibrates them directly because we are within diagonal radius of thepolice depot;

� There was a breach in planning regulations in the first place as the communityand the street were not consulted about this. It just suddenly appeared andhas been a very noticeable irritant and is affecting the health of residentialneighbours;

80

� Loss of sunlight, privacy and noise.”



National Planning Guidance7.1.1. PPG24 – Planning and Noise

Adopted Unitary Development Plan (AUDP)7.1.2. ENV17 – Atmospheric pollution and air quality7.1.3. ENV19 – Noise Control7.1.4. CD15 – Design of new development

Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP)7.1.5. Policy 7 – Protection of Residential Amenity

The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weight at the momentdue the early stage of the adoption process. However the 'Interim' policies carry moreweight in that they have been the subject of consultation as part of the Key IssuesPaper and represent changes in national policy or guidance to which the Council musthave regard in making planning decisions. In this case none of the interim policies arerelevant to the scheme.


Part 13 of PPG24 is directly relevant to this scheme. This recommends that localplanning authorities should look to work with applicants in finding solutions to reduce ormitigate noise impacts of developments wherever possible and only refuse applicationswhere such solutions can not be found. Part 13 then discusses possible measures tomitigate the impact of noise and breaks the types of measures available into threecategories, (1) engineering solutions, (2) lay-out and (3) administrative. This schemeinvolves engineering measures that have been undertaken internally to the generator.Administrative measures are also proposed as the generator shall only be usedoccasionally (on an emergency basis). The sparing use of this generator is animportant consideration in this case as on-going use at all times would not beacceptable even taking into consideration the reduction in noise impacts due to theengineering works undertaken. Thus the on-going use of this generator would berefused on air pollution grounds


7.2.1 Policy CD15 of the AUDP (Design of new development) is relevant to thisproposal. The Council seeks to achieve a high quality in design in allnew development, ensuring that proposals relate to their surrounds andcontribute positively to the area.

7.2.2 The structure comprises of a galvanised steel enclosure coloured blue. Agenerator is a functional piece of equipment that can not readily bechanged to improve its design. The size of the structure is relativelysmall given the size of the site and other buildings and infrastructure onthe site. The enclosure is also very well screened behind the 6.3 m highbrick retaining wall on the Union Road boundary of the site. Only a smallproportion of the enclosure consisting of approximately the top 0.15 m of

81

the enclosure over 4 – 5 m of its length adjacent to the vehicular accessarea, is visible at ground level from outside of the site through the bluecoloured railings set upon the retaining wall. This is where the retainingwall is approximately 0.9 m lower than the remainder of the wall at thispart of the site.

7.2.3 The building with which the generator relates is a plain moderncommercial brick building with aluminium windows. The retaining wallaround its boundary comprises of matching red bricks and blue paintedrailings above. The generator enclosure is ancillary to this buildinghaving a considerably smaller scale than the adjacent building. Its colourmatches the royal blue of the existing railings. It is therefore consideredthat the proposed enclosure is in keeping with the design, appearanceand function of the building and site to which it relates. Due its small sizeand the fact that most of the enclosure is screened behind the brickretaining wall, it is considered that it does not adversely impact upon thecharacter of the Sibella Road Conservation Area, part of which faces ontothe subject site from the opposite side of Union Road, and as suchcomplies with CD15.

7.2.4 It is noted that none of the objectors expressed any concern with thevisual appearance of the equipment.

7.3 Amenity Impact

7.3.1 The purpose of policies ENV17(i) and ENV19 of the AUDP and policy 7of the DDUDP is to protect residential amenity from adverse levels of airpollution and noise respectively in mixed use areas. Non-residential usesare controlled in order to protect residential amenity. All of the objectionsraised concerns or questions about the noise and/or vibration impacts ofthe generator.

7.3.2 The Council generally requires that noise from new equipment does notincrease the typical background noise levels in the area. As a result ofthe remedial works to the generator, the noise from this equipment nowfalls below the general background noise levels in the area, and althoughaudible in the environment, no longer represents a noise nuisance to theresidents, as confirmed by the Council’s Regulatory Services Officer(Noise and Pollution).

7.3.3 The equipment is diesel fuelled. Under the Environment Act 1995, localauthorities are required to review and assess air quality within theirborough. The Act also established objectives for 8 air pollutants. TheCouncil is required to implement measures that reduce levels of NitrogenDioxide and Particulate matter within the borough. Due to the occasional(emergency) use of this generator the level of pollutants emitted will below. Accordingly this level of emissions of such substances would not beharmful to the environment. It is also proposed to limit the times that thegenerator can be used by way of conditions both in respect of emergencyoperational use and use for testing purposes.

82

7.3.4 The Council’s Enforcement Officer (Noise and Pollution) has noenvironmental health or acoustic objections to this application, as a resultof the remedial works to the generator.

7.3.5 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal does and will nothave a negative impact on the adjacent residential properties in terms ofair pollution and noise levels and is therefore in keeping with policiesENV17(i) and ENV19 of the AUDP and policy 7 of the DDUDP.

8. Conclusions

8.1 The scheme comprises of retention of the existing generator and its use foremergencies, in the event of a mains failure. It is considered that the proposalsatisfies the requirements of the relevant policies CD15, ENV17(i) and ENV19 ofthe Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy 7 of the Deposit Draft UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

8.2 This application is interrelated with the application for the sub-station (ref.02/03056/FUL) that would provide a primary electricity source for block ‘B’. Theproposals need to be assessed on their merits together. The recommendedcondition 2 (the standby generator shall only be used in the event of a mainspower supply failure) for this permission would clearly not be operational shouldthis application be granted and the sub-station application be refused planningpermission. Thus it needs to be considered if this application should beapproved given that there would be no approved permanent electricity supply,and concerns about a generator being used.

9. Recommendation

9.1. Grant Planning Permission subject to the conditions attached.

83



2 The standby generator hereby approved shall not be operated other than in theevent of a mains power supply failure and the generator shall then not operate between thehours of 2300 and 0700 daily. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouringresidential properties.)

3 Any periodic testing of the standby generator shall not be carried out other thanbetween the hours of 0800 to 1800hrs Mondays to Fridays. (Reason: To safeguard theamenities of neighbouring residential properties).

4 The measured noise level applied at 1.0 metre external to the windows of thenearest residential property shall not exceed L90 50 dBA while the generator is opertaingbetween the hours of 0700 and 2300 daily on an emergency basis only. (Reason: Tosafeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.)

Notes to Applicant


2. This decision is without prejudice to the London Borough of Lambeth's position asowner of adjoining property.



5. In determining this application the following policies ENV17, ENV19 and CD15 ofthe Adopted Unitary Development Plan and 7 of the Deposited Draft UnitaryDevelopment Plan were relevant to the decision.

84

N



10. 9m

78

1 to 12Haltone House

Surc ot H ous e76

1 to 12

Playground

Larkhall

Infants

School92

53

63

71

75

79

73

77

81

93

Gara

ge

KELM

AN CLOSE

1

93a

Surge ry

Oakw

ell H

ouse

1 to 26

El

Sub

St a

9.1m

157

155

Playground

BM 7.38m

on

Hall

1 to 16

1 to 6WinslowHouse

1 to 16

1 to 16

1 to 38

LAR KHALL L

AN E

Duke

of York(PH)

80

137 135

123

213 9

13 9a

139b139c

141

SMEDLEY STREET

13

PH

Dale ma in H

o use

6.8m

7.0m

Wood Ho use

Kingsley Hous e

Stan

more Ho us

e

143

11

Marl owHous e

Bo urneHo us e

1 to 9

Sprin

gf ie ld

Court

GoringHouseSonningHouse

UNION ROAD


Case Number:


02/03056/FUL

Police Depot157 Larkhall LaneLondonSW4


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

85

Location Police Depot 157 Larkhall Lane London SW4 6RF

Ward LARKHALLProposal

Installation of electrical sub station at Union Road entrance.


Applicant Metropolitan Police Authority

Agent Miss J. ReganEstates GroupMetropolitan Police ServiceCobalt Square1 South Lambeth RoadLondonSW8 1SU


Considerations

PlansALP/01 B; ALP/SUB/01; ALP/SUB/02; CBU/ST/GRP-LV; Acoustic report51603/E1c2/RH.


86

Officer Report

02/03056/FUL


1.1. Acceptability of the appearance of the proposed electrical sub-station at the UnionRoad entrance of the Police Depot at 157 Larkhall Lane.

1.2. Acceptability of the impacts of the proposed electrical sub-station on the amenityof nearby residential occupiers.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application site and buildings occupy a parcel of land approximately 0.6hectares in size situated on the south east side of Larkhall Lane betweenSmedley Street and Union Road. The site is used as a depot for operationalrequirements of the Metropolitan Police. It contains both Class B1 (offices,laboratories and light industrial) and Sui Generis (non-categorised) uses.Vehicular access to the site is gained only from Union Road.

2.4 The site comprises of two main buildings, identified as Block ‘A’ and Block ‘B’,which are located on either end of the site and separated by a large yard area.This proposal relates to the area at the front of the site between the vehicularcrossover and the adjoining property, 92 Union Road.

2.5 The site does not lie within a conservation area but the opposite side of UnionRoad is within the Sibella Road Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

3.8 The site was redeveloped following planning permissions granted in 1979, toprovide light industrial floorspace together with the construction if a new means ofaccess to Union Road.

3.9 In 1980, the Metropolitan Police sought confirmation from the Council that use ofthe site for the location of their forensic science laboratories and the buildingsurveyor's workshops would not require consultation under the then applicableCircular 7/77. A letter dated 2 June 1980 gave confirmation that formalconsultation under the Circular was not required.

3.10 Since that date there have been three formal consultations under Circular 18/84.The first was for the temporary use of the building as a 'Forward ReceptionCentre', against which the Council raised objection. The second was a minoralteration to accommodate ventilation equipment, to which the Council raised noobjection. The third proposal was to use the premises to base a uniformed policeestablishment described as the Territorial Support Group and storage of theirvehicles in unit B and to locate their Forensic Science Unit in unit A. This wasimplemented in 1999.

3.11 Planning permission was granted on 11 July 2002 for the provision of an increasein internal office accommodation to accommodate a maximum of 68 staff, alongwith external alterations to the existing building such as new doors, windows androoflights (ref. 02/00238/FUL).

87

3.12 Planning permission was granted on 13 December 2002 for the installation of 1cluster aerial, 4 omnidirectional antennas and 4 directional aerials to the aerialplatform on block ‘B’ (ref. 02/02194/FUL).

3.13 Planning permission was refused in April 2003 for a diesel-powered generator tosupply continuous electricity to block ‘B’ (ref. 02/03058/FUL). The application wasrefused because emissions from the generator would adversely effect air qualityand the amenity of residential occupiers in the vicinity.

3.14 There is also another current application (ref. 02/02919/FUL) being considered bythe Council for retrospective approval for use of the existing generator to be usedfor emergencies only.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Planning permission is sought for the installation of an electrical sub-stationadjacent to the Union Road entrance to the site. The purpose of this electricalsub-station is to provide sufficient permanent electricity to run the Police’soperations carried out within Block ‘B’ on the site.

4.2. The structure housing the sub-station has approximate dimensions of 3 m long by3 m wide by 2.35 m high. The structure (enclosure) comprises of metal casingpainted mid-brown with a double skinned ply board mounted roof.

4.3. The visual appearance and dimensions of the generator are shown in the drawingCBU/ST/GRP-LV enclosed as part of the application.

4.4. The generator that already exists on the site is unauthorised. The otherapplication being presented to this committee seeks to authorise its retention andallow its use for emergency purposes only. To date the generator has been usedas a ‘primary’ generator operating on a daily basis used for running the electricalrequirements of building ‘B’. This application has been made to provide theprimary electricity source for building ’B’ by way of a small sub-station, thusreplacing the use of the existing diesel powered generator as a primary electricitysource.


5.1 Consultation letters were sent to 65-93A (odd inclusive), 80 – 90 (even inclusive),92A and 92B Union Road, flats 1-12 (inclusive) Surcot House, Union Road, 11and 13 Smedley Street, 1-26 (inclusive) Oakwell House, Larkhall Rise, 1-9(inclusive) Springfield Court, Larkhall Lane, 1-6 (inclusive) Winslow House,Larkhall Lane, 1-38 (inclusive) Stanmore House, Larkhall Lane, Larkhall ArmsPH, 155 Larkhall Lane and Duke of York PH, Larkhall Lane. Consultation letterswere also sent to the Clapham Society and the Larkhall Park ResidentsAssociation. A site notice was also displayed.

5.2 Two objections to the scheme have been received. In summary the points ofobjection are:

� “There is a generator already in place. We thought this was a temporarymeasure. Will the electrical sub-station replace the primary generator or isthis in addition to the generator ?

� Should not an environmental impact study take place ?� I cannot emphasise how all this affects those of us who thought we were living

in a residential area;

88

� If this proposal is going to generate extra noise then I object;� As this is a residential area the sub-station would be out of character with the

environs.”

The objectors have been sent further consultation letters advising them that theCouncils have received an Acoustic report in respect of this application, givingthem a chance to comment upon this report.



National Planning Guidance6.1.1. PPG24 – Planning and Noise

Adopted Unitary Development Plan (AUDP)6.1.2. ENV19 – Noise Control6.1.3. CD15 – Design of new development

Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP)6.1.4. Policy 7 – Protection of Residential Amenity

The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weight at the momentdue the early stage of the adoption process. However the 'Interim' policies carry moreweight in that they have been the subject of consultation as part of the Key IssuesPaper and represent changes in national policy or guidance to which the Council musthave regard in making planning decisions. In this case none of the interim policies arerelevant to the scheme.


Part 13 of PPG24 is directly relevant to this scheme. This recommends that localplanning authorities should look to work with applicants in finding solutions to reduce ormitigate noise impacts of developments wherever possible and only refuse applicationswhere such solutions can not be found. Part 13 then discusses possible measures tomitigate the impact of noise and breaks the types of measures available into threecategories, (1) engineering solutions, (2) lay-out and (3) administrative.


6.2.1 Policy CD15 of the AUDP (Design of new development) is relevant to thisproposal. The Council seeks to achieve a high quality in design in all newdevelopment, ensuring that proposals relate to their surrounds and contributepositively to the area.

6.2.2 The structure would comprise of galvanised steel coloured mid brown with a plyboard roof also coloured brown. An electrical sub-station is a functional piece ofequipment that can not readily be changed to improve its design. The size ofthe structure will be relatively small given the size of the site and other buildingsand infrastructure on the site. The site does not lie within a conservation area.The sub-station will also be screened behind the existing landscaping adjacentto the front boundary of the site.

89

6.2.3 The main building with which the generator relates (block ‘B’) is a plain moderncommercial brick building with aluminium windows. The sub-station enclosure isancillary to this building and it is considerably smaller. Its proposed colour isneutral, relating well to its position adjacent to a landscaped section of the siteand the brown / dark red coloured brickwork of block ‘B’ and the adjoiningterrace houses along Union Road. It is therefore considered that the proposedenclosure is in keeping with the design, appearance and function of the buildingand site to which it relates. Due its small size and the fact that most of theenclosure is screened behind the existing landscaping (plants, shrubs andyoung trees) and railings at the front of the site, it is considered that it does notadversely impact upon the character of the Sibella Road Conservation Area,part of which faces onto the subject site from the opposite side of Union Road.

6.2.4 It is noted that none of the objectors expressed any concern with the visualappearance of the equipment.

6.2.5 It is therefore considered that the proposed electrical sub-station would be inkeeping with the design, appearance and function of the building and site towhich it relates and it would not adversely impact the character of the SibellaRoad Conservation Area, and as such is not contrary to CD15.

6.3 Amenity Impact Considerations

6.3.1 The purpose of policy ENV19 of the DDUDP and policy 7 of the DDUDP is toprotect residential amenity in mixed use areas. ENV19 specifically relates tonoise issues. Non-residential uses are controlled in order to protect residentialamenity. Both of the objections raised concerns or questions about the noiseimpacts of the sub-station, particularly given the noise problems associated withthe existing generator.

6.3.2 The applicants submitted an Acoustic report that assesses the acoustic impactsof the sub-station. The Council generally requires that noise from newequipment does not increase the typical background noise levels in the area.The report concludes that noise from the electrical sub-station will not affect theamenities of the nearby residential properties as the predicted noise levels fallwell below the minimum night-time background noise that has been measuredas 45dB(A) L90.

6.3.3 PPG24 requires remedial measures to reduce or mitigate noise impacts ofdevelopments. However in this case further measures are not required as thedesign specifications of the sub-station meet the noise standards of ENV19without imposing any further measures.

6.3.4 One of the objections questioned whether or not an environmental impact studytake place. This is a valid point as no study on the noise generated by the sub-station had been undertaken and submitted at the time the application wasmade. An acoustic report has subsequently submitted. It is considered that noother specialist environmental impact reports are needed.

6.3.5 The Council’s Enforcement Officer (Noise) has no environmental health oracoustic objections to this application provided that noise levels at night do notexceed 45dB(A) L90. This is required as condition 2.

6.3.6 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal will not have a negativeimpact on the adjacent residential properties and is therefore in keeping withpolicy ENV19 of the AUDP and policy 7 of the DDUDP.

90

7. Conclusions

7.1. The proposed development comprises of the erection of a new electrical sub-station to be used in conjunction with the existing block ‘B’. It is considered thatthe proposal satisfies the requirements of the relevant policies in the AdoptedUnitary Development Plan and the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan beingpolicies ENV19, CD15 and 7 respectively.

7.2. This application is interrelated with the retrospective application for the existinggenerator (ref. 02/02919/FUL) that would provide an emergency electricity sourcefor block ‘B’. The proposals need to be assessed on their merits together. Theemergency generator could not be implemented if this application is refusedplanning permission.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant Planning Permission subject to the conditions attached.

91



2 Noise from the electrical sub station shall not increase the background night -timenoise level of 45dB(A) when measured outside the window of any residential property inUnion Grove. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residentialproperties.)

3 Before any plant/machinery is used on the premises it shall be enclosed withsound insulating material and mounted in a way which will minimise transmission ofstructure borne sound, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local PlanningAuthority, and be retained for the duration of its use. (Reason: To safeguard the amenitiesof neighbouring residential properties.)

Notes to Applicant


2. This decision is without prejudice to the London Borough of Lambeth's position asowner of adjoining property.




6. In determining this application the following policies ENV19 and CD15 of theAdopted Unitary Development Plan and 7 of the Deposited Draft UnitaryDevelopment Plan were relevant to the decision.

92

N



26. 9m

30

15

27. 1m

26. 8m

BM

27. 60m

RODENHU RST ROAD

St James'

Vic arage

Rod enhurst Court

17 to 12

1 to 6

WoodlandsLodge

6c

6a

6b

6d

8a

8c

PATIO CLOSEDa y Centre

Cl ifton

42

44

1

5

10

1128

1524

1920

2324

FB

29. 6m

BM 30.10m

1

25

MAPLE CLOSE

Tank

7

17

1416

BM

27. 99m

Bloomsbury

House

1 to 44

40

25

2930

3132

2728

2526

29. 0m

Play Area

Posts

Belgravia

House

Barnsbury

House

1 to 52

1 to 60

30

20

Pinewood C

14 16

12d

12b

12c

12a

10d

10c

10b

1 to 10

8d


Case Number:


03/00484/FUL

Belgravia, Barnsbury AndBloomsbury HousesClarence AvenueLondon


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

93

Location Belgravia, Barnsbury And Bloomsbury Houses, Clarence AvenueLondon

Ward CLAPHAM COMMONProposal

Replacement of existing windows with aluminium framed double glazed units.

Application No 03/00484/FUL/DCBD/37961

Applicant Lambeth Housing

Agent Hunter & Partners (Peter Howard)26-28 Hammersmith GroveLondonW6 7HU


Considerations

Plans01/Pl-Ap 03, BAY-01,BAY-02, 2003/001,2003/002,sapa Product information


94

Officer Report

03/00484/FUL


1.1. The only issue considered pertinent with this application is the potential impact ofthe windows upon visual amenity/the character and appearance of the buildingand upon the wider streetscene.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site consists of three tower blocks comprising of apartments onthe north side of Clarence Avenue within a predominantly residential areaalthough to the south of the site is a junior and infants school and to the west,although not abutting, is a day centre. The tower blocks vary in height and eachhas car parking below and to the north of each tower. Two elevations of eachtower contain a bay window, a kitchen window, a bedroom window and a loungewindow at each level. The other two elevations contain communal windows tothem serving stairwells

3. Planning History

3.1. No relevant planning history.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The council has received a planning application to replace all the windows to eachof the three tower blocks. The existing windows would be replaced with aluminiumframed double-glazed units.

4.2. A manufacturers brochure has been included with application. The units to servethe kitchen, bedroom and lounge windows would be monoframed, top swing, andreversible windows. Extensive detailing of these windows is provided in thebrochure. Communal windows would be fixed shut except for top hung vents.


5.1. Six Site Notices were posted on and around the three tower blocks.

5.2 The owner/occupiers of the following properties were consulted: 1-44 BloomsburyHouse, 1-60 Belgravia House and 1-52 Barnsbury House

5.3 The Clapham Society and The Clapham Park Partners in Action wereconsulted. No responses received.

5.4 Four responses were received from occupiers of flats in the blocks: onesuggesting that the flats in the north elevation be changed (double glazed) insummer months to lessen the discomfort in the winter months, one supporting thescheme; one asking questions regarding scaffolding, notice given to residentsand time of operation and one letter objecting as it would “ruin the ‘look’ of the baywindow.”



6.1.1 The following UDP policies are considered relevant to this application:

95

H10 – Residential Development Standards

6.1.2 The following Lambeth Deposit UDP policies are considered relevant tothis application:Policy 32 – Building Scale and DesignPolicy 33 – Alterations and Extensions

6.1.4 SPG: Residential Development Standards

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The application solely proposes fenestration alterations to existingbuildings.


6.3.4 It is not considered that the replacement of the existing windows withaluminium framed windows would significantly alter the appearance ofthe buildings or impact negatively on the character of the area as awhole.

6.3.2 The Councils Design and Conservation officer advised that the site is notsituated within a conservation area or near listed buildings andconsidered aluminium to be an appropriate material for this building. Itwas recommended that approval be granted.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The proposed new windows would not have an impact upon theamenities of the adjoining premises.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal has been assessed in relation to the potential impact of the designof the windows upon visual amenity, and on the character and appearance of thebuilding and the wider streetscene. Having looked at this issue and that theConservation and Design group raise no objections, it is considered that theproposal would not have a detrimental impact upon visual amenity and theproposal is considered acceptable.

7.2. The one objection received by the Council was on the grounds that the proposedwindows would ruin the look of the bay windows in the living room. The objectorconsiders that the proposed windows would totally change the appearance of theliving room and lose its charm. However, the windows would be of the samedesign of two large panes with narrow top hung vents above and would have avery similar appearance appropriate to the this building.

8. Recommendation

8.1. GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following Conditions:

96



Notes to Applicant




4. In determining this application, Policies H10 of the Adopted Unitary DevelopmentPlan and Policies 32 and 33 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan wererelevant to the decision.

97

N



CR

68

43

55

69

46

58 ENGLEWOOD ROAD

24. 6m

25. 3m

PoliceStat ion

CAVENDISH

ROAD

80

92

102

81

49

55

25. 3m

BM 26.19 m

2

24. 9m

LYNETTE AVENUE

30

42

31

3

46

56 BM

24.82

m

KLEA A

VENUE

68

63

51

75

56

68

45

1

13

1

37

18

51

54

27

Bos ton House

4

1to

GOWER CLOSE

23

1

2

1


Case Number:


02/02009/FUL

43-45 Cavendish RoadLondonSW12


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

98

Location Hallam House Hostel 43-45 Cavendish Road London SW12 0BH


Retrospective application for the retention of a ground floor rear extension.

Application No 02/02009/FUL/RJE/20156

Applicant Euro Hotels (Guernsey) Ltd

Agent Floyd Slaski Partnership55 Clapham Common South SideLondonSW4 9BX

Date Valid 16 August 2002

Considerations

Trunk Road

Plans100 rev A


99

Officer Report

02/02009/FUL


1.1. The impact of the extension on the appearance of the building and the amenitiesof surrounding residential occupiers and the parking implications of thedevelopment.

2. Site Description

2.1. A three storey building situated on the east side of Cavendish Road on the cornerwith Klea Avenue. The building is currently in use as a hostel. Cavendish Road,known as the A205 or South Circular Road, is maintained by Transport for Londonwho are also the highways authority.

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission was granted on the 16th January 2002 for the installation ofgates and railings on a low brick wall around the front forecourt replacing theexisting brick boundary wall.

3.2. Planning permission was refused on the 13th February 2003 for the erection of atwo storey side/rear extension at first and second floor level to provide a further 6bedrooms for the hostel for the following reasons:

1) The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable by virtue of itsexcessive size, height, length, bulk and mass and would result in anincongruous and discordant form of development. It would relate poorly tothe surrounding buildings and building line and as such would be overlydominant and intrusive in the street scene. In this respect, the proposal iscontrary to Policy CD15 and CD18 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Planand Policies 32 and 33 of the deposit draft Unitary Development Plan.

2) The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive height, length and bulkwould result in a significant loss of sunlight and daylight to the surroundingproperties as well as a significant loss of outlook and view, detrimental to thevisual amenities of the residential occupiers. In this respect the proposal iscontrary to Policies CD15, H10 and Standards ST1 and ST5 of the LambethUnitary Development Plan and Policy 32 of the deposit draft UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

3) The proposed expansion of the hostel use at first and second floor levels toprovide 6 bedrooms is considered to be an unacceptable over-intensivedevelopment of the site. The provision of any further accommodation wouldbe detrimental to the character of the area and would harm the amenities ofsurrounding residents. In this respect the proposal is contrary to Policy H19and AT6 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 7and 18 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Retrospective application for the demolition of an existing lightweight timberpanelled ground floor rear addition (which was used as a boiler room and part ofthe reception room) and the retention of a replacement ground floor rearextension. The extension is currently used as an extra bedroom and extension ofthe existing reception room.

100


5.1. Site notices were posted on Cavendish Road and on the corner of LynetteAvenue and Klea Avenue. The occupiers of nos. 1, 4 and 5 St Julians Farm Roadand 74-88 Knights Hill have been notified by letter. In addition, the NorwoodSociety have been consulted. Twelve letters of objection have been received andare summarised as follows:

� The rear extension is poorly designed, bulky, unsightly and intrusive and isan excessive, over-intensive use of the site, not in keeping with surroundingVictorian architecture.

� Extension clearly visibly due to location on corner site.� Loss of view.� Overshadowing and overlooking.� Lack of privacy between properties.� Result in increased parking and traffic problems in surrounding streets which

already suffer from enormous parking problems.� Increased noise and disturbance from residents at night.� Reduce the amount of light to the rear.� Objections raised to the fact that the application is retrospective.� An objection is raised that the application would set a precedent for

additional hostels in the area. In response to this objection, the lawful use ofthe premises is as a hostel and the application is not for a change of use to ahostel. Therefore no precedent is set.


6.1. Relevant Policies ( including national guidance )

6.1.1. The relevant policies are Policy H10 which refers to standards forresidential development proposals, CD15 which relates to the design ofnew development, Policy CD18, which relates to extensions, Policy T12relating to parking standards and Standard ST17 relating to parking forHostels.

6.1.2. The new deposit version of the UDP contains policies relevant to thisapplication but which carry little weight at this early stage. These arepolicies 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity) 32 (Building Design), 33(Alterations and Extensions). However new UDP policy 14 (Parking andTraffic Restraint) is an interim policy and carries more weight as it hasalready been subject to extensive consultation and reflects newGovernment Guidance issued since the last UDP was published.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. Policy 7 of the Draft Deposit UDP states that in predominantly residentialareas, the intensification of an existing, incompatible non-residential use,likely to have a materially adverse environment and/or traffic impact willnot be permitted. The building is currently in use as a hostel which wouldnot generally be regarded as compatible with residential use. However,as the extension has replaced an existing ground floor rear addition of asimilar size and has only facilitated the extension of the existingreception room and the creation of one extra bedroom, it is consideredthat the extension does not result in an over-intensification of the use orimpacts significantly on traffic levels in the area.

101

6.2.2. However, it is considered that any further accommodation provided islikely to constitute an over-intensive use of the site which would bedetrimental to the character of the area and would harm the amenities ofsurrounding residents.


6.3.1. The property is not located in a conservation area. Policy CD18, whichrelates to rear extensions, states that extensions should normally beconfined to the rear or least important facades and be in keeping withthe building and its setting.

6.3.2. The ground floor rear extension has replaced a ground floor timberpanelled rear addition. It is centrally located on the rear elevation andadjoins the side of an existing 3 storey rear addition. It incorporates a flatroof measuring 3.4m high and measures 8m wide and 3.8m deep. Thefascia of the extension incorporates glazed sliding doors to the receptionroom, a wooden door to the bedroom and 2 windows. The appearanceand design of the untreated, unpainted wooden door is not desirable,however, it would be difficult to justify refusal of the application on thesegrounds.

6.3.3. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the extension is in keepingwith the scale of the building and does not cause any undue harm to theappearance of the building in accordance with Policy CD18 and theSupplementary Planning Guidance, Residential Development Standards.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The relevant policies are Standard ST3, which relates to daylight andsunlight, and Standard ST8 which relates to residential extensions andstates that extensions should not have a detrimental impact onneighbouring properties or visual amenities.

6.4.2. Concern is raised by local residents that the extension reduces light tothe rear of that property and is likely to increase noise and disturbance. Itis considered that the only property that would be affected by theextension in terms of loss of light is the neighbouring property at no.41Cavendish Road. Due to the orientation of the terrace running south eastto north west, the relatively modest size of the proposed rear extensionand the siting of the extension 1.7m away from the side boundary, it isconsidered that there would be no significant loss of sunlight anddaylight levels currently enjoyed by the residential occupiers of No 41Cavendish Road. As such, the development is considered to be inaccordance with Standards ST3 and ST8.

6.4.3. Concern is also raised by local residents that the rear extension and theextra accommodation provided would result in increased noise anddisturbance from residents of the hostel and lack of privacy. Given therelatively modest size of the proposed rear extension and the smallamount of further accommodation provided, it is considered that the rearextension is unlikely to result in any significant increased noise anddisturbance from the residents of the hostel, detrimental to the amenitiesof surrounding residents.


102

6.5.1. Objections have been raised by local residents relating to increasedtraffic and parking problems in the surrounding streets. It is consideredthat due to the modest size of the rear extension and the provision ofonly 1 extra bedroom, the development is unlikely to result in anysignificant increased traffic and parking problems. Transport for Londonhave been consulted on this proposal and have advised that they haveno comments to make on the application. Officers from the Council’sTransportation and Highways Group have also been consulted andadvise that they have no observations to make about the development.A letter has also been received from Transport for London StreetManagement who also have no observations to make about thedevelopment. Therefore, there is no objection to the extension ontransport grounds.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The ground floor rear extension is considered to be acceptable. It is consideredthat due to its modest size, it does not result in an over-intensification of the hosteluse, does not cause any undue harm to the appearance of the building or impactsignificantly on traffic levels in the area. It is also considered that due to its modestsize and position at the rear of the building at ground floor level, it would not resultin a detrimental impact on the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to a condition.

103


1 The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony,roof garden or similar area without the grant of further specific permission from the LocalPlanning Authority. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residentialproperties.)

Notes to Applicant



3. Policies relevant in determining this application are Policies H10, CD15, CD18, T12and ST17 of the Adopted UDP and Policies 7, 14, 32 and 33 of the Draft DepositUDP.

104

N



18. 8m

17. 4m

Manor

HealthCentre

SHAMROCK S

ELM HURST STREET

Elmh urst Mansio ns

CUBI TT

TERR

A CE

NAVY STREET

PH

CLAPHA M MANO R STREE T

Da y

Nu rsery

E

BM 19.19m

BM 17.6 4m

57

73

65

16

2

51

1

29

83

83a

20

98

88

86

6 to 9

113

111a

109

95

7977

75

77

85

7579

87

15

7

82

80

76

78

108

110

74

68

62

52

40

1

5

102104

157 to

162

169 to

174

181 to

186

193 to

198

202

to207

214

to219

226

to231

35

238

to

243

232

to

237

220

to

225

208

to

213

6

76

199to201

18to192

45

111

10to19

44

39

Knowl es Wa lk

Wa lk

BELMONT CLOSE

PH

Hickmor e

41

49

59

1 t o 4

5 to 8

10 to 12

13 t o 16

32

6

1

1

5

11

13

23

25

27

33

35

70

94

28

2

1720

76to

72

78to

84

9896

31a

to

54 t

o 68

16

1

86

88

104

106

11

11

11

1

11 1

11 1

11

11

11

1

1

11

1 11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

11

111

11

11

11

11

11


Case Number:


02/02486/FUL

62 Clapham Manor StreetLondonSW4 6DZ


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

105

Location Shop & Flat 62 Clapham Manor Street London SW4 6DZ

Ward CLAPHAM TOWNProposal

Conversion of existing basement to one self-contained flat, together with excavation to forma new frontage and entrance at basement level, and the installation of railings to frontboundary

Application No 02/02486/FUL/DCBD/32855

Applicant Mr & Mrs Sing

Agent G.P.Knapp11 Beatrice AvenueNorburySW16 4UW

Date Valid 28 August 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaRectory Grove

PlansPlans received 17.03.03


106

Officer Report

02/02486/FUL


1.1. The main issues considered pertinent to this application are:- the standard of accommodation provided- the potential impact upon adjoining properties- the off-street car parking requirement- the potential impact the excavated basement and railings would have upon the

character and appearance of the building, the wider conservation area andupon the setting of the Listed Building.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site is a two-storey plus basement, mid-terraced property on thewest side of Clapham Manor Park Street. The property is currently used as a shopat ground floor with two self-contained flats at basement and first floor level. Theproperty has a shopfront at ground floor, is brick at first floor, has a parapet roofand a concrete forecourt.

2.2 The property lies within the Rectory Grove Conservation Area and adjoins a Grade IIListed Building.

3. Planning History

3.1 1994 – Permission granted for demolition to facilitate the erection of gates forvehicular access in rear boundary wall and formation of 2 grasscrete strips in reargarden. (94/2369)

3.2 1998 – Permission granted for demolition of existing outbuildings and erection ofsingle storey extension to rear of building. This application approved the self-containment of the basement. The single storey extension comprised a bathroomand an outside store and doghouse. (98/01025/FUL)

3.3 2002 – Certificate of lawful use or development (existing) refused for use (existing)of basement and ground floor rear extension as a flat. (02/01558/LDCE)

3.5 2003 – Permission refused for the erection of a portacabin in the rear garden forstorage purposes in connection with the shop. (02/02870/FUL)

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The Council has received an application to convert the basement from ancillarystorage to residential and to excavate part of the forecourt to install a new frontelevation to the basement. The application includes a new entrance to thebasement flat, below the retained access to the ground floor shop and first floorflat. The excavation would consist of steps down to the basement level and a doorat a right angle to the main front elevation and two traditional sash windows set innew stock brickwork to match the existing.

4.2 The proposal also includes the installation of railings on a plinth to the frontboundary of the site.

4.3 Application 98/01025 granted permission for a ground floor rear extensioncomprising in part a bathroom to be used in connection with the self-contained‘basement room.’ A subsequent certificate of lawful use submitted in 2002 was

107

refused on the grounds of insufficient evidence that the basement had been usedas residential accommodation for more than four years. As it appears thebasement may have been used for residential purposes for over four years, theuse could potentially be immune from enforcement action and the currentapplication (02/02486/FUL) is considered an attempt to regularise the currentsituation.


5.1 60-64 (evens) and 67-69 (odds) Clapham Manor Street

5.2 Clapham Manor Tenants Association – No response

5.3 Clapham Society - Object to this proposal. “The extended lightwell does notenhance the conservation area and is out of keeping. The insert from the railingcatalogue does not specify which actual railing is being used.”



6.1.1 The following advice is given by Central Government in the series ofPlanning Policy Guidance Notes and is considered relevant:

PPG1: General Policies and PrinciplesPPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment

6.1.2 The following UDP policies are considered relevant to this application:

CD2 – Proposals for DevelopmentCD5 – Enhancement of Conservation AreasCD6 – Restoration of Properties in Conservation AreasCD13 – Setting of Listed BuildingsCD15 – Design of New Development

6.1.3 The following Draft Deposit UDP policies are considered relevant to thisapplication:

Policy 41 – Listed BuildingsPolicy 42 – Conservation Areas

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The basement and the single storey rear extension are already inresidential use. The rooms meet the guidelines for minimum room sizesin new housing and conversions as set out in the SPG4. Previousapplications for change of use at basement level to residential havebeen approved at numbers 64 (98/02095) and 60 (00/01340).

6.2.2 The principle of converting basements into self-contained flats within thisterrace has previously been accepted by Members at Committee (seeparagraph 6.2.1 above) and the proposed habitable rooms areconsidered adequate and in compliance with the adopted UDPstandards. The principle of conversion and the standard ofaccommodation are considered acceptable.


108

6.3.1 The amended plans received are a significant improvement on thoseoriginally submitted, with the entrance door at a right angle to the mainfront elevation and two traditional sash windows that are much more inkeeping with the existing first floor elevation and those of adjoiningproperties. The railings are considered acceptable subject to conditionsrequiring them to match the adjoining property.

6.3.2 SPG refers specifically to lightwells. While not strictly a lightwell, theproposed excavation, new front elevation at basement level andtraditional windows may be considered such. Lightwells be acceptable ifthe following guidelines are met: the front garden will need to be largeenough to accommodate the new facility, a lightwell may not beacceptable if the result would be detrimental to the appearance of thefront of the house within its garden setting.

6.3.3 It continues, a lightwell may not be acceptable if the uniform character of arow or terrace or other houses would be compromised, a lightwell shouldhave fenestration appropriate to the character of the building (this may insome cases need to be in keeping) and to reduce the impact on thegarden, an acceptable lightwell will normally have a steep enclosure andbe suitably protected for example by railings. If the garden is small thismay be an indication that the site lacks capacity for a lightwell. It isconsidered that the current proposal is in accordance with theseguidelines.

6.3.4 The Council’s Conservation officer advised that the revised plans are nowacceptable subject to the imposition of a standard conservation arearelating to windows. A condition relating to the new railing is alsorecommended.

6.3.5 With regard to the objection from the Clapham Society, and taking accountof the comments of the Council’s Conservation officer, it is consideredthat the proposed excavation, front elevation at basement level, entranceand traditional sash windows would enhance the Rectory GroveConservation Area and would not harm the setting of the adjacent GradeII Listed Building.


6.4.1 With regard to car parking, there is generally no requirement to provideoff-street parking with the creation of a second flat and the Council’sHighways officer advised that the conversion to 1 flat is unlikely to have asignificant effect on parking stress so no objection.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The proposal has been assessed in relation to the potential impact of theexcavations, the new front elevation and the railings upon visual amenity and thecharacter and appearance of the building and the wider streetscene and it isconsidered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon visualamenity and the proposal is considered acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1. GRANT PERMISSION subject to Conditions

109



2 The materials to be used on the external elevations and for the works of makinggood the retained fabric shall match the existing materials used on the front, first floorelevation of the property. (Reason: in order to safeguard the character and appearance ofthis part of the conservation area in accordance with Lambeth Unitary Development PlanPolicy CD5 and Lambeth Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan Policy 42).

3 Any new sash windows shall be clear glass in vertical sliding sash frames withina recessed box frame. They must be of painted softwood with the sashescounterbalanced by weighted cords and pulleys. They must match the design, mouldingsand glazing bar pattern of any original windows that survive at first floor level. (Reason:in order to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area inaccordance with Lambeth Unitary Development Plan Policy CD5 and Lambeth Draft DepositUnitary Development Plan Policy 42).

4 Detailed drawings or samples of materials, including full sized moulding, asappropriate, in respect of the following, shall be submitted to and approved by the localplanning authority before the relevant part of the work is begun: (a) railings (b)gates(Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of thebuilding.)

5 The railings shall be painted in a colour to be submitted and approved inwriting by the local planning authority and retained at all times thereafter. (Reason:in order to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area inaccordance with Lambeth Unitary Development Plan Policy CD5 and Lambeth DraftDeposit Unitary Development Plan Policy 42)

6 No utility meter boxes, vents, extracts, plumbing or pipes other than rainwaterpipes shall be fixed on the external face of the building unless shown on the approveddrawings. New rainwater pipes shall be painted cast metal. (Reason: in order to safeguardthe character and appearance of this part of the conservation area ea in accordance withLambeth Unitary Development Plan Policy CD5 and Lambeth Draft Deposit UnitaryDevelopment Plan Policy 42)

Notes to Applicant




4. In determining this application, Policies CD5, CD6, CD13 and CD15 of theLambeth Unitary Development Plan and Policies 41 and 42 of the Deposit UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

110

N



30

56

55

35 to 43

33

Shingle

3.9m

4.8m

Shelter

Shelter

Bollar dsAir Shaft

PARRY STREET

BOND

WAY

(Institute and Club)

Brunswic k House

ELMS LANE

NINE

Mean H

igh Wa te r

Euro Cons t Bd y

CW

Und

CR

De f

Posts

7.3m

5.4m

Ward Bdy

Shingle

Ventilation Shaft

VAUXCCL

W

Foot

Brid

ge

BRIDGEF OOT

MP s

Bri dge House

1 to 146

St George Wharf


Case Number:


02/01250/FUL

Land at St Georges WharfLondon


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

111

Location Land At St George Wharf London

Ward OVALProposal

Redesign of block K from office to residential to create 192 additional residential units toinclude the extension of block K west over basement access route and include new accessfrom Nine Elms Road,along with theincrease of 48 affordable dewellings, and minor associated alterations within the eniredevelopment.

Application No 02/01250/FUL/DCHJE/18576

Applicant St George South London Ltd

Agent Barton Willmore Planning Partnership6th FloorVenture House27-29 Glasshouse StreetLondonW1B 5BW

Date Valid 28 June 2003

Considerations

Tunnel SafeguardingUDP MiscellaneousMiscellaneous site proposal

PlansP1700, P1701, P1702,P1703, P1704, P1705,P1706, P1707, P1708,P1709, P1710,P1711,P01717, P1718, P1719,P1720, P1721, P1722A,P1723A, P1724A,P1725A,P1726A, P1727A, P1728A,P1729A, P1730A, P1731A,P1732A, P1733A,P1734A,P1735, P1736, P1737,P1738, P1739, P1740,P1741, P1742.

Recommendation MINDED TO REFUSE PERMISSION

112

Officer Report

02/01250/FUL


1.1. Whether the loss of the office floorspace (11,300m2) is acceptable against thecouncil’s employment policies.

1.2. Would the loss of office floorspace affect the mixed-use nature of the site as awhole.

1.3. Whether the provision of 25% affordable housing is acceptable and consistentwith Council policy.

1.4. Whether the additional residential units are acceptable.1.5. Whether the proposed additional 183 parking spaces is acceptable.1.6. The acceptability of the elevational changes to Blocks H, K, L and J.1.7. Are there any additional Section 106 obligations that should be sought in

conjunction with the development in order to mitigate the potential impact of thechanges.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site forms the major part of the site known as St George Wharf(previously known as the Effra site). It is situated on the south bank of the RiverThames, immediately south-west of Vauxhall Bridge. It has a river frontage ofapproximately 300 metres. The site occupies a prominent position on the RiverThames and is clearly visible in views from Lambeth Bridge and WestminsterBridge. Currently construction is taking place on the site and two of the mainblocks have already been completed.

2.2. Brunswick House, a Grade II* listed building, stands on the corner of Nine ElmsLane and Wandsworth Road. It adjoins the site but is not part of it. Its main, frontelevation would be viewed against the background of the new development asamended by this proposal.

2.3. The site is highly accessible by road, rail and public transport. Vauxhallunderground station is located very near the north-eastern corner of the site,whilst the Wandsworth Road frontage of the site accommodates bus stops forsome 11 bus services.

3. Planning History

3.1. Up to the 1950s the site was occupied by the former Phoenix Gas Works, whichresulted in the partial contamination of the site. In 1961 permission was grantedfor erection of a cold store, the site was mainly used for the parking of vehiclesresulting from permissions granted from 1963 onwards.

3.2. Two applications for planning permission were granted, in 1980 and 1982 forlarge scale development schemes for predominantly office and commercial useschemes with some residential component. These permissions were notimplemented.

3.3. In 1995 the Secretary of State granted outline planning permission for a mixeddevelopment comprising commercial, office, residential, retail, leisure andancillary uses to a total floor area not exceeding 100,000m2, car parking, servicingand landscaping, including a public riverside walkway, together with improvedaccess. That permission, granted in outline, was subject to a number ofconditions and to a planning obligation made under Section 106 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990. Details of reserved matters were granted by the

113

Secretary of State including 180 residential units in phase 1 of the development.This phase of the development has been completed.

3.4. In October 2000 (99/01003/FUL), planning permission was granted by LambethCouncil for a mixed use development on the whole site excluding phase 1,comprising of 570 residential flats, hotel, fitness facility, retail and restaurant uses,offices, public open space and riverside walk together with landscaping, accessand car parking.

3.5. In December 2001 (01/01118/FUL), planning permission was granted for anamendment to Phase 2 of the development which involved a reduction in theoffice floorspace, provision of a marketing and management suite, an increase inthe hotel floorspace, an increase in retail floorspace, provision of 2 additional carparking spaces. In addition a decrease in health and fitness floorspace, internalrelocation of the service road, amendments to the landscaping, alterations to theaccess from Wandsworth Road and associated alterations to the height, bulk andelevations of the buildings.

3.6. There are a number of current applications pending consideration by the council.These applications include:

3.6.1. 02/01501/FUL- Revised elevational treatment to the Wandsworth Roadelevation of Block F and associated alterations to the footplates.

3.6.2. 02/03425/FUL- Extension of the approved lower level basement torelocate approved car parking spaces, provision for a revised accesswayoff Nine Elms Lane and minor elevational changes to Blocks H, J and K.This application is elsewhere on this agenda.

3.6.3. 02/02916/FUL & 02/02917/FUL- Provision of 637 residential flats, officespace, health and fitness and retail and restaurant including a 50 storeytower.

3.7. The applicant has appealed against the Council’s failure to determine thisapplication within the statutory 8 week period and a public inquiry has beenscheduled to commence on 27 August 2003.

3.8. It should be noted that the applications detailed in paragraph 3.6.3 above involvesthe same changes to the approved development as proposed by this applicationin addition to a 50-storey residential tower. These applications (submitted induplicate) will be reported to the planning committee later this year.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. This application proposes amendments during the course of construction toapplication ref: 99/01003/FUL granted consent in October 2000.

4.2. In summary the application proposes to redesign and change of use of “block K”from office to residential to create 170 self-contained units, the extension of “blockK” west over the basement access route and revised access from Nine ElmsRoad. There is an increase in the provision of affordable housing of 48 units (25%of the additional units). In all 192 new residential units would be created.

4.3. The following detailed changes are proposed as part of the application:

4.3.1. 26 private residential units moved to the rear of “block H”, with “blockH’s” affordable content increasing from 132 units to 180 units. “BlockH’s” floor area increasing by 1455m2 and elevational changes to facilitatethis.

114

4.3.2. The external courtyard area to the west of “block H” affordable unitslowered to 1st floor level.

4.3.3. “Block K” redesigned to accommodate the 170 additional residentialunits - involves removal of 11,306m2 square metres of office space.

4.3.4. “Block K” extended west over the basement access route.4.3.5. Additional office storey added to “block L” - increases office floorspace

by 647m2 in “block L”.4.3.6. Basement car park extended to include additional 183 car parking

spaces.4.3.7. The floor space of the health and fitness element of the scheme

decreased from 3387m2 to 2525m2.

4.4. A comparative environmental appraisal has been submitted with the application.However, the applicants have not submitted full floor plan details of the residentialunits, which are necessary in order to assess the scheme against the Council’sDeposit Draft UDP parking standards and supplementary guidance on room sizesand amenity spaces. In addition, no marketing evidence has been submitted tojustify the loss of the office spaces.


5.1. Site notices were erected and neighbour notifications were sent out to Flats 1-336St George’s Wharf. In addition, letters of notification were sent to the WestminsterSociety, the Vauxhall Society, Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum andTransport for London.

5.2. Six responses have been received in response to the public consultation,including two letters of objection, two letters providing general comments, oneletter of support and a letter from Transport for London making no observations.The details of the responses are as follows:

5.3. The Westminster Society has responded stating that they support themaximisation of residential use of this important site and hence fully support thechange of use element of this application.

5.4. The two letters of objection from neighbouring residents raised the followingconcerns:

� Combined with the Tower application this represents a major change to thedesign and siting of St George’s Wharf.

� It will have a damaging effect on noise, fumes and parking.� Lambeth should ensure that purchasers/occupiers see a site developed as

originally intended.� There are already plenty of apartments for residential use at St George Wharf.� For improvements to Vauxhall it would be better to combine office with

residential uses.

5.5. The two letters received that provided general comments raised the followingpoints:

� If the proposed development goes ahead there should be 24-hour security andCCTV.

� It would be disappointing if the shops and gym were omitted from the plans, asthat would reduce the appeal for future buyers.

� The time scale of the application is confusing, as the public inquiry seems toproceed the normal planning process.


115


6.1.1. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 1 (General policy and principles) statesthat: - “a key role of the planning system is to enable the provision ofhomes and buildings, investment and jobs in a way which is consistentwith the principles of sustainable development. It needs to be positive inpromoting competitiveness while being protective towards theenvironment and amenity.”

6.1.2. PPG1 states “… mixed-use development can help create vitality anddiversity and reduce the need to travel. … Local planning authoritiesshould include policies in their development plans to promote and retainmixed uses, particularly in … areas highly accessible by means oftransport other than the private car and in areas of new majordevelopment.”

6.1.3. PPG3 (Housing) provides the Government’s guidance on housing andidentified that local authorities should:

� plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community;� provide wider housing opportunity and choice and a better mix in the

size, type and location of housing, and seek to create mixedcommunities;

� create more sustainable patterns of development by building in whichexploit and deliver accessibility by public transport to jobs, educationand health facilities, shopping, leisure and local services;

� place the needs of people before ease of traffic movement indesigning the layout of residential development; and

� seek to reduce car dependence by facilitating more walking andcycling by improving linkages by public transport between housing,jobs, local services and local amenity.

6.1.4. Specifically relating to affordable housing, PPG3 states that “acommunity’s need for a mix of housing types, including affordablehousing, is a material planning consideration which should be taken intoaccount in … deciding planning applications involving housing.”

6.1.5. PPG13 (Transport) deals specifically with transport and particularly theway in which it integrates with the proper planning of the environment.The Government’s objectives of PPG13 are “to integrate planning andtransport at the national, regional, strategic and local level to:

� promote more sustainable transport choices …;� promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services

by public transport, walking and cycling, and� reduce the need to travel, especially by car.”

6.1.6. In terms of housing development, PPG13 refers to policy guidance setout in PPG3 (Housing) which requires local authorities to “seek to reducecar dependence by facilitating more walking and cycling, by improvinglinkages by public transport between housing, jobs, local services andlocal amenity, and by planning for mixed use”. In terms of parking policy,PPG13 refers to the requirements set out in PPG3, which requires thatlocal authorities revise their parking standards to “allow for significantlylower levels of off-street parking provision, particularly for developmentsin locations, such as town centres, where services are readily accessibleby walking, cycling or public transport.”

116

6.1.7. In terms of guidance with respect to parking, PPG13 states “theavailability of car parking has a major influence on the means oftransport people choose for their journeys. Some studies suggest thatlevels of parking can be more significant than levels of public transportprovision in determining means of travel (particularly for the journey towork) even for locations very well served by public transport. …Reducing the amount of parking in new development is essential, as partof a package of planning and transport measures, to promotesustainable travel choices.” In addition, PPG13 encourages theproduction of travel plans to raise awareness of the impacts of traveldecisions.

6.1.8. PPG13 requires that local authorities adopt maximum parking standardsfor broad classes of development and that there should be no minimumstandards, except for parking for disabled people. Further, paragraph 55goes on to state “it should not be assumed that where a proposalaccords with the relevant maximum parking standard it is automaticallyacceptable in terms of achieving the objectives of this guidance.Applicants for development with significant transport implications shouldshow the measures they are taking to minimise the need for parking.”

6.1.9. Regional Policy Guidance (RPG) 3 (Strategic guidance for LondonPlanning Authorities) sets out the Government’s objectives whichunderline the strategic framework for London’s development. RPG3states that a key objective for regeneration in London is to reduce theimbalance in its prosperity by creating the necessary conditions toenable the less favoured areas to compete more successfully for newinvestment. The Government’s guidance states that “the existingeconomic strengths and major development opportunities present,particularly in East London and the Central Area margins, need to berealised in ways which will provide durable new employmentopportunities that can diversify both local economies and the economy ofLondon as a whole.”

6.1.10. RPG3B/9B (Strategic planning guidance for the River Thames) providestrategic guidance for sites within the Thames Policy Area. RPG3Bidentifies this stretch of the River Thames provides a prestigious anddramatic setting for development. It is considered that the quality of thebuilt environment here makes an important contribution to London’simage and status as a “world city”. A commitment to good design isessential.

6.1.11. Vauxhall Cross/Nine Elms/Battersea area is identified in the draftLondon Plan as an “opportunity area” within Central London. The Planidentifies Vauxhall as an area with good public transport, which itconsiders “coupled with strong traffic management, easier pedestrianmovement, major environment improvement and scope for intensificationshould create a stronger sense of local identity and increase housingand commercial capacity.”

6.1.12. Policy 3C.14 of the draft London Plan seeks to reduce traffic andcongestion. The policy sets out that boroughs, in reviewing their UDP’s,should implement measures that support these proposed reductionsincluding “utilising appropriate controls over development in terms of thelocation, scale, density, design and mix of land uses, together with theassociated provision for parking, to help deliver these reductions and

117

improve conditions for people who use public transport, walk or cycle,and for business …”

6.1.13. Policy 3C.20 of the draft London Plan relating to parking strategy seeksthat the boroughs, in reviewing their UDP’s, should “adopt on- and off-street parking policies that encourage access by sustainable means oftransport, assist in limiting the use of the car and contribute to minimisingroad traffic …”

6.1.14. Annex 4 of the draft London Plan provides the Mayor’s guidance forboroughs in developing their UDP parking policies and maximum parkingstandards for new development in line with Section 3C of the Plan. Itsets out the standards and approach that the Mayor will use whenconsidering applications for large developments. Annex 4 considers that“regulation of parking is a major tool of both land use and transportplanning. It has a key role to play in supporting economic developmentand regeneration, in promoting the vitality and viability of London’s towncentres and in supporting integrated land use and transport planning tominimise additional car travel and encourage use of other, moresustainable means of travel.” Annex 4 identifies that “an additionalconsideration in London is the fact that much of the highway network isat or close to capacity and traffic congestion is a major issue. … Inaddition the Central Activity Zone is particularly well served by publictransport and is already densely developed such that additional carparking, other than for residential use, is unlikely to be accommodated.”Table 2 of Annex 4 sets out the Mayor’s maximum residential carparking standards. In this case, given the location of the site and theaccessibility of public transport, the Mayor’s guidelines indicate that themaximum residential parking on site should be less than 1 space perunit.

6.1.15. The following policies from the adopted Lambeth UDP (AUDP) arerelevant to the application:� Policy H7 - Affordable housing.� Policy H9 - Mixed housing/ commercial development.� Policy H10 - Residential development standards.� Policy H11 - Dwelling mix.� Policy EMP6 - Protection of land generating employment.� Policy EMP7 – Loss of business and industry (Use Classes B1 and

B2).� Policy T12 - Parking standards.� Policy T17 - Transport implications of development proposals.� Policy CD2 - Proposals for development.� Policy V2 - Business use (Class B1).

6.1.16. In addition there are a number of relevant policies within the draft depositLambeth UDP. The following policies are relevant:� Policy 3 – Central London Policy Area.� Policy 6 – Development of brownfield sites.� Policy 8 – Accessible development/integrated transport.� Policy 9 - Transport impact.� Policy 14 - Parking and traffic restraint.� Policy 15 - Additional housing.� Policy 16 - Affordable housing.� Policy 20 - Mixed-use developments.� Policy 32 – Building scale and design.� MDO101 - Effra site.

118

6.1.17. The council formally adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance oninternal room sizes in November 2001.

6.2. Land Use

Office Use

6.2.1. The St George Wharf site had a history of commercial use andpermission for predominantly office and commercial schemes, includinga mixed-use development scheme that was granted permission inoutline by the Secretary of State in 1995. Although the 1995 outlineconsent was for a mixed-use development, the Inspectors reportprovided a breakdown of maximum floorspace as follows: office (B1)68,280m2, residential 20,205m2 and retail/other 10,450m2, resulting in apredominantly office development.

6.2.2. The scheme that was granted permission by Lambeth Council inOctober 2000 (and subsequently amendments to it) comprisedcommercial, office, residential, retail and leisure uses and car parking.The current approved floorspace is as follows: office (B1) 22,511m2,residential 57,421m2 and retail/other 28,978m2. It is considered that themix of uses established on the site by the extant permissions complieswith the relevant UDP policy objectives for the site.

6.2.3. The application under consideration seeks (among other amendments)to replace the approved office building, known as “block K”, withresidential units. The proposal would result in a loss of office space ofapproximately 11,300m2 which, given that it represents 44% of the totaloffice floor space on the site, is considered to be a significant reduction.

6.2.4. The application is not supported by marketing information to justify theproposed loss of employment floor space. It is considered that theOctober 2000 consent allowed a scheme of a mixed-use nature and asignificant reduction of the office floorspace would change the characterof the site to predominately residential. A check into the split ofresidential against other uses gives the following results: 1995 outlineconsent 20:80 mix, 2000 consent 54:46 mix; 2001 consent 53:47 mix;current proposal 65:35 mix.

6.2.5. It is significant to note that of the 35% non-residential uses that wouldremain on the site, only 10% would be for office use. This is a reductionfrom 21% office use from the October 2000 permission. Clearly, throughthe amendment applications submitted for the site, the proposed mix ofuse on site may alter significantly and change the mixed-use characterof the site to weigh heavily towards residential.

6.2.6. Policies EMP6 and EMP7 of the adopted UDP relate to the retention ofland and buildings last in or currently in employment generating uses.Although “block K” has not yet been constructed there is an expectationthat the site as a whole will, when completed, make a significantcontribution to employment in this part of the Borough. Both of thesepolicies state that, if a loss of employment use is to be justified, evidencemust be provided showing that no effective demand exists, or is likely toexist in the future for the employment development. The applicants haveonly stated that the office market is at a low point at the moment buthave not provided any evidence of this claim. Officers consider that

119

insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the loss of potentialemployment on the site against adopted UDP policies EMP6 and EMP7.

6.2.7. Policy 20 (A) of the draft deposit UDP relates to mixed usedevelopments and states that a mix of compatible uses should beretained and enhanced in the development of sites in the Central LondonPolicy area. Further, MDO (major development opportunity) 101 withinthe draft deposit UDP identifies the “Effra” site as one which as a wholeshould have a complementary mix of land uses and design which addsvariety and interest to the river frontage. The erosion of the officefloorspace from the approved scheme would significantly reduce themixed-use element of the site. It is anticipated that Vauxhall will becomean area for office expansion in the future and officers consider thatdevelopers should look to the longer term on a site such as this in orderto ensure a sustainable mix of uses is achieved.

Residential Use

6.2.8. The application seeks to convert “block K” (originally to be built as officeaccommodation) to accommodate residential units. It is proposed tocreate an additional 192 units with 48 of these units to be affordable.However, full details of the mix and layout of these units have not beensubmitted. There are also no details of where the affordable housing willbe located or what form of tenure these units would be provided on.

6.2.9. The provision of 25% affordable housing is significantly below the 50%sought by the Council’s draft deposit UDP and the draft London Plan.The applicants have not justified a lower provision of affordable housingon the site, only stating that they are following the level of provisionestablished on the rest of the site by the October 2000 permission. Thatpermission secured a total of 132 affordable units (23%) of the 570 flatsgranted permission. It should be noted that Phase 1 at the St GeorgeWharf site (180 flats) failed to provide any affordable housing.

6.2.10. Affordable housing policies have moved on significantly since October2000 and officers consider a provision of 50% would be moreappropriate. Policy H7 from the adopted UDP does not set a preciselevel for the provision of affordable housing although the Council applieda level of 25% until 2001. Policy 16 of the draft deposit UDP seeksprovision levels of 50% in line with the draft London Plan. Requiring 50%affordable housing is felt to be reasonable and appropriate on this siteand is in line with the emerging UDP and London Plan. The applicanthas not demonstrated any financial or other justification for reducing theprovision of affordable housing. Officers therefore consider that theapplication as currently proposed would fail to provide a sufficientproportion of affordable housing contrary to Lambeth’s adopted UDPpolicy H7 and the draft deposit UDP policy 16.


6.3.1. The proposed changes to the elevational treatment are not considered tobe significant enough to alter the appearance of the site as a whole.Therefore it is considered that the proposals comply with policy CD15 ofthe adopted UDP and policy 32 of the draft deposit UDP.

6.3.2. The proposal would not adversely affect the setting of the grade II* listedBrunswick House.

120

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. A number of changes are proposed to the external elevational treatmentof the building however these are to facilitate the internal works. Theseare not considered to have a detrimental impact on the area.

6.4.2. The letter of representation received claims the proposed amendmentswill have a detrimental impact on noise and congestion in the area. Theincrease in the number of parking spaces will create more vehiculartraffic. The applicant’s transport assessment states that the proposal willgenerate an increase in two-way vehicular traffic over a 12-hour periodof 560 movements. This is the equivalent of 23 additional vehiclesentering and leaving the site per hour. The total number of vehiclesentering and leaving the site would now be approximately 266 vehiclesper hour. Whilst the impact of increased vehicle movements on theadjoining road network are discussed later in this report it is notconsidered that this would affect noise levels in the area.

6.4.3. The proposal seeks to create 192 additional residential units but noadditional private or public amenity space is proposed. It is thereforeconsidered that, if approved, a Section 106 contribution should besought towards environmental improvements to local parks and links tothese parks. No additional obligations have been offered by theapplicant.

6.5. Socio Economic Impact

6.5.1. The application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessmentupdate which includes consideration of the socio economic impact of theproposed scheme. These are considered in terms of population,education and health, as set out below.

Population

6.5.2. The information relating to population estimates the introduction of afurther 346 people to the site (based on 1.8 people per dwelling). In thecontext of the entire site, the total population would be 1696 in a total of950 units. These estimates include the introduction of 55 nursery-agedchildren, 31 primary aged children and 6 secondary aged children inaddition to the population expected from the approved development.However, without knowing the proposed dwelling mix of the new units, itis difficult to assess whether the anticipated population is realistic.

Education and Health Services

6.5.3. Based on the population estimates, the EIA update considers thepotential impact on education and health services. Although thepopulation prediction estimates an additional 92 children from theproposed development, the EIA update does not anticipate that theestimated increase in children would actually result from the scheme northat they would attend local schools. However, the EIA update statesthat, in any event, such an increase in children would be capable ofbeing accommodated within the surrounding school network due to the

121

capacity within the primary school network (447 spaces) and withinsecondary schools (1295 spaces). It should be noted however, that theEIA update does not identify how the nursery children could beaccommodated. Further, the environmental statement submitted with theVauxhall tower application indicates that there are no surplus nurseryplaces in the area. This is particularly important given the populationestimates anticipate 55 nursery aged children as a result of the proposednew residential units.

6.5.4. There are discrepancies between the information within the EIA updateand that information submitted as part of the planning application for theVauxhall tower, in terms of education surplus places. Without betterinformation in relation to the capacity of local schools, not only inLambeth but in Westminster and Wandsworth, it is difficult to asseswhether the potential increase in children on the site is likely to besignificant. It is considered that a contribution towards educationservices may be necessary, if the scheme was approved.

6.5.5. Policy 26 of the draft deposit UDP refers to the development andimprovement of facilities for the community. The text at paragraph 4.13.6supporting the policy states “Higher density development will inevitablyplace a greater burden on the borough’s schools, sports and communityfacilities, public amenities and open space. The capital costs of theseare not covered in the borough’s standing spending assessment (moneyfrom local government for services) as these are intended to cover theestimated cost of providing services, not the considerable costs ofproviding the facilities which will be much higher during period of rapiddevelopment. Hence the plan requires provision of such expenditure.” Aformula is given for the calculation of the number of school places likelyto be generated by typical housing development.

6.5.6. In terms of health services, the EIA update states that there areapproximately 1,500 places available in the surgeries located within a1.6 kilometre radius of the site, with some surgeries without an upperlimit for accepting patients. However, the information submitted with theEIA for the Vauxhall tower scheme indicates that the application site fallswithin the catchment area of only two surgeries. Further, the NorthLambeth Primary Health Care Group, have advised officers that there isa significant shortage of primary health care in this area, and the existingsurgeries are at capacity. For this reason, it is consider that furtherpotential increase in the population at this site should, if approved,attract an obligation to provide a contribution to primary health care inthe area.

6.5.7. The issues of potential impact on education and health services areconsidered to be two matters that could be resolved through negotiationwith the applicant.


Impact on the highway

6.6.1. The St George Wharf site is situated on Wandsworth Road, with accessbeing achieved via Nine Elms Lane. The site is located just outside theMayor’s congestion charging zone.

122

6.6.2. The application includes a change to the layout of the existing access offNine Elms Lane, which has been revised in consultation with Transportfor London. The proposed changes include redesigning the approvedaccess incorporating traffic signal controls, including new controlledpedestrian crossing facilities. In addition, the redesign incorporates anew bus lane on the southern side of Nine Elms Lane (westbound). It isconsidered that the proposed alterations to the access from Nine ElmsLane and the inclusion of traffic facilities are acceptable.

6.6.3. In terms of the potential impact on the highway as a result of theproposed increase in parking, the applicant’s traffic consultant hasprovided information stating that the two-way total vehicle movementsfor a 12-hour period (0700 – 1900 hours) is predicted to increase fromapproximately 2,630 movements to 3,190 movements. This is anestimated increase of 560 two-way vehicle movements over the 12-hourperiod, which is equivalent, on average, to an additional 23 vehiclesentering and leaving the development per hour. In the context of thetraffic movements in the Vauxhall Cross area, it is considered that thisincrease is relatively small.

6.6.4. Given the proposed improvements to the access and the relatively minorincrease in the average number of movements from the site, it isconsidered that the proposed development would not have a significantimpact on the operation or safety of the public highway.

Parking

6.6.5. The applicant’s highways submission identifies an overall increase inparking of 181 spaces. However, it also refers elsewhere to an increaseof 186 spaces. From other information provided with the application itseems that the actual proposed increase in parking is 183 spaces.Although the approved and proposed parking is situated across theentire site, 180 parking spaces were approved under Phase 1 of thedevelopment and these cannot be the subject of consideration by thisapplication. In this regard, Phase 2 of the St George Wharf developmentcurrently has permission for 531 car parking spaces. The proposedadditional 183 spaces would result in a total of 714 spaces associatedwith Phase 2, constituting a 34% increase in car parking within that partof the development.

6.6.6. It is interesting to note that the number of parking spaces proposedunder this application is identical to the number of proposed under theapplication ref: 02/02916/FUL (and 02/02917/FUL) for the 50-storeytower although that application proposes 200 additional residential units.

6.6.7. With respect to the overall increase in parking across the wider site, theapplication seeks to increase the number of parking spaces on the StGeorge Wharf site as a whole from 711 to 894, constituting a 25% rise inparking provision.

6.6.8. It should be noted that as no internal layout plans have been submittedfor the residential units as part of the application, it is difficult to assessthe scheme against the Council’s draft deposit UDP parking standards.

6.6.9. The St George Wharf site is defined in the draft deposit UDP as withinan area of exceptional public transport accessibility and, therefore, issubject to stricter parking standards than allowed by the adopted UDP

123

(in line with Government guidance). Given recent Government guidanceand the public consultation to date, the draft deposit UDP policiesrelating to parking (policy 14) have been adopted as interim policy. Theparking policy within the draft deposit UDP provides maximumstandards, in accordance with PPG13. Given the excellent accessibilityto public transport from the site and the number of parking spacesalready permitted, officers see little justification for any further parkingprovision on the site. It should be noted that if applied to the proposeddevelopment on the site as a whole the maximum standards would allow473 spaces (471 spaces for residential and 2 spaces for office use)compared to the 714 applied for.

6.6.10. If Members’ are minded to allow additional car parking in relation to theadditional floorspace proposed, officers consider that the draft depositUDP standards should be applied. Where reductions in floorspace areproposed, the number of parking spaces should be reduced inaccordance with the adopted UDP standards, which were applied at thetime of granting the October 2000 consent. For the health and fitnessfloorspace, the standard of 1:162m2 should be applied, as there is noappropriate standard in the adopted UDP and this standard was appliedin the outline consent granted by the Secretary of State (in 1995).

6.6.11. Under previous permissions the parking at this site has been associatedwith different uses in the development. In this regard, the residential,office, health and fitness, retail and hotel uses have a proportion of theapproved parking.

6.6.12. Applying the adopted UDP standards to the reduction in office floorspaceand the outline consent standard to the reduction in the health andfitness floorspace would result in a reduction of 7 and 8 car parkingspaces respectively.

6.6.13. In terms of considering the parking standards in respect of the proposednew residential units, taking the highest standard in the draft depositUDP of 0.5 spaces per 3 bed unit the scheme which would allow amaximum of 90 spaces (72 for private and 18 for affordable). Given thecurrent scheme consists predominantly of one and two-bedroom units, itis likely that a lower standard from the draft deposit UDP would apply.

6.6.14. In applying the draft deposit UDP maximum standards to the proposedincreases in residential units and the adopted UDP standards to theproposed decreases in floorspace, the maximum number of parkingspaces that would be allowed for Phase 2 including the proposeddevelopment sought by this application would be 607 car parkingspaces. This is significantly less than the 719 spaces sought by theapplication. However, even if the Council’s adopted UDP standards wereapplied to the increase in residential units, a total of 701 spaces wouldbe allowed by the standards.

6.6.15. The proposed level of parking exceeds the standards set out in theadopted UDP and significantly exceeds the draft deposit UDP standards.The draft deposit UDP has revised the Council’s standards to betterreflect its aims of traffic restraint in line with PPG13: Transport and thedraft London Plan.

6.6.16. Although it is not anticipated that the proposed increase in car parkingwould have a significant impact on the operation and safety of thehighway, it is evident that the additional parking significantly exceeds the

124

Council’s parking standards in both its adopted and draft deposit UDP’s.Given that Vauxhall is an area identified as a “opportunity area” with thedraft London Plan and the Council anticipates further schemes fordevelopment coming forward in the area, it is considered that the widerimpact of allowing schemes that exceed parking standards would have asignificant impact on congestion and air quality in the area. For thisreason, it is officers opinion that the proposed increase in car parking by183 spaces, which exceeds the adopted UDP standards and significantlyexceeds the draft deposit UDP standards, is unacceptable, particularlyconsidering the location of the site next to Vauxhall underground and railstation.

6.6.17. If the Members’ are minded to approve the application for development,an additional 192 bicycle parking spaces should be provided in a secure,covered location in accordance with policy 14 of the draft deposit UDP. Itis recommended that conditions relating to the layout and number of carparking and cycle spaces be required if the Committee’s is minded togrant planning permission.

6.7. Regeneration Issues

6.7.1. There are obvious regenerative benefits from the development of the StGeorge Wharf site. One of these being the creation of an office market inthis part of Vauxhall. However, it is considered that the further erosion ofthe office element from the scheme may have an impact on the furtherexpansion of office floorspace in Vauxhall. In this regard, it could beconsidered that the proposed significant reduction of office floorspacemay have a detrimental impact on the regeneration of Vauxhall contraryto the Council’s current and proposed policies.

6.8. Section 106 Agreement

6.8.1. The applicants have offered to provide 25% of the additional residentialunits on the site as affordable housing. This falls short of the Council’scurrent aim of achieving 50% affordable housing on housing schemesover 10 units. Given there is no justification for significantly lessaffordable housing than required by the Council’s policy, the offer of 25%is considered inadequate.

6.8.2. The applicants have stated that the existing health and educationalfacilities in the area could accommodate the increase in population as aresult of the new residential units and that no Section 106 contributiontowards additional health or educational provision is justified. However,information from the Lambeth Primary Care Group indicates that there isa significant shortage of primary health services in the area and thatadditional services would be required to accommodate the increase inpopulation. Further, the applicant’s submission does not address theshortage of nursery places in this part of the borough even though thepopulation estimate anticipates an additional 55 nursery aged childrenas a result of the proposed new residential units. These matters shouldbe addressed by a Section 106 Agreement, if the scheme was approved.

6.8.3. With the addition of 192 new residential units officers consider that itwould be reasonable to seek additional Section 106 contributionstowards environmental improvements to nearby open space such asSpring Gardens.

125

6.8.4. If approved a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 Agreementwould be needed to ensure that the development was built out inaccordance with the amended permission.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application seeks permission for further amendments to the approvedscheme for development at St George Wharf, Vauxhall. It is considered thatdevelopment of this site would result in regenerative benefits for the area,however, the proposed amendments to the approved scheme are generallyconsidered unacceptable.

7.2. The loss of office floorspace on the site from the 2000 consent would see themixed use split on the site reduce to an unacceptable level of 65:35 (with only10% of floorspace being for office purposes). No justification has been submittedto justify the loss of office floorspace and as such the scheme would not complywith policies EMP6 and EMP7 of the adopted UDP and policy 20 (A) of the draftdeposit UDP.

7.3. The applicants have also failed to submit sufficient information on internal roomlayouts and sizes and this has not enabled the Council to fully assess the currentapplication. However, from the information submitted it is clear that the highprovision of additional car parking, over and above that already approved, wouldnot be consistent with the Council’s adopted or draft deposit UDP parkingstandards and the draft London Plan.

7.4. In addition the applicants have failed to submit information on the location of theaffordable units. A provision of 25% affordable housing is proposed and noevidence has been provided to justify lowering the current Council requirement of50%. The proposed level of affordable housing does not comply with policy 16 ofthe draft deposit UDP or the draft London Plan.

7.5. The scheme proposes an additional 192 residential units but provides noadditional residential amenity space. Officers consider that a Section 106contribution towards upgrading nearby areas of public open space such as SpringGardens should be sought if the scheme is approved. Further information isrequired in respect to the availability of education and health care services,however, it is considered that a contribution to primary health services andeducation in the area should be required by Section 106 Agreement if theMembers resolve to approve the scheme.

8. Recommendation

8.1. For the reasons outlined above, it is recommended that Members are minded torefuse planning permission.

126


1 The proposal would, by virtue of the loss of employment generating floorspace,reduce the employment potential on the site and alter the mixed-use nature of St GeorgeWharf. The proposal would fail to comply with the spirit of the extant permission (ref:01/01118/FUL) of creating a sustainable mixed-use development on this reiverside site andwould be contrary to the thrust of policies EMP6 and EMP7 of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan, the thrust of policy 23 of the draft deposit Unitary Development Plan,policy 20 and MDO101 of the draft deposit Unitary Development Plan, national policyguidance PPG1 and regional policy RPG3 and RPG3B.

2 The proposed development, would by virtue of the additional off-street car parkingin an area with excellent public transport infrastructure, be contrary to policy T17 of theadopted Unitary Development Plan, policy 14 of the draft deposit Unitary Development Planand national policy guidance PPG13.

3 The proposed development fails to provide adequate affordable housing provisioncontrary to the draft London Plan, Policy H7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan andpolicy 16 of the draft deposit Unitary Development Plan.

Notes to Applicant

127

N



MOU

NT

EPH

RAI

M

L ANE

98112

101

113

116

33

43

KI NGSCOURT ROAD

627486

61

7787

7

s Court

WOODFI ELD GROVE

LB

12

10

12

8

4

159

2

6

10

21

28

3034

85

1

23

BM 47. 63m

45. 2m

43. 4m

Gareth Court

El Sub Sta

NORFOLK HOUSE ROAD

1

1111a

2a4

16

4

16

26

496173

47. 5m

s

61

21

El Sub St a

MOUNT EPHRAIM R OAD

3535a3749

4947a

47

Sub Sta

El Sub Sta

1a

MOUNT EPHRAIM LANE

MO

ORCR

OFT

ROAD

2

33

45

57

58


Case Number:


02/02604/FUL

26 Mount Ephraim LaneLondonSW16 1JG


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

128

Location 26 Mount Ephraim Lane London SW16 1JG

Ward ST. LEONARDSProposal

Two storey side extension to existing single family dwelling to create 2 single familydwellings and to include 2 rear dormer windows, along with associated alterations.

Application No 02/02604/FUL/DCSM/21548

Applicant Kilburn Investments Ltd

Agent G.J.P Architects764 Finchley RoadTemple FortuneLondonNW11 7TH

Date Valid 30 September 2002

Considerations

Plans06.644.01,02,06.644.03 RevA,06.644.04 Rev B,06.644.05, 06,06.644 07 RevA,06.644 08 Rev A,06.644 09, 10 RevA


129

Officer Report

02/02604/FUL

The application was deferred from PAC on 11th March 2003 in order to allow Officers todiscuss with the applicant the possibility of amending and resubmitting the plans in respectof design changes. Amended plans have now been received. The previous report is set outbelow, together with comments about the revisions now proposed.


1.1. The layout and design of two storey dwelling1.2. The impact to the street scene and the amenity of occupant of neighbouring

properties.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application property is a double fronted, end-of-terrace property with a gardenat the rear and to the side where the existing two garages are located. The site ofthe extension is the land to the side of the house over part of the area currentlyoccupied by the garages. The property is located on the south side of MountEphraim Lane close to its junction with Woodfield Grove.

3. Planning History

3.1. On the 25th April 2002 planning permission was granted for the replacement ofexisting garages with an enlarged double garage with link to dwelling, first floorloft with dormer to rear, and associated alterations.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The application proposes an extension and part conversion of the existingdwelling, by incorporating two rooms (one at ground and one at first floor level) ofthe existing dwelling into a new build extension.

4.2. The extension would have the appearance of a new dwelling, largely replicatingthe existing, with a plot width of 5.8 metres and a depth of 2.45 metres. The newdwelling would have two reception rooms at ground floor and three bedrooms atfirst floor.

4.3. This report considers the amended proposal.


5.1. A site notice was posted on the 23rd October 2002. Notification letters were sentto the Streatham Society and the following properties: Mount Ephraim Lane: nos.13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 21A, 22, 24, 28 and 30, and nos. 75, 79, 81, 83 and 85 NorfolkHouse Road (including flats within these dwellings).

5.2. Four objections have been received for the following reasons: would create alarger building than currently exists, would result in loss of light and views, wouldreduce sense of openness, greater parking demand and disrupt the street sceneby spoiling the uniformity in the appearance of this housing.

5.3. To date, there have been no objections received to the amended proposal. Anyobjections received after writing this report will be reported to the Committeeverbally.



130

6.1.1. Relevant policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan are:H1: Housing provision.H6: New housing development.H10: Residential development standards.H17: Flat conversions.CD15: Design of new development.CD18: ExtensionsST1: Layout and new design.ST2: Density.ST3: Daylight and sunlight.ST5: Privacy and space between buildings.ST11: Layout, parking, servicing, roads and footpathsST13: Refuse storage and collection

6.1.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance – SPG 4: Internal Layout and roomsizes.

6.1.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Residential Design Guidance forExtensions.

6.1.4 SPG2 - Private gardens and amenity space.6.1.5 In the new deposit version of the Unitary Development Plan, policies 14

Parking and Traffic Restraint, 15 Additional Housing, 17 Flat Conversions,32 Building Scale and Design, 33 Alterations and Extensions are relevantto this application. The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UnitaryDevelopment Plan carry relatively little weight at the moment due to theearly stage of the adoption process. However the interim policies carrymore weight in that they have been the subject of consultation as part ofthe Key Issues Paper and represent changes in national policy orguidance to which the Council must have regard in making planningdecisions. Policy 14 is an interim policy.

6.1.6 In considering material considerations other than the adopted developmentplan regard should be had to the most up to date national and regionalpolicy.

6.1.7 National Planning Policy Guidance 3, ‘Housing’ is also relevant.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The provision of additional housing would be in keeping with Policy H1 ofthe Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 15 of the DepositUnitary Development Plan by reason that it would contribute to London’sadditional housing provision.


6.3.1. The proposed footprint of the dwelling is roughly half that of the existingdouble fronted. The existing building lines would be maintained at bothfront and rear.

6.3.2. The proposal has been amended to address Members’ concerns that theoriginal proposal was not in keeping with the area due to the proposedhipped roof. It was considered that a gable end and a turret would be amore appropriate design. It is considered that the amended proposal,which incorporates a gable end, a turret on the front bay window and achimney, satisfactorily addresses these concerns and would replicatethe detailing and roof forms of the other properties in the street. Theproposal would read visually as a continuation of the existing houses,respecting the existing building lines and architectural characteristics.

131

The proposal is therefore considered to comply with CD15 of theAdopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 32 of the Deposit UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

6.3.3. Rear extensions are proposed to both dwellings. That on the newdwelling would be single storey; the plans show that the two-storeyextension on the existing dwelling would be the same size and height asthe existing rear extension. Both would be modest in depth. They wouldnot result in an undue erosion of outside amenity space or adverseimpact to neighbour amenity and are therefore considered to complywith the Adopted Unitary Development Plan Policy CD18 and DraftUnitary Development Plan Policy 32 and 33.

6.3.4. In terms of the relationship with neighbouring properties, the rearboundary is at an angle such that the rear garden depth diminishesacross the width of the garden. The distance between main rearelevation and boundary is 6.3 metres and 3.8 metres. One garagewould be retained and this would maintain an open aspect at first floorlevel between this and the neighbouring boundary, thereby complyingwith the Deposit Unitary Development Plan Policy CD15 and CD18.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. Standard ST2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states thatresidential development should have a density of no more than 210habitable rooms per hectare. The Deposit Unitary Development Planstates a density guideline for poor to moderately accessible sites in asuburban location of 200-450 hrh. The new dwelling would have adensity of 233 hrh and when combined with the conversion of theexisting property 288 hrh.

6.4.2. The Adopted Unitary Development Plan ST5 states that the layout ofresidential development should provide adequate privacy for residents inthe dwelling, in the garden and in adjoining properties. SPG2 thathouses should provide secure, accessible outside amenity space whichshould be a minimum of 50.0 sq.m.

6.4.3. The new dwelling would have outside amenity space of 50.0 sq.m. thehost dwelling would retain a larger rear garden. The distance betweenthe proposed new dwelling and that to the rear no.87 Norfolk HouseRoad would be 13 metres and falls short of the recommended back toback distances of 18 metres between new and existing properties.However, this is not materially different to the existing relationship.


6.5.1. There is no off-street parking requirement, as only one new dwellingwould be created. However, one off-street parking space would beretained.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application proposal would fall marginally short of the back-to-back distancesnormally sought between new and existing development. However, the applicationproposes an additional dwelling that would meet housing demand and would notresult in harm to the street scene.

8. Recommendation

132

8.1. Grant planning permission

133






Notes to Applicant




4. The following policies were relevant to this decision, H1, H6, H10, CD15 ,CD18 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies 14, 15, 17, 32,and 33 of the Draft Deposit Unitary Plan.

134

N



30

56

55

35 to 43

31 33

11

3 to

9

1

4.4m

BM

4. 8

6m

Und

Shin gl e

3.9m

4.8m

62

Sh elter

Sh el ter

Sh elter

Sh el ter

Hilden House

Factor y

RowtonHouse

Bo llard s

River Thames

Vauxhall Station

(L on do n Tra ns po rt)

Ai r Sh af t

PARRY STREET

BON

DWA Y

(In stitu te and Clu b)

Brunswick House

New CoventGarden Market

ELMS LANE

NINE

Mea

n Hi gh

Water

Euro Const B

dy

Boro C ons t & LB Bdy

Market Towers

Hostel

CW

Und

Und

CR

Def

Po sts

Do lp hin

Ou tf al l

Out fall

9.6m

7.3m

5.4m

Ward Bdy

Sh in gl e

CR

Ve nti la ti on Sh aft

VAUXHALLCC

LW

Foo

tB

r idg

e

BR ID GEFOOT

BM 9 .37 m

MPs

MP

VAU X

85

Br idge H ouse

1 t o 14 6

St Geo rge W h arf


Case Number:


02/03425/FUL

The Effra SiteWandsworth RoadLondon


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

135

Location The Effra Site, Wandsworth Road London

Ward OVALProposal

Amendment to application 01/01118/FUL to provide for an extension of the approved lowerlevel basement to relocate approved car parking spaces, provision for a revised accesswayoff Nine Elms Lane, and minor elevational changes to approvedblocks H, J and K.

Application No 02/03425/FUL/DCHJE/

Applicant St George South London Limited

Agent Barton Willmore Planning Partnership6th Floor, Venture House27 - 29 Glasshouse StreetLondonW1B 5BW


Considerations

Tunnel SafeguardingUDP MiscellaneousMiscellaneous site proposal

Plans8025/P2000, P2001, P2002 P2003, P2004, P2005,P2006, P2007, P2008,P2009,P2010, P2011,P2012, P2017, P2018,P2019, P2020, P2021,P2022, P2023,P2024,P2025, P2026, P2027,P2028, P2029, P2030,P2031, P2032, P2033,P2034,P2035, P2036,P2037, P2038, P2039,P2040, P2041, P2042,P2043, P2044,P2050,P2051, P2052, P2053,P2054,Floorspace summary11612/A1/020625


136

Officer Report

02/03425/FUL


1.1. Whether the extension of the basement car parking area would have an impact onthe area.

1.2. Whether the reconfiguration of the access point to Nine Elms Lane is acceptable.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site forms the major part of the St George Wharf site (previouslyknown as the Effra site). It is situated on the south bank of the River Thames,immediately south-west of Vauxhall Bridge. It has a river frontage ofapproximately 300metres. The site occupies a prominent position on the RiverThames and is clearly visible in views from Lambeth Bridge and WestminsterBridge. Currently construction is taking place on the site and two of the blockshave already been completed.

2.2. Brunswick House, a Grade II* listed building, stands on the corner of Nine ElmsLane and Wandsworth Road. It adjoins the site but is not part of it. Its main, frontelevation would be viewed against the background of the new development asamended by this proposal.

2.3. The site is highly accessible by road, rail and public transport. Vauxhallunderground station is located very near the north-eastern corner of the site,whilst the Wandsworth Road frontage of the site accommodates bus stops forsome 11 bus services.

3. Planning History

3.1. In 1995 the Secretary of State granted outline planning permission for a mixeddevelopment comprising commercial, office, residential, retail, leisure andancillary uses to a total floor area not exceeding 100,000m2, car parking, servicingand landscaping, including a public riverside walkway, together with improvedaccess. That permission, granted in outline, was subject to a number ofconditions and to a planning obligation made under Section 106 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990. Details of reserved matters were granted by theSecretary of State including 180 residential units and 180 car parking spaces inphase 1 of the development. This phase of the development has been completed.

3.2. Although there is a long and complex history on the site, the main consent(99/01003/FUL) granted in May 2000 was for the redevelopment of the St GeorgeWharf site excluding Phase 1 to provide 570 residential units, hotel, fitness facility,retail and restaurant uses, offices, public open space and riverside walk togetherwith 531 car parking spaces and landscaping.

3.3. The phase 1 development, which has been implemented and is occupied, inaddition to the main consent for the site, which has been partially implementedand occupied, provide for a total of 750 residential units and 711 car parkingspaces across the wider site.

3.4. Since the approval of the main scheme several amendments, including theapplication ref: 00/01118/FUL, which is the latest approved scheme, have beensubmitted. There are three other pending applications on the site currently underconsiderations.

137

3.5. Application ref: 02/01250/FUL which is also on this agenda for the redesign of“block K” and change of use from office to residential, 183 additional car parkingspaces within a basement and changes to the floorspace of the health and fitnesselement of the approved scheme. This scheme is subject to an appeal to theSecretary of State against non-determination.

3.6. A similar application to 02/01250/FUL (ref: 03/00428/FUL).

3.7. Duplicate applications (ref: 02/02916/FUL and 02/02917/FUL) for a residentialtower.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The application seeks permission to extend the approved lower level basement torelocate approved car parking spaces, provision for a revised accessway off NineElms Lane and minor elevational changes to approved Blocks H, J and K.

4.2. Elevational amendments proposed include:

4.2.1. Overall height of the rear of Block H reduced by half a storey and theelevational treatment revised.

4.2.2. Revisions to Wandsworth Road elevation of Block J.4.2.3. The health and fitness element of the scheme would be reduced in size

by 635m2.

4.3. The car parking numbers remain the same as previously approved.


5.1. Four site notices were erected, the proposal was advertised in the local press andneighbour notifications were sent to Flats 1- 146 Bridge House, 147- 180 FountainHouse, 181- 298 Drake House and 299- 335 Ensign House (all St George’sWharf). No letters of representation have been received.

5.2. In addition, letters of notification were sent to Transport for London (TfL) and theEnvironment Agency.

5.3. Transport for London officers have responded stating they have no objection tothe scheme.

5.4. The Environment Agency has responded stating that they have no objection, inprinciple, to the proposed development and have provided a number ofinformatives which they consider should be attached to any planning permissiongranted.



6.1.1. The relevant policies within the adopted Lambeth UDP are as follows:

6.1.1.1. Policy T9- Provision of vehicular accesses.6.1.1.2. Policy T18- Access, loading and parking.6.1.1.3. Policy CD15- Design of new development.

6.1.2. In addition the following policies within the draft deposit UDP are also amaterial consideration:

138

6.1.2.1. Policy 14- Parking and Traffic restraint

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The applicants have confirmed that the proposed extension of thebasement area will not result in an increase in parking provision on thesite. The existing parking will be reconfigured and the 711 car parkingspaces will be retained. Originally there was concern expressed byofficers as it was felt that the created space could be used as moreparking. In answer to this the applicants have stated that they are notcreating any more spaces. A condition will be added to any consent toensure no further car parking is provided by this scheme.


6.3.1. There are a number of elevational changes that are proposed including areduction in height of Block H. These changes would not have an impacton the surrounding area and would if anything reduce the impact onBrunswick House.

6.3.2. The proposed elevational changes to Block J include the switching ofwindows and balconies, new windows in the Wandsworth Roadelevation and the removal of an upper floor. These changes arerelatively minor in the whole context of the site and as such would nothave a significant impact on the site or the surrounding area.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. It is considered that the proposed changes would not have an additionalimpact on the amenity of any adjoining properties or the residents of StGeorge Wharf.


6.5.1. The Council’s transport officer has commented on the extension of thebasement parking area and has no objections providing that noadditional parking bays are allowed.

6.5.2. Officers consider that the amount of car parking provided for the healthand fitness centre should be reduced to reflect the proposed reduction infloorspace of that aspect of the development. In this regard, theproposed development would result in the reduction of health and fitnessfloorspace by 635m2. The reduction represents a loss of 19% of theapproved floorspace for this part of the development.

6.5.3. At present the extant permission allows 21 car parking spaces for thehealth and fitness centre, based on the standards set by the originaloutline permission granted by the Secretary of State in 1995. At that timethe Council’s Unitary Development Plan (the current adopted UDP) didnot contain standards for leisure uses. Since the Secretary of Statedecision in 1995, the parking standards (for leisure use) set by thatdecision has been applied. The draft deposit UDP contains standards forleisure uses, which can be used in consideration of any proposals foradditional parking. However, it is considered that any reduction inparking as a result of reduced floorspace on the site should beconsidered against those standards used in establishing the approvedparking. The Inspector’s decisions allowed no greater than 1 space per

139

162.575m2 of gross floorspace for “other” uses, which included thehealth and fitness use. For this reason, it is considered that the parkingprovision for the health and fitness use should be reduced to 17 spaces(based on 1 space per 1.62.575m2 floor area). The reduction in parkingcould be controlled by a condition of the planning permission, resulting inan overall reduction in car parking on the wider site to 707 spaces.

6.5.4. Transport for London has provided comments stating that they have noobjection to the scheme. The proposed new access way into the site hasbeen designed in consultation with TfL. The access way is redesigned toallow for better access from Nine Elms lane and would not have adetrimental impact on the adjoining properties.

6.6. Section 106 Agreement

6.6.1. The existing permission for the site is accompanied by a Section 106Agreement. A deed of variation to that agreement would be required ifplanning permission were granted for this application to ensure that theagreement relates to the most recent planning permission and to ensurethat if this application is implemented the site is built out in fullaccordance with the amended plans.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed reduction in height of Block J would reduce the impact on the listedbuilding (Brunswick House) and is therefore welcomed. The elevational changeswould not affect the overall appearance of the development and is thereforeacceptable.

7.2. The proposed extension to the basement car park area is not to facilitateadditional parking bays and to ensure that this does not happen a condition will beadded to restrict the parking on site to that approved minus the 4 spaces resultingfrom the reduction in health and fitness floor space; 707 spaces.

7.3. The revised access way from Nine Elms Lane is considered acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1. For the reasons outlined above, it is recommended that planning permission begranted.

140


1 The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with thephasing programme approved under application ref: 02/00591/DET (on 9 October 2002) orany variation agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure thesatisfactory development of the site.

2 The development hereby approved shall be implemented using the external finishesapproved under application ref: 02/00592/DET (on 23 April 2002).Reason: In order that theLocal Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal.

3 Full details of the materials and planting to be used in the hard and soft landscapedareas hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority, prior to the implementation of this permission, and such landsacped areas shallbe permanently retained for the enjoyment of occupiers of the scheme.Reason: In order thatthe Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal.

4 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping,shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of thebuilding(s) or the completion of each phase of the development whichever is sooner. Anytrees or plants that which within a period of five years from the completion of thedevelopment die, area removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall bereplaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless theLocal Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.Reason: To ensure that thelandscaped areas are laid out in accordance with the approved plans.

5 No work on site shall take place on a particular phase until a detailed design andmethod statement for the foundation design and all new groundworks has been submittedand approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby approvedshall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme approved.Reason: To ensurethe stability of the river wall and underground running tunnels.

6 No part of any building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until vehicleparking and turning space has been approved wholly within the site. Such provision shall bein accordance with the phasing plan referred to in condition 1 above and shall thereafter beretained and used for no other purposes.Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form ofdevelopment, maximum traffic efficiency and public safety and minimum interference withtraffic in the public highway.

7 Notwithstanding the approved plans the number of parking spaces provided for eachuse within the development shall not exceed the following:Residential 457Hotel 13Retail/restaurant 24Site marketing/management suite 1Health and fitness 17Offices 15

Reason: To restrict the amount of traffic generated by each use within the development andthe level of car commuting to the site.

8 The 457 residential car parking spaces shall be used for the accommodation ofvehicles of residential occupiers of the premises only and shall not be used for any otherpurposes.Reason: To ensure that the residential parking spaces are available to theresidential occupiers of the development.

9 The 70 motorcycle parking spaces shall be used for the accommodation ofmotorcycles of occupiers and users of the premises only and shall not be used for any other

141

purposes.Reason: To ensure that the motorcycle parking spaces are available to occupiersand users of the development.

10 The facilities for the parking of 250 bicycles hereby approved shall be providedbefore the occupation of each relevant phase of the development and retained permanentlyfor the duration of the use.Reason: To ensure that the cycle parking spaces are available tooccupiers and users of the development.

11 The car parking spaces shall only be used by occupiers and users of the premisesonly and shall not be used for any other purposes.Reason: To ensure that the parkingspaces are available for occupiers and users of the development.

12 The public car parking associated with the shopping floorspace shall be retained forthe use of the general public and not for any other purpose.Reason: To ensure that theparking spaces are available to shoppers using the development.

13 The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with therefuse storage and collection details approved under application ref: 02/00594/DET (on 13thMay 2002). The approved means of refuse storage and collection shall be retained for theduration of the use unless any variation is approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority.Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to thedetails of the proposal.

14 The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with themeans of fume extraction from the A3 and hotel uses approved under application ref:02/00595/DET (on 23 May 2002). The means of extraction shall be installed prior to therelevant uses commencing and thereafter be retained and satisfactorily maintained for theduration of the restaurant and hotel uses.Reason: To ensure that the means of fume isconsidered at the construction stage and to avoid nuisance and disturbance to occupiers ofthe scheme.

15 Details of the design of the access from Wansworth Road shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority and Transport for London Street Management asthe highway authority responsible for Wandsworth Road.Reason: In order that the LocalPlanning Authority and the relevant highway authority may be satisfied as to the details ofthe proposal.

16 Full details of the provision of access for disabled persons to the podium level fromWandsworth Road shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority priorto the commencement of any works above ground. Such provision shall be retained andmaintained for the duration of the uses on the site.Reason: In order that all public openspaces and premises are accessible to disabled persons.

17 The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with thedetails of the design of the river wall and riverside walkway approved under application ref:02/00596/DET (on 13 September 2002).Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authoritymay be satisfied as to the details of the proposal.

18 No loading or unloading of goods, including fuel, by vehicles arriving at or departingfrom the premises shall be carried out otherwise than within the curtilage of the site.Reason:To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and to safeguard the amenities of adjacentpremises.

19 No development shall take place until the decontamination measures agreed by theCouncil pursuant to Condition XI of the outline planning permission granted on 14November 1995 have been carried out.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory decontaminationof the site.

142

20 The floorspace of any individual retail unit shall not exceed 1,500sqm.gross.Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby shopping centres.

21 No development shall take place within the site until the applicants have compliedwith the provision of the scheme of archaeological works agreed under condition 10 of theoutline permission granted on 14 November 1995.Reason: To ensure that anyarchaeological evidence discovered during groundworks are adequatelyrecorded/preserved.

22 The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with thescheme of charges for access to the commercial parking approved under application ref:02/00998/DET (on 26 November 2002). The agreed charges shall be increased annually inline with the Retail Prices Index.Reason: To deter long stay and commuter parking.

23 Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved revised plans of the basement andundercroft car parking levels illustrating the proposed layout of the car parking, motorcycleparking and bicycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to theimplementation of this permission. The revised plans shall restrict the level of car parking tono more than 707 car parking spaces and provide space for 70 motorcycles and 250 bicycleparking spaces. The approved layout shall be implemented and retained for the duration ofthe use unless any variation is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason:In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal.

Notes to Applicant



3. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division concerningcompliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and PublicHealth and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or regulations madethereunder.

4. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division with regardto the extraction of fumes from the premises.

5. Your attention is drawn to the necessity to register your food business with theCouncil's Environmental Health Division, under the Food Premises (Registration)Regulations 1991 before the use commences. Failure to do so may result inprosecution.


7. Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and DisabledPersons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings(B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities andsanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at thebuilding or premises who are disabled.

8. Your attention is drawn to Sections 7 and 8A of the Chronically Sick and DisabledPersons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings(B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities andsanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at thebuilding or premises who are disabled.

9. You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display ofadvertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from theLocal Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of

143

Advertisements) Regulations 1992.10. You are advised to consult with the Council's Planning and Transportation Division

concerning compliance with requirements under the Buildings Acts 1939 and LocalGovernment Act 1985 where a development involves the naming of a street and/orbuilding or the numbering/renumbering of a property.

11. You are advised to consult the National Rivers Authority at Wah Kwong House, 10Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SP (tel: 0171 735 9993) regarding the methodand extent of the site investigation and details of appropriate measures to preventpollution of ground water and surface water.

12. You are advised that under the terms of the Water Industries Act 1991, the priorwritten consent of the London Borough of Lambeth, Sewerage Contractor forThames Water Utilities Ltd is required for any development works draining into, orconnecting to, the public sewers. Contact Mr S K Bellehewe on 0171 926 7108.

13. You are advised to contact Thames Water Utilities regarding mains/supply pipeconnections for the development at Network Services Waterloo District, ThamesWater Utilities Ltd, Waterworks Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1SB. Contact Mr DKirk on 0645 200800 for details.

14. You should be aware of the proximity of other trees, shrubs which are not thesubject of this consent.

15. You are advised that under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the priorwritten consent of the National Rivers Authority is required for any discharge ofsewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and undergroundwaters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlledwaters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plantinto or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consentmay be withheld. Contact Mr D DeCoster on 0181 310 5500 for details.

16. Under the terms of the Thames River (Prevention of Floods) Act 1879 - 1962, thestatutory tidal flood defence level, which is 5.41 metres above O.N. (N) at this site,must be maintained at all times, with temporary works if necessary. Contact IanBlackburn on 0208 3054013 for further details.

17. You are encouraged to make use of river transport particularly in respect of theremoval of contaminated soli and other materials from the site together with thesupply of bulk building materials to the site.

18. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the land Drainage By Laws1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for anyproposed works or structures either affecting or within 16m of the tidal flood defencestructure. Contact Ian Blackburn on 0208 3054013.

19. You are advised to contact Railtrack Limited to ensure that the development willhave no harmful impact to the safe operation of nearby railway infrastructure.

20. The following details should be submitted to the Environment Agency prior to anydemolition or construction works commence:(a) a full copy of the engineering andarchitectural drawings relating to the extension of the basement and access way;(b)engineering design calculations that could be deemed as relating to the existing floordefence wall. For example foundation calculations, retaining wall details of thebasement and support of the access way.Contact Ian Blackburn on 020 83054013for further details.

21. In determining this application policies T9, T18 and CD15 of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan were relevant and policy 14 of the draft deposite UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

144

N



1

SALTOUN RO AD

KELLETT ROAD

PH

2

13

25

37

36

39

40

38a

38

26

57

6

70

70

60

73

6757

37

58 56

54

14

to

House

House

HouseHomer

Lancaste rRocheste r

Fri nto n Ho

Cli fto n

Ma ns ion s

RUSHCROFT R OAD

1 to 12

22

House

Hous e

Oval

Norf olk

rary

1

431427

425

419411 to 417

409426

412 410 408a

406 4 40

430428

(PH)

2321

Atlantic(PH)

5559

71

48

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

nema

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 to 8

1 t o 1 2

13

25

37

47

399

391

416

12

22

32

60

50

He re fo r d

Ho use

433

1

to

4

Rosslyn

House

Su ffo lk

House

Heath field

House

Mayf ield

House

Hou seMa tl oc k

Sa lisbu ry

House

Granville

House

Elmwood

House

Clarence

Hous e

an d H o rs es

(PH)

Pr ince

Albert

420

414

15. 6m

14. 8m

BM

15. 1 8m

15. 4m

14. 0m

14a14

3028

36

32

3426

39

35to

9 to 21

2b 2a

435 437

El Sub Sta

Co ac h

Chaplin

House

1 to 6

7 t o 20

40

42

VI NING STREET

47 to 85

45to41

1 t o 45

24 22 1218 2016 14

to8

447

441

405

401

P

20

CRBoro Const & W ard Bdy

TCBs

TCBs

11

11

11111

1

1

11

11

1

111

11

11

11

1

11

11

11

1


Case Number:


02/02780/LDCE

25 Saltoun RoadLondon


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

145

Location 25 Saltoun Road London SW2 1EN


Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development (existing) in respect of the use of thewhole property as a hostel for six homeless men (comprising six single bedded roomssharing kitchen, bathroom and WCfacilities with no on-site management).

Application No 02/02780/LDCE/DCHL/31149

Applicant Lambeth Housing

Agent Elayne NicosHostels & Temporary AccomodationBuisness Unit2/7 Town Hall ParadeBrixton HillSW2 1RJ

Date Valid 9 January 2003

Considerations

UDP Sites DataPreferred Hotel area/site

PlansFloor Plans (Unnumbered), TAU Placement History, Statutory Declaration dated20.09.02, Council Tax Statements, Maintenance History Memo dated 28.01.03,Email dated 05.02.03

Recommendation GRANT CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE - EXISTING

146

Officer Report

02/02780/LDCE


1.1 Whether the use of the property as a hostel for six homeless men began ten yearsbefore the date of the application (22nd October 2002).

1.2 Whether there has been a material change of use of the property within the periodten years before the date of the application.

2. Site Description

2.1 The site is located on the northern side of Saltoun Road, and consists of a threestorey mid-terrace property currently being used as a hostel, currently containingeight non self contained residential rooms of accommodation.

2.2 The layout of the property consists of, on the ground floor, two non-self containedrooms, a communal kitchen, a boiler room and a communal toilet; three non-selfcontained rooms and two communal bathrooms on the first floor; and three non-selfcontained rooms and a communal kitchen on the second floor.

2.3 All of the rooms contain a basin and a refrigerator – there are no cooking facilities orWC facilities in any of the rooms.

2.4 The Hostel is managed by Lambeth’s Hostels and Temporary AccommodationBusiness Unit. Lambeth Council owns the property.

3. Planning History

3.1 In November 1977 planning permission was granted (and subsequentlyimplemented) for use of the ground floor of the premises as a local meeting placeand information centre.

3.2 On 17th March 1981 planning permission was granted for the use of the first andsecond floors of residential accommodation as a neighbourhood management officeand a ‘Tea and Chat Club’ for a limited period of three years. The planningdepartment cannot confirm whether this permission was implemented.

3.3 On 19th June 1987 planning permission was granted for use of the ground floor for atemporary period, as an office for the Brixton sheltered street scheme. The planningdepartment cannot confirm whether this permission was implemented.

3.4 On the 31st January 2001 Lambeth’s Planning Department (Enforcement Section)received its first complaint (from a neighbouring resident) regarding the possibleunauthorised use of the subject property as a hostel. On the same day anEnforcement Officer visited the site to investigate the use of the property. Thefollowing day (1st February 2001) the Council’s Enforcement Section sent a letter tothe occupier inviting a retrospective planning application or certificate of lawfulnessapplication for the retention of the use of the property as a hostel.

3.5 An LDC application regarding the use of the subject property was first submitted toLambeth’s Planning Department in January 2002. However this application wasreturned to the applicant, as the evidence accompanying the application wasinsufficient for validation purposes. The application was resubmitted on the 27th

September 2002, however again the accompanying information was incomplete.

147

The required information was requested and subsequently received and theapplication was validated on the 29th October 2002.

4. Scheme Details

4.1 The present application is for a Certificate of Lawful Development (existing) inrespect of the use of the whole property as a hostel for six homeless men(comprising six single bedded rooms sharing kitchen, bathroom and WC facilitieswith no on-site management).

4.2 The following information regarding the layout/operation/management of theproperty was gathered by the Case Officer at the time of the site visit (18th December2002) and based on information provided by two Lambeth Hostel Managers presentat the time of the visit.

4.2.1 Facilities- The two shared kitchens include a communal sink and oven – they do not include

utensils/cookware – these are provided by the residents- Each of the eight single bedded rooms contain a basin and a refrigerator – there are

no cooking facilities or WC facilities in any of the eight rooms- There is a communal payphone in the ground floor hallway.

4.2.2 Supervision/Management- Supervision is by a Lambeth Hostel Manager who visits three times a week – there

is no full time/live-in on-site supervisor- Each resident has a key to their own room and a key to the front door – the Hostel

Manager and cleaners have keys to each room also.- Responsibility of allocating rooms is carried out by Lambeth’s Hostels and

Temporary Accommodation Business Unit

4.2.3 Residency- The hostel accommodates single male tenants only- Each resident holds a ‘licence’ for the period of residency- Length of licences vary – from one day to several months- Each resident is charged a weekly ‘Amenity Charge’ - this covers all services e.g.

electricity, gas, maintenance work, cleaning etc

4.2.4 Maintenance/Servicing- Maintenance work is managed by a London Borough of Lambeth surveyor- The property is maintained by EPS Maintenance Ltd – they carry out all

maintenance works e.g. electrical, plumbing, building works, groundwork etc- An annual gas safety record is performed by EPS- The kitchens/bathrooms are cleaned 3 times a week by LBL cleaners, residents

generally take responsibility for cleaning their own rooms- The property’s fire safety requirements are serviced by Fire Protection Services

(FPS)


5.1 There is no statutory requirement to consult on Lawful Development Certificateapplications. However, because the application was received as a result of anEnforcement investigation following complaints about the use of the property, lettersof consultation were sent to occupiers of 1-8 Salisbury House, 1-8 Granville House,1-8 Elmwood House, 21, 23 (ground floor), 23 (first floor), 23 (second floor), 27A,27B, 27C, 29A, 29B, 2C, 32 and 36 Saltoun Road and an interested local councillor.

148

5.2 Two submissions have been received in response to consultation. The information inthese submissions indicates that the subject property has been in use as a hostel forat least ‘the last few years’ and the two submissions do not contain any contradictorystatements or evidence.

5.3 At the time of the site visit the Case Officer inspected each of the individual rooms,kitchens and bathrooms. It was apparent to the Case Officer that the layout andfacilities had remained unchanged for some considerable time as the propertylooked generally aged. There was no evidence to suggest that any of the facilitiesor rooms had only recently been installed, constructed or established.

5.4 The Case Officer also approached residents of 11 neighbouring properties alongSaltoun Road on the 18th December 2002. The majority of residents were awarethat the property was being used as a hostel for a considerable number of years.None of the residents could provide information to confirm (or otherwise) that the useof the property as a hostel first began after the 22nd October 1992.


6.1 Principle Legal Test

6.1.1 Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that where therehas been a breach of planning control….no enforcement action may be taken afterthe end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach. Section 191states that operations are lawful if the time for enforcement action has expired. Assuch a Certificate of Lawfulness constitutes the Council’s written confirmation thatthe use is lawful and that it is therefore immune from enforcement action.

6.1.2 This application for a Certificate of Lawfulness has therefore been made for theretention of the use of the property as a hostel on the grounds that the use beganmore than ten years before the date of the application.

6.1.3 The onus of proof is on the applicant to provide evidence to demonstrate that, on thebalance of probability, the premises have been in continuous use as a hostelaccommodating a maximum of six homeless men for ten years or more prior to thedate of the application. The reference to the ‘date of the application’ is the date theapplication forms were completed, and therefore may not necessarily correspond tothe date the application was validated. The application was submitted on the 27th

September 2002, however, there was insufficient information (including theapplication form not being signed or dated) in order to validate the application. Therequired information (with the application forms signed and dated the 22nd October2002) was subsequently resubmitted on the 29th October 2002. Therefore the datefor which the ten year test applies for this application is the 22nd October 2002.

6.1.4 The applicant’s evidence should be sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justifythe grant of a certificate on: (a) the balance of probability; and (b) there being nocontradictory evidence.

6.1.5 The applicant has submitted ten preceding years of placement history, amaintenance history and a statutory declaration.

6.1.6 As ‘hostels’ are ‘sui generis’ in terms of the Use Classes Order, the Council mustfirst determine that, within the ten year period preceding the date of the application,there has been no material change in the nature of the use. In so doing the Councilmust assess whether there has been a change in the character of the use (i.e.increased demonstrable harm) to amount to a different use taking place.

149

6.3 Evidence Submitted

6.3.1 The evidence submitted with the application includes the following:

- Existing ground, first and second floors- A summary of the placement history of occupants of the hostel, dating back to 20th

December 1991.- Two statutory declarations, one from a Lambeth Hostel Officer dated 20th September

2002 and one from a Lambeth Hostel Manager dated the 19th October 2001.- Council Tax information dating from 1st April 1993.- Maintenance contract work relating to the property dating from the 10th December

1992.

7.0 Planning Assessment

7.1 Material Change of Use

7.1.1 The evidence submitted with the application indicates that from January 1992 to May1999, the hostel accommodated up to six male residents at any one time. A seventhmale resident commenced occupation in May 1999 whilst the eighth male residentcommenced occupation in July 2001.

7.1.2 The evidence indicates that there has been a change in the number of maleresidents being accommodated for, increasing from six to eight. However, theCouncil considers that this change has not been so significant as to cause anincrease in demonstrable harm beyond that which existed previously (i.e. when thehostel accommodated only six residents). The existing internal arrangement of themain building means that the property has comfortably accommodated twoadditional rooms of an acceptable size and standard. The addition of two rooms didnot require any external works to the building as these were able to beaccommodated within the existing floorspace of the main building. The existingkitchen and WC facilities also adequately service the needs of the additional tworesidents. These factors indicate that the change in use, from housing six residentsto eight residents, has not lead to a significant enough change in the character of theuse of the property so as to constitute a material change of use.

7.2 Applicant’s Evidence

7.2.1 The placement history indicates that four of the rooms (Rooms 1,2,3 and 5) havebeen regularly occupied by male tenants since the 20th December 1991. Two rooms(Rooms 4 and 6) have been regularly occupied by male tenants since January 1992.Room 7 has been occupied on a regular basis by male tenants since 12th May 1999.Occupation of the eighth room by male tenants commenced on the 30th July 2001.The applicant has indicated that these two rooms were, prior to their occupation bytenants, used for storage and office space.

7.2.2 The maintenance record shows works were carried out to Room 8 in July 1993 andto Room 7 in June 1994. Whilst the maintenance record contradicts the placementhistory, it can reasonably be assumed that, at the very least, the property has beenin use as a hostel housing six male tenants since January 1992.

7.2.3 The statutory declaration (dated 20th September 2002) by Jacqui Newell, a CouncilHostel Manager, indicates that prior to 1996 the property provided special needsaccommodation, housing homeless persons since April 1992. The number of

150

tenants that the property housed is not specified. This information does notcontradict the placement history or maintenance record, supporting the contentionthat the use of the property as a hostel for homeless persons existed prior to the 22nd

October 1992.

7.2.4 The statutory declaration (dated 19th October 2001) by Elayne Nicol, a CouncilHostel Supervisor, indicates that the property was used for special needsaccommodation prior to June 1996. It is indicated that at this time the propertybegan to provide ‘mainstream’ accommodation. Further evidence has beensubmitted by Lambeth Housing stating that there has never been any on-sitesupervision throughout the use of the property as a hostel (the applicant advises thatbeing a hostel used for vulnerables, it would not be wise to mix genders without anysupervision). The character of the use as a special needs hostel is thereforeconsistent with the character of the use as a hostel for homeless persons as neither,in this instance, require on site supervision. Elayne Nicol’s statutory declarationspecifies no dates prior to 1996 and therefore is of limited weight. However, theinformation it contains does not contradict the remainder of the submitted evidence.

7.3 Consultation

7.3.1 The submissions received in no way contradict the evidence provided either by theapplicant or from the observations made by the Case Officer at the time of the sitevisit.

7.3.2 On the 4th June 1997 Lambeth’s Regulatory Services Department (Noise andPollution Section) received the first of a series of noise nuisance complaints (from aneighbouring resident) regarding the subject property.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 In the absence of any contradictory evidence, it is considered that, on the balance ofprobability, the use of the subject property as a hostel for six homeless men hasexisted continuously for ten years prior to the date of the application (22nd October2002). It is also considered that the increase in number of male residents from six toa maximum of eight has not caused an increase in demonstrable harm beyond thatwhich existed previously (i.e. when the hostel accommodated only six residents) andas such does not constitute a material change of use.

9.0 Recommendation

9.1 That a certificate of lawfulness (existing) be issued for the following reason:

The use of the property as a hostel for six homeless men began ten years before thedate of the application and that the increase to a hostel for a maximum of eighthomeless men is not considered to constitute a material change in use.

9.2 (This would enable the Local Planning Authority to have control over any furtherintensification).

151


1 The use of the property as a hostel for six homeless men began ten years beforethe date of the application an that the increase to a hostel for a maximum of eight homelessmen is not considered to be a material change in use.

Notes to Applicant

1. The use began over 10 years before the date of this application. 2. This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of section 192 of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 3. It certifies that the use specified in the First Schedule taking place on the land

described in the Second Schedule was lawful on the specified date and, thus, wasnot liable to enforcement action under section 172 of the 1990 Act on that date.

4. This certificate applies only to the extent of the use described in the First Scheduleand to the land specifed in the Second Scehdule and identified on the attached plan.Any use which is materially different from that described or which relates to otherland may render the owner or occupier liable to enforcement action.

5. The effect of the certificate is also qualified by the proviso in section (192(4)) of the1990 Act, as amended, which states that the lawfulness of a described use oroperation is only conclusively presumed where there has been no material change,before the use is instituted or the operations begun, in any of the matters relevant todetermining such lawfulness.

152

N



arag e

to

61

137

147

140

134

142

Lisk

eard

Hous

e

Hels

ton H

ouse

11

10

1

2

1 to 1

8

1 to 1

8

Calstock House

Fowey

Hou

se

Librar y

WHITE HAR T STREET

El

1 to 2

4

1 to 24

2

3

149

155

157

159

163

165

167

195

191

292

40

47

CLEAVER SQUARE

CourtBroadgates

Coun ty Cou rt

PH

Su b StaEl

4.3m

BM 4.23m

CLEAVER ST REET

BOW

DEN

ST

REET

61

56

55

53

32

42

1

6

1 to 15

28

10

to

14

279

1

291 152

173 175

183

PH

TCB

Tr ough

PC

TCBs

LB

4.1m

3.6m

1

5

11

295

to 305

12

28

323a

TCB

BM

4.12

m

17

KE

NNIN

GTO

N

RO

AD

319315

317313

307

8

2 to 4

297

177

171

153

3

3.9 m

3.4m

323325

War d

Bdy

CR

299

19

1513

Pla yg

roun

d

16 5a

SubSta

1

KENNINGTON LANE

BM

4.43m

3.5m

4.0m

11

11

11

1

1


Case Number:


02/02543/FUL

Land Rear of 173-175 Kennington Lane withaccess from under 15-17 Cleaver StreetLondonConservation Area

Boundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

153

Location Land Rear Of 173-175 Kennington Lane With Access From Under 15-17 Cleaver Street London


Demolition of existing sheds and erection of 3 storey building to create 5 self contained flats,and a 2 storey building to create 2 self contained flats, along with associated alterations.

Application No 02/02543/FUL/REM/27196

Applicant Morrell & Sons

Agent Fibbens Fox Associates Limited31 The BroadwayWoodford GreenEssex1G8 0HQ

Date Valid 27 September 2002

Considerations


Plans0129 (PL) 101, 102, 103, 104B, 105B, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112


154

Officer Report

02/02543/FUL


1.1. Whether the change of use from employment to residential use is acceptable.

1.2. The impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of theConservation Area and the setting of the Listed Building.

1.3. The impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining residentsand occupiers.

1.4. Whether the proposed development provides acceptable living conditions forprospective future occupants.

2. Site Description

2.1. The site is a concrete yard located to the rear of 173-175 Kennington Lane. Thesite is surrounded on all sides by buildings. Access is from 15-17 Cleaver Streetthrough a gated arched opening under the existing buildings, or through theapplicant’s shop at 173-175 Kennington Lane.

2.2. The basement and ground floor of the existing building at 173-175 KenningtonLane is in use as a builders merchants and the application site is the service yardto the rear of the builders merchants. The yard contains two storage/workshopbuildings. The reason given for proposing to develop this site is that the land hasbeen surplus to the builders merchants requirements for a period of time due tochanging work patterns and restricted vehicular access.

2.3. The site is surrounded by a range of buildings, which represent many differentphases in the development of Kennington’s historic environment. The site isbounded by the Grade II Listed Durning Library to the north, the residential blockCalstock House to the east, County Court, residential units and offices to thesouth, and retail units and residential units to the west.

2.4. The site is located within the Kennington Lane Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

3.1. On the 14th November 2001 planning permission was refused for the erection ofone three-storey building containing five self contained residential units and onetwo-storey building containing two self contained residential units, for the followingreasons:

1) The application is considered unacceptable due to the lack of marketingevidence to show that no effective demand exists, coupled with that the site iscurrently used in association with the existing business at 173-175 KenningtonLane, and as such is contrary to Policy EMP6 of the UDP.

2) The proposal would create an adverse detrimental effect on the amenity ofadjacent residential properties by way of overlooking and loss of privacy, andas such is contrary to standard ST5 - Policy H10 of the UDP.

3) The location of the amenity space proposed is considered to be unsuitableand does not relate well to the proposed residential units, and as such iscontrary to SPG2.

155

4) The proposed design and materials of the development would create adetrimental impact on the character and appearance of the KenningtonConservation Area, and on the setting of the Grade II Listed Durning Library,and as such is contrary to Policies CD2 and CD15.

5) A number of the proposed rooms in the development fall short of the Council’sminimum room size standards, and as such is contrary to SPG4.

3.2. On same date conservation area consent was also refused for the demolition ofthe existing buildings to allow for new residential development as submitted inplanning application ref. 01/02075/FUL, for the following reason:

1) The application for conservation area consent to demolish existingbuildings is unacceptable due to the lack of suitable substitutedevelopment, in light of the Town Planning Application 01/02075/FULbeing refused permission. As such, this application is contrary to PolicyCD3.

3.3. Appeals were submitted against the refusal of the two above applications. In aletter dated the 8th July 2002 the Planning Inspectorate granted conservation areaconsent for the demolition of the existing sheds but dismissed the appeal on theapplication for planning permission. In respect of this appeal the Inspectordetermined, however, that the proposal would not be harmful to the objectives ofthe Council’s employment or conservation Policies and accepted that the site ishighly accessible to public transport and as such high density development couldbe contemplated. However, he concluded that the scheme would lead to anunreasonable loss of privacy and amenity enjoyed currently by residents and thatthis outweighed any benefits of removing the existing use even though in all otherrespects the proposal would be acceptable.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The proposal is for demolition of the existing sheds and erection of a 3 storeybuilding to create 5 self contained flats, and a 2 storey building to create 2 selfcontained flats, along with associated alterations. In total, the scheme proposesone studio flat, four 1-bed flats and two 2-bed flats.

4.2. The application is a revision of the previous scheme, following the PlanningInspectorate’s decision.

4.3. As proposed under the previous application, the scheme is a residentialdevelopment comprising two blocks. Block A is a three storey building containingfive self contained flats and Block B is a two storey building containing two selfcontained flats. The design of the development is a modern approach, with thebuildings proposed to be constructed of timber cladding (cedar shingles andvertical timber boarding) and glass and obscured glazing. There are twocommunal grassed areas as well as a private amenity space at the ground floor ofBlock A. Several units also have balconies. No on site parking is proposed, butan area for cycle parking is included. A refuse storage area is also to beprovided.

4.4. The amendments to the proposed development since the refusal of the previousapplication comprise mainly elevational alterations to Block A, primarily involvingthe reorientation and enclosure of the stairwell and screening of the walkways inorder to alleviate the problems of overlooking and loss of amenity, as well as arevised internal layout to Block A.

156

4.5. Specifically the alterations to Block A since the previous refusal comprise:

4.5.1. Relocating the 1 bed flat from the second to the first floor, and the 2 bedflat from the first to the second floor. Essentially swapping part of thefirst and second floor layouts.

4.5.2. This has in turn altered the location of balconies on the north westelevation.

4.5.3. Reorienting the stairwell around 90 degrees, from the south westelevation to the corner of the building, on the south east elevation, andenclosing it with a curved timber screen and an obscured louvered glassscreen.

4.5.4. Enclosing the walkways on the south east elevation with obscuredlouvered glass screens.

4.5.5. Inserting three additional high level obscured windows in the south eastelevation.

4.5.6. Altering the detail of the fenestration on the north west elevation byincluding additional glazing bars.

5. Consultation

5.1. The residents of 167-185 (odd) Kennington Lane, 1-24 (consecutive) CalstockHouse, Kennings Way and 1-19 (odd), 2-12 (even), The Lodge, Flats A-D andFlats 1-16 (consecutive) Cornwall Court and 1-10 (consecutive) Parsfield Court,Cleaver Street were notified.

5.2. The Association of Waterloo Groups, the Manor of Kennington ResidentsAssociation, the Vauxhall Society, the Waterloo Community Development Group,the Cleaver Square Residents Association, the Waterloo Amenities Group, theWaterloo Action Centre, IMPACT, the Heart of Kennington Residents Associationand the Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association were consulted.

5.3. Two notices were posted at the site, one on Kennington Lane and one on CleaverStreet. The application was advertised in the press.

5.4. 17 letters of representation have been received in response to this consultation,16 of them raising objections to the proposal on the following grounds:

5.4.1. Design

5.4.2. The development lacks any apparent architectural merit in aConservation Area.

5.4.3. The design will be totally out of sympathy and out of character with thesurrounding area.

5.4.4. The scheme is too dense for such a small site with difficult access.5.4.5. The design and materials of these buildings are brutal, alien and

unattractive. We enjoy the historic area and these squared off woodenboxes will blight our outlook.

5.4.6. The proposed materials are out of keeping with the rest of theConservation Area.

5.4.7. The wood-clad walls are to be in shingles - timber tiles which turn frombrown to grey after weathering.

5.4.8. The buildings resemble rabbit hutches/ cheaper sort of municipal sheds.5.4.9. The proposed amenity areas definitely do not represent a very attractive

feature.

5.4.10. Parking and traffic

157

5.4.11. It is currently almost impossible to park around here. Street parking inthe area is already under significant pressure. Access is difficult anddangerous.

5.4.12. There is no provision for off street parking. More visitors to the flats willworsen the parking problem too.

5.4.13. Where will the vehicles be parked, materials be kept and deliveriesmade without the builders yard.

5.4.14. The proposed access point is at the junction with Bowden Street andCleaver Square and where delivery lorries stop to unload, hence there isalready a great deal of congestion. There is also a constant stream oftraffic to the County Court.

5.4.15. Additional cars will add to the noise and pollution of the area.5.4.16. Is the public ready to relinquish their cars and is public transport capable

of meeting transport needs.5.4.17. An additional problem is getting emergency vehicle access under the

small and narrow space into the proposed site. How would refuse andrecycling services collect?

5.4.18. Amenity

5.4.19. We would loose privacy, peace, light and security.5.4.20. The buildings are too high and too close to neighbouring properties. We

will be overlooked and loose our privacy and face a 3 storey wood chipwall.

5.4.21. We are very concerned at the noise levels the stairway seems likely togenerate.

5.4.22. Access to the area for so many flats means we will loose some of oursecurity.

5.4.23. Adjoining properties would be disadvantaged by daylight restriction. Thebuildings will block light to Calstock House.

5.4.24. Noise, rubbish and discarded furniture from frequent tenancy changeson 7 small roomed flats will increase.

5.4.25. What about creating some green space for a change.5.4.26. Residents have a basic human right to live in a healthy and not

excessively crowded environment. The continuous pollution mayconstitute a breach in our human rights.

5.4.27. Block A will block light to the Grade II Listed Durning Library.

5.4.28. Land use

5.4.29. This is still an active builders yard and the vans and lorries which aredaily parked in the yard support the shop. Without the yard the shop willsurely close and a needed business will be lost.

5.4.30. Concerns about the loss of and diversity of employment.

5.4.31. Other

5.4.32. In the event of fire, burning splinters of timber shingles can alight onadjacent buildings. A shingle clad structure should be no closer than12m to another building.

5.4.33. There are inaccuracies in the plan relating to the rear building line of 19Cleaver Street and the gardens of 181 and 183 Kennington Lane.

5.4.34. There is no material difference from the previous rejected application.

5.5. The other letter was in support of the application, subject to an improvement tothe Cleaver Street entrance, Parking spaces being made available, restrictions onhours of building works and a Section 106 to provide and maintain flower boxeson Cleaver Street.

158

5.6. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority was also consulted andresponded stating that they were satisfied with the proposals in relation to fireprecautionary arrangements.



6.1.1. Adopted Policies:

6.1.2. EMP6: Protection of land and buildings generating employment6.1.3. CD2: Proposals for development6.1.4. CD13: Setting of listed buildings6.1.5. CD15: Design of new development6.1.6. H1: Housing provision6.1.7. H10: Residential development standards

6.1.8. SPG2: Private gardens and amenity space6.1.9. SPG4: Internal layout and room sizes

6.1.10. Deposit Policies:

6.1.11. 14: Parking and traffic constraint6.1.12. 15: Additional housing6.1.13. 23: Protection and location of other employment uses6.1.14. 32: Building scale6.1.15. 35: Design in existing residential/mixed use areas6.1.16. 41: Listed Buildings6.1.17. 42: Conservation Areas

6.1.18. The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weightat the moment due the early stage of the adoption process. Howeverthe 'Interim' policies carry more weight in that they have been the subjectof consultation as part of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes innational policy or guidance to which the Council must have regard inmaking planning decisions. In considering material considerations otherthan the adopted Development Plan, regard should be had to the mostup to date national and regional policy.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. In the July 2002 Planning Inspectorate’s decision on the previousplanning application, an evaluation was made of the proposed change ofuse. The Inspector stated that whatever the existing use, the shape ofthe site and proximity to many residential premises places a greatconstraint upon any significant commercial use. It was considered bythe Inspector that the use as a service and parking yard seems to causelittle intrusion and does not seem to be an employment generating useas such, but that a development which actually generated employmentwould by highly likely to cause significant intrusion.

6.2.2. It was the Inspector’s view that not only would a true employmentgenerating use be highly visible from adjoining residential and otherpremises, but the containment of the site by so many noise-sensitiveuses would give rise to objections on the grounds of disturbance toresidential amenities. On this basis the Inspector regarded the site to beprecisely the type envisaged in many of the criteria of part (i) of adopted

159

Policy EMP6 as being potentially suitable for a use other than one whichgenerates employment. Part (ii) was not regarded as a criterion whichhad to be met as it is an alternative, and therefore having found theproposal to be acceptable under the provisions of part (i) there wasconsidered to be no need to consider part (ii).

6.2.3. The Inspector concluded that even if the site was considered to be onewhich actually generates employment (as opposed to a service yardassociated with a contractor’s business), its shape, size, access andlocation are serious constraints upon a future or continuing employmentgenerating use. Because of these characteristics the use would eitherbe so seriously constrained as to prove of little worth as an employmentsource, or if not constrained, would cause unneighbourly disturbanceand intrusion to adjoining occupiers. As such the Inspector thereforeregarded the proposal, in principle, as a reasonable exception to thethrust of adopted Policy EMP6, under the provisions of part (i).

6.2.4. In respect of the land use consideration of the current application forplanning permission, neither the proposal nor the circumstances havechanged since the Planning Inspectorate’s decision. Therefore, theInspector’s assessment and conclusions on the land use issues of thescheme still apply. As such the proposal is considered acceptable inland use terms.


6.3.1. In the July 2002 Planning Inspectorate’s decision an evaluation wasmade of the impact of the proposed development on the ConservationArea and the setting of the Listed Building. The Planning Inspectorcommented that the site plays little part in any public vistas within theConservation Area, being surrounded by other sizeable buildings, withonly glimpses between them and along the access driveway on CleaverStreet. The nature of the service yard was not regarded as a positivecontributor to the character of the Conservation Area.

6.3.2. The Inspector determined that the proposed buildings would, in manyrespects represent a contrast to the existing surrounding buildings intheir massing, elevational treatment and materials. However, theInspector’s decision commented that ‘the designs display an extremelycrisp and simple execution, reflecting in their strong horizontal lines, avery strong characteristic of the area’. It was also considered that theflat roofed form of the proposed buildings would not be out of placebecause of the strong horizontal lines evident at upper levels in thesurrounding buildings, despite the various pitched roofs visible fromwithin the site.

6.3.3. The Inspector was of the view that the size of the proposed buildingswould not seem incompatible in townscape terms with the masses andforms of the existing surrounding buildings, which are of various sizesand scale and in some cases larger than the proposed buildings. It wasnoted that Block A would be close to and significantly higher than therear of the Durning Library, but the Inspector viewed that the proposedbuilding was sizeable but well designed. As the Library is alreadyclosely abutted by the much greater bulk and mass of Calstock House,the Inspector did not consider the setting of the Listed Building would beharmed. Block B would be considerably removed from the DurningLibrary and as such would not affect the setting of the Listed Building. Itwas considered by the Inspector to be discreetly located, although part

160

of its south western elevation would be visible along the accesspassageway.

6.3.4. The Inspector, in consideration of the proposed materials, acknowledgedthat there is no apparent precedent for the use of timber shingles locallybut commented that this is not sufficient ground alone for precluding theiruse. The Inspector found the form and mass of the proposed buildingswould be compatible with their setting, while the materials would set thebuildings apart as a distinctly modern addition to the townscape, servingto emphasise the vitality of the design. Furthermore the Inspectorcommented that whilst bricks are the predominant finish in the locality,there are many varieties and colours as well as render and concrete. Assuch it was considered that there was no reason why timber should notalso be added to the palette of materials, particularly in this discretelocation. The Inspector also regarded the use of shingles as performingmuch the same visual function as brickwork by helping to visually breakdown the mass.

6.3.5. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would preserve the setting ofthe Listed Durning Library and would also preserve, and in somerespects enhance, both the character and appearance of theConservation Area.

6.3.6. The site layout and the massing, bulk, materials and general design styleof the proposed buildings remain the same as assessed by the PlanningInspectorate and therefore the evaluation and conclusions on theseelements still applies. There are, however, some proposed amendmentsto the detailed design and appearance of Block A that requireassessment, having regard to the conclusions of the Planning Inspectorwho endorsed the design approach of the original scheme.

6.3.7. The constraints of this small, overlooked site are reflected in theelevational treatment of the buildings, and as such the design approachappears to have been strongly influenced by the need to avoid causingoverlooking. As previously noted, this is the thrust behind the elevationalalterations to Block A included in the current proposal. It is consideredthat the new curved staircase is an attractive feature and improves theappearance in comparison to the original structure proposed. It is alsoconsidered that the increased detailing and glazing bars on the glazednorth west elevation help to break up the bulk and increase the visualinterest.

6.3.8. However, it is also considered that the timber and louvered glassscreens to the previously open walkways and stairwells have resulted ina more deadened facade to the south east elevation. It is considered,however, that this reduced visual interest to the south east has beensufficiently addressed through the introduction of additional fenestration,albeit at high level and obscured in order to avoid any further amenityissues. Given the improved appearance of the other elevations to thisblock and the creation of increased visual interest to compensate for theimpact of the glass louvered screen, it is considered that the revisions tothe detailed design of Block A are an improvement to the scheme andare therefore acceptable.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. In the July 2002 Planning Inspectorate’s decision on the previousplanning application, an evaluation was made of the affect on amenity.

161

In terms of sunlight and daylight, the Inspector considered that theseparation of the proposed buildings from those on Kennington Lanewould mean there would be no discernible effect upon light reachingthem. The proposed buildings would also be set at an angle to CalstockHouse, and although they would be prominent in views from thesouthern and western elevations, there would be a sizeable gapbetween them that would allow significant western light to continue toreach the Calstock House flats. Having regard to the significant area ofopen garden to the north, south and west of Calstock House, theInspector considered that neither new building would have a significantimpact upon sunlight or daylight. Furthermore, given that Block B wouldbe to the north east of Cleaver Street and some 4m away from theboundary wall the Inspector considered it would not materially impactupon sunlight and daylight.

6.4.2. As the proposed site layout and the size, bulk, height and orientation ofthe proposed buildings has not changed under the current application isit considered that the Inspector’s assessment and conclusions on theimpact on sunlight and daylight still apply.

6.4.3. In respect of privacy, the Inspector’ decision commented that the site isclosely adjoined by residential properties but that any windows in theproposed buildings that face towards residences would either be at sucha distance, screened by walls or at an oblique angle, so that overlookingleading to an unreasonable loss of privacy could not occur. TheInspector noted that other windows serve stairwells, kitchens orbathrooms in the new buildings and would therefore be unlikely to causeintrusion or would be obscure glazed.

6.4.4. The current application includes three additional windows on the southeast elevation. These windows are, however, to be obscure glazed andare therefore not considered to cause any material increase inoverlooking.

6.4.5. The Planning Inspector was concerned that the use of the stairwell andwalkways on the southern side of Block A would cause not only directoverlooking of adjoining flats and gardens but also considerabledisturbance. It was commented that because these features are open,with walkways facing south and at high level, there would beconsiderable likelihood of them being used for more than just access, asa modest outside amenity area. The Inspector considered that the veryclose proximity of the walkways and stairwells to the windows ofadjoining flats to be highly likely to cause loss of privacy. Similarly, itwas viewed that the privacy and quietude currently available in adjoininggardens would be significantly compromised by the use of the stairwellsand high level walkways. As such the Inspector concluded that the harmcaused to amenity in these respects would fail to comply with Policy andit was on this basis therefore that the appeal was dismissed.

6.4.6. The current proposal incorporates elevational alterations to Block A,primarily involving the reorientation and enclosure of the stairwell andscreening of the walkways in order to alleviate the problems ofoverlooking and disturbance. The stairwell is to be enclosed by a timberclad curved screen to the south and east and by a glass louvered screento the north west. As such it will be fully enclosed to restrict views andnoise disturbance. There will be no views from the stairs towardsCalstock House and views to the west will be obscured. The obscuredlouvered glazed screen will help increase natural light, ventilation and

162

safety within the stairwell, in comparison to a fully timber screen. Thesteel staircase is also now proposed to have timber treads in order tofurther minimise noise disturbance.

6.4.7. The first and second floor level walkways on the south east elevation arenow proposed to be enclosed by full height obscured but louvered glassscreens. The obscured glass will restrict views towards Calstock Houseand the surrounding gardens and the enclosure of the walkways willmake them less likely to be used as a sort of outside amenity space.The screens may result in some reduction in light to the windows behind,however, but as the only rooms which would be effected are one internalstairwell, a bathroom and a kitchen this is not considered to cause asignificant loss of amenity to prospective occupants.

6.4.8. The proposed amendments are therefore considered to address theInspector’s concerns about loss of amenity to existing surroundingresidents. As such the proposal is considered acceptable in this respect.

6.4.9. The Inspector’s decision also assessed the amenity of prospective/futureoccupants of the proposed development. The Inspector commented thatthe weight to be placed on Supplementary Planning Guidance in respectof amenity space and room sizes had not been established. However, itwas considered that the amenity areas, whilst limited in size, were allregular shapes and most would be accessible from each unit, which wasconsidered to be an arrangement not unusual to the locality. There werealso found to be substantial areas of public open space nearby. TheInspector regarded the simple central grass-bricked pathway through thesite with lawns leading from it as a potentially very attractive feature,which would compliment the simplicity of the buildings themselves.

6.4.10. On the subject of proposed room sizes the Inspector commented thatalthough the flats would be modest in area, none appeared to containrooms so small in size as to cause their occupants to sufferunsatisfactory or cramped living conditions. The Inspector thereforeconcluded that the proposed outside amenity areas and room sizeswould be acceptable.

6.4.11. The current proposal does not incorporate any alterations to internalroom sizes or outside amenity space arrangements. As such theInspector’s conclusions on these issues are still considered to apply.


6.5.1. The Inspector concluded that the site appeared to be highly accessibleby public transport and for this reason meets current Government Policyto concentrate new housing in such locations. Accordingly it was viewedthat there was no reason for requiring off-street car parking.

6.5.2. The Council’s Transport Officer has also confirmed that there are noobjections to a car free scheme, subject to a Section 106 Agreement,which would mean that the Council would issue no residents parkingpermits to future occupants of these units. The site is located within aControlled Parking Zone. It is also close to public transport routes – theOval and Kennington Underground Stations and bus routes alongKennington Road. Therefore a car free development in this locationwould be in line with deposit Policy 14 and with the Government’s moreflexible approach to parking in order to reduce travel by car.

163

6.5.3. Cycle parking is proposed to be provided within the site. It is consideredthat 7 cycle parks is an acceptable number for this development as thismeets the requirements of deposit Policy 14. A condition shall be addedto require that a minimum of 7 secure and covered cycle spaces shall beprovided with the development.

7. Conclusion

7.1. In consideration of the current proposal, the Planning Inspectorate’s decision onthe appeal against the Council’s refusal of the previous application should begiven weight.

7.2. The Inspector previously determined that the proposal would not be harmful to theobjectives of the Council’s employment or conservation Policies and accepted thatthe site is highly accessible to public transport and as such high densitydevelopment could be contemplated.

7.3. In respect of land use, conservation, transport and general design issues thecurrent proposal does not deviate from the previous application and therefore theInspector’s conclusions still apply. As such the change of use from employmentto residential; the impact of the development on the Conservation Area and thesetting of the Listed Building; and the proposed amenity of future occupants areall considered to be acceptable.

7.4. The Inspector did conclude that the previous scheme would lead to anunreasonable loss of privacy and amenity.

7.5. The current proposed development includes elevational alterations to Block Ainvolving the reorientation and enclosure of the stairwell and screening of thewalkways in order to alleviate the loss of amenity. It is considered that theseamendments address the Inspector’s concerns about loss of amenity and as suchthe proposal is considered acceptable in this respect.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Having regard to the Planning Inspectorate’s decision of the 8th July 2002, it isrecommended that planning permission be granted for the proposeddevelopment, SUBJECT TO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT.

164




3 Full details of the means and positioning of refuse storage and disposal shall besubmitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site iscommenced, and the development shall be completed in accordance with the detailsthereby approved. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the premises and adjoiningproperties.)


5 All planting, seeding or turfing comprising in the approved scheme of landscaping,shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of thebuilding(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees orplants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, areremoved or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next plantingseason with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority giveswritten consent to any variation. (Reason: To ensure that the landscaped areas are laidout in accordance with the approved plans.)

6 Full details of the cycle parking, which shall provide a minimum of 7 secure andcovered cycle spaces, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authoritybefore any work on the site is commenced, and the development shall be completed inaccordance with the details thereby approved. (Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form ofdevelopment and promote a more sustainable form of transport.)

7 No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until the cycleparking has been provided wholly within the site, such cycle parking shall be permanentlyretained. (Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and permanent retentionof the cycle parking as a more sustainable form of transport.)

8 Those windows shown on the approval drawings as having obscured glazing inpart or full shall be so fitted, fixed shut, and be permanently retained with such for theduration of the development. (Reason: To avoid overlooking of neighbouring residentialproperties.)


Notes to Applicant

1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be

165

required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.





6. You are advised to consult with the Council's Planning and Transportation Divisionconcerning compliance with requirements under the Buildings Acts 1939 and LocalGovernment Act 1985 where a development involves the naming of a street and/orbuilding or the numbering/renumbering of a property.

7. The following Policies were relevant in the consideration of this application:Adopted Unitary Development Plan Policies EMP6, CD2, CD13, CD15, H1 and H10and Deposit Policies 14, 15, 23, 32, 35, 41 and 42 plus Supplementary PlanningGuidance.

166

N



18

33

35

46

39

STOCKWEL L R

OA D

180

178

172

166a

BM

11. 55m

CLOSE

ROM ERO

545

1

41

39

27

29

BE NED IC T RO A

2526

1718 8 to 11

13

23

71 t o 75

ThrayleHouse

Bur row

Hous e

RUMSEY ROAD

9596

8788

25

27

Mix es

135 to 1 43

117 to 131

(PH)

12

10. 3m

STOCKWELL

LB

34

134

to

138

1a

1

Surge

ry

PO

5355

97 to 100

107 to 109

FB

37

St ockw

e ll

Primary

School

1

11. 2m

Sk ateboard

Park

1615

to

to

to

11

9

to79

80

13

7

146

to

166

176

PH

BURGOYNE ROAD

174

1412

67

70

71

Turbervil le House

GREEN

37

142

140

MOAT PLACEFB

26

24

to

15to13

3to1

103106

to101

to104

FB

AYTOUNROA D

58to

56

68

to

70

FB

El SubSt a

113115

122

42

126

124

128

130

8

59

61

66 to 6978

43to 46

Stoc

kwell

Gre

e n Cou

rt

6049

58

57

56

48

47

65

64

Surgery

11

11

11

11

11

11


Case Number:


02/01598/FUL

135-143 Stockwell RoadLondonSW9 9TN


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

167

Location 135-143 Stockwell Road London SW9 9TN

Ward FERNDALEProposal

Erection of extension to building at 1st and 2nd floor levels together with additional mansardroof terrace and the change of use of 2nd floor to residential with formation of 10 selfcontained flats on second and third storeys.


Applicant Larchturn Ltd

Agent Axia ArchitectsUnit 19A Dallington StreetClerkenwellLondon EC1V 0BQ

Date Valid 8 July 2002

Considerations

Plans4123-01; 02; 03A; 04; 05; 06; 07; 08; 09C; 10B; 11C; 12B; 13B; 14C;15A; 16; 17; 18A; 19; 20.


168

Officer Report

02/01598/FUL


1.1. Acceptability of the design, materials, scale, bulk, and height of the extensions inrelation to the design of the existing building.

1.2. Suitability of the increase in density in respect of the ten self-contained flatsproposed for the site.

1.3. The level of parking spaces provided in relation to this development and the trafficimpacts of the scheme.

1.4. The level of amenity space provided.

1.5. The impact of the building extensions on the amenity of adjoining properties.

2. Site and Surroundings Description

2.1 The site is located on the eastern side of Stockwell Road at the junction withRumsey Road. The site contains a three storey late 19th/early 20th centurycommercial building with frontage to Stockwell Road. The building is constructedfrom painted stock bricks, timber sash windows with a flat roof. The buildingcontains a restaurant on the ground floor and offices on the first and second floors.

2.2 Immediately to the north, abutting the site is the vacant Old Queen’s Head publichouse (ground floor) with residential flats above. Abutting the rear boundary of thesite is a commercial paper warehouse that has access from Rumsey Road.

3. Planning History of the Site

3.1 A planning application for the erection and extension of building at 1st and 2nd floorlevel to rear and erection of mansard roof along with the conversion of 2nd floor toresidential to form 10 self contained flats with offices (B1) on 1st floor level waswithdrawn (ref. 02/00306/FUL).

4. Scheme Details

4.1 The application is for the erection of rear extensions to the first and second floors ofthe building together with an additional mansard roof (providing an additional floorlevel) and a change of use in respect of the second floor from office to residentialuse. The existing offices on the first floor would be extended to the rear. The newfloor created will comprise of residential use. In total ten new residential units wouldbe provided by the scheme.

4.2 The extension to the first floor would be for office use whilst the use of the existingsecond floor would be changed to become residential. The result of the extensionsand change of use would be a net loss of 13 m2 of B1 office floor area and 10 newself-contained flats within the building.

4.3 The dwelling mix of the units would comprise of 4 x single bedroom units and 6 x twobedroom units.

169

4.4 The new walls would be constructed of stock brickwork to match existing and sandand cement rendered band at high level finished in masonry paint. New doors andwindows would comprise of painted timber softwood fitted units. The mansard roofwould be constructed from Eternit or similar artificial rivendale slate tiles to matchsimilar in locality. The dormer window roofs and side cheeks would comprise oftraditionally detailed lead sheets.

4.5 No private gardens or outdoor amenity space is provided for any of the units exceptfor a 3 sq. metre balcony of the second floor flat closest to Rumsey Road.


5.1 Consultation letters were sent to 54 and 55 Thrayle House, Benedict Road, 15Rumsey Road, 133, 133A, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 146, 148, 150, 152-156, and158-166 Stockwell Road and the Old Queen’s Head public house. Consultationletters were also sent to Transport for London and the Brixton Society. In addition asite notice was displayed and a press notice was published.

5.2 Three responses were received including one from Transport for London who statedthat they have no observations to make on the proposal. The other two responseswere objections to the scheme and they are summarised as follows:

� The addition comes close to our offices to the rear of the site.� It looks as if this development may encroach on to the land we own to the rear of

the O Cantino premises.� I foresee difficulties in building this development, as Stockwell Road is narrow and

a red route with a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing. We would notgive permission to use our site for unloading building materials.

� My restaurant is open to midnight. I have concerns that the new residents in flatsabove might be disturbed by the noise.

5.3 The scheme was amended to avoid adverse effects of overlooking to windows ofadjoining flats above the Old Queens Head and to a lesser extent windows of officesrelating to the paper manufacturer to the rear. The amended scheme was re-advertised and all consultees were re-consulted. Three responses were alsoreceived with respect to the re-consultation including one from the Brixton Societysupporting the scheme. The other two responses were objections to the schemeand they are summarised as follows:

� We are greatly opposed to the proposal and may take legal action if planningpermission is granted.

� We are not sure of the level of security in the premises.� Increasing the size including residential users will adversely affect our

business.� During the proposed construction our business (solicitors practice) will be

greatly affected by the nuisance involved in the noise and obstructions toclients, rubbish and workmen carrying in and out building materials of thebuilding.

� In addition to the objection made in August, it would not be possible to extendthe storage space of our own building if the proposed development is built.



170

6.1.1 The Statutory Development Plan comprises the Adopted Lambeth UnitaryDevelopment Plan, 1998 (AUDP). The relevant policies and standards are listedbelow:

� H1 – Housing Provision� H9 – Mixed Housing/commercial Development� H10 – Residential Development Standards� EMP6 – Protection of land and buildings generating employment� ST1 – Layout & Design� ST2 – Density� ST3 – Daylight & Sunlight� ST4 – Safety & Security� ST5 – Privacy and Space between Buildings� ST11 – Layout, Parking, Servicing, Roads and Footpaths� ST13 – Refuse Storage and Collection� T17 – Transport Implications of Development Proposals� CD2 – Proposals for Development� CD15 – Design of New Development� CD18 – Extensions

6.1.2 The Supplementary Planning Guidance :� SPG2 - Private Gardens and Amenity Space� SPG4 – Internal Layout and Room Sizes� SPG9 – Security and Design

6.1.3 The Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP) is also relevant.Relevant policies are :� Policy 9 – Transport Impact� Policy 14 – Parking and Traffic Restraint� Policy 15 – Additional Housing� Policy 32 – Building Scale and Design� Policy 33 – Alterations and Extensions

6.1.4 The policies of the DDUDP carry relatively little weight at the moment due the earlystage of the adoption process. However the 'Interim' policies (such as policy 14)carry more weight in that they have been the subject of consultation as part of theKey Issues Paper and represent changes in national policy or guidance to which theCouncil must have regard in making planning decisions. In considering materialconsiderations other than the adopted development plan regard should be had to themost up to date national and regional policy.

6.1.5 National and Regional Planning Policy which will also be referred to:� PPG1 – General Policy and Principles� PPG3 – Housing� PPG13 – Transport� RPG 3 – Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities

6.2 Land Use

6.2.1 Policy EMP6 of the AUDP resists the loss of any employment generating floorspacefor non-employment use.

6.2.2 The scheme involves the loss of 157 m2 employment generating (office) floorspaceat second floor level as this would be replaced with residential floorspace. Howeverthe first floor would be extended to the rear to accommodate a further 144 m2 of(office) floorspace, resulting in a net loss of 13 m2 employment generating (office)floorspace. It is considered that this small loss is acceptable. The new layout offersmore useable and flexible space as all the floorspace would be provided within one

171

floor rather than the existing layout being spread over two floors. It is thereforeconsidered that the scheme is not contrary to EMP6.

6.2.3 Policy H1 states that “The Council will endeavour to make provision for 7,700additional dwellings in the Borough during the period 1992-2006”. The proposedextensions will result in seven additional dwelling units. Policy 15 of the DDUDPstates that “The following additional housing dwelling units shall be provided: aminimum of 27,000 (about 1,800/year) additional overall dwelling completionsbetween 2002 and 2017”. As previously stated this proposal will result in 10additional dwelling units, thereby contributing to additional overall dwellingcompletions for 2003.

6.2.4 Policy H9 of the AUDP encourages mixed housing/commercial redevelopmentschemes and states that the residential component of the scheme shall be assessedagainst the Plan's Residential standards but these should be applied flexibly inrecognition of the difficulties presented by mixed schemes.


6.3.1 The relevant parts of policies CD2, CD15 and CD18 of the AUDP require newbuildings and extensions to buildings to achieve a high quality of design, to becarefully related to their surroundings and to contribute positively to the area. Theheight and form of the extensions should be in keeping with the building and itssetting. Extensions should respect the plan form, period, architecturalcharacteristics and detailing of the original building.

6.3.2 The scheme involves the retention of the existing building along with extensions andalterations comprising of two distinct parts, (1) a mansard roof extension yielding anadditional floor on the building, and (2) 6.0 m deep rear extensions to approximately80% of the length of the first and second floors of the building.

6.3.3 The original scheme for the new mansard roof floor addition was not considered tobe acceptable as it comprised of a single pitch modern style mansard which couldadversely affect the setting of the listed buildings lying opposite the site on StockwellRoad. The scheme was amended and the revised mansard roof floor now containsa dual pitch roof and follows the traditional mansard roof. The pitch, profile anddesign proposed accords with the English Heritage design guidelines. The scale ofthe building would not be damaged by adding this additional height and the dormersare confined to the lower roof slope portion and detailed to an appropriate originallike pattern.

6.3.4 The dormer windows of the mansard have also been reduced in width and moved tobe aligned with the windows below to comply with the Council’s guidelines forresidential extensions and alterations. In addition it has been confirmed that thewindow frames, depths of window reveals, glazing bars and other materials wouldmatch the existing originals.

6.3.5 It is therefore considered that the amended scheme complies with the relevantcriteria of policy CD18 relating specifically to roof extensions, which states that: “roofextensions may be acceptable, providing they do not harm the proportions orarchitectural integrity of the building and are carried out in a manner suitable for thebuilding in question:

� They should be carried out in materials to match the existing design;

� Windows should relate to, and align with, windows in lower storeys;

172

� In all cases, care should be taken to preserve the characteristic features ofthe roof, such as chimneys, chimney pots, variations of roofline and pitch.Where necessary, chimney stacks should be extended in height to relate tothe roof extensions and chimney pots replaced.”

6.3.6 The existing building does not contain any chimney pots. However it does containan external extraction flue attached to the rear façade of the building. This fluerelates to the restaurant within the ground floor. As this part of the building is to beextended towards the rear of the site, the flue is proposed to be contained within thebuilding. As part of the amendments to the design requested during negotiation theapplicant was requested to cover this flue with a traditionally designed brick chimneypot reflecting the appearance of the chimney pots of the adjoining terrace building.This has been included within the revised mansard roof scheme, and it is consideredthat the design is acceptable.

6.3.7 The second aspect of the scheme, being the rear additions at first and second floorlevel is assessed as follows:

With regard to the requirements of policy CD18 of the AUDP and parts A-C of policy 33 of theDDUDP, regarding extensions and alterations, the proposed first and second floorextensions together with the new mansard roof would clearly alter the scale androofline of the building and in this regard may potentially impact upon the characterof the surrounding area with particular reference to the setting of the listed buildingsopposite the site. However it is considered that this aspect of the scheme would notresult in a detrimental impact on the building or the surrounding area. It would becomplimentary to the original building. An important feature of this assessment isthe fact that only the new mansard roof of the scheme would be visible from thelisted buildings and only a small portion, being that on the side facing Rumsey Road,would be visible from Stockwell Road, and this would be from an oblique angle.Therefore the overall impacts on the streetscape would be no more than minor.

6.3.8 Overall therefore as the area comprises of mixed residential, retail, light industrialand other commercial landuses, a range of building types, ages, designs and sizes,it is considered that the 6.0 m rear extension over the first and second floorsmatching the design, appearance and materials of the existing three-storey buildingis acceptable as it is sympathetic to the design and appearance of this building and ithas been carefully related to its surroundings. Accordingly it is considered that thedesign, materials, bulk and scale of the extensions comply with policies CD2, CD15and CD18 of the AUDP and 32 and 33 of the DDUDP.

6.4 Amenity Impact

6.4.1 Although the scheme involves an increase in the height and bulk of the building, it isconsidered that the proposed acceptable in this regard. This is due to theseparation distances between neighbouring buildings. Taking the proposed rearextensions into consideration there would be a minimum of 3.8 m between thesubject building and the paper warehousing plant to the east (rear). The degree ofseparation distance, which averages some 5.9 m across the northernmost half of thebuilding is considered to be acceptable. The southernmost half backs on to the frontloading yard of the warehousing plant. The proposed extensions would be 1.2 mfurther back than the rear building line of the adjoining building at 133 StockwellRoad.

6.4.2 Preliminary calculations were undertaken in accordance with the BRE guidelines. Itis considered that the original scheme submitted would have reduced the amount ofdaylight received by habitable rooms within two flats located at first and second floorlevel within the adjoining building at 133 Stockwell Road, above the former publichouse. These windows would directly face the new extension and be located some

173

3.6 metres away. At second floor level the proposal was for a 21.2 m2 roof terrace.This would generate adverse effects in respect of overlooking into theaforementioned windows.

6.4.3 However this aspect of the scheme was revised at the same time that the mansardroof was redesigned. The result has been a reduction in the size of theseextensions such that a total of 43.2 m2 of floorspace has been removed and the gapbetween the rear wing of the adjoining site is now 7.7 m, being 4.1 m greater than asoriginally proposed. The revised scheme meets the BRE guidelines for loss ofdaylight and has avoided the adverse impacts of overlooking that would haveoccurred from the roof terrace. In addition to the 7.7 m separation the extensiononly extends a further 1.5 m from the only potentially effected window (of abedroom) on this elevation. This window is discussed in more detail in theparagraph below.

6.4.4 There are no windows in the elevation facing the former pub at ground floor levelthat would be affected in terms of overlooking. Above the former pub there are twowindows within this elevation, one on each of the first and second floors. Thesecond floor window relates to a 9.25 m2 kitchen and is therefore not a habitableroom. The first floor window relates to a bedroom. Overlooking into this room willnot occur as none of the floors of the proposed extension would have windows orbalconies or any other form building form that could allow an overlooking situation toarise.

6.4.5 The above amendments to the scheme would also reduce a small loss of daylight inthe ancillary offices of the paper warehouse to the rear. It is considered that theamended scheme would not generate any adverse effects on this property, takinginto account the lesser degree of amenity expected as a commercial land use.

6.4.6 Two balconies are proposed on the first and second floors at the southern end of thebuilding near Rumsey Road. There will not be any overlooking issues arising fromthese, as they only overlook the warehousing site to the rear and Rumsey Roaditself.

6.4.7 It is therefore considered that the bulk and location impacts of the scheme would notgenerate any significant adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

6.4.8 The internal layouts of the proposed flats generally comply with the minimum internalstandards set out in the supplementary planning guidance (SPG4). However thebedroom of flat 7 and the living/dining rooms of flats 7 and 8 fall short of theminimum space by 0.7 m2, 1.0 m2 and 0.8 m2 respectively. It is considered thatthese shortfalls are relatively minor and that the bedroom and living/dining roomswould still be adequate for the needs of one or two persons expected to occupythese single bedroom flats. It is considered that these minor shortfalls would notlead to a poor standard of living for prospective occupants. All habitable rooms areproposed to have external windows. Accordingly the internal layouts of the flats areacceptable in this respect.

6.4.9 SPG2 requires a minimum area of 75 sq.m of usable communal amenity space for10 self-contained flats. No outdoor amenity space has been provided with respect tothis scheme apart from the 3 sq. metre balcony on the second floor, therefore thescheme fails to comply with SPG2. Although the commercial floorspace in respectof this proposal already exists, the final product will be a mixed housing/commercialdevelopment. Policy H9 concerning such developments recognises that a flexibleapproach must be adopted in applying the UDP’s Residential Developmentstandards. This is consistent with PPG3 and PPG13 that encourages LocalPlanning Authorities to relax their requirements for residential development with aview to enabling a mix of new residential units to assist in the provision of more

174

housing to meet demand. Therefore it is considered that this non-compliance withSPG2 can not in itself be justified as a reason for refusal.

6.5 Highways & Transportation Considerations

6.5.1 No car parking spaces have been provided for the proposed residential units. ST11of the AUDP requires a minimum of one car parking space per unit, hence 10spaces. The scheme in providing no on-site car parking for the proposed extensionsfails to comply with this policy. In this case as the site is within the Central LondonArea of Strict Traffic Restraint, policy 14 of the DDUDP requires a maximum of 0.4spaces per 2-bedroom unit, and 0.25 spaces per 1-bedroom unit, hence 3 spacesoverall. Given that policy 14 is an interim policy, carrying more weight than theDDUDP in general, and that reflects current Government guidance, it is consideredthat more weight should be given to policy 14 than ST11. Policy 14 seeks to reducethe amount of private car parking provided in order to increase the use of publictransport. The scheme in providing no on-site car parking for the proposed newresidential units complies with policy 14.

6.5.2 The applicant produced a Transport Assessment incorporating a parking survey toidentify whether or not there is adequate parking capacity in the surrounding roads.The level of parking stress observed within 200 linear metres of the site is in excessof 90%. Therefore it is recommended that this development should be car free,where none of the ten new flats are eligible for parking permits on the surroundingstreet network. It is recommended that this be enforced by way of a s.106agreement between the applicant and the Council. The applicants have agreed inwriting to the principle of this development being car free in this manner. The site iswell served by public transport as the Brixton and Stockwell underground stationsand mainline rail station are within walking distance. Stockwell Road is also wellserviced by a number of bus routes that pass the site itself.

6.5.3 The Council’s Transportation Officer has no objections to the scheme subject to as.106 agreement for a car free development. Therefore subject to a s.106agreement being completed it is considered that the scheme meets therequirements of policy T17 of the AUDP and policies 9 and 14 of the DDUDP.

8. Conclusions

8.1 It is considered that the proposed extensions to the existing first and second floor levelsand new third (mansard roof) floor extension would provide an acceptable standardof accommodation for future occupiers. The scheme would not significantlyadversely affect the amenity of local residents. The scheme complies with therelevant residential development policies and standards being policies H1, H9, H10,CD2, CD15, CD18, T17, ST1-5 inclusive, ST11, and ST13 of the Adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan, policies 9, 14, 15, 32 and 33 of the Deposit Draft UnitaryDevelopment Plan, and SPG 2, 4 and 9.

9. Recommendation

9.1 For the reasons outlined in this report it is recommended that planning permission begranted subject to the conditions attached and subject to a s.106 agreementbetween the applicant and the Council restricting the number of on-street car parkingpermits available for the new flats as part of the is development to nil.

175







6 All party walls and the ceiling/floor between the ground and first floor shall besoundproofed and insulated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before theuse commences, and thereafter be retained for the duration of the use, so as to preventfumes, smell and noise permeating into adjoining accommodation. (Reason: To ensurethat no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoiningoccupiers or of the area generally.)

7 The proposed building(s) shall be built to the ground levels and heights as shownon the approved drawings or lower; if the indicated existing heights and levels of theneighbouring properties should prove to be erroneous, then the heights of the proposedbuildings shall be no higher than the relative height difference(s) between the heights of theneighbouring properties and proposed building. (Reason: In order to ensure that theproposed development is built to the heights relative to adjoining properties as shown on theapproved drawings.)

8 All external works and finishes, and works of making good, shall match theexisting original work in respect of materials used, detailed execution and finishedappearance except where otherwise indicated on the drawings hereby approved. (Reason:

To safeguard the character and appearance of the building and the setting of anearby listed building).

9 The new external joinery work shall match the materials, dimensions and profilesof existing joinery work. All external joinery is to be of painted timber (Reason: Tosafeguard the character and appearance of the building and the setting of a nearby listedbuilding).

10 Any new sash windows shall be of clear glass in sliding sash frames within arecessed box frame. They must also be of painted softwood with the sashescounterbalanced by weighted cords and pulleys. They must match the design, mouldingsand glazing bar pattern of the original windows. (Reason: To safeguard the character andappearance of the building and the setting of a nearby listed building).

176


Notes to Applicant






6. In connection with the soundproofing condition, you should consult the Council'sBuilding Control Section before carrying out any works.


8. You are advised that under the terms of the Water Industries Act 1991, the priorwritten consent of the London Borough of Lambeth, Sewerage Contractor forThames Water Utilities Ltd is required for any development works draining into, orconnecting to, the public sewers. Contact Mr S K Bellehewe on 0171 926 7108.

9. You are advised to contact Thames Water Utilities regarding mains/supply pipeconnections for the development at Network Services Waterloo District, ThamesWater Utilities Ltd, Waterworks Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1SB. Contact Mr DKirk on 0645 200800 for details.


11. This planning permission is subject to a Section 106 agreement in relation torestricting the number of car parking permits available for the new flats approved.

12. In determining this application the following policies CD2, CD15, CD18, H1, H9,H10, T17, ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST11, ST13, SPG2, SPG4 and SPG9 of theAdopted Unitary Development Plan and policies 9, 14, 15, 32 and 33 of theDeposited Draft Unitary Development Plan were relevant to the decision.

177

N



20

THU RLESTONE ROA

D

84. 0m

83

58

44

63

79

66

46

21

9

16

38 39

31

CHICHESTER MEW

S

3

37

41

40

LB

D

SELSD ON ROAD

15

5

85

6

1816

5

EGREMON

BM 83.89m

CANTER BURY GR OV E

SELSDON ROAD

73 .8 m79. 0m

THU RLESTONE ROA

D

DODBROOKE ROAD

13

1

28

16

2

13

21

128

118

108

104

90

76

117

103

101

83

68

76

99

89

1412

8

14

91


Case Number:


02/03491/FUL

95 Thurlestone RoadLondonSE27 0PE


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

178

Location 2 Flats 95 Thurlestone Road London SE27 0PE

Ward KNIGHTS HILLProposal

Erection of a single storey ground floor rear conservatory, along with associated alterations.

Application No 02/03491/FUL/DCAG/20993

Applicant Susie Barrie

Agent Gary Nicholls54 Mill LaneOld WelwynHertsAL6 9EJ


Considerations

PlansGRN/SB/001


179

Officer Report

02/03491/FUL


1.1. The main considerations are the effect that the proposed single storey groundfloor rear conservatory would have on the character of the parent building and theneighbouring residential properties and the effect that the development wouldhave on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers.

2. Site Description

2.1 The property is located on the western side of Thurlestone Road, four propertiesremoved from the junction with Canterbury Grove. It consists of a two storeysemi-detached property divided into two flats. The planning application relates tothe ground floor flat.

2.2 The front of the property has an almost due east orientation receiving the morningsun and the rear facing west, receiving the afternoon sun.

2.3 The subject property has a two-storey rear projection which, is 5.5m high and3.6m wide with the subject property being 5.9m wide.

2.4 The adjoining property is a mirror image of the subject property, with the two-storey rear projection with a similar internal floor layout and similar sizedwindows. This adjoining property has a bedroom window facing the rear of theproperty and a kitchen window facing directly toward the area where the proposedextension would be.

2.5 The existing timber paling fence the divides 95 with 97 Thurlestone Road isapproximately 2.3m in height.

2.6 Many of the properties in the area are semi-detached properties generally of twoor three storey’s.

3. Planning History

3.1. There is no planning history associated with this site.

4. Scheme Details

4.1 The planning application is for the erection of a single storey ground floor rearconservatory, along with associated alterations.

4.2 The rear extension would effectively in-fill the ‘L shape’ between the boundarywith 97 Thurlestone Road and the parent building rear projection.

4.3 The depth of the conservatory would be 3.6m from the rear elevation of the mainhouse to end flush with the rear elevation of the existing two-storey rearprojection. It would be 2.3m in width have a mono-pitched roof which would have

180

a maximum height of 2.6m at the rear wall of the house and at the eaves have aheight of 2.1m.

4.4 The roof would slope to the rear yard of the subject property. The roof of thestructure would be glazed as would the rear elevation. The solid surface wouldmatch that of the parent building.


5.1. The relevant neighbouring properties were consulted along with the relevantresidential amenity groups. A site notice was not posted.

5.2. One letter of objection was received which outlined the following concerns:� The height of the wall above the present height of the fence,� Potential loss of light to the rear room and kitchen,� Potential loss of outlook from the rear room and the kitchen,

6. Planning Considerations6.1. Design Considerations

6.1.2 CD18 (Extensions – conservatories) of the adopted Unitary DevelopmentPlan (AUDP) states that “…the Council will resist proposals forconservatories if they are of a size or design which is unsympathetic to theexisting building…”. The Council’s SPG on Residential Extensions andAlterations (6.4) expands upon this by adding that the infilling of the ‘L shape’by a transparent pitch-roofed conservatory may be considered, subject todesign aspects.

6.1.3 This scheme involves the infilling of the ‘L’ shape with a small conservatory.The proposed extension is considered minimal in relation to the overall sizeof the parent building and would not be to the detriment of the character ofthe building or the row of terraces. It is also considered that the developmentwould not overpower the original form of the building. This is due to theopaque materials used and the light construction technique employed. Onthis basis the proposal is considered in accordance with policy CD18.

6.2. Amenity Impact

6.2.1 The proposed extension is relatively small, but located very close to its adjoiningresidential neighbour. The major concern in relation to amenity is therefore anyimpact there may be daylight/sunlight; other amenity issues such as overlookingand sense of enclosure are secondary.

Sunlight and Daylight

6.2.2 Standard ST3 relates to sunlight and daylight, and requires that good standardsshould be achieved in the proposed extensions, and retained in existing buildingsnearby. Guidelines within the Building Research Establishment Report (1991) arerequired to be considered.

6.2.3 The Building Research Establishment Report (BRE) first considers whether theproposed building would extend into a 45-degree angle from the edge of theextension both on a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. If this threshold iscontravened a more detailed analysis needs to be carried out, considering the

181

angle of the sun and orientation of the property, the amount of daylight available.Although the 45-degree indicator may be contravened it does not necessarilyresult in the unacceptable loss of light.

6.2.4 Starting with the vertical plane, the existing two-storey rear projection currentlydoes not comply with the 45-degree indicator as it diffuses the amount of lightreaching the bedroom on the ground floor of the adjoining property. Resultsindicating that the proposed conservatory extension would partially overshadowthe same window were found. Therefore a more detailed analysis ofdaylight/sunlight for this bedroom window is required.

6.2.5 The same calculations have been employed with the horizontal plane. It wasfound that the existing two-storey rear projection does not fully comply with the45-degree indicator. It was found that almost 80% of the bedroom window, onthe adjoining property does not received direct light because of the size of thetwo-storey rear projection on the subject property. If the single storey rearconservatory were to be erected the bedroom window would not receive anydirect light, according to the 45 degree rule. As a result a more detailed analysisof daylight and sunlight for this bedroom is required.

6.2.6 The floor area of the kitchen in the adjoining property is less than13m2 and istherefore not defined as a habitable room under the Council’s adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan. As a result it is not necessary to conduct Sunlight andDaylight calculations for kitchen window.

6.2.7 The Average daylight factor (ADF), which is defined as a ‘ratio of total daylightflux incident on the working plane to the area of the working plane, expressed asa percentage of the outdoor illuminance on a horizontal plane due to anunobstructed CIE Standard Overcast Sky’. The window that this test applied tois located in the ground floor bedroom facing the rear of the property. The ADF,for the bedroom area was calculated at being:

Bedroom 3.057%BRE sufficient ADF% 1.00%

6.2.8 The BRE standard for ADF is expressed as a minimum. In this case the tableshows that the ADF calculated for the bedroom complies with the minimum BREdaylight/sunlight standards.

6.2.9 It is also considered that due to the nature of the materials and the size of theextension the single storey rear conservatory would not decrease the amount oflight reaching this bedroom. Moreover, the rear elevation of both the subjectproperty and the adjoining would receive full sun in the afternoon due to theorientation of the buildings as the rear of the properties face almost due west.

6.2.10 It must also be noted that a 2m high fence could be erected on the boundarywithout the written consent of the Council.

Sense of Enclosure and Outlook

6.2.9 It is not considered that the rear conservatory extension would lead to asignificantly detrimental increase in the sense of enclosure to the adjoiningproperty. This is due to the shallow height of the extension and the nature of thematerials used.

6.2.10 Likewise, the loss of outlook from the windows of the adjoining property wouldnot significantly detrimentally increased to a point where the application should

182

be refused. The adjoining property has a number of large windows on bothfloors facing the rear yard including a dormer window and as a result it isconsidered that most of the windows which provide aspect to the rear will not beaffected by the proposed conservatory extension.

6.2.11 It is therefore considered that the proposed conservatory extension will notsignificantly detrimentally reduce the amount of outlook from habitable rooms norwill the sense of enclosure be increased to such an extent that the amenities ofthe adjoining occupiers are detrimentally affected. The objection received is notsupported.

Amenity Space

6.2.12 The proposed development does not result in an unacceptable loss of amenityspace. Its scale and design in relation to the existing building and surroundingarea is deemed acceptable and in compliance with ST8 of the AUDP.

7. Conclusion

7.1. In view of the above assessment, it is concluded that the proposed infillingconservatory would be in keeping with the character and appearance of theparent building and would not adversely affect the visual amenity of the area. It isalso concluded that the development would not be detrimental to the amenities ofthe neighbouring properties occupiers. The application is considered to accordwith Policies CD18 and H10 and ST8 of the AUDP and the adoptedSupplementary Planning Guidance.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve planning permission subject to the following conditions:

183




Notes to Applicant





184

N



18

9

1

36

27

20

11

3

38

29

21

35

9

75

57

75b

75a

68

70

86

49

39

71

4944

3

21

37

50

46

44a

1

3

6

7

9

11

14

15

17

2

4

5

8

10

12

13

16

2

6

7

8

10

14

15

16

1

3

4

5

9

11

12

13

17

18

62

46

32

18

2

22

53

54

55

56

28

44

60

76

92

94

8894

96

3

19

33

47

33

17

1

2

12

FB

FB

Ch erry L aurelWalk

VirginiaWa lk

El

Sub Sta

El Sub S ta

LB

Hall

Ca lidor e Close

BEECHDALE ROA D

BM

3 3.86m

33. 4m

33. 8m

35.2m

31. 8m

Surg ery

BM 37.30m

37. 2m

ELM PA RK

ENDYMION ROAD

35.2m

3

MERRED

52

59

24

2

11

11

11

1

11

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

11

111

1


Case Number:


02/01289/FUL

48 Beechdale RoadLondonSW2 2BE


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

185

Location 2 Flats 48 Beechdale Road London SW2 2BE

Ward TULSE HILLProposal

Conversion of 1st and 2nd floor to 2 self contained flats with installation of two rooflights tofront roof slope and associated alterations.

Application No 02/01289/FUL/DCKS/25231

Applicant J.A. Keane

Agent K.P. Barber10 Filmer RoadWindsorBerksSL4 4LZ

Date Valid 19 July 2002

Considerations

PlansLBC/02/10/2 (EXIST.), LBC/10/1B, LCB/02/10/


186

Officer Report

02/01289/FUL


1.1. The appropriateness of converting the existing building into 3 flats.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site comprises a terraced, three storey brick dwelling, which istypical of the surrounding residential buildings and is consistent with theneighbourhood character of the area.

2.2. The dwelling is currently being utilised as an unauthorised House in MultipleOccupancy (HMO), as more than six persons who are not a single family residein the dwelling. Planning records show that the building has been used as twoflats by up to three households with two tenants utilising the first and secondfloors.

2.3. No car parking spaces are provided on site.

3. Planning History

3.1. On 1 May 1996 a certificate of lawful use and development was issued for 2 Flatsat 48 Beechdale Rd.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The application proposes to convert the existing property, which has been usedas an unauthorised HMO, into three self-contained units with associatedalterations.

4.2. The ground floor would continue to comprise a flat with two bedrooms, a lounge,kitchen/bathroom and a large garden. The first and second floor flats would eachprovide one bedroom, a lounge, kitchen and bathroom.


5.1. The residents of 46-50 Beechdale Rd and 52-54 Endymion Rd, The BrixtonSociety and the Brixton Residents and Traders Association were all consulted. Apublic notice was erected on site and no comments have been received.



6.1.1. Adopted Unitary Development Plan- H1: Housing provision- H17: Flat Conversions- CD18: Extensions

6.1.2. Deposit Unitary Development Plan

187

- Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint (interim)- Policy 15: Additional Housing- Policy 17: Flat Conversions- Policy 33: Alterations and Extensions

6.1.3. Supplementary Planning Guidance- Residential Development Guidance (November 2000)- Guidelines for Extensions and Alterations (Aug 2002)

6.1.4. The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weightat the moment due the early stage of the adoption process. However the'Interim' policies carry more weight in that they have been the subject ofconsultation as part of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes innational policy or guidance to which the Council must have regard inmaking planning decisions.

6.1.5. In considering material considerations other than the adopteddevelopment plan regard should also be had to the most up to datenational and regional policy.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. Policy H1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan promotes theincrease in the number of dwellings in the borough. Policy H4 promotesthe improvement of housing stock and Policy H17 outlines theparameters for flat conversions of existing dwellings.

6.2.2. Although the building consists of two flats, it is currently housing threetenants as an unauthorised HMO. Accordingly, the application would notsignificantly change the actual situation currently within the building.Additionally, the principle of creating an additional unit complies with theobjectives of Policy 15: Additional Housing of Lambeth’s Deposit UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

6.2.3. The application conforms with Policy H17(a) of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan, which limits the conversion into flats of existingdwellings to buildings above two storeys in height. The proposal doesnot strictly accord with H17(b) which requires the ground floor flat withaccess to the private open space to have 3(+) bedrooms. However, theground floor is not physically capable of conversion into a 3 bedroomunit and the proposed ground floor flat is larger, two-bedroom unit withdirect and convenient access to the substantial private open space at therear. Therefore, it is considered an appropriate and acceptable designsolution in accordance with H17(b) (ii) of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

6.2.4. In the original plans submitted with the application, the kitchen wasbelow the minimum size requirement outlined in Lambeth’s SPG4:Internal Layout and Room Sizes. Subsequent modifications to theinternal layout have rectified the internal room size non-compliance andit is now considered acceptable.


6.3.1. The Council’s Conservation Department was consulted and had noobjection subject to the confirmation that the ‘velux’ windows proposed

188

on the roof of both the north (front) and south (rear) elevations wereflush with the roof profile. As documentation has been submitted whichconfirms this, no conservation objections are raised. Accordingly theapplication is considered to comply with CD 18 of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan and policy 33 of the deposit plan.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. No adverse amenity impact is envisaged with respect to overlooking andloss of privacy as the conversion proposes to retain habitable rooms ashabitable rooms and non-habitable rooms as non-habitable rooms.


6.5.1. Pursuant to the provisions of H17 of the adopted Unitary DevelopmentPlan and interim Policy 14 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan, athree unit conversion comprising of two one-bedroom units and two-bedroom unit requires the provision of one off-street car parking space.However, the conversion without the provision of an on-site parkingspace is considered acceptable in this circumstance as it is consideredthat:

a) There is no increase in the total number of bedroomsb) There is no existing provision of off street parkingc) The on-street parking provision for Beechdale Road is

considered to be sufficient to absorb the additional parkingdemand that may arise as a result of the creation of the threeflats.

6.5.2. The application was referred to Lambeth’s Transport and HighwaysDepartment who commented that:-

The submitted surveys appear generally accurate in terms of the numberof spaces available although on the date of the site inspection therewere more spaces available at the Brixton Hill end of both BeechdaleRoad and Fairmount Road, the whole length of which should have beenincluded in the survey, than indicated on the submitted drawings. At thetime of the inspection there were no cars parked alongside the houseswhich front Brixton Hill (i.e. past the side road frontages).

It is likely that any additional parking could be accommodated withoutleading to parking stress in excess of 90% although any furtherapplications for conversion on either Beechdale Road or FairmountRoad will need to be assessed extremely carefully in terms ofimplications for parking stress.

6.5.3. Accordingly, the application is considered acceptable from a parkingperspective and in accordance with interim policy 14 of the depositUnitary Development Plan.

7. Conclusion

7.1. On balance, the proposed conversion of the existing building into three self-contained flats is considered acceptable. The scheme would provide a mixture ofdwelling types and increase the quality and volume of Lambeth’s dwelling stock.

189

It is submitted that these benefits outweigh the non-provision of an on-sitecarparking space, taking account of the comments of the Transport section.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant permission.

190





Notes to Applicant





5. Policies H1: Housing provision, H17: Flat Conversions and CD18: Extensions of theadopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint, 15Additional Housing, 17 Flat Conversions and 33 Alterations and Extensions of theDeposit Unitary Development Plan were related to this decision.

191

N



Sandhurst Court

170 168

158

STRA THLEVE N

RO AD

LB

PO156148

140138 130

122

91 8977

BM 2 3.68m

112

104

68

69

53

30

71

70

94

93

55

67

29

BM

22 . 69m

86

94

69

BM

2 2. 91m

22. 7m

24

2

1

13

25

14 0 a

2

24

1

13

1a

34

48

43

39

48

36

48

41

SOL ON ROAD

PH 4

39

2

1

SANTLEY STREET

BALL AT ER ROAD

22. 8m

23. 0m

82 22. 3m

60

RAEBUR N

STREET

54

55

PL ATO

ROAD

22. 0m

53

1 to 12 12a

14 to 57

ACRE LANE

11a

105

12

36

36

89

79

21. 9m

CORRANCE ROA D

32

1274

58

43b

29

H

168

a

Sur ger y

120

78

75

Shelt er

TCBs

Shelt er


Case Number:


03/00275/FUL

16 Solon RoadLondonSW2 5UYConservation Area

Boundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

192

Location 16 Solon Road London SW2 5UY

Ward FERNDALEProposal

Conversion of existing single family dwelling into 2 self contained flats including the erectionof single storey ground floor rear and side infill extensions, a rear dormer and the installationof 1 rear rooflight and 3 frontrooflights, along with associated alterations

Application No 03/00275/FUL/REM/40416

Applicant Rod Thompson

Agent Child Graddon LewisStudio 1155 Commercial StreetLondonE1 6BJ


Considerations

Plans0238/100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 201A, 202A, 203B, Photosheet.


193

Officer Report

03/00275/FUL


1.1. Suitability of conversion

1.2. Mix of units and internal room sizes

1.3. Design and impact of the extensions

1.4. Parking

2. Site Description

2.1. The application premises is a two storey, four-bedroom terraced house with anoriginal three storey rear addition. The property is situated on the east side ofSolon Road, in a predominantly residential area.

3. Planning History

3.1. On the 31st December 2002 planning permission was refused for the conversionof the existing single family dwelling into two self contained flats, to include theerection of a single storey ground floor rear extension and side infill extension, arear roof extension and the installation of one rear rooflight and three frontrooflights, along with associated alterations, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed side infill extension would, by reason of its bulk, design,materials and location, be over-dominant on the rear elevation and underminethe character of the rear of the property and as such result in the loss of visualamenity, contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies CD18 and H10,Standard ST8, deposit Policy 33 and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

2. The proposed rear roof extension would, by reason of its size, scale andappearance, be over-dominant and result in an unacceptable form ofdevelopment detrimental to visual amenity and the character of the building,contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies CD18 and H10, Standard ST8,deposit Policy 33 and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The proposal is for the conversion of the existing single family dwelling into twoself contained flats, including the erection of single storey ground floor rear andside infill extensions, a rear dormer and the installation of one rear rooflight andthree front rooflights, along with associated alterations.

4.2. The proposal is to convert the house into two units, with a three bedroom flat onthe ground and part first floor, and a two bedroom flat on part first floor andsecond floor. This would involve the conversion of the loft space, through theinstallation of three rooflights in the front roof slope, one in the roof of the rearaddition, and a dormer on the main rear slope. The proposed dormer is tomeasure 0.95m by 1.65m. It is also proposed that a single storey infill extensionis constructed to the side of the original three storey extension as well as a singlestorey extension to the rear. The side infill extension is proposed to be 4.45mlong by 1.9m wide, and 2.5m high pitching down to 2m on the boundary. Theextension is to leave a 1.2m courtyard area before the rear elevation of thebuilding. The proposed rear extension is to be 2.3m deep by 3.45m wide, with a

194

flat roof 2.6m high, with a parapet wall around the rear making it 2.9m high intotal.

4.3. This current proposal has been amended from that which was previously refusedwith a reduction in the size of the roof extension and replacing the solid brick sideinfill extension with a glazed structure.

5. Consultation

5.1. The residents of 12-20 (even) and 9-13 (odd) Solon Road and 68-74 (even)Corrance Road were notified. The Brixton Society, the Brixton Residents andTraders Association and the Clapham Society were consulted. A site notice wasposted.

5.2. Two letters of representation was received in response to this consultation, whichobject to the proposal on the following grounds:

5.2.1. The extensions would occupy too much of the rear garden.5.2.2. The property provides good size family accommodation for which there

is a demand. Should be trying to preserve houses not chopping them upfor people to make money.

5.2.3. The roof extension would result in increased overlooking intoneighbouring houses and gardens and would distort the shape of theroof.

5.2.4. The extensions and rooflights would be imposing.5.2.5. More parked cars and traffic, which has a knock on effect on the end of

Solon Road where it meets Acre Lane. The road is too narrow and overcrowded.

5.3. Two letters were also originally received in response to consultation of theprevious, similar application which was refused. One letter raised objections tothe proposal on the following grounds:

5.3.1. More difficulty to park, despite having a permit.5.3.2. Two flats will create more noise.5.3.3. Further building will bring chaos and mess to neighbours.

5.4. The second letter raised no objection provided the original window pattern,including glazing bars, was retained on the street elevation and any boxes formeters or services were not exposed on the front wall of the building.



6.1.1. Policy H17: Flat conversions6.1.2. H10: Residential Development Standards6.1.3. Policy CD18: Extensions

6.1.4. SPG4: Internal Layout and Room Sizes6.1.5. SPG for Residential Extensions and Alterations

6.1.6. Deposit (not Interim) Policy 17: Flat Conversions6.1.7. Deposit (not Interim) Policy 33: Alterations and Extensions

6.1.8. The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weightat the moment due the early stage of the adoption process. Howeverthe 'Interim' policies carry more weight in that they have been the subject

195

of consultation as part of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes innational policy or guidance to which the Council must have regard inmaking planning decisions. In considering material considerations otherthan the adopted Development Plan, regard should be had to the mostup to date national and regional policy.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. There is no proposed change in the use of the land but there is anintensification of its use. This is considered acceptable as the proposalcomplies with adopted Policy H17 with regard to the minimum size ofproperties suitable for conversion as the property is a part two/part threestorey dwelling containing seven habitable rooms.


6.3.1. The single storey extension to the rear of the property complies withSupplementary Planning Guidance in that it is approximately two thirdsthe width of the rear elevation, and by following the width of the originalrear addition it respects the original plan form of the building.Furthermore it projects out to the rear by 2.3m which is within the 3mmaximum allowance for terraced properties.

6.3.2. The scheme also proposes a single storey side infill extension which willcreate a small courtyard area outside the window of the main bedroomof the ground floor unit. Supplementary Planning Guidance advises thatinfill extensions should be lightweight and conservatory style inappearance in order to not overpower the buildings original form orimpair its character. Similarly, deposit Policy 33 part (M) states that rearextensions should not infill an ‘L’ shaped rear addition with a brick ornon-transparent structure. The proposed side extension would beconstructed with a glazed roof, rear elevation and courtyard elevationand would therefore be lightweight, in accordance with deposit Policy 33and Supplementary Planning Guidance. It is considered that the bulk ofthis lightweight extension would not appear excessive in relation to theproperty and that it would thereby not have an overbearing effect on theappearance of the property.

6.3.3. Supplementary Planning Guidance also indicates that roof extensionsshould be modest in scale, and should be subordinate to the roofslope,being small enough to preserve the dominance of the main pitch. Theproposed rear dormer extension is sufficiently well set away from theedges of the roofslope to be considered subordinate in appearance tothe pitched roof, leaving the original roofslope appreciable. As such theapplication is considered to be acceptable in terms of adopted PolicyCD18, deposit Policy 33 and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The property is a part two/part three storey dwelling containing sevenhabitable rooms. The application proposes a three bedroom flat on theground and part first floor, and a two bedroom flat on part first floor andsecond floor. It would have a remaining rear garden area measuringapproximately 23sq.m, plus a small courtyard, which is in excess of the15sq.m. requirement for conversions involving a family sized unit. Theproposal includes a three bedroom, or family sized, lower flat which hasdirect access to the rear garden, in accordance with Policy H17.

196

6.4.2. The proposed internal room sizes are considered to adequately complywith Supplementary Planning Guidance requirements for two and threebedroom flats. The room sizes all exceed the minimum requirements,other than a ground floor bedroom in the three-bed flat which falls shortof the required 11.2sq.m. by 0.4sq.m. and the ground floor living roomwhich falls short by only 0.2sq.m. This short fall is consideredacceptable as the proposed dining/kitchen area exceeds the requirementby 1.5sq.m.

6.4.3. It is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on theamenity of surrounding residential occupants as a result of the proposedextensions. Using the standards set out in the BRE Guidelines it is notconsidered that the extensions would result in a loss of sunlight ordaylight to adjoining occupiers. Furthermore it is not considered that anynew views would be afforded by the dormer window that do not alreadyexist from the first floor windows.

6.4.4. Therefore the application is considered to comply with adopted PolicyH17 and deposit Policy 17.


6.5.1. There is no policy requirement for off-street car parking or car-cappingas the conversion is to two units.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The dwelling is suitable for conversion, a 3-bed family unit is proposed, and theproposed flats have adequate internal room sizes, in accordance with adoptedPolicy H17 and deposit Policy 17 regarding flat conversions, and SPG4.

7.2. The proposed rear extensions and dormer window are considered acceptable asthey would not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the building or onthe amenity of the adjoining residents, in accordance with adopted Policies CD18,H10 (ST8), deposit Policy 33 and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant Planning Permission.

197





Notes to Applicant






6. The following Policies were relevant in the consideration of this application:adopted Unitary Development Plan Policies H17, H10 and CD18, deposit Policies 17and 33, and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

198

N



LB

SL

TIMBER MILL WAY

Ward Bdy

CR El Sub Sta

Su bw

ay

Elm hurst Man si ons

Works

Works

Clapham H igh Street Station

Factory

VOLTAIRE ROAD

ElSu b Sta

14. 0m

15. 9m

18. 3m

17. 4m

BM 18. 85m

29

14

18

1 to 6

27

23

17

19

9

5a

5

34

40

15

37

54

26

24

28

56

50

44

31

41

49

1 to

6

139to14 4

12 7to132

115to12 0

10 3to108

91to

96

79to84

67to72

55to60

48to

43

31to36

19to24

7to1238

28

20

BM 1 5.57m

13 to

18

25 to 30

49

to 54

61 to

66

73 to

78

85

to

90

to

102

Zaire Court

37 to 42

Bu ilder's

Yard

SLIEVEMORE CLOSE

111

11

11

1


Case Number:


02/02215/FUL

Clapham High Street BR StationVoltaire RoadLondon


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

199

Location Clapham High Street BR Station Voltaire Road London

Ward CLAPHAM TOWNProposal

Erection of a three storey building providing five self contained flats, located adjacent to theGrade II listed former Clapham High Street Railway Station Building.


Applicant Safe Guard Property Services

Agent Raymond HoldenAgenda 21 Architects2 Sebastian StreetLondonEC1V 0HE


Considerations

PlansRE001, 004D, 005C, 006B,007A, 010B, 011B, 012C,013A, 015B, 025A, 026,027A,020, 381.P.01


200

Officer Report

02/02215/FUL


1.1. The acceptability of the design of the building and its impact on the setting of theadjoining Grade II Listed former Clapham High Street Railway Station.

1.2. The impact of the proposed building on the amenities of surrounding residentialoccupiers.

1.3. The acceptability of the proposal being a car free development, restricting theissuing of parking permits to the occupiers of the flats.

2. Site Description

2.1. A vacant plot of land located at the western end/rear of the former Clapham HighStreet Railway Station situated on Voltaire Road, on the north western side ofClapham High Street. The site is also bounded by the Clapham North BusinessCentre to the south west, an industrial building to the north west and railway linesto the north east. Clapham North Tube station is situated approximately 300maway on the junction of Clapham High Street, Landor Road and Bedford Road.

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission and listed building consent were refused in January 2000 forthe conversion of the former Clapham High Street Station building into residentialflats, and for the erection of two new residential buildings adjoining the stationbuilding.

3.2. Planning permission was granted on the 8th September 2000 for the conversion ofthe existing station building into 12 self-contained flats and 144m2 of Class B1business use including associated external alterations, construction of a newthree storey building for B1 use, creation of 8 parking spaces and a real estateoffice. This proposal has been implemented and is near completion. The plot ofland (subject of this application) at the rear of the site was not incorporated intothis scheme.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Erection of a 3 storey building containing 5 self-contained flats adjacent to thegrade II listed former Clapham High Street Railway Station Building.

4.2. The application has been revised to relocate a side living room windowoverlooking habitable windows in the converted Clapham High Street Stationbuilding to the front of the building facing the external staircase.


5.1. Statutory site notice procedures have been carried out and occupiers of 20-38(odd) Edgeley Road, 34-40 (even) Voltaire Road, 17 – 27 (odd) Voltaire Road, 1-6Zaire Court Voltaire Road and 7-12, 19-24, 31-36, 43-48, 55-60 ElmhurstMansions, Edgeley Road were consulted. In addition the Clapham Society,Clapham Manor Tenants Association and Railtrack were consulted. Three lettersof objection have been received and are summarised as follows:

� All buildings in the vicinity are of two storeys in height and a three storeydevelopment would be out of keeping with the neighbourhood. The buildingshould not be higher than the tallest part of the station.

201

� The design of the proposal is very modern and out of keeping with the listedstation building.

� The development would block out light from existing windows.� The site is becoming over developed and concern is raised about the

numbers of residents/cars/parking in the street and in adjoining areas.� There does not appear to be any provision for landscaping/trees to improve

what is a very busy environment.� The development is causing damage to Railtrack infrastructure.


6.1. Relevant Policies ( including national guidance )

6.1.1. The following policies from the Lambeth UDP are relevant in theassessment of the application:* H6 – New housing� H7 - Affordable housing� H10 - Residential development standards� H11 - Dwelling mix� CD13 – Setting of listed buildings� CD15 - Design of new development

6.1.2 The new deposit version of the UDP contains policies relevant to thisapplication but which carry little weight at this early stage. These arePolicy 31 (Streets, Character and Layout), Policy 32 (Building Scale andDesign), Policy 9 (Transport Impact), Policy 15 (Additional Housing),Policy 16 (Affordable Housing) and Policy 41 (Listed Buildings). Policy 14(Parking and traffic restraint) of the deposit draft UDP supersedes PolicyT12 of the adopted UDP. The standards have been revised in line withcurrent central governmental advice contained within PPG13 –`Transport’. Additionally PPG’s 1- `General Policy and Principles’ andPPG 3- `Housing’ are relevant.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. Policy H6, which relates to new housing development, states that allsites for residential development should be environmentally suitable andwill be assessed against the policies and standards set out in theLambeth Unitary Development Plan. The site was previously anemployment site in conjunction with the use of the station building as awarehouse. It incorporates an underground air raid shelter to the west ofthe site and other underground rooms in conjunction with theemployment use. The principle of the use of the site as residential hasbeen established by the planning permission granted on the 8th

September 2002 for the conversion of the existing station building toprovide 12 self-contained flats. This application also involved therelocation of the existing employment use to the south eastern end of thesite to allow the conversion of the existing Clapham High Street StationBuildings for residential flats and this end of the site for residential use.

6.2.2. Policy H11 relates to dwelling mixes in new developments and statesthat developments over 0.15 hectares should normally contain a mix ofdwelling types and sizes to include both small and large units. Theexisting site is well below 0.15 hectares and therefore a mix of dwellingtypes and sizes is not required. The proposed 3 storey building wouldprovide 4 self-contained 1 bedroom flats and 1 self-contained 2 bedroomflat.

202

6.2.3. The proposed internal layout is acceptable and the proposed residentialunits comply with the minimum room size guidelines set out in theSupplementary Planning Guidance. It is also considered that acceptablelevels of daylight and sunlight would be achieved in the proposeddwellings.

6.2.4. The proposal does not provide much amenity space except for two smallgarden areas at ground floor level, small balconies at first floor level andlarger balconies at second floor level. However, given that the proposedflats are 1 and 2 bedroom units, it is considered that the demand foroutdoor amenity space would be less than that for family dwellings.

6.2.5. Policy H7 of the new deposit UDP states that proposals for fifteen ormore residential units will require the provision of affordable housing.Policy 16 (Affordable Housing) of the new deposit UDP also states thatthe artificial subdivision or phasing of sites with the effect ofcircumventing this policy will not be permitted. In this case, only 5 unitsare proposed on this site and, therefore, affordable housing is notrequired. However, the current application site was separated off fromthe neighbouring site containing the railway station and not addressed inthe original scheme approved on the 8th September 2000 and was soldoff to a separate company. The Clapham High Street Station site wasalso sold to a different company on the 3rd January 2002. Given this, it isregrettable that the Council cannot secure affordable housing as part ofthe overall development of this site.


6.3.1. Policy CD15, which relates to the design of new development, statesthat residential development should be of a high standard in design andlayout. It should relate well to its surrounding area and respect the scale,height, bulk, character and amenities of nearby buildings. Policy CD13,which relates to the setting of listed buildings, states that developmentswhich adversely affect the setting or important views of a listed buildingwill not normally be permitted.

6.3.2. With respect to the design of the proposed 3 storey building, the buildingwould be of contemporary design incorporating a set back third floorpenthouse element with balconies on the eastern and southern sides toreduce the appearance of bulk. The building would measure 11m wide,12m long and 9m high and would not extend higher than the roof ridge ofthe adjacent Grade II listed building.

6.3.3. The elevations would incorporate a pleasing mix of glass, stock brick,render and wooden cladding treatments with nautical style balconies andan open tread steel and glass staircase at the front/side of the building.This together with the roof overhang on the top storey has a railwayarchitectural reference, resembling a signal box access stair, which hasan appropriate connection with the listed building.

6.3.4. The front elevation (facing south) would incorporate full height windowswith french doors at ground and first floor with full height windows anddoors on the set back third floor. The east elevation and rear elevationwould incorporate stock brickwork at ground floor level and timbercladding at first floor level with full height glazing on the east elevation atsecond floor level. The rear elevation would incorporate windows atground floor level and windows at first floor level would have timber

203

shutters attached to them to mitigate the noise from the railway line.Powder coated zinc panels are proposed on the upper floor.

6.3.5. Officers from the Council’s Design and Conservation team consider thatthe contemporary design of the building strongly contrasts with theexisting listed building in that the architectural quality and character ofthe listed station building will remain distinct from the new developmentseither side. Therefore, no objection is raised to the design of the buildingsubject to conditions.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The residential occupiers who would be most affected by the proposalare the occupiers of 34 - 40 (even) Voltaire Road, 20 – 38 EdgeleyRoad, the rear of Elmhurst Mansions on Edgeley Road and the futureoccupiers of the flats at the western end of the former Clapham HighStreet Railway Station Building.

6.4.2. The relevant policies are Standard ST3, which relates to daylight andsunlight, Standard ST5, which relates to privacy and space betweenbuildings and Standard ST9, which relates to the protection from noise.

6.4.3. It is considered that due to the considerable distance of the proposedbuilding from the properties along Voltaire Road and Edgeley Road therewould be no loss of sunlight or daylight to these properties and nosignificant loss of daylight to the windows of flats at the western end ofthe former station building.

6.4.4. Standard ST5 which relates to privacy and space between buildings,states that wherever possible, a minimum distance of 25m should besought between buildings that are 3 storeys in height, in order to reduceoverlooking. The windows at second floor level of the proposed buildingwould be set approximately 35m away from the rear of the nearestproperties along Voltaire Road and Edgeley Road. Therefore, it isconsidered that the windows of the proposed building are far enoughaway to not result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy.

6.4.5. Standard ST9 states that residential development will not be permittedwhere dwellings would be subject to unacceptably high noise levels. Inthis case, the railway lines associated with Clapham High Street Stationare very close to the proposed building. In this regard, Planning PolicyGuidance Note 24 – “Planning and Noise” (PPG 24) states that “theimpact of noise is a material planning consideration” and that “theplanning system should ensure that wherever practicable, noisesensitive developments are separated from major sources of noise”.

6.4.6. Consultation was undertaken with the Environmental Health (NoisePollution) division in relation to the previous proposal for the conversionof the former Clapham High Street Railway Station Building directlyadjacent, granted planning permission on the 8th September 2000. Atthis time, no objections in principle were raised by officers from theNoise Pollution section to the proposal subject to the imposition ofconditions on any consent granted.

6.4.7. The applicant for this application provided an assessment of railwaynoise and vibration for the proposed development. The informationprovided indicated that levels of noise measured over a 24 hour periodresulted in the development falling into category C of PPG 24 for the

204

daytime and category D for the night time and to achieve acceptablestandards of residential accommodation, noise mitigation measureswould be required by condition.

6.4.8. In terms of this application, officers from the council’s noise pollutionsection have been consulted and consider that the development couldbe made suitable providing robust sound insulation is designed andinstalled and provisions are made to protect the future occupants fromany unreasonable vibration. They advised:

6.4.9. “Code BS 8233:1999 gives guidance for internal noise levels in roomsfor residential purposes from environmental noise to maintainappropriate resting & sleeping conditions. The publication providesnoise levels for “good” and “reasonable” standards to be aimed for withindwellings. The “good” standard being in compliance with the latest WorldHealth Organisation (WHO) Standard on Community Noise. …..

6.4.10. Both WHO & BS 8233:1999 recommend that any individual noise eventat night should not normally exceed 45dB(A) max. This standard isdesigned to minimise sleep disturbance and, by necessity, precludesventilation through open windows. These schemes often require someform of forced ventilation to allow for rapid ventilation. The potentialvibration impact on the proposed buildings must be considered andadequate anti – vibration measures taken if proven necessary.”

6.4.11. Conditions relating to noise, vibration and sound insulation arerecommended should planning permission be granted.


6.5.1. The council has adopted interim parking standards, which are set asmaximum provision. Policy 14 of the deposit UDP states that 0.3 spacesare required for each 1 bedroom unit and 0.5 spaces for each 2 bedroomunit resulting in a need for a maximum of 3 parking spaces.

6.5.2. No provision for off street parking is proposed for the five flats.Therefore, officers from the Council’s Transport and HighwaysDepartment recommend that the proposed flats be car free, restrictingthe issuing of residents parking permits for surrounding streets. Giventhe location of the site in relation to public transport, it is considered thata car free development is appropriate in this instance and would besecured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Furthermore, in terms of theimpact of the development on the setting of the listed building, it isconsidered that reduced/no parking would ensure that the setting of thelisted building is not compromised.

6.5.3. Consequently, the proposal makes provision for a further six coveredand secured cycle stands alongside the proposed cycle stands to beprovided for the adjacent residential Clapham High Street Stationbuilding.

6.5.4. Access to the application site can only be gained via the main entrancefrom Voltaire Road to the Clapham High Street Station site. Accesswould also be required to the bin stores and cycle stands for the newblock of flats which would be located on the adjoining site. Therefore, asection 106 legal agreement is also required in this instance to secureaccess over the Clapham High Street Station site to the application site

205

at the rear, the bin stores and cycle stands, without which the schemewould not be viable. In addition, if the application site was sold at a laterdate to a third party, that third party would need the benefit of the section106 legal agreement to ensure access to the site and facilities.

6.5.5. Standard ST13 of the adopted UDP requires that residentialdevelopment should make adequate provision for refuse storage and forits convenient collection. The refuse bins provided for the proposed flatsin the former station building are to be utilised for this development,which are located within 10m of the main entrance to the street. This isconsidered to be acceptable in accordance with Standard ST13 and theArchitects Code of Practice.

7. Conclusion

7.1. It is considered that the contemporary design of the building is acceptable andwould not have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listedformer Clapham High Street Railway Station due to its strong contrastingappearance and accords with Policies CD15 and CD13. It is also considered thatthe proposal development would not adversely affect the amenities of surroundingresidential occupiers due to its distance from the nearest residential properties.The standard of accommodation is satisfactory and accords with Policies H10 andH6 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan.

7.2. The relaxation of the Council’s parking standards in relation to the proposeddevelopment being car free is considered to be appropriate in this instance giventhe proximity of the site to good public transport availability. Furthermore, theproposal will bring a vacant brownfield site back into residential use, in line withPPG3.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement relating to the flatsbeing car free, restricting the issuing of residents parking permits for the occupiersof the flats and securing access over the Clapham High Street Station site to theapplication site at the rear, the bin stores and cycle stands .

206




3 An environmental noise survey and vibration report shall be submitted to the localplanning authority, prior to the commencement of works, showing the potential effect orharm to the amenities of future residents.(Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities ofthe residential occupiers)

4 The building shall be designed to ensure that environmental and rail traffic noisedo not exceed the following standards: Living Rooms 40 dB(A) Leq 18 hour 07.00hrs to23.00hrs; Bedrooms 35 dB(A) Leq 8 hour + no individual event to exceed 45dB(A) max[measured with F time weighting]. - 23.00hrs to 07.00hrs; Anti - vibration measures shall beinstalled to the satisfaction of the local authority depending on the outcome of the requiredvibration survey in Condition 3. (Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of theresidential occupiers)

5 A detailed scheme for proposed sound insulation, noise and vibration mitigation tomeet the requirements of Condition 4 shall be submitted for approval to the local authorityfor approval before construction commences.(Reason: In order to safeguard the amenitiesof the residential occupiers)

6 Noise in amenity areas should not exceed 52dB(A) Leq 18 hours.(Reason: Inorder to safeguard the amenities of the residential occupiers)

7 Full details of the refuse storage facilities shall be submitted to and approved inwriting by the Local Planning Authority before use or occupation of the site. Thedevelopment shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.(Reason:To ensure appropriate refuse storage facilities are provided)

8 Full details of the cycle parking and cycle storage facilities shall be submitted toand approved in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed scheme shall beimplemented prior to the use or occupation of the site and shall be maintained and retainedby the freeholder for the duration of the use.(Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parkingand storage facilities are provided).

9 Full details, including samples of all facing materials and specifications for allexternal features (including staircase, roof overhang and balconies) shall be submitted toand approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commencedand the development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)


11 The cycle parking/stands hereby approved shall be maintained and retained by thefreeholder for the duration of the use.(Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking and

207

storage facilities are provided).

Notes to Applicant





5. The policies relevant in the determination of this application are Policies H6, H7,H10, H11, CD13, CD15 of the current UDP and Policies 9, 14, 15, 16, 31, 32, 41 ofthe new deposit UDP.

208

N



SU DBOUR NE ROAD

HO RS

FORD

ROA

D

Evel yn Hous e

Sudb

ourn

ePr

ima r

y Sch

o ol

Scho

ol hou

s e

Florence House

Br ixton Hill Cour t

24 6m

23. 0m

23. 1m

23. 2m

BM

23. 6

8m

23. 4m

TORR

ENS

ROAD

HAYTER ROAD

22. 8m

22. 9m

BM

23. 6

0m

101

14

54

40

26

10

26

80

78

665038

1 to 24

44

30

1 to 12

41

31

3

19

33

26

20

29

15

89 t o 142

2a

2

16

30

4

12

19

Sub S

89

Playground

1011


Case Number:


02/01735/FUL

29 Hayter RoadLondonSW2 5AR


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

209

Location 2 Flats 29 Hayter Road London SW2 5AR

Ward BRIXTON HILLProposal

Conversion to form 5 self contained flats involving the part excavation of the basement,erection of lower ground and upper ground floor rear extensions, creation of front and rearlightwells and associated alterations.(Amended description and plans).


Applicant Danlock Properties Ltd

Agent Lever Hopley Architecture23B Goodge PlaceLondonW1T 4SN


Considerations

Plans302/01ex_A - 04ex_A,05ex_A - 08ex_A,302/01/D, 02_F, 03_B,05_F, 06_B, 06.1,07_D07.1_E, 08/C


210

Officer Report

02/01735/FUL


1.1. The potential impact of the conversion and extensions on the amenities ofsurrounding residential occupiers and their acceptability in terms of policies andstandards in the Lambeth UDP and Draft Deposit UDP.

2. Site Description

2.1. A two storey plus semi-basement detached, double fronted residential propertyincorporating a London butterfly roof. It is situated on the south side of HayterRoad on the corner with Torrens Road and Horsford Road and the rear of thebuilding faces onto Torrens Road. The rear yard is surrounded by 2m highcorrugated iron sheets and accessed by large 2m high solid metal gates. Theproperty is currently in a bad state of disrepair.

2.2. The property has been used as an unauthorised motor repairs workshop at therear. The building has also previously been used as two flats and according tothe applicants when the property was purchased, it was in use as 3 flats and 1bedsit, which has not received planning permission.

3. Planning History

3.1. In 1968, planning permission was refused for the use of part of the ground floor asa shop and use of the basement as a private club. An appeal lodged against thisdecision was dismissed in February 1969.

3.2. Planning permission was subsequently granted on the 23rd August 1973 for theconversion of the property as two self-contained flats.

3.3. In 1982, enforcement proceedings were approved to secure the removal of anunauthorised timber framed corrugated plastic sheeted enclosure and rooferected on the rear yard of the property. Following a court hearing it was decidednot to progress the matter.

3.4. In January 1991, 2 enforcement notices were served requiring the removal of anunauthorised corrugated iron structure in the rear garden of 29 Hayter Road andto cease the use as a car repairs workshop. An appeal was subsequently lodgedagainst the notices which was dismissed on the 22nd November 1991.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Conversion of the property to form five self-contained flats involving the partexcavation of the basement, erection of a lower ground floor and an upper groundfloor rear extension, formation of a front lightwell surrounded by railings andassociated alterations.

4.2. The application as originally submitted proposed the formation of 7 self-containedflats involving the erection of a mansard roof extension and the erection of alarger upper ground floor rear extension. It was considered that the erection of amansard roof extension would be contrary to Policy CD18 and SupplementaryPlanning Guidance relating to Residential Extensions and Alterations in that itwould result in a dominant and overbearing roof structure, detrimental to thecharacter and appearance of the property and the streetscene. The proposedupper ground floor extension was also considered to be too large in size

211

incorporating a roof terrace which would have resulted in overlooking and loss ofprivacy to no.27 Hayter Road, contrary to Policy CD18, Standard ST8 andSupplementary Planning Guidance relating to Residential Extensions andAlterations. The proposed rear glazed sliding doors and raised rear terraces atupper ground floor level were considered to be unacceptable by virtue ofoverlooking and loss of privacy to the adjoining property and their high visibility atthe rear from Horsford Road and Torrens Road. The design of the rear glazedsliding doors at upper ground floor and first floor level were also considered to beout of keeping with the character and appearance of the building. The upperground floor windows have now been replaced with french doors at garden levelheight, as shown on the amended plans.


5.1. Two site notices were posted around the site and occupiers of nos. 25-33 (odd)and 26-36 (even) Hayter Road, nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Torrens Road and no. 2Horsford Road have been notified by letter. In addition, the Brixton Society andthe Brixton Residents and Traders Association have been consulted. Four lettersof objection and one letter of comment have been received from local residentsand are summarised as follows:

� The proposal would increase the number of cars in the street which suffersfrom chronic congestion during office hours and week ends and theconversion would make it extremely difficult for residents to park.

� The mansard roof would result in a dominating and top heavy building.Together with the rear extensions, the proposal would dominate the plot it isset within and create an architectural anomaly within the streetscape.

� The mansard roof extension would result in overlooking and loss of sunlight.� The roof terrace would result in loss of privacy to windows and in the rear

garden. It would also enable washing to be hung out on it.� As a result of the number of flats proposed and people residing in them,

increased noise and disturbance would be caused.� The upper ground floor rear extension would result in loss of natural light.� Concern is raised about waste disposal in an area in which waste disposal is

already a problem.

5.2. The application has been revised removing the mansard roof extension andreducing the size of the upper ground floor rear extension and roof terrace.Surrounding residents and amenity groups have been re-consulted on this revisedapplication. One letter of objection, and one letter which contained comments bothof support and objection, have been received and are summarised as follows:

� Loss of privacy to kitchen due to roof terracing, looking back into windows.� Loss of light to kitchen of neighbouring property due to extension and roof

terrace rail/furniture.� 5 flats would increase the parking problem which during the week is a

nightmare for residents. On the plus side, the proposal would make the areaa safer and more pleasant place once it is developed.



6.1.1. The relevant policies are Policy H10 which refers to standards forresidential development proposals, Policy CD15 relating to the design ofnew development, Policy CD18 relating to rear extensions and PolicyH17, which relates to flat conversions and states that conversions shouldas far as practical provide a mix of dwelling units and should normally

212

comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance for internal layout androom sizes.

6.1.2. The new deposit version of the UDP contains policies relevant to thisapplication but which carry little weight at this early stage. These arepolicies 17 (Conversions), 32 (Building Design) and 33 (Alterations andExtensions). However new UDP policy 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint)is an interim policy and carries more weight as it has already beensubject to extensive consultation and reflects new GovernmentGuidance issued since the last UDP was published.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The existing property is a double fronted, two storey residential propertyplus semi-basement and contains more than six habitable rooms. It is,therefore, considered to be an appropriate size to be converted into flatsunder Policy H17. It also appears it was last in use as flats.

6.2.2. Policy 17 of the deposit UDP, which relates to flat conversions, statesthat where the property is large enough, it should include a full mix ofunit sizes. Where the dwelling to be converted has a rear garden, then afamily unit of two or more bedrooms on the ground/basement floorsshould be included. Conversions should normally comply withSupplementary Planning Guidance for internal layout and room sizesand residential extensions. Basement excavations, the subdivision ofexisting flats and of floors between flats units will be permitted onlywhere the size and layout of units is satisfactory and would havesatisfactory light.

6.2.3. The proposal involves the conversion of the property into 3 x 1 bed flats,1 x 2 bed flat and 1 x 3 bed flat (a 1 bed flat and a 2 bed flat on the lowerground floor, 2 x 1 bed flats on the upper ground floor and a 3 bed flat atfirst floor level). A 2 bed family unit is proposed on the lower ground floorwith access to a small garden. Therefore, it is considered that theproposal would provide a satisfactory mix of dwelling sizes and a familyunit on the lower ground floor in accordance with Policy H17 of theadopted UDP and Policy 17 of the deposit draft UDP. The layout of theflats are considered to be acceptable with all rooms above the minimumroom sizes set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance.


6.3.1. The property is not located in a conservation area. Policy CD18, whichrelates to rear extensions, states that extensions should normally beconfined to the rear or least important facades and be in keeping withthe building and its setting.

6.3.2. The proposed lower ground floor rear extension would extend the fullwidth of the property to provide kitchen/living room/dining areas for thetwo flats. It would incorporate a flat roof and measures 2.6m high, 9mwide and 2m deep. The façade would incorporate two sets of slidingglazed doors for each flat. The roof of the extension at ground floor level(garden level) would provide a small amenity area for the flats above.

6.3.3. The upper ground floor rear extension extends out flush with the existingrear addition to infill the small gap on the corner of the property adjacentto no. 27 Hayter Road. It incorporates a flat roof and measures 3.3mwide and 2m deep. A condition is recommended to any permission

213

granted restricting the use of the flat roof as an amenity area. Theresulting ground floor rear façade would incorporate two sets of frenchdoors in keeping with the appearance of the rear fenestration of thesurrounding properties.

6.3.4. The small front garden area is proposed to be excavated to provide 2bay windows at lower ground floor level within the proposed frontlightwells. The bay windows would reflect the design and appearance ofthe two existing front bay windows at upper ground floor level andincorporate similar fenestration.

6.3.5. It is considered that the proposed extensions to the property at the frontand rear would not harm the appearance of the building and would be inkeeping with its scale in accordance with Policy CD18 andSupplementary Planning Guidance relating to Residential Alterationsand Extensions.

6.3.6. Policy CD15 states that new development should be of a high standardin design and layout. It should relate well to its surrounding area andrespect the scale, height, bulk, character and amenities of nearbybuildings.

6.3.7. Two lightwells are proposed at the front of the property either side of thecentrally located front entrance door to provide light to the bedrooms ofthe flats at lower ground floor level. They measure 4.4m wide, 1.8mdeep and project outwards by 2.4m. The lightwells are to be surroundedby black painted iron railings on top of a low dwarf wall and measure1.5m high. The rear garden is also proposed to be excavated to provide2 lightwells to provide light to the rear living rooms and a small reargarden area for each flat. A new 2m high timber fence is proposed to beinstalled around the rear gardens of the lightwell and fronts onto TorrensRoad. There are similar lightwells at the front of properties further ondown Hayter Road towards Brixton Hill surrounded by black metalrailings. Therefore it is considered that the proposed lightwells would notbe an alien feature of the street or the surrounding area.

6.3.8. On the side elevation of the building facing Torrens Road, 2 new timbersash windows are proposed at upper ground floor level and two smallwindows at lower ground floor level. The existing side entrance door andwindow above are to be bricked up and new timber double entrancedoors are proposed to be installed to the entrance of the new bin store.

6.3.9. It is therefore considered that these proposed alterations are acceptablein design terms and would not harm the character and appearance of theproperty and surrounding area in accordance with Policy CD15 of theLambeth Unitary Development Plan.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The residents who would be directly affected by the proposal are theoccupiers of 27 Hayter Road. The relevant policies are Policy ST3 whichrelates to daylight and sunlight and Policy ST8 which states thatextensions should not have a detrimental impact on neighbouringproperties or visual amenities. Due to the relatively short length of thelower ground floor rear extension (2 metres), and its position at low level,it is considered that it would not result in any loss of amenity to theadjacent property. In terms of the upper ground floor rear extension, itprojects outwards flush with the ground floor rear addition and extends

214

approximately 0.5m past the rear building line of 27 Hayter Road.Therefore, it is considered that the extensions would have no impact onthe levels of sunlight and daylight currently enjoyed by the occupiers of27 Hayter Road or loss of outlook in accordance with Standards ST3and ST8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6.4.2. The terrace at ground floor level on the roof of the lower ground floorrear extension would be positioned level with the adjoining garden at 27Hayter Road and would not result in any significant overlooking or loss ofprivacy to no.27 Hayter Road in accordance with Standard ST8.


6.5.1. Policy H17, which outlines the parking provision for conversions, statesthat three off-street parking spaces are required for conversions to 5residential units.

6.5.2. A parking survey has been undertaken by the applicants to show thelevels of daytime and night-time on street parking stress. Officers fromthe Council’s Highways and Transportation Section have been consultedand consider that the existing average parking stress level in the area is81% which is below the Council’s threshold of 90%.

6.5.3. Therefore, it is considered that there is currently sufficient on-streetparking availability in the surrounding roads and there is no objection ontransport grounds to the provision of 5 residential units.

7. Conclusion

7.1. It is considered that the conversion of the property to form 5 self-contained flatsinvolving the excavation of the front and rear gardens to provide lightwells for theflats in the lower ground floor, the rear extensions and associated alterations areacceptable in that they accord with current and emerging planning policy andwould not result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residentialoccupiers.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

215





4 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract from theappearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

5 All new windows installed on the front elevation shall be timber framed, doublehung, vertical sliding sash windows.(Reason: To ensure the external appearance of thebuilding is satisfactory)

6 The iron railings hereby approved at the front of the building surrounding the frontlightwells shall be painted black and embedded in lead into the stone coping of the plinthwall.(Raeson: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance)

7 The roof area of the upper ground floor rear extension hereby permitted shall notbe used as a balcony, roof garden or similar area without the grant of further specificpermission from the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities ofneighbouring residential properties.)

Notes to Applicant




4. The policies relevant in determining this application are Policies H10, H17, CD15and CD18 of the Adopted UDP and Policies 14, 17, 32 and 33 of the Draft DepositUDP.

216

N



25. 3m

EL MS CRESCENT

El Sub Sta

52

47

59

12

4

75

24

14

27

BM 25 .16m

24. 9m

24. 4m

72

82

92

89 to 95

1

15

87

26. 3m

102

25

37

51

63

28

42

54

CRESC ENT LANE

24. 3m

BRIARWOOD ROAD

68

40

52

64

69

61

70

70a

72

74

BM

26. 24m

26. 1m

PARK HILL

83

87

16

53

Vie w

79

El Sub S ta

1

4

192026

to21

5 t o 11

12 to 1 8

Allard

Gardens

99101

103

111

1

11

11

1

11

11

11

1


Case Number:


03/00194/FUL

68 Crescent LaneLondon


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

217

Location 68 Crescent Lane London SW4 9PU


Conversion of existing single family dwelling into 3 self contained flats, incorporating aground floor rear extension and loft conversion to include a rear roof extension, along withassociated alterations.

Application No 03/00194/FUL/DCSM/40500

Applicant Miss A. Mangera

Agent MYAA21 Clapham High StreetLondonSW4 7TR


Considerations

PlansE-01, 02,03,04,05,A-01, 02 ( rec'd 12/03)A-03,04,06,A-05 ( rec'd 21/03/03)


218

Officer Report

03/00194/FUL


1.1. The main issues involved in this application relate to whether the conversion ofthe property from a single family dwellinghouse to three self contained flats isacceptable in principle, the acceptability of the mix of dwelling units and thequality of the residential accommodation provided, and the impact on parking andtraffic congestion.

1.2. Issues also include the impact of the proposed ground floor rear extension,dormer window and associated alterations on the character and appearance ofthe building and the streetscene, and the impact on the residential amenity ofexisting and future residents in the area.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site is located in Crescent Lane and occupies a corner plot at thejunction with Briarwood Road. The application relates to a two storey plusbasement, Victorian era, end of terrace property with an original three storey rearaddition. The property is currently in use as a single family dwellinghouse.

2.2. There is currently one on-site parking space provided at the rear with access fromBriarwood Road.

3. Planning History

3.1. There is no planning history for this site.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The current application is for the conversion of the existing single dwellinghouseinto 3 self contained flats ( 3 X 2 bedrooms). The application includes a groundfloor rear extension and loft conversion incorporating a dormer window in the rearroofslope.

4.2. The proposal also involves the addition three velux rooflights in the frontroofslope, one in the front projecting element, one in the rear roofslope and one inthe rear projecting element. Glazing slots are also proposed in the side wall alongBriarwood Road as well as a new window and door in the side and rear wall ofthe rear addition respectively. The existing on-site parking space would beretained and new gates erected.

4.3. The current proposal is an amended scheme.

5. Consultation Response

5.1. The residents of 62, 64, 87, 89 and 91 Briarwood Road and 64, 66 71, 72,73-79 (odds) Crescent Lane were notified. A site notice was erected, and the applicationwas advertised in the local press. 15 letters of objection from local residents havebeen received. Objections are on the following grounds :

� The conversion would exacerbate the existing parking problems bothpermanently and temporarily whilst it is being built.

219

� 3 flats would be overdevelopment and over intensive use of the property.� Conversion would set an inappropriate precedent for subdivision of family

housing and are not in character with the nature of the road.� The dormer window, rear extension and windows in the flank wall would

materially change the appearance and character of the house and Victorianterrace and would be out of keeping with the streetscene and other properties.

� This is a family area with large family houses and occupiers are likely to benon-family which would increase noise.

� Loss of amenity space due to on site parking space at the rear and extension.� Loss of privacy and overlooking from dormer window.� Building works would be extremely disruptive.� Increase in noise to adjoining property from increased residents (number 66)

particularly from the lounge of Flat 2 adjacent to a bedroom.� The rear gardens form an avenue of green space and this would be reduced.

5.2 The Clapham Society and Clapham Park Partners in Action were also consulted.The Clapham Society has indicated that the rear roof extension would be betteras a dormer and that a living room above a bedroom would result in noisenuisance.



6.1.1. Relevant policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan are:Policy H17-Flat ConversionsPolicy H10- Residential Development StandardsST8 : Residential ExtensionsST10 : Sound insulation in walls and floorsPolicy CD15 - Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CD18 - ExtensionsSupplementary Planning Guidance – SPG 4: Internal Layout and

room sizesSupplementary Planning Guidance – Residential Design Guidance forExtensions.

7.1.3 In the new deposit version of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 17: FlatConversions, 14: Parking and Traffic restraint, and 33: Alterations andExtensions are relevant to this application. The policies of the DepositDraft of the Unitary Development Plan carry relatively little weight at themoment due to the early stage of the adoption process. However theinterim policies carry more weight in that they have been the subject ofconsultation as part of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes innational policy or guidance to which the Council must have regard inmaking planning decisions. Policy 14 is an interim policy.

7.1.4 In considering material considerations other than the adopted developmentplan regard should be had to the most up to date national and regionalpolicy.

7.1.5 National Planning Policy Guidance 3, ‘Housing’ is also relevant.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. National policy guidance PPG3 regarding housing states that it isimportant that full and effective use is made of land within existing urbanareas. It is therefore considered that the utilisation of existing propertiesincreasing the accommodation available may be acceptable in principleproviding general standards for habitable rooms are met.

220

6.2.2. Policy H17 of the Unitary Development Plan states that conversion willonly be permitted where properties exceed two storeys in height andhave more than 6 habitable rooms. Two storey dwellings, with threestorey rear extensions are considered to be three storey dwellings forthe purposes of this policy. Policy 17 of the deposit Unitary DevelopmentPlan takes account of the overall floor area of dwellings and advises thatthe conversion of dwellings with a minimum floor area of 120 squaremetres may be permitted.

6.2.3 In this case the property is two storeys in height to the street frontage,rising to three storeys at the rear and comprises 7 habitable rooms. Ithas a total floor area of 125 square metres excluding the existing loftarea and 165 square metres including the loft space. There is also anexisting basement area which would be part of the ground floor flat butthis would not form part of the habitable floorspace and would continueto be used for storage. Local residents consider the proposal to be anover-intensive use of the property. Providing the scheme provides highquality accommodation and meets the Council’s minimum roomstandards, the principle of conversion is considered acceptable in viewthat the property is considered a suitable size.

6.2.4 Policy H17 states that a conversion scheme should include a unit of 3bedrooms at ground floor level with direct access to the rear garden,where the floor space is reasonably capable of conversion to such aunit. No more than one unit should be a one bedroom unit in a schemeof up to five units. Policy 17 of the deposit Unitary Development Planstates that where the property has a rear garden then family units(s)(two or more bedrooms) on the ground floor should be included.

6.2.5 The proposal would provide three two-bedroom flats. It is not consideredthat the ground floor could physically accommodate a three bedroomunit and a two bedroom unit complies with the requirements of thedeposit UDP to provide a family unit of at least two bedrooms. This unitwould have direct access to the rear garden which would measure 28square metres and exceed the 15 square metres required by policyH17. In addition the proposal would not provide any one bedroom units;only larger two bedroom flats.

7.2 Design and Conservation issues

6.3.3 Policy CD 18 states that extensions should be in keeping with thebuilding and the space around it. Policy ST8 indicates that in order toensure that proposed extensions would not have an impact on visualamenities, attention will be paid to bulk, height, massing, scale anddesign. Policy CD 15 states that the Council will seek to achieve a highquality of design in all new development, carefully related to itssurroundings and contributing positively to the area.

6.3.4 In addition the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance onResidential Extensions and Alterations provides guidance on generaldesign principles. This states that to maintain the character of residentialneighbourhoods, alterations and extensions should normally besubordinate to and be restrained by the character of the originalbuildings. Alterations and extensions should complement the originalbuilding’s plan, architectural characteristics, style, period and detailing.Materials should be in keeping with the complexity and richness of thetypical original materials of the property and locality. It goes on to saythat provided an appropriate degree of subordination is achieved, theseprinciples need not always inhibit contrasting modern design. But the

221

opportunity for contrast will be greater if the extension is well integratedand subordinate to the parent building.

6.3.5 The SPG also offers specific advice on rear extensions and states thatthe infilling of the characteristic ‘L’ shaped rear of Victorian terracedproperties will not be acceptable as these maximise light and are part ofan efficient design. The enclosure by a transparent pitch-roofedconservatory may be acceptable.

6.3.6 The proposed rear extension would fill part of this side gap. Theextension would be in line with the existing rear building line and wouldmeasure 4.5 metres down the side of the rear projection leaving a gap of2 metres between the rear wall which would accommodate a smallcourtyard. The extension would have a transparent roof, a glazed endwall facing onto the courtyard and a solid brick wall with a glazed doorfacing the garden. Although the brick wall would be contrary to the SPGit is considered that the small courtyard area, glazed wall and roof wouldprovide adequate light to the kitchen and bedroom.

6.3.7 The ground floor rear elevation would be of a contemporary design,consisting of two fully glazed doors in both the rear wall of the newextension and the rear wall of the existing projection. A hardwood screenon a galvanized rail would move to provide an open and closed positionover the windows. It is considered that the extension at a height of 2.5metres falling to 2.1 metres on the boundary would be subordinate to themain dwelling. The ground floor rear elevation as a whole would be of acontrasting modern design, and would use high quality materials that arenot considered to impair the original character or form of the building. Alarge multi-paned window would also be provided at ground floor level onthe side of the building along with a new ‘lightbox’ glazing slot, 4 metresin length along the side wall with Briarwood Road. These features, andparticularly the glazing slots, would be visible from Briarwood Road andwould be part of the total contemporary design. It is not considered notthat these features would impair the character of the building or thestreetscene, but that they would form an interesting modern featuredesigned sensitively and with respect for the building.

6.3.8 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance also refers specificallyto dormer windows. This states that dormers should be subordinate tothe roof, being small enough to preserve the dominance of the main pitchand views of its ridgeline. They should be set well within the roofslopeaway from eaves and ridge; the flanks should be set well in from anygables or party walls. They should be in keeping with the character, sizeand scale of the building as a whole. The Council will discourage largerdormers where the overall area of the front face of the dormer exceedsone square metre.

6.3.9 The proposed dormer would be small in size measuring 1.3 metres inwidth and 0.720 metres in height, totalling 0.936 square metres andtherefore complying with Supplementary Planning Guidance. Thedormer would be located within the roofslope, 1 metre from the eavesand 2.6 metres from the ridgeline. Although the property does occupy aprominent location on a corner plot, and the dormer would be clearlyvisible from the public domain, particularly Briarwood Road, it isconsidered that the dormer would be small enough to be subordinate tothe building and would not dominate the main roof pitch or constitute anover dominant feature. In this case it is not considered that the dormerwould be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building orthe streetscene, and visual amenities in general.

6.3.10 Objections from local residents relate to the dormer window, rearextensions and glazing slots. The proposal has been amended to reducethe size of the dormer and the number of glazing slots in the side wall.The impact of the ground floor rear extension has been discussed above.

222

6.4 Amenity Impact

6.4.1 Policy 17 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan states thatconversions should provide an acceptable standard of accommodationfor future residents. All rooms would meet the minimum room sizesstipulated by SPG 4 and all would have a source of natural light, withkitchens having an external window. The kitchen area in the top floorflat would be located next to the dormer window which would provideadequate ventilation. Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 states thatin rooms with sloping ceilings, at least 50% of the floor area shouldnormally have a floor to ceiling height of at least 2.3 metres. The topfloor flat would use the existing roof space to create the lounge/diningand kitchen areas. This total space would measure 36 square metreswith well over half of this (21 square metres) being above 2.3 metres inheight from floor to ceiling. An additional 3 square metres in the kitchenarea would be only just below this at 2.1 metres. The amount ofuseable floor space in this top flat is therefore considered acceptable.There would be some stacking of ‘noisy’ rooms above ‘quiet’ roomswith the lounge of the first floor flat located above a bedroom of theground floor flat. Policy ST10 states that conversions must meetcertain standards of sound insulation between floors and walls requiredby the Building Regulations. It is considered this would adequatelycounter any noise impacts including the increasing noise generatedfrom flats including televisions, radios etc.

6.4.2 With regard to extensions and external alterations, policy ST8 statesthat in order to ensure that proposed extensions would not have adetrimental impact on neighbouring properties, attention will be paid tothe following: any overlooking of neighbouring properties, any reductionin daylight and sunlight reaching neighbouring properties and gardens,and any loss of amenity to neighbouring properties such as loss ofprospect.

6.4.3 The rear extension would not extend any further out than the rear wall ofthe existing projection, and therefore would not result in any loss ofdaylight/sunlight to the adjoining property number 66 Crescent Lane.Although the rear dormer would perhaps increase overlooking of theproperties at the rear on Briarwood Road, it would not significantlyincrease overlooking given the existing large sash windows on the rearelevation.

6.4.4 Objections from neighbours raised the issue of increased overlookingfrom the dormer window and increase in noise. As discussed above, itis not considered that the proposal would result in any significantincrease in the impact on residential amenity of both existing and futureresidents.

6.5 Highways and Transport Issues

6.5.1 Local residents raised the issue of the impact of the conversion onparking stress and congestion. Policy 14 of the deposit UDP requires amaximum of 1.2 off street parking spaces for three, two bedroom flats.One space is required for a single dwellinghouse. The existing carparking space at the rear of the site accessed from Briarwood Roadwould be retained. Therefore the proposal does not increase thedemand for on-street parking and would not exacerbate any parkingstress in the area.

223

6.5.2 The Council’s Transport Officer is satisfied with the proposal andrequests the permission be subject to a condition requiring that the newvehicular gates do not open onto the public highway.

7 Conclusion

7.1 The proposed conversion of the property of the property to three self containedflats is considered acceptable. The proposed conversion would offer a highquality of accommodation for future residents, a suitable mix of units and wouldnot result in additional parking stress. It is not considered that any adverseimpact on residential amenity would result from the extensions and alterations,nor is it considered that they would harm the character and appearance of thebuilding and streetscene, or be detrimental to visual amenities in general.

7.2 The proposal generally complies with Policies H10, H17, CD15 and CD18 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, Policies 17,14 and 33 of theDeposit Unitary Development Plan, and Supplementary Planning Guidance 4on Internal Layout and Room Sizes and Residential Extensions andAlterations.

8 Recommendation

8.4 Approval of the application is recommended subject to conditions.

224




3 The new vehicular gates shall not open out onto the public highway. Reason : Inthe interests of highway safety.

4 All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished tomatch the adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to materials, colour,texture and profile unless otherwise specified on the approved drawings. ( Reson : Toensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory)

5 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on the externalfaces of the building. ( Reason : Such works would seriously detract from the appearanceof the building and be injurious to visual amenities)

6 All party walls and the ceiling/floor between the ground and first floor shall besoundproofed and insulated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before theuse commences, and thereafter retained for the duration of the use so as to prevent noisepermeating into adjoining accommodation. ( Reason : To ensure that no nuisance ordisturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers)

Notes to Applicant



3. In determining this application the following policies were relevant : H10, H17,CD15, and CD18 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policies 14, 17,and 33 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan. Supplementary PlanningGuidance 4 : Internal Layout and room sizes and the SPG on ResidentialExtensions and Alterations were also relevant.

4. In connection with the soundproofing condition, you should consult the Council'sBuilding Control Section before carrying out any works.

225

N



252

27 3

26 3

1

8

13

23

6.3 m

STOC KW ELL TERR AC E

6.7m

TCB

TCB

LANSDOWNE

SOU

TH

LAM

BET

H RO

A D

BM 6.8 1m

War Meml(Clock Tower)

She lter

The Lodge

4 1

5

1 to 16

342

350

360

344

352

354

328

314

26 1

306

40 to 72

259491

15

Squires Court

1 to 70

Heat her Court

1 to 24

El Sub Sta

Eric a Cou rt

1 to 32

Mim

osa C

our t

El Sub Sta

5.6m

rne House5.6m

BM 6.60m

BINFIELD ROAD

Lavend er Co urt

348

1 to 2

4

5.7m

Garage

346

1 1 1 1 1

1

11

11

11

11111111

11

111

11

11

11

11 1 1 1 1


Case Number:


03/00142/FUL

328 South Lambeth RoadLondonSW8 1UQ


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

226

Location 328 South Lambeth Road London SW8 1UQ

Ward STOCKWELLProposal

Conversion of existing single family dwelling into 4 self contained flats to include basementand gound floor and first floor rear extension and rear ground floor roof terrace, along withassociated alterations.

Application No 03/00142/FUL/DCGC/40327

Applicant Croftcope Ltd

Agent A Worthington23 Arragon GardensStreathamLondonSW16 5LY


Considerations

Conservation AreaSouth Lambeth Road

Plans328 SLR-os, 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6c, 7b, 8b, 9b, 10b,Parking SurveyLetter


227

Officer Report

03/00142/FUL


1.1. The character of the conservation area, highway and pedestrian safety, and theresidential amenities of occupiers and adjoining neighbours

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site consists of a three storey end of terrace property on SouthLambeth Road that incorporates a basement level. It is currently used as a singlefamily dwellinghouse. The main house has a height of 12.1 metres with stairsgiving access to the ground floor some 1.8 metres above street level. Adjoiningthe main house to the side is a two storey extension which incorporates a largebay window which extends from basement to the first floor and is 8.9 metres highfor a depth of 7.8 metres.

2.2. At the rear the existing house has a 1.5 metres deep ground floor conservatorywhich is 1.6 metres above the garden level which extends from a rear projectionof 326 South Lambeth Road with a width of 4.5 metres and a maximum height of4.7 metres. Adjoining this is a brick extension that is 6.2 metres high and 1.5metres wide.

2.3. The site is orientated east - west. Adjoining the site to the south is Erica Court athree storey block of flats which has parking to the rear with garages adjoining theboundary with the application site some 10 metres from the house. Directlyadjoining the boundary is a small grassed area associated with the setting of EricaCourt. To the north is 326 South Lambeth Road that is a residential property.This boundary with Erica Court has substantial landscaping.

2.4. The site is in the South Lambeth Road Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission for the conversion of the existing house into 4 self containedflats with basement, ground and first floor rear extensions, a rear ground roofterrace and parking in the front garden (Ref: 02/02395/FUL) was refused on 8th

January 2003. The application was refused because of the failure to enter into acar capping arrangement, continued parking in the front garden and 50% of theunits being one bedroomed.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the existing single familydwelling into four self contained flats to include basement, ground and first floorrear extensions, and rear ground floor roof terrace, along with associatedalterations.

4.2. The proposed four units includes: a three bedroomed unit on the basement/ground; a one bedroomed unit on the ground floor, a two bedroomed unit on thefirst floor and a one bedroomed unit on the second floor. Access to the garden isfrom the three bedroomed unit. The site is located in a very accessible location,in terms of public transport.

4.3. The basement extension would extend 3.0 metres from the rear of theconservatory and would be 4.6 metres wide, adjoining the boundary with 326South Lambeth Road. Above this a ground floor terrace would be formed 1.8metres above garden level.

228

4.4. The ground and first floor extensions would extend to the rear of the existing twostorey side extension. At two storey the extension would be 2.7 metres deep andsingle storey for a depth of 1.5 metres.

4.5. A wall of 900mm is proposed on the boundary with South Lambeth Road toprevent parking in the front garden.

5. Consultation Responses:

5.1. Consultation letters were sent to the residents of Erica Court, Mimosa Court and324 and 326 South Lambeth Road. A site notice was also posted outside the siteand the application was advertised in the press.

5.2. There has been one objection to the proposal which raises the following concerns:� Loss of Privacy to 326 South Lambeth Road� Converting the house to flats will lead increased population that may reduce

the traditional benefits of the conservation area.� Contribute to parking problems with upto 8 to 12 cars parking on street.� Impact of noise and disturbance through the party wall. If planning

permission is granted, sound proofing should be incorporated.



6.1.1. Adopted Unitary Development Plan (AUDP)H17: Flat ConversionsCD2 Conservation AreasCD18: ExtensionsH10: Residential Development StandardsH12 People with Disabilities

6.1.2. Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (DDUDP)14 Parking and Traffic Restraint (Interim Policy)17 Flat Conversions

6.1.3. The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weightat the moment due the early stage of the adoption process. However the'Interim' policies carry more weight in that they have been the subject ofconsultation as part of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes innational policy or guidance to which the Council must have regard inmaking planning decisions.


6.1.5. Supplementary Planning Guidance - Residential Design StandardsStandard 4 - Internal Layout and Room sizes

6.2. Land Use6.2.1. Policy H17 (a) only allows conversions in houses which exceed two

storeys in height, and contain six or more habitable rooms.6.2.2. As the house is three storey and contains more than six habitable

rooms, the property is of a size which is acceptable for conversion. Onthis basis the proposal is in accordance with policy H17 (a).

229

6.3. Impact on the residential quality of future occupiersRoom Sizes

6.3.1. Policy H17 of the AUDP requires internal layout and room sizes to meetthe standards set out in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Guidance.This sets a minimum size for one bedroomed units of 11.2 sq metres forliving rooms (without kitchen or dining room), a minimum of 11.2 sq.metres for main bedrooms. For larger units the minimum sizes aremarginally bigger than those for one bedroomed units.

6.3.2. The proposal seeks a three bedroomed unit with bedrooms of 16.6, 8.9and 9.4 square metres and a living room of 23.5 square metres. Thetwo bedroomed unit has bedrooms of 12.1 and 7.0 square metres and aliving room of 15.4 square metres. The two one bedroomed units havebedrooms of 12.1 and 16.6 square metres respectively and living roomsof 14.4 and 16.3 square metres respectively. As these are in excess ofthe minimum requirements, the proposal is considered to be inaccordance with the Council’s SPG and policy H17.

Access for people with disabilities6.3.3. Policy H12 of the AUDP states that subject to site suitability and market

considerations the Council will seek to negotiate housing built to mobilitystandards.

6.3.4. Policy 17 of the DDUDP repeats this in that conversion should wherepracticable be designed to be accessible for disabled persons, unlessthe property has a lower ground level.

6.3.5. As the existing house is accessed by a staircase to the ground floor witha lower ground floor below, the site is not considered suitable for peoplewith disabilities. On this basis the proposal is considered to be inaccordance with policies H12 and H17 (f) of the AUDP and policy 17 (dii) of the DDUDP.

6.4. Dwelling Mix6.4.1. AUDP Policy H17 requires that conversion schemes should include a

unit of 3 bedrooms at ground floor, providing direct access to amenityspace with an overall mix of units sizes. It also requires that no morethan one unit in a scheme of up to 5 units should be one bedroomedunits.

6.4.2. DDUDP Policy 17 requires that conversion schemes include a two ormore bedroomed unit on the ground/ basement with direct access to thegarden. It also states that where a property is large enough it shouldinclude a full mix of unit sizes.

6.4.3. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 requires the best use of land forhousing. It aims to promote conversions, by encouraging a more flexibleapproach to development plan standards with regard to densities, carparking, amenity space and overlooking. Furthermore, greater density ofdevelopment is encouraged in locations with good public transportaccessibility.

6.4.4. Given the requirement to make best use of urban land the requirementset out in AUDP policy 17 to restrict the number of one bedroomed unitsto one in schemes of less than 5 units is essentially out of date andunsustainable at appeal. This was confirmed in a recent appeal decisionon 5 Bedford Road (Ref: APP/N5660/A/02/1092113) for a conversionwith a mix of one three bedroomed unit and two one bedroomed units.The inspector commented that: “the proposal complies with the Council’sSPG relating to minimum room sizes and would achieve a net gain oftwo dwellings on the site. The proposed development would make more

230

effective use of the site for housing, in the urban location with very goodaccessibility to public transport facilities, in accordance with nationalpolicy….the marginal conflict with H17(d) is not a justifiable reason on itsown for withholding planning permission…”

6.4.5. The proposed four units includes: a three bedroomed unit on thebasement/ ground; a one bedroomed unit on the ground floor, a twobedroomed unit on the first floor and a one bedroomed unit on thesecond floor. Access to the garden is from the three bedroomed unit.The site is located in a very accessible location.

6.4.6. In terms of dwelling mix the proposal results in a wide mix of dwellingsizes with only half being one bedroomed. The proportion of onebedroomed units is less than the proportion allowed on appeal at 5Bedford Road. The conflict with policy H17 (d) is essentially less withthis proposal.

6.4.7. To reduce the concentration of one bedroomed units in this scheme theinternal arrangement could only realistically achieved by the reduction inthe number of units. A further three bedroomed unit could be created onthe ground and first floors with the rear garden shared. The loss of aunit would run contrary to Government Guidance in PPG3 to “make bestuse of urban land.”

6.4.8. As the proposal provides an acceptable residential environment in termsof room sizes with only two units out of four being one bedroomed, andthe site is located in an accessible location, refusal on dwelling mix isconsidered not to be solely justifiable. Therefore, eventhough theproposal is contrary to policy H17 (d), national policy and the appeal at 5Bedford Road are considered to be sufficient to indicate that thisapplication should be approved.

6.5. Impact on highway and pedestrian safety6.5.1. Policy H17 of the AUDP that states that the Council will consider the

level of on-street parking capacity to assess whether there is capacity toabsorb the additional parking likely to be generated from the conversion.

6.5.2. This approach is detailed in DDUDP Policy 17 which states that in areasof severe parking stress (overnight on-street parking at or above 90%safe capacity within 200m) proposals which lead to an increase in on-street parking will be car capped and where there is no controlledparking zone contributions will be sought.

6.5.3. The proposal is located in a very accessible location in terms of publictransport and where parking is at a premium. A parking survey has beensubmitted and a wall preventing parking on the site is proposed. TheCouncil’s Highway Officer recommends that based on the parkingsurvey, the location of the proposal the development should be car free.Furthermore, a condition is requested to ensure that the wall is builtacross the frontage to prevent parking.

6.5.4. In a letter of 6th February 2003, the applicant agreed to the requirementthat the scheme be “car free”. Furthermore, a condition has been soughtto ensure that the proposed wall is constructed prior to occupation of theflats and is retained in perpetuity. Subject to the completion of a Section106 agreement, the proposal is considered to be in accordance withAUDP policy 17 and DDUDP policy 17. On this basis, approval isrecommended accordingly.

6.6. Impact on the character of character of the Conservation Area

231

6.6.1. Policies CD2 and CD18 of the AUDP require extensions to ensure thecharacter and appearance of conservation areas is enhanced. Thesepolicies are detailed in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance -Residential Extensions and Alterations.

6.6.2. The rear of the existing house consists of an upper ground floorconservatory and a small 1.5 metre two storey projection. The proposalseeks to extend the existing house by extending the basement to therear and by extending the existing side extension to the rear.

6.6.3. Given the limited depth of the extensions and the retention of the form ofthe original house is maintained, the proposal is not considered to harmthe character of the building or the character of the conservation area.Furthermore the proposed use of the house as flats is not considered toharm the character of the area as the use is still residential in its nature.The Council’s Conservation officer has no objection to the scheme.Therefore, on this basis the proposal is considered to be in accordancewith policy CD2, CD18, H17 (c) and the Council’s SPG.

6.6.4. Important aspects of the character of this Conservation Area are thetrees that add to the setting of the area. The excavation of the basementarea will undoubtedly result in the loss of the small trees on theboundary and at the rear of the proposed extensions. As these trees areof a size that they are not significant in terms of amenity, the Council’stree officer has no objections to this scheme. On this basis the proposalis considered to be in accordance with Council policy.

6.7. Impact on the residential amenity of 324/ 326 South Lambeth Road6.7.1. Policy H10 requires all new development to be assessed against

residential design standards. In terms of amenity the relevant standardsare Standard 5 - Privacy and Standard 8 - Residential Extensions.

6.7.2. The proposal would extend the existing basement, 3.0 metres beyondthe rear of 326 South Lambeth Road. On top of this a new terrace isformed 1.8 metres above garden level. This terrace will be at the samelevel as the existing terrace at 326 South Lambeth Road. Given that theterrace is at the same level as 326 South Lambeth Road, a condition hasbeen sought to ensure that a 1.8 metre fence or wall is maintainedbetween terraces. On this basis, the new terrace is not considered toresult in a loss of privacy to either 324 or 326 South Lambeth Road. Theproposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with AUDP policyH10.

6.7.3. In addition to privacy, concerns have been raised regarding the impact ofadditional noise and disturbance from the terrace and conversion onresidential amenity. In assessing the impact regard should be had to theuse of the existing garden and house as a residential property.Obviously this involves some form of noise and disturbance to adjoiningoccupiers.

6.7.4. It is considered that the impact of the house and terrace being used for amore intensive residential use, will not result in any significant increasein noise and disturbance to adjoining occupiers. On this basis, approvalis recommended for approval.

7. Conclusion

7.1. As the proposal creates an acceptable mix of dwelling sizes, with modestextensions and no car parking, it is considered not to have a significant impact on:the character of the conservation area, highway and pedestrian safety, and the

232

residential amenities of future and existing residents. Subject to a Section 106agreement to ensure that the development is car free, approval is recommended.

8. Recommendation

8.1. GRANT subject to a Section 106 agreement to ensure that the development is carfree.

233



2 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without the prior consent in writingof the Local PlanningAuthority. (Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises issatisfactory.)


4 No vents, extracts, plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed onthe external face of the building, unless shown on the approved drawings. New rainwaterpipes shall be painted cast metal.Reason - In order to safeguard the character andappearance of this part of the Conservation Area

5 Any new sash windows shall be of clear glass (unless otherwise indicated) in verticalsliding sash frames within a recessed box frame. They must be of painted soft wood withthe sashes counterbalanced by weighted cords and pulleys. They must match the design,mouldings and glazing bar pattern of any original windows that survive on the same floorlevel.Reason - In order to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of theConservation Area

6 Prior to occupation of any of the flats, the boundary wall herby approved on drawing328 SLR-11b shall be completed, and thereafter be permanently retained. (Reason: Toprotect highway and pedestrian safety on South Lambeth Road)

Notes to Applicant




4. This permission is subject to a legal agreement restricting residents fromobtaining parking permits from the London Borough of Lambeth to park onneighbouring roads.

5. The following policies were relevant in the consideration of this application:H10, H17, CD2, CD15, CD18, T17, ST2, ST3 and ST11 from the AUDP and policies14 and 17 from the DDUDP.

234

N



SU DBOUR NE ROAD

HO R

SFO

RD

ROA

D

Evel yn House

Sudb

ourn

ePr

ima r

y Sch

o ol

Scho

olhou

se

Florence House

23. 0m

23. 1m

23. 2m

BM

23.6

8m

23. 4m

ROAD

HAYTER ROAD

22. 8m

22. 9m

BM

23. 6

0m

101

83

1 to 6

6953

2

14

54

40

26

10

26

0

78

665038

1 to 24

30

1 to 12

41

31

3

19

26

20

29

15

89 t o 142

2a

2

16

19

89

Playground


Case Number:


02/02879/FUL

36-38 Hayter RoadLondonSW2 5AP


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

235

Location 36-38 Hayter Road London SW2 5AP

Ward BRIXTON HILLProposal

Demolition of existing dwellings and the erection of a 4 storey building with a habitable loftspace to create 16 self contained flats, along with associated alterations.

Application No 02/02879/FUL/DCSW/23299

Applicant London & Quadrant Housing Trust (SE Thames)

Agent Tuffin Ferraby & TaylorFriary Court13-21 High StreetGuildfordSurreyGU1 3DG


Considerations

Plans10000/300A, 301A, 302A, 303A, 304A, 305A, 306A 307A, 308A, 309A, P01,E01 toE08


236

Officer Report

02/02879/FUL


1.1. This is an application to demolish a pair of semi-detached houses, and replacethem with a four storey residential building to contain 8 x 1 bedroom flats and 8 x2 bedroom flats for affordable housing.

1.2. The main issues regarding this application concern potential impacts of theproposed building upon the character of the surrounding area, neighbouringresidential amenity, and in terms of parking stress.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site comprises two semi-detached residential properties locatedon the northern side of Hayter Road, at approximately its halfway point. They arefour storey properties, with a lower ground floor below street level, which open outinto 30 metre long rear gardens. In the case of 36, the fourth floor is locatedwithin the roof. The two properties are linked together by a two storey flat roofextension, 3 metres in width, with a garage at ground floor level.

2.2. Whilst floor plans provided with the application indicated both properties in use as4 non-self contained flats, this has not been authorised by any planningpermission. Council computer records indicate 36 Hayter Road as being arrangedas 3 flats, and 38 as a single dwelling. Number 36 is currently vacant andboarded up.

2.3. The surrounding area comprises a mix of terraced, semi and detached properties.To the rear are 4 storey terrace properties, fronting Sudbourne Road. Theseproperties are located some 40 metres away.

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission was refused in November 2001 for erection of a 4 storey sideand 2 storey rear extension and provision of an off street car parking space atboth 36 and 38 Hayter Road. These were separate applications but submittedconcurrently. They were both refused on the grounds that the bulk, scale, size,height, width and depth of the extensions would not be subordinate to the originaldwelling an would be over-dominant in terms of visual amenity and amenities ofneighbouring properties. The parking spaces did not conform with standardrequirements.

3.2. There is no other relevant planning history on file, only reference to unauthoriseduse of the rear yard for storage of heavy vehicles in 1970 – 1973.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The application comprises demolition of the existing dwellings and the erection ofa 4 storey building with habitable loft space to create 16 self contained flats, alongwith associated alterations.

4.2. Materials comprise facing brickwork to match existing, cement slates and paintedtimber sash windows (mock).

4.3. The mix of units comprises 8 x 1 bed flats and 8 x 2 bed flats. Redevelopment ofthe site is proposed by London and Quadrant Housing Trust, for affordablehousing.


237

5.1. The following adjoining owners were notified of the application: 31 – 42 HayterRoad and 62 – 72 Sudbourne Road.

5.2. Brixton Residents and Traders Association, Brixton Society and Bonham andBrixton Hill Group were also consulted.

5.3. A site notice has also been displayed at the site.5.4. Sixteen letters of objection have been received. Several of these comprise a

standard petition style letter.5.5. Comments can be summarised as follows:

� External appearance is bulky, amorphous, and inconsistent with surroundingbuildings. Would have a negative effect on streetscape.

� Whilst the building appears to be no higher than existing, the fact that it is asingle building with larger footprint makes for a considerable increase in scaleand bulk.

� Increase in scale and bulk would reduce light/sunlight to adjoining properties.� Site could only reasonably sustain no more than 8 flats – such a density would

be more in keeping with surrounding area. Any increase in density above thiswould place pressure on local resources.

� Increase in residents on the site could create noise disturbance to surroundingresidents.

� Risk of crime and anti-social behaviour from additional social housing.� Property should be used for key worker housing.� Reduction in security to Sudbourne Road properties from increased residents

and lack of locked gates. Boundary fences should be high to ensure nointruders can enter rear gardens.

� Light pollution from larger building with more residential units.� Reduction in privacy to surrounding properties from additional windows.� Hayter Road is already heavily congested with parked cars. Additional

residents could exacerbate this parking stress.� Pear trees are protected by conservation order.� There is a lack of available school places in the area.



6.1.1. The relevant policies in the consideration of this application from theAdopted Lambeth UDP are:H1: Housing ProvisionH5: Environmental ImprovementsH6: New Housing DevelopmentH7: Affordable HousingH10: Residential Development StandardsT17: Transport implications of development proposals;CD15: Design of New Development

6.1.2. Also of relevance are Residential Development Standards containedwithin the Adopted UDP and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

6.1.3. The new deposit draft UDP contains policies relevant to this applicationbut which carry relatively little weight at this early stage due the earlystage of the adoption process. These are policies 15 (AdditionalHousing), Policy 31 (Streets, Character and Layout, Policy 32 (BuildingScale and Design) and Policy 35 (Design in Existing Residential/MixedUse Areas)..

6.1.4. Deposit Draft UDP policy 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint) and Policy16 (Affordable Housing) are interim policies which carry more weight inthat they have been the subject of consultation as part of the Key IssuesPaper and represent changes in national policy or guidance to which theCouncil must have regard in making planning decisions.

238


6.1.6. Supplementary Planning Guidance notes for Residential DesignStandards, in particular SPG2 (Amenity Space) and SPG4 (Internallayout and room sizes) are also of relevance.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The site is currently in residential use and given this, the proposedredevelopment for additional accommodation is welcomed in principle.However, policies H6 and H10 of the Adopted UDP and Policy 15 of theDeposit Draft UDP require residential development sites to beenvironmentally suitable and the details of the scheme to be assessedagainst the Council’s residential development standards andSupplementary Planning Guidance.

6.2.2. Policy 15 of the Deposit Draft UDP states that on developments of 10units or more, a mix of dwelling type, affordability and size of unit will berequired, having regard to local circumstances and site characteristics,to meet the changing composition of households in the light of assessedhousing need.

6.2.3. This scheme is intended to provide 100% affordable housing, throughLondon and Quadrant Housing Trust. Originally 10 x 2 bedroom and 6 x1 bedroom units were proposed but due to necessary changes to layoutand internal space arrangements, this has been amended such thatthere are now 8 x 1 bedroom and 8 x 2 bedroom units. Policy H11 of theAdopted UDP and Policy 15 of the Deposit Draft UDP generally require amix of dwelling types and sizes.

6.2.4. In this instance, the mix proposed is intended to meet the requirementsof rehoused residents from two particular blocks in the St Matthewsestate, which has recently been allocated funding by the HousingCorporation. The demand in this instance is primarily for 1 and 2bedroom flats for rent. One lower ground floor flat has been designedfor wheelchair use. The mix proposed is considered to be acceptable inthe circumstances, particularly given that it meets local need identifiedby the London and Quadrant Housing Trust, with support from theCouncil’s Housing Services.

6.2.5. Any approval would be subject to a Section 106 legal agreement tosecure the use of all units for affordable housing in perpetuity.


6.3.1. Policy CD15 of the Adopted UDP and Policies 32 and 35 of the DepositDraft UDP relate to the design of new development. Of particular note isthe requirement that new development be of a high standard in designand layout and that it takes account of height, bulk, scale, materials andcolour, character and amenities of an area. Policy 32 of the DepositDraft UDP states that the primary consideration in determining theappropriate density and scale of new residential development will beachieving an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of landand meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents.Buildings should be of a scale, massing and height that is appropriate totheir site characteristics, setting and location in the townscape.

6.3.2. The surrounding area comprises a mix of two, three and four storeydetached, semi-detached, and terrace houses, of varying sizes, stylesand roof shapes, most being of Victorian era. When approaching fromthe east, 38 Hayter Road is the last of the 4 storey houses on the

239

northern side of the road, marking a break in the pattern of buildingheights and appearing quite prominent in the streetscene.

6.3.3. The current buildings, with their steep pitched roofs, are considered tobe visually interesting, and make a contribution to the general characterof the streetscene. The loss of buildings such as this, particularly whenthey are not structurally unsound, is regretted but without conservationarea or listed building status, their demolition can be undertaken withoutthe need for planning permission. The applicant advises that ananalysis of the viability in retaining the buildings has been undertaken,but that this would cost prohibitive.

6.3.4. As part of pre-application consultations and discussions during theapplication stage, several revisions were made to the proposal toaddress concerns about the bulk and appearance of the building, inparticular the overbearing roof profile and the appearance as a singlebuilding. The roof has subsequently been scaled down, with the heightand profile closely matching that of Number 38. This has resulted in theloss of some roof space accommodation. Whilst the central addition isone storey higher than existing, it is set back and gives the appearanceof a link rather than an integral part of the building. On this basis, theheight and profile of the building is considered to be acceptable.

6.3.5. The footprint of the building represents an increase over existing ofapproximately 40%. The front building line closely matches that of theexisting, with the rear building line extending into the garden by a further5.8 metres to a point level with the rear extension on the property to thewest. It is considered that there would be a noticeable increase in thebulk and massing of the building in comparison to the existing, whenviewed from the street. However, it is considered that the separationdistance which would be maintained between the building andneighbouring properties, the varying pattern of building positions on thisside of the street (ie full width or along western boundary), and the sizeof the property are such that the proposal would not representoverdevelopment of the site.

6.3.6. In terms of appearance, attempts have been made to mirror thefenestration and materials of the existing building at the front, withdecorated eaves, rendered bays and red brick banded coursework.Whilst at the rear, there is more of a uniform appearance to the windows,this is broken up to some extent by the varied setback and roof pattern,and is considered to be acceptable on this basis. Subject to details ofwindows, roof and facing brickwork being required as conditions, so thatit can be assured that they compliment the surrounding area, theappearance of the proposed building is considered to be acceptable.

6.3.7. There are two pear trees in the rear garden of 38 Hayter Road which aresubject to tree preservation orders, and which are to be retained as partof the landscaped garden. The Tree Officer has advised that a conditionshould be attached to any permission requiring that these are protected,and this would satisfy concerns raised by objectors regarding this matter.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. In assessing the acceptability of the scheme it is appropriate to considerthe potential impact upon amenities of surrounding residential properties.Several objections have been received concerning loss of light, privacy,and noise from an enlarged building on the site.

6.4.2. The most significant potential impact is upon properties immediatelysurrounding the building, particularly given the increased depthcompared to the existing building

6.4.3. With regard to 34 Hayter Road, this property has a bay window atground floor level which could potentially be affected by increased bulk

240

at the rear. The main part of the proposed building would extend 3metres beyond the rear building line of the existing building and 34Hayter Road. There is also a single storey element which wouldprotrude an additional 3 metres, giving an overall increase in depth of 6metres. The distance of the proposed building from the westernboundary would be 1 metre for the majority of its length but would be setin by an additional 1 metre towards the rear. Given the depth andseparation distance, it is not considered that outlook or daylight entrywould be adversely affected, or that the proposal would create an unduesense of enclosure. It is noted that the single storey extension wouldcontribute additional bulk, but because the ground level of the subjectsite is some 1 metres lower than 34 Hayter Road and the extensionwould be located 2 metres from the boundary, it is not considered thatthere would be any adverse amenity effects from this element of thescheme.

6.4.4. There would be no adverse impact upon sunlight entry or overshadowingof this property over and above that resulting from the existing building,due to orientation.

6.4.5. With regard to 40 Hayter Road, this property has a 3 storey rear additionprotruding some 7 metres into the rear garden, which immediately abutsthe side boundary. The proposed rear building line of the subject site islevel with this building line. On this basis, there would be no overbearingeffect, undue sense of enclosure, or impact upon outlook from thisproperty. The proposed building would be approximately 1 metre closerto the western boundary than the existing building. However, theseparation distance that would be maintained is considered to besufficient to ensure that there would be no impact in terms of daylightentry to the windows in the flank elevation of 40 Hayter Road, which arelocated in the main part of the building.

6.4.6. To the rear, the site adjoins terraced properties fronting SudbourneRoad. With the subject site having a rear garden of between 20 metresand 30 metres in length, there are no concerns regarding potentialoverlooking to the rear windows of the adjoining properties. Theproposal complies with relevant standards under ST5 of the AdoptedUDP in terms of distances to be maintained between facing windows ofhabitable rooms for four storey properties. Whilst objections have beenreceived from these neighbours regarding loss of daylight to theirproperties and increased light pollution at night, given the separationdistance, it is not considered that the proposal would adversely affect theamenities of these properties in this regards.

6.5. Standard of Accommodation

6.5.1. Policy H10 of the Adopted UDP and Policy 32 of the Deposit Draft UDPstate that new residential development should not unacceptably harmthe amenities of potential residents in addition to surroundingneighbours.

6.5.2. The proposal would provide a density of 342 habitable rooms perhectare, which would considerably exceed the current density of 215habitable rooms per hectare, as well as the maximum densityrequirements of 250 hrph for mixed schemes as set out in the AdoptedUDP. This figure is, however, in line with levels set out within theDeposit Draft UDP, which takes into account the site setting andaccessibility level. The government and Mayor promote increasingdensities at locations with good public transport accessibility such as inaround town and district centres. Given the size of the property, as wellas the proximity to Brixton Town Centre and public transport routes, it is

241

considered that the proposed density is appropriate for this setting, andrespects the surrounding area and residential amenity.

6.5.3. The original scheme has been amended, due to concerns over access tolight and outlook for occupants of the lower ground floor level. There isnow only one single bedroom with a window proposed in the sideelevation at lower ground floor level, with other rooms being kitchensand bathrooms. All other habitable room would face to the front or rearof the building. On this basis, it is considered that acceptable levels ofoutlook, daylight and sunlight entry could be achieved for all units.

6.5.4. All rooms would comply with the Council’s Supplementary PlanningGuidance for internal room layout and sizes. Rooms have generallybeen stacked over each other in terms of use, so as to avoid noisebetween floors. The arrangement proposed is considered to beacceptable.

6.5.5. Approximately 300 square metres of communal garden space would beprovided, which exceeds the minimum criteria set out in the Council’sSupplementary Planning Guidance. Private garden and patios areproposed for two of the lower ground floor flats.

6.5.6. Provision would be made for refuse storage along the western boundary,near the front of the property. Subject to details of storage beingprovided as a condition to any permission being granted, this isconsidered to be acceptable.


6.6.1. Under the Adopted UDP, minimum parking standards apply. For housingassociation development, this is 2 spaces per 3 dwellings, so in this casethe minimum requirement would be 11 spaces This may be reducedwhere it can be shown that the requirements are likely to be substantiallyless, and access to public transport and other services is very good.

6.6.2. Under the Deposit Draft UDP, maximum standards are set, with areduced amount for affordable housing. In this instance, the maximumthat would be permitted is 4 spaces. The Deposit Draft UDP setsmaximum standards as a tool for traffic restraint and environmentalimprovement, in line with government policy. The provision of parking inresidential development is often at the expense of additional residentialunits or open space, and the Council seeks to minimise on-site parkingand use other tools to reduce demand off-site.

6.6.3. No on site parking spaces would be provided. A parking survey hasbeen undertaken by the applicants to show the levels of daytime andnight-time on street parking stress.

6.6.4. The Council’s Transport and Highways Group advise that the parkingsurvey indicates that this area is subject to severe parking stress,whereby on-street parking is at or above 90% safe capacity within 200m.Whilst there are no parking controls operating at present in the vicinity ofthe site, a report was approved by Council and funding secured on 18March 2003 for the Council’s Highways and Transport Group tointroduce a Controlled Parking Zone to this street, known as “Brixton ECPZ”. The Transport and Highways Group advises that a Traffic Orderis to be advertised for statutory consultation with emergency services on04 April 2003 for a three week period, with implementation of thephysical works expected to commence in early May 2003.

6.6.5. The scheme proposes 16 flats. As stated in the site description, whilstfloor plans provided with the application indicated both properties in useas 4 non-self contained flats, this has not been authorised by anyplanning permission, and Council computer records indicate No. 36being used as 3 flats and No. 38 as a single dwelling.

242

6.6.6. Given the existing stress levels, any additional parking would lead to anunacceptable increase in parking stress, unless measures to reduce thisare proposed by the applicant. Objectors state that Hayter Road is atcapacity and suffers from chronic congestion during office hours andweekends.

6.6.7. Given the likelihood that a Controlled Parking Zone would beimplemented by the time this property would be occupied, it isconsidered that the development should be subject to a car-cappingagreement whereby a number of the units would be excluded from theon-street residents parking permit scheme, so as to alleviate parkingstress from the additional units being created on the site. This is inaccordance with Interim Policy 14 of the Deposit Draft UDP. This couldbe secured by way of a Section 106 legal agreement once the CPZ is inoperation. Without the implementation of the CPZ, it is considered that adevelopment of this scale would exacerbate existing parking stress to anunacceptable level.

6.6.8. Whilst the applicant has suggested that only the 8 x 1 bedroom unitsshould be the subject of a car-free agreement, it is consideredappropriate that given the levels of parking stress, all units over andabove the existing number of authorised units on the site should besecured as car-free. This equates to 12 out of the 16 flats. Given thegood accessibility to public transport this level is not considered to beunreasonable.

6.6.9. Members are asked to note that the acceptability of this scheme isdependent on the Brixton E Controlled Parking Zone being implementedprior to occupation of the units. Any planning permission should only begranted once full implementation of the Brixton E CPZ has beingundertaken.

6.6.10. Any designated parking bay in front of the property would have to bepaid for by the applicant, given that a new traffic order would have to beundertaken.

6.6.11. Covered cycle storage would be provided in the rear garden of theproperty. Details of such would be required by way of condition, with arequirement that they be retained in perpetuity.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal is for the creation of a four storey building to contain 16 residentialunits for affordable housing, in the place of a pair of semi-detached dwellings,informally arranged as 8 flats. Redevelopment of the property for additionalaccommodation is welcomed in principle.

7.2. Overall, it is considered that whilst the scheme entails additional density, bulk andmassing to these properties, it would not be unacceptably overbearing tosurrounding properties or harm residential amenity.

7.3. The acceptability of the scheme is dependent on the recently approved Brixton EControlled Parking Zone being implemented. With a legal agreement requiringthat 12 of the units be “car capped” and unable to obtain parking permits once theControlled Parking Zone is implemented, it is not considered that the proposalwould create additional parking stress in the vicinity.

7.4. On this basis, Members are asked to make a resolution to grant planningpermission, with the issuing of a full decision being delegated to the Head ofDevelopment Control once the CPZ is in place. This decision would be subject toa Section 106 agreement requiring car capping of 12 of the units and retention ofthe property for affordable housing. Should it eventuate that the CPZ is notimplemented, the application would have to be reconsidered.

7.5. The retention of the property for affordable housing in perpetuity should also besecured by way of legal agreement.

243

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement requiring 12of the units to be the subject of a car capping agreement, and all of the units beingretained as affordably housing in perpetuity with a decision only being issuedonce the Brixton E Controlled Parking Zone has been implemented.

8.2. That Officers be delegated the power to issue the decision only after the CPZ hasbeen implemented.

244




3 The proposed building(s) shall be built to the ground levels and heights as shownon the approved drawings or lower; if the indicated existing heights and levels of theneighbouring properties should prove to be erroneous, then the heights of the proposedbuildings shall be no higher than the relative height difference(s) between the heights of theneighbouring properties and proposed building. (Reason: In order to ensure that theproposed development is built to the heights relative to adjoining properties as shown on theapproved drawings.)

4 Full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority before any work on the site is commenced: (a) the use of any part ofthe site not covered by building(s)and the treatment thereof (including gates, wallsand fences); (b) the extent and position of accommodation for cycle parking; (c) meansof enclosure of the site; (d) a tree survey (to show accurate locations, dimensions ofspread and girth, species) indicating the proposed retention, removal or pruning ofexisting trees in relation to the proposed development. (e) the means and positionof refuse storage and disposal. Works shall be completed in accordance with the detailshereby approved, prior to occupation of the units, and retained permanently for the fullduration of the use.. (Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfiedas to the details of the proposal(s).)

5 Full details, including samples where necessary, of all brickwork, windows,rainwater goods and roof materials shall be submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority before any work on the site is commenced and the development shall becompleted in accordance with the details thereby approved. (Reason: To ensure that theexternal appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

6 The provision of access for the disabled hereby approved shall be provided priorto the commencement of the use and retained for the duration of the use. (Reason: Inorder that the premises shall be accessible to disabled persons.)

7 No trees within the curtilage of the site shall be felled, lopped or pruned , norshall any roots be removed or pruned without the prior consent of the Local PlanningAuthority. All reasonable precautions shall be taken, including any detailed in otherConditions, to protect the branch structure and trunks of the trees to be retained and toprotect the roof system from any damage during site works. (Reason: The existing treesrepresent an important public visual amenity in the area.)

8 The entire root areas of the trees to be retained, (as indicated in the spread oftheir branches), shall be protected by stout exclusion fencing for the duration of theDevelopment work. Such fencing shall conform to BS:1722 and shall consist of chestnutpaling 5 metres in height attached to 5 metre long wooden stake at least 1.5 metres fromthe trunk of the tree to be protected or to the limits of the crown spread, whichever is thegreater. There shall be no inward bracing. Where roadways or other hardstanding effectthis condition, separate protection shall be made to the specification of the Local PlanningAuthority.(Reason: To avoid damage to the existing trees which represent as importantvisual amenity in the area).

245

Notes to Applicant




4. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Civil Engineering Divisionof the Directorate of Environmental Services, with regard to any alterations affectingthe public footway.

5. You should consult the Council's Tree Preservation Officer with regard to anyproposed works to trees on the site. You may be required to give formal notice ofintention to the Local Planning Authority before any such works are carried out.

6. In determining this application, Policies H1, H5, H6, H7, H10, T12, and CD15 of theAdopted UDP and Policies 14, 15, 16, 31, 32 and 35 of the Draft Deposit UDP wererelevant to the decision.

246

N



28. 3m

River Graveney

28. 7mSH ER WOO D

AVENUE

HAW

KHUR

ST

ROA

D

29. 4m

RUNNYMEDE CRESCEN T

BM 29.9 4m

29. 3m

28. 8m

LB

BM 29. 25mChy

101

107

111

125

137

158

148

136

9

17

25

119

127

1

13

27

14

2

129

141

153

164

154

144

134

132

124

122

110

107

117

36

24

12134

122

137a

El

Sub Sta

1

FW

Def

CF

168

157

18

29. 7m

142

144

162

31


Case Number:


03/00015/FUL

21 Hawkhurst RoadLondonSW16


50 0 50 100 Meters

i

Location 21 Hawkhurst Road London SW16 5EH

247

Ward Streatham SouthProposal

Erection of a 2 storey side extension and hipped roof extension and the erection ofsingle storey rear extension, along with associated alterations.

Application Type Full Planning Permission

Application No 03/00015/FUL/DCHL/31355

Applicant David Perrett

Agent Cromlech Designs66 Station RoadLingfieldSurreyRH7 6DX


Considerations

Approved Plans

Recommendation Grant Permission

248

Officer Report

03/00015/FUL

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

This application was deferred from the committee meeting of the 11th March2003 to enable committee members to visit the site and surrounding area. Thesite visit took place on the 29th March 2003 at 12.30pm.

The proposal remains unchanged and is recommended for approval.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


9.1. The main considerations are the effect that the proposed two storey sideextension and single storey ground floor rear extension would have on thecharacter and appearance of the main building, the terrace within which itis located, and on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

10. Site Description

10.1. The application site consists of a two storey end of terrace property locatedon the eastern side of Hawkhurst Road, within a residential area. Thesubject site lies directly on the south side of the River Graveney.

10.2. The dwelling, contributing to an inter war terrace of three houses, includesa bay window feature at ground and first floor level in the front elevation.The main building is finished in white render and includes an originalhipped roof. To the rear of the main building is a small, flat roofed WC. Aflat roofed single vehicle garage is attached to the side of the dwelling, set3.8m away from the River Graveney.

10.3. There is an existing timber outbuilding located to the rear/side of the site,adjacent to the River Graveney. A covered way exists between theoutbuilding and the main dwelling.

10.4. The property is currently in use as a single family dwellinghouse.

10.5. The application site is not located within a conservation area.

11. Planning History

11.1. On 7th August 1991 a town planning application was received for theerection of a three bedroom house – subsequently withdrawn.

11.2. On 25th June 2002 a complaint was received by the Council’s EnforcementSection regarding the outbuildings in the rear garden being used forreligious instruction. On the 17th October 2002 the Council’s EnforcementSection sent a letter to the occupier of the property advising them of the

249

breach of planning control and the need to regularise this breach. To datethis breach has not been regularised and consequently the Council iscurrently preparing to instigate enforcement proceedings to secure thecessation of the unauthorised use and the removal of the unauthorisedstructure.

12. Scheme Details

12.1. The current application involves the demolition of the existing garage, rearWC and outbuilding and the replacement with a two storey side extensionand a single storey ground floor rear extension.

12.2. The two storey side extension would measure 3.5m wide, 10.7m in depthand 8.6m in height to the ridge (existing ridge height) and 6.2m in height toeaves level (existing eaves height). The side extension would be finishedin render to match the main building and would involve the extension of themain ridge of the building to include a tiled, hipped roof, also to matchexisting.

12.3. The side extension would include a first floor window in the side elevationand would also feature ground and first floor windows in the rear elevation.The rear elevation of the extension would also incorporate a hipped roof.

12.4. The rear extension would measure 5m wide, 3m in depth and 3.8m inheight to the ridge and 2.6m in height to eaves level. The rear extensionwould be wholly glazed and would include a glazed, mono-pitched roof.

12.5. All proposed fenestration would match existing.


13.1. Consultation letters were sent to the Streatham Society, the StreathamVale Property Occupiers Association, the Environment Agency and theoccupiers of 17-28 (consecutive) Hawkhurst Road, 1-7 (odd) RunnymedeCrescent.

13.2. Three letter of support for the proposed development have been received,from the occupiers of 17, 19 and 26 Hawkhurst Road.

13.3. Five objections have been received, from the Streatham Vale PropertyOccupiers Association, 3, 5, 21 Runnymede Crescent and 24 HawkhurstRoad. These objections are based on the following grounds:

- appearance of the extension would be out of keeping with thearchitectural character of surrounding properties

- increase requirement for on street parking- noise and dirt from the building works- undue strain may be put on the wall and the adjacent road bridge

because of its proximity to the River Graveney- the outbuildings have been used as a place of worship, learning

centre and after school club- value of property would decline- loss of privacy of no.5 Runnymede Crescent- loss of sunlight to no.5 Runnymede Crescent due to height of

construction- extension will lead to an increase in business use

250

- unacceptable overcrowding



Adopted Unitary Development Plan Policies relevant to this application include:Policy H10: Residential Development StandardsPolicy CD18: ExtensionsStandard ST8: Residential Extensions

Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan Policies relevant to this applicationinclude:

Policy 33: Alterations and Extensions

The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on ResidentialExtensions and Alterations is also relevant.

The policies of the Deposit Draft of the UDP carry relatively little weight at themoment due the early stage of the adoption process. However the 'Interim'policies carry more weight in that they have been the subject of consultation aspart of the Key Issues Paper and represent changes in national policy orguidance to which the Council must have regard in making planning decisions.

14.2. Impact on the Character of the Area

6.2.1 AUDP Policy CD18 indicates that extensions should be in scale with thebuilding and the space around it and that the height and form of anextension should be in keeping with the building and its setting. DDUDPPolicy 33 supports CD18 indicating that extensions should relate to andrespect the period style, profile, silhouette, roofscape and architecturaldetailing of the original building.

6.2.2 SPG – Residential Extensions and Alterations supplements AUDP PolicyCD18 and DDUDP Policy 33 indicating that extensions should besubordinate to and be restrained by the character of the main building inorder to maintain the building’s original form and period profile.

Side Extension

6.2.3 SPG 7.2 indicates that side extensions should not unbalance thesymmetry of character of the building, terrace or group. To createappropriate subordination, side extensions should be set well back and atleast one metre from the main front wall. SPG 7.2 notes that theroofslope of a side extension should follow the roofslope, materials anddetailing of the original building.

6.2.4 The proposed side extension would extend to the height of the existingridge and eaves level. However, given that it would be set back 1m fromthe front building line and its width is limited to less than two thirds thewidth of the main building, coupled with its traditional design incorporatinga tiled hipped roof and rendered walls to match existing, the sideextension would be subordinate to the main building. The roofslope of the

251

side extension would follow that of the main building, in accordance withSPG 7.2.

6.2.5 The subject terrace is of an asymmetric form, with no.26 (opposite end ofthe terrace) already the subject of a two storey side extension in the past.With its mix of front bay window forms, varied plot widths and differentfenestration patterns, the terrace as a whole is relatively architecturallyundistinguished. The addition of a traditionally proportioned sideextension at no.24 would therefore not have a detrimental impact on theproportions and form of the subject terrace.

6.2.6 The erection of the proposed side extension would necessitate thedemolition of the existing garage as well as the outbuilding andassociated covered way. This is a welcome improvement as the timberoutbuilding and covered way are untidy additions that detract from theappearance of the side elevation of the main dwelling.

Rear Extension

6.2.7 SPG 6.3 indicates that to ensure subordination, full width rear extensionswill not normally be permitted and that the width of a rear extensionshould be determined in relation to prevailing local patterns. The principlebehind this guideline is to ensure that, where the rear of a building orgroup of buildings has character, proposed extensions remainsubordinate to allow for the preservation of that character.

6.2.8 The rear of the subject terrace, along with neighbouring terraces withinthe area, is predominantly flat backed. The rear of the subject terrace isrelatively restrained in terms of its visual interest and is architecturalundistinguished.

6.2.9 The proposed rear extension would extend almost the width of the mainbuilding and is therefore contrary to SPG 6.3. However, the extension isof a restrained and simple design and would be lightweight inappearance, with the rear elevation and the roof wholly glazed. For thesereasons the rear extension would not dominate the rear of this terrace andwould not harm the visual interest of the rear elevation that is currentlyrelatively restrained and unremarkable.

6.2.10 It must also be noted that that proposed rear extension wouldsubstantially improve the appearance of the rear elevation of the propertywhich is currently visually cramped, featuring a small and confined, flatroofed WC. The proposed rear extension with mono-pitched roof wouldrelate far better to the proposed side extension than would the existing flatroofed rear addition. Even though the proposal is technically contrary tothe SPG 6.2 guideline, the specific character of this site is such that therear extension would not dominate the rear of the building or the terracewithin which it is located and is in accordance with the AUDP andDDUDP.

14.3. Amenity Impact

252

6.3.1 Standard ST8 (referred to by Policy H10) indicates that residentialextensions should not have a detrimental impact on neighbouringproperties or visual amenities, with particular regard to siting, height, bulk,scale, design, general visual impact, overlooking, reduction in light, orany other loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, e.g. noise anddisturbance.

Privacy

6.3.2 In terms of the loss of privacy to occupiers of no.5 Runnymede Crescent(directly to the rear of the subject site), the subject dwelling is set some10m from the nearest rear garden boundary (no.1 Runnymede Crescent)and 20m from the nearest rear window of dwellings to the rear. Giventhat the properties to the rear have gardens in excess of 15m in depthand that the first floor rear windows of the proposed side extension wouldoverlook the parts of the rear garden furthest from their relative dwellings,coupled with the fact the subject dwelling is at a splayed angle to no.5, itis considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable lossof privacy for occupiers of no.5, or for those of no.1 and 3 RunnymedeCrescent.

Sunlight

6.3.3 In terms of the loss of sunlight to no.5, the proposed extension would belocated in excess of 20m from the side boundary of no.5. The proposedextensions (along with the main dwelling) would be located north west ofno.5. For these reasons it is considered that the proposal would notresult in an unacceptable loss of sunlight to no.5 Runnymede Crescent.

6.4 Impact on Highway/Pedestrian Safety

6.4.1 AUDP Standard ST11 indicates that only one car parking space isrequired per dwelling (interim DDUDP Policy 14 requires .75 space per3+ bedroom dwelling). This maximum standard is based on the creationof additional residential units, and not the number of bedspaces provided.The proposal would result in the addition of two extra bedrooms, creatinga five bedroom house, and therefore the requirement is to provide one offstreet parking space. The property currently provides three off streetparking spaces. The erection of the side extension would not result inthe loss of any of these spaces. The proposal therefore complies withthe requirements of AUDP Standard ST11 and interim DDUDP Policy 14.

6.5 River Graveney

6.5.1 The Environmental Agency advises that a 2.5metre minimum accesszone should be provided between the proposed extension and the bankof the River Graveney. The proposal complies with this request and it istherefore considered that the scheme would not unduly impact on theRiver Graveney. The Environmental Agency has requested that anumber of conditions be attached if the application were to be grantedplanning permission. These conditions are attached.

253

6.6 Business Use

6.6.1 Concerns are raised by objectors regarding the possible use of the sideextension for religious teaching. A condition has been sought to ensurethat the extension, if approved, shall not be used for any purposes otherthan those that are incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, andno trade or business shall be carried on therefrom. Any use that wouldnot be incidental to the enjoyment of the property as a residential dwellingunit would require the express consent of the local authority and wouldtherefore be the subject of a separate planning application.

6.7 Other

6.7.1 Concerns are raised regarding the loss of value of adjoining properties.This is not a material town planning consideration and therefore cannotbe considered further in the assessment of this application.

6.7.2 A concern is also raised regarding noise during construction. As with allconstruction works, there is a need to comply with the requirements ofthe Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise. TheCouncil’s Environmental Health Division is responsible for the monitoringof construction site noise.

15. Conclusion

15.1. The proposed rear extension would, by reason of its siting (set back onemetre from the front building line) and traditional design, would besubordinate to the main dwelling. The proposed rear extension would, byreason of its lightweight appearance and restrained design, be subordinateto the main dwelling. The overall proposal would enhance the appearanceof the main building and given that the scheme would result in thedemolition of the existing outbuildings, it would also result in a tidying up ofthe site generally.

15.2. The proposal would not unduly impact on the amenities of adjoiningoccupiers.

15.3. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with AUDP Policies H10(ST8), CD2, CD18, DDUDP Policy 33 and 42 and adopted SupplementaryPlanning Guidance.

16. Recommendation

16.1. It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to theattached conditions.

254

Consultations

Site Notice posted on

Advert Publication Date

List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies And Local Amenity GroupsConsulted.

Worksheet

Streatham Vale Property Occupiers Assoc.Streatham Vale Property Occupiers Association20 Stockport RoadLondonSW16 5XF

Streatham SocietyStreatham Society220, Woodmansterne RoadLondonSW16 5UA

Environment AgencyThe Environment AgencyWah-Kwong House10-11 Albert EmbankmentSE1 7TG

List Of People Who Sent In Comments About This Application.

Mr O TaggartMr O Taggart 26 Hawkhurst Road London SW16 5EH

Cecil DevonishCecil Devonish 3 Runnymede Crescent London SW16 5UF

Jean NathJean Nath 19 Hawkhurst Road London SW16 5EH

Dass PotavadooDass Potavadoo 5 Runnymede Crescent London SW16 5UF

T BarnesT Barnes 24 Hawkhurst Road London SW16 5EH

Paul Chesterman

255

Paul Chesterman 21 Runnymede Crescent Streatham London SW16 5UF

Streatham Vale Property Owners' Association - Mr S HoobermanStreatham Vale Property Owners' Association Mr S Hooberman 20 Stockport Road LondonSW16 5XF

List of Neighbours Consulted

17 Hawkhurst Road London SW16 5EH










1 Runnymede Crescent London SW16 5UF




256


1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than theexpiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 of theTown and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 Except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works andworks of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent work withregard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. (Reason: Toensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

3 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract from theappearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)


5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (GeneralPermitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order withor without modification) no windows, doors or other openings other than those expresslyauthorised by this permission, if any, shall be constructed. (Reason: To safeguard theamenities of neighbouring residential properties.)

6 The side and rear extension hereby approved shall not be used for any purposes,other than those incidental to, and integrated with, the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse,and no trade or business shall be carried on therefrom. (Reason: In order to protect theamenities of adjoining properties.)

7 The existing ground level adjacent to the river wall shall not be altered nor shall theriver wall be subjected to any additional horizontal or vertical loading, either temporarily orpermanently. Reason: To ensure the stability and integrity of the river wall.

8 There shall be no raising of existing ground levels on the site. Reason: To preventthe increased risk of flooding due to impedance of floof flows and reduction of flood storagecapacity.

9 No spoil or materials shall be deposited or stored on that part of the site lying withinthe area of land liable to flood. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding due toimpedance of flood flows and reduction of flood storage capacity.

10 Any walls or fencing constructed within or around the site shall be designed to bepermeable to flood water. Reason: To prevent obstruction to the flow and storage of water,with a consequent increased risk of flooding.

11 There shall be no new development including hardstanding and fences within abuffer zone 2.5metres minimum wide alongside the watercourse. Reason: To maintain thecharacter of the watercourse and provide undisturbed refuges for wildlife using the rivercorridor.

12 There shall be no storage materials within 2.5metres minimum of the watercourse.This must be suitably marked and prtoected during development and there shall be noaccessduring developments within this area. There shall be no fires, dumping or tracking of

257

machinery within this area. Reason: To reduce the impact of the proposed developmnet onwildlife habitats upstream and downstream, including bankside habitats.

Notes to Applicants:

1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may berequired under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, andrelated legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council'sBuilding Control Officer.

3 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of theControl of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respectyou are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4 Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the land DrainageBylaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for anyproposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the brink of theRiver Graveney/Norbury Brook main river. Contact Siraj Tahir on 020 8305 4007 forfurther details.

5 Under the terms of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 it is anoffence to disturb spawning fish or their habitats.

6 Under the terms of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, it is anoffence to cause or knowingly to permit to flow, or put, into any waters containingfish, any liquid or soild matter to such an extent as to cause the water to bepoisonous or injurious to fish or the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish.

7 You are advised to contact the Environmental Agency for the followinginformation: Land Drainage Bylaws 1981 as amended by the Thames Region FloodDefence Bylaws 1991; and Guidance Notes for Riparian Owners and for Purchasersof Property within River Flood Plains.