Section 1 – Site Location Map

Section 2 – Application Summary

Location Plot Rear Of Brixton Garage With Access From Daysbrook Road London

Ward Streatham Hill

Proposal Application Redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of two residential buildings of between 2-4 storeys comprising 19 self contained units together with amenity space (including children’s play space), landscaping and boundary treatment, cycle parking, refuse store and associated works.

Applicant Mr Nicholas Cooper

Agent Mr Christopher Tapp: RMA Architects 3 Ella Mews, Cressy Road, London NW3 2NH

Date valid 17 November 2010

Case Officer Mr Robert O'Sullivan

Application Reference

10/03831/FUL

Drawing Numbers 1073_001 Rev C, 1073_002 Rev A, 1073_010 Rev G, 1073_0100 Rev J, 1073_0101 Rev H, 1073_0102 Rev H, 1073_0103 Rev H, 1073_0104 Rev C, 1073_0250, 1073_0251, 1073_0252, 1073_0253, 1073_0254, 1073_0255, 1073_0256 Design and Access Statement (November 2010) by RMA Architects; Energy and Sustainability Statement (March 2010) by NRG Consulting; Daylight Conformity Report (June 2010) by BLDA Consultancy; Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment Report by BRE Global; Planning Statement by Savills received 3rd November 2010; Transport Statement (April 2010) by WSP

Recommendation(s) Grant planning permission subject to conditions and a S106 legal agreement

Constraints None

Advert Publication Date

3rd December 2010

Site Notice posted on

6th December 2010

1.0 Main Issues

1.1 The main issues pertaining to this application are:

• The principle of loss of employment land and redevelopment of the site to provide additional housing;

• Provision of affordable housing;

• The quality of residential accommodation to be provided;

• The impact of the development upon the amenity of neighbouring properties;

• The scale and design of the proposal and its impact upon surrounding townscape;

• The impact of the development upon the highway network and conditions of highway safety and parking;

• Sustainability and renewable energy issues;

• Whether the development would increase opportunities for crime;

• Whether adequate refuse storage facilities would be provided for the development;

• Whether the development would take sufficient care to protect and enhance the natural environment;

• Planning obligations; and

• Whether the proposal has overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

2.0 Application Site

2.1 The application relates to a vacant plot of land located to the rear of the existing Brixton Bus Garage, off Daysbrook Road in Streatham Hill. The site covers an area of approximately 0.13 hectares.

2.2 The site is broadly rectangular in shape with its long boundaries in an east-west orientation. It is bound by Daysbrook Road to the east, the rear of the Brixton Bus Garage building to the west, the rear of residential properties on Wavertree Road (Nos. 12-19) to the south, and a covered reservoir to the north. The covered reservoir is a grassed area not accessible to the public.

2.3 Access to the site is from a gated vehicular access on Daysbrook Road. There is an existing 6metre wide easement along part of the northern part of the site, adjacent to the reservoir, providing occasional access for Thames Water for maintenance purposes.

2.4 The site contains a two storey building in the northwest part of the site. The building was formerly a chassis cleaning facility and was last used as a training facility (offices) in connection with the bus garage. The southeast part

of the site contains rubble remaining from the demolition of a powerhouse which was located on that part of the site.

2.5 The surrounding area is predominantly residential. There is no predominant architectural style in the area, which contains buildings dating from different periods. The Brixton Bus Garage is a two storey high commercial building. Beyond the Brixton Garage, Pulman Court is five to seven stories high and Claremont East Estate is four storeys high. Streatham and Clapham High School is located in close proximity to the southeast of site on the junction of Wavertree and Daysbrook Roads.

2.6 The site is located to the east of Streatham Hill and approximately 210m from Streatham High Road. The site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no listed buildings in the vicinity of the site. The site has no specific designation under Council planning policy although nearby Streatham Hill is identified as an Archaeological Priority Zone. The Transport Assessment that accompanies the planning application indicates that the site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6a.

3.0 Planning History

3.1 10/01524/FUL – Planning application for ‘Redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of two residential buildings (one 3 storey and one 4 storey) comprising 19 self contained units together with amenity space, landscaping and boundary treatment, cycle parking, refuse store and associated works’ was presented to Planning Applications Committee on 4th August 2010 with an officer recommendation to grant planning permission. The application was REFUSED by members for the following two reasons:

(a) The proposed development, by reason of its form, scale, siting and detailed design would appear incongruous within the context of the Daysbrook Road street scene and would not be in keeping with the predominant pattern of development in the immediate vicinity. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality and contrary to Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

(b) The proposed development by reason of the form, scale, siting and design of Block B and its construction in close proximity to the boundary with neighbouring residential properties and gardens on Wavertree Road, would represent an unneighbourly form of over development that would create an overbearing sense of enclosure harmful to the amenity of occupiers of those neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policies 33 and 38 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

3.2 The decision to refuse the planning application was appealed (ref: APP/N5660/A/10/2134835/NWF) on 26th August 2010 and was heard by the written representations procedure. At the time of finalising this report no decision has been issued by The Planning Inspectorate.

3.3 07/01354/FUL – Planning application for ‘Redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of part 2/3/4 storey building to provide 26 self contained flats comprising: 15 x 1 bedroom, 9 x 2 x bedroom, and 2 x 3 bedroom units, together with refuse store, cycle store, landscaping and boundary treatment’ was presented to Planning Applications Committee on 17th July 2007 with an officer recommendation to grant planning permission. The application was REFUSED by members for the following four reasons:

(a) The development, by reason of its siting, overall height, depth and proximity to the rear gardens of the neighbouring dwellings in Wavertree Road, would create an unacceptable increase in a sense of enclosure to the detriment of the amenity of the occupiers of those dwellings. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies H10 and CD15 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 15 and 32 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006).

(b) The development fails to provide on-site parking and would result

in the displacement of existing parking on the site. As such the development would create an increased demand for on-street parking in an area that already suffers from parking stress to the inconvenience of existing road users and to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and highway safety in surrounding streets. The application is therefore contrary to Policies T12, T17 and H10 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 14 and 15 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006).

(c) The proposal constitutes an over-development of the site, which is

demonstrated by the lack of on-site parking, lack of private amenity space and/ or communal play space for children and by the single aspect of its design. The development would therefore fail to provide an acceptable residential environment for future residents. The application is therefore contrary to Policies H10 and CD15 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policies 9, 14, 15, 32 and 36 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006).

(d) The development constitutes the loss of employment generating

land. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient marketing evidence to demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect in the medium term of re-use or redevelopment of the site for an environmentally acceptable employment use of the site; or that a suitable compensatory provision for the loss of the existing employment use could not be provided as part of a redevelopment of the site. As such the development is contrary to Policy EMP6 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy 23 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006).

3.4 The decision to refuse the planning application was appealed (ref:

APP/N5660/A/07/2053331) and was heard by Public Inquiry held on 26 February 2008 and subsequently between 20-23 May 2008.

3.5 The appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector in July 2008 on the grounds that the proposed development would not provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers of the development as a result of unsuitable and inadequate communal amenity space and children’s playspace. It was however concluded by the Inspector that the other reasons for refusal would have no unacceptable adverse effects. In addition, the fourth reason for refusal relating to loss of employment land was addressed at the appeal as the applicant agreed to provide a 100% affordable housing scheme, thereby overcoming the policy objection.

3.6 A copy of the 2007 appeal decision is enclosed at the end of this report as Appendix 1.

4.0 Proposal

4.1 This is a resubmission following refusal of planning application 10/01524/FUL by Planning Applications Committee on 4th August 2010.

4.2 Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of this previously developed brownfield site involving the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of two residential buildings of between 2-4 storeys comprising 19 self contained units together with amenity space (including children’s play space), landscaping and boundary treatment, cycle parking, refuse store and associated works

4.3 The proposal would comprise of the following dwelling mix: 7 x one bedroom apartments; 4 x two bedroom apartments; and 8 x three bedroom apartments. All 19 of the units would be allocated for affordable housing with the tenure comprising 100% socially rented.

4.4 The development would comprise of two linear buildings (Block A and Block B) running from east to west.

• Block A would comprise of a part 2 and part 3-storey flat-roofed building and would contain the primary entrance frontage onto Daysbrook Road. This block would contain 6 residential units and would be sited directly to the north of the rear gardens of Nos. 18-19 Wavertree Road.

• Block B would comprise of a part 2/3/4 storey flat roofed building and would be located further within the site towards the western boundary with the bus garage building. The 2 storey element would be located on the boundary with the Wavertree Road properties to provide a buffer to the 3/4 storey element. This block would contain 13 residential units and would be located directly to the north of Nos. 12-16 Wavertree Road.

The two blocks would be separated by an approximate 10 metre wide area of landscaping to be used as a communal amenity space incorporating a children’s play space.

4.5 The design approach is contemporary in nature. The proposed material palette is primarily red brick with timber effect cladding used as a contrasting material. Windows and door frames would be grey framed aluminium. The principal openings for both blocks would look over the open space provided

by the covered reservoir to the north. Openings to the south would service non-habitable rooms, circulation space or would be obscured in the case of habitable rooms, all of which are dual aspect.

4.6 Amenity space would be provided in the form of a communal space including a children’s play space area, four no. ‘door step play’ areas along the southern boundary and private balconies or inset terraces to 16 of the 19 units. The development would comprise of 260sqm of amenity space, with 103sqm of private amenity space and 157sqm of shared amenity space.

4.7 No car parking would be provided on-site as part of the development. A secure and enclosed cycle store would be located to the east of the site, providing a total of 22 cycle space. Refuse and recycling storage facilities would be provided in a covered area located adjacent to the Daysbrook Road frontage and close to the entrance of the frontage block.

4.8 The proposed layout includes a 6m wide legal easement adjacent to the north boundary with access reserved for the neighbouring land user (Thames Water). Similarly, the bus garage operator (Arriva) requires a 2.5m easement from Daysbrook Road over the same space as Thames Water, and then beyond that a 2.0m parallel strip of land to the rear elevation of the bus garage for maintenance purposes.

4.9 Renewable energy technology would be installed in the form of solar photovoltaic panels to the flat roofs of the two buildings.

Key difference with previously refused application Ref: 10/01524/FUL

4.10 The following are the key differences between the previously refused scheme and the current proposal:

• The frontage to Daysbrook Road has been redesigned and re-orientated, with a recessed set back at third storey level to the frontage block (Block A) comprising 1m (approx) along Daysbrook Road and 1.3m (approx) to the north and south elevations. The detailed design of the Daysbrook Road frontage at third storey level has also been changed from red brick to a timber effect rainscreen cladding.

• The siting of the frontage block has been realigned to follow the alignment of the street and an area of defensive planting added between the frontage and Daysbrook Road. The previously proposed single storey projection following the line of the existing boundary has been removed.

• Within Block B the two storey (6.5m) element along the southern boundary adjacent to the rear of Nos. 13-15 Wavertree Road, would be sited further away (i.e. further northwards) by approximately 1.4m.

• The dwelling mix has been altered, and is discussed in Section 7.2 of this report (see Table 1).

5.0 Consultations

5.1 Letters were sent to 393 property addresses including adjoining properties on Wavertree Road, Daysbrook Road, Pulman Court, and Corner Fielde (Wavertree Road). This consultation included all parties who had made representation in regards to the previously refused application and the previous appeal scheme. In addition, the nearby Streatham Hill and Clapham High School was consulted.

5.2 The application was also advertised by way of 4 site notices displayed adjacent to the site on 6th December 2010 and a press advert published in the South London Press on 3rd December 2010.

5.3 The following local interest groups were notified:

Streatham Society – No response has been received at the time of finalising the officer report.

5.4 The three Streatham Hill ward councillors (Cllr Jeremy Clyne, Cllr Ashley Lumsden and Cllr Kita Ogden) were notified.

5.5 Responses

No. Letters sent No. of objections No. in support No. of comments

393 9 - -

5.6 The objections received from the public consultation are summarised in the following section, with an officer response to those comments contained within the right hand column.

Objection Response

Failure to provide on-site car parking would result in increased parking stress in adjoining streets to the detriment of living conditions of local residents.

Parking survey information has been submitted with this application. The Council’s Transport Planning Officer has raised no objection to the findings which indicates that vehicles associated with the proposed development could be accommodated locally on-street since levels of parking stress would remain below the Council’s maximum threshold level of 90%. It is noted that no objection was raised by Planning Committee on parking/transport grounds when the previous 19 unit scheme was refused in August 2010. A more detailed assessment can be found in Section 7.7 of this report.

Increased traffic congestion would compromise highway and pedestrian safety (both during construction and upon completion)

(a) During Construction

The movement of delivery vehicles to and from the site, and the operation of construction vehicles during the demolition/build phase could be controlled by way of a Construction Management

Plan. This takes into account all relevant aspects of demolition and building work and must address a range of health, safety, traffic management and amenity issues relating to the construction site and the adjoining community.

(b) Following completion

In dismissing the earlier 2007 appeal scheme for 27 units the Inspector fully considered the potential increased traffic congestion as a result of the potential 11 additional resident’s cars and the overspill parking from the garage. He concluded that there was no particular highway safety problems in the surrounding roads and did not consider that heavy parking would lead to any reduction in pedestrian safety. This is a material consideration to the assessment of the current proposal. It is also noted that this was not raised as a reason for refusal when the previous 19 unit scheme was refused by Planning Committee in August 2010.

Notwithstanding, the Council’s Transport Planner has assessed the current scheme in the context of current highway conditions and has raised no objections. This analysis is further detailed in Section 7.7 of this report.

Damage to local road during construction and as a result of increased traffic congestion.

The issue of potential damage to local roads as a result of increased traffic congestion is anecdotal and has not been adequately demonstrated. However, it has been observed that the pavements immediately adjoining the site are in need of improvement works due to general wear and tear. Therefore, should planning permission be granted a contribution of £9,000 could be sought towards local public realm improvements. This would include general improvements and repairs to the pedestrian footway on Daysbrook Road.

Daysbrook Road pathway not suitable for disabled users or for residents with pushchairs.

As previously noted, a planning contribution could be sought towards local public realm improvements, with the intention of addressing this issue.

Design approach fails to adequately reference Victorian/Edwardian architecture or surrounding buildings.

Poor articulation to Daysbrook Road frontage.

The proposal is contemporary in nature with a flat-roofed design, which is similar to the form of development sought as part of the previously refused scheme.

The Council’s Urban Design Officer has provided comments on this current proposal, and has supported this contemporary approach. It is considered to relate satisfactorily to adjacent

townscape taking into account its scale and character.

Whilst a contemporary approach is supported, the development must be well considered and exhibit high quality architecture. The material palette is primarily red brick, which takes reference from the local context. The Urban Design Officer has advised that as the proposal is very restrained in terms of decoration and ornamentation and its principle relief are the windows, it is important that the type of brick and the workmanship are exemplary. Full details of the materials would need to be secured by condition to ensure a sufficient quality of development. A condition of consent to this effect is recommended.

It is noted that concern was raised by Planning Committee to the previously proposed 3-storey Daysbrook Road frontage. This frontage has now been setback by approx 1.0m at third floor. In addition the window detailing has been remodelled to provide a more domestic scale, more in keeping with adjoining properties.

The proposal is considered to be an acceptable sensitively design response which accords with the local context and Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the UDP (2007).

In design terms the proposal represents an excessive height, scale and bulk

(a) Height

Block A to the Daysbrook Road frontage has been altered from the previous scheme through the introduction of a 1.0m setback (approx) to the frontage and a 1.3m setback to the north and south. This is considered to reduce the perceived height from the street and to create a more complimentary relationship with the closest adjoining property (No. 19 Wavertree Road). The two storey element would be 6.8m in height, which is considered acceptable in the context of the 6.3m eaves height of the adjoining property and the slight fall in ground levels between the two properties.

The 3-storey element would now present at a maximum height of 9.7m to the Wavertree Road properties, which is below the 10.4m ridge height of the adjoining property (No. 19 Wavertree tree) and is considered to be of an acceptable domestic scale.

Block B would comprise of a part 2/3/4 storey structure. The maximum height of the 4 storey element would be 12.4m. This compares with a previous height of 13.1m in the 2007 appeal

scheme. It is noted that no objection was raised previously by the appeal Inspector to the proposed height of the buildings in design or townscape terms. The height is therefore considered to be an acceptable design response which accords with the local context and Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the UDP (2007).

(b) Scale and Bulk

In attempting to overcome the previous design reason for refusal, the applicant has sought to reduce the scale and form of the frontage block (Block A) by setting back an element of the second floor from the building edge along Daysbrook Road 1m (approx) and north and south elevations by 1.3m (approx). It is officer consideration that the setting back of the upper floors allows the eaves height to have a better relationship with the neighbouring two storey properties, both to the south (Wavertree Road) and the east (Daysbrook Road), thereby providing a better visual relationship with neighbouring properties and a more domestic scale.

In summary, it is officers’ consideration that the scale, bulk and height of the design response is acceptable in the context of the surrounding pattern of development, the site’s prominent location and therefore is considered acceptable in the context of policies 31, 33, and 38 of the UDP and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy. This is further elaborated on in Section 7.5 of this officer report.

Increased noise and general disruption both during construction and following occupation of the development.

(a) Noise during construction Matters relating to vehicular movements to and from the site and general site operations during construction could be controlled by way of a Construction Management Plan, which could be secured by planning condition were planning permission to be granted. The control of hours of construction is dealt with by non-planning legislation. Nevertheless, an informative would be recommended for any planning approval advising the applicant of the Council’s code of construction which is enforceable by the Council’s Regulatory Services team under the Environmental Health Regulations. (b) Noise/Disturbance following occupation The site is in a location very well served by public transport and local amenities. In such locations higher densities of development are encouraged. Matters of noise transmission between properties

are a consideration of building regulations and there is no evidence to suggest that the future occupiers would be a source of unacceptable noise or disturbance. In this latter respect matters of noise nuisance are more appropriately dealt with under environmental health legislation if and when they occur. A further consideration is the site’s current lawful use as a bus depot, which included facilities for chassis cleaning and staff parking in the past. It is considered that the proposed residential use would be a more conforming use within this residential setting.

Security implications to Wavertree Road properties

Creating a safe environment for living is a core principle of residential development. The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor has provided an advisory role to the applicant from pre-application stage with regards to complying with Policy 32 (Community Safety and Designing out Crime) of the UDP. The current application has been reviewed by the CPDA and no objection is raised to the proposal. The scheme would develop a vacant plot of land which currently borders the rear boundary wall of Nos. 12-19 Wavertree Road and would incorporate this boundary wall into the development. Access would only be provided through a gated access, which is considered to improve security to these Wavertree Road properties over and above the existing situation.

Overdevelopment of the site/ Excessive density and scale of development within this residential setting

Council policy does not prescribe the density of development on a particular site but relies on a design-led approach, which encourages a more flexible and individual approach in the assessment of amenity issues.

Policy 33 of the UDP states that the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of a development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes an efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of the existing and potential residents. The development achieves this. It is therefore considered that the density of the development proposed is entirely appropriate to the nature of the development, the site’s constraints, and the site’s location with excellent access to public transport and local amenities.

In this instance it is considered that the proposed

development of 19 residential units with a density of 436HRH is within an acceptable threshold and is a suitable design response to the site location.

Effects on residential amenity of neighbouring properties on Wavertree Road with respect to natural light, outlook, increased sense of enclosure and loss of privacy.

Daylight /Sunlight The daylight and sunlight assessment submitted with the application demonstrates that there would be no unacceptable effects upon the levels of daylight and sunlight received at neighbouring properties. The development is compliant with the guidance set out in the BRE publication ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’ in this respect. Outlook/Sense of Enclosure In terms of outlook and sense of enclosure, it is considered that the properties most likely to be affected are the ones with shared boundaries immediately abutting the site to the south as identified as part of the previously refused scheme.

It is noted that the proposed development has been amended, with the introduction of a larger setback for the two-storey element of Block B for which previous objection was raised. This is considered to overcome the previous concerns relating to the proximity of this element to the Wavertree Road properties. A detailed analysis of the relationship between the proposed scheme and the Wavertree Road properties is detailed within Section 7.4 of this report.

It is concluded that the proposed development would not adversely impact on outlook levels or result in increased sense of enclosure to adjoining residential properties to the detriment of existing residential amenity.

Privacy Privacy to adjoining property owners to the south on Wavertree Road is maintained by the separation distances involved and is enhanced further by the provision of obscure glazing to all south facing windows (as detailed in the main body of the report). This is considered to adequately address loss of privacy concerns from overlooking. This can be dealt with through a planning condition should planning permission be granted.

Impact on biodiversity and birds/wildlife

Given the previous use of the site, combined with the extensive area of hard landscaping, it is unlikely that the application site would contain residual biodiversity interest. Notwithstanding, given the extended period of vacancy of the building on the

application site and its close proximity to the reservoir site, it is recommended that the applicant undertake a survey of the development site, prior to any demolition or site clearance works commencing, to identify if any are being used (or have been used) by protected species such as bats or nesting birds.

Loss of view of reservoir from Wavertree Road properties.

Under current planning legislation only views from public places through strategic viewing corridors or of designated important settings are protected (see Policy 41 of the UDP). Therefore an individual’s right to a view is not afforded such protection and is not a material planning consideration.

Applicant has only carried out a limited consultation of neighbouring properties on Wavertree and Daysbrook Roads.

The submitted Design and Access Statement advises that the applicant carried out a public consultation exercise with 50 adjoining properties, the adjoining school and local ward councillors in March 2010. It should be noted that this isn’t a statutory requirement although it welcomed by the Local Planning Authority in line with current best practice.

In order to ensure adequate notification a more widespread neighbour consultation exercise was carried out by the Local Planning Authority upon validation of this planning application, as detailed in Section 5.0 of this report. This complies with national requirements for the consultation of planning applications.

Design and siting of proposed refuse storage isn’t appropriate and could lead to missed refuse collections and/or risk of vermin.

The proposed refuse and recycling storage area would be located along the Daysbrook Road frontage, adjacent to the entrance to the development. This would have a dedicated solid locked gate to the street to ease management of refuse collection. A second single door within the development would give residents access from within the security of the site.

This arrangement is considered acceptable in principle, with further details of the management of refuse/recycling to be detailed in a waste management strategy to be secured by condition in the event that planning permission is granted.

Potential conflict between children’s play space and vehicular traffic on Daysbrook Road.

The Children’s Play Space would be sited within the development and would only be accessed by passing through two access gates adjoining Daysbrook Road. This is considered to provide a secure enclosure that is found in many residential developments located within the borough.

Some of submitted drawings are The applicant has submitted elevation drawings

inaccurate as they fail to show the

rear of the adjoining property at No.

19 Wavertree Road.

showing the proposed East elevation (frontage onto Daysbrook Road) in context with the rear of the adjoining property at No. 19 Wavertree Road.

It is officer consideration that this provides an acceptable level of detail to enable an assessment of the proposal’s impact upon No. 19 Wavertree Road both in design and residential amenity terms.

Internal Consultees

5.7 The following Consultees within the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:

• Transport and Highways - No objection to the application (subject to identified conditions being placed on any planning permission and to the provision of membership for future residents to a local City Car Club, and contributions towards improvements to the adjoining highway.

• Implementation Team (S106) – Advised that planning obligations are required in order to comply with the requirements of the Council’s SPD on Planning Obligations and to mitigate the potential impact of the development.

• Conservation and Design – No objection in principle to the proposal. Should planning approval be granted it is recommended that a number of conditions are included to require further details of the materials and detailed design of the scheme.

• Sustainability Officer – No response received. However, it is noted that no objection was raised in principle to the previous scheme although further information was requested by conditions should planning approval be granted. These conditions are considered to be applicable in this instance.

• Arboricultural Officer – No objection raised subject to the inclusion of appropriately worded conditions to any planning approval relating to protection of adjoining trees.

• Housing – No objections are raised to the development. A 100% socially rented scheme is supported in this instance and therefore the policy requirement for a 70/30 split between rent and shared ownership is not sought in this instance given the number of large family homes for rent and the effective demand that exists for these type of properties.

• Crime Prevention Design Advisor – Pre-application advice was provided to the applicant and the scheme is considered to have addressed initial concerns raised. No objection to the scheme subject to submission of further clarification regarding the entrance area and

external boundary wall treatment. These matters could be addressed by way of planning condition should planning approval be granted.

• Waste Management – Final comments not received at the time of finalising this report.

• Policy – The principle of redevelopment of the site for 100% affordable housing is consistent with Policy 23 and has already been established through an appeal decision in relation to an earlier application on the site. No in principle objection raised to the land use and redevelopment of the site or dwelling mix.

External Consultees

5.8 The following Consultees external to the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows:

English Heritage (Archaeology) – Recommend approval of the submitted archaeological desk-based assessment report. On balance it does not appear likely that the development scheme would affect archaeology.

6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES

6.1 National Guidance

6.1.1 Central Government advice is contained in a range of Government Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These are essentially general policies which aim to guide the local planning authority to securing good policies based on real and sound objectives and the need to provide high quality, well thought out developments which make a positive contribution to the locality and which help to protect or enhance the environment.

Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development:

6.1.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) attempts to ensure that development and growth are sustainable. The guidance note outlines the positive role for the planning system in guiding appropriate development to the right place. The advice also states that adequate provision should be made for employment users and for the provision of new housing developments, and that local authorities should operate on the basis that applications for development should be allowed having regard to the Development Plan and all material considerations, unless the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to the interests of acknowledged importance.

Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing:

6.1.3 Planning Policy Statement 3 underpins the delivery of the Government’s strategic housing policy objectives and the goal to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home, which they can afford in a community where they want to live.

Planning Policy Statement 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation:

6.1.4 PPS9 sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.

Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport:

6.1.5 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) stresses the reliance of the past on the private car. The guidance note encourages alternative means of travel which would have less environmental impact. It suggests the location of new housing and employment uses in urban areas, and the optimum use of under-used sites and the promotion of new rail links and other improvements to public transport. One of the main objectives of this piece of Central Government thinking is to reduce the number of car movements and usage.

Planning Policy Statement 22 – Renewable Energy:

6.1.6 Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) sets out the Government's policies for renewable energy, which planning authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents and when taking planning decisions.

6.2 London Plan (as amended 2008)

6.2.1 The London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now includes alterations that have been made since it was adopted in February 2004. The London Plan is the Mayor's development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.

6.2.2 It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and, proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport.

6.2.3 All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

6.2.4 The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:

2A.1 Sustainability criteria 3A.1 Increasing London’s supply of housing 3A.2 Borough housing targets 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 3A.5 Housing choice 3A.6 Quality of new housing provision 3A.8 Definition of affordable housing 3A.9 Affordable housing targets 3A.10 Negotiating Affordable Housing 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic 3C.22 Parking Strategy 3C.23 Parking in town centres

3D.13 Children and Young People’s Play and informal recreation strategies 4A.1 Tackling climate change 4A.2 Mitigating climate change 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.4 Energy assessment 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.2 Promoting world-class architecture and design 4B.3 Enhancing the quality of the public realm 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.6 Safety, Security and fire prevention and protection 4B.8 Respect local context and communities

6.2.5 The Mayor of London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance – Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (March 2008) is also of relevance to the consideration of amenity space provision.

6.3 Unitary Development Plan

6.3.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (‘consolidated with Alterations since 2004’ published in February 2008), the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) (adopted 19 January 2011) and the remaining saved policies in the ‘Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2007: Policies saved beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy (January 2011) January 2011’. Material considerations include national planning policy statements and planning policy guidance.

6.3.2 The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) are considered relevant to this application:

Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity; Policy 9 Transport Impact; Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint; Policy 15 Additional Housing; Policy 16 Affordable Housing; Policy 31 Streets, Character and Layout; Policy 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime; Policy 33 Building Scale and Design; Policy 35 Sustainable Design and Construction; Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas; Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design; Policy 41 Views

6.4 Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)

6.4.1 The following policies of the Lambeth Core Strategy (January 2011) are considered relevant to this application

Policy S1 Delivering the Vision and Objectives Policy S2 Housing Policy S3 Economic Development Policy S4 Transport

Policy S7 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy S8 Sustainable Waste Management Policy S10 Planning Obligations

6.5 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

6.5.1 The following adopted SPDs are relevant:

• SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions

• SPD: Safer Built Environments

• SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction

• SPD: S106 Planning Obligations

6.5.2 The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is also considered relevant.

7.0 Assessment

7.1 Loss of employment use/Introduction of residential use to the site

7.1.1 The lawful use of the site comprises employment use as a bus garage (Sui Generis). According to the submitted planning statement the existing vacant building on the site (proposed for demolition) was used for ancillary training purposes by the site owners (Arriva) until the function was relocated to a new training suite at an alternative site in 2003. Since that period this training facility has been vacant. The land is now mainly derelict and has in the recent past been used for informal staff car parking for bus garage employees.

7.1.2 Notwithstanding that the building on site is not occupied and it has not been occupied for some time, the last and therefore lawful use of the site comprises an employment use. Policy 23 of the UDP is therefore applicable

7.1.3 Policy 23 sets out a presumption in favour of the protection of employment uses. Outside of KIBAs however, the policy does allow for the loss of employment floor space to non-employment use where certain listed criteria are met. There is also an exception included within the policy, where none of the listed criteria need apply, where a proposal will result in a development solely for affordable housing, and/or a community facility, or for local arts and culture use for which there is a demonstrable need. In this respect the plan recognises the turning over of such sites to 100% affordable housing schemes (and the contribution that such actions have in the delivery of housing policy objectives) as a planning benefit of significant weight to justify the loss of employment land/floorspace.

7.1.4 It is recognised that the current buildings on site represents employment floor space which would be lost if the scheme currently proposed were implemented. Nevertheless, the development proposal involves the provision of 19 new residential units, each of which are to be provided as ‘social rented’ affordable units and which could be secured by legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It follows that the

exception set out in Policy 23 of the Unitary Development Plan is satisfied and that the net loss of employment floor space is acceptable in accordance with that Policy.

7.1.5 This is the viewpoint of the Council's Planning Policy team and this was also accepted by Planning Committee as part of the previous scheme.

7.1.6 With respect to the introduction of a residential use to the site Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) promotes the provision of at least 7,700 net additional dwellings across the borough between 2010/11 and 2016/17 in line with London Plan targets.

7.1.7 The site is adjoined to the rear by residential properties of Wavertree Road and is faced by residential properties in Daysbrook Road to the east. A residential use on the site is not therefore incompatible with the other uses of the locality in terms of mutual impacts and retaining/securing appropriate residential amenity.

7.1.8 Notwithstanding the actual design details of the current scheme, there is no reason to suggest that a residential development on the site could not provide a suitable residential environment for existing and future residents. In land use terms therefore the development is compliant with Policy 23 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).

Principle of intensification of the brownfield site

7.1.9 National policy guidance in PPS3 [Housing] actively promotes the use of formerly developed sites for housing. In order to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of Greenfield land being taken for development, the government is committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land to provide new housing.

7.1.10 Policy S2 seeks levels of residential density consistent with London Plan guidelines, having regard to the provision of other uses on the site, availability of local services, access to and capacity of public transport, urban design context, quality of design and impact on existing and future residents.

7.1.11 In this case the site is vacant previously developed brownfield land. When this is considered in tandem with the site’s PTAL level of 6a which indicates a very good public transport accessibility level, the redevelopment of the site to provide a high density of housing thereby increasing the Borough’s housing stock is considered acceptable in principle.

7.2 Quality of the residential environment

7.2.1 Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) seeks a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community. Policy 33 states that all development should be of a high design quality that makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of potential residents. In terms of the quality of residential units to be provided, Policies 15 and 33 are also supplemented by the Council’s SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.

7.2.2 The SPD advises on requirements such as minimum unit and room sizes and space standards, amenity space requirements, daylight/sunlight provision, privacy and spacing between buildings and lifetimes homes standards.

Mix of Units

7.2.3 The proposed dwelling mix is detailed in Table 1 below and compared with the previous scheme.

Table 1: Proposed dwelling mix

Previous proposal (10/01524/FUL)

Current proposal (10/03831/FUL)

1-bed 4 (21%) 7 (37%)

2-bed 9 (47%) 4 (21%)

3-bed 6 (32%) 8 (42%)

7.2.4 Whilst it is noted that the number of 1-bed units has increased from 4 to 7, the dwelling mix is considered to comply with Policy S2 by providing a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the needs of different sections of the community, including a number of larger family homes for which there is an identified demand within the borough. On this basis there is no policy objection to the proposed dwelling mix.

Size of units/rooms

7.2.5 The Adopted SPD (Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions) is the available standard for assessing the quality of the residential units proposed in terms of the sizes of individual rooms, the floor-to-ceiling heights, and the overall floorspace of each dwelling type. The SPD provides further advice on the requisite floorspace and states that each unit should have storage space and sufficient circulation space to allow unimpeded access between habitable rooms.

7.2.6 The size of habitable rooms and the internal layout of the units and these minimum room sizes are shown in Table 2 of this report.

Table 2: SPD Room and Unit Size recommendations

1-Bed, 2 person

2-Bed, 3 person 3-Bed, 4 person

Main Bedroom 12 12 12

Bedroom 2 N/a 7.0 7.0

Bedroom 3 N/a N/a 7.0

Living Room 12 13 14

Dining Room 5 6 6

Living / Dining 15.5 17.5 18.5

Kitchen 6 8 8

Kitchen/Diner 10.5 12.5 12.5

Living / dining / kitchen

None (21.5 generally accepted)

None (25.5 generally accepted)

None (26.5 generally accepted)

Bathroom 3.5 3.5 3.5

Overall 45 60 70

7.2.7 Each of the principle habitable rooms and the overall units sizes have been measured and compared against the Council’s minimum room size requirements in Table 2. The scheme would exceed the overall unit size requirements for each flat.

7.2.8 In addition, the proposal would meet or exceed the minimum room sizes prescribed by SPD in the case of 14 of the 19 units. The 5 units detailed below in Table 3, all of which are two bed units, would have a shortfall in the 25.5sq.m minimum size for a combined living/dining/kitchen area. Flats 10, 14, 17 and 19 are stacked above each other in Block B and therefore contain the same layout. Each of these rooms would have a shortfall of approximately 1.0sq.m or 3.9%. Flat 18 on the top floor of Block B would have a shortfall of approximately 2.0sq.m or 7.8%.

Table 3: Rooms with floorspace shortfalls

Flat no. Room name SPD minimum

Measure room size 10 (ground floor) Living/dining/kitchen 25.5 24.5 (shortfall of 1.0) 14 (first floor) Living/dining/kitchen 25.5 24.5 (shortfall of 1.0) 17 (second floor) Living/dining/kitchen 25.5 24.5 (shortfall of 1.0) 18 (third floor) Living/dining/kitchen 25.5 23.5 (shortfall of 2.0) 19 (third floor) Living/dining/kitchen 25.5 24.5 (shortfall of 1.0)

7.2.9 It is officer consideration that whilst these shortfalls are regrettable, they do not unacceptably impact upon the functionality of these primary living spaces. Each of the rooms are regular in shape and layout, contains sufficient circulation space and natural lighting, are dual aspect with private amenity space and have sufficient internal space for occupier and visitors to undertake normal activities. It is also noted that each of the five units exceed the minimum unit size of 60sq.m by approximately 9sq.m. As such the shortfalls are not considered to be of sufficient scale to justify a refusal on the grounds of failure to comply with Adopted Policy.

7.2.10 In addition, each of the units would achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.3m.

Natural lighting/Privacy/Outlook

7.2.11 It is considered that each of the units would provide acceptable living environments in terms of natural lighting and outlook. Due to the site layout and constraints, the majority of the primary living spaces (living/dining rooms) would be north facing and would benefit from little direct sunlight. However, these spaces are either dual aspect or are provided with generous windows proportions to ensure that acceptable levels of natural lighting are received.

7.2.12 In addition, the design approach to lighting and outlook is broadly similar to those used previously, and it is noted that no issues were raised at that time.

7.2.13 In terms of privacy the blocks have been designed to ensure that primary habitable rooms are orientated away from the Wavertree Road properties to the south. In addition, the separation distances to the Daysbrook Road properties to the west are considered sufficient to ensure that there is no mutual overlooking.

7.2.14 Within the development the two blocks have been designed to ensure that there is no mutual overlooking between primary spaces through the careful positioning of windows and the 10m gap between the two buildings. Defensive planting and/or high level windows are also proposed to ground floor windows facing into communal areas or onto Daysbrook Road (Flat 1 of Block A) to maintain a separation gap from windows to the public realm and thereby aid with safeguarding privacy.

7.2.15 The proposed layout and positioning of windows is considered acceptable given the urban nature of the area and would be sufficient to achieve adequate privacy and outlook.

Amenity Space/Children’s Play Space

7.2.16 The requirement for amenity space provision as part of new residential developments is detailed both in the London Plan and the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan. Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(h) of the Core Strategy requires that development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by, where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.

7.2.17 This is expanded on in section 2 of the Council’s Adopted SPD (Guidance and Standards for Housing Developments and House Conversions) which seeks to ensure that new housing developments provide an appropriate standard of useable amenity space for occupiers, both private and communal space.

7.2.18 With particular regard to the planning history of this site, it is important to note that the sole reason given by the Inspector in dismissing the first appeal in 2007 relates to the poor quality amenity space provision. The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would not provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers of the development as a result of unsuitable and inadequate communal amenity space and children’s play space and would conflict with the development plan. The decision highlighted that the quality of play and informal recreation facilities should be guided by a quantitative, qualitative and accessibility assessment, and not just a numerical assessment in isolation.

7.2.19 Council policy advises that developments generating more than 10 children will be expected to provide children’s or young persons play provision on site as part of the development, or an off site financial contribution if this is not feasible. In this instance on-site provision is considered to be feasible as the proposal represents a new build scheme on a cleared site and amenity space provision should be factored into the overall design solution and not simply considered as an after-thought.

7.2.20 In carrying out an assessment of amenity space provision there are two aspects to be looked at. Firstly there is the total amenity space provision, which is calculated on the basis of the number of units to be provided. Secondly, there is children’s play space provision which is based on the child yield for the development (i.e. the total number of children associated with the development).

(a) Total amenity space provision

7.2.21 With respect to amenity space the SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions sets out that for new flatted developments, shared amenity space of at least 50sqm per scheme should be provided. A further 10 sqm per flat should also be provided, either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal space. Communal gardens should comply with the following standards: (i) receive natural light; (ii) be screened from parking areas; (iii) be easily accessible to all occupants; (iv) be overlooked by habitable rooms to ensure safety and surveillance; and (v) have a landscape, management and maintenance plan. Therefore the minimum requirement for this proposal would be 240sqm.

7.2.22 In this instance the development generates 103sqm of private amenity space and 157sqm of communal amenity space, which equates to a total amenity space provision of approximately 260sqm for the 19 residential units. All of the units with the exception of the three units would have private amenity space in the form of garden space, balconies or inset terraces. This total amenity space figure is inclusive of a children’s play area of 93sqm within the centre of the site between Blocks A and B and a ‘door step’ play area of 63.8sqm along the southern boundary.

7.2.23 Furthermore, the communal garden area is generously sized and would: (i) receive natural light; (ii) be away from parking areas; (iii) be easily accessible to all occupants; and (iv) be overlooked by habitable rooms to ensure safety and surveillance. Therefore the amenity space provision is considered to be in full compliance with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy S2(h) of the Core Strategy and the Adopted SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions. A landscape, management and maintenance plan could reasonably be secured by way of planning condition, as recommended.

Children’s Play space provision

7.2.24 In respect to Children’s Play space, UDP Policy 50 (i) and the associated Housing Development SPD set out that the provision of suitable play areas for pre-school and junior children will be sought, where appropriate, in residential developments of 10 or more units, or on sites of 0.1 Ha or more, or in large mixed use developments. Play areas should be easily accessible, overlooked by habitable rooms and enclosed either through fencing, railings or other safety features. Appropriate play equipment that complies with current safety standards should be installed. Further guidance on the amount of provision is provided in the GLA’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (adopted March 2008). This indicates that new residential development generating more than 10 children (as determined by the application of child occupancy assessments) should provide suitable play space as part of the development scheme. It states that provision should be based on 10sqm

per

child and that the provision should be considered as part of the overall open space provision rather than ‘over and above’ the requirements for private or shared amenity space as set out above.

7.2.25 The expected child yield for this 19 unit scheme has been calculated at 13, which would amount to an expected 130 sq.m provision in accordance with the requirements set out in the GLA’s SPG and the Council’s SPD requirements. The actual area of play space shown on the drawings amounts to approximately 155sqm. The on-site play space is for children aged 0 through to 11 years. Should planning permission be granted officers recommend that further detailed drawings of the playspace, the boundary treatment and the type of equipment to be provided is secured by way of planning condition in order to ensure compliance with the requirements detailed in the previous paragraph. This would ensure that appropriate provision of either railings, fencing or other safety features as required by the Adopted SPD.

7.2.26 Play space for older children (12+) would be off-site. This is considered to be appropriate given the size and scale of the proposed development. It also accords with Table 4.7 of the GLA’s SPD which advises that play provision in new developments for children aged 12+ can be provided offsite within 800m of the application site. In this regard it is noted that there is a public open space to the southeast of the site at Hillside Gardens on Hillside Road with tennis courts and a children’s play area.

7.2.27 With reference to this off-site provision of play space for older children (12+), and in order to mitigate the impact of the development, a contribution of £4,237 is sought towards Children and Young People Play Space to be specifically used for appropriate improvements to the open space in Hillside Gardens. This would be secured as part of the S106 which is detailed in Section 7.10 of this report.

7.2.28 In summary the level and nature of amenity space is considered acceptable and would not prejudice the aims of the SPD. The proposed development is considered to overcome the previous concern raised by the Inspector with regards to the quality of the amenity space provision.

7.2.29 In line with Policy requirements officers advise that a landscape management and maintenance plan for the communal amenity space and children’s’ play space is secured by condition should planning approval be granted.

Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair accessible housing

7.2.30 Policy 3A.4 (Housing Choice), Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy S2(d) of the Core Strategy provide guidance on Lifetime Homes and wheelchair accessible housing. This is further expanded on in Section 7 of the Adopted SPD ‘Guidance and standards for housing development and house conversions’. This requires Lambeth to ensure that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes. In addition, within a development, ten per cent of all new homes should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.

7.2.31 The submitted Design and Access statement advises that the development contains apartment layouts which have been designed to take account of Lifetime Homes standards. This is in accordance with Policy 33 of the UDP,

Policy S2(d) of the Core strategy and the SPD on Housing Development and House Conversions. A condition of consent is attached to secure this commitment. The proposed development also includes two units to be wheel chair accessible, which comprise of the two ground floor units (1 bed and 3 bed) to Block A closest to the site entrance. This could be secured by planning condition in the event that planning approval is granted.

7.3 Provision of affordable housing

Affordable Housing Provision

7.3.1 The scheme proposes 100% affordable housing with all 19 units for social rented accommodation. Further to this, the applicant advises that the Council will have 75% nomination rights for 15 of the 19 dwellings. Nomination rights to the remaining 4 units would be retained by the Registered Social Landlord (Family Mosaic).

7.3.2 As set out above, the provision of 100% affordable housing overcomes the policy conflict through triggering the exception clause under Policy 23 of the UDP.

7.3.3 Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) sets out that the mix of affordable housing should be 70 per cent social rented and 30 per cent intermediate. This split is set so that developments do not satisfy one housing need at the expense of exacerbating housing problems of homelessness.

7.3.4 The Council’s Housing Officer has previously commented that the application site is a very good location for affordable housing, in particular for family housing. In a residential area like this, the expectation is that most of the homes will be family houses/maisonettes/flats, as these locations provide much of the facilities/amenities required by families with children. The locality is largely private rented/owner occupied, and this 100% social rent scheme, would integrate into the wider community effectively. The area is well served by public amenities, shops, schools, health facilities and public transport. The Boroughs greatest housing need is for social rent schemes, and the Council’s Housing Department fully endorses this planning application.

7.3.5 In the circumstances the provision of 100% social rented housing is not considered to conflict with housing policy objectives and is in compliance with Policy 16 of the UDP, Policy S2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and the provisions of the London Plan.

7.4 Neighbouring Amenity

7.4.1 Policies 7, 33, 36 and 38 of the UDP and Policy H2 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with regards to amenity related matters. The application site is constrained both by its physical layout and by the proximity of adjoining occupiers to the south on Wavertree Road and to the east on Daysbrook Road. This section assesses the design proposal’s impact on privacy, sense of enclosure, outlook, daylight/sunlight and noise to adjoining properties.

7.4.2 It is noted that the previous proposal was refused on residential amenity grounds for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of the form, scale, siting and design of Block B and its construction in close proximity to the boundary with neighbouring residential properties and gardens on Wavertree Road, would represent an unneighbourly form of over development that would create an overbearing sense of enclosure harmful to the amenity of occupiers of those neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policies 33 and 38 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

7.4.3 In carrying out an assessment of residential amenity issues it is important to note that the reason for refusal solely related to the impact of Block B (the rear block) upon the neighbouring properties and gardens on Wavertree Road, by reason of overbearing sense of enclosure. In attempting to address this objection the applicant has moved the two storey (6.5m) element along the southern boundary adjacent to the rear of Nos. 13-15 Wavertree Road further away (i.e. further northwards) by approximately 1.4m. The other alteration to the south facing elevation is the setback of Block A’s second floor and the removal of a bedroom window. No element of the proposal has been sited closer to the adjoining Wavertree Road properties than proposed within the previous proposal.

(a) Sense of Enclosure/Overbearing impact

7.4.4 Policy 33 requires that proposed development should not unacceptably overbear on surrounding properties resulting in an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

7.4.5 As previously stated, the proposed development would consist essentially of two blocks, with the properties to be most affected located to the rear on Wavertree Road (Nos. 12-19 inclusive). These residents of Wavertree Road currently enjoy an uninterrupted northerly rear aspect over the application site and towards the reservoir.

7.4.6 In carrying out an assessment of the development of this brownfield site the previous Inspector’s decision is a material planning consideration. This was a starting point to inform the design of the revised proposal currently before the Council for consideration.

7.4.7 For background purposes, the previous 2007 sought the construction of a single building with a staggered arrangement stretching for 56m parallel to, and at the rear of dwellings in Wavertree Road. There would be a 4-storey block some 13.1m high at each of the east and west ends joined by a 10.1m high 3-storey element all with flat roofs. The separation distance to the closest windows of the Wavertree Road properties was approx. 19m.

7.4.8 Paragraphs 26-28 of the appeal decision (see appendix 1 of this report) are of most relevance to the Inspector’s assessment of sense of enclosure. The Inspector recognised the loss of the open aspect to the Wavertree Road properties but concluded that the 2007 scheme would not create an undue sense of enclosure and would not unacceptably overbear these surrounding properties.

7.4.9 Both the previously refused proposal (Ref: 10/01524/FUL) and the current proposal represents a rethinking of the design approach, which has resulted in an overall reduced mass/bulk, height and form.

Block A

7.4.10 Block A to the east of the application site would principally present as 3-storeys with an overall length of 23.0 metres when viewed from the Wavertree Road properties. The key change from the previously refused scheme is a reduction in the bulk of part of the frontage building and a setback from the Wavertree Road properties at third storey level by approximately 1.3m.

7.4.11 It is noted that no objection was raised to Block A on residential amenity grounds when the previously refused scheme was considered. As such, the siting, bulk, massing and height of Block A is not considered to raise any sense of enclosure or loss of outlook issues.

Block B

7.4.12 Block B to the west of the application site would be a part 2, part 3 and part 4 storey building with an overall length of 27.3metres. Firstly, the 2-storey element is considered as this is closest to the adjoining properties and was the reason for objection to the previous scheme. Planning Committee considered that this element of the building was located too close to the boundary wall with the Wavertree Road properties (approx 0.4 - 0.6 m), and when considered in tandem with the proposed two storey height would result in an undue sense of enclosure to the residential properties and their rear gardens.

7.4.13 The current proposal relocates this element approx 1.4m further away from the shared boundary wall, back to a separation distance which was considered acceptable by the Inspector in his assessment of the 2007 appeal, which proposed a taller structure.

7.4.14 The proposed two storey element would be approx 6.5 m in height when viewed from within the application site. However, the perceived bulk and massing of this element would be reduced when viewed from the closest Wavertree Road properties due to the existing height of the shared boundary wall (approx 3.5 – 4.0m) coupled with a variance in ground level between the site and the adjoining properties. As such, the application drawings show the 2-storey addition projecting approx 2.5m above the shared boundary wall when viewed from the adjoining rear gardens.

7.4.15 When these factors are considered the proposed 2 storey element is not considered to cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of adjoining properties by reason of increased sense of enclosure and is considered to have overcome the reason for refusal.

7.4.16 Secondly, the 4-storey element is considered as this would be the most noticeable in terms of height, bulk and massing. The 4-storey element would extend for 19.0m to the rear of Nos. 13-15 Wavertree Road, and would have an approximate separation distance of 18.0m. The previous 2007 appeal scheme had a separation distance of 19.0m, which results in a 1.0m encroachment towards the Wavertree Road properties in both the previously refused scheme and the current proposal. However, this must be considered in the context of a reduction in overall height of the built form from 13.1m to 12.4m.

7.4.17 On balance, when the height decrease from the 2007 scheme is considered in tandem with the reduced bulk and introduction of the 10m wide gap within the centre of the site, the proposal represents a less intrusive form of development to that proposed previously. On this basis, the siting, bulk, massing and height of Block B is not considered to raise any sense of enclosure or loss outlook issues. It is noted that this 4-storey element did not form part of the previous reason for refusal.

(b) Loss of Privacy/Overlooking

7.4.18 Policy 33(d) requires that the scale and design of new buildings should respect standards of privacy and not create unacceptable overlooking to neighbouring properties.

7.4.19 The residents of the properties to the south (Nos. 12-19 Wavertree Road) stand to be most affected as they currently share a boundary and have windows facing directly into the application site. The internal layout of the two proposed blocks and the positioning of window openings have been considered to take account of this and minimise overlooking.

Block A

This 2/3-storey block is arranged in an L-shape. At its closest point, the south facing elevation of the block would be approx 13.7m from the rear elevation of No.19 Wavertree Road at first floor level. This 6.2m long section of wall would contain one window serving a habitable room (bedroom) on first floor level. A window has been removed from the second floor level in the previous scheme and a 1.3m setback has been introduced. The first floor bedroom window would be dual aspect and could therefore be obscure glazed by way of planning condition without unduly affecting the living conditions of future occupiers and without compromising the amenity of residents of No. 19.

In addition, Block A would also contain a 16.1m long section of wall located approx. 18.3m from the rear elevations of Nos. 18-19 Wavertree Road. This elevation would contain windows serving circulation space, a bathroom, wc and a kitchen at first and second floor level. The kitchen window would be high level (1.7m above floor level) thereby restricting overlooking to the south. The remaining windows could be obscured by way of planning condition without unduly affecting the living conditions of future occupiers.

Block B

This block would be sited directly to the north of Nos. 12-16 Wavertree Road. At its closest point, there would be a 2 storey element located approx. 12.8m (previously 11.4m) from the rear elevations of these adjoining properties. No windows are proposed in the south facing elevation of this 2-storey element and therefore no issue is raised with overlooking or loss of privacy.

The 3 and 4 storey elements are located further back into the site at distances of between 15.0 - 18.0m (approx) from the rear elevations of the adjoining Wavertree Road properties. This elevation would contain windows serving circulation space, a bathroom, and a bedroom at first, second and third floor level. In this instance, officers consider that the separation distances, which have not changed from the previously refused scheme for which there was no

objection, would be acceptable when considered in tandem with the proposed internal layouts of the buildings. In order to allay any concerns from local residents the applicant has stated that these windows could be obscure glazed. This could be secured by way of planning condition without unduly affecting the living conditions of future occupiers or compromising the amenity of neighbouring residents.

7.4.20 The ground floor windows are not considered to raise any overlooking issues due to the height of the sizeable boundary wall, which would restrict any mutual overlooking of ground floor windows.

7.4.21 All other neighbouring residential occupiers, including Daysbrook Road properties to the east, are orientated and located at suitable distances from the proposal in order not to be unacceptably overlooked. Officers consider that this element of the proposal accords with policy objectives and is acceptable in this regard.

(c) Impact upon natural light (Sunlight and daylight)

7.4.22 Policy 33(d) requires that new buildings should be of a scale and design that protects residential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers by having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight. In assessing daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development upon residential neighbours, Policy 33 states that regard will be had to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice’.

7.4.23 The rear of the Wavertree Road dwellings faces north so the rear facing windows and the gardens benefit from little direct sunlight and are reliant largely on skylight for natural light. The daylight and sunlight assessment submitted with the application demonstrates that there would be no unacceptable effects upon the levels of daylight received at these neighbouring properties. The findings are that the properties would meet the first stage test (25 degree test) outlined in the BRE guidance due to a combination of the maximum height of the proposed building and the separation distances involved. The development is complaint with the guidance set out in the abovementioned BRE publication and would not result in an unreasonable loss of light.

7.4.24 This accords with the Inspector findings in regards to the 2007 appeal scheme. In paragraph 24 the Inspector concluded “that the proposed development would not result in an unreasonable loss of light”. The current proposal represents a reduced height, bulk and mass from the 2007 scheme. When this is coupled with the introduction of the 10m separation gap between the two proposed blocks it is considered to represent an improvement to the lighting conditions that would have been received as a result of the previous proposal. Therefore acceptable levels of natural light would be retained to the rear windows of Nos. 12-19 Wavertree Road and no objection is raised.

(d) Noise disturbance

7.4.25 It is accepted that the site would be occupied fairly intensively, especially relative to the vacant site at present. However, the site is in a location very well served by public transport and local amenities. In such locations higher

densities of development are encouraged by national and local planning policies. In any event, matters of noise transmission between properties are more appropriately a consideration of building regulations and there is no evidence to suggest that the future occupiers would be a source of unacceptable noise or disturbance. In this latter respect matters of noise nuisance are more appropriately dealt with under environmental health legislation if and when it occurs.

7.4.26 In the circumstances there is no reason to suggest that the proposed nature and intensity of residential use of the site would cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of the vicinity and the proposal is considered to comply with Policies 33 and 54 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).

7.5 Design and Conservation Considerations

7.5.1 A high quality standard of design is an integral requirement for all new build schemes, which is clearly reflected in National, Regional and Local level policies and guidance. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 states that good design is indivisible from good planning, with high quality and inclusive design being the aim of all of those involved in the development process.

7.5.2 The design approach is contemporary in nature which follows on from the previously refused scheme. It is noted that the previous proposal was refused on design grounds for the following reason:

The proposed development, by reason of its form, scale, siting and detailed design would appear incongruous within the context of the Daysbrook Road street scene and would not be in keeping with the predominant pattern of development in the immediate vicinity. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality and contrary to Policies 31, 33 and 38 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).

7.5.3 In refusing the proposal it was considered that the proposed development failed to respect the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area and would have been incongruous within the Daysbrook Road streetscene. Amendments to the previous scheme with respect to form, scale, siting and detailed design of the frontage block (Block A) have been previously detailed in Section 4.0 of this report and are now discussed.

Building Form, Scale, and Height

7.5.4 To secure a building of appropriate design, scale, massing, height and bulk reference must be made to Policy 33 (Building, Scale and Design), which requires high quality design that positively contributes to the surrounding area and is appropriate to the site characteristics. In particular Policy 33 states that infill development should be compatible with:

• The site, context and historic development of the area;

• Existing topology, landscape and boundary treatment;

• Prevailing building lines and plot sizes;

• The height, massing and scale of neighbouring buildings;

• Roof profiles and silhouettes of adjoining buildings;

• Colour, type, source and texture of local materials;

• Architectural compositions including patterns and rhythms and set pieces of townscape and;

• Established gaps and open spaces, views and skylines.

7.5.5 In attempting to overcome the previous design reason for refusal, the applicant has sought to reduce the scale of the frontage block (Block A) by setting back an element of the second floor from the building edge along Daysbrook Road 1m (approx) and north and south elevations by 1.3m (approx). It is officer consideration that the setting back of the upper floors allows the eaves height to have a better relationship with the neighbouring two storey properties, both to the south (Wavertree Road) and the east (Daysbrook Road), thereby providing a better visual relationship with neighbouring properties. The narrow entrance frontage provides an appropriate, domestic scale frontage onto the street, appropriate in scale and character to neighbouring properties. Overall the perceived mass of the frontage building would appear reduced when viewed from street level.

7.5.6 With respect to building form, the set back of the second storey provides a more interesting form by breaking the boxy appearance of the previous design, thereby providing a roofscape that whilst not an exact replica of the neighbouring properties, incorporates the roofscape concept into its form, again providing a visual relationship to its neighbours.

7.5.7 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has welcomed this amendment and has raised no objection to the scale/massing/height of the proposal.

Siting

7.5.8 With respect to siting, the setback to the Daysbrook Road frontage has been realigned to take into account the alignment of the street and an area of defensive planting added between the frontage and Daysbrook Road. The previously proposed single storey projection following the line of the existing boundary has been removed. Both of these elements are welcomed by the Urban Design Officer.

Layout

7.5.9 The Council’s Urban Design Officer advises that the internal layout appears comprehensive although further details are required of the landscaping and internal access arrangements should planning approval be granted.

Detailed design & materials

7.5.10 Policy 33(a) states that developments should be compatible with the colour, type, source and texture of local materials. As detailed earlier the development proposes the following materials:

• Red brick for walls

• Timber effect cladding as a contrasting material

• Dark grey PPC aluminium window and door frames

• Balustrades and gates (dark grey powder painted steel with timber effect cladding)

7.5.11 Whilst a contemporary approach is supported, the development must be well considered and exhibit high quality architecture. The proposed material palette and detailed design features are considered to take reference from the local context. The Urban Design Officer has advised that as the proposal is very restrained in terms of decoration and ornamentation and its principle relief are the windows, it is important that the type of brick and the workmanship are exemplary. Full details of the materials would need to be secured by condition to ensure a sufficient quality of development. A condition of consent to this effect is recommended.

7.5.12 In addition, not much information/detail is provided regarding the balcony screens. The Urban Design Officer advises that the applicant may wish to consider obscured coloured glass panels which would break up the solid appearance of the building and create interesting coloured shadows on the brickwork adding more relief to the brick and reducing the visual mass of the building. Further details could be sought by way of planning condition.

7.5.13 With respect to detailed design, it is considered that the articulation of the development has been improved, now incorporating well proportioned windows on the north and east (front) elevations. The windows are arranged to provide more balanced and symmetrical elevations avoiding large areas of exposed brick.

Other design matters

7.5.14 The residential density of the development comes out at 436 HRH. This is below the indicative 450 – 700 figure set out in the UDP for such sites. However, Policy 33 also states that the primary consideration in determining the appropriate density and scale of a development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes an efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of the existing and potential residents. The development achieves this.

7.5.15 The bin stores would be located on the front boundary, immediately adjacent to the site entrance. A dedicated solid locked gate would be provided to ease management of refuse collection. The screening and design of the stores would be important in order to act to lessen what could otherwise appear as austere street scene features and detract from the setting of the building when viewed from Daysbrook Road. In the circumstances the bin stores are both functional as well as appropriately integrated into the overall design of the development. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure the quality of the bin stores within the context of the building frontage in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

7.5.16 Matters of suitable boundary treatments and appropriate landscaping could reasonably be subject to planning conditions were the development considered acceptable in all other respects. Conditions of consent are recommended in this respect.

7.5.17 With regards to lighting, it is recognised that a balanced level of lighting has to be considered, from facade lighting to the main entrance, lobby areas, children’s play space, ‘door step play’ areas, and other communal areas and

access paths within the development. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure the quality of the external lighting in the interests of the visual amenity of the area, the residential amenity of existing neighbouring occupiers and the safety and security of future occupiers.

7.5.18 One a final point, consideration has been given to the impact of the proposed roof level photo voltaic panels regarding their visibility in views of the roof profile and the visual impact on the development itself. The submitted roof plan shows that the solar panels would be sited principally on flat roofs and it is considered that these locations would have an acceptable visual impact from street level or from adjoining residential properties. Notwithstanding this point, should planning approval be granted it is recommended that a condition be added requiring further details of the solar panels (including manufacturer’s details and drawings), details of the installation of the panels within the roof, and a revised roof plan showing re-siting of the solar panels if necessary to minimise their impact.

7.5.19 In summary, it is officers’ consideration that the design of the proposal is considered acceptable in the context of policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the UDP and has overcome the previous reason for refusal. Should planning permission be granted it is recommended that conditions be added with respect to samples of all materials, details of balconies, solar panels, window details, roof details, entrance lobby canopy, cycle storage, refuse storage, landscaping, boundary treatment and gates.

Trees

7.5.20 Policy 39 (d) states that ‘trees of high amenity value will be protected, including during construction, through the use of planning conditions and Tree Preservation Orders. The removal of or major works to trees of high amenity value will only be permitted where they are assessed as hazardous, causing proven structural damage to property (where supporting information has been provided and when all other viable alternatives have been explored), or where it can be proven that a protected tree is unreasonably interfering with an individual’s enjoyment of his/her property.

7.5.21 Whilst there are no noteworthy trees on the application site due to its previous use and its brownfield nature, the proposed landscaping plan shows the retention of a number of mature trees within the rear gardens of adjoining properties. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has provided comments in light of potential impacts upon these mature trees.

7.5.22 In summary, officers are satisfied that subject to appropriately worded conditions relating to tree protection to be attached to any consent, the scheme would accord with Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and would not have a harmful impact on the appearance, health and long term retention of the existing trees.

Landscaping

7.5.23 The proposed landscaping treatment would comprise of a variety of soft and hard landscaping, lawn and raised planters and a communal amenity space incorporating a children’s’ play area. In summary, the following landscaping elements are proposed:

o A paved area along the southern elevations of the buildings to provide

access to the front doors of both blocks;

o Provision of 4 no. ‘door step play’ areas along the southern boundary

of the site;

o A 93sqm communal amenity space within the middle of the site to

include provision of children’s’ play equipment;

o A 6m wide easement to the northern boundary to provide access for

Thames Water for maintenance purposes. This would be finished in

grass crete;

o Planting of trees/shrubs (including defensible planting) at a number of

locations within the site;

o A scheme of external lighting to the communal amenity space areas

and pathways.

7.5.24 Limited details of the hard landscape palette have been provided with the application noting that footpaths would be a mix of bound gravel and small scale block paving. The Local Planning Authority would require the use of high quality materials, including permeable surfacing where appropriate, using contrast to define spaces and create interest.

7.5.25 Any ‘landscape furniture’ includes bins, benches, tree grilles, cycle racks with canopies would need to be sufficiently robust and durable to withstand damage by users. This would also include details of seating within the shared garden and play equipment for the children’s play area.

7.5.26 It is considered that details of all of these elements could be secured within a landscape strategy (management plan) by planning condition if planning approval were to be granted.

Archaeological matters

7.5.27 English Heritage Archaeology considers that on balance it does not appear likely that this development scheme would have a discernable effect on archaeology. It is therefore recommended that any requirement for post archaeological evaluation can be waived.

7.6 Sustainable design & construction and renewable technologies

7.6.1 The development is required to incorporate sustainable design measures and this should be taken as a starting point of the design. The Government has set a national target reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 20% by 2010 and 60% by 2050. There is scope to achieve this target by ensuring that new buildings are designed to conserve fuel and power and sited to reduce the need to travel. The Mayor’s Energy Strategy has set a revised target requiring a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on-site renewable energy generation unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible [Policy 4A.7 Renewable Energy of the London Plan].

7.6.2 Policy 35 of the UDP and Policy S7 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) encourage the use of energy-conservation technologies; the use of renewable power sources; and the design, layout and orientation of buildings to minimise energy use.

7.6.3 Policy 35 of the UDP sets out that all development proposals should show how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. In this respect the application is accompanied by an energy and sustainability statement and a ‘Preliminary Code for Sustainable Homes Report’. Achievement of this rating would be in accordance with the minimum standard set out in the Council’s SPD on Sustainable Design and Construction, albeit that the Council aspires to 4 stars or more in the majority of developments. Nevertheless it is recognised that the minimum requirements would be met.

7.6.4 Policy S7(a) of the Core Strategy (January 2011) requires all major developments to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in line with London Plan targets. This adopts a presumption that developments will achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation.

7.6.5 The application includes an ‘Energy Strategy’ report outlining the reduction in C02 emissions projected from the development. The report reviews the on-site renewable energy options that could be considered for the development. It concludes that the only viable renewable energy option for this development would be the integration of solar photovoltaic panels. It establishes that a 20% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved through the use of Solar PV. This is in accordance with Policy 4A.7 of the London Plan and Policy S7(a) of the Core Strategy (January 2011).

7.6.6 The Council’s Environmental Projects Officer has previously advised that the Council’s requirements have been broadly met with the development proposal. Should planning approval be granted it is recommended that conditions are added requesting the submission of additional information relating to Code for Sustainable Homes compliance and further details of the sustainable design measures.

7.7 Transportation Matters

7.7.1 Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011) are relevant with respect to Transportation and Highways matters. These policies seek to ensure that proposals for development have a minimal impact on the performance and safety of the highway network and that sufficient and appropriate car parking and cycle storage is provided whilst meeting objectives to encourage sustainable transport and to reduce reliance on the private car.

7.7.2 The site is located within an area of excellent public transport (PTAL score of 6a) and is not within a Controlled Parking Zone. The site is also located within close proximity to the A23 Streatham High Road which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network. It is also within walking distance of a number of shops and services on Streatham Hill and bus routes along Streatham Hill (A23) and Christchurch Road (A205 – South Circular Road). The site is also within walking distance of Streatham Hill Train Station.

7.7.3 The current scheme involves a development of 19 residential units, comprising a mix of 7 x 1 bed units, 4 x 2 bed units, and 8 x 3 bed units. All of the 19 units are proposed as socially rented affordable units. The scheme would not provide any car parking spaces within the development. 22 cycle parking spaces would be provided.

Car parking

7.7.4 Policy 14(g) states that car free developments are encouraged in areas of good, very good and exceptional public transport accessibility (with reference to PTAL score). In these areas, especially where there is presently severe parking stress or there would be a significant increase in parking stress following development, development will be secured as car-free (no on-site parking) and/or permit-free (where the eligibility of occupiers for Council parking permits is prohibited), and/or be part of/contribute towards a city car club.

7.7.5 The site has a PTAL of 6a which indicates excellent accessibility and therefore the principle of no car parking provision within the site is acceptable. However, it is inevitable that additional on-street car parking would occur and therefore it is necessary to look at the impact of this. The Council’s Transport Planner has commented that based on local ward census data the proposed development could generate the need to park 8 cars. This is based on average car ownership for flats in the Streatham Hill ward. In addition, the existing site is currently used for informal car parking by staff at the bus garage. The proposals would result in the displacement of this parking onto surrounding streets. There are also a number of other proposed developments in the vicinity of the site. However, given that these are not committed developments it is not possible to assess their cumulative impact.

7.7.6 The applicant has undertaken parking surveys within the surrounding area to assess whether this number of additional cars can be accommodated on roads surrounding the site without leading to an unacceptable increase in parking stress.

• A residential parking survey was undertaken on Thursday 18 March 2010, which found an average overnight parking stress of 64.5% on Daysbrook, Wavertree and Palace Roads, which is in line with the 2008 surveys conducted for the previous application. The survey also indicated that 3 cars were parked on the site overnight. Adding the 8 new cars, plus the 3 displaced cars, would result in the overnight parking stress increasing to 70% which is considered acceptable.

• A commercial parking survey was undertaken between 07:00 and 20:00 on the same day. This survey covered a larger area, within a 500m walk of the site. The highest level of on-street parking stress occurred at 13:00, when 84.5% of available spaces were taken. These results are also consistent with the 2008 surveys conducted for the previous application.

• An additional analysis of the streets surrounding Streatham Hill and Clapham High School has been included in the Transport Statement. This found a maximum stress of 79.5% on Wavertree Road during the AM peak and 82.9% on Wyatt Park Road during the PM peak.

7.7.7 The latest parking survey data indicates that there is sufficient on-street capacity to accommodate the additional cars generated by the proposals, as well as the displaced informal parking which currently takes place on site. The Council’s Transport Planning Officer has not raised any concerns with these findings. In addition these findings concur with the previous 2007 appeal decision which determined that the proposal would not adversely affect highways safety or the free flow of traffic in Daysbrook Road or surrounding roads as a result of additional parking, and would not conflict with UDP Policies 9 or 14. (see paragraphs 29-37 of Appendix 1)

7.7.8 In addition, the applicant has made a commitment, through a s106 financial obligation, to ensure that all residents will be offered free or discounted membership of a car club, with the exact package to be agreed between the applicant and the car club operator and confirmed in writing to the Council for approval. This would be available for a period of 2 years from first occupation.

Car Parking – Cumulative impact from recent planning approvals

7.7.9 Objections have been received from neighbouring residents citing the potential negative cumulative impact upon parking within the surrounding streets when the current proposal is considered in tandem with other recent planning permissions in the surrounding area. In particular objectors cite the recent grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the Streatham Megabowl fronting 142-170 Streatham Hill (Ref: 10/00507/FUL) for a mixed use development that would include 243 residential units. The Council’s Transport Planning Officer has previously provided the following comments:

“The main impact of parking associated with the approved Megabowl scheme is not expected to extend as far as the Daysbrook / Wavertree Road area. Lambeth uses a standard methodology to assess the parking impacts of a development. This considers an area within 200m (or a 2 minute walk) from the development for residential parking, and 500m (or a 5 minute walk) for commercial parking. The western end of Wavertree Road, and the southern end of Daysbrook Road, are the only streets in the vicinity of the Daysbrook Road site that are within 500m of the Megabowl site. The main impacts of the Megabowl scheme are expected to be felt on roads in the immediate vicinity of the site, and therefore the parking survey submitted with this current application is considered an acceptable reflection of local parking conditions.

Furthermore, a S106 agreement associated with the Megabowl permission includes contributions towards pre- and post-development parking surveys to assess the impact of the scheme on local levels of parking stress. If stress levels were found to have increased to levels which are unmanageable, local residents would be consulted on the implementation of a CPZ, which could cover the streets surrounding the Daysbrook Road site”. Construction Management Plan

7.7.10 Given the site’s location close to the junction of Daysbrook Road and Wavertree Road, the proximity of Streatham and Clapham High School, and the proximity of neighbouring properties on Wavertree Road, the Local Planning Authority considered it appropriate to require that a Construction Management Plan is submitted for approval prior to the commencement of

works on the site. This should demonstrate that construction material can be delivered, and waste removed, in a safe and efficient manner.

Cycle Parking Provision

7.7.11 Cycle parking is shown to be provided in connection with the development. As mentioned above, a development of this nature and in this location has the ability to generate a significant level of cycle movements. The proposed cycle parking is in excess of the UDP standard and is therefore acceptable in principle. However, no details of the type of stands proposed have been submitted. The Transport Planning Officer has advised that further details including manufacturer’s specification is requested by way of planning condition should planning approval be granted.

Other Transport related matters

7.7.12 Finally, since the development would increase the number of residents onsite a contribution towards local public realm improvements is considered appropriate Therefore, should planning permission be granted a contribution of £9,000 would be sought towards local public realm improvements required for improvements to the local pedestrian environment. This could be secured as a s106 financial contribution.

7.7.13 It follows that the development, subject to appropriate conditions and s.106 obligations, is acceptable in the context of Transportation and Highways related Policies; namely Policies 9 and 14 of the UDP and Policy S4 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).

7.8 Designing out crime

7.8.1 The Crime Prevention Design Officer of the Metropolitan Police was consulted on the scheme at pre-application stage prior to its submission and the amendments were made to the scheme at that time. The CPDA also indicated that the applicant wishes to apply for the Secured By Design Standard so that all the doors and windows will be provided to the required minimum standards. This commitment is also set out in the statement of support for the application. On this basis no in-principle objection has been raised and the development is considered to accord with Policy 32 of the UDP. Should planning approval be granted an informative could be added to further reiterate the requirements of Secured by Design.

7.9 Refuse storage

7.9.1 Refuse from the residential properties is shown to be stored in bin stores located on the Daysbrook Road frontage. The refuse and recyclables storage capacity for the residential premises has been derived in accordance with the Council produced Architects’ Code of practice on such matters. In the circumstances the refuse storage needs of the development will be suitably served by the provision shown. A condition of consent is recommended to secure the provision and to require the submission of a a Waste Management Strategy outlining the operation and management of waste storage and collection

7.9.2 It follows that subject to condition, the development need not conflict with Policy S8 of the Core Strategy (January 2011).

7.10 Infrastructure implications/S.106 requirements

7.10.1 Policy 16 of the UDP and Policy S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), supplemented by the other policies of the Core Strategy (January 2011) and UDP and the SPD on s106 planning obligations, sets out the circumstances in which the Council will seek planning obligations from a developer to mitigate against the potential impacts of a scheme.

7.10.2 As already stated, the scheme proposes 100% affordable housing all of which would be socially rented. Such matters would need to be secured by way of s.106 legal agreement. Further to this, it is considered that financial contributions should be secured by way of s.106 to mitigate against its impact:

• Education - £43,990.30

• Health - £5,481.50

• Libraries - £925.81

• Sports and Leisure - £3,453.18

• Parks & Open Spaces - £25,245.60

• Children and Young People’s Play Space - £4,237.00

• Public Art - £10,000.00

• Revenue Contribution - £3,848.26

• Local Labour in Construction - £5,500.00

• A contribution of £9,000 towards local public realm improvements required for improvements to the local pedestrian environment. In particular resurfacing from the junction of Daysbrook Road with Wavertree Road up to the northern boundary of the site, a section some 75m long.

• A further contribution of 2.5% of the overall financial contribution (£2,817.04) should be required to enable the Local Planning Authority to suitably meet the costs of monitoring the planning contributions.

7.10.3 The above contributions come to a total of £115,498.69 (£6,078.87 per individual dwelling).

7.10.4 Further contributions should be required by way of the s106 for the following measures:

• Provide membership to a car club for all of the residential units for a minimum period of 2 years.

7.10.5 It should be noted that when considering the previous scheme, the Council’s Legal Officer asked members to consider the S106 heads of terms as detailed within the officer’s report. Members raised no objections with the heads of terms subject to an amendment to require that the Children’s and Young People’s Play Space financial contribution be specifically targeted for Hillside Gardens as identified in the officer’s report.

7.10.6 The same heads of terms are reflected in this report, albeit with some minor numerical changes to reflect the altered dwelling mix. In the circumstances it is considered that the above provisions, once secured under s.106 of the Act,

would appropriately mitigate against any potentially harmful impacts of the development in accordance with Policies 9, 14, 16 and 23 of the UDP, Policies S2 and S10 of the Core Strategy (January 2011), Policy 3B.11 (Improving employment opportunities for Londoners) of the London Plan and with the Council’s associated SPD on s106 obligations.

7.11 Protection and enhancement of the natural environment

7.11.1 Policy 52 of the UDP states that all proposals, where relevant, would be assessed in terms of their impact on nature conservation and biodiversity. New development should provide the opportunity to incorporate features for wildlife and promote local biodiversity. Furthermore, measures to enhance biodiversity would be sought as part of development schemes.

7.11.2 Given the previous use of the site, combined with the extensive area of hard landscaping, it is unlikely that the application site would contain residual biodiversity interest. Notwithstanding, given the extended period of vacancy of the building on the application site and its close proximity to the reservoir site, it is recommended that the applicant undertake a survey of the development site, prior to any demolition or site clearance works commence, to identify if any are being used (or have been used) by protected species like bats and nesting birds. A qualified expert or consultant should be appointed to undertake such a survey, and the Council requires that any reports, along with recommendations and mitigations, are seen beforehand and approved in writing before demolition and construction works commence. Should bats or nesting birds be founds on site, this assessment offers the applicant and Council options to suggest and agree mitigation measures to avoid destruction or disturbance or bat and bat roosts, which still allow the development to proceed or be modified accordingly.

7.11.3 In summary, no objection is raised to the proposal on biodiversity grounds subject to the inclusion of a planning condition on any planning approval requiring the submission of a protected species/habitats survey.

7.12 Flood Risk

7.12.1 The site lies within an area that is categorised by the Environment Agency as having a low environmental risk from flooding. It follows that the site and development does not pose an unacceptable risk in terms of river or sea flooding or flooding from alternative sources.

7.12.2 In terms of managing surface water drainage and run-off, the use of permeable paving is proposed in the landscaping of the site. The incorporation of such would significantly reduce the flow rates and volumes of surface water discharging from the site. Incorporating such measures would ensure compliance with national planning policy guidance relating to Flood Risk.

7.13 Land Contamination

7.13.1 The site was previously used for the storage of vehicles and has an established history of commercial use. The building in the northwest was formerly a chassis clean facility and was last used for offices in connection with the bus garage. A former powerhouse building on the site has been demolished.

7.13.2 In view of the change in use of the site to a more sensitive end use and the likelihood of contamination having arisen from the former use of the site, it is considered that a Phase 1 environmental assessment is warranted to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present and suitable remediation if necessary. With the inclusion of suitable mitigation measures should the results demonstrate inappropriate levels of contamination, then the site’s industrial history need not be a barrier to the provision of an acceptable living environment for future residential properties. A condition of consent is recommended in this respect.

7.14 Whether the previous reasons for refusal have been overcome

7.14.1 In respect to the previous refusal on this site and the first reason for refusal, it is considered that the design amendments to the proposal with respect to form, scale, siting and detailed design have overcome the previous concerns. The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the context of the Daysbrook Road street scene and the predominant pattern of development in the immediate vicinity.

7.14.2 The second reason for refusal related to residential amenity concerns to neighbouring properties on Wavertree Road. It is considered that the setback of the 2-storey element to Block B would address the sense of enclosure issues previously raised.

7.14.3 No other reasons of refusal were cited in respect to application 10/01524/FUL. In the circumstances it is considered that the application currently before Committee has suitably overcome all reasons cited in the refusal of planning application 10/01524/FUL. Officers are of the view that the applicant has worked with officers of the Council to overcome the reasons for refusal. The scheme as now proposed is considered acceptable.

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 The development as proposed makes the best use of previously developed land and the provision of a 100% affordable housing scheme would be a substantial planning benefit.

8.2 The proposed redevelopment of the site is acceptable in that it would be of an appropriate design; it would provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers; it would not prejudice the amenity of neighbouring properties; it would not harm conditions of on-street parking or prejudice conditions of the free flow of traffic and highway safety; and, would not unacceptably impact upon local infrastructure.

8.3 The development shows sufficient commitment to sustainable design and construction, the provision of renewable energy technologies, promoting more sustainable modes of transport, the achievement of Lifetime Homes Standards and the achievement of ‘Designing Out Crime’ Standards. Furthermore, provisions are to be secured under s.106 of the Act to secure contributions towards parking and highway conditions, pressure on primary and secondary school places in the Borough, on libraries, sports and leisure facilities, parks and open spaces and local labour in construction.

8.4 It is therefore considered that the development is compliant with the planning policies of the development plan and that no other material planning

considerations of sufficient weight exist that would dictate that the application should nevertheless be refused.

9 Recommendation

A. Grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Obligation (Heads of Terms set out in section 7.10 of this report) and the attached conditions; or B. In the event that a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) is not signed by the 16th February 2010, the Head of Development Control is given the authority to refuse the application on the grounds of lack of mitigation for the following reasons. In the absence of an appropriate planning obligation under s106 of the Act, the application fails to provide the affordable housing proposed in perpetuity; fails to include commitments to a car share club; fails to secure a financial contribution to the provision of school places in the borough (education contribution), fails to secure a financial contribution to the provision of health care facilities in the borough, fails to secure a financial contribution to the provision of library facilities in the borough, fails to secure a financial contribution to the provision of sport and leisure in the borough, fails to secure provision of public art, fails to secure a financial contribution to revenue contributions towards community facilities, to secure local labour and jobs for local people and general employment and training in the borough, fails to secure a financial contribution to the provision of park and open spaces, and fails to secure a financial contribution towards public realm improvements in the area. In the circumstances the development would be contrary to policies 9, 14, 16, 23, 26, 31, and 50 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007), Policies S2, S4 and S10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document on s106 obligations (2008). C. It is further recommend that, in the event that the committee is minded to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, that delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a Section 106 agreement with the appellants in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector. Summary of Reasons: In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision Policies 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 23, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, and 41 of the London Borough of Lambeth's adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies S1, S2, S3, S4, S7, S8 and S10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) were relevant.

STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than

the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed in this notice. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

DESIGN

3. No development works shall take place until detailed drawings, samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the elevations within the scheme hereby permitted are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

4. No development works shall take place until detailed drawings (scale of 1:20) and samples to confirm the detailed design and materials of the: i) new metal work including railings and balconies, ii) technical details and cross sections of all types of window systems, iii) main entrance including canopy structures, iv) screening to balconies and amenity areas are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

5. All window reveals on the external faces of the development hereby permitted

shall be set within 112mm (minimum) reveals from the face of the building unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not

superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

6. Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on the approved drawings, no

residential occupation of the development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme for the siting and design of all walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings for the whole site (including details of those existing which are to be retained and of those proposed). The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details and such walls, fencing, gates, ramps and/or railings as may be approved shall be erected before the initial occupation of the development and permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation.

Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development, to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and to ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenity is provided (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

7. No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external

faces of buildings. Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies 31, 33, 38 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

8. Prior to the occupation of any of the residential units hereby permitted, full details

of the refuse and recyclables storage area for the development, including elevation drawings at a scale of 1:20 of the new storage enclosures, as well as a Waste Management Strategy outlining the operation and management of waste storage and collection, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as are approved shall be provided prior to the residential occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies 9, 33, 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S8 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

SUSTAINABILITY/BIODIVERSITY

9. The development hereby approved shall achieve a Final BREEAM minimum of Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the relevant BREEAM scheme (Code for Sustainable Homes) or subsequent superseding equivalent BREEAM scheme. No development shall take place until a relevant BREEAM Certificate demonstrating the proposal’s achievement of the minimum Level 3 rating has

been submitted to and approved by the Council. Within 4 months of the first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, an issued Final BREEAM Certificate stating the BREEAM Level achieved (minimum Level 3) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policy 35 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

10. Prior to first occupation of the development a scheme showing the siting, size,

number and design of the photovoltaic cells including cross sections of the roof of each building showing the panels in-situ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment shall be sited so as to minimise its visual impact upon the external appearance of the buildings. The development shall thereafter be completed in strict accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such for the duration of use. Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development and in order to protect the amenities of future residents (Policies 7, 31, 33 and 37 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

11. Within 4 months of first occupation of the development evidence to demonstrate that the solar panels hereby approved have been installed on the development and confirmation of the amount of energy the system is generating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

12. Notwithstanding any indications illustrated on the approved drawings or supporting information, no residential occupation of the development shall take place until further details on how the proposal will address surface water runoff and peak flow has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details permanently retained as such unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained for any variation. Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development (Policies S1 and S7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

13. The development hereby permitted shall incorporate equipment for renewable power generation so as to provide at least 20% of the predicted energy requirements of the development, assessed in terms of CO2 emissions. The equipment for renewable power generation shall be provided before first

occupation of the development and permanently retained as such in accordance with the details set out in the Energy Statement hereby approved unless the written approval is obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variation. Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development and in order to control the overall design standard of the development (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S1, S7 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the Council’s associated Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2008)).

14. No demolition nor development shall take place until there has been submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed statement including assessment of the development’s impact upon any legally protected species or habitats which might be present on the application site or adjacent to it, with particular reference to bats (Chiroptera) and birds (Aves), and any mitigation measures to be implemented should any protected habitats or species be found on the application site or where the development will have an adverse impact upon the adjacent Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The details of mitigation as are approved shall thereafter be implemented as part of the development and, if appropriate, shall be retained thereafter for the duration of the permitted use of the site. Reason: To ensure suitable protection to wildlife and habitats of recognised importance that may be present either on site or on adjacent properties (Policy S5 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

15. All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes

Standards, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation and permanently retained.

Reason: In order that the development is made more accessible to all in accordance with Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policy S2(d) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and the related Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (2008).

TRANSPORT

16. Notwithstanding the approved plans, detailed drawings and material samples of the cycle storage area including elevational appearance, layout, and manufacturer’s specifications shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before first occupation of the development. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details and retained as such for the duration of the use. Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site, to promote sustainable modes of transport and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area (Policies 9, 14, 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development

Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011)).

17. No development shall commence before full details of the proposed construction

methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures including details of the phasing of construction to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area. The details of the approved Method of Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process. Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway. (Policies 9, 31, and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

18. There shall be no means of vehicular access to the development expect for

authorised personnel engaged in works in connection with the operation of the adjoining Bus Garage or Water Reservoir. Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway. (Policies 9, 31, and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S4 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011). TREES/LANDSCAPING

19. No trees within or adjacent to the site shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the locality and wider area in accordance with Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

20. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Tree

Protection Plan that accords with Section 7 of BS5837:2005 and relates to all retained trees on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Tree Protection Plan shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details and put in place before any machinery, demolition, materials storage or development commences on the site.

Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the retained trees on or adjacent to the site which represent an important visual amenity to the surrounding area in accordance with Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan:

Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

21. Notwithstanding any indications given on the approved drawings, no residential

occupation of the development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the whole site. The landscaping scheme shall endeavour to include, within reason, measures to promote biodiversity, including use of native species typical of locality and ground conditions. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details before first occupation and retained as such for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity of the development itself and the locality in general (Policies 7, 15, 31, 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

22. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping

shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development in accordance with Policy 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

23. Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans, prior to the residential occupation of the development full details of the Children’s Playspace Provision to include details of layout, boundary and surface treatment and specifications for the proposed play equipment and the Communal Amenity Area, including a landscape, management and maintenance plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as approved shall be implemented and operated prior to the residential occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers, particularly with regard to families and children, in accordance with Policy 50(i) of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policies S2 and S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011), the Council's Supplementary Planning Document: "Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions" (2008), and Policy 3D.13 of The London Plan and the Mayor of London's associated Supplementary

Planning Guidance "Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation."

24. Full details of a lighting strategy, including details of the lighting of all public areas and buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a specification of the lighting, location, lux, hours of operation, details of light spillage and details of shielding to neighbouring properties. The details approved shall be implemented prior to the commencement of use of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the permitted use, unless the written approval is received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal in the interests of the amenity of the vicinity and the security of the site (Policies 7, 32, and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

25. No roof terraces shall be provided on the roof areas of any of the buildings hereby approved. Any areas of flat roof that are not shown as balconies or roof terraces shall not be used as a sitting out area or be used for any other recreational purposes whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development and the occupiers of adjoining residential properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

26. The first, second and third floor windows in the south elevation of Blocks A and B hereby permitted shall be fitted and permanently maintained with obscure glass. A sample of a method of obscure glazing shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The obscure glazing shall be installed to a height of 1.7m above internal finished floor level and shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of these units and be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of the amenity of the adjoining residential properties (Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

27. The proposed buildings shall be built to the ground levels and heights as shown on the approved drawings or lower and if the indicated existing heights and levels of the neighbouring properties should prove to be erroneous, then the heights of the proposed building shall be no higher than the relative height difference(s) between the heights of the neighbouring properties and proposed buildings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development is built to the heights relative to adjoining properties as shown on the approved drawings in the interests

of visual and residential amenity (Policies 7, 33, and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011 and Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011).

28. The residential accommodation hereby approved shall be constructed to include at least 2 of the units as wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users and permanently retained as such for the duration of the use. Reason: To ensure that an adequate proportion of units are wheelchair accessible or adaptable for wheelchair use in compliance with Policy 3A.4 of The London Plan, Policy 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011, Policy S2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011), and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions’ (2008).

29. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the applicant shall carry out a

contaminated land investigation that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Sampling points and methods of investigation shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Principal Environmental Health Officer prior to the investigation and if deemed necessary by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme shall be submitted for the removal, neutralising and sealing of the contamination, and remedial works implemented before building works commence.

Reason: To ensure that the site is not hazardous and to address the risk of pollution in the interest of the amenity of future residents and the wider environment in accordance with Policy 4A.33 of the London Plan (2008) and national planning policy guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control.

30. Prior to first occupation of the development, the applicant shall submit a crime prevention strategy and management plan, outlining the measures to be taken to both protect community safety and prevent crime within the building and the surrounding area. The details shall be implemented within one month of their approval, and retained as operational thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development maintains and enhances security and community safety within the facility and the wider surrounding area (In accordance with Policy 32 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and not superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy January 2011).

Notes to Applicants: 1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be

required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements for the Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health Division.

4. You are advised all conditions which require further details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority need to be accompanied by an application form and a fee. The application form and fee schedule can be viewed at www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning.

5. It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.

6. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities.

7. As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following:

- name a new street - name a new or existing building - apply new street numbers to a new or existing building This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below. Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: streetnn@lambeth.gov.uk tel: 020 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9104

8. It is the view of Lambeth Council that the proposed development has scope for the provision of recycling and/or composting facilities. For advice on incorporation of such facilities please contact:

Jason Searles/ Dean Parry 3rd Floor, Blue Star House 234-244 Stockwell Rd London SW9 9SP 0207 926 2624

Dparry@lambeth.gov.uk 9. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to

the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.

10. It is advisable that the design and type of external doors, windows, glazing and entrances to the new buildings, the design of the cycles stores and the access lobby from Daysbrook Road, and any defensive planting along the boundaries of the site and to flats, shall meet ‘Secured by Design’ consistent with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 2005. This is in order to address the safety and security of future occupiers and neighbouring properties and to aid with the prevention of crime and disorder occurring within the immediate vicinity of the site.