planning applications committee a

Transcription

b
PACA
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE A
Date and Time: Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 7.00 pm
Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Democratic Services Officer:
Democratic Services
Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London,
SW2 1RW
Antoinette Duhaney
Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 3133
Fax: 020 7926 2361
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
Despatched: Tuesday, 29 June 2010
MEMBERS: Councillors BRATHWAITE, EDBROOKE, HOPKINS, MORRIS (Chair)
and PALMER
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors AMINU, CLYNE, GIESS and WELLBELOVE
AGENDA
Appendices to reports- bulky appendices are published on the Website
www.lambeth.gov.uk and can be obtained from report authors or at the meeting.
They are not circulated with the agenda.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE
MEETING
Page
Nos.
1.
Declarations of Interest
2.
Minutes (16.06.10)
1-6
To agree the minutes of the meeting of 16 June 2010 as an
accurate record of the meeting.
Town & Country Planning Act (1990), The Planning &
Compensations Act (1991), The Town & Country Planning
(Control of Advertisement) Regulations (1992), The
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
(1990), The Town & Country Planning General Regulations
(1990), The Rush Common Act 1806 and related
legislation: Applications
For information on documents used in the preparation of the
reports contact the Planning Advice Desk, Tel: 020 7926 1180.
3.
77 Heybridge Avenue, SW16 (Streatham South ward)
7 - 32
Case ref: 09/04146/FUL/SDI/37512
Officer recommendation: Grant permission subject to
conditions
4.
Dunraven School, Mount Nod Road, SW16 (Streatham
Wells ward)
Case ref: 10/01335/RG3/DSM
conditions
33 - 90
5.
Bondway Commercial Centre, 69-71 Bondway, SW8 (Oval
ward)
91 - 102
Case ref: 09/01520/FUL/JFU/42238
Officer recommendation: That the improved package of
financial contributions be agreed and that in this case, the
Committee’s powers to vary the Section 106 Agreement are
delegated to officers attending the Public Inquiry.
6.
Norwood School, Crown Dale, SE19 (Knight's Hill ward)
103 - 142
Case ref: 10/01336/RG3/AB/12690
conditions
7.
Planning Appeal Decisions Received from 01.11.09 30.01.10
143 - 154
8.
Planning Enforcement Appeal Decisions Received from
01.11.09 - 31.01.10
155 - 160
PLANNING APPLICATIONS 1
Report deadline
[5pm
8 clear days
before meeting]
Agenda
Published
[6 clear days
before meeting]
Deadline to
Meeting
register to
(Tues) 7pm
speak
[12 noon on day
before meeting]
Decision
Published by
[5 clear days after
meeting]
24.03.10
Deadline for
submission of
additional
materials
[12 noon
Thursday
before meeting]
01.04.10
22.03.10
05.04.10
06.04.10
14.04.10
07.04.10
09.04.10
15.04.10
19.04.10
20.04.10
28.04.10
18.05.10
20.05.10
27.04.10
28.05.10
01.06.10
09.06.10
16.06.10
18.06.10
24.05.10
28.06.10
29.06.10
07.07.10
07.07.10
09.07.10
15.07.10
19.07.10
20.07.10
28.07.10
04.08.10
06.08.10
12.08.10
16.08.10
17.08.10
25.08.10
01.09.10
03.09.10
09.09.10
13.09.10
14.09.10
22.09.10
29.09.10
01.10.10
07.10.10
11.10.10
12.10.10
20.10.10
03.11.10
05.11.10
11.11.10
15.11.10
16.11.10
24.11.10
01.12.10
03.12.10
09.12.10
13.12.10
14.12.10
22.12.10
05.01.11
07.01.11
13.01.11
17.01.11
18.01.11
26.01.11
02.02.11
04.02.11
10.02.11
14.02.11
15.02.11
23.02.11
02.03.11
04.03.11
10.03.11
14.03.11
15.03.11
23.03.11
16.03.11
18.03.11
24.03.11
28.03.11
29.03.11
06.04.11
27.04.11
29.04.11
05.05.11
09.05.11
10.05.11
18.05.11
Deadline to
Meeting (Wed)
Register to
7pm
speak
[12 noon on day
before meeting)
Decision
Published by
[5 clear days after
meeting]
23.03.10
24.03.10
01.04.10
PLANNING APPLICATIONS A
Report deadline
[5pm
8 clear days
before meeting ]
Agenda
Published
[6 clear days
before meeting]
11.03.10
15.03.10
Deadline
submission of
additional
materials
[12 noon
Friday before
meeting]
19.03.10
03.06.10
07.06.10
11.06.10
15.06.10
16.06.10
24.06.10
24.06.10
28.06.10
02.07.10
06.07.10
07.07.10
15.07.10
22.07.10
26.07.10
30.07.10
03.09.10
04.08.10
12.08.10
18.08.10
20.08.10
27.08.10
31.08.10
01.09.10
09.09.10
16.09.10
20.09.10
24.09.10
28.09.10
29.09.10
07.10.10
07.10.10
11.10.10
15.10.10
19.10.10
20.10.10
28.10.10
21.10.10
25.10.10
29.10.10
02.11.10
03.11.10
11.11.10
18.11.10
22.11.10
26.11.10
30.11.10
01.12.10
09.12.10
21.12.10
23.12.10
31.12.10
04.01.11
05.01.11
13.01.11
20.01.11
24.01.11
28.01.11
01.02.11
02.02.11
10.02.11
17.02.11
21.02.11
25.03.11
01.03.11
02.03.11
10.03.11
31.03.11
04.04.11
04.04.11
12.04.11
13.04.11
21.04.11
14.04.11
18.04.11
22.04.11
26.04.11
27.04.11
05.05.11
12.05.11
16.05.11
20.05.11
24.05.11
25.05.11
02.06.11
ACCESS INFORMATION
Location:
• Lambeth Town Hall is on the corner of Acre Lane and Brixton Hill, 200 metres south of
Brixton tube station (Victoria Line) – turn left on leaving the station and look for the
clock tower.
Facilities for disabled people:
• Access for people with mobility difficulties, please ring the bell (marked with the
disabled access symbol) on the right-hand side of the Acre Lane entrance.
• Mobility buses – telephone/minicom 020 7918 3312.
• Induction loop facilities are available in Room 8 and the Council Chamber.
• For further assistance please contact the officer listed on the front page
Queries on reports:
Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or
wish to inspect the background documents used. The name and telephone number of the
report author is shown on the front page of each report.
Other enquiries:
Please contact the officer shown on the front page to obtain any other information
concerning the agenda or meeting.
Accessing Agendas, Reports and Minutes
All public committee papers are available for inspection at Minet Library and also on the
internet from the day of publication in the following manner:
• Log on to www.lambeth.gov.uk/democracy
• On the Council and Democracy Home Page click on the Calendar of meetings link on
the right of the page.
• Click on the Committees link then search the list of committees for meetings you are
interested in.
• Click on the Browse meetings and agendas for this committee link to access
committee papers.
If you are unable to locate the information you require, please contact the officer shown on
the front page above.
Representation:
Ward Councillors (details via the website www.lambeth.gov.uk or phone 020 7926 2170)
may be contacted at their surgeries or through Party Group offices to represent your views
to the Council: (Liberal Democrats 020 7926 2028) (Conservatives 020 7926 2213)
(Labour 020 7926 1166).
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE (PAC)
b
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
1
Who sits on the PAC?
The Council has established 2 Planning Applications Committees (PAC 1 and PAC A).
Each Committee consists of 5 Councillors (elected members) and both Committees have
the same powers.
2
Where and when do PAC meetings take place?
Meetings are usually held in Room 8 at Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW. PAC 1
normally meets on a Tuesday evening and PAC A normally meets on a Wednesday
evening. Meetings are held 2 or 3 times a month and are listed on the Council’s calendar of
meetings at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgCalendarMonthView.asp?GL=1&bcr=1
3
Can I attend PAC meetings?
Yes. All PAC meetings are open to the press and public although on rare occasions the
Committee may discuss a matter in private.
4
How can I get a copy of any reports to be considered by PAC?
The officer reports on applications to be considered is circulated to PAC Members and
published on the Council’s website a week before the meeting. Papers for meetings can be
viewed at: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/uuCoverPage.asp?bcr=1. Hard copies
are also available from Democratic Services on request or at the meeting.
5
Can I make written representations to the PAC meeting?
Yes. Written representations, including any letters, petitions or photos should be:
•
Sent to the relevant case officer listed on the front page of the officer report
preferably by email.
•
Sent by 12 noon 2½ working days before the meeting.
For PAC 1 meetings, the deadline for written representations is 12 noon on the
Thursday before the meeting. For PAC A meetings, the deadline for written
representations is 12 noon on the Friday before the meeting.
6
Can I speak at PAC meetings?
Yes. Applicants, supporters, objectors or Ward Members can address the meeting at the
Committee’s discretion for a maximum of 3 minutes. In instances where the applicant,
supporters, objectors or Ward Members have more than one person registered to speak, the
3 minutes will be shared among those wishing to address the Committee. You must register
your wish to speak on any application by telephoning Legal and Democratic Services on 020
7926 2170 or emailing [email protected] by 12 noon on the day before the
meeting.
Any request to speak received after this deadline will be considered at the Committee’s
discretion subject to speakers being able to demonstrate that there are new issues which
have not previously been considered and / or there were extenuating circumstances which
prevented the request to speak from being made earlier.
7
Does the PAC consider applications in the order listed on the agenda?
No. The order of business is determined at the meeting taking into consideration:
(a) Whether an application has been withdrawn or officers are recommending deferral
(b) Whether an application has been deferred from a previous meeting or has been the
subject of a site visit;
(c) The level of interest in an application
(d) Whether applicants/supporters/objectors/Ward Members have any special
requirements;
8
What is the process for considering an application at the meeting?
Officers will introduce each application with a brief Powerpoint presentation which will
usually include drawings and photographs of the application site. The Committee will then
hear from and question all interested parties. The merits of the application are considered
taking into account the views of the interested parties and planning officers before the
committee reaches a decision.
9
What are site visits?
Site visits are arranged by Planning Officers to allow the Committee and Ward Members to
view the site and its surroundings and to seek clarification. However, the merits of the
application are not discussed.
10
When do site visits take place?
Site visits usually take place on the Saturday morning immediately preceding the committee
at which the application is to be considered. If you have already made written
representations to the Planning Service about the application, you will be notified of the date
and time of the site visit. The site visit is a good opportunity for any interested parties to
explain the impact of the development.
11
If I am unable to attend the PAC meeting, how can I find out the decision?
You can find out the decision by contacting Legal and Democratic Services the day after the
meeting. The minutes from the meeting will also be available on the Council’s website 5
working days after the meeting. Planning officers will send the applicant and any interested
parties who have made written representations formal notification of the Committee
decision.
12
Where can I get further information or advice?
If you would like further information or advice, please contact:
(a) Town Planning Advice Desk: Tel: 020 7926 1180, Email: [email protected]
(b) Town Planning Webpage: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/HousingPlanning/Planning/
(c) Legal & Democratic Services: Tel: 020 7926 2170, Email: [email protected]
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 1
Agenda Item 2
b
PAC A
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE A
Wednesday, 16th June, 2010 at 7.00 pm
MINUTES
PRESENT:
Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite, Councillor Jane Edbrooke,
Councillor Diana Morris (Chair), Councillor Brian Palmer and
Councillor Jane Pickard
APOLOGIES:
Councillor Jack Hopkins
1.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None were declared.
2.
MINUTES (28.04.10)
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 28.04.2010
be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.
3.
53, 55, 57, 59 AND 63 OLD TOWN, SW4 (CLAPHAM TOWN WARD)
Councillor Brian Palmer and Chris Dale, Head of Development Control both
stated that they knew of the applicant as a former officer of the Council but
did not consider this to be a prejudicial interest.
During discussion it was confirmed that the proposed agreement was
enforceable in law on the existing and future site owners and operators. It
was also agreed that the potential hours for deliveries to be received should
be reduced in the evenings.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Brian Palmer
and it was:
UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to an
amendment to condition 9 to state that no deliveries to this specific unit be
allowed after 9pm.
Page 2
4.
106 EMMANUEL ROAD, SW12 (STREATHAM HILL WARD)
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Jane
Edbrooke and it was:
UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: that the application be deferred to the next
Planning Applications Committee meeting.
5.
206 BRIXTON HILL, SW2 (BRIXTON HILL WARD)
During discussion Members discussed concerns about whether the later
opening hours were appropriate in particular on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
They noted problems that already existed in the area and the location of local
residential properties, including those above the premises. However they also
noted that it was a busy area where activity later in the evening was to be
expected.
Members agreed that they would look more favourably on an application that
included more restricted evening opening hours on Sundays and Bank
Holidays.
UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: that the application be refused.
6.
MYATTS FIELD NORTH (VASSALL WARD)
Councillor Brian Palmer stated that he knew of some of the objectors as they
were previous election candidates but that he did not consider this to be a
prejudicial interest.
The Chair reported that there were a number of additional submissions that
had been circulated very recently and the meeting was therefore adjourned
for ten minutes to allow all parties the opportunity to study the submissions
and the officer responses.
During their introduction officers drew attention to the addendum papers and
further submissions that had been received and the responses provided
including changes to conditions and the S106 agreement. They confirmed to
Members that a full application for phase one was presented and an outline
application for stage 2.
A number of objectors addressed the Committee and outlined concerns in a
number of areas including:
• The impact of additional traffic, especially on Akerman Road and
whether the narrowing of that road was appropriate.
• Increasing the density of dwellings along Akerman Road with potential
loss of amenity and light to existing residents in that area.
• The loss of green spaces and the environmental impact.
• The lack of consultation with those who lived just outside the estate.
• The concerns raised by English Heritage.
Page 3
•
•
•
•
•
That the new buildings often did not integrate well with the existing
surroundings.
Loss of community spaces and the need to ensure continuity of
community premises.
Were the green spaces accessible from outside of the estate.
Concerns about using a Private Finance Initiative and financial risks to
the Council.
The increased density could increase problems of crime and antisocial behaviour.
The Applicants then responded to a number of issues including that:
• Requirements from the Council’s UDP and DPG for Myatts Field.
• There would be a larger community centre, new shop and a combined
heat and power plant.
• There had been extensive community consultation.
• Cycling was to be encouraged and car club spaces provided.
• A varied mix of housing including more larger family units with their
own front doors and amenity spaces.
• The scheme would result in an 80% drop in CO2 emissions.
• The scheme was developed to tackle crime issues and it would also
result in much more valuable green spaces both to the community and
wildlife.
• Daylight and sunlight studies had been completed that showed
acceptable levels for all neighbouring properties although seven
refurbished properties slightly failed the sunlight test.
• Their independent heritage consultant was satisfied with the propsals.
Rachel Sharpe, Divisional Director for Housing and Dorian Leatham, Interim
Executive Director for Housing addressed the Committee. They raised a
number of points including:
• This was a long term project for the Council and local residents, who
had been intimately involved throughout.
• The scheme was bringing in £114 million in government funding that
would not be available for any other type of scheme.
• The project would last for 30 years and would develop a whole range
of new facilities for local residents.
A number of supporters addressed the Committee. They presented a petition
with 96 signatures in support of the application and also asked Members to
note:
• The current major problems on the estate including crime and anti
social behaviour that the application would help tackle.
• The scheme would result in a generally better standard of living.
• Residents had been significantly involved in creating this proposal.
Councillor Kingsley Amis, Ward Councillor for Vassall Ward, addressed the
Committee outlining his support for the application but also asking Members
to note some specific issues, in particular those around:
• The need to ensure the timetable for construction was clearly set out
and properly followed.
• Ensure financial risks would be managed.
Page 4
•
•
Daylight and sunlight levels.
Traffic management.
Councillor Steve Bradley, Ward Councillor for Vassall Ward, addressed the
Committee and also stated the he supported the application but asked
Members to note some specific issues, in particular those around:
• The lack of early consultation with surrounding residents.
• Ensuring that all potential funds were identified for use in supporting
community projects and groups.
• Whether the road network could cope with the increase in traffic.
• Reduction in green spaces.
• Whether a brownfield site on Tindal Street could have been developed
thus saving some green space at Myatts Field.
Members discussed the report, in particular looking at those areas where
they could recommend improvements including around:
• Securing continuous support for community projects and playing field
access.
• The possibility of introducing a wider range of artistic styles to the
proposed new buildings.
• Whether the proposed materials used for the buildings on the east
side of Akerman Road and elsewhere were suitable when considering
their visual impact against existing structures.
The Committee also asked a number of questions of officers and developers
and received a number of responses including:
• More car club spaces could be provided if demand required them.
• Reducing the width of Akerman Road would reduce speeds and
discourage rat running.
• There new smaller green spaces were higher in quality.
• Traffic modelling gave satisfactory results.
• That there would be caretaker and housing management personnel on
the site right from the start of the project.
• A number of community projects would be set up and supported.
• It would be possible to ensure that s106 funds allocated to
employment were targeted first at the local population.
• It would be possible to ensure continuity of sports access, such as a
multi use games area but not formal football pitches.
Members agreed informatives to the application that:
• materials of the blocks to the east of Akerman road would be
presented to PAC for approval after consultation with the residents of
Calais Gate and St Gabriel’s.
• Members request that the detailed application for Phase 2 should
include a wider variety of architectural styles than present in Phase 1.
Members also expressed concern about the lack of consultation with
residents living next to the estate in preparing the application.
Page 5
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set
out in the report, the changes to conditions listed in the addendum and the
further conditions that:
• Condition 55 to be amended to ensure that a pitch at least as large as
a multi-use games area be provided during construction.
• A condition be added requiring the provision of temporary football nets
for use on available open spaces for the duration of the construction
phase.
• The phasing strategy must ensure that the community centre is
delivered in Phase 1 of the construction.
• The S106 payment towards employment and training must incorporate
a cascade mechanism to ensure a preference for the money to be
spent as locally as possible.
Voting:
For – 4
Against – 0
Abstentions – 1
CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting ended at 11.16 pm
CHAIR
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
COMMITTEE A
Date of Despatch: Thursday, 24 June 2010
Contact for Enquiries: Matthew Mannion
Tel: 020 7926 2225
Fax: 020 7926 2361
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk
Page 6
Page 7
Agenda Item 3
Page 8
Section 2 – Application Summary
Page 9
Location
77 Heybridge Avenue, London SW16 3DS
Ward
Streatham South
Proposal Application
Conversion of existing property to provide 3 self-contained flats involving
alterations to ground floor fenestration within the rear elevation, partial
obscuring of windows to the side elevation, installation of two rooflights to
existing rear extension, and the provision of refuse storage and cycle
parking to the front of the site.
Applicant
Mr P. Bingley
Date valid
01 March 2010
Case Officer
Miss Sarah Dickens
Application
Reference
09/04146/FUL
Recommendation(s)
Grant Conditional Planning Permission
Constraints
Article 4 Direction
Streatham Lodge Estate Conservation Area
Advert Publication
Date
01 June 2010
Site Notice posted
on
01 June 2010
Page 10
3.1
Summary of Main Issues
3.11
The considerations material to the assessment of this application are as
follows:
- land-use – whether the existing property is appropriate for residential
conversion;
-
neighbouring amenity - whether the proposed development would
have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring
properties;
-
internal amenity – the acceptability of the standard of accommodation
and mix of units; and
- transport – the transportation and highways implications of the
proposal.
3.2
Site Description
3.2.1 The property is a large semi-detached two-storey dwellinghouse on the north
side of Heybridge Avenue. The property presents as a detached property to
the front but is joined to the adjoining property (No. 75 Heybridge Avenue) at
the rear. There is an existing rear dormer roof extension, hip to gable
extension and a single storey rear ground floor extension with three roof lights
to the front slope, previously erected under ‘permitted development’.
3.2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature. The application
site is located within the Streatham Lodge Estate Conservation Area and is
not a Listed Building. The site does not benefit from any off-street car
parking.
3.3.3 The site is currently unlawfully converted into five flats which have and
previously been occupied. The lawful use of the site is a single family
dwelling. The site has a front forecourt area, within which is a bins storage
area.
3.3
Relevant Planning History
3.3.1 07/02032/LDCP - A Certificate of Lawful Development (proposed) with
respect to "erection of a rear dormer roof extension with hip to gable
extension, together with a ground floor rear extension" was granted on 19th
July 2007.
3.3.2 07/02875/FUL - Planning permission was refused on 18th September 2007
with respect to "conversion of existing single dwelling to provide 5 selfcontained flats comprising 2 x 2-bedroom, 2 x 1-bedroom and 1 x studio flat.
Removal of 1 set of double patio doors on at rear ground floor level and its
replacement with 1 window". It was refused for the following two reasons:
(i) The proposal would, by reason of its room sizes, inadequate headroom
and lack of bathroom facilities, provides substandard accommodation to the
detriment of the amenities of future occupants. This is contrary to Policy 17 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) and the Council's
Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 - Internal layout and Room Sizes (2000).
Page 11
(ii) The proposal would, by reason of its internal layout, result in increased
direct overlooking of No. 75 Heybridge Avenue. This is contrary to Policies 17
and 33 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
3.3.3 07/02975/LDCE - A Certificate of Lawful Development (existing) with respect
to "a loft conversion with the erection of a rear dormer roof extension and hip
to gable extension, installation of three front rooflights together with erection
of a ground floor rear extension" was granted on 25th September 2007.
3.3.4 12 December 2007 (07/04455/FUL) – Planning application refused for the
conversion of single dwelling house into five self contained flats comprising 3
x 1bed and 2 x 2 bed units. It was refused for the following two reasons:
(i) The proposed conversion scheme represents an over-development of the building
by reason of the provision of a substandard and cramped form of accommodation.
This is evidenced by the proposal's substandard rooms sizes and internal layout,
poor outlook and sense of enclosure to the bedrooms of Flat A on the ground floor
and Flat D on the first floor and privacy issues. As such the proposal fails to comply
with the requirements of Policies 17, 33 and 36 of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan (2007).
(ii) The proposal would, by reason of its internal layout, result in increased direct
overlooking of No. 75 Heybridge Avenue. This is contrary to Policies 17 and 36 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).
3.3.5
On 19 February 2008 (07/04455/FUL & APP/N5660/A/08/2066518/NWF) the
applicant lodged an appeal against the refused application. The appeal for
written representations was withdrawn as confirmed by letter from the
Planning Inspectorate dated 02 April 2008.
3.3.6
On 19 September 2008 (08/00135/FUL) - Conversion of existing single
dwelling to provide 5 self contained flats (3 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed) together
with alterations to windows to the rear elevation at ground floor level. The
application was refused for the following reason:
(i) The proposal would, by reason of the inadequate size of the rooms and
overall floor area within proposed flats C, D and E, constitute an over
intensive conversion of the property with a cramped internal layout resulting in
a sub-standard level of accommodation to the detriment of the residential
amenity of future occupiers. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 17 of
the Council's Unitary Development Plan (2007) and the Council's
Supplementary Planning Document 'Guidance and Standards for Housing
Development and House Conversions (2008).
3.3.7
On 20th January 2009 (08/03882/FUL) - Conversion of existing single
dwelling to provide 4 self contained flats (2 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed) together
with alterations to ground floor rear doors and windows was refused. The
application was presented to Planning Applications Committee on the 13th
January with an officer recommendation for approval. Members overturned
the recommendation and refused the application for the following reason:
(i)
The applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposed development
would comply with the Building Research Establishment: Site layout planning
for sunlight and daylight - A guide to good practice in respect to sunlight and
Page 12
daylight levels within the proposed flats. As such, the proposal would be
contrary to Policy 17 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
(ii)
The proposed development would, by reason of the internal layout
and intensification of the use, result in increased direct overlooking of No. 75
Heybridge Avenue. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to
Policies 17 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and the Council's
adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for
Housing Development and House Conversions.
(iii)
The proposed development would, by virtue of the use of opaque
glazing to two thirds of a window in Bedroom 1 of Flat C, the separation
distance between the windows in Bedroom 1 in Flat A, Bedroom 1 in Flat B,
Bedrooms 1 and 2 in Flat C and the existing house at No. 75 Heybridge
Avenue and the small separation distance between the rear dormer and the
roof of the two storey rear extension, result in a poor outlook from Bedroom 1
in Flat A, Bedroom 1 in Flat B, Bedrooms 1 and 2 in Flat C and from the
Living/Kitchen/Dining room in Flat D. As such, the proposed development
would be contrary to Policies 17 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan
(2007) and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document:
Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.
(iv)
The proposed development would, by virtue of the dominance of
kitchens which form part of the open living/dining/kitchen area, the awkward
and poor layout of the flats, the poor access to light, Flat B having a solely
north facing aspect, result in an over intensive conversion. As such, the
proposal would be contrary to Policies 17 and 33 of the Unitary Development
Plan (2007) and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document:
Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.
(v)
The proposed development would, by virtue of the narrow access to
the family unit (Flat B) would result in noise disturbance and loss of privacy to
Bedroom 1 in Flat A. As such, the proposed development would be contrary
to Policies 17 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) and the
Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and
Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions.
3.3.8
On the 23rd March 2009 an appeal was lodged against the refusal of the
application, on the 20th October 2009 the appeal was dismissed and the
enforcement notice issued on the site upheld. It is understood that the
applicant is currently in the process of serving eviction notices on the existing
tenants and the Council’s Planning Enforcement team are monitoring this
situation closely.
3.4
Details of Current Proposal
3.4.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the conversion of the
existing single dwelling to provide 3 x self-contained flats comprising of 2 x 1
bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom units together with alterations to windows
and doors to the rear elevation at ground floor level and installation of two
rooflights and the provision of refuse and cycle storage areas within the front
forecourt area.
3.4.2
The proposal would involve the conversion of the existing building and would
include the provision of a two bedroom flat at rear of the ground floor level
Page 13
with access from the side entrance, a one bedroom flat at the front of the
ground floor level, a two bedroom flat at first floor level and a one bedroom
flat at first and second floor levels.
3.4.3 From the case officer site visit it is noted that the previously refused
application for five flats (08/00135/FUL) has been implemented. The
Valuation Office Agency website is also showing the property has been
registered as five flats for council tax purposes.
3.4.4 This scheme differs from the refused scheme (Ref. No. 08/03882/FUL) in the
following ways:
• The number of units within the scheme have been reduced
from four to three with a number of internal reconfigurations
from the implemented scheme.
3.5
Consultations and Responses
3.5.1
Adjoining Occupiers
Letters were sent to 47 neighbouring properties within the vicinity of the site at
the following addresses;
All addresses including flats at: 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44,
46 and 48 Copley Park.
All addresses including flats at: 51, 59 and 61 Baldry Gardens.
All addresses including flats at: 4, 13, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49 and 53 Braxted Park.
All addresses including flats at: 44, 75 and 77Heybridge Avenue, 316 Green
Lane, House of Commons, Keith Hill.
3.5.2
Summary of adjoining occupier consultation carried out
Number of letters sent
Number of responses received
Number of objections
Number of comments
Number of letters of support
1
Issue raised by Objector
The development results in a
loss of a family dwelling which
is in demand
Original proposal
47
10
10
0
0
Officer response
The scheme retains a two bedroom
family unit with access to the garden on
ground floor in compliance with policy 17
of the UDP.
Page 14
2
Property does not lend it self
to a conversion into three flats
The proposal complies with policies 15
and 17 of the UDP. The application site
is a within a residential area and meets
the minimum 120m2 threshold for
conversion as set out in policy 17 of the
UDP. All of the proposed units would
meet and exceed the minimum floor area
and room sizes as set out in the SPD
‘Guidance and Standards for Housing
Developments and House Conversions’.
Also it should be noted that the inspector
within the appeal on the site
(APP/N5560/C/09/2100111) did not
raised any concerns in regards to the
principle of the conversion
It is noted that the application site is
located within a conservation area. This
does not mean that planning application
can not be submitted and duly
considered by the LPA. The
conservation area status of the location
is a consideration for the assessment of
the application in terms of aesthetics and
the Council’s Conservation and Urban
Design team have been consulted on the
application. No concerns have been
raised in regard to the conversion and
principle of the development. Concerns
have been raised in regard to the refuse
and cycle storage areas, however, it is
considered that this could be dealt with
by way of condition should the
application be approved.
3
‘The application site is located
within a conservation area,
therefore why are these
applications being
considered?’
4
The proposal result in
overlooking and loss of
privacy to 75 Heybridge Road
and surrounding area.
The issue of overlooking has been
overcome by the insertion of a two thirds
obscure glazing within all of the windows
that face onto 75 Heybridge Avenue.
This will be secured by condition if
minded to approve the application.
5
There would be the potential
for increased noise pollution
for 75 Heybridge Road.
The units would be required, through
necessary compliance with Building
Regulations, to meet noise requirements.
There is no evidence to suggest that
future residents will be a source of undue
disturbance or nuisance. In this latter
respect there are other legislative
measures i.e. Environment Health
Legislation, in place that would more
appropriately deal with noise nuisance
from the residences if they occur.
Page 15
3.5.3
6
The proposal will have a
considerable impact on car
parking.
The Council’s Transport Planner has
raised no objections to this proposal as
the parking survey submitted shows
parking stresses at 38% well below the
90% threshold required for a car free
scheme. The Council's Transport Planner
considers that two additional vehicles
may be associated with this proposed
development, and that these can be
accommodated on the surrounding road
network.
7
Objections are raised in
regard the use of the shared
access to the side of the
house and the impact this
would have no the
neighbouring property 75
Heybridge Avenue.
Within the appeal decision on the site the
inspector stated ‘In addition the use of
the side access …..would not generate
an unacceptable level of use, to that
which could have been experienced,
given the size and potential number of
occupiers of the original property’. Given
this statement from the inspector it is
considered that the use of the side
access is acceptable and would not
unduly impact on the neighbouring
property 75 Heybridge Avenue.
8
The proposal shows provision
for 5 bins and 5 cycle storage
spaces within the front
forecourt area; however the
proposal is only for three flats.
It is noted that the submitted planning
indicates 5 refuse storage bins and 5
cycle storage space. However, it is
considered that a condition could be
used to secured amended details of
refuse and cycle storage in line with
Circular 11/95. These details would be
required to show how the refuse storage
would comply with the Council’s
Guidance Waste and Recycling Storage
and Collection Requirements - Guidance
for Architects & Developers and provide
adequate screening to mitigate any
potential impacts on the character and
appearance of the conservation area.
9
The proposal would result in
over 80% of the load bearing
walls of the original property
being removed.
This is not a material planning
consideration and would be an issue that
is covered by Building Regulations.
Statutory consultations
A site notice was displayed on site on the 19th March 2010 and a press notice
published on the 19th March 2010 with Lambeth Life. As amended plans have
been received a further site notice and press advert was posted on the 1st
June 2010. Nine objections to the scheme have been received.
Page 16
3.5.4
Local Groups
The Streatham Society were consulted – no response received to date
3.5.5
Internal officer consultations
The following consultees within the Council were consulted:
The Planning Enforcement Team – No comments made in regard to the
application
The Transport and Highways Department – No objections raised to the
development.
Planning Conservation and Design Team – No objections to the proposal
however concerns raised in regards to refuse and cycle storage within the
front forecourt.
3.6
Relevant Planning Policies
National Guidance and the London Plan Policies:
3.6.1
Central Government advice is contained in a range of Government
Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy
Statements (PPS). These are essentially general policies, which aim to
guide local planning authorities in securing good policies based on real
and sound objectives and the need to provide high quality, well thought
out developments which make a positive contribution to the locality and
which help to protect or enhance the environment.
3.6.2
Planning Policy Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1)
sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of
sustainable development through the planning system. It states that good
design is indivisible from good planning and encourages planning authorities
to secure high quality and inclusive design for all development. It emphasises
that the local authorities should operate on the basis that applications for
development should be allowed having regard to the local Development Plan
and all material considerations, unless the proposed development would
cause demonstrable harm to the interests of acknowledged importance.
3.6.3
Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing (PPS3) provides advice on the role of
the planning system in relation to housing policy. In particular, paragraph 69
states that in deciding planning applications, Local Planning Authorities
should have regard to "...achieving high quality housing; ensuring
developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation
requirements of specific groups; the suitability of a site for housing, including
its environmental sustainability; and using land effectively and efficiently... "
3.6.4
Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS 5)
sets out the value of the historic environment, and the contribution it makes to
our cultural, social and economic life, is set out in the Government’s
Statement on the Historic Environment for England 2010. Planning has a
central role to play in conserving our heritage assets and utilising the historic
environment in creating sustainable places. This PPS comprises policies that
will enable the Government’s vision for the historic environment as set out in
Page 17
the 2010 Statement to be implemented through the planning system, where
appropriate.
3.6.5
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport (PPG13) states policies for
retail and leisure should seek to promote the vitality and viability of existing
town centres, which should be the preferred locations for new retail and
leisure developments. At the regional and strategic level, local authorities
should establish a hierarchy of town centres, taking account of accessibility
by public transport, to identify preferred locations for major retail and leisure
investment. At the local level, preference should be given to town centre sites,
followed by edge of centre and, only then, out of centre sites in locations
which are (or will be) well served by public transport
3.6.6
Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 – Noise and Pollution (PPG24) provides
advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse
impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or
adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business.
The London Plan (2008)
3.6.7
The London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now includes
alterations that have been made since it was adopted in February 2004. The
London Plan is the Mayor's development strategy for Greater London and
provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and
buildings within the London region.
3.6.8
It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve
London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and,
proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in
locations well served by public transport. All Borough plan policies are
required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.
3.6.9
The key polices of the Plan considered relevant in this case are:
3A.1 [Increasing London’s Supply of Housing]
3A.2 [Borough Housing Targets]
3A.4 [Efficient use of Housing Stock]
Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) Policies:
3.6.10 The current up to date statement of the Council's planning policies is
contained in the UDP adopted on the 6th August 2007. Together with the
London Plan, this forms the statutory development plan for the Borough. It is
used to determine all planning applications in the Borough.
3.6.11 The following policies are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity)
Policy 9 (Transport Impact)
Policy 10 (Walking and Cycling)
Policy 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint)
Policy 15 (Additional Housing)
Policy 17 (Flat Conversions)
Policy 36 (Alterations and Extensions)
Policy 47 (Conservation Areas)
Page 18
Policy 56 (Waste)
3.7
Planning Considerations
This application seeks to overcome a number of refused applications in
regards to the conversion of the property into self contained flats. Four
previous applications have been submitted by the applicant in an attempt to
gain planning permission. The property is currently unlawfully converted into
five self contained flats and an enforcement notice has been served by the
Council’s Planning Enforcement team.
The latest refused application
(08/03882/FUL) was also appealed and dealt with by written representations
appeal (APP/N5660/C/09/2100111). This appeal was conjoined with an
appeal against an enforcement notice issued on the property and was
dismissed by the inspector. Within the appeal decision the inspector
dismissed the application due to the standard of living accommodation in
terms of privacy, daylight and sunlight and outlook that would have been
provided within the proposed units and the potential for impacts on privacy of
the neighbouring property 75 Heybridge Avenue. The current application
therefore would need to overcome the issues raised by the inspector in order
for the application to be considered acceptable.
Land Use Considerations
3.7.1
The property falls within a predominantly residential area, and Policy 15 of the
UDP states that Council will endeavour to provide additional dwellings in the
Borough. Policy 15 of the UDP also states that housing is an appropriate use
on all sites that can provide a suitable residential environment for existing and
future residents.
3.7.2
Policy 17 of the UDP states that the conversion of dwellings into flats will be
permitted where the property has an original, pre 1948, and (un-extended)
floor area of at least 120sqm. The property has an original floor area of
approximately 213.8sqm and is therefore compliant with this part of Policy 17.
Later extensions provided under permitted development would take the floor
area above the figure.
3.7.3
Policy 17 of the UDP requires that a unit of at least 2 bedrooms be provided
at ground or semi-basement level with direct access to the rear garden,
wherever possible, for the provision of family size dwellings. The application
proposes a two bedroom unit at ground floor level, which benefits from direct
access into the rear garden from the living/dining/kitchen area. This alters
slightly from the previous application and the whole of the ground floor now
provides one two bedroom family sized unit.
3.7.4
In summary, the conversion of the property into 3 flats is considered
acceptable in land use terms and would be in accordance with Policies 15
and 17 of the UDP subject to standards of accommodation provided and
compliance with Policy 17 (d) of the UDP. It is noted that the inspector with
the appeal decision (APP/N5660/C/09/2100111) did not raise any concerns in
regard to the land use of the site.
3.8
Standard of Proposed Accommodation
3.8.1
Policy 17 (d) of the UDP states that the quality of flat conversions should
provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future residents. The
Page 19
Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for
Housing Development and House Conversions contains the minimum space
standards and floor to ceiling height requirements for new dwellings and
conversions.
3.8.2
To address the issues raised within the previous application (08/03882/FUL)
and the subsequent appeal decision the applicant has reduce the number of
proposed units to three. One unit would be provided at ground floor with
access from the side access way, and two units on the upper floors accessed
from the main front entrance.
3.8.3
The reduction in the number of units allows for each unit to exceed the
minimum overall and room floor areas set out in the SPD ‘Guidance ands
Standards for Housing Developments and House Conversions’. This is shown
in the tables below:
3.8.4
Room sizes compared to the SPD:
Flat A: (Ground Floor Two Bedroom Unit) (overall unit size 108sqm – SPD
minimum 60sqm):
Bedroom 1
Minimum
SPD
Proposed room sizes
Difference
12.00sqm
32.5sqm
+20.5sqm
Ensuite
6.4sqm
Bedroom 2
12.00sqm
26sqm
+14sqm
Living/Dining/Kitchen
25.5sqm
32.3sqm
+6.8sqm
Bathroom
3.5sqm
6.2sqm
+2.7sqm
6.5sqm
Circulation Space
Overall Floor Area
60sqm
110sqm
+5sqm
Flat B: (First Floor One Bedroom Unit) (overall unit size 63.2sqm – SPD
minimum 45sqm):
Minimum
SPD
Bedroom 1
Living/Dining/
Kitchen
Bathroom
Circulation Space
Proposed room sizes
Difference
12sqm
21sqm
21.5sqm
32.4sqm
+10.9sqm
3.5sqm
3.6sqm
+0.1sqm
6.2sqm
+9sqm
Page 20
Overall Floor Area
45sqm
63.2sqm
+18.2sqm
Flat C: (First Floor and Second Floor One Bedroom Unit) (overall unit size
59.6sqm – SPD minimum 45sqm):
Minimum
SPD
Bedroom 1
Living/Dining/
Kitchen
Bathroom
Difference
12sqm
18.4sqm
+6.4sqm
25.5sqm
33.8sqm
+8.3sqm
3.5sqm
3.8sqm
+0.3sqm
Circulation Space
Overall Floor Area
Proposed room sizes
3.6sqm
45sqm
59.6sqm
+14.6sqm
3.8.5
The internal layout of the proposed units has been altered within the current
application. The ground floor would provide one unit, when previously this
floor provided two units, the layout of the first floor flat has altered and is now
a one bedroom unit rather than a two bedroom unit and the first/second floor
unit remains unaltered. All of the units meet and exceed the minimum overall
unit sizes set out in the SPD. In addition to this all of the rooms exceed the
SPD minimums. This is considered to be an indicator that a good quality of
accommodation would be provided within all three of the proposed units. Flat
A (rear ground floor family unit) is extended by the rear extensions
constructed under the Town and County Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (as amended) and provides a high level of amenity
by meeting the minimum standards suggested within the SPD. The proposal
is considered to be acceptable in this regard.
3.8.6
Within the inspectors decision APP/N5660/C/09/2100111 no objection was
raised in regards to unit and rooms sizes, the current application has altered
the internal layout and configuration of flats and all the unit considerable
exceed the minimum floor areas as set out within the SPD.
3.8.7
The vertical stacking of the flats is considered acceptable as rooms of similar
uses would be positioned above and below each other. Flat C would position
the living/kitchen/dining over the bedroom of the unit, however, given this is a
split level unit this is not considered to have a detrimental impact on internal
residential amenity. The proposed development would need to comply with
the sound insulation requirements under the Building Regulations and it is
therefore considered that noise transmission would be alleviated to an
acceptable level.
3.8.6
The SPD outlines that all of the floors must maintain a minimum of 2.3m in
floor to ceiling height. The SPD also states that at least 50% of the floor area,
within a room with a sloping ceiling, should have a floor-ceiling height of at
least 2m. The floor to ceiling height within all rooms within each of the 3
Page 21
proposed flats would meet the above mentioned floor to ceiling height
requirements.
3.8.7 The appeal (App/N5660/C/09/2100111) was dismissed due to the cumulative
unacceptability of the internal amenity that would be provided within the proposed
units in terms of outlook, daylight/sunlight levels received and privacy. This was
mainly due to the side alleyway or ‘central space’ that exists between the application
site (75 Heybridge Avenue) and neighbouring property 77 Heybridge Avenue. The
Inspector did state that the use of this side access which would be the access to Flat
A within the current scheme ‘… would not generate an unacceptable level of use, to
that which could have been experienced, given the size and potential number of
occupiers of the original property’. The main issues of concern for the Inspector were
mutual overlooking and impacts on privacy from windows across the central space,
daylight received within rooms with windows fronting onto the central space and the
poor level of outlook that would be provided from these rooms looking out onto the
central space.
3.8.8 The applicant has sought to overcome these issues and has looked to amend the
layout of the units. In terms of overlooking the applicant has provided details which
would show the windows fronting onto the central space as obscure glazed, at
ground floor the window would be fully obscured as would serve a bathroom and at
first floor two thirds of the windows would be obscured. The internal layout has been
amended and these obscure glazed windows would serve at ground floor (flat A) a
bathroom and at first floor (flat B) a kitchen. This is therefore considered to overcome
issues of privacy and would restrict any mutual overlooking. The corollary of using
obscure glazing would potentially result in both these rooms experiencing restricted
outlook. This is not considered to be of concern for the ground floor bathroom as it is
a non-habitable room, and at first floor level it would be the kitchen that is served by
obscure glazed window. Whilst this is not ideal, the kitchen would form part of an
open plan kitchen/living/dining room which would be served by two other windows.
As such, it is considered on balance, that given the kitchen is within an open plan
living/dining/kitchen area and that kitchens are generally considered less important
than, for instance, living rooms, the resultant restricted outlook would not have a
significant impact on internal residential amenity and obscure glazed windows are
considered acceptable in this regard.
3.8.9 The other main concerns of the Inspector relate to the light level received within the
rooms which would have windows facing out into the central space. Given the
changes discussed above and the internal layout of the units, at ground floor the front
bedroom would be served by a large bay window which is considered to provide
adequate levels of daylight, the bathrooms are non-habitable and light levels within
these rooms are not a material concern. To the rear of the ground floor unit (unit A)
the second bedroom would be served by double doors and a roof light and this is
considered to provide satisfactory levels of light. The living/kitchen/dining room
would be provided with a double aspect, a small window facing into the central space
which would provide minimal light levels and double doors and windows to the rear of
the room and a large lantern rooflight which is considered to provide good levels of
light within this area. At ground floor level it is considered that the dual aspect unit
would receive adequate levels in compliance with policy 17 and 33 of the UDP. At
first floor level the living/kitchen/dining room would be in a similar position as at
ground floor level, and served by four windows, it is noted that two of these window
would be obscurely glazed however it is considered that this room would be
adequately served by natural light, as would the bedroom of the unit. In terms of the
first and second floor level, no previous concerns were raised in regard to this unit.
Page 22
3.8.10 As such in terms of internal standard of accommodation it would appear that the
applicant has overcome all the of the previous concerns raised by the Inspector and
would comply with policies 15, 17 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan and the
Supplementary Planning Document ‘Guidance and Standards for Housing
Developments and House Conversions’.
3.9
Design Considerations
3.9.1 Policy 36 of the UDP states that alterations and extensions should generally
be subordinate to the original building.
3.9.2 Policy 47 of the UDP states that development should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the conservation area.
3.9.3 The application site is located within the Streatham Lodge Estate
Conservation Area, the property has previously been extend using permitted
development rights. It should be noted that these works where carried out
prior to the area being designated as a conservation area. the Council’s
Conservation and Urban Design team have been consulted on the application
and have provided the following comments:
‘Having discussed the proposals with the Enforcement officer, the external
works are all lawful and the only alteration is the obscure glazing to two
thirds of the windows on the side elevation of Flat B which we offer no
objection to. Nor do we object to the proposed rooflights at the rear of the
property. ‘
Concerns were raised by the Council’s Conservation officer in regard to the
refuse and cycle storage areas within the front forecourt and the potential for
impacting on the Conservation Area. Given these concerns further details
including screening would be required by way of condition should the
application be approved.
3.9.4
The only external alterations proposed are the removal of the existing two
sets of French doors and three windows to the rear elevation which would be
replaced with two set of double doors, one with a window on both sides and
two rooflight within the roof of the single storey rear extension. These
relatively minor alterations are considered acceptable in terms of design and
are considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Streatham
Lodge Estate Conservation Area. As such the proposal is considered in
accordance with Policies 36 and 47 of the UDP with respect to design.
3.10
Amenity Impact Considerations
3.10.1 Policy 36 of the UDP states that development should not unacceptably harm
the amenities of adjoining properties, result in an undue loss of residential
amenity space or create an unacceptable sense of enclosure.
3.10.2 Given the only external alterations proposed are alterations to the windows to
the rear elevation at ground floor level it is considered this would not have a
detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
3.10.3 The proposed use of the site would remain residential; the additional units
would result in the building being used more intensively than its present use.
Notwithstanding, any transmission of noise between properties, the units
Page 23
would be required, through necessary compliance with Building Regulations,
to meet noise requirements. There is no evidence to suggest that future
residents will be a source of undue disturbance or nuisance. In this latter
respect there are other legislative measures in place that would more
appropriately deal with noise nuisance from the residences if they occur i.e.
Environmental Health legislation.
3.10.4 As previously discussed within section 3.8, mutual overlooking and impacts
on privacy were a concern raised by the Inspector within the appeal decision
(APP/N5660/C/09/2100111).
The current scheme the applicant would
obscure glaze the windows within the side elevation that face onto the central
space and 75 Heybridge Avenue. This is considered to overcome the issues
of mutual overlooking and would preserve the current levels of privacy
experience within 75 Heybridge Avenue. As such the proposal would be
compliant with policy 36 of the UDP.
3.10.5 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would not be detrimental to the
amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of sunlight or daylight or
loss of privacy and would not create an undue sense of enclosure, as there is
a significant distance of approximately 20 metres between the side flank wall
of the application site (77 Heybridge Avenue) and rear elevations of
properties of nos. 40 and 42 Copley Park, also there is a significant distance
of approximately 64 metres between the rear elevation of 77 Heybridge
Avenue and rear elevations of nos. 59 and 61 Baldry Gardens. As such the
proposal would be in accordance with policies 33 and 36 of the UDP with
respect to amenity impact and is acceptable in this regard.
3.11
Highways and Transportation Considerations
3.11.1 The application site is located in an area having a PTAL score of 2, which
means that it has moderate access to public transport. A parking survey has
been submitted with the application. The survey illustrates that the current onstreet parking situation on the surrounding highway network is operating at
38% of on-street capacity. The Council's Transport and Highways team
consider that the additional car associated with the proposal could be
accommodated easily on-street.
3.11.2 As such, the Transport officers raise no objection to the proposal and
consider that there would be minimal negative impact on the performance and
safety of the surrounding highway network.
3.11.3 Policy 14 of the UDP requires that cycle parking be provided at a rate of one
space per dwelling. A total of three cycle spaces would therefore be required
in relation to the proposal. The application proposes is to provide 5 cycle
racks to the front garden, this indicates an overprovision of the cycle storage.
It is also noted that a number of objections have be raised in regard to the
siting and impact on the conservation area of the proposed cycle storage and
refuse provision. Policy 17 (c) states that…‘where practical, secure cycle
storage should be provided’. As such, should the application be approved a
condition would require further details of three cycle storage spaces including
details showing screening to mitigate the potential impact on the Streatham
Lodge Estate Conservation Area.
Page 24
3.12
Refuse, Storage and Recycling Considerations
3.12.1 The provision of refuse storage has been shown to the front of the site as 5 x
140litres wheeled waste bin.
3.12.2 The Council’s Streetcare team have been consulted and have not provided
any comments. A number of objections and concern have been raised in
regard to the siting and number of bins shown on the submitted drawings.
The drawings show an overprovision of refuse storage which would result in
an over sized storage structure. Concerns have also been raised by the
Council’s Conservation officer in regard to the potential impact on the
character and appearance of the conservation area. Officers note that if the
Council grants permission for house conversions, then it follows that suitable
refuse storage has to be provided within the curtilage of the site. Given these
concerns and the over provision shown on the drawings a condition would be
added if the application is approved required further details of the refuse and
recycling storage area and that levels of storage should be provide in line with
the Council’s Guidance Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection
Requirements - Guidance for Architects & Developers. In addition to this
further details would be required as regards to provide appropriate screening
around the refuse storage area to minimise the impact on the conservation
area in line with policy 47 of the UDP.
3.13
Conclusion
3.13.1 The principle of converting the property to provide three self-contained flats is
considered to be acceptable in land use terms. It is considered that the
applicant has addresses all of the concerns previously raised by the inspector
and the applicant would comply with all the relevant unitary Development
Plan policies. The proposal is considered to provide a good standards of
internal amenity for future residents, would not impact on neighbouring
properties over and above the conditions that currently exist and would not
have an undue impact on the character and appearance of the Streatham
Lodge Estate Conservation Area.
3.14
Recommendations
3.14.1 Grant conditional planning permission
3.15
Summary of Reasons
3.15.1 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 consent should be
granted subject to the conditions listed below.
3.15.2 In reaching this decision the following policies were relevant:
Lambeth Unitary Development Plan 2007:
Policy 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity)
Policy 9 (Transport Impact)
Policy 10 (Walking and Cycling)
Policy 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint)
Page 25
Policy 15 (Additional Housing)
Policy 17 (Flat Conversions)
Policy 36 (Alterations and Extensions)
Policy 47 (Conservation Areas)
Policy 56 (Waste)
Conditions:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004).
2
Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted drawings, details the refuse
and recycling storage provision, designed to be compliant with the Council's
guidance document for architects and developers 'Waste and Recycling Storage and
Collection Requirements' in conjunction with appropriate screening, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This provision
shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved detail and provided
before the first occupation of any of the residential units and shall thereafter be
retained and maintained permanently for its intended use.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the
provision of recycling facilities on the site in the interests of the amenities of the area
and to preserve the character and appearance of the Streatham Lodge Conservation
Area, in accordance with Policies 35, 47 and 56 of the Unitary Development Plan
(2007).
3
Prior to the first occupation of the units hereby approved, and notwithstanding the
information shown on the submitted drawings, provision of three secure and
sheltered cycle parking spaces with appropriate screening shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This provision shall be
implemented in strict accordance with the approved detail and provided before the
first occupation of any of the residential units and shall thereafter be retained and
maintained permanently for its intended use.
Reason: To ensure adequate and secure cycle parking is available on site and to
promote sustainable modes of transport and to preserve the character and
appearance of the Streatham Lodge Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies
9, 14, 17 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
4
No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed on the external
faces of the building.
Reason: Such works would detract from the appearance of the building and would be
detrimental to the streetscene of the Streatham Lodge Conservation Area, and as
such would be contrary to Policies 36 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan
(2007).
5
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans listed in this notice.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Page 26
6
Prior to the first occupation of the flats hereby approved, the proposed ground
and first floor side windows serving the bathroom of Flat A and kitchen of Flat
B shall be obscure glazed to a minimum height of 1.7 metres (measured from
finished internal floor level) and shall be of a non-opening specification. The
windows shall be permanently maintained and retained as such for the life of
the development.
Reason: In order to minimise overlooking and the loss of privacy to the
neighbouring property 75 Heybridge Road in accordance with Policies 33 and
36 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
Informatives:
1
Notwithstanding the approval of this planning application, and in order to
avoid the initiation of any further formal enforcement action, you are advised
to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice dated 30th
January 2009 and served under Section 172 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 forthwith. You are advised to contact the Planning
Enforcement team on 0207 926 1185 as a matter of urgency.
2
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.
3
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.
4
You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Highways team prior
to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in order to obtain
necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the
Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers,
Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections,
Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as
basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
Page 27
Appendix 1 – Appeal Decision APP/N5660/C/09/2100111
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Agenda Item 4
Page 34
Page 35
Location
Dunraven Lower School, Mount Nod Road And Dunraven
Upper School, 82-100 Leigham Court Road, London
Ward
Streatham Wells
Proposal
As part of Phase 2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Building Schools for the
Future (BSF) programme:
South Site: demolition of existing selected buildings and their replacement with new
three-storey teaching building with partial basement store fronting Leigham Court
Road in conjunction with new entrance lobby and access ramp with tree planting
scheme; new three-storey teaching building facing towards the centre of the school
site with associated hard and soft landscaping improvement works with limited tree
felling; refurbishment of remaining buildings including selected window replacements;
and new and improved railings and fences to street and general site boundaries with
new multi use games area (MUGA) towards the west of the site and remodelled car
parking and accesses and bike storage.
North Site: partial demolition of the existing sixth form teaching block and its
remodelling with a part two-, part four-storey building; the relocation of the Sophie
Centre day nursery within a single-storey building from the South Site to the northeastern extent of the North Site; hard and soft landscaping works with tree planting
and access and boundary treatment remodelling; associated car parking spaces and
access located to the north of the site; and improvements to pedestrian links between
the two sites on Leigham Court Road.
Application Type
Application No
Approval under Reg 3 Councils own dev
10/01335/RG3/DC_DSM/20511
Applicant
Mr Mike Pocock
Agent
Ms Sui-Te Wu: NPS Group
3 Maltings Place
169 Tower Bridge Road
London
SE1 3JB
Date Valid
20 April 2010
Considerations
Archaeological Priority Areas Archaeological Priority Areas
Approved Plans
Drawings: 1000A; 1001A; 1002A; 1003A; 1004A; 1005B; 1006A; 1007B;
1008B; 1009B; 1010B; 1011B; 1012A; 1013A; 1020B; 1021A; 1030A;
1031; 1032; 1033; 1034; 1040B; 1041B; 1200A; 1201B; 1202; 1203;
1210B; 1211B; 1212B; 1213B; 1214B; 1215B; 1216B; 1217B; 1400A;
1100/103/1055A; 1100/103/1056A; 1100/103/1057/A; 1100/103/1058B;
Page 36
1100/103/1059A; 1100/103/1060A; 1100/103/1061A; 1100/103/1062A;
1100/103/1063A; 1100/103/1064A; and 1100/103/1066A.
Supporting Documents: Dunraven School Design and Access
Statement; Supporting Planning Statement; Archaeological Assessment;
BRE Compliant Daylight / Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment and
supplementary Daylight (External) Analysis dated June 2010; Flood Risk
Assesssment; Ground Conditions Report; Method of Construction
Statement; Nature conservation Assessment / Survey; Noise and Vibration
Assessment, as supplemented by Noise Planning Assessment
(09/2021/R4//Revision 1); School Management Plan; School Travel Plan;
Secure by Design Statement; Statement of Community Involvement;
Statement on Refuse Storage / Recycling / Waste Management Strategy;
Sustainability Statement; Transport Statement, as amended by Transport
Statement for Dunraven School Rev A – 2nd June 2010; and Tree Survey.
Recommendation
Approve, subject to conditions.
1.
1.1
The main issues involved in this application are: •
The role of the development in meeting educational need in
the Borough;
•
Whether the site is large enough and in a suitable location to
accommodate an extended secondary school/sixth form
suitable for its intended use;
•
Whether the existing buildings to be demolished display
sufficient architectural merit so as to warrant protection;
•
Whether the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping of
the development shown would relate satisfactorily to the
existing/retained buildings on site and the adjacent town
scape;
•
The acceptability of the limited tree felling as would be
necessary to facilitate the development;
•
The sustainability of the development;
•
The impact of the development upon the amenity of
neighbouring residential properties, having particular regard
to the scale and location of development presented, activities
associated with the school and nursery uses, activities related
to the proposed community use and the activities related to
the use of the MUGA;
•
The implications of the development for the function of the
surrounding road network, conditions of on-street parking,
highway safety and public transport capacity;
Page 37
•
The ecological implications of the development;
•
The archaeological implications of the development;
•
Whether suitable measures could be secured to minimise, as
far as is reasonable, flood risk; and
•
Whether the development would include suitable measures to
minimise opportunities for crime.
2.
Site Description
2.1
Dunraven School comprises two parcels of land either side of
Leigham Court Road; hereafter referred to as the north site and the
south site. The north site currently accommodates the ‘lower school’
and the south site the ‘upper school’.
2.2
The south site has a site area of approximately 1.9 hectares. The
north site has a site area of approximately 0.9 hectares. Both sites
contain a number of large scale buildings ranging in height from two
to four storeys.
2.3
Dunraven School is a co-educational foundation school (years 11 –
19) of some 1203 pupils. 116 full time and 27 part time teachers
currently teach at the site.
2.4
The school estate comprises of nine main buildings across the two
sites. The north site has a four-storey main teaching block and a
gymnasium/dining hall. The larger south site has the main
administration/classroom building, a drama block/theatre, a
gymnasium, a library block, a single storey classroom block, a sports
hall and a 6th form block. The Sophie centre (a pre-school nursery)
currently occupies a single storey porta cabin building to the south of
the south site, accessed directly from Leithcote Gardens to the rear.
2.5
The Sophie Centre is an independent charitable trust. The Centre
provides 24 sessional nursery day care places for young children
under the age of 5. The Centre is fully inclusive and provides day
care to a number of young children that have special physical and
educational needs. The Centre has 9 full-time staff employed.
2.6
The external spaces of the application site consist of four hardsurfaced games pitches (three on the north site and one on the south
site) and otherwise mixed grass/hard surfaced play areas.
2.7
The site contains a number of mature trees. A Tree Survey submitted
with the application states that 71 trees (of varying quality) are
located within the school sites; 52 on the south site and 19 on the
north site. This survey however is slightly outdated and does not
account for the loss of trees resultant from the construction of the
sports hall post 2008. Of the existing trees on the south site, 23
individual trees and 3 groups of trees are subject to Tree
Preservation Orders. Of the trees on the north site, 16 are subject to
Tree Preservation Orders.
Page 38
2.8
The site is not situated in or adjacent to a Conservation Area. Neither
are there any listed buildings on or in the vicinity of site.
2.9
A western portion of the south site is located within an Archaeological
Priority Site, as designated in the UDP.
2.10
A tarmaced play area designated as a School Playing Field (PF) in
the UDP is located in the south eastern corner of the south site.
2.11
Adjacent to the school, the railway sidings to the south east of the
south site are designated as a site of Borough Nature Conservation
Importance; whilst a tunnel serving the overland railway line runs
underneath land directly to the east of the south site.
2.12
The local area is predominantly residential in character; comprising
residential buildings of varying age, scale, architectural style, form
and materials.
3.
Planning History
3.1
02/02657/FUL - Demolition of an existing two storey building and
erection of a new three storey sixth form building comprising
1450 square metres of floor space for a total of 250 pupils –
APPROVED 06.04.2005.
3.2
03/01314/FUL - Creation of a new entrance on north elevation of
school building including the erection of an access ramp, steps
and walkway over the existing light well, together with associated
alterations - 03.07.2003.
3.3
04/02387/RG3 - Erection of a single storey ground floor side
extension, together with the installation of new windows at
ground floor level, along with associated alterations –
3.4
07/01709/FUL - Change of use of vacant school keeper's flat
(Use Class C3) to offices, storage and classroom
accommodation for educational use (Use Class D1) –
3.5
08/00559/RG3 - Erection of a 3 storey building to provide a 4court sports hall building for use by the school and the community
together with removal of the existing car park and creation of a
new car park with 18 car parking spaces, including 2 disabled car
parking spaces – APPROVED 24/04/2008. Whilst the sports hall
has now been constructed, several of the planning conditions
remain outstanding; including the provision of the requisite
parking spaces.
3.6
08/02236/OUT - Outline planning application to determine
access, landscaping, layout and scale in respect to the demolition
of two existing buildings (the education block and the upper
school gymnasium), erection of a two storey extension to link the
existing administration block and drama block, erection of a twostorey arts community block to the south of the sports hall,
Page 39
installation of a multi use games area to the west of the sports
hall, installation of sports pitches within the eastern part of the
Upper School Site, erection of a new lift/staircase to the existing
main teaching block on the Lower School Site and the
refurbishment and internal re-modelling of the entire remaining
building stock (Option 1) – APPROVED 05.09.2008.
The consent remains extant although the scheme has not been
progressed.
3.7
08/02254/OUT - Outline planning application to determine
access, landscaping, layout and scale in respect to the demolition
of the existing education block, gymnasium, animal house, library
block and temporary accommodation on the Upper School Site
and demolition of the existing teaching block, existing gym/dining,
kitchen block and temporary building on the Lower School site
together with the erection of a two storey extension to link the
existing administration block and drama block, erection of a twostorey arts community block to the south of the sports hall,
installation of a multi use games area to the west of the sports
hall, erection of a two storey technology block to replace the
library block on the Upper School Site and erection of a part
single and part four storey teaching block and sports pitches on
the Lower School Site and internal re-modelling of the entire
remaining building stock (Option 2) – APPROVED 05.09.2008.
The consent remains extant although the scheme has not been
progressed.
4.
Scheme Details
4.1
Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the
school sites (the north site and south site) as part of Phase 2 of
the London Borough of Lambeth’s Building Schools for the Future
(BSF) programme.
4.2
South Site
4.2.1
In terms of demolition, on the south site the development would
involve:
i)
The complete demolition of the free standing single storey
education block (block g) to the west of the sports hall;
ii)
The complete demolition of the existing free standing two
storey gym building to the east of the site (block d);
iii)
The demolition of the existing part two/part three storey
staff and administration block (block b) located along the
Leigham Court Road frontage between the existing sixth form
block and the dining/kitchen block; and
iv)
4.2.2
The removal of the existing Sophie Centre building.
The existing sports hall, sixth form block (block n), dining/kitchen
block (block c) and the teaching block to the rear of the site
(block e) would be retained, re-modelled and re-used.
Page 40
4.2.3
The existing part two/part three storey staff and administration
block (block b) would be replaced with a new three-storey
teaching building with partial basement store fronting Leigham
Court Road; in conjunction with the provision of a new entrance
lobby and access ramp and tree planting scheme. The building
would link the existing Drama block at one end of the site (east)
to the sports hall at the other end (the west) and would be
provided with a full height glazed front elevation, stepping down
to a single storey glazed reception/entrance with concrete
canopy.
4.2.4
A further new three-storey teaching building would be provided
projecting back from the front building into the site over the
location of the demolished gym (block d). The new block would
have predominately curtain walling on the north (front) elevation;
with masonry cavity wall panels and double glazing set back into
the wall to assist with solar shading on the other elevations. A
vertical ventilation panel system would be incorporated into the
glazing panels, with the specified solar glass to the South, East
and West facing elevations for solar control and internal blinds to
prevent glare. The brick would be a light buff colour.
4.2.5
With regards to the retained buildings, the existing external
materials and finishes will be repaired, if required, and cleaned.
The existing elevations are predominantly constructed in brick. All
existing windows and doors would be replaced and it is intended
to use a common window and door system for both new and
existing buildings where appropriate.
4.2.6
A Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) is proposed to the west of the
site, in the location of the free standing single storey education
block (block g) to the west of the sports hall. A five-a-side football
pitch is proposed to the south eastern corner of the site, where
currently the tarmac courts are located.
4.2.7
The south site would be subject to a comprehensive hard and
soft landscaping scheme, which would include tree planting and
limited tree felling and the provision of new and improved railings
and fences to Leigham Court Road and to all site boundaries.
Soft play and informal out door areas would be provided for use
by the students.
4.2.8
Car parking provision would be provided in two components.
Firstly 16 spaces would be provided to the north western corner
of the site, directly to the front of the sports hall and MUGA and
accessible from Leigham Court Road. These spaces would also
be for use by people using the school facilities outside of the
school day (the ‘community use’). Secondly, the drawings show
that some 25 spaces would be provided to the rear of the site,
accessible via Leithcote Gardens following the demolition of
some derelict garages which currently present to that residential
street.
Page 41
4.3
North Site
4.3.1
On the north site the development would involve the partial
demolition of the part four/part two storey building to the west of
the site (block j) and the re-modelling and re-use of the remainder
of the building. It is intended to retain the existing dining hall/gym.
The refurbished building would be clad in dark blue bricks, with
aluminium curtain walling and windows similar to the main
school.
4.3.2
The development proposes the relocation of the Sophie Centre
day nursery from the south site to the alcove area to the northeastern extent of the north site. The building would be single
storey in height and provide an out-door play area.
4.3.3
The north site too would be subject to a comprehensive scheme
of hard and soft landscaping works which includes tree planting,
limited tree felling and access and boundary treatment
remodelling. Two hard ball play areas would be provided,
together with soft play five-a-side pitches, a soft play area and an
informal play area.
4.3.4
10 parking spaces are proposed on the north site, located
towards the north eastern corner in front of the newly relocated
Sophie Centre and accessible from Mount Nod Road.
4.4
Resultant Development
4.4.1
The development, having regard to the demolitions and the new
build, would result in an overall reduction of internal floor space of
952sqm. The existing internal floor area of the school is
14,363sqm, whereas 13,411sqm would result.
4.4.2
The existing capacity of the school is 1203 pupils. The pupil
capacity of the school would increase to 1415 students as a
result of the development.
4.4.3
There are currently 116 full-time and 27 part-time staff teaching
at the school. There is no anticipated increase in teaching staff
numbers as a result of the development.
4.4.4
Currently the Sophie Centre offers 24 nursery places in the
mornings from 8 until 12 and 24 places in the afternoon from 1
until 6 – Mondays to Fridays during term time. The Centre has 9
full-time staff employed. As a result of the development the new
Sophie Centre would offer a maximum of 30 nursery places,
requiring 10 (estimated) full-time members of staff.
4.4.5
The existing school has a total parking provision of 45 spaces,
with 40 staff and visitor spaces on the south site and a further five
spaces on the north site. Following the development, it is
proposed that there would be an overall increase in the number
of parking spaces on site to 51 in total: 16 spaces provided on
the northern side of the south site; 25 spaces provided at the rear
of the south site; and 10 spaces on the north site.
Page 42
5.
Consultation Responses
5.1
Letters were sent to 876 neighbouring property addresses in the
vicinity of site.
5.2
The application was also advertised by way of site notices and a
press advert.
5.3
The following local interest groups were notified:
The Streatham Society - Objects to this application on the
following grounds:• There has been no meaningful community consultation.
• The Transport Assessment does not cover impact on
neighbouring residential properties.
• The relocation of the car parking area would be
detrimental to the amenity of nearby residential occupiers
by reason of unacceptable noise and disturbance impacts
and loss of privacy arising from comings and goings of
vehicles.
• The change of use of the end of Leithcote Gardens from a
cul-de-sac to a through road onto the school site would
cause an increase in noise, nuisance, disturbance and air
pollution to the detriment to the amenity of nearby
residential occupiers.
• The contradictory and incomplete nature of the planning
submission makes it impossible to comment further on
this application.
Please refuse this application as it is unacceptable to turn a
quiet residential road into a major access road for staff and
visitor cars and also for delivery vehicles.
The Streatham Conservation Association – No response
The Streatham Village Community Association – No response
5.4
Response
No. Letters sent
No. of Objections
No. in support
No. of comments
876
51
2
3
5.4.1
Two petitions of objection have been received in respect to the
application. The first is from the ‘Residents of Ivy Day Grove’ and
contains 23 signatures. The second is from the ‘Residents of
Leithcote Gardens’ and contains 34 signatures. Both petitions are
attached to a letter setting out their points of objections; such as
are included in the table below.
Page 43
5.5
Assessment
Objections/Comments
Response
There has been no meaningful
consultation. The only consultation
undertaken was an open evening at
the school some 9 days after the
application submission.
There is no statutory requirement for an
applicant to consult with the local community
prior to the submission of a planning
application. The lack of consultation, whilst not
necessarily best practice, is not a reason to
refuse planning permission. The application
needs to be assessed against policies set out
in the development plan, which have been the
subject of public consultation and examination
in public.
The Transport Assessment does not Officers are aware that the Transport
cover the impact of the development Assessment initially submitted with the
upon the surrounding residential application did not assess the development in
streets to the rear of the site.
terms of its impact upon the surrounding
residential streets to the rear of the site.
Officers therefore invited the applicant to
provide further information to this effect. A
revised
Transport
Assessment
was
subsequently submitted.
Relocation of the car parking to the
rear of the south site and the creation
of additional traffic movements along
Leithcote Gardens:
• This
will
cause
significant
degradation of residential amenity.
• Leithcote Gardens has been a quiet
cul-de-sac since its construction.
Presently there is very limited traffic
along it.
The applicant has not undertaken any traffic
counts but instead has estimated that the
current situation, having regard to the nursery
capacity and the nursery sessions, could
generate a total of 61 vehicular movements –
e.g. parents dropping off and collecting, staff
coming and going and movements of the
nursery’s minibus. This appears to be a worst
case scenario and, following a visit to actually
observe the situation at Leithcote Gardens, the
Council’s Transport Planner suggests that a
range of 45 – 50 vehicle movements
throughout a day is more likely. In this context
the impact of a car park with 25 spaces would
be an estimated increase in traffic of
approximately 18 movements per day. In the
same context, the impact of a car park with 19
spaces, as would be secured by the
recommended condition, would not alter traffic
generation to a material extent.
The
development
would
involve
the
introduction of teacher parking to the rear of
the south site, accessible only from Leithcote
Gardens. That parking however would be
subject to a parking management plan and
would not be used out-side of school hours in
connection with the wider ‘community use’ of
the school. Any disturbance would, in the
main, occur only at very concentrated times of
the day in relation to the teachers arriving and
dispersing from the site. It is also noted that
Page 44
•
•
Increase in traffic will cause
increases in noise, nuisance,
disturbance and air pollution.
It would alter the traffic profile, road
user hierarchy and road safety of
Leithcote Gardens.
the Sophie Centre already operates from this
location and generates an estimated 45-50
vehicle trips on a daily basis in connection with
its existing use; compared to the approximated
48 that would likely be associated with 19
parking spaces. On balance it is considered
that any harm that neighbouring residents may
experience as a result of the introduction of
the parking into this area would not be to an
unacceptable level, and would not weigh
sufficiently against the planning benefits of the
scheme, which are inclusive of the increasing
of student capacity at the site and the
improved setting to Leigham Court Road, so
as to dictate that the application should be
refused.
Considering all factors, including the provision
of a parking management plan to be secured
by conditions so as to prevent over parking of
this area, it is considered that the likely
increase in traffic movements on Leithcote
Gardens associated with the introduction of
the parking area to the rear of the south site
would not lead to an unacceptable impact
upon the operation or safety of the highway
network. Officers are of this opinion
irrespective of whether 25 or 19 parking
spaces are provided in this location but, for
different reasons, are recommending a
condition to restrict the number of parking
spaces to 19.
The increase in parking at the site is a Agreed, hence the recommendation to reduce
direct contravention of Policy 14 of the the numbers of parking spaces at the site to
UDP.
no more than current levels.
The Planning Application forms are
incomplete and contradictory. In
particular the number of parking
spaces cited in the Design and Access
Statement (D&AS) contradicts those
shown on the plans; in some instances
it is stated that the rear car park will be
used for servicing whilst in other
instances it is stated that it will not; the
access from Leithcote Gardens is not
existing; and no traffic assessment on
the impact of the development upon
Leithcote
Gardens
has
been
undertaken.
Should the proposal be approved as it
stands it would set a precedent for the
approval of large car parking
development off of residential streets
without the mandated Transport
Whilst the originally submitted documents do
contain certain inconsistencies across the
documents, these have been clarified to
Officers’ satisfaction and the recommendation
set out below, inclusive of the conditions, is
considered sufficiently robust so as to secure
a development in accord with current planning
policy as set out in the Development Plan for
the Borough.
It is considered that the Council are in receipt
of sufficient information so as to determine the
application upon its planning merits. In this
instance officers are of the opinion, for the
reasons set out in sections 7.8 and 7.9 of this
Page 45
Assessment
or
the
need
for report, that the development would not impact
compliance with the Council’s defined unacceptably
upon
the
amenity
of
Planning Policies.
neighbouring residents or upon the function
and/or safety of the highway network. Any
other application received by the Council
would equally be assessed on its planning
merits and against established policies of the
adopted development plan.
Disruption
and
noise
during Conditions of consent are included to
construction.
minimise, as far as is practical, noise and
disturbance that is inevitable during the
construction
period.
The
short
term
inconvenience that may occur is outweighed
by the longer term benefits of the
development.
Concerns are expressed with regard to The Sophie Centre building itself is only single
the size of the Sophie Centre building storey in height and would not project
upon the amenity of residential sufficiently above the height of the boundary
properties.
fencing in this location so as to appear
overbearing or oppressive to neighbouring
residential properties; especially having regard
to its separation distance from neighbouring
properties of 19m and 35m to the nearest
residential buildings in Rosendale Avenue and
Mount Nod Road respectively.
The development is only acceptable
providing that the western boundary of
the south site is screened from
Culverhouse Gardens by 4-4.5m high
pine trees.
All construction traffic must have direct
site access from Leigham Court Rd
and must not come down the narrow
Rosedene Ave or Mount Nod Rd under
any circumstances.
Matters of boundary treatment have been
reserved by condition. Such details would be
determined having regard to Policies 7
(Residential Amenity), 32 (Crime), 39
(Landscaping) and 54 (Noise Pollution) of the
UDP as and when submitted. At present there
is no specific justification for the LPA to insist
upon the provision of such boundary planting
as part of a planning condition.
The development would be subject to a
construction management plan which would
minimise the impacts of the development
works upon the amenity of nearby residents
and the road network as far as is practicable.
The construction management plan would be
secured by condition.
The development would be subject to a
phasing plan, to be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Complete continuity of provision of
outdoor play spaces within the school
grounds must be maintained at all
times.
Please do not build a bridge or The development scheme does not propose a
underpass for the children to pass from bridge or underpass between the north and
Upper to Lower schools. It is important south sites.
that they learn road skills and to be
patient, crossing at the designated
crossing. A bridge or underpass would
be out of keeping with the residential
area and would cause huge disruption
Page 46
in construction.
Harm to neighbours residents
reason of floodlighting at the site.
5.6
by Conditions of consent are recommended to
ensure that any lighting scheme for the
external areas of the site would not
unacceptably
harm
the
amenity
of
The following consultations with bodies external to the Council
have been undertaken and their responses are summarised as
follows:
CABE
No response to date
English Heritage – Archaeology
It is noted that an archaeological desk-based assessment report
has been commissioned from MoLA but that this has not yet
been made available as part of the planning application. Once
English Heritage have received a copy of the archaeological
desk-based assessment report they will be in a position to submit
a recommendation as to whether there is a discernable
archaeological potential with the site and if any required action
can be suitably addressed by condition.
Environment Agency
The Environment agency does not object to the proposed
development, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a
scheme to improve the existing surface water disposal system.
LFCD Authority
No response to date
London Ecology Unit
No response to date
London Wildlife Trust
No response to date
Natural England
It is our opinion that this proposal does not affect any priority
interest areas for Natural England. Therefore we do not object to
the proposal.
Network Rail
No response to date
Page 47
OFSTED
No response to date
Sport for England
No response to date
Sustrans
No response to date
Thames Water
No objection
Transport for London (TfL)
Given that there is no increase in staff as a result of this
application and that the school intends to reduce car use by staff
as part of their Travel Plan, TfL question whether the increase in
parking across the site is appropriate.
100 cycle parking spaces are proposed, but this does not meet
the TfL minimum standards of one space per 10 staff or students.
This should be addressed by the applicant, and showers lockers
and changing facilities provided for both staff and students.
The increase in pupil numbers will impact upon the 417 bus
service which serves the school. Whilst TfL have some concerns
over future capacity, it is accepted that the case for financial
contributions towards additional bus services is marginal. As
such, TfL would have no objections to the development
progressing without such financial contributions.
A Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) should be secured by
condition on any consent.
5.7
The following Consultees within the Council were consulted and
their responses are summarised as follows:
Arboricultural Officer
No objection in principle, subject to conditions ensuring the
comprehensive re-landscaping of the sites and subject to suitable
tree protection measures during the period of construction.
Crime Prevention Design Advisor
No objections in principle, subject to the inclusion of measures to
‘design out crime’. In particular it is recommended that this
development be required to achieve SBD schools 2010
accreditation at both school sites and the Nursery.
Page 48
Conservation and Design
There are many positive aspects to the proposed scheme,
although there are some concerns relating to the relationship of
the proposed building with Block n (south site), lack of articulation
on Block j (north site) and the design and location of the Sophie
Centre.
Early Years Development Childcare
No response to date
Education (Asset Management)
No response to date
Environmental Projects
It is recommended that an appropriate condition is included to
ensure the renewable energy proposals are implemented and
compliance with the BREEAM standards proposed.
Implementation Team
No response to date
Lambeth disability Sports Project
No response to date
Planning Policy
No objections.
Regulatory Services (Noise Pollution)
No response to date
Streetcare
No response to date
Transport Planning
No objections to the proposals, subject to the imposition of
certain planning conditions.
6.0
RELEVANT POLICIES
6.1
National Guidance
6.1.1
Central Government advice is contained in a range of
Government Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs)
and Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These are essentially
general policies which aim to guide the local planning authority to
securing good policies based on real and sound objectives and
Page 49
the need to provide high quality, well thought out developments
which make a positive contribution to the locality and which help
to protect or enhance the environment.
Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable
Development:
6.1.2
Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) attempts to ensure that
development and growth are sustainable. The guidance note
outlines the positive role for the planning system in guiding
appropriate development to the right place. The advice also
states that adequate provision should be made for employment
users and for the provision of new housing developments, and
that local authorities should operate on the basis that applications
for development should be allowed having regard to the
Development Plan and all material considerations, unless the
proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to the
interests of acknowledged importance.
6.1.3
The policy statement underlines the fact that the planning system
can deliver high quality, mixed use developments characterised
by compactness, mixed-use and dwelling types, affordable
housing, a range of employment uses, leisure and community
facilities and a high standard of design. The emphasis is also on
the use of planning conditions to control development and also to
make the best use of brownfield sites.
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic
Environment
6.1.4
This document sets out planning policies on the conservation of
the historic environment. The development plan making policies
in this PPS must be taken into account by regional planning
bodies in the preparation of revisions to Regional Spatial
Strategies, by the Mayor of London in relation to the spatial
development strategy for London, and by local planning
authorities in the preparation of local development documents.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological
Conservation
6.1.5
PPS9 sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and
geological conservation through the planning system. These
policies complement, but do not replace or override, other
national planning policies and should be read in conjunction with
other relevant statements of national planning policy.
Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport:
6.1.6
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) stresses the reliance
of the past on the private car. The guidance note encourages
alternative means of travel which would have less environmental
impact. It suggests the location of new housing and employment
uses in urban areas, and the optimum use of under-used sites
and the promotion of new rail links and other improvements to
Page 50
public transport. One of the main objectives of this piece of
Central Government thinking is to reduce the number in car
movements and usage.
Planning Policy Guidance 17 – Planning for Open Space,
Sports and Recreation
6.1.6
This PPG describes the role of the planning system in assessing
opportunities and needs for sport and recreation provision and
safeguarding open space which has recreational value. The
guidance observes that it is part of the function of the planning
system to ensure that through the preparation of development
plans adequate land and water resources are allocated for
organised sport and informal recreation. It says that local
planning authorities should take account of the community’s need
for recreational space, having regard to current levels of provision
and deficiencies and resisting pressures for development of open
space which conflict with the wider public interest.
Planning Policy Statement 22 - Renewable Energy
6.1.7
It sets out the Government's planning policies for renewable
energy, which planning authorities should have regard to when
preparing local development documents and when taking
planning decisions.
Planning Policy Guidance 24 – Planning and Noise
6.1.8
Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG24) guides local
authorities in England on the use of their planning powers to
minimize the adverse impact of noise. It outlines the
considerations to be taken into account in determining planning
applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those
activities which generate noise.
Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk
6.1.9
Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) sets out Government
policy on development and flood risk.
6.2
London Plan
6.2.1
The London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now
includes alterations that have been made since it was adopted in
February 2004. The London Plan is the Mayor's development
strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning
guidance for development and use of land and buildings within
the London region.
6.2.2
It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect
and improve London's diverse heritage while delivering a
sustainable world city and, proposes to achieve this through
sensitive intensification of development in locations well served
by public transport.
Page 51
6.2.3
All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity
with the London Plan policies.
6.2.4
The following policies of the London Plan are relevant:
2A.1
Sustainability criteria
3A.17 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population
3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and
community facilities
3A.24 Education facilities
3A.25 Higher and further education
3B.11 Improving employment opportunities for Londoners
3C.1
Integrating transport and development
3C.2
Matching development to transport capacity
3C.9
Increasing the capacity, quality and integration of public
transport to meet London’s needs
3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic
3C.18 Allocation of street space
3C.19 Local transport and public realm enhancements
3C.23 Parking strategy
3D.8 Realising
infrastructure
the
value
of
open
space
3D.14 Biodiversity and nature conservation
3D.15 Trees and woodland
4A.1
Tackling climate change
4A.2
Mitigating climate change
4A.3
Sustainable design and construction
4A.7
Renewable Energy
4A.11 Living Roofs and Walls
4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes
4B.1
Design principles for a compact city
4B.3
Enhancing the quality of the public realm
and
green
Page 52
4B.5
Creating an inclusive environment
4B.6
Safety, Security and fire prevention and protection
4B.8
Respect local context and communities
4B.15 Archaeology
6A.3
Promoting development
6A.4
Priorities in planning obligations
6A.5
Planning obligations
6.3
Unitary Development Plan (2007)
6.3.1
The following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan
(2007) are considered relevant to this application:
Policy 1
The Vision for Lambeth;
Policy 6
Development of Brownfield Sites;
Policy 7
Protection of Residential Amenity;
Policy 8
Accessible Development/Integrated Transport;
Policy 9
Transport Impact;
Policy 10
Walking and Cycling;
Policy 11
Management of Road, Bus and Freight Networks;
Policy 14
Parking and Traffic Restraint;
Policy 26
Community Facilities;
Policy 32
Community Safety/Designing Out Crime;
Policy 33
Building Scale and Design;
Policy 34
Renewable Energy in Major Development;
Policy 35
Sustainable Design and Construction;
Policy 36
Extensions and Alterations;
Policy 39
Design;
Streetscape,
Policy 48
Archaeology: Recording and Analysis of Buildings;
Policy 50
Open Space and Sports Facilities;
Policy 52
Protection and Enhancement of the Natural
Environment;
Landscape
and
Public
Realm
Page 53
Policy 54
Pollution, Public Health and Safety;
Policy 56
Waste; and
Policy 57
Planning Obligations
Status of the UDP
6.3.2
The current up to date statement of the Council's planning
policies is contained in the Lambeth UDP adopted on 6th August
2007. Together with the London Plan, this forms the statutory
development plan for the Borough. It is used to determine all
planning applications in the Borough.
6.3.3
Given its recent adoption, the UDP is in general conformity with
the national guidance and the London Plan. For the purposes of
this report therefore reference in the assessment will concentrate
upon the development’s compliance (or not) with the Policies set
out in the UDP. Reference will only be made to other National
and Regional Policy where there is conflict and/or where it is
necessary and appropriate to do so.
6.4
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
6.4.1 The following adopted SPDs are relevant:
•
SPD: Safer Built Environments
•
SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction
•
SPD: S106 Planning Obligations
6.4.2
The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection
Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006) is
also considered relevant.
7.0
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1
The role of the development in meeting educational need in
the Borough
7.1.1
The Unitary Development Plan is supportive of new or improved
education facilities, provided that the site or buildings are
appropriate for their intended use, and that the nature and scale
of the proposal, including hours of operation, do not unacceptably
harm the amenities of the area through noise, disturbance, or
traffic generation (Policy 26 (i)).
7.1.2
The proposal is part of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
Building Schools for the Future (BSF) project. The development
effectively constitutes the enhancement and improvement of the
existing educational facilities and capacity on site. The Council
have set an objective of significantly increasing the proportion of
Lambeth secondary age children who are educated in the
Borough to at least 80% by 2016/17 as one of the outcomes to
Page 54
be achieved by the Transforming Secondary Schooling
Programme. Lambeth’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF)
programme provides a strategic approach to meeting the
increasing demands for pupil places.
7.1.3
The development, by increasing the student capacity of the
school by some 202 places, would contribute significantly to the
Council’s objective of providing additional educational places
within the Borough. This is a material consideration that weighs
heavily in favour of the application.
7.2
Suitability of the site to accommodate an extended
secondary school/sixth form suitable for its intended use;
7.2.1
Policy 6 of the UDP sets out that in the interest of achieving
sustainable development (including protecting Greenfield sites),
development of previously-developed urban land will be
maximised, whilst protecting the nature conservation interest that
some Brownfield sites possess. Policy 6 of the UDP therefore is
encouraging of maximising the use of the site, as is proposed,
although this needs to be balanced against all other outward
impacts of the development.
7.2.2
Policy 26 of the UDP sets out that the development and
improvement of facilities for the community is supported and
promoted. With regard to larger community facilities that serve
more than a neighbourhood or district function (as the secondary
school would be), Policy 26 sets out that they should be located
either (i) In the first instance in town centres or in the Central
London Activities Zone; or (ii) If there are no suitable and
available sites in town centres, then other sites in accordance
with the sequential approach as outlined in Policy 5. The
sequential approach sets out an order of preference for the
location of uses which attract a lot of people as follows: in the first
instance to locations in the core areas of Major Town Centres,
followed by edge of major centre locations, district centres, local
centres and then other sites.
7.2.3
The development here represents a capacity increase of an
existing established school facility. The development site has a
Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 3;
reasonable. Whilst not located within a major or district town
centre location, the expansion of the existing school capacity has
been identified as part of a strategic response to increasing the
proportion of Lambeth secondary age children who are educated
in the Borough. Given the established use of the site and the
general lack of alternative sites within more ‘sustainable
locations’ to achieve the strategic educational objectives, and
having regard to the objectives of Policy 6, it is considered that
the capacity expansion proposed at this particular site poses no
‘in-principle’ planning objections.
7.2.4
With specific regard to new or improved education facilities,
Policy 26 specifically sets out that proposals will be permitted
provided that the site or buildings are appropriate for their
Page 55
intended use, and that the nature and scale of the proposal,
including hours of operation, do not unacceptably harm the
amenities of the area through noise, disturbance, or traffic
generation. These latter matters will be addressed in the
following sections of this report.
7.2.5
In terms of the appropriateness of the site/buildings for their
intended use, Building Bulletins (BB) are produced by the
Department for Children Schools and Families and offer guidance
on a range of subjects, from whole school design schedules to
detailed engineering specifics. BB98: Briefing Framework for
Secondary School Projects sets out simple, realistic, non–
statutory area guidelines for secondary school buildings and
grounds. It also includes simple guidance on how schools and
Local Authorities should develop the brief for any secondary
school and the design criteria that are crucial for the client body
to consider. In this instance officers are advised that the
development has been designed within the constraints of BB98
and to respond to Dunraven’s specific curriculum visions for the
future.
7.2.6
In conjunction with Policies 6 and 26 of the UDP, it is thus
considered that the site is large enough and in a suitable location
to accommodate the qualitative and capacity improvements of
the existing school.
7.3
School Playing Fields
7.3.1
There currently exists a tarmaced play area designated as a
School Playing Field (PF) in the UDP in the south eastern corner
of the south site. Policy 50 of the UDP protects Open Space in
the Borough from inappropriate built development.
7.3.2
In this instance a 552sqm five-a-side football pitch is being
provided in the location of the existing courts. Further to this, the
redevelopment of the south site will also see the introduction of
an 820sqm MUGA. The development therefore would not conflict
with the objectives of Policy 50 of the UDP.
7.4
Demolition Works
7.4.1
On the south site the development would involve: the complete
demolition of the free standing single storey education block
(block g) to the west of the sports hall; the complete demolition of
the existing free standing two storey gym building to the east of
the site (block d); the demolition of the existing part two/part three
storey staff and administration block (block b) located along the
Leigham Court Road frontage between the existing sixth form
block and the dining/kitchen block; and the removal of the Sophie
Centre building.
7.4.2
On the north site the development would involve the partial
demolition of the part four/part two storey building to the west of
the site (block j) and the re-modelling and re-use of the remainder
of the building.
Page 56
7.4.3
None of the buildings (or parts thereof) to be lost are of a
significant historical or architectural merit that would warrant
special protection. It follows that the loss of the existing buildings
as is proposed would not conflict with design related Policies of
the Development Plan.
7.5
Design Matters
7.5.1
Policy 33 of the UDP is relevant in as far as it sets out that all
development should be of a high quality design and contribute
positively to its surrounding area. Policy 33 goes further to state
that Major development should relate satisfactorily to adjacent
townscape taking into account its scale, character, historic street
layout and uses; improve the sense of place and legibility, and
define edges by retaining characterful buildings, appropriate
building lines and extending frontages; and provide servicing and
parking that is sensitively sited and designed.
7.5.2
Policy 36 of the UDP relates to alterations and extensions to
existing buildings. It seeks to achieve developments designed in
keeping by either using the architectural language of the original
building or by small scale contrasting subordinate additions.
Layout
7.5.3
The redevelopment of the site has been informed heavily by the
layout and built form of the existing school. The new build
elements of the scheme tend to superimpose the general
locations of the building blocks to be demolished, albeit that on
the south site the existing separation between the sports hall and
the sixth form block would be subsumed by the proposal. It is
considered that the built form of the resultant development would
create suitable enclosure and setting for the formal and informal
play spaces of the development, reflective of and appropriate to
the anticipated uses of those spaces.
7.5.4
The quality of those external spaces would be integral to the
quality of the educational environment provided. In this respect
both the south and north sites would be subject to
comprehensive and coherent landscaping schemes – see section
7.6 below.
7.5.5
The built form of the development would also create street
presence to Leigham Court Road appropriate for the public facing
façade of the school. In design terms it is also considered that the
re-location of the majority of the parking away from the
property/administrative frontage of the south site would reduce
clutter and enable the establishment of a far more positive
presence on the Leigham Court Road frontage. In conjunction
with the landscaping measures proposed for this primary
frontage, such relocation would facilitate an improved sense of
place and legibility for the school.
Page 57
South Site
7.5.6
The south site contains a number of buildings of differing
architectural styles, which demonstrate the evolution and growth
of the site/school from the early 1900’s to present day. The
collection of buildings, particularly along the Leigham Court street
frontage, currently lack unity and coherence leading to a
disjointed and visually weak presence on the street.
7.5.7
The strategy to unify the frontage buildings through demolition,
refurbishment and new build is commendable and, as a result of
this strategy, the buildings’ relationship to the street will be
significantly improved. The massing of the proposed building
along the frontage is considered appropriate in relation to the
school’s civic function, creating a positive presence on the street.
The proposed raised platform and clearly distinguishable lobby
area would significantly improve legibility of the site, particularly
in terms of way-finding. Furthermore, separating the 6th form
element from the rest of the school appears to be a sound facet
of the scheme, based on principles of organisation and
accessibility of facilities.
7.5.8
The proposed design ethos is a contemporary one, providing a
well executed contrast with the newly constructed sports hall and
the 1960’s modern drama/dining hall. The proposed materials are
strongly influenced by the materials used on existing buildings on
the site, which are for the most part brick. Concrete, which is to
also be utilised for the new build elements, is another material
which is used with the existing/retained dining/kitchen block
(block c) and the teaching block to the rear of the site (block e). It
is considered that the new build elements would relate
successfully to existing buildings so as to provide coherency.
7.5.9
The proposed window replacements for the retained block e
would appear similar to the windows in the new frontage block,
which would create a visual link to new development and
successfully tie the entire development together visually.
7.5.10 It is considered that the visual cohesiveness would be less
successfully translated between the retained sixth form block
(block n) and the new build elements. Whilst block n appears to
be a relatively new building, having been constructed within the
last five years, its appearance and detailing responds to the
existing buildings on site which would be demolished as part of
this current development scheme. As such its appearance would
contrast with the contemporary/modern appearance of buildings
proposed along the frontage. Notwithstanding, block n is a
modern building which meets the functional requirements of the
school and its removal so soon after construction, so as to
achieve a more comprehensive form of development, would be
irrational. In the circumstances officers consider that the retention
of block n as it currently exists would not detract from the overall
design quality of the resultant development to an extent that
conflict unacceptably with design related policies of the UDP and
that would warrant refusing the application.
Page 58
North Site
7.5.11 At the north site, the re-cladding of refurbished block j is
supported. Concerns have been raised by the council’s
Conservation and Design officer that the frontage building would
lack articulation when presenting to Leigham Court Road,
especially in contrast to the lightweight Leigham Court Road
façade of the south site. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the
schools branding would be placed upon this façade which would
aid legibility and that the façade itself would be set back behind a
landscaped frontage which would soften the physical presence of
the building. In the circumstances officers consider that the
development would achieve an acceptable quality of design
appropriate to its street scene context.
7.5.12 The Sophie Centre has been design for purpose and contains
little visual detailing or interest. Whilst the architecture of the
building could not be described as inspirational, it is nevertheless
functional. Moreover, the diminutive scale and understated
architecture is considered an appropriate design response to this
alcove location, having regard to the fact that it is hemmed in by
the gardens of neighbouring residential properties. It is seeking to
make an efficient use of this otherwise secluded and difficult part
of the school site. Furthermore, in locating the building in this
location it frees up a larger part of the site to be turned over to
play space, which itself represents an educational benefit of the
scheme.
Design conclusions
7.5.13 There are many positive aspects to the proposed scheme in
terms of its design. The layout and design detailing appears, in
the main, a logical and well thought out response to the
constraints of the site and the educational objectives of the
development. Whilst there are certain elements that could
perhaps be given a little further consideration, these are not
fundamental impediments to permitting the scheme. The
recommended conditions would ensure the quality of the
development as envisaged. Officers therefore are of the opinion
that the development need not fail against design related policies
of the UDP; namely policies 33, 36 and 39.
7.6
Landscaping/Trees
7.6.1
Policy 39 of the UDP sets out that as much attention should be
paid to the design of the areas between buildings as to buildings
themselves. Development should provide or enhance an
uncluttered, consistent, simple, accessible and co-ordinated
public realm, with robust and appropriate materials and
landscape design which enhances the setting, connections and
spaces between buildings. Trees of high amenity value will be
protected.
7.6.2
The school site contains a number of mature trees. A Tree
Survey submitted with the application states that 71 trees (of
Page 59
varying quality) are located within the school sites; 52 on the
south site and 19 on the north site. The survey however is dated
2008 and does not account for the loss of trees that resulted from
the construction of the sports hall.
7.6.3
Of the actual existing trees on the south site, 23 individual trees
and 3 groups of trees are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. Of
the actual trees on the north site, 16 are subject to Tree
Preservation Orders. Whilst Policy 39 of the UDP sets out a
presumption in favour of the retention of all protected trees, it
should be noted that the Tree Preservation Orders were made in
1995 and that several of the trees the subject of the original
Order no longer exist at the school sites.
7.6.4
Of the existing protected trees on the south site, the development
would involve the loss of some 7 trees in total. These include a
Silver Birch, an Oak tree, two Black Pines, a Horse Chestnut
tree, a Fig tree and a Hawthorn. The Silver Birch is located along
the Leigham Court Road frontage and all the others are located
centrally within the site. The quality/value of those trees, as rated
having regard to the parameters set out in BS5837, is R
(remove), A (high), B/B (moderate), C (low), C and R
respectively. Thus, of the trees to be removed only the Oak tree
located centrally within the site achieves a ‘high’ quality/value
rating; and two trees, the Silver Birch and the Hawthorn, are
actually recommended for removal. 16 of the protected trees, the
subject of the existing Tree Preservation Order, would be
retained.
7.6.5
Of the existing protected trees on the north site, the development
would involve the loss of some 3 trees in total. These are a
Sycamore located at the south west corner of the site, and a
Lime and a Purple Maple located centrally within the site. Each of
these trees have been rated B (of moderate quality/value). 13 of
the protected trees, the subject of the existing Tree Preservation
Order, would be retained.
7.6.6
The limited tree felling is a requirement to facilitate the
development proposed and has been kept to a minimum. It
therefore falls to be considered whether the planning benefits of
the scheme are sufficient and the replacement landscaping
sufficiently compensatory, so as to justify the loss of the currently
protected trees.
7.6.7
The landscaping scheme for both the north and south sites
comprises clearly defined, versatile and multifunctional spaces.
The landscaping is considered well thought out, having regard to
the functional requirements of the areas and the need to achieve
appropriate settings for the buildings in this urban environment. It
is also proposed that the development would involve intensive
tree planting as part of the landscaping scheme. The landscaping
scheme submitted with the application indicates some 54 new
trees on the south site and 39 new trees on the north site.
Page 60
7.6.8
The landscape scheme for the south site is centred on ‘The
Forum’, a focal point located at the centre of the site and
measuring some 2000 sqm. Existing trees are in the main
retained and would rise out of a deck, which protects their root
zone. In this location tree canopies will cast shade to enable use
for informal recreation, as a performance space and as an
outdoor classroom.
7.6.9
To the east of the site, a Refectory terrace would provide space
for outdoor eating and an enclosed seating area. To the south of
the cafeteria, there is proposed a square providing a hard surface
games area, framed by trees and abutted by a seating area that
could also serve as an outdoor classroom. Perimeter planting,
particularly in this location, would be primarily native, so as to
create habitats and have potential for outdoor teaching related to
ecology, biology and botany.
7.6.10 A garden, exclusively for 11-12 year olds (year 7), is to be
located to the west of the old library. The area would incorporate
smaller spaces and raised decks defined by hedges, which may
be used for seating and informal play.
7.6.11 The Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) would be located to the west
of the site, adjacent to the sports hall, providing a formal play
space for games during PE lessons as well as informal
recreational space during breaks. Both the MUGA and the sports
hall would be accessible to the local community outside school
hours and a visitor car park to facilitate such would be located at
the north western corner of the site.
7.6.12 Further informal hard surfaced areas link the Forum to the MUGA
and the other external spaces. These areas, while designed to
provide adequate space for ball play, are integrated within the
overall campus layout so that they can be used for other social
activities.
7.6.13 To the front/north of the south site a wide plinth would be created,
elevated above the paving level. The Plinth would be level but,
where the road drops from east to west, the retaining wall and
height of the plinth surface would increase in relation to the
pavement. The approach is level throughout giving access for all.
The raised platform would create a 6 metre wide gathering space
outside the entrance doors. A generous walkway, lined by
retained and newly planted trees, would be located between the
newly created plinth and the Leigham Court Road boundary
railings. The trees in this location would act to soften and green
the primary/public elevation of the school buildings when viewed
from Leigham Court Road, contributing positively to the schools
street presence.
7.6.14 At the north site, the Grove would be located to the south east of
the site, where a diagonal path would lead from the gate (located
as close to the south site as possible), to the front entrance of the
sixth form building. This linkage would be framed by trees.
Page 61
7.6.15 The existing sports hall will continue to provide space for internal
group activities. However, a tree lined raised lawn and seating
area would be provided centrally within the site and to the west of
the sports hall, and separating the sports hall from the new sixth
form block. To the other side of the sixth form block a succession
of ‘garden rooms’ would run along the western boundary of the
site (Mount Nod Road). These would be smaller spaces with
seats, hedges and benches.
7.6.16 Much of the north site would be turned over to sports pitches,
including the provision of a lawn and hard games area. The drive
to the new Sophie Centre would run along the northern site
boundary and would be lined with trees. In this location there
would be car parking spaces for staff and a mini bus, as well as
space for vehicles to turn.
7.6.17 The new Sophie Centre building would be located at the north
eastern corner of the north site. The Sophie Centre would be
provided with its own private/defensible garden area.
7.6.18 Whilst the development would involve the loss of certain
protected trees, the development in the main retains those of
most important amenity value. Notwithstanding the presumption
of Policy 39 for the for the protection of trees with high amenity
value and that the LPA have previously identified certain trees on
site as worthy of statutory protection, it must also be noted that
the Tree Preservation Order in question was made in 1995 and
that the quality of those trees will have changed in the intervening
period. In this instance the development would only result in the
loss of one tree that has been attributed a ‘high’/’A’ quality/value
rating, and the loss of the tree is a necessity to facilitate the
development proposed. On balance it is considered that the loss
of the trees is offset/compensated by the planning benefits
derived from the development and the extensive tree planting
that would form part of the landscaping of the sites. The resultant
landscaping scheme would be of high quality, securing the
objectives of Policy 39 in achieving functional spaces and
creating appropriate settings for the buildings, both in terms of its
public presence on Leigham Court Road and its relationship with
its residential neighbours. In this particular instance it is
considered that the loss of statutory protected trees is justified on
balance.
7.7
Sustainability
7.7.1
Policy 6 of the UDP sets out that in the interest of achieving
sustainable development, development of previously-developed
urban land will be maximised, whilst protecting the nature
conservation interest that some Brownfield sites possess. In
compliance with Policy 6, the development proposed here would
involve the more efficient use of a previously developed urban
site without undue harm to nature conservation interests (see
assessment at section 7.10).
Page 62
7.7.2
Policy 34 of the UDP sets out that all major developments are
required to incorporate equipment for renewable power
generation so as to provide at least 10% of their predicted energy
requirements. Policy 35 of the UDP sets out that all development
proposals should show, by means of a Sustainability
Assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and
construction principles. Both of these policies are supplemented
by the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document
entitled Sustainable Design and Construction (2008).
7.7.3
The development proposes 25sqm of solar thermal, 2sqm of
solar PV and a biomass boiler to provide an onsite renewables
capacity delivering an approximate 22% CO2 reduction over
baseline figures. This exceeds both Lambeth’s Policy 34
requirement and the Mayor’s 20% reduction requirement as set
out in the London Plan.
7.7.4
The application submissions also confirm that the development
would achieve a BREEAM credit rating of ‘very good’; the
minimum rating that the Council would expect, as set out in the
Council’s adopted SPD on Sustainable Design and Construction.
The credits noted in the BREEAM assessment submitted
however are based upon conservative design assumptions, and
the report confirms that in several areas (i.e. health and well
being, materials, land use and ecology) there is potential to
obtain further credits pushing the project towards achieving
BREEAM excellent. This should be encouraged.
7.7.5
It follows that conditions, as are recommended, could secure a
policy compliant commitment to the provision of renewable
energy technologies and sustainable design and construction.
Subject to such conditions the development need not fail against
Policies 34 and 35 of the UDP.
7.8
Neighbouring Amenity
7.8.1
Policies 7, 26, 33, 36 and 54 of the UDP are relevant with
regards to the impact of the development upon residential
amenity.
7.8.2
Policy 7 of the UDP sets out that the right of people to the quiet
enjoyment of their homes will be respected.
7.8.3
Policy 26 sets out that proposals for new or improved education
facilities will be permitted provided that, amongst other things, the
nature and scale of the proposal, including hours of operation, do
not unacceptably harm the amenities of the area through noise,
disturbance, or traffic generation. It is however important to note
that Policy 26 is also encouraging of the utilisation of school
facilities for the benefit of the wider community.
7.8.4
Policy 33 of the UDP sets out that building scale and design
should protect the residential amenity of existing and future
residents by having an acceptable standard of privacy; having an
acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and
Page 63
sunlight; not creating unacceptable overlooking; not creating an
undue sense of enclosure; and where appropriate, having
sufficient outdoor amenity space. Policy 36 of the UDP mirrors
the objectives of Policy 33 with regards to extensions/alterations
to existing buildings and amenity protection.
7.8.5
Policy 54 of the UDP sets out that noise and/or vibration
generating development will not be permitted if it would create, or
worsen, noise levels above acceptable levels set out in national
policy guidance. In particular, they will not be permitted where
they would harm existing or proposed noise-sensitive
development in the area, and if this cannot be acceptably
attenuated.
Scale of the Built Development & Overlooking
7.8.6
The built development proposed would not be of a scale or
location that would unacceptably impact upon the amenity of
neighbouring residential properties relative to current
circumstances. Neither would the development introduce
opportunities for overlooking of neighbouring properties above
those which already exist or above those which are generally
accepted in such urban environments.
7.8.7
The proposed new build elements of the scheme generally
replace existing buildings of the site that are to be demolished
and are of a sufficient distance from the school boundaries or of a
sufficiently diminutive height (the Sophie Centre) so that their
visual impact upon levels of natural lighting or outlook currently
experienced by neighbouring properties would be negligible.
7.8.8
The application submission is accompanied by a daylight,
sunlight and overshadowing assessment. The assessments
conclude that: 1) the redevelopment would not cause a
noticeable difference in the availability of daylight to the windows
of the neighbouring residential properties; and 2) overshadowing
by the development to neighbouring properties would not be to
an
unacceptable
degree.
Having
regard
to
BRE
recommendations on such matters, officers have no reason to
disagree with these conclusions.
Intensified School Use
7.8.9
The redevelopment would facilitate an increase in the capacity of
the existing school by some 202 pupils (from 1203 pupils to
1415).
7.8.10 Firstly it should be noted that secondary school uses are not
incompatible uses in residential areas and that Dunraven has
long been established at this site. Whilst there is a potential for
conflict through the site’s proposed intensification, such conflict
can be mitigated to a large degree through a range of measures.
These can include passive and mechanical design features as
well as measures relating to the management of the school and
pupils during the use of the development.
Page 64
7.8.11 Whilst the development would result in increased numbers of
people visiting the site, these people would generally tend to
arrive and leave the site at very concentrated times of the day.
The existing school has a capacity of some 1215 students, which
would be increased in the order of 200 pupils. It is considered
that a responsibly managed increase in pupil numbers would not
prove materially harmful to the amenity of neighbouring
residential properties relatively to circumstances as they would
currently exist. In any event, the planning benefits of providing an
increased educational capacity to cater for an identified
educational need within the Borough is considered to outweigh
any potential for disturbance that neighbouring residents may
experience during the concentrated periods of arrival and
dispersal from the school.
7.8.12 The development would involve the introduction of teacher
parking to the rear of the south site, accessible only from
Leithcote Gardens. That parking however would be subject to a
parking management plan and would not be used by out-side of
school hours in connection with the wider ‘community use’ of the
school. Any disturbance would, in the main, occur only at very
concentrated times of the day in relation to the teachers arriving
and dispersing from the site. It is also noted that the Sophie
Centre already operates from this location and generates an
estimated 45-50 vehicle trips on a daily basis in connection with
its existing use; compared to the approximated 63 that would
likely be associated with 25 parking spaces shown on the
submitted drawings. In any event it is recommended here by
officers that the number of parking spaces in the rear car park is
reduced to 19, albeit not for reasons pertaining to neighbouring
amenity. On balance it is considered that any harm that
neighbouring residents may experience as a result of the
introduction of the parking into this area would not be to an
unacceptable level, and would not weigh sufficiently against the
planning benefits of the scheme; which are inclusive of the
increasing of student capacity at the site and the improved setting
to Leigham Court Road.
7.8.13 The building envelope would be designed to ensure internal
noise levels are compliant with the requirements of Building
Bulletin 93: Acoustic Design of Schools. This would, at the same
time, limit noise break out. Furthermore, plant and machinery can
be conditioned to negate its impact upon neighbouring
residences in terms of noise and disturbance.
7.8.14 The application is accompanied by a ‘Noise Planning
Assessment’. The assessment concludes, with respect to the
introduction of the MUGA at the western end of the south site,
that at the nearest sensitive receptor the predicted increase in
ambient noise levels would be noticeable, but not particularly
significant. The assessment makes certain assumptions about
noise mitigation measures that would be in place and compares
the likely impact to an unshielded location adjacent to Leigham
Court Road. In the circumstances a condition of consent is
recommended to ensure that suitable noise mitigation measures
Page 65
are provided prior to the first use of the MUGA, having regard to
the recommendations of BS: 8233: Sound insulation and noise
reduction for buildings. In this respect it should be noted that
MUGAs are not unusual provisions at school sites and that such
facilities can operate without any significant harm in proximity to
residential properties. It is also advised that the Local Planning
Authority have already accepted the principle of a MUGA in this
location when it resolved in 2008 to grant outline planning
permissions 08/02236/OUT and 08/02254/OUT.
7.8.15 In other respects relating to the school use of the sites, it should
be noted that the development is not introducing play areas into
locations where such do not already exist so as to cause harm or
to trigger need for special mitigation measures.
Sophie Centre
7.8.16 The redevelopment would re-locate the Sophie Centre from the
south site to the north eastern corner of the site and would
facilitate an increase in the capacity of the existing Sophie Centre
by 6 places (from 24 to 30 nursery places).
7.8.17 The Sophie Centre building itself is only single storey in height
and would not project sufficiently above the height of the
boundary fencing in this location so as to appear overbearing or
oppressive to neighbouring residential properties; especially
having regard to its separation distance from neighbouring
properties of 19m and 35m to the nearest residential buildings in
Rosendale Avenue and Mount Nod Road respectively.
7.8.18 In terms of noise impact, the ‘Noise Planning Assessment’
concludes that there is only a small potential for disturbance due
to children playing in the garden or in the building of the Sophie
Centre. Again this conclusion is based on certain assumptions
and again it would be prudent for a condition of consent so as to
protect the Council’s position in regard to accepting these
assumptions.
Wider Community Use/Out of School Hours
7.8.19 The wider community use of the facilities outside of school hours,
in particular with regards to the MUGA, the sports hall, and the
community space of the building, would be subject to a
management plan. There is no reason to suggest that such uses
could not be managed in a reasonable and responsible manner
so as to minimise their outward impacts. Indeed, Policy 26 of the
UDP is accepting of this fact in its encouragement of the sharing
of school facilities with the community. It is recommended that a
community use plan be secured by way of planning condition.
7.8.20 The car park to the front of the MUGA of the south site, accessed
directly from Leigham Court Road, provides 16 spaces and would
be sufficient to service the requirements of ‘community use’ of the
facilities. The provision of the parking spaces on the property
frontage is similar to that arrangement accepted by the Local
Page 66
Planning Authority previously under planning permissions
08/00559/RG3, 08/02236/OUT and 08/02254/OUT. Further to
those parking spaces, the spaces on the north site could be
utilised as overspill parking if required during special events.
Moreover, the parking spaces to the rear of the site need not be
used outside of the school hours in conjunction with the wider
‘community use’ of the school facilities and such can be made an
explicit requirement of the parking management plan to be
secured by condition. The traffic generation and activity
associated with the wider ‘community use’ of the school facilities
therefore need not prove unacceptably harmful to the amenity of
7.8.21 In addition, the hours of community use and illumination of the
MUGA could be controlled by planning condition in a manner that
would minimise to a reasonable degree the impact of the
development upon neighbouring properties whilst not prejudicing
the community benefit of the use of those facilities as is
supported by policy 26 of the UDP. The recommended condition
is reflective of the time restrictions imposed upon the MUGA of
the
recently
consented
Fenstanton
Primary
School
redevelopment.
7.8.22 In November 2007 the Children and Young Peoples Service Sub
Committee commenced a commission investigating extended
services provision in the Borough. Extended Services are
considered to be a key means of delivering the Every Child
Matters outcomes. The final report was presented to Cabinet on
8 June 2009. In their findings the commission were aware that
the substantial capital programmes running for both primary and
secondary schools (the Primary Capital Programme (PCP) and
Building Schools for the Future (BSF) respectively) provided
schools with an opportunity to increase the extended/community
use of school facilities. The imposition of over restrictive hours of
operation could reduce the use of a facility even to the preclusion
of community use.
7.8.23 Specific details of illumination of the application sites are not
included at this stage. Notwithstanding, a condition of consent
could ensure the submission, for written approval, of a full
schedule of illumination of the site – including the MUGA. At that
time the Local Planning Authority could ensure that neighbouring
properties would not be unacceptably harmed by way of light
pollution or light spillage. A condition of consent is recommended
in this regard.
Amenity Conclusion
7.8.24 It is thus considered that the development proposed, subject to
the recommended conditions, would not unacceptably impact
upon the amenity of neighbouring residential properties to such a
degree that would contradict the objectives of policies 7, 26, 33 or
54 of the UDP.
Page 67
7.9
Transport Matters
7.9.1
Policy 8 of the UDP sets out that for development which attracts
a lot of people, the capacity of the public transport network, within
convenient and safe walking distance of the site, should be
sufficient to accommodate any increase in passenger trips to an
acceptable level of service, or be programmed or secured to be
raised to this level within a reasonable period. Furthermore, there
is an expectation that any application for development with
transport implications should incorporate proposed traffic
reduction, restraint and management measures to mitigate the
impact of the development on the surrounding road network.
Measures to promote traffic reduction and management, as well
as alternative methods of transport such as public transport,
cycling, and walking, will also be expected of developers.
7.9.2
Policy 9 of the UDP sets out that planning applications will be
assessed for their transport impact, including cumulative impacts
upon highway safety, upon the environment and the road network
and upon all transport modes, including public transport (in
particular, the impact on the demand for and the operation of
public transport), walking and cycling. Any increase in traffic
generated by development, and/or associated highway works,
should not increase levels of traffic congestion, lead to a situation
where the condition of highway safety is reduced, cause material
harm to the speed and/or reliability of bus and other public
transport services or undermine traffic reduction and/or
management measures. Development with an unacceptable
transport impact, and/or contributing to a transport capacity
shortfall, or leading to a compromise in the condition of highway
safety will be refused, unless measures are secured as part of
the application to make this acceptable. Further to this, there
should be adequate access and servicing for developments, plus
appropriate refuse/recycling containment, litter control and waste
disposal facilities and access to them.
7.9.3
Policy 10 of the UDP relates to matters of walking and cycling. In
particular it states that development proposals that include traffic
management and highway and pedestrian improvement
measures, should maintain and enhance the walkability of the
public and private environment with safe, direct and convenient
routes.
7.9.4
Policy 11 of the UDP relates to road and bus management. On
Local Distributor Roads, it is desirable for vehicles to be able to
enter and leave a site in a forward gear, and the acceptability of
new vehicular accesses will depend on the highway safety
implications of each site on its merits. Policy 11 also sets out that
priority will be given to pedestrians in areas of high pedestrian
activity and that on all roads priority will be given to road safety
issues.
7.9.5
Policy 14 of the UDP relates to parking and traffic restraint. In the
first instance it sets out that development should support and not
undermine the achievement of the Mayor of London's traffic
Page 68
reduction targets. It goes on to state that the level of parking
permitted will be restricted to no greater than the standards.
Cycle Parking is encouraged and it is expected that development
should comply with the plan's minimum Cycle Parking Standards
and include changing and showering facilities with cycle parking
situated in a convenient, secure and sheltered location. Finally
Policy 14 sets out that premises should have proper servicing
facilities.
7.9.6
The Council’s Transport Planner has undertaken a robust
assessment of the planning application having regard to the
information contained within the submitted Transport Assessment
(as amended) and to the objectives of Policies 9, 10, 11 and 14
of the UDP. Transport for London (TfL) have also provided
comments. Neither party has raised any ‘in-principle’ objections
to the development.
Trip Generation
7.9.7
The current school role is 1213 pupils aged 11–16, with 116 fulltime and 27 part-time staff. As a result of the development this
would increase to 1415 pupils (+202), although staff numbers are
not anticipated to increase.
7.9.8
The most accurate measure of existing pupil travel patterns at the
school is contained within Dunraven’s School Travel Plan, which
sets out current modal splits as: Bus 48%; Walking 42%; Car 7%;
Cycling 2%; and Train 1%. Using this modal split, it is estimated
that of the 202 new pupils approximately 97 would travel to
school by bus, 85 would walk, 14 would travel by car, 4 would
cycle and 2 would come by train.
7.9.9
Based upon these estimations, it is considered that a pupil
increase of this order and the associated travel patterns would
not have any unacceptable impact upon the operation or safety of
the surrounding highway network.
7.9.10 Transport for London (TfL) are the body responsible for
assessing the impact of any new developments upon the
operation of the bus network. Whilst they indicate that the
development would impact upon current bus capacity, they
accept that this is not to such a degree that would reasonably
necessitate a financial contribution towards capacity
improvements.
Car Parking
7.9.11 The existing school has a total parking provision of 45 spaces,
with 40 staff and visitor spaces on the existing south site and a
further 5 spaces on the north site. Following the development, the
application proposes that there would be an overall increase to
51 parking spaces. This is a significant increase. The application
drawings show that 16 of these spaces would be provided on the
Leigham Court Road frontage of the south site, 25 would be
provided to the rear of the south site (accessed from Leithcote
Page 69
Gardens) and 10 spaces would be provided on the north site.
The 16 spaces to the front of the south site would also serve the
wider ‘community use’ (the sports hall and MUGA) of the
development outside of school hours.
7.9.12 The application submissions provide no justification for this
increase. The application submissions do however clearly set out
that the proposed development would not result in an increase of
staff at the site. In the absence of any robust justification for the
increase in parking spaces, and having regard to current planning
policies which seek to encourage and promote more sustainable
patterns of transport by limiting the provision of parking and
insisting upon the implementation of robust travel plans, officers
are not supportive of this increase in provision.
7.9.13 It is advised that there are no specific parking standards for
secondary schools contained within the UDP. It is also
acknowledged that a balance needs to be struck between
encouraging more sustainable modes of transport and minimising
potential for negative impacts upon the road network by reason of
on-street/overspill
parking.
Notwithstanding,
consented
application 08/02254/OUT showed a total of some 35 spaces
servicing the redeveloped school site; an amount considered
acceptable by the Local Planning Authority in accepting that
application. Planning Policy or standards have not altered since
the determination of that scheme.
7.9.14 Officers have therefore recommended the application for
approval on the basis of the reduction in the overall number of
parking spaces from those shown on the submitted drawings. It is
recommended that the number of car parking spaces is reduced
to continue the overall provision of 45 spaces across the two
sites and it is further recommended that this reduction comes
from the new car park at the rear of the south site so that the
community use of the facilities would retain adequate provision.
Such matters could be dealt with by way of planning condition.
Officers consider that such would meet the objectives of Policies
8 and 14 of the UDP.
Impact on Leithcote Gardens
7.9.15 The applicant has estimated that the proposed car park to the
rear of the south site, which would be accessed via Leithcote
Gardens, would generate 2.5 vehicle movements per day per
parking space. This means that a car park with the proposed 25
spaces would generate 63 movements per day. A car park with
19 spaces, as recommended (see above), would generate 48
movements per day.
7.9.16 In order to assess the impact of this upon Leithcote Gardens the
applicant has sought to compare current transport patterns
associated with the Sophie Centre. The Sophie Centre is to be
relocated to the north site and all traffic along Leithcote Gardens
which is currently associated with the nursery would cease
following implementation of the development.
Page 70
7.9.17 The applicant has not undertaken any traffic counts but instead
has estimated that the current situation, having regard to the
nursery capacity and the nursery sessions, could generate a total
of 61 vehicular movements – e.g. parents dropping off and
collecting, staff coming and going and movements of the
nursery’s minibus. This appears to be a worst case scenario and,
following a visit to actually observe the situation at Leithcote
Gardens, the Council’s Transport Planner suggests that a range
of 45 – 50 vehicle movements throughout a day is more likely. In
this context the impact of a car park with 25 spaces would be an
estimated increase in traffic of approx 18 movements per day. In
the same context, the impact of a car park with 19 spaces, as
would be secured by the recommended condition, would not alter
traffic generation to a material extent.
7.9.18 The applicant also points to the presence of 7 garages that are
accessed from Leithcote Gardens. Whilst these are derelict and
have not been used for some time, the applicant asserts that it is
the case that if the proposed school redevelopment did not take
place their future use as garages is possible and could result in a
further increase in traffic movements above the current levels. In
this specific regard however officers are of the opinion that,
notwithstanding issues of the likelihood of doing so, the traffic
generation of bringing these garages back into an active use
would unlikely be significant.
7.9.19 Considering all factors, including the provision of a parking
management plan to be secured by conditions so as to prevent
over parking of this area, it is considered that the likely increase
in traffic movements on Leithcote Gardens associated with the
introduction of the parking area to the rear of the south site would
not lead to an unacceptable impact upon the operation or safety
of the highway network. Officers are of this opinion irrespective of
whether 25 or 19 parking spaces are provided in this location but,
for different reasons (see above), are recommending imposition
of a condition to restrict the number of parking spaces to 19.
Cycle Parking
7.9.20 The current provision of cycle parking at Dunraven School is low
and this is identified in their School Travel Plan as an area
needing improvement. Indeed, this could be one of the reasons
behind the low level of cycling at the school, with only 2% of
pupils using this means of transport. As part of the development
the school would provide 30 uncovered spaces and a further 70
spaces which would be covered. Given that the existing school
capacity would only be increasing by some 202 students, this
represents a significant provision of cycle parking to be secured
as part of the development proposal. Further details showing the
location and specification of this should be secured by condition.
Page 71
Accidents
7.9.21 The applicant has undertaken a review of accidents that have
occurred within the vicinity of the school within the past 3 years to
identify if any existing safety concerns could be exacerbated by
the increase in pupils attending the school site. The results show
that in this period there were 53 accidents within the wider vicinity
of the school and 7 accidents within the immediate vicinity of the
site. Of those accidents in the immediate vicinity of the site, one
involved a child of school age where a 12 year old was struck by
a car when crossing Leigham Court Road outside of the south
site.
7.9.22 From looking at the overall accident history of the area it is
apparent that there is a higher than average number of accidents
taking place in this area. This is acknowledged by the fact that
there is a Local Safety Scheme (LSS) being designed and
implemented this year to reduce the number of accidents in the
area. The proposed LSS will significantly improve the pedestrian
environment for pupils and staff. Given the functional linkage
between the two school sites, the applicant has agreed to provide
a financial contribution of £3,500 towards an upcoming
resurfacing scheme for Leigham Court Road; in particular funding
the provision of a short section of the carriageway linking the
school sites to be highlighted by using a contrasting surface
treatment. Such would raise awareness of the presence of the
school with drivers and can be ensured by way of planning
condition.
Accesses
7.9.23 The development would involve the closure and opening of
various access points across the two sites.
7.9.24 On the north site the sole means of vehicle access, obtained via
Mount Nod Road, would remain unchanged. Pedestrian access
to this site would alter with an existing entrance from Mount Nod
Road being closed and an additional pedestrian entrance being
created off Leigham Court Road, roughly central along the plot
frontage. The other existing pedestrian entrance from Leigham
Court Road, at the corner of the site closest to the south site,
would be retained and widened to create an increased capacity
on the footpath for pupils to congregate. Officers raise no
planning objections to the access arrangements proposed for the
north site.
7.9.25 On the south site a currently disused vehicular entrance will be
reinstated on the southern boundary to provide entry to the newly
created car park to be accessed from Leithcote Gardens. Minor
changes would be needed to Leithcote Gardens in the immediate
vicinity of the car park entrance, so as to ensure that safe and
convenient access and egress can be maintained at all times
to/from this car park. Yellow lines would likely be needed on the
carriageway and the applicant would be required to fund this at a
cost estimate £4,000.
Page 72
7.9.26 To the front of the south site, the plans show that a main
pedestrian and vehicular entrance will be created centrally along
Leigham Court Road. It is proposed that an existing pedestrian
and vehicle access would be closed off to emphasise the new
main entrance to the school and make access control more
secure. Such measures, subject to the appropriate positioning of
the accesses in terms of highway/pedestrian safety, are logical
aspects for the development proposal.
7.9.27 The servicing access at the eastern end of the site will remain
unchanged. Vehicle tracking information has been provided
which demonstrates that there is sufficient space in this location
for servicing vehicles.
7.9.28 At the far western end of the south site there is an existing
vehicle access, albeit not currently used. Whilst the application
drawings show this access to be utilised as a second access
serving the 16 parking spaces to be provided in this location, that
access/egress would be in very close proximity to the crossing
point between the north and south school sites and would give
rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. It is thus
advisable to close this entrance to vehicles. That car park could
reasonably be served by a single vehicular access located more
centrally along the site frontage, which would keep vehicle
movements away from the crossing. Further discussion is to be
had with the applicant on the most appropriate location of the
vehicular access and this matter could reasonably be dealt with
through the discharge of a condition, as is recommended.
School Travel Plan
7.9.29 The school must update its School Travel Plan to reflect the
changes to the school that would result from the development. A
continuing facet of that School Travel Plan would be the
encouragement of more sustainable modes of transport. A
condition of consent could ensure the updating of the travel plan.
Construction Logistics Plan
7.9.30 TfL have recommended that the development be subject to a
Construction Logistics Plan (CLP), which should be secured by
condition. The Plan should identify efficiency and sustainability
measures to be undertaken while the development is being built,
including booking systems, consolidated or re-timed trips, secure,
off-street loading and drop-off facilities, details of traffic
management and using operators committed to best practice,
demonstrated by membership of TfL’s Freight Operator
Recognition Scheme (FORS), or similar. In particular, the Plan
would need to demonstrate how conflict between pupils and
construction vehicles will be managed.
7.9.31 The requirement for a CLP is agreed by officers and a condition
of consent to that effect is recommended.
Page 73
Conclusion
7.9.32 The proposed development would result in an increase in person
trips to the site at peak morning and afternoon hours.
Nevertheless, it is considered that by reason of the promotion of
public transport, cycling and walking, as well as the
implementation of a range of highway improvements, these
additional trips would not unacceptably impact on the highway. In
this respect officers are only recommending the application for
approval on the basis of a reduction of the number of parking
spaces to existing levels and subject to the provision of certain
highways works and further discussions being had regarding the
location of the vehicular access to the south site from Leigham
Court Road. In such circumstances the scheme would not
undermine the road network priorities, whilst the application
drawings show that appropriate access and servicing
arrangements can be provided. Furthermore, the level of cycle
parking provision constitutes a significant benefit of the scheme
and would contribute to the encouragement of more sustainable
modes of transport. Moreover, it is considered that the
development, subject to the securing of the measures of
mitigation, would not fail against Policies 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of
the UDP.
7.10
Ecology
7.10.1 Policy 39 of the UDP sets out that landscape design will be
expected to include, amongst other things, the protection of
valuable existing habitats and should maximise opportunities to
create or add to wildlife habitats. Policy 52 of the UDP sets out
that new development should provide the opportunity to
incorporate features for wildlife and promote local biodiversity.
7.10.2 The application is accompanied by a ‘Nature conservation
Assessment/Survey’; inclusive of an Extended Phase I Habitat
Survey, a Daytime Bat Assessment and an Evening Emergence
Survey – dated September 2008.
7.10.3 The assessment sets out that overall, the habitat diversity of the
site is relatively low and, as a result, species diversity is likely to
be correspondingly low, with the south site having the greatest
potential for diversity. There are no rare habitats noted on the site
and the site has negligible/low suitability to support
protected/notable species, including bats, reptiles and stag
beetle. The site does however have potential ecological value
through natural change due to the presence of trees, which would
offer additional habitat to wildlife.
7.10.4 It should be noted that the bat surveys were undertaken in
August 2008 and are now outdated. Whilst no bat roosts were
recorded at that time, that is not to say that they are not
necessarily present now. Bats are afforded statutory protection. A
condition of consent is recommended to ensure that further
surveys for the presence of bats are undertaken at the
Page 74
appropriate juncture, and that any mitigation measures as may
be proven necessary are undertaken.
7.10.5 Notwithstanding, it is unlikely that the assessment and survey
findings would have altered significantly in all other respects. In
particular
the
report
sets
out
considerations
and
recommendations in relation to the ecology of the site and
adjacent habitats, so as to ensure that adverse impacts upon
ecology are minimised and/or mitigated and so as to maximise
the potential for increasing bio-diversity and ecology on the site.
7.10.6 In terms of limiting the impact of the development upon the
existing ecological interest of the site, the recommendations
relate to the clearance of vegetation and the demolition of
buildings and include measures regarding the undertaking of
appropriate checks, the supervision of works and the timings of
works. In terms of ecological opportunities presented by the
development, recommendations include the incorporation of
biodiversity enhancing features (for example bat boxes and/or bat
bricks and/or bird boxes), extending or creating more wild flower
areas, ecological input into any landscape plans together with
subsequent management, and the use of native species
characteristic of the local area. Each of these recommendations
set out in the Nature Conservation Assessment/Survey could be
secured by condition.
7.10.7 In the circumstances it is considered that the development,
subject to compliance with the recommended conditions, would
suitably protect existing habitats and would incorporate features
for wildlife and promotion of local biodiversity. The application
therefore need not fail against Policies 39 and 52 of the UDP in
terms of its ecological implications.
7.11
Archaeology
7.11.1 Policy 48 of the UDP sets out that where development proposals
may affect archaeological heritage, applicants should properly
assess and plan for the archaeological implications, in
accordance with national policy.
7.11.2 English Heritage advise that permission should not be consented
until such time as they have considered the archaeological desk
based assessment report that is being compiled by the applicant
at this moment in time.
7.11.3 Notwithstanding, a condition of consent is recommended to
secure the submission of the report, which would set out the
need for and extent of any further archaeological mitigation
works, prior to the commencement of development works on the
south site. This recommendation is consistent with the resolution
of the Local Planning Authority in respect to the 2008 outline
planning applications. The development therefore need not fail
against Policy 48 of the UDP.
Page 75
7.12
Flood Risk
7.12.1 The site lies within a Flood Zone 1 area so is deemed by PPS25
as having less than a 1 in a 1000 chance of river or sea flooding
in any one year. Further to this, the submitted flood risk
assessment sets out that ground water flooding, overland flows
or sewer flooding would not prove an unacceptable risk. It follows
that the site and development does not pose an unacceptable
risk in terms of river or sea flooding or flooding from alternative
sources.
7.12.2 In terms of managing surface water drainage and run-off, the
extensive use of permeable paving is proposed in the
comprehensive landscaping of the sites. The incorporation of
such would significantly reduce the flow rates and volumes of
surface water discharging from the site. Incorporating such
measures would ensure compliance with Policy 54 (d) of the
UDP.
7.12.3 The Environment Agency assert that the development would only
be acceptable subject to a condition of consent to ensure a
scheme to improve the existing surface water discharge. The
application submissions set out a commitment to improving such
surface water drainage conditions and a condition of consent to
achieve these measures is neither unreasonable or unnecessary,
having regard to the objectives of Policy 54 of the UDP.
7.13
Land Contamination
7.13.1 A ground investigation, comprising of two cable-percussive
boreholes and seven mini-percussive boreholes, has been
undertaken at the site to ascertain presence and extent of ground
contamination.
7.13.2 The risk of contamination for this site has been classed as low
with only one area posing a constraint with slightly raised levels
of arsenic. This area is considered a hotspot and although only
slightly raised levels of arsenic have been found, removal of this
hotspot and a layer of clean cover has been recommended. The
risk from ground gas is also considered to be very low so as to
obviate the requirement for specific ground gas protection
measures.
7.13.3 In light of the findings of the Ground Conditions Report (as
summarised above), a condition of consent requiring the
implementation of the associated recommendations contained
therein is included in this recommendation.
7.13.4 On a further note, it should be noted that certain of the existing
buildings on site to be demolished contain asbestos, which will
need to be removed within a suitably controlled environment, as
per the requirements of existing Health and Safety Regulations.
Commitment to such is set out in a ‘Method of Construction
Statement’. Such matters are dealt with under alternative
Page 76
legislation and need not be made the subject of a planning
condition.
7.13.5 Subject to conditions, the development need not fail against
Policy 54 of the UDP.
7.14
Crime
7.14.1 Policy 32 of the UDP sets out that development should enhance
community safety. Development will not be permitted where
opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an
increased risk of public disorder.
7.14.2 The application submissions set out that the development will be
designed and constructed to meet Secure by Design standards.
As is a specific recommendation of the Crime Prevention Design
Advisor, the commitment to achieving the Secured by Design
standard would be ensured by way of planning condition.
7.14.3 In the circumstances, the development need not fail against
7.15
Waste
7.15.1 Policy 56 of the UDP sets out that development proposals should
include adequate provision within, or as part of the development,
for residual and re-cycled waste; in terms of facilities for
refuse/recycling containment, litter control and waste disposal.
The Council’s ‘Waste & Recycling Storage and Collection
Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’ (2006)
supplements Policy 56.
7.15.2 There is no reason to suggest that appropriate waste storage
facilities and management could not be provided/operated
successfully from this site. It follows that, subject to a condition
securing the preparation and implementation thereafter of a
waste management plan, the application need not fail against
8.0
CONCLUSION:
8.1
The principle of intensifying the school use of the site is
acceptable in the context of current planning policy. The
application submissions have demonstrated that the development
could achieve an acceptable quality of educational
accommodation and that there need not be an unacceptable
impact upon character and appearance of the vicinity. The
development would achieve a ‘Very Good’ level of Sustainable
Design and Construction and would be constructed and operated
to ‘Secure By Design’ standards. The applicant would ensure that
sufficient care to protect any important archaeological heritage
that may exist would be taken, together with measures to protect
and enhance the natural environment. It is considered that the
development and the use thereafter would cause no
unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of neighbouring
Page 77
residential properties that would not generally be accepted in
such an urban environment. Neither are objections raised in
respect to the impact of the development upon the function of the
highway network and conditions of highway and pedestrian
safety.
8.2
In the circumstances it is considered that the development,
subject to conditions, would comply with policies set out in the
Development Plan for the Borough and that on balance there are
no other material planning considerations of sufficient weight to
dictate that the application should nevertheless be refused.
9.
Recommendation
Grant planning permission, subject to conditions as set out below.
Summary of Reasons:
In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to
the relevant policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant
material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the
context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should
be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this
decision Policies 1 (The Vision for Lambeth), 6 (Development of
Brownfield Sites), 7 (Protection of Residential Amenity), 8 (Accessible
Development/Integrated Transport), 9 (Transport Impact), 10 (Walking
and Cycling), 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint), 19 (Active Frontage
Uses), 26 (Community Facilities), 31 (Streets, Character and Layout), 32
(Community Safety/Designing Out Crime), 33 (Building Scale and
Design), 34 (Renewable Energy in Major Development), 35 (Sustainable
Design and Construction), 36 (Alterations and Extensions), 39
(Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design), 48 (Archaeology:
Recording and Analysis of Buildings), 50 (Open Space and Sports
Facilities), 52 (Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment),
54 (Pollution, Public Health and Safety), 56 (Waste) and 57 (Planning
Obligations) of the London Borough of Lambeth's adopted Unitary
Development Plan were particularly relevant.
Conditions
1.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not
later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this
decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)
2.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.
Page 78
PHASING/CONSTRUCTION
3.
No development shall commence on site until such time as a phasing
plan for the implementation of the development, together with
indicative dates of the suspected commencement and completion of
the various stages, has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be
completed in accordance with the approved phasing plan, unless the
written approval is received from the Local planning Authority for any
variation.
Reason: To ensure a holistic approach to the redevelopment of the
site is adopted in the interests of minimising disturbance to the
neighbouring residents (Policy 1, 7, 9, 26 and 33 of the London
Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
4.
No development works shall commence on site until such time as a
Construction Logistics Plan has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Logistics
Plan shall identify efficiency and sustainability measures to be
undertaken while the development is being built and must
demonstrate how conflict between pupils and construction vehicles
will be managed. The implementation of the development shall
thereafter be undertaken only in accordance with the approved
Construction Logistics Plan.
Reason: So as to secure efficient and sustainable measures to be
undertaken during the construction process and to manage conflict
between construction traffic and pupils (Policies 1, 9 and 35 of the
London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
5.
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 during the
construction period in accordance with details to be submitted and
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The loading, offloading, parking and turning areas shall be provided so as to avoid
any damage to trees on the site.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users,
and to avoid damage to trees (Policies 9 and 39 of the London
6.
Adequate precautions shall be taken during the construction period
to prevent the deposit of mud and similar debris on the adjacent
public highways in accordance with details to be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of development.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users
(Policies 9 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary
Development Plan (2007)).
7.
No development shall take place until a ‘Method of Construction
Statement’ has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Page 79
Local Planning Authority and construction works, including parking,
deliveries and storage, shall take place solely in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of
the public highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 1, 9
and 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development
Plan (2007)).
USE/MANAGEMENT
8.
No more than 30 children shall attend the Sophie Centre nursery at
any one time.
Reason: Were more than 30 children permitted to attend the nursery,
planning considerations might arise other than those considered in
the grant of this planning permission (Policies 7, 9, 14, 26 and 54 of
the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan
(2007)).
9.
Prior to the commencement of use of any of the new buildings
comprising part of the approved development, a ‘School/Site
Management Plan’ for the resultant development shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
school use shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved School/Site Management Plan, unless the written approval
is obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.
Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties (Policies
7, 26 and 54 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary
10.
No extended ‘Community Use’ of the development site shall occur
until such time as: 1) the access and parking spaces serving such
have been provided; and 2) a Community Use Management Plan has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The extended ‘Community Use’ of the site shall thereafter
only occur in accordance with the approved Community Use
Management Plan, unless the written approval is obtained from the
Local Planning Authority for any variations.
Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties and to
prevent conditions prejudical to the function and safety of the
highway network (Policies 7, 9, 14, 26 and 54 of the London Borough
of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
11.
Prior to the commencement of use of any of the parking areas
comprising part of the approved development, a Parking
Management Plan for the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the
parking management plan shall be implemented and operated for the
duration of the permitted use in accordance with approved scheme,
unless the written approval is obtained from the Local Planning
Authority for any variations.
Page 80
Reason: To prevent the parking areas becoming obstructed, to
minimise conditions of parking over-spill onto neighbouring streets, to
promote more sustainable methods of transport to and from the site
and to ensure that pedestrian and vehicular safety is not prejudiced
(Policies 9, 14 and 26 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s adopted
Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
12.
No part of the new buildings hereby permitted shall be occupied or
used until a strategy for the management of deliveries and servicing
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. In particular the strategy should set out the measures that
will be put in place to restrict, as far as is practical, delivery and
servicing vehicles accessing the site from the new Leithcote Gardens
access. Deliveries and servicing shall thereafter be carried out solely
in accordance with the approved details, unless written approval is
obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variations.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of
the public highway and to minimise potential for harm to the amenity
of neighbouring residents (Policies 9, 14, 26 and 54 of the London
13.
Prior to the commencement of use of any of the new buildings
comprising part of the approved development, full details of a waste
management plan (including arrangements for the collection, storage
and disposal of general refuse, recyclables’, litter, food waste and
hazardous waste) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. All provision associated with the waste
management plan shall be provided prior to the commencement of
the relevant uses, and the use of the site(s) shall not thereafter be
operated other than in strict accordance with the details of the
approved waste management plan, unless written approval is
obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variations.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage,
disposal, and recycling of waste on the site in the interests of the
amenities of the area, in the interests of the provision of sustainable
waste management and in the interests of minimising the impact of
the development upon the function of the highway network and
conditions of highway and pedestrian safety (Policies 7, 9, 14, 26, 33,
DESIGN
14.
Samples and a schedule of materials to be used in the external
elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the
relevant parts of the building works commence and this condition
shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which
have been given in the application. The samples and schedule of
materials to be submitted shall be accompanied by clearly annotated
drawings at a scale appropriate to enable assessment by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out
solely in accordance with the approved details.
Page 81
Reason: To ensure a high quality standard of development and to
safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality (Policies
31 and 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development
Plan (2007)).
15.
Notwithstanding details shown on the approved drawings, the
following parts of the development shall not be provided/implemented
other than in accordance with full details of such that have first been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
South Site:
The Glazed roof for Block e;
The walkway canopy;
The fins along the frontage of the building;
The link connecting the sports hall and Block n; and
The roof lights of Block h (Drawing 1200 Detail 01 seems to be
inconsistent with Drawing Number 1010).
North Site:
Windows (a section through the windows at an appropriate scale is
required).
Reason: To ensure the design quality of the development in
accordance with Policy 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
Unitary Development Plan (2007).
16.
Before the relevant part of the development commences, details of
all plant, ventilation and filtration equipment (including details of all
external plant and trunking), in so far as it effects the external
elevations of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
thereafter only be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the area (Policy 33 of the
LANDSCAPING/TREES
17.
No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Approved
Plan (Drwg No. 1100/103/1058 B (Tree Removal / Tree Retention /
Landscape Demolition) shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged
or otherwise disturbed without the prior written agreement of the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the
retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represent an important
visual amenity to the locality and wider area in accordance with
Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).
18.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a
Tree Protection Plan that accords with Section 7 of BS5837:2005
and relates to all retained trees on the site shall be submitted to and
Page 82
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Tree
Protection Plan shall be implemented in strict accordance with the
approved details and put in place before any machinery, demolition,
materials storage or development commences on the site.
retained trees on or adjacent to the site which represent an important
visual amenity to the surrounding area in accordance with Policy 39
of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).
19.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved,
details of all proposed Tree Surgery Work required to facilitate
development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved works shall be
carried out in accordance with BS3998:1989. The development shall
thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved
details.
visual amenity to the locality and the wider surrounding area in
accordance with Policy 39 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan
(2007).
20.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved,
details of all Arboricultural Site Supervision shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance
with the approved details.
visual amenity to the locality, and the wider surrounding area in
(2007).
21.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an
Arboricultural Method Statement in accordance with section 7 of the
BS5837:2005 relating to construction operations/grounds works of
any kind involving changes in levels and/or disturbance within the
Root Protection Areas of the retained trees shall be submitted to and
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the
Method Statement shall be implemented in strict accordance with the
approved details.
retained trees on or adjacent to the site that represents an important
visual amenity to the locality, and the wider surrounding area in
(2007)
22.
The landscaping scheme for the site shall be completed in
accordance with the details shown on the drawings hereby approved,
or in accordance with a scheme as has been amended to
accommodate the requirements of other conditions contained within
Page 83
this decision notice. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the
scheme of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and
seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby
permitted or the substantial completion of the development,
whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming
part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of
five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the
development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or
diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of
similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives
written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and a continuing standard of
landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity and
promoting bio-diversity (Policies 7, 39 and 52 of the London Borough
of Lambeth's Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
23.
Details of the siting and design of all walls and/or fencing at the site
shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
in writing before any part of the development hereby approved is first
brought into use. Such walls or fencing as may be approved shall be
erected before the initial occupation of the new buildings of the
relevant site (north or south) unless the prior written approval of the
Local Planning Authority to any variation has been obtained.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory resultant appearance and standard
of amenity of the site, to prevent unacceptable harm to the amenity of
neighbouring properties and to minimise the opportunities for crime
(Policies 7, 32, 33 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
SUSTAINABILITY
24.
The development hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a
minimum BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’. A BREEAM post
completion report and certificate that confirms BREEAM ‘Very Good’
has been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of use of the
development, or in accordance with any other timetable as may be
agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of securing a more sustainable development
(Policies 1 and 35 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
25.
The development hereby permitted shall be constructed and
thereafter operated in accordance with the carbon reduction
measures as set out in the hereby approved Energy Strategy of the
Sustainability Statement (Jack Packer Associates Ltd: April 2010);
unless the written approval is received from the Local Planning
Authority for any variations.
and to ensure that the most appropriate technologies are chosen
Page 84
NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
26.
There shall be no amplified sound, amplified speech, or amplified
music which is audible outside the premises, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the amenity of adjoining properties and the
surrounding area in accordance with Policies 1, 7, 26 and 54 of the
London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007).
27.
Noise from any extractors, flues, air conditioning units or any other
plant, machinery, or equipment shall not exceed the background
noise level when measured outside the window of the nearest noise
sensitive or residential premises.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining properties and the
Adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007).
28.
No use of the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) to the west of the
south site shall occur until such time as a scheme of noise
attenutation for the MUGA, inclusive of appropriate measures of
mitigation having regard to noise standards published in BS 8233,
Authority. The scheme for noise mitigation approved shall thereafter
be implemented and maintained prior to and for the duration of the
use of the MUGA.
29.
Use of the Sophie Centre Nursery comprising part of the approved
development shall not commence until such time as a scheme of
noise attenutation for the Sophie Centre and associated play areas,
inclusive of appropriate measures of mitigation having regard to
noise standards published in BS 8233, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme for
noise mitigation approved shall thereafter be implemented and
maintained prior to and for the duration of the use of the Sophie
Centre and associated play areas.
30.
Full details of the lighting of all external areas, including any
floodlighting of the MUGA, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority before the use of the relevant parts of the
site commence. The details shall include a specification of the
lighting, location, lux values, hours of operation, details of light
spillage and details of shielding to neighbouring properties. Light
from the illuminaires shall not exceed 10 EV(lux) when measured at
any window of a neighbouring residential premises and all luminaries
shall be oriented and designed in such a way to minimise light
Page 85
spillage beyond the boundary of the site and to prevent glare into the
windows of residential properties. The details of lighting for all
external areas of the development site as approved shall be provided
prior to the commencement of use of the relevant parts of the
development and operated thereafter for the duration of the
permitted use, unless the written approval is received from the Local
Planning authority for any variation.
Reason: So as to ensure a safe environment for future users and to
reduce opportunities for crime, and in the interests of the design
quality of the development; the character and appearance of the
street scene; and/or the residential amenity of neighbouring
properties (Policies 7, 26, 32, 33 and 54 of the London Borough of
Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
31.
Details of lighting to teaching and office accommodation and other
internal spaces of the building, including manufacturer's
specifications and a statement of how the lighting system would be
operated to avoid light spillage during night-time when the College is
not in operative use, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the use of
the buildings hereby approved. The lighting system shall thereafter
be installed in compliance with these details and permanently
maintained to operate as approved.
Reason: To ensure that no light pollution occurs to the detriment of
the amenity of adjoining occupiers or the area generally (Policies 7,
32.
The use of the MUGA shall be restricted from 08:00hrs - 21:00hrs
Mondays to Fridays and from 10:00hrs - 18:00hrs on Saturdays and
Sundays.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring residential
properties (Policies 7 and 54 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
TRANSPORT
33.
The development hereby permitted shall be inclusive of ‘highway
improvement works’ to Leigham Court Road comprising of the
provision, as part of Local Safety Scheme (LSS), of a short section of
the carriageway linking the school sites to be laid out in a contrasting
surface treatment. No use of the new buildings hereby permitted
shall commence until such time as the applicant has paid the
Council’s Highway Authority a sum of £3,500 for the carrying out of
the highway improvement works’; thereafter the Council Highway
Authority shall carry out the works within a reasonable time period.
Reason: To raise awareness of the presence of the school with
drivers in the interests of highway safety (Policies 9 and 10 of the
Page 86
34.
improvement works’ to Leithcote Gardens comprising of the laying
out of yellow lines to restrict on-street parking in this immediate
vicinity of the new car park entrance – the exact location and extent
of which shall be determined and thereafter provided by the council’s
Highway Authority at a cost of £4,000 to the applicant. The vehicular
access to the south site from Leithcote Gardens shall not be brought
into use until the ‘highway improvement works’ have been
implemented.
Reason: So as to ensure that safe and convenient access and
egress can be maintained at all times to or from this car park
(Policies 9 and 10 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary
35.
Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans, there shall be
no more than 45 vehicular parking spaces in total provided across
the application site (inclusive of both the north and south school
sites). Prior to the first occupation of any of the buildings the subject
of this consent and/or the use of the new car park to be formed to the
south of the south site, a revised vehicle parking and manoeuvring
layout plan for the application site, showing the reduction of the
overall number of parking spaces to 45 by way of the reduction of the
number of spaces in the rear car park of the south site, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The parking and manoeuvring areas shall be laid out and made
available for use in accordance with the approved scheme before the
development hereby permitted is occupied 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 and to promote more sustainable modes of
transport in conjunction with a robust travel plan for the school
(Policies 1, 9 and 14 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary
36.
No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used
until the provision for cycle parking shown on the application
drawings has been implemented in full and the cycle parking shall
thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.
Reason: To promote more sustainable modes of transport (Policies
37.
Notwithstanding details shown on the approved drawings, the
vehicular access at the western end of the northern boundary of the
south site shall be closed up by raising the dropped kerb and
reinstating the adjoining footway to the same line, level and detail as
the adjoining footway and further discussions shall be had between
the applicant and the Local Planning Authority with regards the most
appropriate location for the new vehicular access which is to be
located more centrally along that boundary. Prior to the
commencement of use of any parts of the buildings hereby approved,
Page 87
a plan showing details of the vehicular access as it will be
constructed and the provision of appropriate visibility splays shall be
Reason: In the interests of highway safety (Policies 9, 10 and 14 of
(2007)).
38.
Notwithstanding details shown on the submitted drawings, other than
in cases of emergency there shall be no pedestrian access or egress
obtained to the south school site other than from Leigham Court
Road.
Reason: To minimise disturbance to the highway network and
residential amenity in Leithcote Gardens (Policies 7, 9, 14 and 26 of
(2007)).
39.
Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby
permitted, all existing access points not incorporated in the
development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the
existing dropped kerb, removing the existing bellmouth and
reinstating the footway verge and highway boundary to the same
line, level and detail as the adjoining footway, verge and highway
boundary.
Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site
boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway users
(Policies 9, 14, 26 and 39 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
40.
An updated School Travel Plan, including details of a scheme of
ongoing analysis, review and amendment, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first
use of the buildings hereby permitted. A specific objective of the plan
shall be to reduce travel by the private motor car. The measures
approved in the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the school
use hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the
duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local
Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the school are
appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel
movements (Policy 9 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development
Plan (2007)).
41.
The use of the rear car park of the south site shall not commence
until such time as all operations and activities of the Sophie Centre
Nursery on the south site have ceased and been discontinued.
Reason: To minimise disturbance to the highway network, conflicts
with highways safety and the impact of the development upon
residential amenity in Leithcote Gardens (Policies 7, 9, 14 and 26 of
(2007)).
Page 88
ECOLOGY
42.
Development works on site shall not commence until daytime
building assessments and evening emergence surveys have been
carried out at the site to ascertain the likely presence, or not, of
roosting bats on the site. The findings of the surveys shall be
reported to the Local Planning Authority thereafter, together with any
mitigation measures proposed should the presence of bats on the
site be confirmed.
Reason: To ensure that the development would not have a significant
adverse impact upon protected species (Policy 52 of the London
43.
The development shall not be undertaken other than in accordance
with the ecological recommendations set out in the approved ‘Nature
Conservation Assessment/Survey’ (Ecosulis Ltd: September 2008:
Paragraphs 79 to 96), unless the written approval is received from
the Local Planning Authority for any variations.
Reason: To minimise adverse impact upon existing habitats of value
and to promote and enhance the bio-diversity of the application site
(Policy 52 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development
Plan (2007)).
ARCHAEOLOGY
44.
No development on the south site shall take place until the applicant
has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological
work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has
been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in
accordance with the detailed scheme as approved pursuant to this
condition. The archaeological works as are proven necessary shall
be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the suitable protection of any archaeological
heritage as may be found at the site (Policy 48 of the London
LAND CONTAMINATION
45.
The hotspot of arsenic identified in the approved Ground Conditions
Report shall be removed by a suitably qualified professional and
replaced with a clean cover of at least 300mm soil. Further to this, if
during earth works visual or olfactory evidence of contamination is
encountered, works on that part of the application site shall cease
until further investigation of such has enabled the formulation of an
appropriate scheme of mitigation, the details of which shall be
Reason: To safeguard future users of the development site (Policy
54 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan
(2007)).
Page 89
FLOODING
46.
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until
such time as a scheme to improve the existing surface water
disposal system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented
and subsequently maintained, 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.
Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage
of/disposal of surface water from the site (Policy 54 of the London
CRIME
47.
The development shall be constructed and thereafter operated so as
to achieve ‘Secured by Design Schools 2010’ accreditation. The
accreditation shall be achieved for both the north and the south
school sites and for the Sophie Centre Nursery. Evidence of such
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority within 3 months from the commencement of use of any of
the buildings hereby approved, or within any other timetable agreed
by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To reduce opportunities for crime as far as is reasonable in
accordance with Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
Informatives
1
For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the ‘south school’ site
made within this decision notice refer to the part of the application site to
the south of Leigham Court Road. All references to the ‘north school site’
refer to the part of the application site to the north of Leigham Court Road.
2
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.
3
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.
4
You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's
Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the
provision of refuse storage and collection facilities
5
With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a
developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses
or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the
applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into
Page 90
the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is
proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should
be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary.
Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where
the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from
Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be
contacted on 0845 850 2777.
6
The London Borough of Lambeth’s ‘Waste and Recycling Storage
and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers’
(May 2006) is available on the planning pages of the Council’s website.
7
You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways
team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 in
order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any
works
within
the
Public
Highway
including
Scaffolding,
Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the
Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including
adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part
Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc
8
It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct
new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant
accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on
020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for
any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work
the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all
the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the
works
are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980)
will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's
specification.
Page 91
1
Agenda Item 5
Page 92
2
Page 93
Location
Bondway Commercial Centre 69 - 71 Bondway London SW8 1SQ
Ward
Oval
Proposal
Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a 42 storey building plus 2 basement
levels below ground to provide a mixed use development comprising commercial units
(flexible use class A1, A2, A3 and A4) at ground floor level, subsidised employment
commercial units (use class B1) at first, second and third floor levels and 376 residential
units at fourth to fortieth floor levels. Together with 25 car parking spaces and 22
motorbike parking spaces located in the basements, 568 cycle parking spaces (360
located in the basements, 156 located in storage units on floors 4-16 and 52 at street
level), refuse storage, public realm improvements/landscaping at street level and the
formation of new vehicular access from Bondway/realigned vehicular access from Parry
Street.
Application Type
Full Planning Permission
Application No
09/01520/FUL/DC_JFU/42238
Applicant
Vauxhall Bondway Ltd
Agent
Mr Nick Taylor,
Capital House
85 King William Street
London
EC4N 7BL
Date Valid
18 May 2009
Considerations
Environment Agency Flood Zone (Dec 2006) Environment Agency Flood Zone 2
Thames Policy Area Thames Policy Area
Approved Plans
A0990; A0999; A1000 -1005 inc; A1010 -A1013 inc.
A0601;
A2000 rev 01; A2001-2043 odd inc;
A2100 -A2104 inc; A2110 -A2112 inc.
A2200 -A2201 inc; A2205 -A2208 inc.
VBD0901_L001-L003 inc.
Supporting Planning Statement;
Design and Access Statement;
Heritage, Townscape and Visual impact Assessment;
Transport Assessment;
Sustainability Strategy;
Statement of Community Involvement inc. Exhibition Report;
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Statement;
Sustainability Assessment
Open Space and Childrens Playspace Strategy;
Economic Viability Assessment;
3
Page 94
Local Car Parking Issues Statement.
Recommendation
To seek authority from Members of the Planning Applications
Committee to agree the proposed increased financial contributions
offered by the appellant and to delegate their powers to officers to
negotiate the terms of the Section 106 Agreement, as necessary, at
the forthcoming Public Inquiry
4
Page 95
1. Summary Of Main Issues
1.1
Members will recall that this application has been reported twice to Planning
Applications Committee. On 25 November 2009, it was reported for a “steer”
for Members’ resolutions on the material considerations arising from an
application of this size and strategic importance. It was then returned for
determination on 24 March 2010.
1.2
The application was reported back to Planning Applications Committee on 24
March 2010 following the submission of an appeal to the Planning
Inspectorate on 3 March 2010 against its non-determination within its statutory
period. It was recommended that officers were minded to grant planning
permission subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement had the appeal
not been submitted.
1.3
Members overturned this recommendation and resolved that had the appeal
not been submitted, planning permission would have been refused broadly on
townscape and landuse grounds and that the proposals constituted an
overdevelopment of the site. The 5 putative reasons for refusal are set out at
section 4 below.
1.4
When the application was reported to Members on 25 March 2010, the
amount of financial contribution for the Heads of Terms of the s106
Agreement, although well advanced and under active negotiation, had not
been agreed between the applicant and the Council. That offer has since been
increased. The suggested obligations and financial contributions will be
discussed in detail at the Inquiry and may be revised further by the Inspector
at the Public Inquiry.
1.5
The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the current position
regarding the obligations and linked financial contributions proposed in the
s106 Agreement, to seek Members approval of these revised contributions and
to gain Members’ delegated authority to amend the s106 Agreement as
necessary following the Inspector’s appraisal of it having heard all the evidence
at the Inquiry.
1.6
The Public Inquiry will open on 20 July 2010. The proofs of evidence from all
the expert witnesses have now been exchanged.
2. Site Description
2.1.
The site lies immediately to the south of the Vauxhall Cross transport
interchange. It is bounded to the north by Parry Street and to the west by
Bondway. The elevated mainline railway line into Waterloo Station forms the
eastern boundary of the site. A parcel of land, currently used as storage space
and parking for commercial premises in the arches under the railway line,
forms the southern boundary of the site.
2.2.
The main building on the site is a late 19th Century warehouse. It is currently
used for storage (Use Class B8) and general office space (Use Class B1)
available in the form of a business centre for small businesses.
5
Page 96
2.3.
The site is neither in a conservation area nor does it immediately adjoin any
listed buildings. However, the Kennington, Vauxhall, St Mark’s and Albert
Square conservation areas lie to the east which also contain a number of listed
buildings including the Grade II* listed Woodstock Court on the corner of Black
Prince Road and Newborn Street. Vauxhall Park also lies to the east bounded
by South Lambeth Road. These conservation areas, a listed building and the
Park are referred to in the putative reasons for refusal.
2.4.
The site is identified as a ‘Major Development Opportunity’ site (MDO 81
“Parry Street East”) within the adopted Unitary Development Plan and forms
part of a designated Key Industrial and Business Area. This designation is also
referred to in a putative reason for refusal. The site is also within the northern
part of a comprehensive regeneration area defined in the draft Vauxhall / Nine
Elms / Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework, as designated by the
Greater London Authority.
3. Scheme Details
3.1.
The proposal, which is now the subject of the appeal, involves the demolition
of all existing buildings on site and the erection of a 42 storey building plus 2
basements to provide a residential-led mixed use development. The building
would be 149m at its maximum height.
3.2.
This would comprise commercial units (flexible Use Class A1, A2, A3 and A4)
at ground floor, subsidised start-up commercial units (Use Class B1) at first,
second and third floor and 376 residential units at fourth to fortieth floors. The
residential accommodation provides a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom flats and
would be in both private and affordable tenures.
3.3.
The scheme would also provide a dedicated “amenity floor” at 36th floor. The
building would also provide winter gardens and terraces for the future
occupiers.
3.4.
25 car parking spaces and 22 motorbike parking spaces are proposed, located
in the 2 basements, 568 cycle parking spaces (360 located in the basements,
156 located in storage units on floors 4 to 16, 52 and at ground floor level.
There would be two levels of plant at forty-first to forty-second floors.
3.5.
Public realm improvements / landscaping at street level together with
refuse/recycling provision and the formation of a new vehicular access from
Bondway, with realigned vehicular access from Parry Street are proposed. In
brief, the public realm improvements would include refurbishment and visual
improvements to the adjoining footways and railway arches in Parry Street and
Miles Street together with tree planting both on and off site (along Bondway).
4. Planning History
4.1.
Set out below is the relevant chronology of the consideration of this application
only. The planning history affecting this site and elsewhere was detailed in the
earlier Committee reports referred to below. This history is not a relevant
consideration for the purposes of this report.
4.2.
The application was submitted on 18 May 2009. Given that the scheme is
considered to be of London-wide, strategic significance as well having a
marked impact on the local area in terms of, amongst other matters, visual and
6
Page 97
residential amenity and transport infrastructure it was considered that the
application should be reported to Members for a “steer” for their views on the
scheme so that their resolutions could then be fed into ongoing negotiations
with the applicant (now appellant). The “steer” was reported to Members on 25
November 2009.
4.3.
The Minutes of the consideration of the “steer” report set out 7 resolutions
which expressed Members’ concerns on various local townscape and amenity
impacts, the land use balance within the development and the need to secure
sufficient section 106 contributions. These resolutions were then relayed to the
applicant who then sought to address them.
4.4.
On 3 March 2010, the applicant appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against
the non-determination of the application within its statutory period requesting
that the appeal be considered at a Public Inquiry.
4.5.
The application was then reported back to Committee on 24 March 2010. It
was recommended that officers were minded to grant planning permission,
subject to conditions and the Section 106 (for which additional financial
contributions had by then been negotiated). Members overturned the
recommendation and resolved that planning permission would have been
refused. The published formal Minutes of the Committee meeting confirm that
are Members would have refused the application on 5 grounds. These putative
reasons are set out the below.
1.
The proposal, by reason of its height, scale, bulk and massing
would fail to preserve the setting of the Grade II* listed Woodstock
Court and fail to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Kennington, Vauxhall, St Marks and Albert
Square conservation areas. As such, the application is contrary to
Policies 33, 40, 41, 45 and 47 of the Unitary Development Plan,
Adopted August 2007 and Policies 4B.9, 4B.10, 4B.11 and 4B.12
of the London Plan
2.
The proposal, by reason of its height, scale, bulk, massing,
orientation and proximity would be over-dominant and overbearing
having regard to the setting and amenity of Vauxhall Park. As
such, the application is contrary to Policies 1, 7, 33, 41, 47, of the
Unitary Development Plan, Adopted August 2007 and Policies
3D.8, 4B.10 and 4B.12 of the London Plan.
3
The proposal would fail to provide any communal open amenity
space or children’s open play space on site thereby failing to
provide a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers,
contrary to Policies 33 and 50 of the Lambeth Unitary
Development Plan, Adopted August 2007, together with Policy
3D.13 of the London Plan.
4
The application fails to provide at least 1/3rd of the overall
floorspace for employment use as required by the designation of
the site as Major Development Opportunity site 81. As such, the
application is contrary to Policies 22 and 77 of the Unitary
Development Plan, Adopted August 2007 and Policy 3B.1, 3B.2
and 3B.11 of the London Plan.
7
Page 98
5
The proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site, be
overbearing, fail to meet the amenity needs of existing and
potential residents; nor would it preserve the setting the setting of
the Grade II* Woodstock House or preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the and appearance of the Vauxhall,
St Marks and Albert Square conservation areas. As such, the
proposal would be contrary to Policy 33 of the Unitary
Development Plan, Adopted August 2007.
5. Planning Considerations
5.1.
The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the current position
regarding the obligations and linked financial contributions proposed in the
s106 Agreement, to seek Members approval of these revised contributions
and to gain Members’ delegated authority to amend the s106 Agreement as
necessary following the Inspector’s appraisal of it having heard all the
evidence at the Public Inquiry.
5.2.
When the application was reported to Committee on 24 March 2010, the
financial contributions for the s106 Agreement had not been finalised, although
well advanced. The Committee report included a table of the figures sought by
the Council officers and the offers made by the applicant. This table is set out
for ease of reference below.
Head
Term
of Amount of financial
contribution sought by
the Council
Education
£729,605.00
Health
£337,833.50
Libraries
£56,558.06
Indoor Sports £210,936.04
and Leisure
Local
Not formally identified
Community
Groups
Public
£488,866.60
Realm: Parks
and
Open
Space
(General)
Public Realm £103,712.00
and
Open
Space
(Young
Persons)
Public Realm Not formally identified
(Streetscape)
Public Art
£300,000.00
Public Realm £279,857.81
(Revenues)
Public
£790,000.00
Transport
Travel Plans £1,000.00
Local training £357,500.00
8
Amount of financial
contribution offered by
the developer
£583,684.00
£270,267.00
£56,558.06
£210,936.04
£30.000.00
£488,866.60
£103,712.00
£1,000,000,00
£300,000.00
£50,000.00
£800,000.00
£1,000.00
£50,000.00
Page 99
in
Construction
Employment
and Training
Crossrail
Sub Total
Legal Fees
TOTAL
£69,115.48
£0
£488,960.00
£5,243,944,32
£156,774.60
£5,400,718.92
£100,000.00
£4,045,024.00
£20,000.00
£4,065,024.04
5.3.
At that meeting, Members’ attention was drawn to an improved financial
contribution made by the applicants. In a letter dated 19 March 2010, the
applicant stated that they would contribute £67,000 (from nothing) to
employment and training and increase the construction contribution from
£50,000 to £80,000. This revised offer increased the net financial contributions
by £97,000.
5.4.
When Members resolved that they were minded to refuse planning permission,
had the appeal not been lodged, the putative reasons for refusal focussed on
the impact on the local townscape, heritage assets, Vauxhall Park, on landuse
grounds and in conclusion considered the scheme for these reasons
represented over-development of the site. The content of the proposed s106
Agreement, as amended by the increased contribution offered on 19 March
2010 was not contested. As such, the obligations and financial contributions
are not a putative reason for refusal and cannot therefore be renegotiated
now. It is not reasonable therefore to now require additional or revised
payments.
5.5.
That said, the appeal process is now well advanced and the appellant as well
as the Council and other interested parties has been developing its case to
support its appeal. As part this work, the appellant has reviewed its proposed
package of obligations and financial contributions and has submitted a revised
breakdown of financial contributions. This is set out below.
Contribution
Education
Proposed Payment
£729,605.00
Health
£337,833.50
Libraries
£ 56, 558.06
Indoor Sports and Leisure
£210,936.04
Local Community Groups
£30,000.00
Public Realm 1 Parks and Open Space
£488,866.60
Public Realm 2 –
Young Persons
£103,712.00
Public Realm 3 –
Streetscape
£1,000,000.00
9
Page 100
Public Art
£300,000.00
Public Realm Revenues
£50,000.00
Public Transport
£800,000.00
Travel Plans
£1,000.00
Construction
£100,000.00
Employment
£0
Crossrail
£418,772.00
Legal fees
£25,000.00
TOTAL
£4,652,283.20
5.6.
Members’ attention is drawn to the fact that the appellant has now increased
the total level of overall contribution from their offer above the previous total of
£4,652,283,20. There would now be an overall increase of £587,259.16.
Members will note that the appellant has now increased its offer to be broadly
in accordance with the Council’s adopted s106 Supplementary Planning
Document regarding securing financial contributions. It is the opinion of
officers that this overall net increase is welcomed in principle and should be
supported.
5.7.
Members will note, however, that the appellant is no longer proposing to
contribute to local employment and has re-distributed its offer of £67,000 to
other requirements.
5.8.
Subject to this proviso, Members are therefore requested to support this
opinion and agree that this increased offer is acceptable in principle.
5.9.
The revised package of s106 Agreement obligations and financial contribution
will be discussed in detail at the Inquiry. The Inspector will not simply accept
the proposed Agreement should all parties agree to it. He will be obliged to
consider each obligation having regard to the legal tests for such Agreements
to ensure that the obligations are necessary, directly relevant and reasonable
in all respects. It is possible therefore that he may seek to amend the draft
Agreement at the Inquiry. It is for this reason therefore that Members’
agreement is sought to allow their powers to vary s106 Agreements to be
delegated to officers attending the Inquiry so that the Agreement can be
finalised prior to the closure of the Inquiry as expected by the Inspector.
5.10. There are benefits to Members agreeing to this approach. Government advice
urges local planning authorities and developers to settle planning obligations
by agreement i.e. by securing a bilateral s106 Agreement. However, if officers
are unable to further negotiate the s106 Agreement at the Inquiry, the
appellant would in all probability offer a Unilateral Undertaking instead. Such
an Undertaking would be an obligation offered by the appellant to the
Inspector for his consideration in support of the appeal proposal. The terms of
the agreement are identified by the appellant and it is produced in its entirety
with no Council involvement. The implications of this are that officers would be
10
Page 101
unable to seek compliance with the requirements and projected financial
contributions set out in the Council’s adopted s106 planning Obligations
Supplementary Planning Document 2008 (SPD) if the submitted Undertaking
does not comply with the SPD. The implications of this are that, should the
Inspector agree with the appellant’s Unilateral Undertaking, the Council may
not achieve the level of financial contributions and mitigation generally that it
would have sought had officers been able to negotiate with the developer at
the Inquiry. Officers seek the delegation of Members’ powers to negotiate the
s106 Agreement at the Inquiry, therefore, to avoid the possibility of a shortfall
in the obligations and to ensure an acceptable level of mitigation to safeguard
the amenity of the local community in the vicinity of the site.
6. Conclusion
7.
6.1
On 24 March 2010, Members resolved that they would have refused planning
permission for this scheme had the appeal not been lodged. That appeal is to
be heard at a Public Inquiry which opens on 20 July 2010. At that Inquiry the
proposed Heads of Terms and financial contributions will be tested by the
Inspector. As part of the appellant’s case, a revised package of s106
contributions has been offered. This involves an increase in the total payment
to the Council in excess of £500,000.
6.2
This overall increase in contributions is considered to be acceptable in
principle.
6.3
Officers do not have delegated authority to vary the requirements of a s106
Agreement once it has been to Committee. Officers are therefore seeking
Members to agree to delegate their powers to vary the s106 Agreement at the
Inquiry as in all probability the Inspector may seek some amendment to it.
Recommendation
7.1
That Members agree the improved package of financial contributions and that
in this case their powers to vary the s106 Agreement are delegated to officers
attending the Public Inquiry.
11
Page 102
Page 103
Agenda Item 6
Page 104
Page 105
Location
Norwood School Crown Dale London SE19 3NY
Ward
Knights Hill
Proposal
Application
As Phase 2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Building Schools for
the Future (BSF) programme: The erection of a new performance
hall with adjacent two-storey main reception and single-storey
learning resource centre with terraced social space above fronting
Crown Dale; the erection of a three-storey linking structure (disabled
access compliant) facing the existing internal courtyard; the erection
of a three-storey rear extension towards the north-western extent of
the main building and other minor single-storey structures;
remodelling, replacement and (where indicated) heightening of
boundary walls and fences; new landscaping and ramp installation
with the felling of 4 x trees towards the east of the site; remodelling
and improvement of car parking layout; the installation of covered
and non-covered cycle parking provision; remodelling of existing
games courts to provide multi use games areas (MUGAs) along with
other minor alterations all in order to facilitate an increase in
attending pupils of up to 1000.
Applicant
Mr M. Pocock
Agent
Mr Sui-Te Wu: Barron And Smith Limited
3 Maltings Place, 169 Tower Bridge Road, London SE1 3JB
Date valid
20 April 2010
Case Officer
Mr Andrew Byrne
Application
Reference
10/01336/RG3
Recommendation(s) Grant Planning Permission subject to Conditions
Constraints
Flood Zone Area 1
Advert Publication
Date
30 April 2010
Site Notice posted
on
30 April 2010
Submitted
Drawings
Site Location Plan and drawings reference numbers 0909 - 0001
rev A, 0002 rev B, 0004, 0005 rev B, 0006 rev B, 0007 rev B, 0008
rev A, 0010 rev L, 0011 rev J, 0012 rev J, 0013 rev B, 0020 rev
F, 0021 rev C, 0022 rev A, 0023 rev A, 0030 rev D, 0031 rev D,
0032rev B, 0033rev B, 0040 rev B, 0060, 0061rev C, 0062rev C,
0063rev A, 0064, 0065rev A,
0066, 0067, 0068, 0069, 0070, 0071, 0072, 0200rev A, 0201rev B,
0303rev A, 400revA.
Submitted
Documents
Supporting Planning Statement - Design and Access Statement (and
Landscape Strategy)– Flood Risk Assessment- Transport Statement
Page 106
– School Travel Plan – Sustainability Statement – Tree Survey –
Ground Conditions Report – BRE compliant Daylight / Sunlight and
overshadowing Assessment – Statement of Community Involvement
– School management Plan - Nature Conservation
Assessment/Survey - Noise and Vibration Assessment – Secure by
Design Statement – Statement on Refuse Storage / Recycling/Waste
Management Strategy – Method of Construction Statement.
Page 107
1
The main issues arising from this application are summarised as
follows:(i)
The acceptability of the principle of the proposed development for
school purposes;
(ii)
The impact of the proposed development on the amenity of
neighbouring residents and the local area;
(iii)
The acceptability of the design, scale, landscaping, and appearance of
the proposed development and its impact on the local area;
(iv)
Access and the transport implications of the proposed development.
(v)
Impact on community safety and crime prevention
(vi)
Impact on wildlife habitat
2
Description of the Site and Surrounding Area
2.1
The application site is Norwood School, built as a girl’s school in 1968, it is a
state sector, community, comprehensive school, funded through the London
Borough of Lambeth. The school is located on a site of approximately 0.15ha,
situated on the north side of Crown Dale, between its junctions with Unity
Close to the west and Elder Road and Stable Mews to the east, in West
Norwood. The rear of the school is bounded by Pondfield House access road.
Residential properties form part of the east and west boundaries. The school
is located near the Borough boundary, The London Borough of Croydon is on
the opposite (southern) side of Crown Dale.
2.2
The buildings within the school site are mainly of three storeys in a modern
movement style of concrete frame with single glazed steel framed ribbon
windows over Grey Stock brickbands externally. The school’s main teaching
and administrative blocks comprise a series of interlinking three storey blocks
and a stand alone sports hall. A concrete covered cloister forms the
entrance, and creates a brick paved courtyard to the main southern block.
The school is in relatively good order structurally, and has been well
maintained. However, it suffers from the problems inherent with this style of
building such as heat loss and gain due to poor thermal insulation, poor
ventilation, and poor acoustics. The topography of the site has a marked
change in level across its width with stepped terrace changes of up to 1.5 m.
The buildings are set in a series of terraced blocks to cope with the sloping
site, which falls from west to east and south to north. The sports hall is set
down some 1.5m from the courtyard on the east side, and is reached by
external covered stairs from the courtyard. With no lifts within the school
buildings, there are currently accessibility problems along the main circulation
routes and between floors. There are several external play areas within the
school grounds including; an external courtyard to the east of the main
entrance, a multi use games area (MUGA) located in the north-east corner of
the site, a hard surfaced playground to the south of the sports hall (set at a
lower level to the courtyard) and informal grassed and soft play areas along
the tree lined western and south-western boundaries of the school grounds.
2.3
The school caters for boys and girls and currently has 750 pupils between the
ages of 11-16 years. There are 83 full-time and 42 part time staff. Students
travel mainly from Brixton, Streatham and Vauxhall with some from the
neighbouring boroughs of Croydon, Bromley, Southwark and Lewisham.
School hours are as follows: School open for staff 07.00, School open for
Pupils 08.00 – 08.50, School ends- 15.20, School site closes – 18.30.
Page 108
2.4
Norwood School has been designated as a Specialist Performing and Visual
Arts College. It offers classes in drama, dance, music and art and regularly
runs half-term, weekend and holiday activities including revision courses and
performing arts programs that are open to the local community.
2.5
The main pedestrian access and school entrance is from Crown Dale.
However, many students use the access on Elder Road as it is closer to bus
stops. Vehicular access is principally from Elder Road, leading to a small
staff car park at the rear of the school. Outside the site, predominantly two
storey dwellings lie to the north and west, with a more recent flatted
development to the east. The main entrance is on Crown Dale road which
runs west-east, and has a relatively steep incline.
2.6
The existing car park has 56 spaces including a disabled parking bay. This
access (Stable Mews) is currently shared with the existing residential
development. The surrounding area to the north in Pondfield House road, to
the northeast on Elder Road and to the west in Unity Close is predominantly
residential in character. There is also a terrace of residential properties to the
south of the school grounds, which back onto the hard-surfaced school
games court yard and front onto Crown Dale. There is a medical centre to the
south west of the site and St Joseph’s Infant School is located directly
opposite the site on the south side of Crown Dale, within the boundaries of
the London Borough of Croydon.
2.7
There are mature trees on the site, which are predominantly located along the
western and northern perimeter of the site. To the east of the site, near the
Elder Road entrance, are two Willow trees which are subject to a Tree
Preservation Order.
2.8
The site is not situated in a Conservation Area however the north end of the
site is adjacent to the Elderwood Conservation Area (CA20). No buildings
within the school grounds are listed. The Elderwood Conservation Area
(CA20) contains a number of Grade II Listed buildings (Nos. 5-65 and 67-71
Elderwood Place)
2.9
Crown Dale, onto which the school fronts is a London Distributor Road. The
road slopes down from west to east, east bound traffic is relatively busy. The
road carries a bus service (No. 417). Elder Road is a Local Distributor Road
Class “C”, which carries traffic and a bus service (No. 432) and also provides
the school with both pedestrian and vehicular access via the residential
access road of Stable Mews. Pondfield House road is an access road
providing emergency access from the rear.
2.10
Within the local area, in addition to Norwood School, Virgo Fidelis Girls
Secondary School, and St Joseph’s Primary School are located on the
opposite side of Crown Dale. In addition St Joseph’s Boys Secondary School
is located at the top of Crown Dale near Crown Point. Within this context bus
services (no. 417 along Crown Dale and no. 432 along Elder Road) become
congested with school children during school opening and closing times.
2.11
Tivoli Road, which is 80 metres to the west of the school is designated in the
UDP as part of the extensive Lambeth Cycle Network.
2.12
Norwood Park, on the eastern side of Elder Road opposite the school
entrance, is designated in the Unitary Development Plan as a Site of Local
Page 109
Nature Conservation Importance and is within a Green Chain. The school site
is located within a green chain of open space linking Norwood Park, and
(within LB. Croydon) the playing fields of Virgo Fidelis School and Upper
Norwood Recreation Ground.
2.13
The Environment Agency’s flood map indicates that the site lies within Flood
Zone 1 area, which is deemed as having a 1 in 1000 chance of river or sea
flooding in any one year.
3
Planning History
3.1
On 10.06.2002 planning permission was granted for - Enclosure and
extension of the existing ground floor undercroft area and the erection of 3
metre high fence to north boundary and associated alterations (ref
02/00724/FUL)
3.2
On 08.09.2005 planning permission was granted for Repositioning of existing
entrance screen at secondary entrance foyer to school building to create a
display area and installation of new disabled access ramp and handrail to
external staircase, along with associated alterations (ref 05/02045/FUL)
3.3
On 1.10.2008 Outline planning permission was granted for - Outline planning
application to determine access, layout and scale in respect to the erection of
a two storey extension fronting onto Crown Dale, erection of a new three
storey extension on the northern side of South Block and erection of a three
storey lift shaft to the south of North Block ( ref 08/02531/OUT).
3.4
On 1.10.2008 Outline planning permission was granted for- Outline planning
application to determine access, layout and scale in respect to demolition of
the existing south block and erection of a part three storey, part two storey
block and erection of a three storey lift shaft to the south of north block.
(ref08/02509/OUT).
3.5
On 01.12.2008 planning permission was granted for – Erection of a two storey
extension including a roof terrace to the south western corner of the existing
school buildings to provide art and dance studios with changing rooms, plant
and stores along with replacement of existing ramped access at new location
along with landscaping involving the removal of trees and the erection of new
retaining walls. (ref 08/03087/RG3). This development, which is located on
the front elevation of the school, is nearing completion.
3.6
On 17.05.2010 an application was received for ‘Demolition of existing school
buildings with erection of two 2-storey buildings and 3 single storey toilet
blocks to provide temporary classrooms on the western side of Stable Mews’
(ref 10/01744/RG3). This application remains to be determined.
4
4.1
Scheme Details
Phase 2 ‘Building Schools for the Future’ is a national initiative aimed at lifting
educational attainment through the complete transformation of England’s
secondary schools. This 10-15 year programme will see new schools built
and existing schools upgraded to meet the needs of communities in the 21st
Century. Local Authorities working in partnership with Government and the
private sector will undertake this investment in new and enhanced educational
Page 110
facilities. It is anticipated that the number of pupils would increase from 750 to
1000.
4.2
The key design objectives of the proposed development are;
- New identity with new buildings to the street frontage, strengthening the
school identity.
- Integrated school grounds
- Access for all
- Community use and Involvement.
4.3
The application is for full planning permission for partial demolition and
extensions to Norwood School building and alterations within the existing
school grounds. The proposals comprise:(i)
Demolition of part two storey part three storey frontage building
with a footprint of 26m x 23.6m. The two storey element is 25 m
to the north west of the end of terrace house at No. 73 Crown
Lane. Also demolition of a single storey covering to a sheltered
walkway, in part adjacent to the north west corner of 73 Crown
Lane.
(ii)
Erection of part single part two storey building fronting Crown
Dale
This would incorporate the site of the demolished
frontage building. The single storey element would
accommodate a new library and be 4.8 metres from the western
side boundary of No. 73 Crown Dale, compared with a distance
of 20 metres from the existing two storey element to be
demolished. The proposed two storey element would be 13
metres from the western side boundary of No. 73 Crown Dale.
The two storey element would accommodate a new
performance hall, entrance lobby, reception and ancillary rooms
on the ground floor and drama studios, sixth form rooms and
sixth form roof terrace on the first floor. This roof terrace would
be 11 metres x 7 metres and would be approximately 7 metres
to the north west of No. 73 Crown Dale. The terrace would have
a screen around its outer perimeter approximately 1.8 metres
high to prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties. The
performance hall with drama studios above would have a
frontage elevation 13.4 metres wide, which would project 12
metres forward of the existing building line and would have an
elevational treatment that is intended to form a distinctive
prominent visual feature at the front of the school that would be
a statement of the function of the School as a Specialist
Performing and Visual Arts College.
(iii)
Erection of a three storey extension within the site
It is
proposed to extend the existing three storey school building,
sited immediately behind the proposed new frontage building,
eastwards by 5 metres. This extension would provide for larger
rooms and improved circulation space, with the introduction of
lifts, to all three floors and would link with the proposed new
frontage building. This extension would face towards the
existing, retained court yard and the sports hall beyond. In
addition a three storey rectangular extension with a footprint of
Page 111
7.8 metres x 6.6 metres is proposed within a recess towards the
north western part of the main three storey building.
(iv)
Erection of single storey structures
The erection of three
modest single storey extensions to the existing school buildings
are proposed. Two of these extensions would be located
towards the northern end of the main school block. One is a
single toilet the other is a store room approximately 4m x 4m.
The other extension is for a electricity sub-station located at the
eastern end of the existing sports hall and also approximately
4m x 4m.
(v)
Access, Boundary Treatment, Car parking and Cycle parking
The main entrance fronting Crown Dale would remain pedestrian
only. The proposed boundary treatment together with the siting
and design of the new building would give the school more of a
visual presence in the street scene. The proposed new
boundary fence along Crown Dale would be 2.4m high of metal
grill. The school gates with bespoke internal metal work (This is
to be designed in collaboration with the school through
competition). The gates are to include intercom, electronic
remote control automated sliding mechanism. The main vehicle
access to the site will remain from Elder Road where the gates
are to be widened. This would serve the school car park / cycle
park, which would accommodate a total of 52 car parking
spaces (a reduction of 7 spaces) and 122 cycle parking spaces.
The existing car parking area to the north of the sports hall
would be reduced in size but extended to the east of the sports
hall. To improve pedestrian access across the site from the
Elder Road entrance to the Crown Dale entrance the land would
be graded to form slopes to avoid the necessity of stairs. Unity
Close provides a side service access 1.8m wide to the west of
the site. At the rear of the site the access road to Pondfield
House provides rear access for emergency and service access
and would provide access for development construction
purposes.
Along the eastern western and northern site
boundaries the proposed boundary treatment comprises 2.4
metre high metal grill or mesh galvanised and powder coated
coloured black.
(vi)
Landscaping. Numerous plants / flowers and shrubs within the
site are proposed. As a consequence of improving accessibility
and regrading of land levels it is proposed to remove line of four
cherry trees, which are at right angles to the rear site boundary.
To the north and western corner of the site. The submitted
drawings indicate the provision of new trees and to the north
east remodelling of existing games courts to provide multi use
games areas (MUGAs).
(vii)
External lighting will be improved and updated along the eastern
site boundary. Lights to the sports pitches, to the south and rear
of 73 to 93 Crown Dale, would be placed either side of the
sports pitches. Lighting is also proposed to the Crown Dale
entrance. In addition lighting is proposed within the site towards
its centre and around the emergency access gates at the rear
Page 112
onto Pondfield House access road. All proposed external lighting
remains to be detailed.
(viii)
CCTV
Existing CCTV will be improved and updated to suit
different and new arrangements and enhance general
surveillance and site security
(ix)
Sustainable development A line of ten solar panels 10.5m x
2.4m is proposed on the flat roof of the existing sports hall. In
addition it is proposed to provide a biomass boiler with ancillary
storage area of 51m2.
5
Consultation Responses
5.1
Consultation letters were sent to neighbouring properties in the following
roads Unity Close; Pondfield House, Elder Road; Crown Dale; Elderwood
Place, Longmead House, Woodvale Walk and Tivoli Road
5.2
The following amenity groups and external bodies were consulted
Dulwich Residents’ Associations – No response received to date
Dulwich Society – No response received to date
Crystal Palace Community Association–No response received to date
Transport for London - Comment no objections subject to conditions
London Borough of Croydon – No response received to date
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment– No response
received to date
Environment Agency Comment – no objections subject to conditions
English Nature Comment – no objections
OFSTED – No response received to date
Sport for England No objections
London Wildlife Trust– No response received to date
London Ecology Unit-– No response received to date
5.3
Letters of notification were sent to the following internal Council consultees:
Planning Policy - Comment no objections
Urban design – Comment no objections subject to further details
Arboricultural Officer - No objections
Sports - No objections
Crime Prevention Unit - No objections subject to conditions
Regulatory Services - Noise Pollution-Comment no objections
Streetcare – No response received to date
Performance, Strategy & Regeneration - Comment no objections subject to
conditions
Street Management – No response received to date
Transport and Highways Comment no objections subject to conditions
Education – No response received
Implementation – No response received
Lambeth Disability Sports Project – No response received
5.4
Letters of notification were sent to 599 neighbouring properties on the
following roads:- Unity Close; Pondfield House, Elder Road; Crown Dale;
Elderwood Place, Longmead House, Woodvale Walk and Tivoli Road
Page 113
5.5
Four site notices were erected in the vicinity of the site on 30 April 2010 and
the application was advertised in the South London Press on the 30 of April
2010.
5.6
Three letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents.
The following is a summary of the objections and the officers’ response.
Number of letters sent
Number of objections received
Number of letters of support
received
Objections
599
3
0
Response
1 With regard to 73 Crown Dale,
the proposed development would
be very imposing and would result
in a loss of privacy to bathroom and
bedroom from roof top terrace.
Lack of clear screening details.
1 The proposed nearby building would be
single storey with no roof terrace directly
overlooking neighbouring residential
properties. The proposed roof terrace would
have a 1.8 metre privacy screen to prevent
overlooking.
2 Proposed development with
increased children, extended hours,
loss of landscaped fence, to the
rear of 73 to 93 Crown Dale, and
construction operations would
result in extra noise.
2 The proposal would remove a walled
garden area where pupils gather adjacent to
the side boundary of no.73 Crown Dale and
provide an accessway. Subject to a
recommended condition this would allow the
Local Planning Authority to restrict its use,
thus reducing existing noise levels to
neighbouring residents. Noise from
construction operations in the main are
controlled by the Control of Pollution
legislation rather than Town Planning.
3 Proposed development would
result in increased overshadowing,
loss of sunlight.
3 The proposed development would comply
with BRE Guidance and would not result in
unacceptable overshadowing or loss of
natural light.
4 Proposed development would
result in loss of an existing fence
that provides mature vegetation
providing a substantial visual and
acoustic screen habitat for foxes
and birds. Fence can be retained,
or relevant condition retaining and
enhancing as much as possible.
4 A condition is recommended that would
provide for retention of the vegetation
covered fence to the rear of 73 -93 Crown
Dale. Proposed boundary treatment is the
subject of a recommended Condition (No. 4)
which requires the submission and approval
of details.
Page 114
5 Construction work, vibration and
drilling would cause structural
damage to nearby buildings
5 Unacceptable vibration is not anticipated
other than in connection with removal of the
play ground hard /paved surface. This would
be associated with building operations , which
are not considered material in the
assessment of the proposal.
6 Concern that the proposed
building would be over dominant
over bearing. East west elevation
drawing should be provided to help
assessment.
6 It is not considered that the proposed single
story library would result in an undue sense of
enclosure or be overbearing.
7 It would have been appropriate
for applicants to have consulted
nearby neighbours in advance of
finalising proposals and submitting
the application.
7 Applicants Statement of Community
Involvement indicates that a leaflet was
distributed on 16 April 2010 providing details
of a meeting at Norwood School on 26 April
2010.
6
Planning Considerations
6.1 Relevant Policies
6.1.1 National Guidance Central Government advice is contained in a range of
Government Circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG) and/or
Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These contain general policies, which aim
to guide local planning authorities in securing good local planning policies
based on real and sound objectives and the need to provide high quality, well
thought out and sustainable developments, which make a positive
contribution to the locality and which help to protect or enhance the
environment. The following national guidance is considered particularly
relevant to this application:
Planning Policy Statement 1 [Delivering Sustainable Development] PPS1
sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of
sustainable development through the planning system. It states that good
design is indivisible from good planning and encourages planning authorities
to secure high quality and inclusive design for all development. It provides
that planning authorities should:
“promote urban and rural regeneration to improve the wellbeing of
communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe
development and create new opportunities for the people living in
those communities…” (para 27(ii)) and;
“Promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed
use development and the use of sustainably located previously
developed land and buildings…” (para 27(viii))
It further states that planning authorities should,
“Ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial,
retail, public sector (e.g. health and education), tourism and leisure
developments, so that the economy can prosper.” (para. 23)
Page 115
Planning Policy Guidance 13 [Transport] PPG13 deals specifically with
transport, particularly the way in which transport integrates with planning.
PPG13 seeks to: promote sustainable transport choices; promote accessibility
to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking,
and cycling; and, reduce the need to travel, especially by car. The Guidance
encourages the location of traffic generating uses close to public transport, to
encourage sustainable transport modes. PPG13 also encourages the
production of travel plans to raise awareness regarding the impacts of travel
decisions.
PPG17 [Sport and Recreation] PPG17 prohibits development over existing
open space and sport and recreation grounds unless an assessment has
demonstrated that they are surplus to requirement. In which case,
development may provide the opportunity to exchange the use of one site for
another to substitute for the loss.
Planning Policy Statement 22 [Renewable Energy] PPS22 sets out the
Government's policies for renewable energy, which planning authorities
should have regard to when preparing local development documents and
when taking planning decisions.
Planning Policy Guidance 24 [Planning and Noise] PPG24 guides local
authorities in England on the use of their planning powers to minimise the
adverse impact of noise. It outlines the considerations to be taken into
account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive
developments and for those activities which generate noise.
The
Planning Policy Statement 25
[Development and Flood Risk]
Environment Agency’s flood map indicates that the site lies within Flood Zone
1 area, which is deemed as having a 1 in 1000 chance of river or sea flooding
in any one year. PPS25 is to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all
stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at
risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk.
6.1.2 The London Plan (Amended 2008)
London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now includes alterations
that have been made since it was adopted in February 2004. The London Plan
is the Mayor’s development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic
planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the
London region.
It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve
London’s diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and,
proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in
locations well served by public transport.
All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the
London Plan policies.
The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are:
3A.24: Educational facilities
3C.1: Integrating transport and development
Page 116
3C.2: Matching development to transport capacity
3C.3: Sustainable transport in London
3C.22: Improving conditions for cycling
3C.23: Parking strategy
3D.6: Sports facilities
3D.14: Biodiversity and nature conservation
4A.22: Spatial policies for waste management
4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction
4A.4: Energy assessment
4A.7: Renewable energy
4A.20: Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes
4B.1: Design principles for a compact city
4B.3: Enhancing the quality of the public realm
4B.5: Creating an inclusive environment
4B.8: Respect local context and communities
In particular Policy 3A.24 is relevant in this case as it states that UDP policies
should reflect the demands of pre-school, school and community learning
facilities, taking into account GLA demographic projections, and should
ensure adequate provision in partnership with the local education authority,
local strategic partnership and users.
6.1.3 Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007)
The current up to date statement of the Council's planning policies is
contained in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan adopted on 6th August
2007. Together with the London Plan, this forms the statutory development
plan for the Borough and is now used to determine all planning applications.
The following policies are considered particularly relevant to this application:
Policy 1: The Vision for Lambeth
Policy 5: The Sequential Approach to Uses which Attract a lot of People
Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity
Policy 9: Transport Impact
Policy 10: Walking and Cycling
Policy 14: Parking and Traffic Restraint
Policy 26: Community Facilities
Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout
Policy 32: Community Safety/Designing Out Crime
Policy 33: Building Scale and Design
Policy 34: Renewable Energy in Major Development
Policy 35: Sustainable Design and Construction
Policy 36: Alterations and Extensions
Policy 38: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas
Policy 39: Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design
Policy 50: Open Space and Sports Facilities
Policy 52: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment
Policy 54: Pollution, Public Health and Safety
Policy 56: Waste
Policy 57 Planning Obligations
Page 117
6.1.4 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
The following adopted SPDs are considered to be relevant:
Sustainable Design and Construction (July 2008)
Safer Built Environments (April 2008)
S 106 Planning Obligations (July 2008)
6.2
Land Use
6.2.1 Policy 3A.24 of The London Plan and the broad aims of government policy for
skills and learning, are informed by the recognition that poor educational
attainment, skills and education deficiencies will have adverse socialeconomic effects within an area.
6.2.2 Policy 26 of the UDP supports and promotes the development and
improvement of community facilities, having regard to the Council’s statutory
duty to provide a high standard of education. In particular, supporting text to
the policy notes that in some parts of the Borough there is a shortage of
places and/or lack of choice of schools. There is also additional demand that
is likely to come from the high rate of new housing and the rapid demographic
growth and high birth rate within the Borough. The policy states that through
the planning process:
“… the Council will sustain a diverse and strong local economy and
maximise education, skills and training opportunities for Lambeth
residents…”
6.2.3 Therefore the principle matter for consideration in this case is whether there is
demonstrable need for the new facility having regard to both government
stated policy aims for skills and learning and current educational deficiencies
with the Borough.
6.2.4 In January 2003 the then government published its vision for transforming the
way the education system caters for young people in a report titled: ’14-19:
Opportunity and Excellence’. The report set out a process of reform so that all
pupils acquire skills for life, work and further learning. The report highlighted
the low take-up of further education by 16 year olds and states:
“A significant minority – particularly those most at risk through
personal or family circumstances or with low parental aspirations or
support, drop out of education altogether. Many never return. Instead
they head for low-skill, low-paid jobs or drift into unemployment…”
6.2.5 The government seeks to narrow the skills’ gap by making sure that young
people stay on in education and training, have a wider choice of flexible
learning routes including academic study, vocational training or a combination
of both and providing higher standard and greater choice of 6th Form and
vocational training facilities.
6.2.6 There is an acknowledged shortage of schools in the Borough as a whole. In
2005, 41% of parents sent their children to schools outside the Borough. In
response, the Council has set an objective of significantly increasing the
proportion of Lambeth’s secondary age children who are educated in the
Borough to at least 80% by 2016/17 as one of the outcomes to be achieved
through the Transforming Secondary Schooling Programme. In the shorter
Page 118
term this will be delivered in part through incorporating some expansion of
existing schools into the Building Schools for the Future Programme (BSF) as
is proposed in this case.
6.2.7 UDP Policy 26 states that proposals for large community facilities serving
more than a neighbourhood or district function, including the extension of
existing facilities, should be located either: (i) in the first instance in town
centres or in the Central London Activities Zone; or (ii) if there are no suitable
and available sites in town centres, then other sites in accordance with the
sequential approach (Policy 5 of the UDP).
6.2.8 The site does not lie within the Central London Policy Area or within a town
centre. Given there are no suitable sites within town centres in the vicinity,
and given the established use of the site, it is considered that the proposal to
expand provisions within the school would be consistent with the Policy 5 and
26 of the UDP in this respect.
6.2.9 The existing school is a large community facility serving more than a local
area. It educates students from years 11-16. Currently approximately 750
children attend the school. Recent approved schemes have allowed for an
increase in the school roll to a total of 1,000 students, including new 100place 6th Form Centre.
6.2.10 It is considered that, together with the recently permitted and the existing 6th
form colleges in the Borough, the proposed development would contribute to
the stated education objective of reversing the out migration of post-primary
school pupils from the Borough to other boroughs. However, in order for the
extended specialist performing and visual arts program to be viable, existing
and new pupils would need to be attracted back to Lambeth by the provision
of a high quality and vibrant facilities. This scheme proposes to provide such
facilities and is therefore considered acceptable in principle.
6.2.11 Part (i) of Policy 26 states that proposals for new or improved education
facilities will be permitted provided that the site or buildings are appropriate for
their intended use, and that the nature and scale of the proposal including
hours of operation, do not unacceptably harm the amenities of the area
through noise, disturbance or traffic generation.
6.2.12 The following section (Design and Conservation) assesses the
appropriateness of the scale and layout of the proposal against Polices of the
UDP. The proposal has also been assessed having regard to its impact on
the amenity of local residents (Policies 7, 26 and 33 of the adopted UDP). The
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the transport and crime
prevention implications of the proposal are considered along with other issues
in detail in subsequent sections.
6.2.13 The proposal to extend the school is considered acceptable in principle in
planning policy land use terms given the established use of the site.
6.3
Design and Conservation Considerations
6.3.1. Guidance given in PPS1 states that good design is indivisible from good
planning, with high quality and inclusive design being the aim of all of those
involved in the development process. Unitary Development Plan Policies 32,
Page 119
33, 34, 35 and policy 47 (because the site is adjacent to a Conservation Area)
are particularly relevant to this application
6.3.2. Policy 33 of the UDP relates to building scale and design and provides that all
development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its
surrounding area. Development should respond to the context and sensitivity
of the site and area. Specifically, major development should:
•
•
•
Relate satisfactorily to adjacent townscape taking into account its scale,
character, historic street layout and uses;
Improve the sense of place and legibility and define edges by retaining
characterful buildings, appropriate building lines and extending
frontages;
Provide servicing and parking that is sensitively sited and designed.
6.3.3. Policy 31 of the UDP states that developments should respond to and
enhance the architectural character of the area. Where possible, development
should retain and contribute to a fine 'urban grain', and where appropriate,
follow appropriate block widths, road widths, plot sizes and gaps and spaces
between buildings. Policy 38 states that proposals to intensify existing
residential/mixed use areas are welcome where this can be achieved without
harming local amenities, and that any prevailing character and appearance of
the area should be protected. Policy 39 states that attention should be paid to
the design of the areas between buildings enhancing the setting, connections
and spaces between buildings. Trees of high amenity value will be protected.
6.3.4. The Council’s Urban Design officer has observed that it is clear that the
proposed layout has been well considered and has taken into account
accessibility and movement within the school. The atrium would become the
heart of the building providing direct links to other parts of the building and
open spaces. Introducing buildings closer to the street increases the schools
presence in the streetscene, which is considered suitable to its civic function.
The splayed elevation of the Learning Resource Centre (LRC) draws the eye
towards the new entrance/ lobby, resulting in a highly visible entrance.
6.3.5. The massing of the new parts of the building appears sound and relates well
to the existing buildings, the Urban Design officer has expressed concerns
about the detailing and choice of materials for the performance hall and the
three storey extension towards the north-western extent of the main building.
In the context of the other buildings on the site the three storey extension
would be a distinctive dark brick box. Concerns raised about the dark bricks
compatibility with the predominately yellow stock brick building, about its
impact on the street and the achievement of the relief/design detail shown on
the brickwork, may be resolved in the approval of details of facing materials,
which are reserved by condition.
6.3.6. Since Crown Dale is the principle entrance for students and the community it
is important that a high quality boundary treatment is constructed. The
proposal includes bespoke fence panels (Orsogril – Pleone) above the
existing brick wall, sliding gates, and a full height metal grill fence (Orsogril –
Pleone). The submitted perspective drawing (No. 303) shows a dwarf brick
wall with railings instead of full height metal grill fence. It is considered that it
would be preferable to have a dwarf wall with a type of railing treatment, to
Page 120
the required height on top. This would create a visually consistent boundary
treatment along the frontage.
6.3.7. The proposed development would be relatively remote from the Elderwood
Conservation Area and associated listed buildings to the north east of the site.
It is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental
impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and listed
buildings.
.
6.3.8. In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development’s size and siting
is acceptable in design terms. Concerns about the proposed facing materials
and boundary treatment remain to be resolved. This can be dealt with by
means of proposed Conditions which require the submission and approval of
details, including facing materials and boundary treatment.
6.4
Amenity Impact
Impact on amenities of Neighbouring properties
6.4.1 Policy 7 of the Lambeth UDP relates to the protection of residential amenity.
It states that the right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their homes will be
respected. “In predominantly residential areas the establishment of a new, or
intensification of an existing, incompatible non-residential use, likely to have a
materially adverse environmental and/or traffic impact, will not be permitted”.
6.4.2 Policy 33 of the Lambeth UDP states that development should protect the
residential amenity of existing and future residents by:
i. having an acceptable standard of privacy;
ii. having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and
sunlight;
iii. not creating unacceptable overlooking;
iv. not creating an undue sense of enclosure; and
v. where appropriate, having sufficient outdoor amenity space.
6.4.3 Policy 54(e) states that noise and/or vibration generating development will not
be permitted if it would create, or worsen, noise levels above acceptable
levels set out in national policy guidance (PPG 24).
6.4.4 In this instance the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of
neighbouring properties in the main concerns the relationship between the
proposed redevelopment in the area of the school entrance and reception on
Crown Dale and the nearby terrace of two storey houses, Nos. 73 to 93
Crown Dale to the east of this area.
Overlooking and Privacy
6.4.5 The proposed development would result in a single storey building,
accommodating the LRC, with an eastern elevation located 4.8 metres from
the western side boundary of the residential two-storey dwelling at No. 73
Crown Dale. At present this is an open amenity area. The proposed LRC
would have a large window overlooking the retained ball games area of the
school which is located to the rear of the terrace 73 to 93 Crown Dale. It is
considered that obscure glazing to a southern part of this window together
with the provision of vegetation covered 4 metre high boundary treatment
Page 121
along the rear boundary of the neighbouring terrace of houses would be
sufficient to safeguard existing residential privacy in respect of this window.
6.4.6 On the roof above the proposed LRC would be a first floor roof terrace (11
metres x 7 metres) for sixth form students. This would be accessed by two
doors leading to and from the sixth form area. The terrace would be located 6
metres north west of the rear garden of 73 Crown Dale. The terrace would
have a screen, 1.8 metres above adjacent floor level, around the outer
perimeter. This would prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties.
6.4.7 The proposed first floor windows in the eastern elevation would be set back
and overlook a central part of the school rather than neighbouring properties.
6.4.8 At the rear of the residential terrace nos. 73 to 93 (odd) Crown Dale is a 4.5
metre high chain link fence. This is a rear boundary which is the responsibility
of the school who propose that it be renewed. The existing fence supports
well established dense vegetation of the neighbouring residents, which is
entwined along the entire length of the fence. The retention of the existing
fence would have value in that it provides a functional privacy screen,
acoustic barrier, and habitat for wildlife.
6.4.9 It is considered that it would be impractical to disentangle the established
dense vegetation from the existing chain-link fence replace the fence and
replace the retained vegetation on the proposed new fence. To provide
entirely new vegetation as compensation would leave the rear of these
properties exposed for a period whilst the proposed new vegetation
establishes. Therefore, officers recommend that this element of the existing
boundary treatment be retained. This would be achieved through the
submission of a detail, attracted by condition, which would indicate the
retention of this existing boundary.
6.4.10 It is proposed to erect a 3 metre high rebound fence within the school to the
nearby ball games area. This rebound fence would run parallel to the
vegetation laden boundary fence. Again, no evidence has been submitted to
indicate that this fence is in poor condition and that this fence and that that it
is necessary for it to be entirely replaced. To some extent the fence is
protected from weathering by the existing dense vegetation. In light of the
above considerations and in response to the Urban Design officers concerns
mentioned above, and residents objections concerning the loss the existing
vegetation laden boundary fence along the rear boundary of 73 to 93 Crown
Dale, a condition is recommended that notwithstanding indications on the
submitted drawings further details of boundary treatment be submitted for
approval.
6.4.11 In light of the above it is considered that the proposed development, subject
to recommended conditions (Nos. 4 and 29) would not result in unacceptable
overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.
Sunlight and Daylight
6.4.12 The impact of the development on natural light to neighbouring properties
arises entirely from the proposed single storey, with a two storey element set
further back LRC, located directly parallel to the western boundary of the end
of terrace house at No. 73 Crown Dale. This terrace has modest rear
gardens some 11 metres long and 5 metres wide. At present there is no
Page 122
school building running alongside this boundary. The proposed single storey
element would be 4.8 metres from the boundary and approximately 7 metres
above the height of residential rear gardens nearby. The proposed two storey
element would be 13 metres from the boundary and approximately 10 metres
above the level of the nearest residential rear garden.
6.4.13 The angle from the middle of the ground floor rear windows of No. 73 Crown
Dale to the top of the proposed single and two storey buildings would be
approximately 41O and 29O respectively. The angle from the middle of the first
floor rear windows of No. 73 Crown Dale to the top of the proposed single and
two storey buildings would be 29O and 24O respectively. As such the proposal
would comply with the BRE test of not exceeding 450 in elevation and plan
above nearby windows, which would be at right angles to the development,
albeit that this is usually applied to rear extensions.
6.4.14 The applicant has submitted a ‘Daylight/Sunlight and Overshadowing
Assessment’. This concludes that whilst the proposed development would
result in a slight reduction in the availability of sunlight to the rear of 73 and 75
Crown Dale, they would remain higher than the BRE minimum requirements
for daylight levels as set out in ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight-A
guide to good practice by P. J. Littlefair 1995. The overshadowing study
showed a slight increase in overshadowing to the rear garden of 73 Crown
Dale during the afternoon. The increase is less than 25% covering of the
amenity space at any given time, which lies within the parameters set out by
the BRE Guidelines which indicates that this reduction would not be to such a
degree so as to demonstrate harm.
6.4.15 Within the context described above it is considered that the proposed
development would have a negligible impact on received natural day and
sunlight on neighbouring adjacent dwellings fronting Crown Dale, and in this
regard, the impact of the proposal is considered to be acceptable and policy
compliant.
Sense of Enclosure
6.4.16 As a result of the proposals the area of open space within the school site
would be reduced from 11,570m2 to 10, 625 m2, a reduction of brownfield land
of approximately 8%. Generally it is considered that the relatively small
reduction in area would be compensated by improvement in the quality of
space. No UDP designated open space would be lost permanently to the
proposal.
6.4.17 The main impact in terms of increasing the sense of enclosure would occur
near the western end of the terrace of houses 73 to 93 (odd) Crown Dale. As
already mentioned here a single storey building 6 metres above site level
approximately 7 metres above neighbouring residential garden level would be
within 4.8 metres of the side boundary of no. 73 Crown Dale, and a two storey
element to this building would be 9 metres above site level and approximately
10 metres above nearest residential rear garden would be 13 metres from the
side boundary of no. 73 Crown Dale. Although the school building can be
seen from the rear gardens of this terrace the existing front building line of the
school in the main does not extend forward of the rear boundary of Nos. 73 to
93 Crown Dale. With the proposed ground floor development the school, set
back 4.8 metres from the boundary, would almost fill the gap presently
occupied by open school land, between the existing school and the rear of the
Page 123
terrace of houses 73-93 Crown Dale, at the western end of the rear gardens
of the terrace. At first floor level the proposed development would be set back
13 metres from the end of terrace garden boundary. This would project
approximately 5 metres forward of the rear boundary of the rear garden. The
sense of enclosure therefore arises in the main from the proposed single
storey ground floor LRC building, which is approximately 6 metres high but is
on a ground level that is approximately 1 metre higher than the existing
garden level of No. 73 Crown Dale.
6.4.18 The existing terrace faces across Crown Dale to open land, associated with
separate school use on the opposite side of Crown Dale. To the rear/ north
the windows of the houses face towards a screen of vegetation. The LRC
would be sited to the side (western extent) of these residential properties. No
windows face directly towards the proposed new development at the western
end of the terrace. The proposed new single storey LRC building would be set
back 4.8 metres from the site boundary with the neighbouring property at 73
Crown Dale. In addition the existing school walk-way canopy, in part adjacent
to the side boundary of no. 73 Crown Dale and overbearing on it, would be
removed.
6.4.19 Within the context described above it is considered that in this instance the
proposed development would on balance not create an undue sense of
enclosure to neighbouring residents and is acceptable in this regard.
Noise and Disturbance
6.4.20 Policy 7 protects residential amenity and states the right of people to the quiet
enjoyment of their homes will be respected. The policy goes on to state that in
predominantly residential areas the establishment of a new, or intensification
of an existing, incompatible non-residential use, likely to have a materially
adverse environmental and/or traffic impact, will not be permitted.
6.4.21 In this case, it is considered that the following sources would be likely to give
rise to potential noise and vibration concerns:
-Noise during the demolition and/or construction phases;
-Additional traffic noise and general school activity generated within the new
build area;
-Proximity of new build to existing residential properties;
-Possible increase in ‘after hours’ use of school facilities
Demolition and Construction Noise
6.4.22 Noise associated with construction is in the main governed by the Control of
Pollution Act 1974. In this case, the occupiers of the adjacent properties in
Crown Dale would be likely to be the most affected by demolition and
construction works.
6.4.23 The applicant’s have submitted a Method of Construction Statement. This
indicates that in the early phases of construction the contractors controlled
area would be to the rear of the site with access from Pondfield House access
road. It is considered that by following the guidance and best practice in
relation to demolition and construction, appropriate noise mitigation could be
implemented. To ensure that such measures are implemented, it is
recommended a condition requiring the submission of an additional method of
Page 124
construction statement be attached to any approval, to ensure that the
disruption to residents is minimal. This would indicate measures to ensure the
air pollution, noise would be minimised. And would indicate construction
vehicles parking, storage and hours of operation. To ensure that demolition
and construction causes the minimum of disruption it is recommended that
contact details of a nominated contact for local residents be clearly displayed
on Pondfield House road, Crown Dale and Elder Road.
Noise from students and other school users
6.4.24 The applicant anticipates that the number of pupils attending the school is
proposed to increase from 750 to 1000. In addition, being a community
school, adults would attend various courses at the school.
6.4.25 The operation of the school is set out in the submitted ‘School Management
Plan’ This indicates hours of school use are as follows:- The bulk of the school cleaning of the school takes place between 06.00 and
08.00am and 16.00 and 17.00pm
- The school car park opens at 7.00am
- The school is open from 8am; formal lessons end at 3.20pm. No pupil is
allowed off-site during break or lunch.
- After school clubs and additional classes and use of the sports hall are up to
5pm.
Twelve members of senior school staff are on duty at the end of the day as
pupils are dismissed to ensure orderly departure from both Elder Road and
Crown Dale entrances.
6.4.26 It is intended to develop community usage of the school. The following school
facilities would be available for community activities at various times after
school, at weekends and in school holidays as follows:- Sports Hall: 18.00-22.00 Mondays to Fridays and 09.30 – 12.00 Saturday
- Multi– use games area 08.00-18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 09.30 – 12.30
Saturday
- Classrooms & Studios: 18.00-20.00 Mondays to Fridays and 09.00 – 12.00
Saturday
-Learning Resource Centre: 09.30 – 12.30 Saturday.
Access for community users would be through the school’s main entrance to
sign in at reception. Access to the sports hall can be separate to the main
school building.
6.4.27 The vast majority of deliveries are scheduled to arrive before 8am. And after
4pm. There is a CCTV monitored electronic gate at the Elder Road entrance
and no students are allowed into the car park and delivery point.
6.4.28 The applicants have submitted a ‘Noise and Vibration Assessment’ This
concludes that :
- The building envelope and building services have been designed and
assessed to ensure internal noise levels are compliant with requirements
and suitable noise mitigation measures are suitable
- Activity noise from the school is not expected to increase as a result of the
proposed development
- Vibration is not known to be an issue in the school and is not expected to be
of significance.
Page 125
6.4.29 Within the existing school site is a place for pupils to assemble and play in the
form of a walled garden, adjoining the western boundary of the rear garden of
No. 73 Crown Dale. In the proposed development this would be replaced by a
pedestrian access way which would run between the brickwall of the
proposed library and the neighbouring rear garden. Whilst this may reduce
noise from play during school time, compared with the walled garden, the use
of this access may result in an increase in noise and disturbance with coming
and going associated with use by pupils and the community during out of
school hours. The use of this accessway remains to be clarified and
safeguarding of amenity in terms of noise ensured by way of condition
requiring submission and approval of a Community Management Plan, (ref
recommended Conditions 12 and 13)
6.4.30 The Council’s Environmental Health team (Noise and Pollution) has raised no
objection to the proposed development. Objections received from local
residents concern noise arising from increased numbers of children, loss of
landscape fence and from construction. In light of these objections and the
above considerations, conditions are also recommended that would address
the need for the submission and approval of further details of boundary
fencing, use of proposed access path and method of construction and control
internally generated noise associated with the proposed new visual and
performing arts facility. (ref recommended Conditions Nos. 4, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 20, 28 and 29)
6.4.31 In light of the above, and with recommended imposition of conditions should
planning permission be approved, it is considered that the amenity of
neighbouring properties would be safeguarded in this instance.
7.0
Highways and Transportation Issues
7.1
Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the UDP require developments to be assessed for
their transport impact on highway safety, contribution to traffic generation,
impact on road congestion and public transport availability.
7.2
Crown Dale is a busy local distributor road and is also a primary route for
emergency services. It is considered to be of strategic importance within the
Borough. Elder Road is also busy with commuter traffic at peak times. The
school is not situated within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).
7.3
The site has a poor level of public transport accessibility (PTAL score of 2).
The submitted Travel Plan (2009) states that the catchment for pupils
attending the school includes Brixton, Streatham and Vauxhall with some
students also coming from neighbouring boroughs of Croydon, Bromley,
Southwark, Wandsworth and Lewisham.
7.4
Policy 14 of the UDP states that parking and access to schools shall be
assessed on a case by case basis. It is considered that the proposed works
would not create undue parking stress on the surrounding road network.
7.5
Trip Generation The current school role is for 750 pupils aged 11 – 16 with
83 full-time and 42 part-time staff and following the proposed development
this would increase to 1000 pupils and 111 full time staff and 56 part time
staff. The most relevant measure of existing travel patterns at the school is
contained within Norwood’s School Travel Plan (STP) which sets out that
current modal splits as follows;
Page 126
Table 1 – Current Modal Split of trips to Norwood School
BUS
WALK
CAR
CYCLE
PUPIL 70
16
6
7
(%)
STAFF 8
17
57
9
(%)
TRAIN
1
9
By using the figures contained in the above table the applicant is able to
predict the likely increases in the use of the various forms of transport as a
result of the development. The table below sets out the additional numbers of
the new pupils (250) and new staff (42) using each form of transport to travel
to school.
Table 2 – Likely increase in trips to Norwood School by mode
BUS
WALK
CAR
CYCLE
PUPIL 175
40
15
18
(No.)
STAFF 3
7
24
4
(No.)
TRAIN
2
4
Whilst these figures can not be considered completely accurate they do give
a good estimate of how the extra journeys will be made. From a Lambeth
Highways perspective the only potential impact on the Borough’s road
network is that of the 39 extra car trips to the site but it is considered that this
small increase would not have any impact on the operation or safety of the
surrounding network and no further analysis of these car trips are needed.
Transport for London (TfL) are responsible for assessing the impact of any
new developments on the operation of the bus network and they have been
consulted on these proposals and have provided comments described in
paragraphs 7.11 to 7.14 below. The small increases in Walking, Cycling and
Train trips to the site do not pose any issue to the highway network and do
not warrant any further analysis.
7.6
Car Parking The existing school has a provision of 52 staff car parking spaces
and 7 visitor spaces including a disabled bay making a total of 59 on-site
spaces. It is proposed to reduce this to 49 spaces with 3 additional disabled
spaces. It should also be noted that Lambeth’s Parking team is currently
working on proposals to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) within the
surrounding area in this financial year and this coupled with the reduction in
on-site parking provision should discourage staff from driving to the school
site possibly reducing the number of additional car trips predicted in Table 2
above. In terms of car parking the development is considered to be
acceptable.
7.7
Cycle Parking The current provision of cycle parking at Norwood School is
low with only 10 spaces provided and this could be one of the reasons behind
the low level of cycling at the school with only 7% of pupils and 9% of staff
using this means of transport. As part of the development the school would
provide 20 covered spaces for staff, 16 uncovered spaces for visitors and a
further 86 spaces for students with 56 of these covered. Further details of
this is recommended to be secured by condition.(recommended Condition
No.24)
Page 127
7.8
Road Accidents The applicant has undertaken a review of accidents that
have occurred within the vicinity of the school within the past 3 years to
identify if any existing safety concerns could be exacerbated by the increase
in pupils attending the school site. The results show that in this period there
were 4 accidents involving children of school age at times of day
corresponding to travel to or from school, two of which resulted in ‘Serious’
injury and two in ‘Slight’ injury. There is no real pattern to these 4 accidents
although 3 did occur near to the junction of Crown Dale and Beulah Hill
(approx 400m to the west of the school) with the other accident located at the
junction of Elder Road and Norwood Park Road. From looking at the overall
accident history of the area it is apparent that there is a higher than average
number of accidents taking place in this area and this is acknowledged by the
fact that there is a Local Safety Scheme (LSS) being designed and
implemented this year to reduce the number of accidents in the area. From
discussions with the Engineer responsible for this scheme it is felt that the
proposed LSS will significantly improve the pedestrian environment for pupils
and staff but that a financial contribution of £20,000 is sought towards
implementing this scheme.
7.9
Highway Alterations The Council’s Transport Planning Officer states that the
school must update it’s School Travel Plan to reflect the changes to the
school as a result of the development. The present School Travel Plan raises
concerns over the lack of provision of a formal crossing point between the
school site and a bus stop on the eastern side of Elder Road that is very well
used by pupils coming to and from school. This is recognised as a safety
concern with pupils observed stepping off the bus and crossing immediately
behind the bus often through relatively fast moving traffic and it is a concern
that any increase in pupils using this bus stop would increase the risk of an
accident happening here. To address this it is proposed to slightly relocate
the bus stop and to install a Zebra crossing at this point which would provide
a formal crossing point for pupils using this bus stop. As a consequence it is
considered that a contribution of £20,000 would be required for the used
towards the installation of this Zebra crossing. This could be secured through
condition.
7.10
In light of the above mention considerations the Council’s Transport Planning
Officer raises no objections to the proposed development subject to;
(i) Contribution of £20,000 towards installation of Zebra crossing on Elder
Road (recommended Condition No. 30)
(ii) Provision of proposed cycle parking to be ensured by Condition before
occupation of the proposed development(shown on plans) (recommended
Condition No. 24)
(iii) Submission and approval of an updated School Travel Plan
(recommended Condition No. 25)
7.11
In response to consultation Transport for London (TfL) confirms their support
for the proposed reduction in on site parking from 59 to 52 spaces and the
proposed provision of 122 cycle parking spaces. TfL state that showers,
lockers and changing facilities should be made available for both staff and
students.
7.12
TfL note from the school Travel Plan that bus services on both the 417 and
432 routes serving the school are currently overcrowded, and the increase in
pupil numbers will exacerbate this.
Page 128
7.13
TfL have requested that a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) should be
secured by condition on any consent. This should identify efficiency and
sustainability measures to be undertaken while the development is being built,
including booking systems, consolidated or re-timed trips, secure, off-street
loading and drop-off facilities, details of traffic management and using
operators committed to best practice, demonstrated by membership of TfL’s
Freight Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS), or similar. In particular, the
CLP must demonstrate how conflict between pupils and construction vehicles
will be managed (recommended Condition No. 26).
7.14
TfL confirm that subject to the above issues relating to bus demand being
addressed to TfL’s satisfaction, TfL would have no objections to the
development.
7.15
In light of the above it is concluded that there are no objections in principle to
the proposed development in terms of Transport and Highway Issues.
8.0 Refuse and Recycling
8.1
Policy 56 of the UDP states development proposals should include adequate
provision within, or as part of the development, for refuse and re-cycled
waste.
The applicant’s have submitted ‘Statement on Refuse
Storage/Recycling/Waste Management Strategy.
8.2
The main refuse store would be located close to the Elder Road entrance,
with a recycling bin store located close to the main school block as part of the
delivery bay.
8.3
The Council’s Streetcare team was consulted and have not provided any
comments to date. If minded to approve, it is suggested that conditions should
be placed to ensure that adequate facilities for the disposal of both general
waste and any hazardous waste (e.g. from chemistry, art departments etc)
and recycling are provided on site in accordance with Policy 56 of the
Lambeth UDP (recommended Condition No. 16).
9.0
Designing out Crime
9.1
Policy 32 (Community Safety/Designing Out Crime) requires that development
should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where
opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of
public disorder. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local
authorities to take account of crime and disorder as part of all their functions.
9.2
The applicants have submitted a ‘Secure by Design Statement’ and proposals
which are described in paragraph 4.3 (v) include new boundary fences,
controls on entry gates and improvements and updating of external lighting.
Passive surveillance will also be increased by careful siting of staff offices to
ensure all areas are overlooked.
9.3
The area around the entrance from Elder Road is one of the remoter areas
from the school building. At present this is over looked by the accommodation
of the premises manager. As a result of the development this area would be
overlooked by the referral unit, which would be located in the existing premises
manager’s accommodation. In addition it is proposed that this area will be
Page 129
securely locked during school hours. When open this area will be supervised
by staff.
9.4
The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Officer has pointed out that existing
fencing and boundary treatment to the school is weak in areas and once in the
grounds it is possible to walk all around the school with ease and it is very
difficult to restrict access. When the buildings are unoccupied there is minimal
natural surveillance or overlooking into the central courtyard area. Some
neighbouring properties do partially overlook the school grounds, though these
are is some distance away. Traditionally schools are most vulnerable to
damage and burglary during weekends and holiday periods. This school has
experienced instances of graffiti and damage to windows in the past though it is
not a persistent problem.
9.5
During the school day certain break out areas experience lower levels of active
supervision and overlooking and these are also the areas that are more
vulnerable to incidents and anti-social behaviour occurring between pupils.
There is an existing problem with children exiting the playground via the main
entrance gate by pressing the release button. This issue has been addressed
by securing the access / exit points and limiting access. Twelve members of
senior school staff are on duty at the end of the day as pupils are dismissed to
ensure orderly departure from both Elder Road and Crown Dale entrances.
9.6
In response to Consultation the Council’s Crime Prevention officer
recommends that should planning permission be granted it be subject to a
conditions to ensure that the proposed development would be acceptable in
terms of safety and crime prevention and would comply with UDP Policy 32
(recommended Condition No. 27).
10.0
Sustainability
10.1
Policy 34 (Renewable Energy in Major Development) of the Lambeth Unitary
Development Plan states all major developments are required to incorporate
equipment for on-site renewable power generation so as to provide at least
10% of their predicted energy requirements. Policy 35 (Sustainable Design
and Construction) states all development proposals should show, by means
of a Sustainability Assessment, how they incorporate sustainable design and
construction.
10.2
The proposed development includes a line of ten solar panels 10.5m x 2.4m
is proposed on the flat roof of the existing sports hall. In addition it is proposed
to provide a biomass boiler with ancillary storage area of 51m2. An
associated ‘Sustainability Statement’ has been submitted.
10.3
With respect to Policy 34 the Council’s Environment Manager has confirmed
that the proposals address the energy hierarchy and proposes 27qm of solar
thermal, and a biomass boiler to provide an on-site renewables capacity
delivering an approx 16% CO2 reduction over baseline figures. This exceeds
Lambeth’s policy 34 requirement.
10.4
The Council’s Environment Manager considers that the applicant needs to
confirm that the design and site layout enables provision of adequate fuel
storage for the biomass boiler, and that access for biomass fuel delivery and
a sustainable supply chain has been considered. In light of this a condition is
Page 130
recommended to ensure the renewable energy proposals are implemented
(condition recommended 24)
10.5
With respect to Policy 35 Council’s Environment Manager states that the
Breeam assessment achieves a credit rating of 63.62% and is therefore
complaint in respect of policy 35 requiring Breeam ‘very good’. The minimum
rating to achieve the required standard of very good is 55%. The credits noted
are conservative based on design assumptions, and the report confirms that
in several areas (i.e. health and well being, materials, land use and ecology)
there is potential to obtain further credits pushing the project towards
achieving Breeam excellent. The Environment Manager suggests that should
planning permission be granted it be subject to a condition to achieve a
minimum ‘very good rating’ via the BREEAM certification scheme (Condition
No. 26 recommended)
10.6
Subject to the recommended Conditions it is considered that the proposed
development would be acceptable in terms of renewable development and
sustainable design and would comply with UDP Policies 34 and 35 .
11.0
Landscaping, Ecology and Habitat
11.1
Policy 39 of the UDP states that trees of high amenity value will be protected,
including during construction, through the use of planning conditions and Tree
Preservation Orders. The removal of, or major works to, trees of high amenity
value will only be permitted where they are assessed as hazardous, causing
proven structural damage to property or where it can be proven that a
protected tree is unreasonably interfering with an individual’s enjoyment of
his/ her property. Policy 52(c) states that ‘ Measures to enhance biodiversity
will be sought as part of development schemes’ and ‘The linking of habitats
through green corridors will be protected and promoted’
11.2
Numerous plants including trees and shrubs are proposed within the site. As
a consequence of improving accessibility and regarding of land levels it is
proposed to remove a line of four cherry trees, which are at right angles to the
rear site boundary to the north and western corner of the site. The submitted
drawings indicate the provision of new trees around the site boundary. The
applicants have also submitted a landscaping report as part of the ‘Design
and Access Statement. A ‘Nature Conservation Assessment/Survey’ has also
been submitted. This recommends;(i)
The retention of trees and hedgerows on site, or if their loss is
unavoidable replacement planting on site.
(ii)
Sensitive timing of vegetation removal and an ecological clerk of
works to take account of species such as nesting birds, reptiles and
mammals.
(iii)
Ecological input be sought for any landscape plans or planting
schemes proposed on the site in order to maximise the biodiversity
potential of the proposed development
Soft landscaping
11.3
In response to consultation the Council’s Parks Projects officer (Communities
and Education) expresses general support for the landscaping proposals and
comments: that the proposed areas for landscaping, and the species
proposed to be included, and the quantities and specifications are acceptable
and these would be attractive to wildlife like bees, birds and bats. A condition
Page 131
is recommended that planting and maintenance schedules are submitted and
approved before the development is occupied (Recommended Condition No.
5).
11.4
It is considered acceptable for certain trees, of low amenity and ecological
value be removed. This would be compensated for by new trees forming part
of the proposed landscaping works.
Ecology
11.5
Initial surveys suggest that the site’s ecological value is relatively low, and the
proposed changes would appear to have minimal impact upon any protected
species or habitats. Because the initial ecological surveys were undertaken in
2008, a further ecological survey and assessment should be undertaken
before any site demolition, clearance and tree removal works commence. The
survey would need to focus on any buildings or features which were
highlighted in the original report as ‘high risk’ rather than having to cover the
entire application site. Should bats or bat roosts be found during building
demolition or stripping, these findings must be immediately notified to an
appointed ecological advisor, the Council or Natural England, so that
appropriate mitigation or protection measures can be put in place to prevent
further destruction of or damage to any roosts, or any injuries or deaths of
bats (Recommended Conditions 8 and 9).
11.6
Whilst the current site has relatively low ecological value, the applicant
accepts that there is considerable potential to enhance the development for
biodiversity through introducing features such as bird/bat boxes and bricks, or
sensitive and appropriate landscaping and planting of trees and plants.
Proposals for inclusion of items like bat bricks, or bird and bat boxes, on
buildings or retained trees, would be welcome and this is strongly encouraged
as part of the final landscaping specifications and schedules (Recommended
Condition 7).
11.7
As the site has little green space enhancement of boundary hedges would
increase the site’s current value to wildlife, provide habitat for local species
and improve connectivity to the wider area and the ‘Green Chain’
(recommended Conditions 4 and 5)
11.8
In response to consultation English Nature state that after careful
consideration of the information provided it is our opinion that this proposal
does not affect any priority interest areas for Natural England and do not
object to the proposal.
11.9
Appropriate conditions are also recommended to ensure that the retained
trees would be protected during demolition and construction works. In
additions details of additional landscaping including planting of mature and
semi-mature trees where appropriate are to be secured by condition.
Accordingly it is considered that the proposal would meet the provisions of
Policies 33, 39 and 52 of the UDP (Recommended Conditions 5, 17 and 18).
12.0
Flood Risk
12.1
The applicant has submitted a ‘Flood Risk Assessment’, which records that
the Environment Agency’s flood map indicates that the site lies within Flood
Zone 1 area, which is deemed as having a 1 in 1000 chance of river or sea
Page 132
flooding in any one year. Other sources of flooding have been investigated
and are considered not to be significant. Surface water outflows from the
redeveloped site will be restricted to match the existing flows. This would
manage the peak run-off into the adjacent sewer network to acceptable rates
and volumes, which will in turn help to significantly reduce flooding risk
downstream of the site. The Applicant considers that by incorporating the
above measures, the proposed development complies with the requirement of
PPS 25 by protecting the users of the development and reducing the flood
risk to third parties beyond the site.
12.2
The Environment Agency have reviewed the submitted risk assessment and
state that the proposed development would only be acceptable if the
following a planning condition to improve the existing surface water disposal
system To prevent flooding is imposed: (Recommended Condition No. 28)
12.3
In addition the Environment Agency have also reviewed the ‘Ground
Conditions Report’ submitted by the applicant and on the basis of this are
satisfied that the proposal would not present an unacceptable risk to
groundwater.
13.0
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
13.1
UDP Policy 57 provides The Council will, where appropriate, for the Council to
enter into legal agreements with developers, and seek the attainment of
planning obligations, having regard to current Government guidance.
Examples of planning obligations that could be sought include:
•
•
•
•
Improvements to the public realm, particularly for pedestrians (Policy 39);
Contribution to public transport improvements to encourage access by
means other than by car (Policies 9 and 13);
The control of parking and other traffic management measures;
Highway improvements (Policy 9);
13.2
The present School Travel Plan raises concerns over the lack of provision of
a formal crossing point between the school site and a bus stop on the eastern
side of Elder Road that is very well used by pupils coming to and from
school. This is recognised as a safety concern with pupils observed stepping
off the bus and crossing immediately behind the bus often through relatively
fast moving traffic and it is a concern that any increase in pupils using this bus
stop would increase the risk of an accident happening here. To address this it
is proposed to slightly relocate the bus stop and to install a Zebra crossing at
this point which would provide a formal crossing point for pupils using this bus
stop. The requested £20,000 would be used towards the installation of this
Zebra crossing which directly arises from the proposed development. These
monies are recommended to be secured through the imposition of a
Grampian style condition (Condition 30).
14.0
Conclusions
14.1
The development, which is part of Phase 2 of the Council’s Building Schools
for the Future, programme would benefit the children of the borough and local
community through the provision of modern and specialised education
facilities. The proposal to provide additional and improved education facilities
Page 133
Norwood School is considered acceptable in principle in planning land use
terms.
14.2
It is considered that subject to conditions the proposed scale, layout and
design of the development pays appropriate reference to the scale of the
existing school building and those in the surrounding area and as such the
development would not adversely affect the character or setting of the local
area and the nearby Conservation Area or listed buildings
14.3
It is considered that the siting, scale and layout of the scheme would not have
a materially adverse impact on the local environment or the amenity
neighbouring residents.
15.0
Recommendation
15.1
Grant Planning Permission subject to Conditions
Conditions
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than the
expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.)
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans listed in this notice.
3
Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, full details including
detailed drawings and samples and schedule of materials to be used in the
elevations of the development, including:
Details of new windows to existing block
Details of new doors
Notwithstanding drawings provided the applicant must submit details of
auditorium façade treatment
Notwithstanding drawings provided the applicant must submit details of
the new block on the western elevation façade treatment
- Notwithstanding drawings provided details of southern boundary
treatment should be provided.
Details/sections of new build on eastern elevation.
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these
matters which have been given in the application. The development shall
thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.
(Policies 33 and 39 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.)
4
Full details of new boundary walls/fencing and gates shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the
development hereby approved is occupied/or brought into use. The approved
Page 134
walls/fencing and gates shall be erected in accordance with the approved
details and shall be maintained for the duration of the use.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the completed development
in the interests of amenity of the locality and to safeguard the amenities of
neighbouring residents. (Policies 31, 32 33, and 38 of the Lambeth Unitary
5
(1) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed scheme of soft
landscaping for the whole application site, including selection of species,
planting plans and programmes and schedules for management and
maintenance of these landscaped features. These proposals should include
all new plantings of trees, hedges, grass, shrubs, ground flora or climbers,
and cover all of areas of open space within the development.
(2) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the details of landscaping
hereby approved (or the scheme of landscaping as would require minor
amendment to accommodate the requirements of other conditions contained
within this decision notice) shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding
season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the
substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any
trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme
which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial
completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously
damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with
others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives
written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that such works do not detract from the development itself
or from the appearance of the locality in general and to ensure a satisfactory
and a continuing standard of landscaping of the site in the interests of visual
amenity and promoting bio-diversity (Policies7, 33, 39 and 52 of the Lambeth
6
Prior to the first occupation/use of the buildings or extensions hereby
approved, samples and specifications of all finishing materials to be used in
any hard surfacing of parts of the site not covered by buildings shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. All
hardsurfacing on the site shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance
with the approved details.
or from the appearance of the locality in general (Policies 33 and 39 of the
Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
7
Prior to first occupation of the extensions hereby approved full details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of
measures to encourage protected species to occupy and reside within the
application site, such as through the installation of bat and bird boxes on
retained trees and buildings, or bat bricks within new or remodelled buildings,
or the creation of naturalised areas within proposed private and public open
spaces.
or from the appearance of the locality in general. (Policies 33 and 39 of the
Page 135
8
No demolition, clearance works or development shall take place until an upto-date habitat and protected species survey and assessment has been
carried out submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
or from the appearance of the locality in general. (Policies 33 and 39 of the
9
The applicant/developer shall operate a ‘watching brief’ on the application site
as to protected species (especially bats and birds) during site demolition,
clearance and construction phases. Reporting procedures shall provide for
site staff and management to be alerted of findings of any protected species
or their roosts/nests, and to report findings without delay to the Local Planning
Authority, a qualified ecological advisor or Natural England so that effective
mitigation or compensatory measures can be put in place to prevent the
destruction or loss of any such species or their habitats.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not have a significant adverse
impact on protected and priority species. (Policy 52 of the Lambeth Unitary
Development Plan (2007)) refers.
10
Full details of the lighting of all external areas, including any floodlighting of
the MUGA, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority before the use of the relevant parts of the site commence. The
details shall include a specification of the lighting, location, lux values, hours
of operation, details of light spillage and details of shielding to neighbouring
properties. Light from the illuminaires shall not exceed 10 EV(lux) when
measured at any window of a neighbouring residential premises and all
luminaries shall be oriented and designed in such a way to minimise light
spillage beyond the boundary of the site and to prevent glare into the
windows of residential properties. The details of lighting for all external areas
of the development site as approved shall be provided prior to the
commencement of use of the relevant parts of the development and operated
thereafter for the duration of the permitted use, unless the written approval is
received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.
Reason: So as to ensure a safe environment for future users and to reduce
opportunities for crime, and in the interests of the design quality of the
development; the character and appearance of the street scene; and/or the
residential amenity of neighbouring properties (Policies 7, 26, 32, 33 and 54
of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
11
Full details of closed circuit television (CCTV) providing surveillance of external
spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority before any part of the development hereby approved is occupied/or
brought into use.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the completed development
in the interests of amenity of the locality and to safeguard the amenities of
neighbouring residents. (Policies 31, 32 33, and 38 of the Lambeth Unitary
Development Plan (2007).
Page 136
12
Prior to the first occupation/use of the buildings or extensions hereby
approved, a detailed School Management Plan to indicate the use of the
walkway along the western side of No. 73 Crown Dale shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be
implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved School
Management Plan.
Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties (Policies 7, 26 and
33 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007)refer ).
13
Prior to the occupation/use of the buildings or extensions hereby approved, a
Community Use Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the approved Community Use
Management Plan.
Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the locality in
accordance with Policies 7 and 26 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007).
14
Details of measures to be taken to contain internally generated noise, from
the building proposed to accommodate the performing arts facilities including
acoustic treatment of windows and ventilation equipment, shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of
the development hereby approved is occupied/or brought into use. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining premises and the
surrounding area (Policies 7 and 54 of the Lambeth Unitary Development
Plan (2007)).
15
There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audible outside
any of the approved buildings, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining premises and the
surrounding area. (Policies 7 and 54 of the Lambeth Unitary Development
Plan (2007)).
16
Refuse storage and recycling facilities for the development hereby permitted
shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the London Borough
of Lambeth's 'Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements:
Guidance for Architects and Developers' (May 2006) and shall thereafter be
retained as such for the duration of the permitted use, unless the prior written
approval is obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variations.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse
and recycling on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area (Policies
9, 33 and 56 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers).
17
No trees other than those shown to be removed on the Approved Plan
Drawing No. 090 0060shall be felled, pruned, uprooted, damaged or
otherwise disturbed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the existing trees
on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the
Page 137
locality and wider area (Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan
(2007)).
18
Before any part of the development hereby approved commences, full details
of a scheme, in accordance with BS5837:2005, for the protection of the
existing trees to be retained as identified on the Approved Plan Drwg No.
AL9571A002 (Existing Site Plan) shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works thereby approved shall be
fully implemented prior to construction on site and retained until development
is completed.
Reason: To ensure the retention of, and avoid damage to, the existing trees
on or adjacent to the site that represent an important visual amenity to the
locality and wider area (Policy 39 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan
(2007)).
19
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 during the construction period
in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users (Policies 9
and 14 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
20
During the entire period of construction of the development hereby approved
contact details of a member of the construction team to act as a point of
liaison if required, shall be prominently and legibly displayed on the boundary
of the site for the benefit of residents wishing to discuss the impact of the
development on residential amenities in the neighbouring area.
Reason: To ensure that residential amenity is safeguarded. (Policies 33, 36
and 54 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.)
21
Adequate precautions shall be taken during the construction period to prevent
the deposit of mud and similar debris on the adjacent public highways.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users (Policies 9
and 14 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007)).
22
The development hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a
minimum BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’. A BREEAM post completion report
and certificate that confirms BREEAM ‘Very Good’ has been achieved shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the commencement of use of the development, or in accordance with any
other timetable as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
23
The development hereby permitted shall incorporate equipment for renewable
power generation so as to provide at least 10% of the predicted energy
requirements of the development, as outlined in the applicant’s Sustainability
Statement. Full details of the proposed on-site renewable energy generation
technologies i.e. the biomass boiler, shall be submitted to and approved by
Page 138
the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and
the development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the
approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.
24
No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied or used until the
provision for cycle parking shown on the application drawings has been
implemented in full and the cycle parking shall thereafter be retained solely
for its designated use.
Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to
promote sustainable modes of transport. (Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the Unitary
Development Plan (2007) refer)
25
An up-dated Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to the use hereby permitted commencing. The
measures approved in the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the (a)
use hereby permitted commencing and shall be so maintained for the
duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority is obtained to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the school are appropriate
and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (Policy 9 and 26 of
the Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer).
26
No development works shall commence on site until such time as a
Construction Logistics Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Logistics Plan shall identify
efficiency and sustainability measures to be undertaken while the
development is being built and must demonstrate how conflict between pupils
and construction vehicles will be managed. The implementation of the
development shall thereafter be undertaken only in accordance with the
approved Construction Logistics Plan.
Reason: So as to secure efficient and sustainable measures to be undertaken
during the construction process and to manage conflict between construction
traffic and pupils (Policies 1, 9 and 35 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
27
The development shall be constructed and thereafter operated so as to
achieve ‘Secured by Design Schools 2010’ accreditation. Evidence of such
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
within 3 months from the commencement of use of any of the buildings
hereby approved, or within any other timetable agreed by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To reduce opportunities for crime as far as is reasonable in
accordance with Policy 32 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary
Development Plan (2007).
28
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such time as a
scheme to improve the existing surface water disposal system has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
Page 139
scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, 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.
Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal
of surface water from the site and to reduce the risk of flooding to the
proposed development and future occupants in accordance with PPS25.
29
No part of the flat roof area of the Learning Resource Centre, other than the
terrace for the sixth form, hereby approved, shall be used as a roof terrace,
balcony, sitting out area or amenity area and the privacy screen around the
perimeter of the sixth form terrace shall be fully installed before the building is
occupied and retained and maintained at a minimum height of 1.8 metre
above terrace finished floor level for the duration of the use.
Reason: To preserve the privacy and amenities of the adjacent property
occupiers (Policies 7 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.)
30
improvement works’ to Elder Road comprising of the provision of a zebra
crossing as part of improvement of pedestrian access to Norwood School, as
part of Local Safety Scheme (LSS), No use of the new buildings hereby
permitted shall commence until such time as the applicant has paid the
Council’s Highway Authority a sum of £20,000 as a contribution for the
carrying out of the highway improvement works, thereafter the Council
Highway Authority shall carry out the works within a reasonable time period.
Reason: To raise awareness of the presence of the school with drivers in the
interests of highway safety (Policies 9 and 10 of the London Borough of
Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer).
31
No development shall commence on site until such time as a phasing plan for
the implementation of the development, together with indicative dates of the
suspected commencement and completion of the various stages, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved
phasing plan, unless the written approval is received from the Local Planning
Authority for any variation.
Reason: To ensure a holistic approach to the redevelopment of the site is
adopted in the interests of minimising disturbance to the neighbouring
residents (Policy 1, 7, 9, 26 and 33 of the London Borough of Lambeth’s
32
No development shall take place until a ‘Method of Construction Statement’
Authority and construction works, including parking, deliveries and storage,
shall take place solely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public
highway and in the interest of public safety (Policies 1, 9 and 35 of the
Page 140
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.
Building products made from asbestos are liable to emit fibres especially
during construction, repair or demolition. These fibres are hazardous. There
are strict regulations governing work with asbestos and you are advised to
employ a contractor specifically licensed by the Health and Safety Executive
to undertake work with materials containing asbestos. You are invited to
contact the Council's Environmental Health Department for further advice.
5.
You are advised of the necessity to consult the Principal Highways Engineer
of the Highways team on 020 7926 2620 or 079 0411 9517 in order to obtain
necessary prior approval for undertaking any works within the Public Highway
including Scaffold, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers,
Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections and
Repairs on the Highways, Hoarding, Excavations, Temporary Full/Part Road
Closures, Craneage Licences etc.
7
You are advised to contact the Council's Sustainable Waste Officer on
telephone 0207 926 1000 regarding the Waste Management Plan
requirements.
8
You are advised to consult the Council's Urban Design Officer (1st Floor,
Phoenix House, 10 Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LL) with regard to the
requirements of Conditions 3 and 4
9
You are advised to consult the Council's Crime Prevention Advisor (205
Stockwell Road, Brixton SW9 9SL) with regard to the requirements of
Conditions 5, 6 and 12
10
With reference to Condition No 6 you are advised that landscaping schedules
should include, measures to promote biodiversity including use of native
species that are typical of locality and ground conditions or any naturalised
areas to maximise the site’s landscape, visual and horticultural quality, ease
of maintenance and to provide long-term biodiversity and environmental
benefit.
11
Lambeth Parks is willing to advise on any schedules to ensure the planted
areas are well maintained and enhance the quality of the development and its
surroundings.
Page 141
12
Natural England recommended that should planning permission be granted
the following may be of use with regard to measures to enhance the natural
environment;
Design for Biodiversity
http://www.d4b.org.uk/
Biodiversity by Design
http://naturalengland.communisis.com/naturalenglandshop/docs/TCP1
.pdf
Right Trees for a Changing Climate
http://www.right-trees.org.uk/
Adapting to Climate Change: A Checklist for Development
http://www.london.gov.uk/lccp/publications/development.jsp
Page 142
PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/11/2009 AND 30/11/2009
DC REF:
APPEAL TYPE: APPELLANT
DETAILS:
08/03838/FUL Full Planning
&
Permission
08/03839/CON
&
Conservation
Area Consent
Crest Nucholson
(South East) Ltd
ADDRESS:
187-191 Clapham
Road London SW9
0QE
PROPOSAL:
DECISION TYPE
Demolition of existing buildings at 187Delegated
189 Clapham Road and existing garage Decision
to rear and erection of a 5 storey building
comprising food retail unit (Use Class
A1) at ground floor level and 68
residential units (35 x 1 bed, 23 x 2 bed
and 10 x 3 bed unit
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
RECOMMENDATION: REC' DECISION
APPEAL
DECISION:
Refuse Permission
Appeal Dismissed
03/11/2009
The Inspector considered that the main issues for these appeals were 1) whether the proposed development would serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area,
having regard to the loss of the existing mid 19th century villa and the scale, height, bulk and detailed design of the proposal; and 2) whether the layout provides suitable access arrangements to the flats so as to prevent
harm to the amenity of future occupiers.
On the first issue the Inspector concluded that “by reason of its form, height of walls particularly the parapet level, and inadequate detailing on elevations facing or seen from the Clapham Road frontage, the proposed
development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and would cause unacceptable harm” contrary to UDP Polices 33,38 & 47.
On the second issue the Inspector considered that the proposed “distance to the entrance to the private courtyard is not dissimilar to distances found between the pavement and front door of dwellings in the locality. With
suitable landscaping, lighting and entrance controls, I do not consider that access arrangements would present a hostile environment or be harmful to the amenity of future occupiers”. However the Inspector went on to
dismiss the appeal in relation to the issues found regarding the harm caused by the design, form and height of the proposed building.
Mr S. Khan
63 Woodbourne
Avenue London
SW16 1UX
Removal of existing single storey ground
floor rear extension and the erection of a
new single storey ground floor rear
extension.
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
06/11/2009
Appeal Dismissed
Permission
Mr Carol O'Gorman 60 Killieser Avenue
London SW2 4NT
Removal of existing single storey ground Delegated
Refuse Permission
09/11/2009
Appeal Dismissed
floor rear extension and the erection of a Decision
single storey ground floor rear and side
infill extension, the replacement of a
window with a door and canopy to the
front elevation at ground floor level, and
the insertion of two windows on the side
elevation at ground floor level.
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider Telford Park Conservation Area.
The Inspector noted that “Whilst the proposed extensions would be of an interesting contemporary design and a small open courtyard area would be retained, they would otherwise completely surround and extend well
beyond the rear of the existing two storey rear projection such that at the ground floor level its original form would be almost completely hidden”, and considered the overall size, height and roof shape of the extensions
would form quite large and bulky additions.
The Inspector found that “the proposal would result in a form of development which would detract from, rather than complement, the traditional form of the existing building” conflicting with UDP Policies 36 & 47 and went on
to dismiss the appeal.
Agenda Item 7
The Inspector considered the main issues for this appeal to be effect the proposed development would have on 1) the character and appearance of the appeal building and surrounding area, and 2) the living conditions of
those at No. 65 Woodbourne Avenue.
On the first issue the Inspector noted that the appeal site has substantial eaves height on the existing projection and that the “relatively lightweight and extensively glazed structure of the proposed conservatory would
appear as a subordinate feature notwithstanding its length. As such, it would be in keeping with the appeal building and would not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area”, and concluded that
proposed development would be in keeping with the appeal building and not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such it would comply with Policy 36 of the London Borough of Lambeth
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)”.
On the second issue the Inspector noted “the proposed conservatory would abut the boundary with No. 65 and extend for a substantial length along it. The side elevation of the conservatory facing the neighbour’s house
would comprise a solid wall around 2.7 metres high. Given all this it would appear over-dominant and intrusive seen from the nearest ground floor window in the rear elevation of No.65 and the area in its vicinity”.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would detract from the living conditions of those at No.65 with special reference to visual impact, contrary to UDP Policy 36.
Page 143
Permission
DC REF:
DETAILS:
Permission
Mr Robert Wheeler
ADDRESS:
21 Paxton Place
London SE27 9SS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a rear dormer window.
DECISION TYPE
Delegated
Decision
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
Refuse Permission
09/11/2009
APPEAL
DECISION:
Appeal Allowed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling on the wider area.
The Inspector considered that whilst the dormer would be visible from the street scene, he considered that it would not be unduly prominent. “It would be of modest dimensions, with the top part set down from the main ridge
of the dwelling and the lower element set up from the eaves. The dormer would therefore be set within the bulk of the roofslope and would not appear overly large”. He also added “within sight of the appeal site there are
several examples of rear dormers of varying size and design, some of which are of much larger scale than the appeal proposal. Whilst I appreciate that some may have been added as permitted development, they are
nevertheless features of the immediate area and are part of its character. I thus do not find that the proposed dormer would be an incongruous feature within the area” and went on to allow the appeal.
09/00729/ADV Advertisement
Consent
Carpetright PLC
524 To 532
Display of three non illuminated signs on
Streatham High Road the front, side and rear elevations
London SW16 3QF
(Retrospective Application).
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
18/11/2009
Appeal Allowed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the signs on the streetscene.
the signs are set mostly above shop windows and are appropriate to the building in size and scale so that they are in keeping with their setting. They do not appear cluttered or overbearing, even in the context of the
relationship with the adjacent residential property. I conclude, therefore, that the signs are not harmful to the streetscene and, as they do not detract from amenity, there is no conflict with UDP policy 37” and went on to allow
the appeal.
Chestergrove
Developments Ltd
1A St Rule Street
London SW8 3EH
Refuse Permission
Removal of condition 10 (details of
Delegated
20/11/2009
Appeal Dismissed
stainless steel framed windows to
Decision
replace the existing UPVC windows) of
planning permission ref 08/02274/FUL
granted 11 September 2008 for:
Retention of five storey building
comprising offices (Class B1) at ground
floor
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area.
The Inspector noted that “The proposed white UPVC would give poor articulation and definition to the fenestration detailing on the lower floors, especially against the white render. Furthermore, there would be a marked
contrast between the heavy profiled UPVC windows on the lower floors, with their higher proportions of frame and glazing bars and the lightness of the design of the top floor with its glazed panels. Such an inconsistent
approach would, in my view, detract from the aesthetic integrity of the building and would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area”.
The Inspector went on to “conclude that the proposed UPVC windows harm the character and appearance of the building and the surrounding area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies 33 and 38” of the UDP, and
went on to dismiss the appeal.
Permission
Halifax Plc
393 Brixton Road
London SW9 7DE
Alteration to existing shopfront involving
the installation of a new automatic door,
removal of the existing step to entrance
and formation of a new level entrance
lobby and an internal access ramp and
installation of new coloured cladding
over the stone
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
20/11/2009
Mixed Appeal
Result
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Brixton Conservation Area.
The Inspector noted that “The proposal would replace the section of polished stone around the existing ATMs, in the frontage to Brixton Road, with blue laminate cladding” but considered “covering the polished
stone tiles, which appeared to be in good condition and of high quality, with an expanse of blue laminate, would harm the building’s existing character, and would be inappropriate in this Conservation Area”. He went on to
dismiss the appeal in this regard as “the new ATM coloured wall would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Brixton Conservation Area. As such it would be contrary to Policy 47” of the UDP.
The appeal development also proposed the installation of a new autodoor and an internal disabled ramp that would replace the existing step and entrance door on the building’s angled corner. The Council raised no
objection to this part of the scheme, and the Inspector agreed that “these works would not have a harmful effect on either the existing building or the wider Conservation Area” and allowed the appeal for this part of the
scheme.
Permission
Mr Thomas Chery
59 Larkhall Rise
London SW4 6HT
Erection of rear mansard roof extension
with two projecting dormer windows
(second floor flat).
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
24/11/2009
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sibella Road Conservation Area.
The Inspector considered that the proposed development “would introduce features visually harmful to the appearance of the terrace, the design of which constitutes an essential element of the Conservation Area which is
founded upon the original form of the Victorian terraces. I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would fail to enhance or even to preserve the character or appearance of this part of the Conservation Area, but would
weaken and diminish the character of the Conservation Area and so cause material harm” contrary to UDP policy 47 and went on to dismiss the appeal.
Page 144
Permission
DC REF:
08/02419/FUL
DETAILS:
Full Planning Mr Adrian Worrall
Permission
ADDRESS:
4 To 6 Effra Parade
London SW2 1PS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of an additional storey at roof
level with the provision of roof terraces to
the front elevation and second floor
extensions to the rear projections to No.
4 and No. 6 and the conversion of
existing 1st and 2nd floor self contained
flat at No. 4
DECISION TYPE
Delegated
Decision
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
APPEAL
DECISION:
Refuse Permission
Appeal Dismissed
27/11/2009
The Inspector considered the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on 1) the character and appearance of the area, 2) living conditions for future occupiers, in terms of the proposed standard of accommodation to be
provided; and 3) highway safety, with particular reference to the availability of on street parking.
On the first issue the Inspector considered that “the proposal would detrimentally change the character of this part of the terrace, by creating a fourth storey, and introducing an irregular roof line that would disrupt the
existing uniformity of its profile and jar with its appearance” and considered that the “additional storey would appear obtrusive and harm the character and appearance of the locality” and would conflict with Policies 36 & 47
of the UDP.
On the second issue, the Inspector noted that “whilst the larger of the two flats at No 4 would provide adequate levels of accommodation, the proposed one bedroom flat would not meet the standards within the adopted
SPD” and added “I do have serious concerns about the limited size of the main living area – the combined kitchen, dining and living room. I consider this room, the main habitable space of the flat, would be cramped and
restricted. As a result, I conclude that this element of the scheme would not provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupiers of that flat, and would be contrary to Policy 17 of the UDP”.
On the third issue, the Inspector considered that the creation of one additional flat would not generate a demand for parking spaces which could not be “adequately accommodated on-street without causing any
inconvenience or danger on the public highway” and considered that this issue would not conflict with Policy 9 of the UDP.
In conclusion, due to the problems raised in the first two issues the Inspector went on to dismiss the appeal.
08/03994/FUL
Full Planning Mr Andrew Gosling
Permission
100A Hackford Road
London SW9 0QU
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
27/11/2009
Appeal Allowed
Page 145
Retention of two-storey with roof
accommodation building, with the ground
floor being used as a corporate catering
kitchen facility with offices above, with
the retention of roof level air handling
and air condensing equipment.
This appeal related to both a planning appeal and an enforcement appeal.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be whether authorisation of the plant as shown on the plans for planning application 08/03994/FUL (with the enforcement notice covering the same positions) 1) would harm the
appearance of the locality or fail to meet the requirement of at least preserving the character and appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area that adjoins the appeal premises immediately to the south and/or 2)
would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings in Groveway to the south.
On the first issue the Inspector noted “There is a substantial amount of tree screening just within the residential gardens nearest the flues and, although the trees are deciduous reducing the degree of screening when the
trees are devoid of leaves, only one of the flues will be seen “end on” from the nearest gardens” and added “I believe that the flues at the eastern end of the building are acceptable in terms of issue 1”.
With regard to issue 2, the Inspector was “satisfied that nearby residents in their dwellings (the nearest being some 25 m away) would not be affected by noise or vibration from the plant in the locations at issue in these
appeals and that any problems in the gardens would be very limited”.
However noted that “a permission (ref 05/00620/FUL) granted by the Council in 2005 that includes the installation of an extract flue in a position similar to that of the 4 units, but the 4 units here would be more obtrusive than
a single flue. I conclude that the 4 units would be harmful in terms of issue 1 and ought not to be allowed for that reason”.
In conclusion the Inspector thought it “appropriate for conditional permission to be granted for the erection of the building, for the use sought, and for the roof equipment but...with the air conditioning equipment being
excluded from the permission by condition” and went on to grant planning permission for the unauthorised flues but refused it for the unauthorised air conditioning units.
Permission
Mr Nigel Broome
Land Rear Of 181
Valley Road London
Subdivision of planning unit and change
Delegated
Refuse Permission
30/11/2009
Appeal Dismissed
of use of the land to the rear from a use
Decision
ancillary to the primary residential use of
181 Valley Road (Use Class C3) to an
independent use as an office and
storage in connection with a construction
firm (Sui Generis
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character of the area and or on the living conditions of nearby residents, especially with regard to privacy.
The Inspector accepted that “a low key operation along the lines envisaged would mean that the proposal would have little impact beyond the site. Nevertheless, by its very nature an office use would normally involve the
presence of staff on site throughout the working day as well as some degree of comings and goings. Despite being of such modest scale therefore, it seems to me that the commercial character of this use would be wholly
out of place” and would fail to satisfy Policy 21 of the UDP.
The Inspector also noted that “given the prevailing levels of privacy, I consider that the scope for overlooking from the appeal site would be perceived as a significant intrusion by existing residents, even if it related to the
presence of only a handful of staff. Also, even though any noise generated may be slight, it would add to this sense of intrusion” contrary to Policy 7 of the UDP and went on to dismiss the appeal.
Page 146
DC REF:
DETAILS:
Permission
Mr Giovann Dilieto
ADDRESS:
66A Brixton Road
London SW9 6BP
PROPOSAL:
DECISION TYPE
Rebuild existing ground floor and the
Delegated
erection of additional level to provide first Decision
floor level for the use of a bakery and
retail shop (class A1).
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
Refuse Permission
01/12/2009
APPEAL
DECISION:
Appeal Allowed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the streetscene and its effect on the living conditions of occupants of nearby properties, with particular reference to privacy and overshadowing.
The Inspector noted that “Although the extension would sit forward of No. 66, it would be set some distance back from No. 2 (South Island Place) as well as stepping back from the front elevation of the shop and bakery
below. In terms of form and materials, it would accord with the modern style and simple lines of the ground floor building. In my opinion therefore, it would fit comfortably into its immediate surroundings and improve the
quality of the streetscene” and found no conflict with Policies 33 or 36.
The Inspector also added that as she was “satisfied that the extension would be in keeping with the streetscene, it follows that there would be no adverse effect on the setting either of the nearby conservation area or the
listed buildings. On that basis, there would be no conflict with policies 45 and 47”.
The extension would include an access door to the rear, leading onto an area of flat roof. Given its proximity to the adjoining residential properties, use of the flat roof as an amenity area by workers would lead to an
unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring residents. However, I consider this could be addressed through the use of a suitably worded condition. Whilst the extension would sit close to the window at the rear of No. 66,
this is already heavily enclosed by adjoining development. As such, it seems to me that it would not materially affect current levels of overshadowing or add significantly to the existing sense of enclosure. Since the proposal
would not be harmful to residential amenity, it would not be contrary to UDP policies 7 or 36”, and went on to allow the appeal subject to conditions.
Mr Michael Michael 23 Greyhound Lane
London SW16 5NP
Conversion of existing property from 8
non-self contained bedsits to 4 self
contained flats (1 x 2 bed flat, 1 x 1bed
flat and 2 x studio flats), involving the
erection of a three storey rear extension
(inclusive of gable roof extension) with
double doors
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
01/12/2009
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) the effect of the proposal on the character of the existing house; 2) the extent to which it encourages a mixed and balanced community; and 3) the standard of
accommodation it would afford to future occupants.
On the first issue the Inspector noted that “Since the extension would occupy the full width and almost the entire height of the rear elevation, it would clearly fail to be subordinate to the original house. Nor would it create a
roofscape which related sympathetically to the property” and added that “In my opinion, the extension would dominate the rear elevation to an unacceptable degree and so would have a significant adverse effect on the
current character of the house. As such, it would be directly contrary to UDP Policy 36”
On the second issue the Inspector noted that whilst “the appellant contends that the units would range from studio flats to a two bedroomed unit. However, this is not the case. The plans show that three of the proposed
units would be one-bedroom in size. Consequently, the proposal would cater primarily for only a narrow range of demand, thus failing to encourage a mixed and balanced community. It would therefore be contrary to the
aims of UDP policies 15 and 17 and the SPD Guidance”.
Finally on the third issue the Inspector noted “the ground floor flat would provide a poor outlook and level of privacy to the second bedroom. Unit 2 would be seriously deficient in terms of the quality and amount of living
space. The living spaces in units 3 and 4 would be cramped and the bedrooms would offer an oppressive outlook. In all therefore, none of the units would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation so that the
proposal would fail to meet the requirements of UDP policy 17 and the standards in SPD”. As the appeal failed on all three issues the Inspector went on to dismiss the appeal.
Permission
Miss Karen Davies
58 Edgeley Lane
London SW4 7UW
Conversion of the existing single
dwelling to provide 2 self contained flats
(2 x 2 bed) involving the erection of a
ground and lower ground floor front
extension fronting onto Edgley Lane
along with a new external stairway,
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
01/12/2009
Page 147
Permission
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the standard of accommodation the proposal would afford to future occupants, particularly regarding outlook, daylight and ventilation.
The Inspector noted that whilst “there would be full length windows to the living area but, even though this room would sit slightly higher than the level of the street, it seems to me that the outlook would be dominated by the
proposed boundary wall which, according to the Council, would be some 1.7m away from the windows. Whilst the wall would establish privacy and security for the occupants, as well as enclosing the small courtyard, I
consider that it would be extremely oppressive at such close quarters. The bedrooms would fare even worse, relying on one high level window each, also facing onto the courtyard” and added that whilst rooflights would
supplement natural light to the ground floor room “it seemed to her “that the rear part of this room would generally have very little natural light. Likewise, I have similar concerns as to whether the pavement lights would
adequately supplement the light to the bedrooms. Also, although all rooms would have opening windows, they would be to one side of the property only, so that the scope for natural ventilation would be greatly restricted”.
The Inspector concluded that the proposal would conflict with Policies 17 & 33 and dismissed the appeal.
DC REF:
DETAILS:
Permission
Mr And Mrs Robert
Hale
ADDRESS:
30 Lynette Avenue
London SW4 9HD
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a single storey ground floor
rear/side infill extension
DECISION TYPE
Delegated
Decision
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
Refuse Permission
01/12/2009
APPEAL
DECISION:
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the original building.
The Inspector noted that “the proposed extension would run across the full width of the house and incorporate the space to the side so that, in terms of its floor plan, the design would fail to make any acknowledgement of
the relationship between the house and the rear return. The creation of a single, large opening within the rear elevation of the extension would further erode the balance between the house and the rear return since it would
pay no attention to the existing pattern of window opening”, and considered that “the proposal would fail to respect the character and appearance of the original building, notwithstanding its size relative both to the main
house and the rear return. As such, it would be contrary to UDP policy 36 “and went on to dismiss the appeal.
09/00385/LDC Certificate of
E
Lawful Use
existing
Mr Marcellons
Copeland
151 Wavertree Road
London SW2 3SN
Application for a Certificate of Lawful
Development (existing) with respect to
the erection of a hip to gable roof
extension and the erection of a rear
dormer with the installation of four front
rooflights.
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
02/12/2009
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector found “ that the roof extensions shown on the submitted drawing exceed 50 cubic metres and cannot be considered as permitted development under Part 1 Class B of the 1995 Order. I am also aware that the
dormer has been constructed about 1 metre wider that that shown on the submitted drawing. My conclusion is that the development as carried out was not lawful at the date of the application and consequently the Council’s
decision to refuse a LDC was well founded”, and went on to dismiss the appeal.
Mrs Joanne Viahos 102 Knolly's Road
London SW16 2JU
Erection of a part-single part-two storey
Delegated
rear extension, alterations to the roof of
Decision
the existing two storey rear projection to
form a dual-pitch roof, and alterations to
the existing window on the side elevation
at first floor level.
Refuse Permission
03/12/2009
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed extensions on neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions in terms of outlook and on the character and appearance of the area.
The Inspector noted “no significant reduction in light or privacy would be experienced by neighbouring occupiers. I am also satisfied that the height and depth of the common boundary wall would effectively shield the
ground floor extension from the adjoining property at No.100” and added “I consider that because of the height and projected rearward depth of the proposed upper floor and roof, the enlarged structure would appear
oppressive and overbearing when seen from those parts of the neighbouring rear garden closest to the house at No.104. Although this effect would be much reduced when viewed from the higher reaches of the adjoining
garden, the resulting impact of the extension would be such that it would unacceptably harm the neighbours’ outlook and enjoyment of their property” contrary to Policy 36 of the UDP, and dismissed the appeal.
Permission
Mr Anthony Ayodele 6 Arlington Parade
Brixton Hill London
SW2 1RH
Change of use to minicab office/courier
service (sui generis) for 24 hour use 7
days a week and a courier service
between 9am - 6pm Monday - Friday.
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
11/12/2009
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether the proposed development would be prejudicial to highway safety and efficiency and would be likely to cause parking stress.
The Inspector acknowledged ‘that the method of operating the business outlined in the representations would be partially effective, such as the use of telephone bookings. In my view, however, there would remain a
significant number of instances when drivers would need to visit the premises when collecting passengers or calling at the office for other purposes. Proximity to the various leisure and commercial activities in Brixton town
centre is likely to generate significant casual public demand from persons calling at the premises without prior bookings and waiting to be picked up. At such times, cab drivers would seek to park their vehicles in close
proximity to the office’ resulting in competition for the limited amount of legitimate parking spaces and significant congestion, interrupting the flow of buses and other traffic.
The Inspector also added that ‘on occasion, when no space is available outside the appeal property, it is likely that cab drivers would need to tour local streets to find available space which might otherwise be occupied by
local residents’.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed development ‘would lead to an unacceptable increase in parking demand likely to cause harm to local conditions of highway safety and efficiency and increase local parking
stress’, conflicting with UDP Policies 9 and 14 and went on to dismiss the appeal.
Page 148
Permission
DC REF:
DETAILS:
Permission
Mr Nowsad Gani
ADDRESS:
PROPOSAL:
36 - 38 Acre Lane
London SW2 5SP
Retention of a ground floor window to
Delegated
the north west side elevation, and
Decision
alterations to north west side elevation at
roof level and extension of lift shaft
above roof level and the uPVC windows
to all elevations of the development.
[Amendment to previousl
APPEAL 1
09/00482/DET Approval of
Details
APPEAL 3
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
Refuse Permission
04/12/2009
APPEAL
DECISION:
Mixed Appeal
Result
Ganco Plc
36 - 38 Acre Lane
London SW2 5SP
Approval of details pursuant to condition Delegated
2 (samples and a schedule of materials) Decision
of Planning Permission ref 05/01240/Ful
(Erection of a second floor/roof
extension to provide 6 residential units (1
x 1 bed and 5 x 2 bed), together with
external facade w
Refuse Permission
04/12/2009
Appeal Allowed
Mr Nowsad Gani
36 - 38 Acre Lane
London SW2 5SP
Approval of details pursuant to condition
1 (Samples of Railings) of planning
permission ref 08/03075/FUL (Removal
of existing steel palisade gate and fence
to the boundary of the rear yard and
replacement with a 2m fence and 2m to
2.3m gate) Granted on 15
Refuse Permission
04/12/2009
Appeal Dismissed
APPEAL 2
09/00682/DET Approval of
Details
DECISION TYPE
Delegated
Decision
Page 149
The Inspector considered the main issue for all 3 appeals to be whether the proposals preserve or enhance the appearance of the Trinity Gardens Conservation Area.
On appeal 1, the proposal was altered to refer only to the window at ground floor level. The council raised no objection to the retention to this window and the Inspector considered the window to have a negligible impact on
the appearance of the building, and was satisfied that it’s retention would not affect the character or appearance of the conservation area. With regard to the lift shaft, the Inspector noted that whilst part of the lift mechanism
has to extend above the roof in order to provide access to the second floor of the building (in order to comply with Policy 33 of the UDP and Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan), She considered that while ‘it may not be feasible
to reduce the height of the lift shaft, it does not necessarily follow that the lift housing in its present form represents the most appropriate design solution’. She considered the projections to be clumsy and distracting from the
clear lines of the roof. She considered this to be contrary to Policies 36 and 47 of the UDP. The Inspector went on to dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to the lift shaft projection at roof level, but allowed the appeal
insofar as it relates to the ground floor window opening.
On appeal 2, the Inspector considered the original building in this case was of little architectural merit, and as it is a relatively recent building, considered that it had ‘little in common with the Victorian architecture which
characterises the conservation area. Following the recent alterations, the architectural quality of the building continues to be unremarkable’. The Inspector considered that the use of the materials proposed would not affect
the overall impact of the scheme of alterations on the features of the original building, complying with the requirements of UDP Policy 47, and went on to allow the appeal.
On appeal 3, the Inspector noted that whilst the appearance of the conservation area had been improved by the removal of the previous palisade gate and fence, the replacement fence as indicated in the details provided
would lack the solidity and detail expected of Victorian railings, and she concluded that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area contrary to Police 47 of the UDP, and dismissed
the appeal.
Page 150
DC REF:
DETAILS:
Permission
Urban Life
Development
(Tulse Hill) Ltd
ADDRESS:
Site Of 107 Tulse Hill
London
PROPOSAL:
DECISION TYPE
Erection of a part 4 and part 5 storey
Delegated
building to provide 27 self-contained flats Decision
(15 x 2 bed and 12 x 1 bed units)
including the installation of rear, front
and side balconies, provision of refuse
and cycle storage, with pedestrian
access from Tulse Hill
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
APPEAL
DECISION:
Refuse Permission
Appeal Dismissed
04/01/2010
Page 151
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, 2) the effect of the development on neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions in the terms of it’s
impact on light, outlook and privacy, 3) whether the development includes a satisfactory mix of dwelling types, 4) the parking, access and highway safety implications of the development, 5) whether the development
includes a satisfactory standard of living accommodation for future occupiers, 6) whether the proposed development includes appropriate financial provisions to contribute towards local community facilities and
infrastructure and 7) whether the proposed development includes an appropriate proportion of affordable units.
On the 1st issue the Inspector noted that the scale of the proposed building ‘would represent such a dramatic increase in building mass that it would overwhelm and contrast unfavorably with the modest proportions and
more restrained form and appearance of the neighbouring houses’. He added ‘I consider that the proportions of the building would appear bulky, cramped and over-dominant’, and as such in conflict with UDP Policies 31,
33 & 38 as well as the London Plan.
On the 2nd issue the Inspector was satisfied that no significant overshadowing or loss of light would occur to any of the neighbouring properties, however this would not ‘compensate for the overwhelming scale and bulk of
the proposed building, particularly when seen from the neighbouring rear gardens, resulting in an over-dominant impact on the neighbours’ outlook and causing consequent harm to the neighbouring occupiers’ enjoyment
of their properties’. He also considered that the proliferation of upper floor windows would enable significant overlooking into the neighbouring rear gardens causing a loss of privacy, and concluded that the proposed
development would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of its adverse affect on outlook and privacy in conflict with UDP Policies 33 & 38.
On the 3rd Issue the Inspector concluded that the proposed development would be harmful to the council’s aim of achieving a balanced stock of housing through provision of a range of dwelling types, including family units,
in conflict with UDP Policy 15.
On the 4th issue the Inspector noted that given the urban location of the site he accepted that some occupiers of the development would not be entirely dependant on the use of private cars. However he also noted that as
the rail and tube services at Brixton town centre lie some distance away, he was not convinced that all occupiers and visitors would access the development by means other than by private cars, adding to parking pressure
on nearby streets which would be harmful to local residents, contrary to Policies 9 & 14 of the UDP.
On the 5th Issue the Inspector accepted that some of the units would offer a lower amount of floor space than that set out in the SPD for Housing Development & House Conversions, however he considered that as only a
small proportion of the flats would fall short of the required minimum standard that overall the development would offer a satisfactory standard of accommodation and acceptable living conditions for future occupiers.
On the 6th issue the Inspector was satisfied that the financial sum agreed between the parties were appropriate for a development of this size with contributions going towards a car club, children’s play space, education,
heath care, indoor sports and leisure facilities, libraries, parks and open spaces and public art.
Finally on the 7th issue the Inspector was of the view that the provision of 8 affordable units would broadly satisfy the requirements of UDP Policy 16 when taking into account the financial contributions referred to in issue 6.
The Inspector concluded that whilst the development would make a sizable contribution to the Borough’s housing stock and the appellants agreement to make financial contributions to local amenities, the damaging affect
the development would have on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants is sufficient to dismiss the appeal.
Permission
Miss Anna Morris
42 Streatham
Common North
Replacement of first floor timber framed
windows with UPVC windows to flat 2.
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
04/01/2010
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Streatham Common Conservation Area.
The Inspector noted that ‘even if the glazing pattern could be faithfully replicated the difference in materials of the frames between upper and ground floor would be noticeable in the street scene…thus the windows of the
first floor apartment would appear distinctly different to those below, giving this attractive building an odd, unbalanced appearance’, and went on to dismiss the appeal.
Permission
Mr Amos Marchant
93 Tierney Road
London SW2 4QH
Erection of a single storey ground floor
rear extension at flat A
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
06/01/2010
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling house and the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property.
The Inspector noted that in her opinion the ‘bulky box-like addition to the property would not be subordinate to the main building. Rather it would be unsympathetic to the original design of the house and would overwhelm
the bay feature which is characteristic of the rear of this row of houses’. She added ‘I agree wit the council that the proposed form of the extension, the thick “green” slab roof and the recessed fenestration would detract
from the character and appearance of the property in terms of design and materials and compromise its architectural composition. I also agree that the proposed extension would appear bulky and intrusive when views
from the ground floor bay at the adjoining property’. The Inspector then went on to conclude that the proposed extension would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the property and living
conditions of the adjoining occupiers, as such conflicts with UDP Policy 36, and went on to dismiss the appeal.
DC REF:
DETAILS:
Permission
Ms Emma
Ponsonby
ADDRESS:
90 Cranworth
Gardens London
SW9 0NT
PROPOSAL:
DECISION TYPE
Erection of two rear dormer windows, the Delegated
installation of a roof terrace with glass
Decision
balustrade, and the installation of two
front rooflights to 90 Cranworth Gardens.
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
Refuse Permission
08/01/2010
APPEAL
DECISION:
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1)whether the proposed roof terrace would lead to increased overlooking of, and consequent loss of privacy to any adjoining flats; and 2) whether the proposed dormer
windows would disrupt the roofline of the building, thereby harming it’s character and appearance.
On the 1st issue the Inspector noted that ‘during my site visit I saw there is already significant overlooking from No. 90’s kitchen and dining area towards the upper floor flat at No’s 82/84, which is only separated from it by a
narrow lightwell. Thus the interiors of several habitable rooms are clearly visible from there’. He added ‘I am in no doubt that the creation of the roof terrace would only exacerbate this potential overlooking problem’. This
undue overlooking and potential loss of privacy would be contrary to the relevant UDP and SPD Policies.
On the 2nd issue, the Inspector noted ‘the simple elegance of the existing largely unaltered slate-covered roof form of the mansard block’ and agreed with the council that this would be disrupted by the proposed northern
dormer, and in the Inspectors opinion ‘the northern dormer would harm the character and appearance of the building, contrary to UDP & SPD Policies’. For both these matters the Inspector considered that the appeal should
be dismissed.
Permission
Mr Robert Wright
71 Herne Hill Road
London SE24 0AY
Page 152
Demolition of existing garage and the
Delegated
Refuse Permission
08/01/2010
Appeal Dismissed
erection of a 2 storey side extension to
Decision
provide a granny annex together with the
erection of a single storey ground floor
rear conservatory extension.
The Inspector considered that the main issue of this appeal to be the effect of the proposed 2-storey extension upon the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene.
The Inspector noted that there was ‘no objection to the demolition and removal of the attached garage, a mundane and somewhat dilapidated structure which makes no positive contribution to the appearance of the house
or street scene. And in the council’s view, of which I concur, there might be no objection in principle to a well designed, single storey extension to the house in that position. However this proposal would have a second
storey and an irregular footprint, which would not in general match the fenestration or other detailing of the main building, and in my opinion would appear poorly related to it’. ‘This is because the extension would appear
both excessive in size and somewhat lumpen in form, particularly in views of it’s northern elevation’. The Inspector added ‘in short, instead of complementing the main building it would look odd and out of place’. For these
reasons the Inspector concluded that the proposed extension would not protect or enhance the appearance of the building or the street scene and instead it would harm them contrary to the policies laid out in the UDP and
SPD. The Inspector then went on to dismiss the appeal.
Refuse Permission
12/01/2010
Replacement of two windows with two
Delegated
Appeal Dismissed
sets of double doors to the rear elevation Decision
at ground floor level and installation of
rooflight to existing single storey rear
extension.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) whether the proposal would preserve the listed building and any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses and 2) whether it would preserve or
enhance the character of the conservation area.
On the first issue the Inspector noted ‘in my opinion, the enlargement of these openings would upset the balance and harmony of what appears to be a largely unaltered 19th century elevation, whilst their formation would
result in the loss of significant historic fabric, which both national and local policies seek to preserve as far as is reasonably possible. Notwithstanding that they would be of a period style, the new doors would dominate the
elevation and represent a feature that would not normally be found in such a building of this date’. This proposal is contrary to UDP Polices 36 and 45.
On the 2nd issue, the Inspector noted ‘ in view of the harm that the French doors would cause to the character and appearance of the building, I further conclude that the proposal would neither enhance the character or
appearance of the conservation area’. Further to these reasons the Inspector went on to dismiss the appeals.
Mr Dan Antopolski
Permission
& Listed Building
Consent
Permission
55 Brixton Water
Lane London SW2
1PH
Mr Derek Gallimore 12 Wyatt Park Road
London SW2 3TP
Conversion of single dwelling house into
two self contained flats involving the
erection of a ground floor rear extension,
the installation of 3 rooflights,
replacement of existing kitchen window
with a new door and juliet balcony to
side elevation at ground floor level
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
13/01/2010
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether the proposed basement in the lower floors would provide substandard and unacceptable living accommodation, whether in terms of its internal dimensions (specifically
floor to ceiling heights), or of natural lighting and outlook to habitable rooms.
The Inspector noted that in his opinion the proposed floor to ceiling heights in all the habitable rooms would be acceptable in terms of SPD standards, he was however less sanguine about the natural lighting to and outlook
from the proposed habitable rooms in the basement. He added ‘these attributes would be very significantly limited both by the depth below ground level and the length of the new lightwell, given the proposed extension to the
ground floor. I agree with the council that as a result there would be inadequate natural light to and outlook from, both the combined dining room/kitchen, and the bedroom. It seems to me that these deficiencies in natural light
and outlook would severely comprise the living conditions of prospective occupiers’ which would be contrary to the relevant UDP & SPD Policies, and went on to dismiss the appeal.
DC REF:
DETAILS:
Permission
Alberti Holdings
ADDRESS:
17 Ballater Road
London SW2 5QS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey rear extension.
DECISION TYPE
Delegated
Decision
DATE COUNCIL
OFFICER
Refuse Permission
14/01/2010
APPEAL
DECISION:
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and its relationship with the adjoining property.
The Inspector noted the property has a very small garden and that the proposed extension would take up a sizable proportion of it. He added ‘as the property has already been considerably extended with the large roof
addition, it seems to me that the remaining garden area would be likely to be inadequate to serve the needs of future occupiers. Moreover, as a 2-storey extension within the small rear garden area, I consider that the
proposed addition would dominate the rear garden area and disrupt the original pattern of development at the rear of these terraced houses. Overall I find that the scheme would result in an overdevelopment of the property
on its limited site’.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the host dwelling and the living conditions of the adjoing occupiers and would not accord with the adopted
council policy (UDP Policy 36)
Permission
Mr Chris Wheatcroft Caldecot Court 51
Coldharbour Lane
London SE5 9NR
Extensions and alterations to the existing Delegated
building, comprising the erection of 1 x
Decision
front and 1 x side three-storey
extensions, with the creation of two
additional floors, to provide five new selfcontained flats ( 3x2 beds and 2x2 bed
units)
Refuse Permission
19/01/2010
Appeal Dismissed
Page 153
The Inspector considered the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on 1) the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the nearby listed building, 2) the living conditions of future occupiers of the
development, with particular reference to space standards, daylight and outlook and 3) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular reference to daylight and sunlight.
On the 1st issue the Inspector noted that the building in it’s current form ‘contributes to the overall balance and integrity of the area and leavers the listed church unchallenged. The alterations proposed would, however,
significantly increase its height and bulk so that it would stand out from its neighbours as a landmark building, the scale and innovative modern design of which would set it apart from its surroundings’. The Inspector added
that in his mind, ‘ because of the increase in its height and bulk, the remodelled building would no longer accord with the general pattern of development in the area but would appear as an incongruous element within the
streetscene. It would challenge the visual dominance of the listed church, with which it would compete for attention, casting material harm to both the character and appearance of the area and the church’s established
setting’ and conflicts with Policy 45 of the UDP.
On the 2nd issue the Inspector noted the ‘proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the development, with particular reference to space standards, daylight and outlook’ conflicting with
UDP Policies 33 & 36.
On the 3rd issue the Inspector agreed with the council and noted ‘It appears to me entirely possible that the additional two storeys proposed could result in a degree of overshadowing during the afternoon and evening,
causing some diminution in the amount of direct sunlight reaching the affected windows’, conflicting with UDP Policy 36, he then went on to dismiss the appeal.
Permission
Mr L. Perry
2 Prima Road
London SW9 0NA
Erection of a second floor extension to
the rear projection (Upper Flat).
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
26/01/2010
Appeal Allowed
The Inspector considered the main issues to be 1) the effect the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the host property and the group of building of which it forms and 2) the proposal’s effect on the living
conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
On the 1st issue the Inspector considered the differing design of the terrace and several of the flat roofs on the rear wings were used as roof terraces provided the terrace with a sense of variety rather than uniformity. She
considered that the proposed extension would not unacceptably harm or undermine the character and appearance of the group of which if forms part.
On the 2nd issue the Inspector noted ‘I appreciate that there is already a sense of enclosure in the small rear gardens of neighbouring properties. However, given the siting of the extension at a high level and the orientation of
the properties, the additional impact of the extension on outlook from and light to the gardens would not be so significant as to justify refusing the scheme. Nor would it alter privacy levels’. She then went on to allow the
appeal.
09/01536/ADV Advertisement
Consent
Mr Charlie Mullins
1 Sail Street London
SE11 6NQ
Display of a temporary internally
illuminated sign for a period of 5 years to
replace the existing section of hording
sign on the roof of no.1 Sail Street.
Delegated
Decision
Refuse Permission
27/01/2010
Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the visual impact of the proposed LED screen, including its impact in views from residential properties in the surroundings.
The Inspector noted that in terms of its length, the proposed replacement sign would be noticeably smaller than the existing, apparently lawful sign it would replace, it would nevertheless be a substantial feature in it’s own
right, It would also occupy a high level position and its presence would be emphasized by its bold internal illumination’. The Inspector added ‘In my view, whilst less extensive than the existing sign, it’s display, in an
uncompromising modern form, emphasised by its internal means of illumination, would be in an obtrusive and incongruous feature on the building. He also added ‘although no directly facing views would be obtained from any
residential window, I nevertheless consider that, because of its large size, height and illumination, the impact of the proposed display would be intrusive in the outlook from neighbouring properties’.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed LED screen would be detrimental to visual amenity and that the appeal should fail.
Page 154
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 01/11/2009 AND 30/11/2009
ENF Ref:
09/00085/3COU
ADDRESS:
57 Leigham Vale
Breach of Planning Control
The material change of use of the top floor flat from 1 self-contained
residential flat into 2 self contained residential flats
Notice Type
Enforcement Notice
Decision Date
09/11/09
Appeal Decision
Appeal Dismissed
Enforcement Notice Upheld
08/00432/3DEV
100A Hackford Road
The erection of 2 metal extract units on top of the parapet wall at the rear of
the premises at roof level.
Enforcement Notice
27/11/09
with Variations
Agenda Item 8
This appeal related to both a planning appeal and an enforcement appeal ground F (The steps required to comply with the notice are excessive and lesser steps would overcome the objections). The appeals were held
concurrently.
On the Ground F appeal, the Inspector noted that whilst ‘the appellant refers to potential changes to the character and/or location of the plant. Those references however, are too vague to form the basis of defining lesser
steps to overcome the planning objections to the development referred to in the enforcement notice’.
In the course of the planning appeal, the Inspector considered that planning permission be granted for the extract flues, however considered that the air conditioning units would need a formal planning application and
refused to grant them planning permission as part of this appeal.
The Inspector went on to vary the enforcement notice by deleting the requirement to remove the unauthorised flues from the roof of the premises, and granted planning permission for part of the development.
Page 155
This appeal related to an enforcement appeal under grounds A (That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice), ground B (That the breach of control alleged in the enforcement notice has
not occurred as a matter of fact), ground C (that there has not been a breach of planning control), ground D (that, at the time the enforcement notice was issued, it was too late to take enforcement action against the
matters stated in the notice) ground E (The notice was not properly served on everyone with an interest in the land) and ground F (The steps required to comply with the notice are excessive and lesser steps would
overcome the objections).
On Ground A, the Inspector noted that ‘the smaller of the 2 units in the former upper unit of the converted dwelling is seriously undersized and does not comply with minimum space standards set out in the SPD. The
change of use of the top flat in the converted dwelling, notwithstanding the adequate size of the larger of the 2 units created, is an over-intensive conversion scheme and is thus contrary to UDP policy 17’. For these
reasons the Inspector concluded that the appeal under Ground A should fail.
On Ground B, whilst it was declared that the use of the property had been as 3 flats since the 1980’s, which suggests the alleged breach of planning control has occurred, the Inspector noted that ‘nothing mentioned in
the appeal indicates that the breach of planning control has not occurred, as a matter of fact’ and concluded that the appeal under Ground B thus fails.
On Ground C, the Inspector commented that whilst it had been stated that the property had been in use as 3 flats ‘since the 1980’s, this is not relevant in considering whether there has, or has not, been a breach of
planning control’. In addition, the Inspector also added that whilst planning permission had previously been permitted for the conversion of this property into flats, that was for 2 self contained units and not the 3 alleged in
the enforcement notice. The Inspector concluded that the appeal under Ground C should fail.
On Ground D, no evidence was provided by the appellant ‘that is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to conclude, on the balance of probability, that the conversion of the upper floors of the appeal property to 2 separate
units occurred over 4 years’ before the date the enforcement notice was issued. The appeal under Ground D failed
On Ground E, the council submitted uncontested evidence indicating who the notice had been served on and showed that the notice had been stapled to the front door of the property on the day it was issued. The
Inspector considered that as an appeal had been logged, the appellants must have been aware of the notice even if for some reason they did not receive their individual copy. As no evidence had been submitted to
indicate that the notice was not properly served on everybody with an interest in the property, and concluded that the appeal under ground E thus fails.
On Ground F, the appellants did not suggest what lesser requirements than those set out in the enforcement notice would remedy the breach of planning control. He Inspector considered that the requirements set out in
the notice were necessary to return the upper floors of the property to being a single residential unit and that in that regard, the requirements of the notice are not excessive. The appeal under Ground F failed.
As the Inspector had considered each ground of appeal had failed, he dismissed the appeal and upheld the enforcement notice.
Page 156
ENF Ref:
07/00386/3CNS
ADDRESS:
23 Lancaster Avenue
the material change of use of the premises to 13 self contained studio flats
("the unauthorised change of use") and the installation of uPVC windows to
the rear elevation ("the unauthorised uPVC windows).
Notice Type
Enforcement Notice
Decision Date
02/12/09
Appeal Decision
with Variations
This appeal related to an enforcement appeal under ground B (That the breach of control alleged in the enforcement notice has not occurred as a matter of fact) and ground F (The steps required to comply with the
notice are excessive and lesser steps would overcome the objections).
On Ground B, it was necessary for the appellant to show that the appeal property was in use as a hotel or hostel at the time the notice was issued in April 2009 and was not in use as flats. The Inspector concluded that
using the evidence submitted by the appellant ‘that any hotel or hostel use had ceased by April 2009. I find, on the basis of probability that the use of the appeal premises as self contained flats was operating at the
material date in April 2009. I consider the alleged development is properly described in the notice and has clearly taken place as a matter of fact. The appeal on ground B must fail’.
On Ground F, the Inspector considered that the councils concern about the poor housing mix of this development could be overcome by readjusting the internal arrangements to provide a more balanced mix of units to
include larger flats. However, the appellant did not submit any evidence to support this view, and as such the Inspector could not alter the notice in relation to the alleged flat development. With regards to the upvc
windows, the Inspector considered that as they had only been installed onto the rear elevation and can only be seen from some distance away, and having regard to the design and proportion of the windows, he
considered that the windows had a neutral impact on the conservation area and do not materially conflict wit h the adopted UDP Policies. He went onto delete the requirement of the notice to remove the windows.
With the exception of the slight amendment concerning the windows, the appeal was dismissed and the notice upheld.
09/00166/3CNS
345 Kennington Road
Enforcement Notice
10/12/09
Appeal Dismissed
This appeal related to an enforcement appeal under ground A (That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice).
The Inspector noted that the ‘extension, due to its height and width, has not achieved the Policy goal of subordination’ and ‘the design of the first floor extension is not in keeping with the original building and neither, due
to its large size, can it be described as a small scale extension’. The Inspector also added that the changes to the original windows in the rear elevation brought about by the first floor extension have a materially harmful
impact on the character and appearance of [the appeal property] and the surrounding area. Further the harm to [the appeal property] means the first floor extension has failed to preserve the character or appearance of
the conservation area’ and fails to comply with the relevant parts of the UDP and SPD.
With regard to the roof extension, the Inspector noted that ‘the change in the shape of the roof has failed to preserve the original architectural shape of the roof at No. 345’, and agreed ‘with the council that using upvc as
a material in this part of the conservation area is inappropriate and it does not preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area’.
He concluded that as the roof extension had a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the building, and as it fails to preserve the conservation area (contrary to the UDP and SPD) the appeal should fail.
08/00354/3ADV
196 Clapham Park
Road
Without Listed Building Consent, the erection of an advertisement hoarding
and associated attachments, fixtures and fitments ("the advertisement
hoarding") to the flank wall elevation of the premises.
Enforcement Notice
14/12/09
Appeal Dismissed
This appeal related to an enforcement appeal under ground E (That listed building consent ought to be granted for the works).
The Inspector noted ‘the advertisement hoarding is a bold feature, creating a strongly contemporary intervention in the street scene, a modern grey box, internally illuminated and necessarily incorporating an eye catching
display. The existing building is a dignified architectural essay, and the advertisement installation is plainly out of character with the tradition brickwork structure to which it is affixed’. The Inspector added that insistent
feature of the advertisement creates an incongruous and discordant element in the street scene’. For those reasons, the Inspector went on to dismiss the appeal.
Page 157
the erection of rear extension at first floor level, with parapet wall (hereafter
"the first floor rear extension"), and the enlargement of a window opening in
the rear elevation to provide access onto the roof of the first floor rear
extension and the erection of a mansard roof extension.
Page 158
ENF Ref:
ADDRESS:
Notice Type
Decision Date
Appeal Decision
There were no Enforcement Notice appeals decided within this period
Page 159
Page 160

planning applications committee a

Transcription

Similar documents

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

2001 4118 Dawson Street, Burnaby

“ Sawdust runs through my veins. I am doing what I was meant to do.”

Schottenstein Center

Parking Lot Striping - Parking Control Unit

Lyndale Farmstead Park - SouthSide Operations Center Parking Lot

Click Here to load a PDF with ads and articles about the 1935

Pencader Corporate Center