For advice on how to make further written submissions or to... please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing

Transcription

Section 1 – Site Location Map
For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item,
please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing [email protected] or
telephoning 020 7926 2170. Information is also available on the Lambeth website
www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy
Site address
Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London, SE1 7NQ
Ward
Bishop’s
Proposal
Demolition of all buildings and structures on the site,
including removal of the high level footbridge over York
Road, and redevelopment to provide two new buildings of
part 29 and part 14 storeys (north building) and 11 storeys
(south building) respectively with a part one/part two level
common basement to provide 132,127sqm of floorspace
(GEA), comprising B1 offices (88,649sqm), C3 residential
(comprising 142 units), areas of flexible Use Classes A1- A5
and B1 at ground level and ancillary parking and servicing
space; works of hard and soft landscaping to Cab Road and
Mepham Street, the provision of a new access to Waterloo
Station on West Road and associated works; works of hard
and soft landscaping and the provision of a single storey
structure providing car lifts and Class A use on West Road;
works of hard landscaping to York Road and Leake Street;
plant and other associated infrastructure and works.
Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the high
level footbridge over York Road has also been submitted
(12/01329/CON).
Application types
Full Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent
(Demolition)
Application References
12/01327/FUL and 12/01329/CON
Validation date
11th April 2012
Case officer details
Name: Gavin Chinniah
Tel: 020 7926 1257
Email: [email protected]
Applicant
Elizabeth House Ltd Partnership
Agent
Dp9
Considerations/constraints
Approved plans and
documents
Drawing Ref. No.
Drawing Title
P_00_01 Rev 00
P_00_02 Rev 00
P_00_03 Rev 00
P_00_04 Rev 00
Existing site plan
Existing / Demolition ground floor
Existing / Demolition roof plan
Existing / Demolition basement plan
P_00_05 Rev 00
P_00_06 Rev 00
P_00_07 Rev 00
P_00_08 Rev 00
P_10_01 Rev 00
P_10_02 Rev 00
P_11_01 Rev 00
P_11_02 Rev 00
P_11_03 Rev 00
P_11_04 Rev 00
P_11_05 Rev 00
P_11_06 Rev 00
P_11_07 Rev 00
P_11_08 Rev 00
P_11_09 Rev 00
P_11_10 Rev 00
P_11_11 Rev 00
P_11_12 Rev 00
P_11_13 Rev 00
P_16_01 Rev 00
P_16_02 Rev 00
P_16_03 Rev 00
P_16_04 Rev 00
P_16_05 Rev 00
P_16_06 Rev 00
P_16_07 Rev 00
P_16_08 Rev 00
P_16_09 Rev 00
P_16_10 Rev 00
P_17_01 Rev 00
P_17_02 Rev 00
P_17_03 Rev 00
P_17_04 Rev 00
P_17_05 Rev 00
P_17_06 Rev 00
P_20_01 Rev 00
P_20_02 Rev 00
P_20_03 Rev 00
P_20_04 Rev 00
P_20_05 Rev 00
P_20_06 Rev 00
P_20_07 Rev 00
Existing / Demolition north elevation
Existing / Demolition south elevation
Existing / Demolition east elevation
Existing / Demolition west elevation
Proposed location plan
Proposed site plan
Proposed plan ground levels
Proposed plan basement 1
Proposed plan basement 2
Proposed plan 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Proposed plan 4th, 5th, 6th
Proposed plan 19th, 20th, 21st
Proposed plan 22nd, 23rd, 24th
Proposed sections AA
Proposed section BB
Proposed section CC
Proposed section DD
Proposed section EE
Proposed section FF
Proposed section GG
Proposed section HH
Proposed section JJ
Proposed site section to London Eye
Proposed elevation north
Proposed elevation south
Proposed elevation east
Proposed elevation west
Proposed site elevation west
Proposed elevation pavilion east &
former WIT west
Proposed detail north building typical
public realm façade
office façade
residential façade
plant façade (S/E)
entrance
Proposed detail south building typical
office façade
South building typical office façade
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Design and Access Statement prepared by David
Chipperfield Architects and West 8 Landscape Architects
Affordable Housing Strategy prepared by Quod
Statement of Community Involvement prepared by
George Cochrane Associates
Economic Benefits Statement prepared by Quod
The importance of Elizabeth House to the future of
Waterloo International Terminal and Waterloo Station
prepared by DP9, Hopkins Architects, Arup Rail and
Space Syntax
BREEAM Prediction Report prepared by Hilson Moran
Code for Sustainable Homes Prediction Report prepared
by Hilson Moran
Waste Strategy prepared by Hilson Moran
Planning Statement - Dp9
Letter from Dp9 dated 24.10.2012 – In relation to the
revised parking levels
Environmental Statement comprising:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recommendation(s)
Volume 1: Main Text
Volume 2: Figures
Volume 3: Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage
Assessment
Volume 4A: Appendices (incorporating an Energy
Strategy and Sustainability Indicators Report prepared by
Hilson Moran)
Volume 4B: Appendices
Volume 4C: Appendices
Volume 4D: Transport Assessment and Travel Plan
(prepared by Jacobs)
Volume 4E: Appendices
Non-Technical Summary
Grant planning permission subject to Section 106
Agreement, conditions and Stage 2 Referral to the GLA
Report Review
Department(s) or Organisation(s)
Date
consulted
Governance & Democracy (legal)
24.10.2012
Date
response
received
25.10.2012
Comments
summarised
in paragraph
Changes made
throughout
Background Documents
Case File (this can be accessed via the Planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7926
1180)
Consultation
Department(s) or Organisation(s)
Consulted?
(y/n)
Date response
received
Comments
summarised
in report?
(y/n)
Internal
Conservation and Urban Design
Y
Y
Transport and Highways
Y
Lambeth Crime Prevention Unit
Y
Regulatory Services Entertainment
Licensing
Regulatory Services – Food Safety
Regulatory Services – Noise Pollution
Regulatory Services – Health and
Safety
Lambeth Housing
Implementation Team
Y
28.08.2012 and
10.09.2012
18.06.2012 and
23.07.2012
17.09.2012 and
18.09.2012
25.04.2012
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Library Leisure Services Manager
Park and Open Spaces
Planning Policy
Sports
Y
Y
Y
Y
Streetcare
Councillors
Y
Y
External
English Heritage
English Heritage – Archaeology
Transport for London (TfL)
Y
Y
Y
17.09.2012
06.05.2012
No representations
received
16.10.2012
On-going
Discussion
02.05.2012
24.04.2012
20.04.2012
No representations
received
17.09.2012
No representations
received
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12.10.2012
Y
23.05.2012
Y
18.05.2012 and
Y
20.07.2012
City of Westminster
Y
30.05.2012
Y
London Borough of Southwark
Y
02.07.2012
Y
London Borough if Camden
Y
21.05.2012
Y
Environment Agency
Y
10.05.2012
Y
LFCD Authority
Y
To date no
response
Network Rail
Y
11.05.2012
Y
Victorian Society
Y
No representations
received
The Georgian Group
Y
No representations
received
Development Control Department
Thames Water
The Westminster Society
County Hall Residents Association
Y
Y
Y
No representations
received
21.05.2012
Y
No representations
received
No representations
received
01.05.2012
No representations
received
No representations
received
No representations
received
No representations
received
11.07.2012
Y
21.05.2012
Y
Y
Y
Coin Street Community Builders
Y
Port of London
Jubilee Walkway Trust
Y
Y
Whitehorse Residents and Owners
Association
South Bank Board
Y
Y
01.05.2012
Y
No representations
received
No representations
received
To date no
response
25.05.2012
28.05.2012
28.05.2012
To date no
response
No representations
received
06.08.2012
Y
South Bank Management Company
Ltd
Twentieth Century Society
Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment (CABE)
London Underground Infrastructure
Protection
Association of Waterloo Groups
Y
Traffic Director for London
Y
Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum
Y
Lambeth Estates
South Bank Employers Group
Waterloo Quarter Business Area
Kennington Association
Y
Y
Y
Y
Lambeth Estates Residents
Association
Waterloo Community Development
Group
British Railways Board (BRB)
Royal Parks Agency
ICOMOS UK
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
21.05.2012
Y
17.05.2012
Y
No representations
received
River Thames Society
Y
No representations
received
Save Britain’s Heritage
Y
No representations
received
BRBR
Y
14.05.2012
Y
Civil Aviation Authority
Y
No representations
received
London Continental Railways
Y
No representations
received
Executive Summary
This application relates to the total redevelopment of the site with two buildings of part
eleven and part fourteen to twenty nine storeys for a mix of uses, including new office
floor space and 142 residential units.
The scheme is proposed alongside the wider regenerative objectives for the Waterloo
area as laid out within the councils SPD, currently out for consultation. In particular, the
reopening of the Waterloo International Terminal, public realm improvements to include
level access to Waterloo Station from the west (Southbank), upgrade to the Victory Arch
façade and enhanced permeability to the area generally. Alongside these local
objectives, strategic ones are addressed. The development is situated within the
Central Activities Zone as designated within the London Plan, and as such is required to
bring forward mixed use development that seeks to enable the infrastructure
improvements as noted above which supports capacity enlargement at the station
together with addressing housing targets. Whilst all of this needs addressing, so to is it
expected that solutions are sought where constraints to development are imposed by
heritage designations without compromising environmental quality, including a high
quality of design. In this respect, regard to the acutely sensitive location of the site, in
view of the World Heritage Site of the Houses of Parliament, together with Listed
Buildings within the immediate Waterloo/Southbank environs and local Conservation
Areas must be given.
The report sets out the planning issues in turn, alongside the representations received
and justification of the planning merits of the proposals which when considered in the
round enable Officers to recommend the application for approval subject to conditions
and completion of a S106 Agreement.
One of the principle issues, if not the key one, is the design, heritage and impact on
views, for which English heritage and Westminster Council raise concern. A key
consideration therefore for the Council is whether the development gives rise to material
harm when judged against those matters, which is the view of English Heritage. If that
said harm were to arise, could other planning considerations, particularly the public
benefits of the scheme, outweigh that consideration. It is the view of officers that the
proposal does not give rise to the harm set out by English Heritage, and in that way is
quite different from the previous application for the site which was deemed to result in
such harm by the then Secretary of State too. In any case, were it to be the view that
harm did arise, the substantial interdependent public benefits afforded by the proposal
which, whilst complementary, are deliverable because of and not a substitute to those
already committed for adjacent landowners.
The design engages a ‘marmite’ response – it will not be to everyone’s taste, but then
the National Planning Policy Framework makes the case that particular architectural
tastes should not be imposed, nor innovation and initiative stifled. The design is
unapologetic, being on one hand a simplified form and massing with refined glazing
treatment, and on the other can be considered monolithic with a dominance to the
street. The architects have been required to respond to challenging infrastructure
constraints, given the position of the site transversing a railway station. It is stepped up
towards the station in common with good townscape principles to announce its key
nodal point. It has actively responded to the concerns English Heritage raised under
the previous application, and allows Big Ben to be uncompromised in protected views,
nor compete with its internationally recognisable silhouette whose only competitor for
attention is the London Eye.
A second key consideration is the impact of the viability of the scheme on its ability to
be policy compliant. And in respect of the viability of the scheme, what capability the
scheme has to deliver affordable housing as a proportion of the residential component.
The application has been subject to a financial viability assessment, verified by BNP
Paribas and G&T on behalf of the authority to arrive at a point where a minimum level of
affordable housing would be provided. Whilst originally submitted to provide only 8%
affordable housing, the scheme now proposes to deliver a minimum of 20% affordable
housing with both on-site intermediate and off-site affordable rent units. In addition, a
review mechanism of the gross development value generated by the entire
development at a point post implementation would be secured whereby a capped
amount of up to £5.2m would be payable, calculated to be the financial sum that is
equivalent to the additional affordable housing required to allow the 40% policy target to
be achieved
The scheme is delivering a range of regeneration outcomes which are fully in accord
with policy expectations. The scheme has been largely supported subject to matters of
detail by the GLA in its stage 1 response and is delivering a range of public realm
benefits which accord with the long term strategy to deliver improvements to the wider
Waterloo area. It is supported in its design by CABE.
Notwithstanding, given the scale of and complexity to the development by reason of its
location an impact will result, but which is fully addressed in the imposition of conditions
and a substantive list of terms to a S106 agreement securing the delivery of the wider
benefits proposed.
Overall, officers recommend the proposal for approval.
1
Summary of Main Issues
1.1
The main issues involved in this application are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The acceptability of the scheme in terms of the increase in office floor space
(Use Class B1) together with the introduction of residential units (Use Class
C3) on the site;
The provision of affordable housing associated with the development;
The acceptability of the proposed space standards for the residential units
together with private amenity space;
The public realm improvements associated with the scheme;
The potential regeneration benefits the proposal provides within the
Waterloo area;
The demolition of the existing building along with the high-level footbridge
on York Road.
The acceptability of a tall building on the site;
The impact the proposed design, massing, scale and bulk would have on
the visual amenity of the area
The impact the development would have on the adjoining conservation
areas;
The impact the development would have on the setting of various heritage
assets in close proximity of the development;
The impact the development would have on The Palace of Westminster
World Heritage Site.
The impact the development would have in terms or residential amenity
such daylight, sunlight, sense of enclosure and privacy;
The environment impact the proposed development has within the built
environment;
The acceptability of the highway proposals together;
Future connections to the Waterloo International Terminal (WIT);
The proposed connection of the development to the South Bank;
The acceptability of the development in terms of sustainability and carbon
emissions from the proposed scheme and
The level of Section 106 Contributions associated with the scheme.
2
Site Description and Surrounding Area
2.1
The site area is 2.16 hectares (ha) which includes the adjoining land on all
sides, at West Road and parts of Leake Street, York Road, Cab Road and
Mepham Street. The site is currently occupied by three linked 1960’s buildings
which are 16, 10 and 7 storeys in height. The building currently provides
approximately 42, 683 square metres (sqm) of office floor space together with
approximately 1,950sqm of retail units at ground floor level fronting onto York
Road. To the rear of Elizabeth House is an area of hard-standing which is
currently being used for car parking (49 spaces) and storage/deliveries, with
entrance to the basement car park for the building neighbouring the WIT.
2.2
The site is bounded by York Road and the Shell Centre, which is a larger
commercial development, built in the 1960’s to accommodate the head office of
Shell Petroleum. Its main feature is the Shell Tower, which is 26-storeys
fronting onto Jubilee Gardens to the west, with a 10-storey perimeter block
fronting onto York Road. An open area known as ‘the podium’ is located at the
southern end of the Shell Centre, adjoining Chicheley Street. A residential block
known as Whitehouse Apartments is located further north at the junction with
Waterloo Bridge.
2.3
Adjoining the Shell Centre on York Road is the County Hall North Block, a
residential building of 11-storeys. Opposite this site on the corner of Leake
Street and York Road is Prospect House, an 11-storey office building, adjoining
which on Leake Street is a series of smaller commercial buildings which abut
the southern end of WIT.
2.4
To the northwest, Leake Street, to the southwest, Mepham Street and railway
viaduct to the northeast, the Victory Arch (Grade II Listed, the remainder of the
station is not listed) entrance to the Waterloo Station to the east and West Road
to the southeast, adjoining WIT.
2.5
An existing pedestrian walkway runs from Waterloo Station through Elizabeth
House at first floor level, leading to a footbridge which crosses York Road and
connects into a set of steps on the western pavement of York Road. The site is
located within an area of excellent public transport accessibility with the highest
PTAL rating of 6B (Excellent).
2.6
To the north of site is situated the Waterloo and Roupell Street Conservation
Areas, to the west the South Bank Conservation Area and to the east are the
Lower Marsh and Mitre/ Ufford Street Conservation Areas. Lambeth Palace
Conservation Area is located to the south of the site. The application site is
surrounded by numerous listed building notably the:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Royal Festival Hall (RFH) (Grade I);
Royal National Theatre (RNT) (Grade II*);
Church of St John with All Saints (Grade II*);
County Hall (Grade II*);
General Lying-in Hospital (Grade II) and
Royal Waterloo Hospital (Grade II).
2.7
The River Thames separates the South Bank from the City of Westminster to
the west, connected via the Waterloo, Hungerford and Westminster Bridges.
The application site lies approximately 800m across the river from the
Westminster World Heritage Site (‘WWHS’) and Parliament Square forming the
core of the Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Area.
3
Planning History
3.1
A planning application was granted planning permission on 23.July.2008 for the
redevelopment of the site which involved the demolition of the existing buildings
and erection of 2 office buildings and a residential building as follows: Building A
(117.08m AOD)- 27 storeys plus a double height storey for a plant room (Class
B1 Use). Building B (90.2mAOD) 22 storeys including a top floor plant room
(Class B1 Use). Building C (106.78mAOD) three segments, being of 20 storeys,
26 storeys and 33 storeys containing 274 flats (Class C3 Use). 3,458sqm of
Retail (Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses) space at ground level of Building A
and ground and first floor levels for Building B and C with shared two level
basement, access and servicing. Public realm improvements at street level
incorporating retail kiosks, new pedestrian access/egress to Waterloo Station
and associated highway and landscaping works (Application Number:
07/02628/FUL).
This application was subsequently called in by the Secretary of State for a
Public Inquiry where the proposed development was dismissed on the grounds
that the proposed towers, for reasons of their intrinsic designs, would not
preserve but would impact unacceptably on the settings of the WWHS, RFH,
RNT and County Hall and that the scheme would similarly affect the settings
and views of buildings forming an integral part of the relevant conservation
areas.
3.2
A planning application was submitted then subsequently withdrawn on the
28.09.2004 for the redevelopment of site involving the demolition of Elizabeth
House realignment of York Road to adjoining Waterloo station. Extension of
Waterloo station Concourse to new underground interchange and station
entrance. New weather protected pedestrian piazza on line of existing York
Road. Lower ground servicing access for the development, Waterloo
International Terminal and Shell centre. Development to include retail
(1,451sqm), restaurant (3,072sqm), leisure and office (89,577sqm) uses within a
tower, rising to 32 storeys, and a 10 storey building incorporating 71 residential
units together with 18 car parking space, coach and cycle parking (Application
Number: 04/00377/FUL)
3.3
A planning application was granted planning permission on the 14.03.2007 for
the redevelopment by the erection of four new buildings to provide 104,477sq m.
of offices and 2,183 sq m. of retail together with the erection of pedestrian
bridges and the carrying out of associated highway works (04/02704/FUL).
3.4
The Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s Church were
inscribed as a cultural World Heritage Site in 1987. The designation of this
group makes them one of 851 buildings and sites worldwide considered to have
‘outstanding universal value’ and to be part of the world’s cultural and natural
heritage. A significant proportion of Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square
Conservation Area is included.
4
Proposal
4.1
The current application proposes the demolition of all buildings and structures
on the site, including removal of the high level footbridge over York Road, and
redevelopment to provide two new buildings of part 29 and part 14 storeys
(north building) and 11 storeys (south building) respectively with a part one/part
two level common basement to provide 132,127sqm of floorspace (GEA),
comprising B1 offices (88,649sqm), C3 residential (comprising 142 units), areas
of flexible Use Classes A1- A5 and B1 at ground level and ancillary parking and
servicing space; works of hard and soft landscaping to Cab Road and Mepham
Street, the provision of a new access to Waterloo Station on West Road and
associated works; works of hard and soft landscaping and the provision of a
single storey structure providing car lifts and Class A use on West Road; works
of hard landscaping to York Road and Leake Street; plant and other associated
infrastructure and works.
A Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the high level footbridge over
York Road has also been submitted (Reference Number: 12/01329/CON).
4.2
The proposed north building would be erected to 125.90m in height, 86m in
width and 32m in depth This building would provide the following:
•
•
•
•
Approximately 64,255sqm (Gross) of B1 office space.
Approximately 30,623sqm (Gross) of residential floorspace (Use Class
C3) (142 units)
The proposed mix of units would be 44x1 bed units, 66x2 bed units,
28x3 bed units and 4x4 bed units.
Approximately 808sqm of floorspace would be used for a public gallery
at ground floor level.
Within the North Building above ground, office accommodation would be
provided on floors 1 to 12. Above this, floors 13 to 27 would provide the
residential units. Double height plant spaces would be provided at floors 13 and
28. Due to the ground constraints below the proposed building would be
constructed on eight bridge piers, which would span 108metres between two
rows of four columns. This structural form would appear throughout the office
accommodation on the lower floors.
4.3
The proposed north building would have a fully glazed façade. A series of
closely spaced vertical fins, produce a white crystalline surface. The office fins
form part of unitized system for these floors. All the floor slab details are
concealed behind a glazed spandrel condition allowing the fins to run from top
to bottom of each volume visually. The ground floor glazing proposes a more
transparent envelope that provides maximum visibility to the interior gallery
space.
4.4
The residential façade continues the materials and architectural design of the
office façade, and comprises two skins of full-height glazing with a 1.5m deep
enclosed balcony space, specifically known as a ‘wintergarden’, which would
run the full length of each residential unit between the inner and outer skins of
glazing. The outer skin acts a rain screen, protecting the wintergarden spaces
from wind and rain. The inner skin of glazing consists of a full-height curtain
walling system comprising a mixture of fixed and openable triple glazed units.
The proposed residential unit would be the Level 4 code-rating for Sustainable
Homes.
4.5
The ground floor accommodation to the North Building would be triple-height in
space underneath the building between the redesigned Victory Arch Square and
the new Central Square. This area would consist of lobbies and a new Gallery
space along the York Road frontage. The main entrances to the building are at
opposite ends. This area would be fully glazed, matching the existing
appearance of the upper floors.
4.6
The proposed south building would be erected to 52.95m in height, 74m in width
and 37m in depth. This building would be mainly occupied by B1 office space
(approximately 24,394sqm). At ground level there would be flexible uses
(A1/A3/B1) which would equate to approximately 824sqm.
4.7
The ground floor area would provide an office lobby to the building along with
two retail units. The proposed building would be expressed as slabs and
enveloped in pre-cast concrete columns, giving the building a load-bearing
façade. The window structure between each floor would be double-height, with
a three metre width between each colonnade. The proposed windows would be
recessed behind these columns. To the rear of the building, there would be a
vehicle entrance ramp, a screen of metal mesh would be integrated into the
curtain walling. At roof level the development creates a roof terrace, which
would be used by the office accommodation. Balustrade height guard rails are
proposed for safety reasons.
4.8
The basement floors on the sites would be used for a range of uses which relate
to car parking, bicycle storage, deliveries along with collection of waste and
refuse. The scheme proposes a total of 75 car parking spaces comprising 29
residential spaces, 44 office spaces and 2 car-club spaces. A total of 606 cycle
parking spaces are proposed, comprising 248 for residential use and 358 for
office use, with a further 30 cycle stands at grade for visitors to the building.
The development proposes an automated car stacking facility towards the
Leake Street frontage for the South Building, which would be in a form of a
single-storey structure.
4.9
The application proposes numerous public realm works which are as follows:
•
Victory Arch Square: the area would be re-graded and landscaped to
create a new pedestrian-priority public space in front of Waterloo Station.
Cab Road would be re-aligned to the north and a new set of steps
created connecting Victory Arch to the Tennison Way bus station via
Mepham Street.
•
Improvement to York Road and Leake Street which would comprise repaving/re-alignment works to the eastern side of York Road, the relocation and expansion of the existing pedestrian crossing on York Road
to align with the new Central Square and minor improvement works to
Leake Street.
•
The proposed demolition of the high-level walkway over York Road,
would be replaced through the installation of three escalators and two lifts
internally within Waterloo Station, Orchestra pit. This area would lead to
street level at grade.
•
The application proposes improvements to linear strip of land between
Elizabeth House site and WIT, currently known as West Road. The
application proposes to pedestrianise and landscape this land to create a
publically-accessible route free of vehicles. Due to the land level
changes which equates to 1.2m (lower), the applicant proposes a more
‘seamless interface’.
•
Victory Arch façade: this part of the scheme proposes to re-face the
western flank of the Grade II listed Victory Arch that would be exposed if
the demolition of Elizabeth House occurred. It should be noted that
neither planning permission or listed building consent has been submitted
as this would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement subject to
planning permission being granted, that these changes would take place
in stages.
4.10
The application would create a new central square between the proposed north
and south buildings. This area would potentially facilitate a new pedestrian
entrance to WIT when this comes back into use. This area would be
accommodated with seating areas where pedestrians could stop and sit. This
area would be paved and landscaped through the planting of trees.
4.11
The application proposes a single-storey structure towards the rear of the south
building which would also be used within the Use A Class. No further details
have been provided for this area.
4.12
The applicant has submitted a Conservation Area application for the demolition
of the high-level footbridge as part of this structure falls within the South Bank
Conservation Area.
5
Consultations and Responses
5.1
The applicants for Elizabeth House have submitted a Statement of Community
Involvement (George Cochrane Associates, April 2012) to demonstrate how
they engaged with the local community. The applicant states “that they are
committed to developing a meaningful dialogue with local business
stakeholders, local community, residents”. Initial consultation on the proposal
began in October 2010, which has evolved to reflect the evolution of the design
for the building.
The submitted document states that the proposal has been consulted upon
through newsletters, websites and public exhibitions. The open exhibition was
attended by 225 people over three individual dates. Newsletters were posted to
properties within the area bounded by The River Thames, Blackfriars Road, St
George’s Circus, St George’s Road and Westminster Bridge Road.
5.2
A total of fifteen site notices were displayed on 4th May 2012, on the site and the
surroundings. A press notice was published on 4th May 2012. The application
went out for re-consultation again on the 31st August 2012, due to the applicant
assessing an additional point for solar glare within the daylight and sunlight
report. Five additional site notices were displayed along with a new press
advert.
Internal consultation
5.3
The Council’s Regulatory Services – Food and Safety officer: Comments
received raising no objection to the scheme subject to conditions.
5.4
The Council’s Regulatory Services – Noise and Pollution officer: Comments
received raising no objection to the scheme subject to conditions.
5.5
The Council’s Regulatory Services – Health and Safety officer: No
representations received.
5.6
The Council’s Housing officer: Comments received raising no objection to the
scheme. These comments are summarised in the report.
5.7
The Council’s Implementation Team officer: Comments raising no objection to
the proposal.
5.8
The Council’s Library Leisure Services Manager: Comments received stating no
comment
5.9
The Council’s Parks and Open Spaces officer: Comments received raising no
objection.
5.10
The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design officer: Comments received,
these are summarised in the report.
5.11
The Council’s Planning Policy officer: Comments received raising no objection
to the scheme.
5.124 The Council’s Sport’s officer: No representations received
5.135 The Council’s Streetcare officer: Comments received raising no objection to the
scheme subject to conditions.
5.14
The Council’s Transport/Highways officer: Comments received raising no
objection to the scheme subject to conditions.
5.15
The Council’s Crime Prevention officer: Comments received raising no objection
to the scheme subject to condition being proposed relating to secure by design.
5.16
The Council’s Regulatory Services Entertainment License officer: Comments
received raising no objection to the scheme.
External consultation
5.17
Kennington Oval and Vauxhall Forum: No representations received.
5.18
Lambeth Estates Residents Association: Comments received in support relating
to the proposed public realm and amenity. However, objection has been
received to the design and aesthetics. The residential tower is bulky and that
the form and character is less resolved than that of the podium office building
with which it connects. There should be further refinement to the design of the
building.
5.19
South Bank Employers Group (SBEG): The organisation supports the public
realm improvements that the development brings as part of the development.
They are very keen to see the non-operational parts of the former WIT brought
back into use as soon as operational requirements permit. Redeveloping the
WIT for retail would respond to the generally accepted need for better retail in
Waterloo expressed in the South Bank Partnership’s 2009 survey of residents,
employees and visitors and in the South Bank Manifesto. They accept the
applicants argument that the improved access to the WIT and improved public
realm in front of it make its reuse much more likely and may enhance the quality
of what can be provided to meet a significant local need.
Improvement to access to the station and London Underground welcome the
proposals being put forward as this would provide an improved interchange and
higher quality access to all parts of Waterloo Station.
The issues relating to heritage issues should not be given undue weight, but
should be balanced against the overall economic and community benefits which
developments give rise to. SBEG has taken the line that the view from the
WWHS is negligible and no effect on the ability to appreciate the Outstanding
Universal Value (OUV) of the site. Equally the impact on the view from the St
James’ Park Bridge is minimal. Concerns relating to objections from English
Heritage or Westminster, or comments from UNESCO or ICOMOS UK, should
be given undue weight in the Council’s decision on the application.
Benefits of local jobs associated with the proposed development during
construction with coordination with local organisations including SBEG and clear
local leadership.
SBEG welcomes the initiative for the development to connect to any network
which may come to fruition.
SBEG have expressed concerns about how the details of the S106 package
have been worked up and the lack of engagement with them and other parties.
In particular they don’t believe that enough regard is being paid to the long term
maintenance requirements of the area.
The Council should work with SBEG on how the Section 106 should be
prioritised and delivered for the greatest local benefit.
5.20
Waterloo Community Development Group (WDCG):
There is strong support for:
•
The principle of redevelopment
•
•
•
•
•
Intensification of the site
Office development and mix of uses
The general approach to the development at ground level
Servicing and parking
The economic and employment benefits
There have been mixed views and concerns about:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The efficiency of the residential element and the exorbitant size of the
flats, which are likely to prove attractive to investors rather than lived in
by real families.
The amount of affordable housing.
The massing and height and it impact on local views and heritage assets.
The gallery as genuinely useable public space, and the need to secure its
community benefit through the Section 106 Agreement.
The need for more greening of public space.
The microclimate created by the development.
The paucity of tangible community benefit in the Section 106.
WCDG also raised concern to solar glare from the proposed development as
this could pose a potential concern to local residents who could be directly
affected. The letter further states that none of the evidence presented by the
applicant addresses the issue of the impact on the residential amenity of those
living in the Whitehouse or County Hall. Therefore, without evidence to the
contrary being provided by the applicant, there must be concern that the
proposal will cause solar glare affecting the amenity of neighbouring residents.
5.21
Waterloo Quarter Business Area: Comments received supporting the proposed
redevelopment of Elizabeth House.
The economic benefits of the scheme are very significant. Lower Marsh and
The Cut would benefit from 8500 additional employees in immediate vicinity.
The new spaces created through the scheme will provide much-needed
additional public realm in Waterloo and will de-clutter and improve the current
Victory Arch entrance to the station.
5.22
Kennington Association: No representations received.
5.23
English Heritage: Comments received raising objection to the proposal on the
following grounds:
•
•
The proposal would cause substantial and unacceptable degree of harm
to the OUV, setting and views from Westminster World Heritage Site.
English Heritage has advised that new development on the site should
not be visible in the gap between Portcullis House and the Tower of Big
Ben if it would cause harm. By virtue of its massing, bulk and deposition,
appear visually attached to the North face of the Big Ben Tower. Such an
impact would be difficult.
The proposals would reduce an awareness of the dominance and
architectural form of the Big Ben Tower. English Heritage are unable to
•
•
•
•
support any proposals which would appear to weaken its architectural
form or ability to read against the sky.
The impact the development would have on the setting and views of the
Royal Festival Hall are also a serious concern to English Heritage. It is a
building of national importance and safeguarding its setting should be a
very high priority.
When viewed from Waterloo Bridge, the proposed new development
would by virtue of it height, massing and disposition, overwhelm the
Festival Hall to an extent which would seriously harm its setting and be
unacceptable to English Heritage.
The development would be seen from Blue Bridge in St James Park
where it would appear visually attached to the tower of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. This would lessen the architectural form of the
Grade I Listed building and is unacceptable.
There would be some harm to the settings and views of County Hall,
Victory Arch and the National Theatre.
5.24
English Heritage – Archaeology: Comments received raising no objection,
subject to a desk top archaeology assessment as part of the development.
5.25
Transport for London (TfL): Comments received generally in support of the
scheme, however, officers have raised objection to the proposed level of parking
associated with the office accommodation, given that the development is
situated adjacent to a major transport interchange.
5.26
City of Westminster: Objection received relating to the following:
•
•
•
•
5.27
The proposed development by reason of its height and bulk will harm the
setting and outstanding universal value of the Palace of Westminster
Abbey including St Margret’s World Heritage site in the London Views
Management Framework, views 23A.1 and 23A.2 from Parliament
Square.
The proposed development will adversely affect a number of views from
the City of Westminster. These include the London Management
Framework views from Waterloo Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Victoria
Embankment between Waterloo and Westminster Bridge together with a
number of metropolitan and local views identified in the City of
Westminster conservation area audits.
The proposed development would harm the setting of a number of
Westminster conservation areas including those of Westminster Abbey
and Parliament Square, Whitehall, Savoy and Strand.
The proposed development by reason of its height, bulk, design will harm
the settings of a number of listed buildings including the Palace of
Westminster, Royal Festival Hall, National Theatre, County Hall, Horse
Guards and the Foreign Commonwealth Office
London Borough of Southwark: Comments received stating the scheme’s
breadth and massing within the skyline could benefit from further sculpting and
expression in order to create a more striking landmark building in this important
location.
5.28
London Borough of Camden: Comments received raising no objection
5.29
Environment Agency: Comments received raising no objection subject to
conditions imposed as part of the development relating to flood risk mitigation
measures.
5.30
LFCD Authority: No representations received.
5.31
Network Rail: Comments received supporting the proposed development on the
basis that the replacement works set out in section 10.4 of the report are
delivered within WIT.
5.32
Victorian Society: No representations received.
5.33
The Georgian Society: No representations received.
5.34
Development Control Department Thames Water: Comments received raising
no objection.
5.35
The Westminster Society: Comments received raising no comment to the
scheme
5.36
County Hall Residents Association: No representations received.
5.37
Coin Street Community Builders: Comments received supporting the proposed
public realm spaces outside Waterloo Station, the impact on pedestrian flow
towards the river and the first phase of creating Waterloo Square.
5.38
ICOMOS UK: No representations received.
5.39
Royal Parks: Comments received raised objection to the proposal. The impact
on views from St James’s Park, specifically that of the view from the Blue
Bridge, and Horse Guards Parade, is enough to effect changes to the Sky
Space around the Park that are at odds with the Royal Parks policies and those
of the Mayor of London within the London Plan Spatial Development strategy
and guidance for Greater London July 2011.
Elizabeth House as seen from Blue Bridge in St James Park clutters the sky
space and significantly alters the skyline of which Horse Guards Parade is a part
of. They also note that arguments of tree foliage would cover the proposed
development, however, during autumn and winter months this would not occur.
The Royal Parks appreciate the endeavours of all agencies involved in the
regeneration of SE1 area of London but we are unable to agree to
developments that negatively affect the parks.
5.40
South Bank Board: No representations received.
5.41
South Bank Management Company Ltd: No representations received.
5.42
Twentieth Century Society: Comments received raising objection to the
proposed development. The height, form, bulk and mass of the proposed tower
as the northern end of this site would be seriously overbearing in relation to the
nearby Victory Arch.
It is recognised that the present arrangements in front of the Arch are cramped
and congested and that the proposals would enable the public realm at this
point to be redesigned to give the necessary space and setting which this
building requires. That part of the proposals is therefore welcomed but it has to
be set against the ungainly and awkward cutaway of the tower which is
apparently intended to enable those approaching form the Royal Festival Hall to
appreciate the magnificence of the station entrance building. On the contrary,
the cutaway merely appears contrived and results in the mass of the tower
appearing to overhang the Arch in an uncomfortable manner.
The proposed height of the north tower at 28 stories would appear intrusive and
discordant in views from the north side of the Thames adversely affecting the
setting of the Royal Festival Hall, the Royal National Theatre and County Hall.
The proposed Elizabeth House scheme would lead to further isolation of the
Shell Tower. The desire of the applicants to put a “landmark” building is entirely
misconceived in such a context. There is no objection to the south building.
5.43
Port of London: No objection raised
5.44
Jubilee Walkway Trust: No representations received.
5.45
Whitehouse Residents and Owners Association: No representations received.
5.46
Greater London Authority (GLA): Comments received, broadly in support of the
proposed development, however, requested further information relating to
housing and affordable housing, design and accessibility and transport relating
to public realm works, pedestrian crossing on York Road, cycle hire docking
stations, Legible London, car parking, CIL contributions.
5.47
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE): Comments
received supporting the proposed development. They support the urban form
and building design of the building. The taller element of the two buildings is
convincing, both architecturally and in relation to the urban context and
particularly the Victory Arch. The subtle stacking of the volumes creates the
impression of a slender tower when seen from certain view points, particularly
from the north east. It is recommended that the local authority conditions the
detailing of the elevation, particularly the fins and soffits, undercroft, columns
and lighting as appropriate.
CABE applaud the proposed landscape design for the public space around the
buildings and Waterloo Station. The scheme is pivotal for the identity and
character of the whole area and hope to see the design thinking extend beyond
the redline boundary to include the whole space between Waterloo Road, York
Road, the river and Jubilee Gardens. The materials for the public realm should
be conditioned.
5.48
London Underground Infrastructure Protection: Comments received raising no
objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
5.49
Association of Waterloo Groups: No representations received.
5.50
River Thames Society: No representations received.
5.51
Save Britains Heritage: No representations received.
5.52
BRB Residuary (Department of Transport): Comments received stating that they
strongly support the demolition and redevelopment of Elizabeth House.
5.53
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA): No representations received.
5.54
London Continental Railways: No representations received.
5.55
A total of 41 letters of objection have been received following the consultation
process. A total of 14 letters of support have been received. .
No. of Letters
sent
1878
No. of Objections
No. in support
Comments
41
14
0
Objections:
Council’s Response:
The proposed development by reason of
its height and bulk will harm the setting
and outstanding universal value of the
Palace of Westminster Abbey including
St Margret’s World Heritage site in the
London Views Management Framework.
The current application has gone through
considerable design stages to overcome the
impact the scheme would have within the
protected World Heritage Site.
The
development would not be seen within the
protected
views
from
Westminster,
however, some of the development
specifically the tower part of the north
building would be seen within in World
Heritage Site.
The proposed development has been
assessed against and the LVMF where the
proposed development would not be seen
within the protected views. Furthermore,
given the opportunity area designation of
the site, the proposed scheme would impact
to a certain degree on surrounding heritage
assets and conservation areas. However
this should be outweighed by the public
benefits which in this instance is considered
to be welcomed.
The proposed scheme has had regard to
the conservation areas in Westminster,
which have been assessed by Lambeth’s
The proposed development will adversely
affect a number of views from the City of
Westminster. Theses include the London
Management Framework views from
Waterloo Bridge, Westminster Bridge,
Victoria Embankment between Waterloo
and Westminster Bridge together with a
number of metropolitan and local views
identified in the conservation area audits.
The proposed development would harm
the setting of a number of Westminster
conservation areas.
The height, form, bulk and mass of the
proposed tower at the northern end of
this would be seriously overbearing in
relation to the nearby Victory Arch. The
cutaway over the arch merely appears
contrived and results in the mass of the
tower appearing to overhang the Arch in
an uncomfortable manner.
The proposed height of the northern
tower would appear intrusive and
discordant in views for the north side of
the Thames, which would affect the
setting of the Royal Festival Hall, the
Royal National Theatre and County Hall.
The proposed redevelopment of both the
Elizabeth House and Shell Centre sites
would result in a forest of towers along
York Road forming a multiple intrusion
into the setting of the listed building as
shown above along with the South Bank
Conservation Area.
The proposed north tower would
introduce further vertical emphasis to the
isolation of the Shell Tower.
The desire of the applicants to put a
“landmark”
building
is
entirely
misconceived and unnecessary in such a
context. The proposed building is a
utilitarian and gargantuan structure that is
the epitome of the grotesque. It has
Conservation and Urban Design officer and
their view is that the development would
have limited impact on these conservation
areas.
The current Victory Arch is surrounded by
the existing obtrusive Elizabeth House
building which masks one side of the
western façade to this arch. The new
proposal would relieve this arch through
the overhangs being proposed by the
development which would provide an
improved composition between the arch
and the proposed building. In this instance
officers raise no objection.
The proposed development would be
acceptable given the opportunity areas
designation for the site.
Regard and
assessment has been given towards
heritage assets surrounding the site.
Officers consider that there would be an
impact, but given the nature of the
development within this area, a building of
this height, scale and bulk would be seen
within the background and as result would
have a neutral impact, in that it wont have
an adverse impact within the setting of the
heritage settings.
This site is considered to be an opportunity
area by the GLA and it is considered on
this basis that tall buildings on this site
would be acceptable. This is considered to
be an acceptable form of the development
within the area. In relation to the South
Bank conservation area, the development
would impact on buildings in this area,
however, regard should be given to the
added benefits that the development would
bring to the local area and a result a
balance must be reached to achieve this,
which is the case here.
The proposed location is considered to be
an area for tall buildings and as a result is
considered that the development would not
give rise to the Shell Tower being viewed in
isolation.
The proposed development would be an
improvement to the existing building which
is currently there. The scheme would
provide benefits, which would regenerate
the area of Waterloo. The design would be
monolithic with an architectural dominance
been perceived that the proposed north
building compliments the character either
of the immediate area or of the
neighbouring South Bank conservation
area on the opposite side of York Road.
The proposed employment floorspace
should be affordable. There is extensive
stock in the area which should be used.
Elizabeth House does not need to be
demolished and rebuilt several stories
higher and it appears that the only part of
the proposal that would be advantageous
would be to redevelop the area leading
up to Waterloo Station.
The proposed construction phase of the
development would cause chaos and
confusion within the area along with
traffic issues.
Removing all the retail shops and putting
them behind glass screen will produce a
wasteland environment. No shop equals
no passing trade. There will be less
interaction with the building. How can
you give planning permission to an office
building double the present size with one
third of retail space?
along York Road, which would be seen
elsewhere in the area and as result would
be a landmark building in its entirety.
The proposed development would provide
a mixture of employment floorspace in the
Waterloo area, from large slab office space
to media/ start up businesses. The uplift in
office space would provide a large expanse
of employment to the area, creating jobs to
the local community. Furthermore, the site
is considered to be an opportunity area and
that the site should maximise its potential,
so it would facilitate the regeneration of the
area. The existing stock of office
accommodation is not of the same large
expanse being proposed and as result
would not attract the same office resident
which this development would cater for.
The existing building is tired, not fit for
purpose and dilapidated. Furthermore, the
current scheme cannot facilitate the
regeneration benefits which are needed
within the Waterloo area. The proposed
building would provide these benefits and
officers consider it to be a positive step
forward for Waterloo.
Several conditions relating to construction
management of the development has been
imposed and this would control any traffic
management along York Road.
a mixed retail/ gallery space on the ground
floor of the building.
This would be
accessible to the general public. This
would create activity within this area and as
result officers welcome this proposal as
part of the scheme. Furthermore, this
would create interaction between the
pedestrian and the building and would not
result as this area being a dead frontage.
This site is designated as an opportunity
area by the GLA and it is considered on
this basis that a tall building would be
acceptable. Furthermore, the maximum
amount of floorspace should be created on
the site. This would bring added benefits to
the area which are outlined within this
report. In relation to the retail units on the
ground floor, there would the creation of an
The consultation for the proposed new
building has been disappointing nor has
there been any recognition of the existing
good businesses which have been set
up.
The Council should not consider this
application until they have seen the
detailed plans for The Shell Scheme
which is 20 metres across York Road.
Again the application needs to be
considered only when the plans for the
Euro Terminal at Waterloo have been
agreed.
This area should not become a high-rise
block of luxury apartments.
The two facades of the buildings are
imaginative a better design could have
been sought.
The south building in
particular seems to rely on heavy
concrete pillars – something which has
blighted the south bank for years.
The redevelopment presents a missed
opportunity
to
break
down
the
environmental chasm between Elizabeth
House and the Shell Centre.
active frontage which would allow small
businesses to be created. On balance
officers consider the benefits of the scheme
would outweigh the reduction in retail
floorspace within the development.
The applicant has undertaken extensive
consultation with the local residents which
has been outlined within Statement of
Community Involvement and has been
submitted as part of the application. This
has been recognised by officers.
In
relation to existing businesses in the area,
the scheme would provide added benefits
such as jobs and bringing outside
population groups which would benefit the
local businesses in the area.
Lambeth Planning have a statutory duty to
consider an application when they are
submitted to the Council.
It is not
reasonable to hold up the decision of a
planning application, due to an application
not being submitted on another site. The
proposed development provides details on
the future of the WIT site which has been
submitted. The proposed scheme makes
provision of bringing this site back into use
in the future. It is not reasonable to hold up
the decision of a planning application, due
to an application not being submitted on
another site.
a mixture of uses which comprise office
and residential accommodation. The
majority of the residential floor plate would
be privately owned, the scheme would
bring public benefits such as an uplift in
employment floorspace, public realm
improvement, off-site affordable housing
and a future entrance to the former
Eurostar terminal.
The proposed south building would be in
keeping with the majority of the buildings
along York Road in terms of the
appearance and design. It is considered on
this basis that the scheme would provide a
design which would blight the South Bank.
The proposed building would be split into
two elements which would create access
and walkways through the development
onto the former Eurostar terminal. The
current building blocks all routes on this
The public realm improvements are
disappointing as these stop on York
Road. Lambeth Planning should take the
lead in ensuring that this happens and
that York Road is appropriately
landscaped from Section 106 monies or
CIL to ensure that this happens. This
should be grasped.
The proposed ground floor level plans, as
shown, are again a missed opportunity to
really animate this pedestrian realm.
Even though there are two retail units on
the ground floor, this area could become
a sterile environment at ground level,
with a huge area given over to the office
lobby in the eastern block. The ground
level planning materials and landscaping
should be examined in detail to make this
an animated public space and a real
asset to the area.
Overdevelopment
Pedestrian and vehicle hazard from
increased traffic
Too close to boundary
There is no clear York Road crossing
facility or onward route from the new
central square.
part of the station as the building is one
solid mass. As such officers consider this
to be a vast improvement from the current
building. The interaction of the building
with the Shell Centre would be improved
through formation of the routes created by
the development which would potentially
link the development to the South Bank.
The proposed public realm works would be
secured through
the Section
106
Agreement. Furthermore, the applicant
has agreed for the planting of trees along
York Road.
Lambeth Planning have requested that the
ground floor element would be used by the
general public and the applicant has
agreed that more active frontages uses
would be included within this ground floor
element. This would be secured by the
Section 106. Furthermore, the Section 106
Agreement would outline how this area
shall be maintained post construction
stage.
similar to the previously refused scheme
which went to appeal and was accepted by
committee members. Given this and that
the development site is an opportunity
area, the proposed development is
considered to be acceptable in the current
form.
Both Lambeth Transport and TfL have
assessed the impact the proposed
development would have, and officers raise
no objection to vehicle hazard and
increased parking.
erected within the same boundary lines as
the previous application. In this instance
no objection is raised.
The development would provide a new
crossing at the proposed south building
which would link the development and lead
the pedestrian flows towards Chicheley
Street. In this instance no objection is
raised.
No commitment to 50% affordable
housing.
No provision for affordable
housing of key workers. There is a need
to secure affordable housing in key
central areas of London.
The existing bridge has spanned York
Road for many, many years. It is an
invaluable pedestrian only link direct from
the station across and extremely busy
Red Route allowing continuous safe
crossing at all times – unlike the traffic
light systems at each end of York Road
controlling the ground level crossings
where pedestrians have to compete for
space and time on the road with busy
vehicular traffic and masses of people
sometimes accumulate at the lights.
The development should provide more
community space which should be
secured via the Section 106 Agreement.
There is no temporary drop off/pick up
point planned, this may mean cars would
stop in the bus lane to drop/ pick up
passengers, further adding severe
pressure to the already heavily
congested York Road. This may also
affect Belvedere Road.
The proposed south building would
impact on the amenity of apartment in the
North Block of County Hall.
The
a minimum amount of 20% affordable
housing which would be in the form of
affordable rent and intermediate housing.
Given the added benefits the proposed
development brings, this would be the most
viable percentage of affordable housing the
development could bring on a site which
has so many constraints in delivery a
scheme of this nature.
The
proposed
development
would
demolish the existing high-level footbridge
over
York
Road.
However,
the
development would provide alternative
pedestrian routes through the former WIT
terminal through the installation of
escalators, staircase and lifts. Network
Rail, TfL and Lambeth Transport support
these changes being proposed and as
such it is considered that this would not
bring pedestrian congestion along York
Road. As such officers raise no objection
to the demolition of the high-level
pedestrian bridge.
The development site would bring many
benefits to the local community such as
jobs, housing, public realm improvements
around Waterloo Station and considerable
uplift and employment floorspace. The
proposed development would also provide
Section 106 contributions to the local area.
All these benefits are considered to be a
positive to the local community.
It is
unfortunate that the development would not
provide community space within the
development, but this should be balanced
against the other benefits the scheme
would bring to the local community. In this
instance no objection is raised.
Both TfL and Lambeth Transport have
assessed the highway impact the proposed
development would bring within the local
area especially York Road.
However,
officers have raised no objection to the
proposed development on these grounds
and furthermore there would be strong
conditions imposed on the development to
control these measures.
The applicant has submitted a daylight and
sunlight report by GIA. This has been
assessed independently by BRE and they
proposed
development
would
significantly have an impact on the
existing skyline and light. There would be
a loss in privacy by the development.
The proposed parking should be
restricted to disabled users.
There
should be no allocation for office use car
parking spaces given the availability of
the public transport in the area and the
public interest in reducing car traffic
coming into central London.
The area would be windswept; public
spaces are unlikely to be successful or
welcoming for leisure use unless more
remedial measures are taken.
This
would lead to a bleak pedestrian
landscape.
have concluded that there would be a
negligible impact from the proposed
development, however, this harm would not
cause there to be an adverse impact to the
existing amenity of the residents within the
County Hall block. Further analysis of this
is given within the amenity section of this
report.
The proposed tower of the
building would impact the most on the
skyline within London. However, any tall
building of this nature would impact given
the nature of the overall scale, bulk and
massing. Officers raise no objection to the
proposal on these grounds.
The
development
proposes
residential
accommodation within the tower of the
north building. The two nearest residential
properties would be Whitehouse Apartment
(approximately 90m) and County Hall
(340m). Officers consider that this distance
is considered to be sufficient enough to
prevent overlooking between the proposed
residential units. In relation to the South
Building which would be mainly in office
accommodation, sited 24m away and given
that the use would not be in 24 hour use as
residential accommodation, there would not
create perceived overlooking between the
two buildings. Furthermore, the distance
between the buildings are considered to be
sufficient within a built up area like
Waterloo.
both residential and office parking which
would be policy compliant.
The applicant has submitted a wind analysis
as part of the development and it states that
the development would provide a safe
environment for all users after the
completion of the scheme. Furthermore, it
states that the development in some
instances would have an improved condition
over the existing. However, overall the
impact is negligible which means that any
effect does not alter the suitability of existing
wind conditions with respect to planned
activities.
A programme of ongoing responsibility
for cleaning public areas and maintaining
shrubs and trees should be a planning
obligation.
The proposed 10,000sqm of public realm
are really just a series of walk through’s
for commuters with little real benefit to
the local community and no significance
to Section 106 contributions.
The proposed development would create
light pollution.
The proposed development should be
conditioned to control construction work
for the development. There should be
complete restriction on any building noise
or deliveries between the hours of 22.00
and 07.00.
In providing for the removal of the
elevated footbridge there is a need to
ensure Shell always has safe walking
routes for staff and visitors from Waterloo
Mainline and underground stations to the
Shell Centre.
Demolition and construction works must
be sequenced in relation to the whole
Elizabeth House scheme so as to ensure
that there is no unnecessary impact on
the operation of the Shell Centre.
Any traffic management arrangements
(during the demolition and construction
stages but also on an ongoing basis in
relation to the completed development)
must ensure that there is no adverse
impact on servicing of the Shell Centre.
6
The applicant has agreed to the planting of
trees within the central area of York Road.
This has been secured through the Section
106 Agreement.
The proposed public works are considered
to be an improvement to current landscape
outside Waterloo Station. Officers support
the proposal as these would potential
unlock the changes required to bring the
former Eurostar terminal into use and
provide a much needed improvement to the
local area. In this instance no objection is
raised.
There would be conditions imposed to
control this.
A condition has been imposed to this
effect.
A condition would be imposed that
adequate mitigation measures are provided
to continue the flow of pedestrians from
Waterloo Station towards the South Bank
and vice versa.
A condition has been imposed to this effect
which would control any demolition works
which would impact on the ongoing
operation of buildings along York Road.
Several conditions relating to construction
management of the development has been
imposed and this would control any traffic
management along York Road.
Planning Policy Considerations
National Guidance
6.1
On 27th March 2012, the Government published the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF). This document had the immediate effect of replacing various
documents including, amongst other documents, PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS5,
PPS12, PPG13, PPG17 and Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations.
6.2
The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how
these are expected to be applied. It reinforces the Development Plan led system
and does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting
point for decision making. The NPPF states that the National Planning Policy
Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and
neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
Moreover, it sets out that in assessing and determining development proposals,
local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable
development.
6.3
The applicant’s planning consultants have submitted a statement confirming how
this application meets the aspirations of the NPPF.
The London Plan 2011
6.4
The London Plan was published in July 2011 and replaces the previous versions
which were adopted in February 2004 and updated in February 2008. 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.
6.5
The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully
integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the
development of the capital over the next 20-25 years. It forms part of the
development plan for Greater London. All Borough plan policies are required to
be in general conformity with the London Plan policies
6.6
The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:
Policy 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and objectives for London
Policy 2.9 Inner London
Policy 2.10 Central Activities Zone – strategic priorities
Policy 2.11 Central Activities Zone – strategic functions
Policy 2.12 Central Activities Zone – predominantly local activities
Policy 2.13 Opportunity areas and intensification areas
Policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all
Policy 3.2 Improving health and addressing health inequalities
Policy 3.8 Housing choice
Policy 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure
Policy 4.1 Developing London’s economy
Policy 4.2 Offices
Policy 4.3 Mixed use development and offices
Policy 4.7 Retail and town centre development
Policy 4.8 Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector
Policy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all
Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation
Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions
Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction
Policy 5.5 Decentralised energy networks
Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals
Policy 5.7 Renewable energy
Policy 5.8 Innovative energy technologies
Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling
Policy 5.10 Urban greening
Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs
Policy 5.12 Flood risk management
Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage
Policy 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure
Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies
Policy 5.16 Waste self-sufficiency
Policy 5.21 Contaminated land
Policy 6.1 Strategic approach
Policy 6.2 Providing public transport capacity and safeguarding land for transport
Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity
Policy 6.4 Enhancing London’s transport connectivity
Policy 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport
infrastructure
Policy 6.7 Better streets and surface transport
Policy 6.9 Cycling
Policy 6.10 Walking
Policy 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion
Policy 6.12 Road network capacity
Policy 6.13 Parking
Policy 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities
Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment
Policy 7.3 Designing out crime
Policy 7.4 Local character
Policy 7.5 Public realm
Policy 7.6 Architecture
Policy 7.7 Location and design of tall and large buildings
Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology
Policy 7.10 World Heritage Sites
Policy 7.11 London View Management Framework
Policy 7.12 Implementing the London View Management Framework
Policy 7.14 Improving air quality
Policy 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes
Policy 7.18 Protecting local open space and addressing local deficiency
Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature
Policy 7.29 The River Thames
Policy 8.2 Planning obligations
Policy 8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy
6.7
Lambeth’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy. The Core Strategy
was adopted by the council on 19 January 2011.
The following policies are considered to be of relevance to the assessment of
this application:
Policy S1 – Delivering the Vision and Objectives
Policy S2 – Housing
Policy S3 – Economic Development
Policy S4 – Transport
Policy S5 – Open Space
Policy S6 – Flood Risk
Policy S7 – Sustainable Design and Construction
Policy S8 – Sustainable Waste Management
Policy S9 – Quality of the Built Environment
Policy S10 – Planning Obligations
Policy PN1 – Waterloo
6.8
London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007): ‘Policies saved
beyond 5 August 2010 and not superseded by the LDF Core Strategy January
2011’
The following policies are considered to be of relevance to the assessment of
this application:
Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity;
Policy 9 Transport Impact;
Policy 14 Parking and Traffic Restraint;
Policy 19 Active Frontage Uses;
Policy 21 Location and Loss of Offices
Policy 23 Protection and Location of Other Employment Uses;
Policy 26 Community Facilities;
Policy 29 The Evening and Late Night Economy, Food and Drink and
Amusement Centre Uses;
Policy 30 Arts and Culture;
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 37 Shopfronts and Advertisements;
Policy 38 Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas;
Policy 39 Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design;
Policy 40 Tall Buildings;
Policy 41 Views;
Policy 43 The River Thames Policy Area – Urban Design;
Policy 45 Listed Buildings;
Policy 47 Conservation Areas;
Policy 50 Open Space and Sports Facilities; and
6.9
Regional Guidance:
• London Plan Housing SPG
• London Plan Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal
Recreation
• London Plan World Heritage Sites SPG
• London Plan London View Management Framework (LVMF) SPG
• London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG
• London Plan Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) SPG
• London Plan Cross-Rail SPG
• London Plan Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide
(ODPM)
• London Plan the Mayors Ambient Noise Strategy
• London Waterloo Opportunity Planning Framework (OAPF)
• British Research Establishment (BRE) Handbook Site Layout Planning for
Daylight and Sunlight 2011: A Guide to Good Practice.
6.10
Local Guidance:
The council has adopted the following Supplementary Planning Documents,
which are relevant:
SPD: Safer Built Environments
SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction
SPD: S106 Planning Obligations
6.11
The Council is currently reviewing its draft Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD) pertaining to the Waterloo area. At this time, this document has not been
adopted as it is still in its development stage.
6.12
The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements:
Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is also relevant.
7
Land Use and Principles
Employment and Office Accommodation
7.1
The proposal involves the redevelopment of Elizabeth House on York Road,
adjacent to Waterloo Station and the former Waterloo International Terminal
(WIT). The existing building would be demolished and replaced with two
buildings containing approximately 88,649sqm B1 office space, 142 flats and
flexible A1-A5 and B1 uses at ground floor level.
7.2
The site is located within the London Plan Central Activities Zone (CAZ), Thames
Policy Area and Waterloo Opportunity Area. Under the Core Strategy Policy
PN1 Waterloo, the site falls within the ‘Railway’ character area of Waterloo. It is
also subject to the saved Major Development Opportunity 92 (MDO92) in the
‘Lambeth UDP 2007: Saved Policies’.
7.3
London Plan Policy 3B.3 states that within the CAZ, wherever there is an
increase in office floorspace being proposed they should provide for a mix of
uses including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other
policies in the plan. The enhances and promotes the unique international,
national and London wide roles, supporting the district offer of the zone based on
a rich mix of local as well as strategic uses and forming the globally iconic core
of one of the world’s most attractive and competitive business.
London Plan
Policy 5E.2 relates to Opportunity Areas in South West London, which includes
Waterloo. It states that, taking account of other policies, developments will be
expected to maximise residential and non-residential densities and to contain
mixed uses; and that, given their scale, they are likely to give rise to substantial
planning obligations. The Waterloo Opportunity Area is identified as having an
indicative employment capacity of 15,000 jobs and is expected to accommodate
a minimum of 1,500 additional homes between 2001 and 2026.
7.4
Core Strategy Policy PN1 sets out the council’s vision and approach for
Waterloo, reflecting the London Plan Opportunity Area Planning Framework.
Furthermore, the vision at a local level is drawn out within the Waterloo SPD that
is (approved for consultation). Given its consultation status officers recognise it
has limited weight at this current time for consideration of this application,
however the broad objectives of growth, mixed development and bringing
forward opportunities at the site to synthesise with proposals at WIT are in
conformity.
Policy PN1 states that the council will support sustainable
development for jobs and homes in line with London Plan targets and maximise
the area’s potential for the full range of Central London and town centre
activities. A broad range of uses is supported within Waterloo in order to achieve
this vision and Waterloo is identified as a major location for offices as well as a
mixed residential area with appropriate supporting community, service and
shopping facilities.
7.5
Core Strategy Strategic Policy S3 (f) supports the location of, and investment in,
major office developments (over 1,000 m2) in the Central Activities Zone and
Waterloo Opportunity Area. Section (d) of the policy supports the vitality and
viability of Lambeth’s hierarchy of major, district and local centres, including the
Waterloo Opportunity Area, for retail, service, leisure, recreation and other
appropriate uses, whilst maintaining the predominant retail function of primary
shopping areas in the Waterloo Opportunity Area (Lower Marsh). Saved UDP
Policy 21 provides guidance on the requirements for large scale office
development, particularly in relation to impacts on public transport capacity and
securing benefits for local communities.
7.6
Elizabeth House is a key regeneration site in Waterloo and provides an
opportunity to reverse the trend in Waterloo’ office market which has been in
decline. The GLA have stated within the their stage 1 report that the office
market has been falling behind other South Bank locations such as Bankside and
London Bridge, despite its highly accessible riverside location. Furthermore,
they have stated that due to the lack of commercial investment in the area this
has given rise to the reduction of over 7000 jobs being lost in the Waterloo in the
past 30 years, whilst neighbouring areas in Southwark has grown by 16,000.
The existing site has approximately 43,000sqm of existing office floor space,
which is dated and is not fit for purpose. The proposed would double this
amount of office floor space, providing, high-quality, flexible floor plates that
would suit a range of potential occupiers. This development would create up to
8,600 office jobs, an increase from 2,400, as well as generate up to 650 nonoffice jobs and 460 jobs during the construction phase of the development. The
economic benefits of the scheme, in terms of increased local spending and job
opportunities for the local people are acknowledged and welcomed.
7.7
In respect of local training and local labour, the applicant has given assurance
that the development would provide 100 apprenticeships (10% of the operatives)
and 150 jobs to local Lambeth residents during the construction period of the
development. The applicant has devised a jobs and training strategy for
Elizabeth House, which is considered to be acceptable by officers. They are
broadly satisfied with the terms of reference and the end the results which would
be achieved by the proposed development, in setting out the applicants
commitment to creating opportunities for employment in partnership with local
stakeholders. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to provide funding for a
jobs co-ordinator, which would assist in securing local people in these jobs and
apprenticeships. This has been secured through the Section 106 agreement.
7.8
Housing and Affordable Housing
7.9
London Plan Policy 3.3 seeks to increase London’s supply of housing and sets
for Lambeth a minimum ten year target of 11,950 new homes.
7.10
Policy S2 of the Core Strategy commits the Council to 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 and a further 8,800 more homes by 2024/25,
subject to London Plan targets for this period. Core Strategy Policy S2 sets out
that developments should provide a mix of housing sizes and types to meet the
needs of different sections of the community. With a scheme of this nature, at
least 50 per cent of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is
available or 40 per cent without public subsidy, subject to housing priorities.
Furthermore, there is an expectation that the mix of affordable housing should be
70 per cent Social Rented and 30 per cent Intermediate housing.
7.11
London Plan Policy 3.8 encourages a full range of housing choice. This is
supported by the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance,
which seeks to secure family accommodation within residential schemes,
particularly within the social rented sector.
7.12
London Plan Policy 3.11 sets out that the Mayor will, and boroughs and other
relevant agencies and partners should, seek to maximise affordable housing
provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per
year in London over the term of this Plan.
7.13
Affordable Housing
7.14
The London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek maximum
reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private
residential and mixed-use schemes. Policy S2, part c, at least 50% of housing
should be affordable where public subsidy is available or 40% without public
subsidy, subject to housing priorities. Policy 16 of the UDP sets out that a range
of unit sizes of affordable housing should be provided, having regard to local
circumstances, site characteristics and the aims of the borough’s annual housing
strategy. It goes on to set out the presumption that affordable housing should be
provided on site. Policies further state that there should be tenure mix of 70%
socially rented units and 30% intermediate.
7.15
Policy 3.12 of the London Plan urges local authorities to take account of
economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable housing
provision. This is also supported by Lambeth’s Core Strategy Policy S2 (c)
where relevant, to independently validate evidence of viability. The applicants
have submitted a viability report which has been prepared by Quod. This has
been assessed independently by BNP Paribas.
The viability report has
identified a ‘pot’ of money which would be used towards public realm
improvements, affordable housing and Section 106 Contributions. BNP Paribas
have stated that they are satisfied with the proposed inputs set out within the
proposed development. The overall ‘pot’ would be £30m. As a result this would
provide a minimum base level of 20% affordable housing which would comprise
a total of 12 intermediate units on site within the north building with the remaining
16 affordable rented units provided as part of the development. The overall
contribution to affordable housing units would be £12m.
7.16
Off-Site Provision Affordable Housing
Officers acknowledge that there are number of constraints relating to the site in
respect of high-development costs. These include the presence of London
Underground tunnels beneath the site, which impact upon buildings foundation,
the public realm costs generated by a site that sits directly above a transport
interchange, and cost associated with acquiring adjacent land. Paragraph 3.74 of
the London plan states that affordable housing should be provided on site. In
exceptional circumstances it maybe provided off-site or through a cash in lieu
contribution, ring fenced and if appropriate ‘pooled’, to secure efficient delivery of
new affordable housing on identified site elsewhere.
These exceptional
circumstances include those where having secured an alternative site, it would
be possible:
•
•
•
•
Secure a higher level of provision
Better address priority needs, especially for family housing
Secure a more balanced community
Better sustain strategically important clusters of economic activities,
especially in parts of the CAZ.
7.17
Given the above information, any agreement for off-site provision should be
financially neutral , meaning that the provision should be equivalent numerically
in terms of the number of units being proposed and no profit advantage to the
applicant. Officers have undertaken numerous months of pre-application
discussions with the applicant, this has facilitated the current affordable housing
to comprise of off-site provision of affordable housing along with remaining 12
units remaining onsite. This offer has been based on a financial viability
appraisal, which produces funds which are surplus to the intermediate units.
7.18
The applicant has identified a site as being 10 Leake Street, which is in very
close proximity of the application site. This building is currently in office use and
subject to planning permission would facilitate 16 affordable rented units being
provided as part of the development. The applicant has stated that the site
would be secured within 21 days of the granting planning permission on the
application site. Officers have agreed within three months, of granting planning
permission an application would be submitted on 10 Leake Street. This
mechanism would be delivered through the Section 106 Agreement. However,
failure to deliver on 10 Leake Street, the applicant has stated that they would
seek an alternative site, which would mean the application would be reported
back to committee for members resolution on this matter. Officers are in support
of this proposal as the delivery on 10 Leake Street would be a practically on-site
due to the close proximity of the site to the development.
7.19
Figure 1: Outlines the site of 10 Leake Street. The site is situated on the site
boundary.
7.20
The proposed mechanism for the provision of off-site affordable housing would
bring added benefits to the scheme as this would create more socially mixed
communities The applicant has stated that the proposed mix of units would be
mainly two and three bed units which would cater for various family sizes within
Lambeth.
7.21
The applicant has agreed to a review mechanism as part of the development
which would consider market changes throughout construction phase of the
development. This may enable further contributions to be secured to enable
further affordable housing to be provided as part of the development.
7.22
Intermediate Units
The application proposes a total of 12 onsite intermediate units which would be
located within various levels of the tower element within the north building. All
the units would be one-bedroom. Given the design constraints, mix of uses
proposed, and the core arrangements that come about as a result, together with
the high property values generated by the elevated position and view afforded, it
is accepted the provision of genuinely affordable units on this site is challenging.
The average minimum income levels required would be £38,000 and this would
depend on the rental levels that are set, management fees and mortgage rates.
The proposed income levels have been assessed by BNP Paribas, who have
stated that they are reasonable. The GLA have raised concern whether or not
these units would genuinely deliver affordable units, providing a “mixed and
balance communities”.
7.23
Lambeth Housing officers support the proposals submitted by the applicant. The
proposed off-site affordable housing units should be of family accommodation
and should comply with the Lambeth affordable rent model principles. This has
been secured as part of the Section 106 Agreement. In relation to the
intermediate housing, comments were raised in relation to the affordability of the
units given the area. However, after assessing the current development in
accordance with the GLA’s affordability level. In this instance no objection is
raised.
7.24
Proposed Residential Units in North Building
The application proposes a total of 142 residential units onsite which would be
accommodated from floors 13-27 of the north block. These units would be
serviced by two lifts and a central fire escape. The mix of units comprises:
Number
%
One-Bed
44
31%
Two-Bed
66
46%
Three-Bed
28
20%
Four-Bed
4
3%
Total
142
100%
These would all be private units, aside from 12 one-bed shared ownership units.
The proposed 3 bed plus units appears reasonable in this central location, which
amount to 23% overall units being proposed. Having assessed the unit sizes of
the development against the SPD for Housing Development and House
Conversions, the scheme would comply with the space standards set out within
this document. In relation to wheelchair accessibility the development would
comply with minimum 10% provision in accordance with the Lifetime Homes
Standard. A condition has been imposed to this effect.
7.25
All the rooms would receive natural ventilation and the majority of the units would
have dual aspect including the family units. The outdoor amenity space would be
provided in the form of winter gardens. The overall areas for the winter gardens
range between 11sqm up to 33sqm, this is depending on the requisite size of the
residential units. This would also satisfy the space standards for out outdoor
amenity space within the SPD for Housing Development and House
Conversions. All the residential flats would have minimum floor to ceiling height
of at least 2.3m. The applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report which
has been independently assessed by BRE. The analysis of the results
concluded that the results would be acceptable in terms of daylight and sunlight
levels. Overall, a high standard of residential accommodation is envisaged.
7.26
Children’s Playspace
The applicant has submitted a ‘Playspace report’ dated May 2012, produced by
Quod. Policy 3.6 of the London Plan sets out the requirement for new housing
developments to include provision of children’s playspace and informal
recreation. Provision should be based on the number of children living in the
new development and should be appropriate for the age profile of the population.
The GLA SPG “Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal
Recreation” states that the minimum benchmark for new residential
developments should be 10sqm per child. The playspace needs to be suitable
for various age groups of children and young people.
7.27
The report states given the nature of the development and the small size of
population expected as part of the development, the development has prioritised
the use of the public realm work to the wider public. Dedicating space
specifically for play to meet on-site demand in this location wouldn’t deliver the
most effective use of space on this strategically important site, nor would it be
effective way to meet the play needs of children, particularly given the close
proximity to playing facilities such as Jubilee Gardens.
7.28
The applicant has stated given the housing mix, the child yield of the scheme
would be relatively low, with approximately 10 children under the age of 5
expected. In this instance, no children’s play space is proposed on-site. The
applicant would propose a Section 106 contribution, which enables the
improvement of public parks in the vicinity of the site. The applicant has agreed
to pay £32,000 which has been secured within the legal agreement. Officers
consider this approach to be acceptable. This has been assessed by Lambeth
Parks officer, no objection has been raised.
7.29
Gallery/ Ground floor – York Road
Saved UDP Policy 19 requires development in town centres, Waterloo and the
Thames Policy Area to have uses with active frontages open to the public. The
proposed development would provide A1 retail units such as cafes and sandwich
shops which are considered to be appropriate as this would allow the general
public to have access to these uses at ground floor level. The proposed opening
times would be between 7am to 8pm. The deliveries would be between these
times also. This has been secured within the Section 106 Agreement. Policy
2.10 of the London Plan also seeks to support and improve the retail offer of the
CAZ for residents, workers, and visitors whilst 2.11 states that within the CAZ the
Mayor will and boroughs should “identify, enhance and expand retail capacity to
meet strategic and local need, and to focus this on the Central Area Frontages”.
7.30
The development proposes a gallery floorspace/ active frontage area to the
ground floor element of the north building. This area would cover approximately
910sqm2. The applicant has stated that this area would be used as a mixed use
area for a foyer area to both the office and residential floorspace. The submitted
design and access statement makes reference to this area being used to display
art pieces, allow people to linger, experience art or attend organised events.
Furthermore, the scheme proposes a series of active frontage uses such as
cafes and restaurants along this gallery space, which will activate activity along
this area.
7.31
The south building proposes a series active uses at ground floor level which
would activate this part of York Road further. No objection is raised towards this
element of the development. Overall, the scheme would provide a mix of uses in
the CAZ and the Waterloo Opportunity Area, maximising the development
potential of a highly accessible site, which is supported and in line with both local
and London Plan policies. The regeneration decline and improving the quality of
the environment in this part of Waterloo are welcomed and supported in terms of
benefits they would bring to Waterloo.
7.32
In summary the proposed development would provide a significant uplift in
employment floorspace which would create jobs and training apprenticeships
during the construction phase of the development. The scheme would provide
economic activity to local businesses after the construction and legacy phase of
the development, creating further jobs in the Waterloo area. The development
provides an element of housing which would add to the existing housing stock
and affordable housing in the borough. The ground floor/ gallery space would
bring activity and vibrancy along York Road creating a sense of place and
regenerating the overall area further that would provide an interface with wider
public realm works forthcoming from the development (section 9.6 of report).
7.33
Conclusion
In principle the principle of the scheme is considered to be acceptable. The
overall mix of uses accords with the policy requirements of the NPPF, The
London Plan and the Lambeth Core Strategy.
8
Conservation and Design
8.1
Scale, massing and appearance
8.2
The overall design parameters have been introduced within the proposals
section whereby the scheme would be built out over two blocks, the north and
south building.
8.3
The scheme has evolved through pre-application discussion, particularly in
relation to the North Building, responding to concerns raised about the scale and
form, creating visual interest and reducing the visible mass of the building,
particularly in the views from Parliament Square, the river and the adjoining
conservation areas. The lower part of the north building comprises a podium
bridge structure, which spans the underground tunnels that is situated directly
below the site, out of which the tower element rises at the northern end where
the degree of impact in terms of views is more limited. The stepped form and
articulation of the building would be bold and architecturally dominant to which it
would be unapologetically imposed upon York Road, with the residential element
situated within stacked blocks above the base. The façade design, which
comprises a series of vertical glass fins appears as a screen against the bridging
structure, which supports the building.
8.4
The proposed ground floor frontage of the north building would be fully glazed
with entrances situated on both the north and south elevations (four entrances in
total). Officers raised concern during the pre-application stage as it was thought
that the area would be used as a large foyer area for both the office and
residential uses. The applicant has stated in the design and access statement
that this area would be utilised as an arts and culture use along with active
frontages, activating this area to pedestrians. Officers are satisfied with this
approach as this would give an ever evolving presence to this area which would
potentially attract the general public from York Road. The usability and
maintenance of this area would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement.
8.5
NPPF makes a strong commitment to the delivery of design excellence. Policy
S9 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will seek the highest quality of
design in all new buildings, alterations and extensions and the public realm.
Innovation in design will be supported and encouraged, particularly where this
contributes to local distinctiveness, enhances the existing built environment and
heritage reflects the cultural diversity of the borough. This is also supported
within policy 33 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan. The London Plan
Policy 7.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for the development
in London. Policy 7.4 requires developments to have regard to its context, and
make a positive contribution to local character within its neighbourhood. The
high quality of design is to be secured through to construction.
8.6
The north building has a stacked linear form to the first 15-storeys. From this
level a broad tower rises from floors 16 to 28, which in turn marks the lactation of
Waterloo Station in the streetscape. The façade is given articulation by teasing
out and or recessing combined floor levels giving the building a linear
articulation. The smooth, understated and refined glazed treatment serves to
emphasise the bold forms and grand scale of the building. The overall impact is
serene and understated. In this respect it could be considered as a carefully
contrived ‘backdrop’ building of high quality which allows other assets across the
city to retain their prominence when seen within its context.
8.7
The immediate impact of the development would be along York Road, where the
monumental scale and what might be considered monolithic form would make
the building a very dominant element on the street. The design is unapologetic in
this respect - the smoothness and refinement of the elevation is likely to further
heighten the sense of the monumentality. The simplified form / massing and the
refined glazed treatment bring a level repose and understatement which is not
normally found in tall buildings within London. Notwithstanding, like other large
scale developments in London it won’t be to everyone’s taste. However, it is not
for the Planning system to dictate taste. Officers consider the scheme would
introduce something new to London’s skyline - a bold gesture by a renowned
architect. As such, design excellence is delivered and these policy objectives
are considered to be met.
8.8
CABE provided design review advice which supports both the urban form and
building design. They state that the taller element of the two buildings is
convincing, both architecturally and in relation to the urban context and
particularly Waterloo Station’s grade II listed Victory Arch. The subtle stacking of
the volumes creates the impression of a slender tower when seen from certain
view points, particularly from the north east.
8.9
Tall Buildings
Policy 40 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan states that tall buildings should
be of the highest architectural and constructional quality; it should enhance the
skyline through profile and use of materials; be constructed to the standard
quality, design and vision of the original architect. Policy 7.11 of the London Plan
sets out additional requirement for tall and large-scale buildings which are
defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/ or
have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes
set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor. Policies 7.10 and 7.11,
which set out the Mayor’s approach to protecting the character of strategic
landmarks as well as London’s wider character, are also important
considerations. Further to this the Waterloo OAPF, characterises this area as a
development for a tall building and this was acknowledged within the previous
Inspectors decision at the previous appeal which was dismissed for the site.
8.10
CABE’s support for the proposal has been presented above. English Heritage
and CABE have published ‘Guidance on Tall Buildings’ providing twelve criteria’s
by which tall buildings should be considered and assessed. These are
considered as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8.11
Relation to context: The proposed tower element has a similar bulk and
mass to the adjacent Shell Centre tower which is considered to make a
positive contribution to the character and appearance of the South Bank
Conservation Area.
The effect on the historic environment: this is explained within sections
8.15 to 8.22.
The relationship to transport infrastructure: the site is within the highest
possible PTAL rating in Lambeth, with a rating 6b and as such accords
with the London Plan policy for the provision of tall buildings. The
development would improve the public realm around the station and the
wider Waterloo area.
The architectural quality of building: CABE supports the applicant’s
approach in terms of built form and design detailing.
The sustainable design and construction: the development would reduce
carbon emissions by 31% which would exceed the London Plan standard
of 25%.
The credibility of the design: the design has progressed following
extensive discussions with the Council officers, GLA and presentation to
CABE. The architects are well respected for their portfolio of work, both in
Britain and internationally.
The contribution of public space and facilities: the scheme would benefit
and improve the existing public realm surrounding the site. The
improvements would also enable a new access into the WIT station.
The effect on the local environment: the applicant has submitted an
Environmental Statement to assess the proposal impact on the
environment which is discussed in section 10 of this report.
The contribution to permeability: the development would create new
access into the WIT station and facilitate greater permeability between
Waterloo Station and the South Bank immediate context.
The Waterloo OAPF, states that the northern element to York Road should be
the focus for tall buildings, given this the proposed tower element would deliver
the cluster of taller buildings at Waterloo. Within regards the views identified in
the London Viewing Management Framework (LVMF), the lower part of the
building would not generally be visible; the tower would be visible from within a
number of LVMF views and from other locations across central London. There
are a number of towers in Waterloo generally and the proposed tower will stand
next to the Shell Centre tower. In this instance officers would not object to the
proposed tower in this location. Furthermore the proposed scheme would accord
to the ‘Guidance of Tall Buildings’.
8.12
South Building
8.13
The proposed south building would stand at an overall height of 11-storeys,
which would be used for further office accommodation on the upper floors with
retail units on the ground floor. The main design appearance would be a
repetition of masonry colonnade facades which would span the entire width and
height of the building. Its simple rectangular form helps define the streets and
urban spaces around it. The design would respond to the local context in terms
of materials and mass. Furthermore, this would be an enhancement to the
setting of the South Bank Conservation Area. The development proposes plant
at roof level which would be set in from all four sides. The presence of this
structure would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the building nor the
wider street context. Conditions have been imposed requesting details of the
proposed materials and finish of the south building.
8.14
The current form of the development within this location has been substantially
reduced in scale and bulk from the previously dismissed appeal, where the
current blocks B and C in this location impacted upon the setting of the World
Heritage Site from Parliament Square. This part of the development would not
be seen within any of the strategic/ protected views. This should be noted when
determining the application. Further, analysis of the strategic and protected
views will be assessed within the Strategic Views section of the report.
8.15
Impact within the Conservation Areas
8.16
The proposed development is not located within a conservation area. The
development would impact the most on both Waterloo and Roupell Street
Conservation Areas. Policy 47 (a) Protection – development proposals in a
conservation should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
conservation area. (g) Setting and Views – development outside conservation
areas should not harm the setting of the area or harm views into or from the
area.
8.17
Waterloo Conservation Area:
Within the Waterloo Conservation Area the development would be visible in the
townscape views along Stamford Street. The proposed residential tower would
rise up above the listed terraces. However, given the views of the Shell Tower,
IMAX and The London Eye in the foreground, officers are of the view that the
erection of the north building within this location would have a neutral impact
within the conservation area, given the existing modern backdrop in the vicinity.
Furthermore, giving consideration to the characterisation for this part of Waterloo
as being an opportunity area, officers are of the view that development of this
scale and nature would be acceptable at the proposed height, scale, bulk and
design.
8.18
Roupell Street Conservation Area:
The proposed development would potentially impact on three main streets within
the Conservation Area which are Roupell Street, Whittlesey Street and Theed
Street. The proposed tower element of the development would be seen looking
outwards from the conservation area. Officers have stated that the scheme
would have negative impact on this conservation area, due to the height and
mass. The scheme would impact on the conservation area to a degree where
any tall building would be seen from these streets. However, given the
opportunity area designation for the site, which allows for tall buildings to be
proposed, the height and mass of the building would be acceptable.
Furthermore, given that the added bulk and massing would be articulated and
finished, which would limit there being a potential impact to the Roupell Street
Conservation Area.
8.19
Impact on Listed Buildings:
Policy 40 protects the backdrops, settings, and important views of buildings and
conservation areas. Policy 45 part (f) Setting - Development which adversely
affects the setting of a listed building, or significant views of a listed building, will
be refused. The NPPF (setting of a heritage asset) is defined as ‘The
surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and
may change as the asset and its surrounding evolve. The site is in close
proximity to the South Bank, where various listed buildings of architectural
importance are sited. Furthermore elements of the setting may make a positive
or negative contribution to the significance of an asset.
8.20
The development would involve the re-facing of the western flank of the Grade II
Listed Victory Arch which is currently shielded by the existing Elizabeth House
building. This elevation would be exposed through the demolition of the building
and the new building canter levering over this elevation. This element of the
development would form part of the public realm works, which forms part of the
Section 106 ‘pot’. This part of the development is welcomed as this would be an
improvement to the entrance of Waterloo Station.
8.21
The existing County Hall building which is located on the opposite side of York
Road, would be mainly dominated by the location and positioning of the south
building on the site. Officers consider the overall bulk, massing and materials
used here would have a neutral impact.
8.22
The development would impact the most on the setting of the Royal Festival Hall
(RFH). The Planning Inspector, considered that the previous scheme would
form a continuous backdrop of the development with the Shell Tower in this
setting. The current proposal would have a similar impact. However, the
glassed element of the tower would be an individual separate component due to
the glazed aesthetic of the proposal. Whilst it is acknowledged there would be
an impact, the proposed architecture design would not cause harm to the
integrity of the Royal Festival Hall.
8.23
The proposed development would also be present in the setting of the Royal
National Theatre. However, given the designated zone as being an opportunity
area, any tall building would impact on the setting of this building and as result
officers consider this impact to be acceptable. Furthermore, given the added
benefit associated with the scheme, these would outweigh the impact within the
wider area of Waterloo.
8.24
World Heritage Sites
London Plan Policy 7.10 ‘World Heritage Sites’ states that “Development should
not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or their setting (including
any buffer zone). In particular, it should not compromise a viewer’s ability to
appreciate it Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance”.
In accordance with the Mayor’s London Heritage Sites – Guidance of Settings
SPG (2012), the applicant has demonstrated a clear understanding of the OUV
of Westminster World Heritage Site, assessed the contribution made by the
World Heritage Site’s setting to its OUV, and assessed the proposal’s impact on
the World Heritage Site’s and its OUV. Policy S9 of the Core Strategy states
that the Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment by
interalia, ‘Protecting Strategic Views, including those that affect the outstanding
universal value and setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site. The site is
located approximately about 800m outside the Westminster World Heritage Site.
8.25
The proposed development is located near the South Bank, which is an
important component within the setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site.
The applicant has assessed the application in accordance with the strategic
views set out in the LVMF. The LVMF SPG identifies London panoramas, linear
views, river prospects and townscape views, with 27 views in total. The
proposed development would not be located in any Protected Vistas, Viewing
Corridors or Wider Setting Consultation Areas. In terms of the LVMF, views
from bridges, it is considered that there would be sufficient distances between
the proposal on the South Bank and the World Heritage Site to enable a
continued appreciation on the Palace of Westminster and particular the Clock
Tower, in line with the visual management guidance of the LVMF SPG.
8.26
From Parliament Square LVMF views, Parliament Square South West (27A.1)
and Parliament North west (27A.2) the proposal would comply with the visual
guidance in that the development would be set away from the Houses of
Parliament next to Portcullis House. This would allow sufficient sky to be
maintained around the Clock Tower to preserve the OUV of the World Heritage
Site. Lambeth Conservation and Urban Design officer has raise concern, even
though that the development may not be seen within the protected view, the
attachment of the narrow flank elevation of the proposed development would be
an adverse intrusion into the gap. However, it should be noted that the
development has been reduced in overall bulk and massing from the previously
refused scheme and it should be identified that the overall scale of development,
anticipated by both local and regional policies, cannot be hidden, so in this
instance the development would not have an impact. Furthermore, given the
added benefits the development would bring to regenerate the Waterloo area,
this should be considered to outweigh the harm as others have suggested.
8.27
The submitted assessment recognises that there would be some small adverse
impact on the OUV of the World Heritage Site from these LVMF view points in
terms of the night time effects of the proposal. However, officers are of view that
this element would be minimal and would not detract from the night time
appearance of the House of Parliament due to relatively lower level of
illumination of the residential element at the top of the scheme compared with
offices and other buildings with the Parliament Square itself.
8.28
It is noted on the south side in views from St Margret’s Churchyard (adopted
Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan (P7)) the Shell Centre tower
is largely screened by Portcullis House and the Elizabeth House proposal sits
prominently in the gap between Portcullis House and Big Ben. It should be
noted that this view is not protected and given that any development would be
seen when ‘moving’ through the gap between the two buildings, some element
of the building would be seen and officers consider this view would be a far
reaching view which is seen within many parts of London. In this instance the
proposed development would have a neutral impact in this view due to the
reason given above.
8.29
The applicant has also assessed other views from within the World Heritage Site
where the proposal’s impact on the OUV is more prominent. In a small area of
Parliament Square on the southern part between Westminster Abbey and the
Houses of Parliament. The proposal is seen to touch the Clock Tower, however,
these instances are minimal in relation to the overall context and visual amenity
of the World Heritage Site from Parliament Square as a whole. The design of
the building has reflected the appreciation of the OUV of the World Heritage Site
and the sensitivities of its setting within the context of the constraints of the
proposal site.
8.30
The Mayor’s London World Heritage – Guidance on Settings SPG 2012 also
recognises that as well as visual impacts of the proposal there are other physical
and experimental impacts that also effect the setting of the World Heritage Site
and contributes to its significance, such as public realm, routes and accessibility.
As detailed elsewhere in this report, the proposal would help to deliver a range
of public benefits, including significantly contributing to the regeneration of the
Waterloo Opportunity Area, which would facilitate and improve permeability and
functioning of the area. These are being delivered within this application such
as affordable housing, public realm work surrounding Waterloo Station, a new
access point to the former WIT and upgrades to the station which are reliant
upon on Network Rail, increase in office accommodation. Whilst the majority of
these impacts would be felt within the immediate Waterloo area, the benefits that
the scheme brings in terms of contributing to London’s World City role, with a
landmark building and public realm that improves links to cultural areas of the
South Bank also help to improve and enhance the setting of the World Heritage
Site as well.
8.31
It is therefore felt on balance whilst there are some adverse impacts in terms of
the visual integrity of the World Heritage site, in a number of limited places in
Parliament Square, the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm
to the setting of the World Heritage Site.
8.32
English Heritage Comments
8.33
English Heritage have raised objection to the proposed development on the
following grounds:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposal would cause substantial and unacceptable degree of harm
to the OUV, setting and views from Westminster World Heritage Site.
English Heritage have advised that the new development on the site
should not be visible in the gap between Portcullis House and the Tower
of Big Ben if it would cause harm. By virtue of its massing, bulk and
deposition, appear visually attached to the North face of the Big Ben
Tower. Such an impact would be difficult.
The proposals would reduce an awareness of the dominance and
architectural form of the Big Ben Tower. English Heritage are unable to
support any proposals which would appear to weaken its architectural
form or ability to read against the sky.
The impact the development would have on the setting and views of the
Royal Festival Hall are also a serious concern to English Heritage. It is a
building of national importance and safeguarding its setting should be a
very high priority.
When viewed from Waterloo Bridge, the proposed new development
would by virtue of its height, massing and disposition, overwhelm the
Royal Festival Hall to an extent which would seriously harm its setting
and be unacceptable to English Heritage.
The development would be seen from Blue Bridge in St James Park
where it would appear visually attached to the tower of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. This would lessen the architectural form of the
Grade I Listed building and is unacceptable.
There would be some harm to the settings and views of County Hall,
Victory Arch and the National Theatre.
8.34
Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would have an impact
upon the World Heritage Site from Parliament Square, officers have assessed
the scheme in accordance LVMF. This has concluded that the development
would not be seen within the protected zones specified within 27A.1 and 27A.2.
English Heritage has stated that there should not be any building seen within
this gap between Portcullis House and Big Ben. Having regard to this, the
development would be viewed as a building within far reaching views which are
apparent throughout the London city skyline. In this instance the building would
have an impact in this view, however, it would not be reasonable to refuse a
scheme where a building would seen in an element of the gap between the two
buildings which would bring added benefits to the London City role as a whole.
8.35
English Heritage has stated that the development would weaken the
architectural form of the Big Ben Tower. It should be noted that the applicants
have had lengthy pre-application discussions with Lambeth Planning concerning
the impact the development would have on this building. It is also pertinent to
note that the scheme was presented to English Heritage. The overall bulk and
massing has been reduced from the previously refused scheme and would be
mainly hidden behind Portcullis House. Officers acknowledge that the
development would still be viewed in close proximity to the Big Ben Tower, but
this would only be present when you move away from the fixed point of view that
requires consideration under the LVMF. Indeed, it should be noted that views
of the tower as you move through this gap would become more oblique,
reducing the visual prominence of the clock faces on Big Ben and is
representative of the transient way townscape is both ‘read’ and ‘explored’. You
would have to actively move through the gap to ‘discover’ the singular point
where attachment happens, and when Big Ben appears at its least articulate.
The appearance of the tower would not (and is not) appreciated statically.
Indeed, predominately the viewers eye would be drawn towards the upper part
of the tower, and its Clock Face. In terms of competition, it is indeed shown in
the submitted views that as the other landmark site in the immediate area, the
London Eye would be the only other point of intrigue in these views to distract
from Big Ben itself. The form of development is moved away from the appeal
scheme, and in those views of significance, is detached from and does not seek
to compete nor rival but be moot to the OUV of the House if Westminster.
8.36
In relation to the impact the development would have from Blue Bridge in St
James Park, the development has been reduced drastically to limit the impact of
the development from this view. As a result the impact would be minor and in so
doing, the scheme would acceptable.
8.37
In relation to the impact the development would have on the remaining buildings
within the South Bank Conservation Area. Officers have assessed the potential
impact upon these buildings which have been assessed within section 8.18 and
8.19 of this report.
8.38
English Heritage have stated the scheme would deliver “claimed benefits”. The
proposal would help to deliver a range of public benefits, including significantly
contributing to the regeneration of the Waterloo Opportunity Area, which would
facilitate and improve permeability and functioning of the area. Whilst it is
acknowledged that improvements can come forward in relation to the WIT,
however those associated with the scheme are additional which would benefit
the wider Waterloo area, which wouldn’t be achieved without a scheme coming
forward on the site These are being delivered within this application such as
affordable housing, public realm works surrounding Waterloo Station, a new
access point to the former WIT and upgrades to the station which are reliant
upon on Network Rail, increase in office accommodation. Whilst the majority of
these impacts would be felt within the immediate Waterloo area, the benefits that
the scheme brings in terms of contributing to London’s World City role, with a
landmark building and public realm that improves links to cultural areas of the
South Bank also help to improve and enhance the setting of the World Heritage
Site as well. Having regard to the above information and weighing these against
the potential harm, the public benefits of the proposal would help to deliver and
enhance the setting of the World Heritage Site and outweigh this harm.
8.39
English Heritage state Big Ben should be the dominant building in the skyline
and no other building should compete with it. There are clear spatial voids
between the building and the tower in the majority of views, and not just a
consequence of orientation of the sites from another. English Heritage state
“that they are unable to support any proposals which would appear to weaken
Big Ben’s architectural form or ability to read against the sky”. Officers accept
such a position, and are therefore surprised that English Heritage are unable to
support the proposal where it has been demonstrated within the detailed
submission that the scheme seeks to preserve a spatial gap around Big Ben and
allows for the development to be read against the sky without impingement from
the proposed development. Within the appeal scheme the proposal, the building
attached to Big Ben and so it is curious where the current proposal does not
English Heritage similarly objects.
8.40
It is accepted by officers that the proposed scheme would have an impact within
the local area of Waterloo and some strategic views which have been assessed
within the report. However, the proposed replacement proposal would provide
added benefits, to not only Waterloo but also the wider London city, and as
result these benefits would outweigh the potential harm.
8.41
Demolition of high-level footbridge above York Road (12/01329/CON)
The application involves the demolition of the high-level footbridge above York
Road as the proposed redevelopment of Elizabeth House would not retain this
structure as part of the scheme. The current footbridge serves as a main
connection route from the upper level platforms within Waterloo Station across
York Road and provides a route through to the South Bank area. The
development proposes to replace this bridge with three escalators, two lifts and
one stair which would be situated internal within the Waterloo Station concourse.
The proposed new route would be directed down into existing Orchestra Pit.
This would be accessed through existing doors formerly used by the former
Eurostar Station. This would be at grade level along York Road. The applicant
has submitted a Conservation Area application, as part of the footbridge located
towards north-eastern part of York Road falls within a Conservation Area
(12/01329/CON).
8.42
Policy 47 (c) demolition - states the Council will resist granting consent for the
demolition of a building, or a substantial part of a building that makes a positive
contribution to the character and appearance of a conservation area. In design
terms officers raise no objection to the proposed demolition of the high-level
footbridge, providing that a scheme comes forward on the Elizabeth House site.
Officers have assessed the proposed demolition and have raised no objection to
the proposal. However, a scheme must come forward in the first instance. The
practicalities of the replacement lifts and escalators situated within the internal
concourse, has been addressed within the transport and highways section.
8.43
Public Realm Improvements
8.44
The draft Waterloo SPD aims to promote public realm improvements in and
around Elizabeth House which includes the following:
•
•
•
Improvements/ treatment of exposed flank wall of Victory Arch;
Streetscape improvement to primary and secondary route in accordance
with the public realm guidance;
New street level pedestrian route to replace the upper level walkway from
the station to Hungerford Bridge. The relevant landowners (SBC, Shell,
Elizabeth House and Network Rail/BRBR) to continue to coordinate
improvement to achieve this route and to produce a whole route
masterplan. Proposals for any section of the route must demonstrate that
they contribute to achieving a coherent design for the whole bridge to
•
station route.
Improved link to Lower Marsh
The development would provide a series of public realm improvements in close
proximity of the site and along York Road, which is listed below:
•
Victory Arch Square: the area would be re-graded and landscaped to
create a new pedestrian-priority public space in front of Waterloo Station.
Cab Road would be re-aligned to the north and a new set of steps created
connecting Victory Arch to the Tennison Way bus station via Mepham
Street.
•
Improvement to York Road and Leake Street which would comprise repaving/re-alignment works to the eastern side of York Road, the relocation and expansion of the existing pedestrian crossing on York Road
to align with the new Central Square and minor improvement works to
Leake Street.
•
The application proposes improvements to linear strip of land between
Elizabeth House site and WIT, currently known as West Road. The
application proposes to pedestrianise and landscape this land to create a
publically-accessible route free of vehicles. Due to the land level changes
which equates to 1.2m (lower), the applicant proposes a more ‘seamless
interface’.
•
Victory Arch façade: this part of the scheme proposes to re-face the
western flank of the Grade II listed Victory Arch that would be exposed if
the demolition of Elizabeth House occurred. It should be noted that
neither planning permission nor listed building consent has been
submitted as this would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement.
8.45
The current appearance of Waterloo Station and it surroundings are badly in
need of repair and regeneration, given the years of neglect. The redevelopment
of this site would provide significant opportunities to resolve the poor state of the
public realm around Waterloo Station. This is considered to be a crucial public
benefit of the scheme as this would not only improve Waterloo but also London’s
city role. Furthermore, the development would provide the public benefits, which
have been highlighted within the draft SPD for Waterloo (above).
8.46
All the public realm improvements would assist this part of Waterloo which
suffers a lack of permeability and legibility. In particular the area between the
existing building and the WIT station, which has a poor environment and whilst it
has the potential to provide a ‘gateway’ to London and the South Bank
attractions, the current makeup is not fit for purpose. The new central square
which would be created between the north and south buildings, facilitates the
creation of a new entrance to the WIT station. The improvement to the Victory
Arch, which is currently hidden by the existing building would open this western
façade, bring improvements to the main entrance into Waterloo Station. This
area would also facilitate the new access points from the higher levels of the
Waterloo Station concourse, following the demolition of the high-level walkway
bridge over York Road. This access point would be provide at grade and the
mechanisms for delivery would be provided through the installation of
escalators, lifts and a staircase.
8.47
The public realm improvements have been earmarked as Section 106
contributions which equates to £13m of the overall ‘pot’. The mechanisms for
delivery and maintenance of the area post construction would be secured
through the agreement also. Overall the approach being proposed would
provide a public benefit to the area and furthermore, holistically improve the
locality.
8.48
Future of Waterloo International Terminal (WIT)
8.49
The applicant has submitted a document ‘The Importance of Elizabeth House to
the future of WIT and Waterloo Station’ dated 2012. This has been produced by
Hopkins Architects along with the applicant of Elizabeth House. This document
outlines how the proposed scheme of Elizabeth House would influence the
current proposals for the WIT in terms of its form, content and delivery along
with the wider regeneration of Waterloo Station. The submitted document aims
to comply with policy PN1 of the Core Strategy in that the scheme would
potentially support improvement in the transport capacity and interchange quality
of Waterloo Station, including proposal to increase permeability by providing
linkages to Lower Marsh and other parts of Waterloo, including through
development at the station for Central London uses.
8.50
The Core Strategy, p61 recognises that Waterloo Station and the former WIT
Station present a major development opportunity arising from the need to
remodel facilities to increase capacity and this must, in turn help to transform the
wider neighbourhood in line with adopted policies. The draft SPD for Waterloo
states that:
•
•
•
•
•
By 2014, 10 car platforms across the station
Reuse of the International Terminal
In the longer term, 12 car platforms across the station
A new street level concourse, also in the longer term
Commercial development to part-pay for the improvements.
The Hopkins scheme would comprise of two key schemes which are as follows:
1. The regeneration of WIT in a sustainable way to provide 5 new
operational mainline platforms, a new western concourse accessed
directly from street level, new retail uses and improved connections to the
London Underground, mainline Waterloo Station platforms and externally
to York Road and beyond to Waterloo and the South Bank; and
2. The regeneration of Waterloo Station itself, enabled by the
implementation of the WIT proposals, by opening up a linear at-grade
route east-west through the station at the lower level, diverting pedestrian
flows and London Underground ‘paid zones’ demolishing Station
Approach to create a consolidated bus and taxi interchange to the east of
the station and expanding the existing concourse into the space
previously occupied by buses and taxis.
8.51
The applicant has stated that the proposed development at Elizabeth, would
complement the station bringing forward the following facilities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bringing back into use a derelict building at the heart of Waterloo;
Relieving congestion at Waterloo Station by providing a new Western
Concourse and five additional platforms for domestic train services;
Creating new entrances to Waterloo Station with direct visibility and
access from York Road;
Creating jobs in relation to the operation of rail services and retail
floorspace;
Providing approximately 10,000sqm of new retail floorspace, providing
services for the local residential and business communities;
Facilitating the comprehensive redevelopment of Waterloo Station to
accommodate projected increases in passenger numbers and to provide
a station facility which would potentially benefit London’s busiest transport
interchange.
Furthermore, this would enable the regenerative benefits set out within the draft
Waterloo SPD for the station to come forward.
8.52
In summary the proposed building would be monolithic with an architectural
dominance along this section of York Road. In so doing, the development would
open up this section of Waterloo in terms of connections to the Southbank and
the wider areas of Waterloo. The scheme would improve permeability to the
WIT station through the creation of the new central square. Regard has been
given to the impact the development would have in terms of the conservation
areas, listed buildings, Westminster World Heritage Site and the wider Waterloo
Area. On balance, it is considered that the development would impact to some
degree on these areas of importance, however, this harm is outweighed by the
public benefits the scheme would provide in terms of the public realm
improvements in and around Waterloo Station, improvements to the Victory Arch
façade and overall the development would make significant improvements to not
only the Waterloo area as a whole but the wider London city.
8.53
Conclusion
The scheme essentially compromises a tall building which will have an impact
on the overall visual appearance of the area. The key consideration is whether
this impact is harmful when considered against policy considerations. The
interpretation of this impact varies between parties but the key consideration for
the Council is to determine if the scheme gives rise to material harm. When all
aspects of the design of the building are considered in totality it is not considered
that the scheme gives rise to harm as set out by English Heritage. If it were the
view that harm was caused it is considered that the interdependent public
benefits to be delivered are significant to outweigh any such consideration.
9
Transportation and Accessibility
9.1
Policy S4 of the Core Strategy aims to achieve and contribute towards
sustainable pattern of development within the borough; seeking improvement for
better connectivity, quality and capacity in public transport; working in
partnership with TfL, Network Rail and other public transport providers and
supporting the plans and programmes for improvements to public transport
infrastructure and services in the borough, including the transport hubs at
Waterloo; requiring developments to comply with the maximum car parking
standards in the London Plan and reflect the public transport accessibility of the
development and to include provision for cycle parking, motor-cycle parking in
appropriate location and car clubs wherever possible; promoting walking and
cycling, including through improvements to existing provision in and around
development for cycling, cycle parking, public realm and transport and highway
infrastructure.
9.2
Policy 6.1 of the London plan aim to encourage patterns and nodes of
development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car; seeking to
improve the capacity and accessibility of public transport, walking and cycling,
particularly in areas of greatest demand; supporting development that generates
high levels of trips at locations with high public accessibility; improving
interchange between different forms of transport, particularly around major rail
and Underground stations, especially where this will enhance connectivity in
outer London.
9.3
Internal WIT improvements/ Network Rail (NR)
The application proposes the removal of the high-level footbridge along York
Road. This would potentially be replaced internally within the WIT, through the
installation of three escalators, two lifts and a staircase. Access from this area
would be through the former entrance doors at the former Eurostar terminal at
grade. TfL previously raised concerns in relation to the potential impact of
additional pedestrians crossing York Road as a result of the high-level
footbridge. However, the applicant has submitted further analysis in relation to
the proposed increase in pedestrian flows and it is now considered that the
additional footfall could be accommodated at the crossing in front of Victory
Arch.
9.4
The applicant have outlined the specification of the works to the ‘Orchestra Pit’,
Waterloo Station, which are outlined below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Creation of a street level entrance to the Orchestra Pit from Victory Arch
Square.
Removal of two escalators from the orchestra Pit.
Removal of two lifts from the Orchestra Pit.
Associated works of demolition and temporary support.
Provision of three new escalators.
Provision of two new lifts.
Provision of one new staircase.
Partial decking over the Orchestra Pit, which would be suitable for
passenger loading.
Provision of structural support for the new deck.
Internal walls, partitions and other finishes.
Out of hours working, phasing or other constraints imposed by Network
Rail.
9.5
Network Rail:
The applicant has been in discussion with Network Rail in relation to the internal
Waterloo Station works, if the proposed high-level footbridge was demolished,
subject to planning permission. Network Rail have given their support for the
demolition and redevelopment of Elizabeth House as the proposed scheme and
related Section 106 works would improve capacity to the station, create a new
entrance via an area known as the Orchestra Pit, improve the overall area
concourse and make substantial improvement to the public realm on the South
Bank side of the Station. The letter of support has outlined the following
commitments which the applicant has given Network Rail which include:
•
•
•
•
•
Prior removal of the existing upper pedestrian walkway, they will carry out
work to the Victory Arch entrance to alleviate pressure form additional
passenger numbers. This will include removal of the lift and stairs to the
IMAX tunnel with decking over subject to agreement by IMAX and NR;
Removal of the pedestrian walkway and making good to the station
following its removal;
The provision of a new access into the station via the Orchestra Pit;
Removal of existing fixtures and fitting to be replaced with two lifts, stairs,
three escalators to provide connection between the Victory Arch Plaza
level and the main station concourse level. This will allow step-free
access into this part of the station;
The re-facing of the west façade of Victory Arch
Network Rail considers the above scope of works would significantly benefit the
station and would mitigate the impact of the development proposals. Officers at
Network Rail have agreed an outline scope of works with the applicant. This
would be secured as part of the Section 106 Agreement. However, Network
Rail have confirmed that the detailed specification would be worked up once
planning committee granted consent. Officers raise no objection to this
approach.
9.6
Public Realm Improvements
The proposed building layout also helps to facilitate the longer term
redevelopment aspirations of the station, which would include a new entrance
from street level through to the WIT, via the new public square and public realm
that would be created between the development site and the station. The
proposals for Victory Arch Square would be a considerable improvement in the
public realm adjacent to the station. TfL have raised comments previously in
relation to the operation of this area and the interaction between pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles. However, officers consider that these factors can be
overcome through the detailed design process and appropriate management.
This has been secured through the Section 106 Agreement.
9.7
Pedestrian Analysis
The applicant has submitted potential pedestrian flows which would be
generated by the proposed development, produced by Space Syntax. TfL have
been heavily involved with the assessment of the possible impact the
development may have within the Waterloo Station given the extent of the
development. The information submitted suggests that the proposed pedestrian
levels generated by the scheme and users of Waterloo Station could be
accommodated on York Road, TfL raise no objection.
9.8
Pedestrian Crossing
The scheme proposes to widened the crossing from Sutton Walk to Victory Arch
to a width of 10m. In addition a raised table would be proposed at Leake Street
and York Road with the existing crossing of York Road and Chicheley Street
would be relocated 50m north. It is proposed that West Road would become an
access point for the WIT platforms when they are brought back into use and an
emergency access into the Elizabeth House scheme. Whilst TfL supported the
principles for improving walking and cycling connections to the station in line
with London Plan policies 6.9, cycling and 6.10 walking, further analysis and
discussion was required in relation to the exact layout of the crossing which
were required. The applicant carried out further modelling within the TRANSYT
model audit and TfL concluded they would be satisfied with the proposed
location of the crossings.
9.9
Trip Generation
The application has assessed the potential trip generation by the proposed
development which has been outlined within the TRAVL database which forms
part of the transport assessment. Both TfL and Lambeth Transport are satisfied
with the modal splits for the scheme.
9.10
Highways and Access
The proposed scheme would have vehicular access to the site from Leake
Street via ramp for servicing vehicles and two car lifts. The junction of Leake
Street with York Road would remain as a priority junction, with a raised table
introduced to improve pedestrian facilities.
9.11
The application proposes improvements to York Road, incorporating
enhancements to the at-grade pedestrian crossing and the use of high quality
materials and street furniture. Given the interrelated nature of the Elizabeth
House and Shell Centre sites, Lambeth Transport and TfL have indentified a
need to develop a solution that addressed the aspirations of both development
as well as catering for the strategic requirements of the Waterloo interchange
and wider area. Both developments teams currently working together to agree a
mutually acceptable proposal. Officer support this approach and this would be
secured within the Section 106 Agreement and this would result in improving the
public realm and pedestrian environment.
9.12
TfL have assessed the TRAFSYT traffic models and they consider this to be
acceptable to facilitate the assessment of the proposed development and
highway alterations.
9.13
Car Parking
The development proposes a total of 75 car parking spaces. The application
previously proposed fifty-seven spaces for the residential spaces and sixteen
office spaces. The proposed level originally proposed was contrary to the 0.2
level provision set with the Core Strategy S4 and the Policy 6.13 of the London
Plan.
9.14
The applicant has revised the parking provision to a maximum level of twentynine spaces for the residential units, with the remaining twenty-eight spaces
transferring to the proposed office accommodation. Policy requires office
accommodation to not exceed a maximum provision of one space per 10001500sqm within the CAZ. The proposed increased in office spaces to a total of
forty-four spaces would represent one space per 2,028sqm, which would comply
with this part of the policy. The applicant has further stated given that the
proposed development would provide a high-level of speculative office
accommodation, it is likely that the development would be multi-tenanted, and so
the ability to offer the option of a small number of car parking spaces to tenants
would increase the commercial attractiveness of the building and reduce the risk
of developing such a substantial amount of floorspace in this location.
9.15
Lambeth Transport have commented on the re-allocation of the parking
provision between the two uses and they concluded that officers would not
object to the proposal. However, a minimum of eight parking bays to be
accessible for disabled users; minimum 20% of parking bays to provide an
electrical charging point and as a result these should be highlighted in the
Section 106 Agreement.
9.16
A condition relating to car parking management plan should imposed and
approved prior to first occupation. This is to include details of how the measures
set out in other contributions/ Section 106 obligations are to be managed,
monitored and enforced. Furthermore, the details should outline how the
stacking system is to operate and be maintained, how access for disable drivers
is to be maintained, how access for disabled drivers is to be provided, how
electrical charging points are to be provided and a clear statement that the car
park management plan is to be monitored with information on allocation of
parking spaces including a plan showing how this is to be carried out, should be
submitted to the Council on request for the purposes of monitoring and
enforcement. This has been imposed.
9.17
TfL have reviewed the change and justification for the re-allocation of the
parking provision in relation to the proposed development. Whilst officers
welcome the reduction in the residential parking spaces, the re-provision of the
spaces to the office accommodation is considered to be unacceptable, given
that no initial justification was given at the outset for a higher provision of office
spaces and it is considered that the traffic generation would be worse from the
office accommodation rather than the residential accommodation. However,
given that the objection by TfL in relation to this matter, the scheme would be
policy compliant and the allocation of the spaces would be secured in perpetuity
through the Section 106 Agreement.
9.18
London Underground
As significant proportion of the additional trips generated by the development are
forecast to be made by the London Underground. Whilst the transport
assessment concludes that the additional trips can be accommodated by
existing service and planned upgrades, this and other developments in the
Waterloo area would have a cumulative impact on future capacity.
9.19
Due to the location of the development, the northern building effectively has to
span over the LUL infrastructure below. Safeguards therefore need to be put in
place to ensure that the construction of the development doesn’t have an
adverse impact on this infrastructure. These conditions have been imposed to
this effect.
9.20
Cycling/ Taxis/ Buses
9.21
The scheme proposes a total of 666 cycle spaces (248 residential spaces, 358
commercial spaces and 60 visitors spaces within the public realm). The
proposed level and allocation would be acceptable and inline with both local and
London Plan standards. It is welcomed that the scheme would provide separate
showers and changing facilities for office staff. A condition has been imposed to
ensure that all cycle parking is delivered prior to the occupation of any part of the
development.
9.22
The proposed taxi drop off bays on York Road and Mepham Street are
welcomed. However, TfL have raised concerns in relation to the capacity of
these bays during the use. A review of taxi operations has been secured
through the Section 106 Agreement following the completion of the
implementation of the development.
9.23
Due to the central location and proximity of the development to a high number of
bus routes, TfL is satisfied that no mitigation is required from a bus capacity
perspective. The existing bus stops adjacent to the site on York Road would be
upgraded as part of the improvements to York Road. TfL have also requested
that an element of bus stops are allocated in close proximity to Waterloo Station
on Cab Road. These works would be outlined within the 278 Agreement
between the applicant and TfL.
9.24
IMAX
The applicant have undertaken detailed studies of the area with ARUP and they
have identified that the existing lift and stairs outside the existing Victory Arch,
which provides access to the IMAX and other Southbank destinations create a
pinch point during the construction period which restricts pedestrian movement
to an unacceptable degree once the existing high-level pedestrian walkway is
closed. The applicant proposes to remove the lift and deck over the stairs
before the walkway is closed. For the duration of construction, signage would
be provided in consultation with BFI, Network Rail and others to direct visitors
from Waterloo Road station exist. Elizabeth House Limited Partnership (EHLP)
would pay for the costs of these temporary works. This would be controlled
through a condition. The proposed costs to replace the lift and stairs have
calculated and the applicant is discussions with the IMAX. This part of the
scheme has been secured within the Section 106 Agreement.
9.25
In summary the proposed scheme would facilitate a significant improvement to
both accessibility and permeability to Waterloo Station and the South Bank.
This would be achieved through extensive public realm works associated with
the scheme and the works being delivered internally within the WIT station. This
would provide a public benefit to not only Waterloo but the role of the London
city as a whole. In this instance officers raise no objection to the transportation
and accessibility mitigation measures being proposed as part of the
9.26
Conclusion
The scheme is considered to be policy compliant when considered against the
key transportation policies. The scheme will be contributing to the wider
regeneration and strategic infrastructure improvements required around
Waterloo.
10
Residential Amenity
The applicant has submitted a comprehensive Environmental Statement (ES)
produced by Waterman Energy, Environment and Design (Watermen EED)
which seeks to ensure that all the likely significant effects of the proposal are
fully understood and taken into account in evaluation the proposal. The
approach adopted in the EIA process has been subject to pre-application
discussions with the GLA, TfL as well as the Council and has been submitted in
accordance with the EIA Regulations and published guidance The ES includes a
number of technical areas including wind and microclimate, air quality, land
contamination, archaeology and drainage (this list is not exhaustive).
10.1
Daylight and Sunlight
10.2
The applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report produced by GIA.
The report has been independently assessed by BRE on behalf of the Council.
The nearest residential block which are in close proximity, are County Hall
(approximately 340m), Whitehouse Apartments (approximately 90m) and
Prospect House (approximately 16m). The report has calculated the Vertical
Sky Component (VSC), No Sky Line (NSL) and Average Daylight Factor (ADF).
BRE have stated that the development would not impact on the daylight sunlight
levels to the Whitehouse Apartments and Prospect House as the levels here
would be within the guidelines set out in the BRE and a result would not lose
less than 20% of their light.
10.3
The report by BRE concluded that the development of Elizabeth House would
impact the most on the northern end of the east elevation of County Hall. The
windows along this elevation are recessed already and have lower VSC results.
BRE stated even though it is not necessary for a building to be blocked by
nearby development due to its design, results should be presented without the
effect of any balcony or recess, in order to allow consideration of the actual
effects of the development on the occupant of that room. The floor plans show
that the windows which are severely affected on the east elevation serve a
kitchen and bedrooms respectively on each floor. A total of a 148 residential
windows were assessed along the east elevation with a total of 50 windows
failing the BRE Guidelines. Each window is the only one serving the room, so
there are no alternative sources of daylight on other elevations, and the windows
in columns 16, 17, 18 and 19 all serve the same flat. The recessed windows in
the column 18 which are particularly affected serve bedrooms. The flats in this
corner of the building have living rooms on the north elevation which would
continue to enjoy reasonable level of daylight, but the other four of their five
rooms would lose between 21% and 47% or more of their light with the effects of
the overhangs excluded. The BRE guideline suggests that a ‘mirror image
building’ should be analysed for daylight where a proposed development faces a
vacant plot of land’. This ensures that the neighbouring development land has a
potential for good daylighting. The applicant states that this approach has been
successfully argued before and can be adopted where a development is
proposed on a currently vacant site. If this approach was taken with the
Elizabeth House scheme the resultant effect of the proposal in daylight and
sunlight terms would improve. In this instance the 18 windows within the County
Hall North Block east elevation as recommended by BRE would not alter the
impact on those windows. BRE have assessed this and they accept this
methodology being adopted.
10.4
In relation to the sunlight levels the proposed development would not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding buildings and in this instance no objection is
raised by BRE.
10.5
Light Pollution
BRE have assessed the potential light pollution which may be attributed by the
proposed development.
It was concluded the light spill from the new
development would be well with the Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP)
guideline values. As a result there would be a negligible impact, is justified. A
lighting strategy and management plan for the development has been secured to
ensure that the scheme would not be harmful to neighbouring amenity.
10.6
Solar Glare
Glare or dazzle can occur when sunlight is reflected from a glazed façade or
area of metal cladding. This can affect road users and train drivers outside and
the occupants of adjoining buildings. The applicant has chosen four positions to
assess which are York Road (looking south west) (two positions), a further
position looking north east and Chicheley Street (looking east). BRE have
assessed the calculations and they conclude that the development would have a
minor instance of glare to office users of the Shell Centre opposite the site,
drivers going down southwest and north east along York Road would have minor
glare. However, BRE have stated that these issues of minor glare can be
mitigated through the adoption of a non-reflecting coating on the windows. This
has been imposed via a condition as these measures cannot be retrofitted as
part of the development.
10.7
Overlooking/ Privacy
The three nearest properties which would be affected by the development would
be Prospect House (approximately 340m), County Hall (approximately 340m)
and Whitehouse Apartments (approximately 90m). The proposed residential
part of the development, would be a erected up to 29 storeys in height, however
it is considered that there would be sufficient distance between the existing
building residential blocks to prevent mutual overlooking to occur. In this
instance no objection is raised to the loss of privacy by the development.
10.8
The proposed south building which would be in office accommodation, and
situated approximately 25m from County Hall and approximately 18m from
Prospect House. It is considered that there would be some perceived
overlooking between the proposed office accommodation and residential unit of
these buildings. However, it is considered that the use of the building would not
be used in 24 hour operation as residential unit and only used during business
hours, officers raise no objection on this basis.
10.9
Wind
The applicant has submitted a wind methodology which has been produced by
BMT Fluid Mechanics Limited. The only major effect the scheme would be
people stationed at a bus stop located on the western side of York Road where
the development would have moderate adverse effect and the mitigation
measures would involve the installation of an additional bus stop. This would be
secured through the installation of a bus stop to the south of the existing bus
shelter. The conclusion of the report states that overall the development would
have a negligible effect, meaning that the “any effect that does not alter the
suitability of existing wind conditions with respect to planned activities”. In this
instance, carrying out the above mitigation measure the scheme would not
cause harm to pedestrians.
10.10 Flood Risk
This part of the application was written and assessed by Waterman Energy,
Environment and Design (Watermen EED). Policy S6 of the Core Strategy
states that the Council will work with the Environment Agency in order to
manage and mitigate flood risk. The Environment Agency have been consulted
in relation to the proposed development and they have raised no objection to the
proposed development. However, they have requested conditions relating to
drainage flood risk assessment, details relating to contamination, remediation
strategy and ground water storage. These have been attached to the report.
10.11 Crime Prevention/ Counter Terrorism
10.12 Lambeth Crime Prevention team were consulted in relation to the proposed
development. No objection have been raised in relation to the proposed
scheme, however, the applicant is having ongoing meetings with the counterterrorism to mitigate any risk to the proposed development and the ongoing use
of Waterloo Station. Conditions have been attached relating to CCTV, external
lighting, secure by design details for the proposed development, car parking and
maintenance and management of the proposed development,
10.13 Noise and Vibration
Environment and Design (Watermen EED). Lambeth’s Regulatory Noise and
Pollution officer has assessed the report. No objection has been received for the
proposed development. However, they have requested that a condition is
imposed regulating potential noise impact to the proposed residential units on
the site.
10.14 Archaeology
Environment and Design (Watermen EED). English Heritage have requested a
desk top archaeological assessment to be submitted prior to demolition. This
has been imposed.
10.15 Air Quality
London Plan Policy 7.14 requires developments to minimise increased exposure
to poor air quality. It requires developments to be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and
not lead to further deterioration of existing poor quality in areas designated as Air
Quality Management Areas. The applicant has submitted a report by Waterman
Energy, Environment and Design (Waterman EED). The applicant notes that the
potential receptors would be the residential accommodation, located at the
thirteenth floor above, and predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxide would
not exceed background concentration and have a negligible impact. As such
officers consider that the scheme would not give rise to any air quality concerns
for future occupiers.
10.16 In summary the proposed bulk, design and massing being proposed would not
cause there to be an adverse impact in terms of residential amenity in the local
area and as such officers raise no objection to the scheme on these grounds.
10.17 Conclusion
It is considered that all of the potential impacts on residential amenity have been
fully addressed and either are not considered to be a matter of concern or have
been fully mitigated through the detail of the scheme or the proposed conditions.
11
Sustainability and Renewable Energy
11.1
Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the London Plan sets out a minimum target reduction for
carbon dioxide emissions in buildings up until 2013 of 25% over the Target
Emission Rates outlined in the national Building Regulations. Developments
should follow the following energy hierarchy:
1 Be lean: use less energy;
2 Be clean: supply energy efficiently;
3 Be green: use renewable energy
11.2
Policy S7 of the Core Strategy ensures that future development, including
construction of the public realm, highways and other physical infrastructure,
achieves the highest standards of sustainable design. The policy further states
that major developments should achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
in line with London Plan targets through energy efficient design, decentralised
heat, cooling and power systems and on-site renewable energy generation and
requiring all other development to achieve maximum feasible reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions through these measures.
11.3
The applicant has submitted two documents, BREEAM Prediction Report and
Code For Sustainable Homes prediction report both dated April 2012. These
documents have been prepared by Hilson Moran. The application proposes a
range of passive design features and demand reduction measures to reduce the
carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat
loss parameters would be improved beyond the minimum backstop values
required by Building Regulations. Other features of the development include
mechanical ventilation heat recovery for the residential apartments in the north
building and variable speed drives for fan power. The demand for cooling would
be minimised through high performance solar glazing.
11.4
The development proposes to achieve a reduction of 627 tonnes per annum
(24.2%) in regulated carbon dioxide emissions.
11.5
District Heating
The applicant has carried out an investigation and whilst initial investigations
undertaken by the South Bank Employers group in relation to the potential for
district heating/ cooling system in the Waterloo area, these plans are still at an
early stage and significant feasibility studies are still required. The applicant has
stated that they are committed in developing a scheme which would be
connected to any future district heating network, should one become a available
in the future. The applicant proposes a plant room which would have an area of
138sqm which accommodates the heat network. This is located at basement
level.
11.6
Combined Heat and Power
The applicant proposes to install gas fired combined heat and power (CHP) units
in the north building. The CHP would provide the domestic hot water load, as
well as proportion of the space heating to the north building. A reduction in
regulated carbon dioxide would be 9% through this second part of the energy
hierarchy.
11.7
Renewable Energy Technologies
The applicant have investigated a range of renewable energy technologies and
is proposing to install an active area spanning 184sqm of solar photovoltaic (PV)
panels. This would be installed to the south side of the north buildings. This
would have a carbon emission reduction by 1%.
11.8
Overall Carbon Savings
The proposed carbon emissions of the development would be 1,777 tonnes of
carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency
measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account.
11.9
This equates to a reduction of 811 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in
regulated emission compared to a 2010 Building Regulation compliant
development, equivalent to an overall saving of 31%. This would exceed the
target set within policy 5.2 of the London Plan. This has been secured through
the Section 106 Agreement.
11.10 In summary the proposed development would provide a range of renewable
technologies which would be used within the development to reduce associated
of carbon emissions as part of the scheme. In this instance the technologies
proposed would exceed the both local and London Plan policies and as result
the building would be acceptable in this respect.
12
Refuse and Recycling
12.1
Policy S8 of the Core Strategy states the Council will contribute to the
sustainable management of waste in Lambeth. The applicant has submitted a
Waste Strategy produced by Hilson Moran dated April 2012.
12.2
Elizabeth House is predicted to produce approximately 37.22 tonnes of waste
per week. The applicant has stated that the volume of waste would require
dedicated storage and disposal facilities and coordinated waste collection
strategy from individual floors and the main collection points. A number of
options for movement of waste have been considered which include:
•
•
•
Waste Chutes
Manual Transport
Vacuum driven waste ducts
12.3
Commercial Waste Collection, storage and separation
12.4
Waste would be transferred to a central collection point. The transfer of waste
would be in wheeled bins from floor level collection points to the basement level.
This would be achieved through using lifts. It is recommended that separate
container areas are provided for the following waste streams:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
High quality used paper;
Classified waste paper;
Packaging;
Combined dry recyclables;
Special waste;
Waste electrical
Non-recyclable waste
It is recommended that the proposed waste is located near bin stores to reduce
commuting the waste.
12.5
Residential Waste Collection, Storage and Separation
12.6
Each residential unit would be provided with three internal recycling bins for
glass, paper, metals and plastics. Waste would be collected on specified days
by cleaning staff or facilities management for collection and transportation of
waste to the basement. In relation to the bulky storage there would be a room
allocated within the basement.
12.7
Waste Disposal/ compactor location and collection
12.8
The general waste would consolidated into two portable compaction skips
equipped with wheeled bin lifting equipment situated within the basement
loading bay. This would allow the level of waste to be reduced. Three
compactors would serve the entire development and would be accessible from
both the north and south buildings. Two compactors would be reserved for the
disposal of general waste and one compactor for the disposal of co-mingled
recyclables. The proposed waste would be collected via Leake Street.
12.9
The above information and the submitted strategy for the development have
been assessed by the Lambeth Streetcare. Officers have raised no objection to
the proposed mechanism being proposed on the basis that appropriate
conditions are imposed to control this.
12.10 In summary the proposed development would provide extensive measures
which would be installed as part of the development to enable effective recycling
and refuse collection facilities for both the commercial and residential uses.
13
S106, CIL, Impact Upon Local Infrastructure, and Benefits for the Wider
Community
13.1
The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 explicitly set out that
planning permission should only be granted subject to completion of a planning
obligation where the obligation meets all of the following tests. A planning
obligation should be: (i) necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms; (ii) directly related to the development; and (iii) fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
13.2
Policy S10 of the Core Strategy sets out the circumstances in which planning
obligations will be expected from developers. In particular it sets out that
planning obligations will be sought to mitigate the direct impact of development,
secure its implementation, control phasing where necessary, and to secure and
contribute to the delivery of infrastructure made necessary by the development subject to the particular circumstances of the development in question and the
nature and extent of impact and needs created.
13.3
With specific regard to Waterloo, Policy PN1 of the Core Strategy sets out that
the council will ensure that development is linked with the wider area and that it
secures benefits for the wider community through contributions to necessary
social and physical infrastructure needs arising from development in particular
for public transport, education and other community facilities and securing
employment and training opportunities to address issues of worklessness in the
borough and the setting up of a local project bank in order to mitigate the
impacts of development.
13.4
On 1st April 2012, the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into
effect across London to secure funding for Crossrail. The application
development would be subject to a CIL charge, based on £35 per sq m on all
new net floorspace based on Gross Internal Area. This floorspace figure applies
to the retail, B1 office, residential, basement, and plant areas. At the time of
writing further information and clarification is awaited from Sainsbury’s on these
floorspace figures.
13.5
Section 106 Heads of Terms
Affordable Housing
•
The developer shall submit a planning application for the construction of
16 affordable rent units on 10 Leake Street, which to the best of its
knowledge shall be valid at the point of receipt, no later than 3 months
following the date of the Section 106 Agreement;
•
The developer shall secure the provision of 12 one-bed intermediate units
on the application site with affordable service costs;
•
The developer shall secure the provision of 16 affordable rent units (two
and three beds) on land at 10 Leake Street;
•
Not more than 50% of the open market housing units on the application
site shall be occupied until the 16 affordable rent units on 10 Leake Street
have been completed and the developer has entered into and exchanged
an agreement for sale or an agreement for lease (with a leasehold
interest of not less than 125 years) of the 16 affordable rent units on 10
Leake Street, with a registered provider of social housing, being one of
the Council’s preferred partners;
•
Not more than 50% of the open market housing units on the application
site shall be occupied until the 12 Intermediate on-site units have been
completed and the developer has entered into and exchanged an
agreement for sale or an agreement for lease (with a leasehold interest of
not less than 125 years) of the 12 Intermediate units, with a registered
provider of social housing, being one of the Council’s preferred partners;
•
A review of the Scheme GDV generated by the entire development at a
point post implementation, should demolition or other commencement of
works not commence within 20 months starting from the date of the
permission, to provide a financial contribution of up to a cap of £5.2m,
which has been calculated to be the financial sum that is equivalent to the
additional affordable housing required to allow the 40% policy target, with
70:30 tenure split, to be achieved.
Transport and Highways
•
Submission of full Travel Plan for the development as a whole together
with a contribution of £1,000.00
•
Highways and/or public realm improvements to York Road, Victory Arch
Square, Cab Road and Mepham Street, estimated at £4,396,000.00.
•
Highways and/or public realm improvements on Leake Street, estimated
at £610,000.00
•
Public realm improvements to West Road, estimated at £940,000.00
•
Payment by the landowner/developer of £150,000.00 towards the
provision of trees on York Road and associated servicing works.
•
Payment by the landowner/developer of £100,000.00 towards works to
Milk Passage
•
Payment to Network Rail for the provision of the following works:
•
Prior to the removal of the existing high-level pedestrian walkway, works
shall be carried out to the Victory Arch entrance to alleviate pressure from
additional passenger numbers. This work will include removal of the lift
and stairs to the IMAX tunnel with decking over subject to agreement by
IMAX and NR;
•
Removal of the pedestrian walkway and making good to the station
following its removal;
•
The provision of a connection between Victory Arch Square level and the
main station concourse. If an internal solution cannot be achieved the
works are to be provided externally. The estimated cost of the works is
between £3.6 - £5.2million.
•
The re-facing of the west façade of Victory Arch at an estimated cost of
£580,000.00.
•
Developer/Landowner to pay to the Council all under spent Section 278
works against the minimum estimates shall be paid to the Council
towards other works in the vicinity of the site.
•
No business or residential parking permits.
•
Car club membership for a period of 5 years and the provision of 2
spaces on-site in perpetuity.
•
Pedestrian management plan
•
Delivery and servicing management plan
•
WIT/Elizabeth House design and planning group
•
Waterloo Maintenance group
Education and Community infrastructure Contribution
• Payment by the landowner/developer of an education contribution of
£459,423.00.
• Payment by the landowner/developer of a community facilities
contribution of £542,445.00
Architect, Open space, Public Art, Play space and Biodiversity
•
Retention of David Chipperfield Architects Ltd as architect to construction
of North and South building or alternative architectural firm as to be
advised in writing.
•
Retention of landscape Architects 8West or alternative landscape
architectural firm as to be advised in writing
•
Payment by the landowner/developer of £32, 452.00 towards Children
and young people play space
•
Payment by the landowner/developer of £264,680.00 towards Open
Space
•
Best endeavours to be demonstrated towards achieving ‘Secure by
Design’ certification.
•
Temporary interface with WIT open space strategy
•
Site hoarding strategy
•
Public art strategy for the site
•
Estate management plan to be submitted to contain details of:
•
24/7 unrestricted public access through site,
•
cleaning and maintenance plan
•
security management plan
Accessibility
•
All residential units to be built to Lifetime Home Standards
•
At least 10% of units provided shall be wheelchair accessible standard.
Construction
• Payment by the landowner/developer of a general employment training
contribution of £600,000.00
• Onsite operatives to include 15% as local labour and 10% as apprentices
during the course of construction and placed through liaison by a named
individual from the developer with the Councils Learning, Schools and
Enterprise Team.
• Considerate Contractor Scheme – the applicant to carry out all works in
keeping with the National Considerate Contractor Scheme
• Community working group
• Undertaking of an interference study in relation to TV and radio reception
Energy and Sustainability
• All residential units to achieve a minimum of Code for Sustainable Homes
level 4.
• Office development to achieve BREEAM Office Standards 2008 Excellent
credit rating
• At least 25% reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions through the use of
renewable energy sources, decentralised energy and energy efficiency
measures. A proportion of reduction in Carbon dioxide emissions through
the use of on-site renewable energy sources.
Other
• Ground floor gallery/retail and public use strategy including details of
public access throughout the day, being a minimum between 07:00 to
20:00 hours and involvement of local stakeholders as well as the
identification of exhibitor selection.
• Terrorism Protection Statement
• Monitoring Cost
• At least 10% of the residential units to be provided to wheelchair
accessible standards
14
Conclusion
14.1
The proposed development would provide a significant uplift in employment
floorspace which would create jobs and training apprenticeships during the
construction phase of the development. The scheme would provide economic
activity to local businesses after the construction and legacy phase of the
development, creating further jobs in the Waterloo area. The development
provides an element of housing which would add to the existing housing stock in
the borough. Furthermore, this would bring an element of affordable units in the
form of intermediate and affordable rented housing. The ground floor/ gallery
space would bring activity and vibrancy along York Road creating a sense of
place and regenerating the overall area further.
14.2
The proposed building would be monolithic with an architectural dominance
along this section of York Road. In so doing, the development would open up
this section of Waterloo in terms of connections to the Southbank and the wider
areas. The scheme would improve permeability to the WIT station through the
creation of the new central square. Regard has been given to the impact the
development would have in terms of the conservation areas, listed buildings,
Westminster World Heritage Site and the wider Waterloo area. On balance, it is
considered that the development would impact to some degree on these areas
of importance, however, this harm is outweighed by the public benefits the
scheme would provide in terms of the public realm improvements in and around
Waterloo Station, improvements to the Victory Arch façade and overall the
development would make significant improvements to not only the Waterloo
area as a whole but the wider London city.
14.3
The proposed scheme would facilitate a signigficant improvement to both
accessibility and permeability to Waterloo Station and the South Bank. This
would be achieved through extensive public realm works associated with the
scheme and the works being delivered internally within the WIT station. This
would provide a public benefit to not only Waterloo but the role of the London
city as a whole. In this instance officers raise no objection to the transportation
and accessibility mitigation measures being proposed as part of the
14.4
The proposed development would provide a range of renewable technologies
which would be used within the development to reduce associated of carbon
emissions as part of the scheme. In this instance the technologies proposed
would exceed the both local and London Plan policies and as result the building
would be acceptable in this respect.
14.5
The proposed development would provide extensive measures which would be
installed as part of the development to enable effective recycling and refuse
collection facilities for both the commercial and residential uses.
14.6
The proposed Section 106 Contributions would ensure benefits for the wider
community to social and physical infrastructure needs arising from the
development of Elizabeth House particular for public transport, education and
other community facilities and securing employment and training opportunities to
address issues of worklessness in the borough.
15
Recommendation
15.1
Grant conditional planning permission subject to a Section106 Agreement and
Stage 2 Referral to the GLA
16
Summary of Reasons
16.1
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the
relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material
considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of
these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject
to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following policies
were relevant:
16.2
Core Strategy Policies S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10 and PN1; Saved
UDP Policies 7, 9,14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
43, 45, 47 and 50.
17
Recommended Conditions
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later
than the expiration of five years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans listed in this decision notice, other than where those details are
altered pursuant to the requirements of the conditions of this planning
permission.
Reason: Otherwise than as set out in the decision and conditions, it is
necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning
3.Prior to the commencement of works (with the exception of demolition) to
submit for written approval by the local planning authority a construction
sequencing plan for the two main buildings and the pavilion buildings”
Reason: To ensure that the development sequencing and provision of detailed
design information occurs in a satisfactory order.
Environmental Mitigation
4. Before any demolition commences full details of the proposed demolition
methodology, in the form of a Method of Demolition Statement, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Method
of Demolition Statement shall include details regarding: consultation with
neighbours regarding the timing and coordination of works; the notification of
neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures;
details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; details regarding dust
mitigation; details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the
public highway; and other measures to mitigate the impact of demolition upon
the amenity of the area and the function and safety of the highway network.
Demolition shall not begin until provision has been made to accommodate all
site operatives', visitors' and vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning
within the site or otherwise during the demolition period in accordance with the
approved details. The details of the approved Method of Demolition Statement
must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition
process.
Reason: Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.
(Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of the Core
Strategy)
5. Before any development commences (other than demolition) full details of
the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction
Statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding:
consultation with neighbours regarding the timing and coordination of works; the
notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of
road closures; details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; details
regarding dust mitigation; details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and
debris on the public highway; and other measures to mitigate the impact of
construction upon the amenity of the area and the function and safety of the
highway network. The development shall not begin until provision has been
made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles
loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site or otherwise during the
construction period in accordance with the approved details. The details of the
approved Method of Construction Statement must be implemented and complied
with for the duration of the construction process.
Reason: Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.
(Policy 9 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of the Core
Strategy)
6. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced (other than
demolition) until a detailed Design and Method Statement for all of the
foundations, basement and ground floor structures, or for any other structures
below ground level, including piling (temporary and permanent), has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority with prior
consultation with London Underground.
a) provide details on all structures referred to above to be used in the
construction of the development;
b) demonstrate how the development works would accommodate the location of
the existing London Underground structures and tunnels;
c) demonstrate how the development works would accommodate ground
movement arising from the construction thereof; and
d) set out the proposed mitigation for the effects of noise and vibration arising
from the adjoining operations within the structures and tunnels.
Thereafter all structures and works shall be implemented in accordance with the
Design and Method Statement hereby approved. set out in the approved Design
and Method Statement shall be completed, in their entirety, as part of the
relevant part of the development and before any part of the building hereby
permitted is occupied.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not impact on existing London
Underground transport infrastructure, in accordance with London Plan policy
3C.4.
Design
7. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, full
particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority in writing prior to commencement of development (other than
demolition) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
details thus approved.
a. Mock up panels of typical elevation bays;
b. A sample board for all external materials;
c. Façade design and detailing at 1:20 and 1:5 scale to include details of the
precast concrete, reveal depth, glass, solar glare mitigation, mullion, transom
and their supporting structure, opening windows (or equivalent), the integration
of the façade cleaning rails and any external louvres, illustrating the different
conditions over the building;
d. Location and dimension details of all external pillars;
e. Details of building soffits;
f. Full ground and first floor detailed elevations of the buildings and retail pavilion
including details of entrance doors, canopies, fire escapes and service doors;
g. Details of basement ventilation strategy.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory
and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area along
with setting of the adjoining conservation and listed buildings in accordance with
policies 31, 33, 40, 45 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with
policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
8. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, full
particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority in writing prior to commencement of all works above ground
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the
details thus approved.
a. Finishing details to all external pillars
b. Details of louvers, PV panels, façade cleaning equipment, plant and
machinery and other excrescences at roof level
Reason: Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is
satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the
area along with setting of the adjoining conservation and listed buildings in
accordance with policies 31, 33, 40, 45 and 47 of the Saved Unitary
Development Plan along with policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
9. A detailed signage/advertisement strategy shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of all works
above ground. All signage/advertisement to be affixed to the building to be in
accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and
does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area (Policies 33
and 37 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 of the Core
Strategy).
10. Prior to the commencement of any relevant works, full details of a lighting
strategy for any lighting to be affixed to the building shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved lighting shall
be installed before the development is first occupied, or in accordance with an
agreed implementation strategy, and retained thereafter for the duration of the
development in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to detailed design, to
security and community safety and to providing acceptable living environments
for future residents of the development (Policy 7, 32 and 33 of Lambeth’s Unitary
Development Plan and Policies S2, S9 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
11. No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the
external faces of buildings.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of design (Policy 33 Lambeth’s
Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9 and PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
12. A landscaping scheme, including hard and soft landscaping, street furniture
and lighting, illustrated on detailed drawings shall be submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, prior to completion to shell and core.
Soft landscaping details to include the planting of trees and shrubs showing
species, type of stock, numbers of trees and shrubs to be included and showing
areas to be grass seeded or turfed, planter profiles; all hard landscaping
including all ground surfaces, seating, lighting of all external public areas, refuse
disposal points, designated smoking areas, secure and covered cycle stands,
bus stands and other structures, railway/basement ventilation, vehicle
crossovers/access points, any ramps or stairs plus wheel chair access together
with finished ground levels and site wide topographical levels; all landscaping in
accordance with the scheme, when approved, shall be carried out in accordance
with a timescale to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and
shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a
period of ten years, such maintenance to include the replacement of any
plants/trees that die, or are severely damaged, seriously diseased, or removed,
upkeep of ground surfaces and hard landscaping features as well as cleaning
schedule to include removal of graffiti/chewing gum.
Reason: To provide a high environmental standard in the interest of the site and
wider area (Policies 31, 33, 39 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and
Policy S9 of the Core Strategy).
Residential Amenity
13. Prior to commencement of building works above ground, full details of sound
insulation for the residential units which shall show how the building has been
designed to meet the following standards, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority:
a) for living rooms, 35 dB(A) LAeq 16 hour between 0700 and 2300 hours;
b) for bedrooms, 30 dB(A) LAeq 8 hour between 2300 and 0700 hours; and
c) 45 dB(A) max for any individual noise event (measured with F time weighting)
between 2300 and 0700 hrs
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of
the amenities of future occupiers (Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
14. There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music used in connection with
the commercial premises hereby approved which is audible above background
noise levels when measured outside the nearest residential property.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of future residential occupiers and the
surrounding area (Policies 7 and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and
Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
15. Prior to commencement of all works above ground, a strategy for the
location of building services shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
the amenities of future residential occupiers or of the area generally (Policy 7
and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 and PN1 of
Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
16. Prior to commencement of relevant works, full details of internal and external
plant equipment and trunking, including building services plant, ventilation and
filtration equipment and commercial kitchen exhaust ducting / ventilation to
terminate at roof level, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. All flues, ducting and other equipment shall be installed in
accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing on site and
shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’
instructions.
the amenities of future residential occupiers or of the area generally (Policy 7
and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S2 and PN1 of
Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
17. Noise from any mechanical equipment or building services plant shall not
exceed the background noise level when measured outside the window of the
nearest noise sensitive or residential premises, when measured as a L90 dB(A)
1 hour.
Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the
surrounding area (Policies 7 and 29 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and
Policy S2 of Lambeth’s Core strategy).
Public Safety
18. Prior to commencement of all works above ground, a crime prevention
strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the
development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed
specifications of the following:
1.) Secured by Design physical protection measures to be incorporated in both
the commercial and residential units.
2.) The internal walls separating the commercial units incorporate a steel mesh
layer to prevent easy access via the neighbouring property.
3.) External & Courtyard communal lighting be to BS 5489
4.) Full audio-visual access control measures are incorporated to all units.
5.) Monitored Alarm facilities should be provided to the commercial units.
6.) CCTV is recommended at the entrance and around the exterior of the site
7.) Plant rooms to be lockable with robust security rated doors
8.) Bin stores to be lockable
9.) Cycle stores to be lockable
10.) Security rated doors and windows for each unit
11.) Good lighting to achieve a minimum of 0.25 uniformity
Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community
safety (Policy 32 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan).
19. Prior to use of the development commencing an Evacuation Plan for safe
access from the basement levels of the development to an upper level and a
detailed flood warning system is submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The development shall be operated in accordance with
the plan thereafter.
Reason: To reduce the risk to people using the basement levels in case of
flooding due to breach or overtopping of the Thames tidal flood defences (Policy
S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
Highways, Access and Parking
20. A Delivery and Servicing Management Plan shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to use of the
development commencing. The Plan shall require that no deliveries for the B1 or
A1-A5 uses hereby approved shall be taken to, or dispatched from, the site
between the hours of 0700 and 1000 or 1600 and 1900 Mondays to Saturdays,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
measures approved in the Plan shall be implemented prior to the relevant uses
commencing and shall be so maintained for the duration of the relevant uses.
Reason: To ensure that the delivery arrangements to the building as a whole are
appropriate, to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements and to
prevent deliveries during peak periods and in order to maintain the free flow of
traffic on the adjoining highway. (Policies 9 and 33 of Lambeth’s Unitary
Development Plan and Policies S2 and S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
21. Prior to commencement of development (other than demolition) full details
outlining the scheme parking for the office and residential accommodation,
garaging, manoeuvring, and the loading and unloading of vehicles shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and be laid
out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the
development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any
other purpose, or obstructed in any way.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to
minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining
highway (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy
22. No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until the
provision for cycle parking shown on the application drawings has been
implemented in full and the cycle parking shall thereafter be retained solely for
its designated, as shown on drawing number P_11_02 Rev 00 (Proposed
Basement -1).
Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote
sustainable modes of transport. (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary
Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
23. No doors or gates shall be erected in a way that enables them to be opened
over or across the adjoining footways, carriageways and rights of way.
Reason: In the interests of public safety and to prevent obstruction of the public
highway. (Policies 9 and 14 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy
Water, Drainage and Waste
24. No development (other than demolition) shall commence on site until such
time as impact studies pertaining to the existing water supply infrastructure have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required
in the system, a suitable connection point and measures for overcoming impact
on the water supply infrastructure. The development shall be implemented in
accordance with details approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to
cope with additional demand generated by the development (Policies S2 and
PN1 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
25. Development shall not commence (other than demolition) until a drainage
strategy, detailing any on and/ or off-site drainage works, has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall
thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the
new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the
community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
26. The development hereby permitted shall only be operated in accordance
with a Waste Management Strategy to be submitted and approved in writing by
the local planning authority prior to the use of the development commencing.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse
and the provision of recycling facilities on the site and in the interests of the
amenities of the area. (Policies 9 and 33 of Lambeth’s Unitary Development
Plan and Policies S8 and S9 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
27. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried
out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by
Waterman Transport and Development Ltd (dated April 2012) and the following
mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
•
•
Provision of on site surface water runoff attenuation of 495 cubic meters
Finished floor levels are set no lower than 4.11m above Ordnance Datum
(AOD)
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and
subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied
within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in
writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of
surface water from the site; to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed
development and future occupants. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made
available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse
environmental impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core
Strategy).
28. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning
permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme
to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be
submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:
1. A desktop study, site investigation scheme and intrusive investigation,
based on the above report, to provide information for a detailed
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including
those off site. The desk study will identify all previous site uses, potential
contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site
indicating sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially
unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The site
investigation scheme will provide information for an assessment of the
risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. The risk
assessment will assess the degree and nature of any contamination on
site and to assess the risks posed by any contamination to human health,
controlled waters and the wider environment;
2. The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred
to in (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation
strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how
they are to be undertaken;
3. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in
order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in
(2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term
monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for
contingency action
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved and any
required remediation works completed prior to the commencement of
development (other than demolition).
Reason: For the protection of Controlled Waters. The site is located over a
Secondary Aquifer and it is understood that the site may be affected by historic
contamination from past activities and current conditions. To ensure that
sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in
order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community. To remove
the risk of contaminated land in the interests of the safety of residents and
visitors (Policy 7.13 of the London Plan and Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core
Strategy).
29. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be
present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer
has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority
for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall
be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved and
reported to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: Given the history of the site, there is a potential for unexpected
contamination to be identified during ground works, particularly during basement
ground works. We should be consulted should any significant contamination be
identified that could present an unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters. To
ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new
development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the
30. Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report demonstrating
completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the
effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing,
by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and
monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to
demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also
include any plan (a ‘long-term monitoring and maintenance plan’) for longer-term
monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency
action, as identified in the verification plan, if appropriate, and for the reporting of
this to the Local Planning Authority. Any long-term monitoring and maintenance
plan shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: Should remediation be deemed necessary, the applicant should
demonstrate that any remedial measures have been undertaken as agreed and
the environmental risks have been satisfactorily managed so that the site is
deemed suitable for use. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to
cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental
impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
31. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not
be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency, which may be given for
those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant
unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: The developer should be aware of the potential risks associated with
the use of piling where contamination is an issue. Piling or other penetrative
methods of foundation design on contaminated sites can potentially result in
unacceptable risks to underlying groundwaters. We recommend that where soil
contamination is present, a risk assessment is carried out in accordance with our
guidance 'Piling into Contaminated Sites'. We will not permit piling activities on
parts of a site where an unacceptable risk is posed to Controlled Waters. To
ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new
development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the
32. Whilst the principles and installation of sustainable drainage schemes are to
be encouraged, no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is
permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning
Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been
demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.
Reason: Infiltrating water has the potential to cause remobilisation of
contaminants present in shallow soil/made ground which could ultimately cause
pollution of groundwater. To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to
cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental
impact upon the community (Policy S6 of Lambeth’s Core Strategy).
Heritage
33. No development (other than demolition) shall take place until the developer
has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in
accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The archaeological
works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to
the local planning authority.
Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigation before any
archaeological remains may (Policy 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan
and Policy S9 of the Core Strategy).
Waterloo Station interface
34. Details of works required to alleviate pressure on the Victory Arch entrance
to Waterloo Station as a result of the closure and removal of the pedestrian
walkway are to be submitted to the Council for approval in consultation with
Network Rail. This includes temporary works to the IMAX access lift and stairs
required during construction. The works are then to be carried out in accordance
with the approved details prior to the closure of the pedestrian walkway
Reason: To mitigate the effects of the closure and removal of the pedestrian
walkway on pedestrian flows in and around Waterloo Station (Policies 9 and 14
of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of Lambeth’s Core
Strategy).
35. Details of the works required to the external elevation of Waterloo Station,
resulting from the removal and demolition of the high-level pedestrian walkway,
shall be submitted to the Council for their approval in consultation with Network
Rail. The pedestrian walkway shall not be closed until the details have been
approved. The works are then to be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory
and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area along
with setting of the adjoining conservation and listed buildings in accordance with
policies 31, 33, 40, 45 and 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan along with
policy S9 of the Core Strategy.
Conservation Area Conditions (Demolition) (12/01329/CON)
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later
than the expiration of five years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Following the demolition of the existing structures the resultant debris shall
be removed from the site and the ground works and shall be made good to
match the levels and surfacing of the existing surrounding surfaces and
appearance of the existing boundary walls in accordance with details to be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter be
maintained until such time as building work commence in accordance with an
approved planning permission.
Reason: To protect the interests of maintaining the character and appearance
of the South Bank Conservation Area in accordance with Policy 47 of the
Saved Unitary Development Plan: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010 and
Policy S9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.
3. That part of the existing high-level footbridge over York Road within the
South Bank Conservation Area shall not be demolished before a contract for
the construction of the new buildings as approved by planning permission
reference. 12/01327/FUL has been made.
Reason: To ensure that premature demolition does not take place before
development works start in order that the visual amenities of the area are
safeguarded (Policy 47 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan and Policy S9
of the Core Strategy).
18
Informatives
1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be
required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and
related legislation, which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the
Council's Building Control Officer.
3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the
Control of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this
respect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.
4. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Street Care team
within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse
storage and collection facilities.
5. 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: [email protected]
telephone:
020 7926 2283
fax:
020 7926 9104
6. In response to achieving secure by design standards the applicant is advised
to contact: Pc Ann Burroughs, Lambeth Partnership CPDA, London Borough of
Lambeth, Community Safety Unit, 205 Stockwell Road, Brixton. SW9 9SL.
Phone: 020 7926 2840 and email: [email protected]
7. You are advised that Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a
minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and flow rate of 9litres/minute at
the point where it leaves Thames Water pipes. The developer should take
account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development
8. The applicant is advised to contact London Underground Infrastructure
Protection in advance of preparation of final design and associated method
statements, in particular with regard to: demolition; excavation; construction
methods; security; boundary treatment; safety barriers; landscaping and lighting.
__________________________

For advice on how to make further written submissions or to... please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing

Transcription

Similar documents

Coventry Local School District to Waterloo High School

Waterloo Public Library Waterloo Public Library

K-W Flying Dutchmen ANNUAL

see It. - Eastern Iowa Tourism Association

Document 6446397

Waterloo Station upgrade and improvement works

BIRKDALE VILLAGE | HUNTERSVILLE, NC MIXED-USE

Layout 1 (Page 1) - RE/MAX Twin City Realty Inc., Brokerage

WATERLOO INN Conference Hotel Preferred Guest Service 1

For advice on how to make further written submissions or to... please contact Governance &amp; Democracy by emailing

Transcription

Similar documents

For advice on how to make further written submissions or to... please contact Governance & Democracy by emailing