Report and appendices , item 6.1 PDF 1 MB

Transcription

Item No.
Classification:
Date:
Meeting Name:
6.1
Open
5 November 2013
Planning Committee
Report title:
Development Management planning application:
Application 12/AP/4126 for: Outline Planning Permission
Address:
CANADA WATER SITES C AND E, SURREY QUAYS ROAD, LONDON
SE16 2XU
Proposal:
Application made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 (England and Wales), accompanied by an ES under the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 seeking Outline
planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings on the site (the
'Decathlon' and 'What' Retail Stores) and the erection of 5 buildings (C1-C4
and E1) ranging from 5 to 40 storeys (150.86m AOD) comprising a
maximum overall floorspace of up to 138,146.8sq.m GEA.
New buildings to comprise: up to 97,851sq.m of residential accommodation
(Class C3) (equating to a maximum of 1,030 residential units), up to
12,300.9sq.m Class A1 retail store (including 10,178sq.m (net) sales area,
745sq.m ancillary office accommodation and 308sq.m ancillary cafe); up to
4,352.3sq.m of other retail (Class A1/A2/A3/A4 floorspace); up to
2,800sq.m of office space floorspace (Class B1), up to 658sq.m of health
centre floorspace (Class D1) and up to 698.2sq.m of cinema floorspace
(Class D2); 19,486.5sq.m ancillary parking (equating to up to a maximum of
466 parking spaces), plant and storage accommodation, including the
provision of basements to provide vehicle and cycle parking, circulation,
servicing and plant areas; new vehicle and pedestrian accesses and new
public amenity space and landscaping including new public square.
Within the outline described above:
- Full details are submitted for the access, appearance, landscaping, layout
and scale of Building C1 and associated works;
- Full details are submitted for the layout, appearance and scale of
Buildings C2, C3 and C4 and means of vehicular access, with layout of the
linked basement, internal layouts of the individual buildings and landscaping
reserved;
- All matters are reserved in respect of Building E1 (min 17.8m height, max
37.8m height, comprising up to 29,907.9sqm floorspace).
Ward(s) or
groups
affected:
Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks
From:
HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
Application Start Date 29/01/2013
Application PPA Decision Date 30/01/2014
RECOMMENDATION
1
a) That planning permission is granted subject to conditions, the applicant entering
into a legal agreement on or before 30th January 2014 and subject to referral to the
Mayor of London.
b) If it is resolved to grant planning permission, that it is confirmed that the
environmental information has been taken into account as required by Regulation 3(4)
of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessments) Regulations
2011;
c) That it is confirmed that, following issue of the decision, the Head of Development
Management should place a statement on the Statutory Register pursuant to
Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessments) Regulations 2011 which contains the information required by
Regulation 21 and that for the purposes of Regulation 24(1)(c) the main reasons and
considerations on which the Planning Committee’s decision was based shall be set
out as in this report;
2
d) In the event that the legal agreement is not entered into by 30th January 2014 then
the Head of Development Management be authorised to refuse planning permission, if
appropriate, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 289-295 of this report.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site location and description
3
The site is formed of two parts separated by Surrey Quays Road. Site C is located to
the west of Surrey Quays Road and adjacent to the Canada Water Basin, while Site E
is located to the east of Surrey Quays Road and adjacent to the Harmsworth Quays
Printworks site.
4
Site C occupies an area of 2.31 hectares and is currently occupied by the Decathlon
retail store, located in two large retail sheds erected in the 1980s, and a car park for
224 surface parking spaces with associated service areas. The two existing retail
sheds have a combined floorspace of 6,190sqm and Decathlon benefit from a lease
which runs until 2028. The site is bounded the Canada Water Basin to the west, the
Albion Channel to the north, Surrey Quays Road to the east and the Surrey Quays
Shopping Centre site to the south. To the north of the site and the other side of Albion
Channel there are two recent housing blocks (Toronto and Montreal House), with a
maximum height of 8 storeys. Beyond these blocks and adjacent to the Canada
Water Station there is a recently constructed 26 storey residential tower (Ontario
Point).
5
Site E occupies an area of 0.78 hectares and currently located on the site is the
What!!! Home and Leisure store situated in a large retail shed, with 104 surface car
parking spaces. The site is bounded by the Harmsworth Quays Printworks, the former
Mulberry Business Park and Canada Street. Directly opposite the site, to the north
and on the opposite side of Canada Street, are existing residential apartment buildings
(Giverny House and Pavilion House) which are part of the Water Gardens
development. The site is not located within a Conservation Area and there are no
listed buildings on or near the site. Part C of the site forms part of the Canada Water
Town Centre, part E lies outwith the Town Centre designation and both parts of the
site are located in the Core Area in the Canada Water Area Action Plan. In terms of
Public Transport Accessibility the PTAL rating is 6a, reflecting the high availability of
public transport.
Details of proposal
6
The application proposes the construction of 5 buildings on the site in 4 phases:Phase 1 – ‘Building C1’ has full details submitted for layout, scale, access,
appearance and landscaping;
Phase 2 – ‘Building E1’ has all matters reserved, with only maximum and minimum
heights and footprint extent detailed in this current application; and
Phase 3 – ‘Buildings C2 and C3’ have full details submitted for the siting, scale,
vehicular access and appearance. Landscaping, layout of the basement car park and
the internal layouts of individual buildings are reserved for subsequent applications.
Phase 4 - ’Building C4’ has full details submitted for the siting, scale, vehicular access
and appearance. Landscaping, layout of the basement car park and the internal
layout of the building is reserved for subsequent applications.
7
The maximum total floorspace proposed in this development is 138,146.8sqm (GEA)
floorspace. The table below defines the maximum floorspace figures for each
category of land use proposed.
Table 1: Maximum floorspace figures by use
Land Use (& Class)
Maximum GIA (sqm)
Residential (C3)
Office (B1)
Decathlon Retail Store
(A1) including ancillary
head office
Other Retail (A1-A4)
Cinema (D2)
Health Centre (D1)
Parking,
Plant
and
Storage (ancillary)
Total
Maximum GEA (sqm)
90,529.4
2,460
12,087.6
97,851
2,800
12,300.9
4,047.6
640.8
573
18,955.8
4,352.3
698.2
658
19,486.5
129,304.2
138,146.8
8
Building C1 is proposed to accommodate the new Decathlon Store over the bottom
two floors with the option to construct a large mezzanine to increase trading
floorspace (mezzanine forming Phase 1B). Surrounding the store it is proposed to
locate ancillary servicing areas for the store, the entrance to the basement car park,
the entrances to residential units above and the ground floor levels of the proposed
four storey townhouses. A residential central courtyard, (at podium level) is proposed
at 4th storey level, with the residential blocks enclosing the courtyard space. A new
MUGA ‘Ball Court’ area is also proposed at courtyard level, and intended for use by
customers of the Decathlon Store, residents of C1 and the wider public (by
arrangement with Decathlon). The residential blocks take the total building heights to
7 -14 storeys (adjacent to Albion Channel), 8 - 11 storeys (adjacent to Surrey Quays
Road), and 9 - 17 storeys (adjacent to Surrey Quays Road and the proposed building
C2). This building would comprise Phase 1A and 1B of the development.
9
Building C2 is proposed to accommodate retail and residential floorspace and is eight
storeys in height. Building C3 is proposed to accommodate a small cinema, retail
floorspace and residential units. It is 20 storeys in height. Building C4 is a 40 storey
tower with ground floor retail, residential flats, a roof garden and structural frame / lift
overrun above the 40 storey height. The details are submitted in full for the external
appearance of buildings C2, C3 & C4, but the internal layouts are reserved, and would
be subject to future planning applications and approval. These buildings would form
Phases 3 and 4 of the development.
10
Building E1 is proposed to provide Class D1 floorspace, which is intended to form a
new health centre, as well as office (Class B1), retail (Class A1-A4), and residential
accommodation (Class C3) uses. The application is in outline only in respect of this
building and building heights of max. 37.8m (AOD) / min. 23.8m (AOD) are proposed
to the north, west and south of the site adjacent to Surrey Quays Road and opposite
the Water Gardens development. Heights of a maximum of 31.5m (AOD) and a
minimum of17.8m (AOD) are proposed to the east of the site. A central courtyard
area is also proposed at podium level at a maximum height of 13.6m (AOD) or
minimum height of 5.6m (AOD). It is proposed that this building is used to
accommodate all of the affordable housing initially provided in the scheme, and would
comprise Phase 2 of the development.
11
Table 2: Proposed accommodation within each building and phase
Building
Number
of
residential
units
Phase 1A/1B
C1
234
Phase 2
E1
Up to 231
(max
quantum)
Phase 3
C2
(max
quantum)
C3
(max
quantum)
Phase 4
C4
(max
quantum)
Total
(max
quantum)
Up to
112*
Up to
180*
Up to
273*
Up to
1,030*
Commercial
floorspace maximum
GEA (sqm)
• Decathlon retail
store 12,300.9;
• Other retail (A1A4) 215.5;
• Parking, plant,
storage (ancillary)
7,869.7
• Health Centre
(D1) 678;
• Office (B1) 2,800;
• Retail (A1-A4)
677;
• Parking, plant and
storage (ancillary)
2,295.2.
• Retail (A1-A4)
1,959;
• Parking, plant,
storage (ancillary)
3,107.2
• Cinema (D2)
698.2;
• Retail (A1-A4)
758.4;
• Parking, plant,
storage (ancillary)
3,107.2.
• Retail (A1-A4)
742.4;
• Parking, plant,
storage (ancillary)
3,033.6.
Up to 40,269sqm
Phasing programme
Construction
starts
Construction
complete
July 2014
December
2016
September
2016
February
2019
March 2019
August
2021
March 2019
August
2021
September
2021
August
2023
*Maximum number of units, subject to future reserved matters applications.
12
In total a site capacity for up to 1,030 residential units and 20,809sqm (GEA) of
commercial (including Class D use and excluding ancillary / parking space) floorspace
is proposed. Basement areas will provide car parking for the town centre / Decathlon
customers and future residential occupiers. Initially a basement is proposed as part of
building C1 (in phase 1 of the development) to provide customer parking for Decathlon
and the wider town centre. A larger basement as part of buildings C2, C3 and C4 will
then be created (in phase 3/4) to link into the original C1 basement area, providing
further customer and residential parking. A further basement car park area is
proposed in building E1, in Phase 2 of the development for residents.
13
A total of 250 basement car parking spaces for town centre/retail users are proposed.
152 spaces will be provided initially in the basement of building C1, with 98 temporary
surface spaces provided on part of the cleared, southern part of the site where
buildings C2 and C3 would later be located. 102 permanent town centre/retail car
parking spaces will be provided within the basement under buildings C2, C3 and C4
when completed. The number of town centre/retail spaces initially provided in building
C1 basement (152) will then be reduced to 148, to enable an access route between
the C1 and C2 / C3 basement areas. The temporary surface parking will be removed.
Hence 250 town centre/retail spaces are proposed in total. Temporary residential
surface parking for building C1 is proposed on site E.
14
In addition to the above, building C1 also includes storage for 62 bicycles for
customers of the Decathlon Store and 12 for staff, eight additional spaces are also
proposed for the other retail units. There are 281 cycle storage spaces proposed as
part of the residential element of Phase 1 (building C1), provided at mezzanine and
first floor level or in the form of cycle lockers attached to individual units in the
development. The cycle parking for subsequent phases will be established under the
reserved matters applications.
15
The application also includes provision for a new public space, consisting of a lawn
and routes through and around the site. The details of the landscaping and public
realm are reserved for future consideration, but indicative plans have been provided,
as well as specifications which are set out in the Design Specification and Place
Making document submitted with the application. The proposed public space is
focused around a 2,187sqm central lawn space, which faces the Canada Water Basin,
situated between buildings C2, C3 and C4. It is intended that this area is completely
pedestrianised, offering a space for visitors of the area to sit and spend time in and for
informal play.
16
The indicative proposals for the space include a pedestrian route running through the
middle of the space, connecting Canada Water Station and the Library Plaza with the
rest of the Town Centre and its hinterland. Each half of the lawn is currently envisaged
as consisting of a gentle mound, providing views over the basin and providing some
enclosure to the space. Trees and seats would line the edge of the lawn, keeping the
central area open for casual seating and play. Along the edge of the Basin, new steps
descend to the waters edge. The steps are intended to provide a space for people to
sit and overlook the Basin and enjoy the water. The steps are an indicative proposal
at this stage, with details reserved, but are envisaged to create a seamless edge
between the public space and basin. An improved public space is created at the elbow
of the Albion Channel with a public lift from Surrey Quays Road to the Channel level
and a new route is created from Surrey Quays Road to the Basin between Building C2
and Building C3.
Planning history
17
09-AP-0034 – Application WITHDRAWN for Redevelopment of existing retail
warehouses and erection of 4 buildings varying in height from 4 to 10 storeys
comprising 441 residential units (Class C3), a 9546sqm retail store (Class A1),
1177sqm of other Class A1/A3/A4/A5 space, 876sqm of office space (Class B1a),
303sqm of community space (Class D1), with a basement car park for 477 cars, plus
associated access works, landscaping and communal amenity space. (27-03-2009)
18
09-AP-1783
–
Planning
permission
GRANTED
with
legal
agreement
for
redevelopment of existing retail warehouses and erection of 6 buildings varying in
height from 4 to 10 storeys comprising 430 residential units (Class C3), 9104sqm retail
store (Class A1), 1287sqm of other Class A1/A3/A4/A5 space, 644sqm of office space
(Class B1a), 528sqm of Class D1 community space, access, basement car park for
340 cars, public realm, landscaping and communal amenity space. (25-03-2011)
This permission has not been implemented.
19
12-AP-2357 – Screening Opinion that the development is considered to constitute EIA
development for comprehensive, phased mixed use redevelopment comprising new
and replacement retail (Class A1), offices (Class B1), other A3/A4/A5 retail space,
residential uses (Class C3), community leisure uses (Classes D1 and D2), access,
basement car parking, public realm and landscaping and community amenity space.
(15-08-2012).
20
12-AP-2457 – Scoping Opinion agreeing required information of the Environmental
Statement relating to the comprehensive, phased mixed use redevelopment
comprising new and replacement retail (Class A1), offices (Class B1), other A3/A4/A5
retail space, residential uses (Class C3), community leisure uses (Classes D1 and
D2), access, basement car parking, public realm and landscaping and community
amenity space. (12-10-2012).
Planning history of adjoining sites
21
Outline permission was GRANTED in 2007 at Site A & B (05-AP-2539) for the
following:
Development of the site for mixed use purposes comprising residential flats,
community use/public library (Class D1), offices, studio workshops and retail, in
buildings up to a maximum of 10 storeys in height; creation of new areas of open
space, construction of new roads, pedestrian and cycle routes and new access to the
public highway together with associated works including the provision of parking,
servicing and plant areas and a replacement entrance to London Underground
Station.
22
In 2007 the Council GRANTED permission within Site B (07-AP-1174) for:
Erection of a Library building on northern edge of the Dock (within Site B), comprising
a public library, cafe, community and performance space, and incorporating a new
entrance to Canada Water Underground Station; laying out of an adjacent Civic Plaza;
together with associated enabling works and highway alterations.
Construction of the library is now complete.
23
Reserved Matters were APPROVED by the Council in 2008 at Site B1 (07-AP-2588)
for:
External appearance, internal layout, and access to buildings, following Outline
Planning Permission dated 4 May 2007 (05-AP-2539) for the erection of an eight
storey building comprising 63 dwellings and Class A1 (retail) and
B1(office/commercial) accommodation within the ground floor.
Site B1, now known as Toronto House, is now occupied.
24
An application was made for detailed permission at Site B2 which was GRANTED in
2009 (08-AP-2388) for:
Erection of a part 7, part 8 storey building to provide 169 residential units (Class C3),
938sqm of retail and/or food/drink (Class A1/A3) and 300sqm of ancillary residential
floorspace (residents gym), 46 basement car parking spaces, together with access,
hard and soft landscaping, and other associated works incidental to the development.
This development is now complete and occupied, and is now known as Montreal
House.
25
Full permission was GRANTED at the Mulberry Business Park, Quebec Way in 2008
(07-AP-2806) for:
Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a series of buildings up to 8 storeys
comprising 256 residential units, 5105m² of Class B1 (Office) floorspace, basement
car park with access to Canada Street, and landscaping works.
A certificate of lawfulness in 2011 established implementation of the planning
permission.
26
Full permission GRANTED at Quebec Way Industrial Estate, Quebec Way on 28th
February 2012 (11-AP-2565) for:
Demolition of three existing warehouse buildings and construction of 7 blocks between
3 and 6 storeys high (max 21m AOD); containing 366 residential units (142x 1 bed,
113x 2 bed, 98x 3 bed and 13x 4 bed) and commercial floorspace for Class A1
(shops) / A3 (restaurant/cafes) / D1 (non-residential institutions / D2 (assembly and
leisure)uses; with basement car parking, motorcycle and cycle storage, ancillary
storage spaces and a new route through the site into Russia Dock Woodlands. New
vehicle and pedestrian accesses to be created from Quebec Way.
This permission has not yet been implemented.
27
Full Permission GRANTED (13/AP/1429) subject to Legal Agreement at former
Mulberry Business Park on 17th September 2013 for:
(13/AP/1429) - Redevelopment of the former Mulberry Business park to provide
buildings of between 4 and 9 storeys (maximum height 42.85m AOD), comprising 770
student bedrooms with related living/kitchen and communal spaces (sui generis); 33
affordable residential units (Class C3); 610sqm retail uses (Classes A1, A2,A3);
322sqm health centre (Class D1); 75sqm area of retail (Classes A1, A2, A3) or
alternate non-residential institutional use (Class D1); 4,490sqm offices (Class B1);
associated car parking, cycle parking and landscaped public realm; new vehicular and
pedestrian access/egress and associated works. Not yet implemented.
28
A SPLIT Planning Decision issued in March 2012 for development at Surrey Quays
Shopping Centre, Redriff Road (11-AP-4206) granting permission for an extension to
the existing shopping centre, and refusing outline planning consent for a single storey
car parking deck.
Application description:Hybrid outline/full application for the erection of an extension to the existing shopping
centre comprising retail floorspace (approximately 10,564sqm of Use Classes A1
retail, A2 services, A3 cafe/restaurant, A4 drinking establishments and A5 hot food
takeaways), alterations to the appearance of the existing shopping centre,
landscaping, and reconfiguration of part of the existing car parking and associated
highway works (full) together with the erection of a single level car parking deck above
part of the existing car park, incorporating additional retail floorspace (approximately
450sqm of Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) (outline).
This permission has not yet been implemented.
29
Outline planning permission was GRANTED in 2010 at Surrey Quays (Mast) Leisure
Site (09-AP-1999) for:
Application made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 seeking
Outline permission for demolition of all existing buildings and erection of buildings
ranging from 2 to 10 storeys comprising 11,105sqm leisure floorspace (including
cinema) (Class D2), 2,695sqm retail floorspace (Class A1-A3), 49,276sqm of private
and affordable residential accommodation (approximately 509 flats) (Class C3), 495
car parking spaces (142 for residential and 350 for leisure uses) and associated works
including public and private open space, as well as detailed design for 123 rooms
(4,250sqm) of student housing (Class Sui Generis), 2,500sqm commercial floorspace
(Class B1), 86 residential units (included in the 509 flats referenced above) (Class C3)
and the external appearance of any elevation facing Harmsworth Quays Printworks.
No reserved matters applications have been made, and the permission has not been
implemented.
30
Full permission was GRANTED for Site A at Canada Water in 2010 (09-AP-1870) for:
Erection of a series of buildings comprising a 26 storey tower, with ground floor
mezzanine (maximum height 92.95m AOD), and 9 individual buildings ranging from 4
to 8 storeys in height to provide 668 residential units, 958sqm of retail (Class A1, A2
and A3), and 268sqm of community use (Class D1), creation of a new open space and
construction of new roads, pedestrian and cycle routes and new access to the
highway, together with associated works including the provision of public cycle facility,
basement car parking for 166 cars and cycle parking, servicing, landscaping and plant
areas.
The construction of the development is now complete and occupied.
KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Summary of main issues
31
The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Principle of the proposed development in terms of land use and conformity with
the development plan and the Canada Water Area Action Plan;
Impacts from the development as described in the submitted Environmental
Statement;
Impact on the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties;
Impact of adjoining occupiers on development;
Transport issues;
Design issues including layout, heights, massing and elevations;
Tall buildings and impact on views;
Quality of accommodation;
Housing mix, type and density;
Affordable housing;
Landscaping and mpact on trees;
Ecology and biodiversity;
Planning obligations;
Socio-economics;
Land contamination;
Environment and sustainability;
•
•
Archaeology
Equality
Planning policy
32
Designations
The site is subject to the following designations of the Southwark Plan:Air Quality Management Area;
Urban Density Zone;
Canada Water Major Town Centre;
Canada Water Action Area Core;
Canada Water Strategic District Heat Network and the Rotherhithe Ward.
33
Core Strategy 2011
1 – Sustainable development
2 – Sustainable transport
5 – Providing new homes
6 – Homes for people on different incomes
7 – Family homes
10 – Jobs and businesses
11 - Open spaces and wildlife
12 – Design and conservation
13 – High environmental standard
14 - Implementation and delivery
34
Southwark Plan 2007 (July) - saved policies
The Council's cabinet on 19th March 2013, as required by paragraph 215 of the
NPPF, considered the issue of compliance of Southwark Planning Policy with the
National Planning Policy Framework. All policies and proposals were reviewed and the
Council satisfied itself that the polices and proposals in use were in conformity with the
NPPF. The resolution was that with the exception of Policy 1.8 (location of retail
outside town centres) in the Southwark Plan, all Southwark Plan policies are saved.
Due weight is to be given to relevant policies in existing plans in accordance to their
degree of consistency with the NPPF. The following policies are relevant to the current
proposals.
1.7 Development within Town and Local Centres
2.5 Planning Obligations
3.1 Environmental Effects
3.2 Protection of Amenity
3.3 Sustainability Appraisal
3.4 Energy Efficiency
3.6 Air Quality
3.7 Waste Reduction
3.11 Efficient Use of Land
3.12 Quality in Design
3.13 Urban Design
3.14 Designing Out Crime
3.15 Conservation of the historic environment
3.18 Setting of listed buildings, conservation areas, and world heritage
3.19 Archaeology
3.20 Tall buildings
3.28 Biodiversity
4.1 Density of Residential Development
4.2 Quality of Residential Development
4.3 Mix of Dwellings
4.4 Affordable Housing
5.1 Locating Developments
5.2 Transport Impacts
5.3 Walking and Cycling
5.6 Car Parking
5.7 Parking Standards for disabled people and the mobility impaired
35
Supplementary Planning Documents
The following SPDs are material to the determination of the application:
Sustainable Design and Construction 2009
Affordable Housing 2008 (September) and 2011 Draft
Section 106 Planning Obligations 2007
Residential Design Standards 2011
36
Canada Water Area Action Plan
The site forms part of the CWAAP Core Area (and is a Strategic Heating Area). The
boundary for the Canada Water town centre lies to the south-west of the site, along
Surrey Quays Road, so includes Site C but not Site E. The application site comprises
proposal sites CWAAP7 & CWAAP8 of the adopted Canada Water Area Action Plan.
Buildings C1-4 lie within proposal site CWAAP7. Building E1 lies within CWAAP8.
The AAP was adopted in March 2012 following an examination-in-public (EIP) which
was held during summer 2011. Also in 2011, the Daily Mail group announced that it
would be vacating Harmsworth Quays printworks. This has implications for the AAP
which assumed at the time of its preparation that predicated the printworks would
remain in-situ. The Council is in the process of reviewing the AAP and has prepared a
draft revised area action plan, and this is considered further below.
Policy 1: Shopping in the town centre
Policy 2: Cafes and restaurants in the town centre
Policy 6: Walking and cycling
Policy 7: Public transport
Policy 8: Vehicular traffic
Policy 9: Parking for town centre uses
Policy 10: Parking for residential development in the Core Area
Policy 11: Leisure and entertainment
Policy 12: Sports facilities
Policy 13: Arts, culture and tourism
Policy 14: Streets and public spaces
Policy 15: Building blocks
Policy 16: Town centre development
Policy 17: Building heights on sites in and adjacent to the core area
Policy 18: Open spaces and biodiversity
Policy 19: Children’s play space
Policy 20: Energy
Policy 21: New homes
Policy 22: Affordable homes
Policy 23: Family homes
Policy 24: Density of developments
Policy 25: Jobs and business space
Policy 27: Community facilities
Policy 28: Early years
Policy 29: Health facilities
Policy 32: Proposals sites
Policy 33: S106 Planning Obligations
37
London Plan 2011
Canada Water is identified as an Intensification Area in the London Plan. The
following policies are relevant:
2.13 Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas
2.15 Town Centres
3.1 Ensuring Equal Life Chances For All
3.2 Improving Health And Addressing Health Inequalities
3.3 Increasing Housing Supply
3.4 Optimising Housing Potential
3.5 Quality And Design Of Housing Developments
3.6 Children And Young People's Play And Informal Recreation Facilities
3.7 Large Residential Developments
3.8 Housing Choice
3.9 Mixed And Balanced Communities
3.11 Affordable Housing Targets
3.12 Negotiating Affordable Housing On Individual Private Residential And Mixed Use
Schemes
4.1 Developing London's Economy
4.7 Retail And Town Centre Development
5.1 Climate Change Mitigation
5.2 Minimising Carbon Emissions
5.3 Sustainable Design And Construction.
5.6 Decentralised Energy In Development Proposals
5.7 Renewable Energy
5.11 Green roofs And Development Site Environs
5.12 Flood Risk Management
5.13 Sustainable Drainage
6.3 Assessing Effects Of Development On Transport Capacity
6.9 Cycling
6.10 Walking
6.13 Parking
7.2 An Inclusive Environment
7.3 Designing Out Crime
7.6 Architecture
7.7 Location And Design Of Tall And Large Buildings
7.8 Heritage Assets And Archaeology
7.10 World Heritage Sites
7.14 Improving Air Quality
7.15 Reducing Noise And Enhancing Soundscapes
7.18 Protecting Local Open Space And Addressing Local Deficiency
7.19 Biodiversity And Access To Nature
7.21 Trees And Woodlands
8.2 Planning Obligations
38
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF came into effect on 27 March 2012 and is a material planning
consideration. The document is applicable in its entirety, but the most relevant
sections are:
Section 1: Building a strong competitive economy
Section 2: Ensuring the vitality of town centres
Section 4: Promoting sustainable development
Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of good quality homes
Section 7: Requiring good design
Section 8: Promoting healthy communities
Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
39
40
Principle of development
Introduction
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (together with
section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), provided that applications
for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 sets out the purpose of the
planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and
that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and
environmental. The NPPF promotes the delivery of a wide choice of high quality
homes, seeks to widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable,
inclusive and mixed communities. It encourages the effective use of land by reusing
land that has been previously developed and also promotes mixed use developments.
At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development,
and for decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with
the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent
or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: (i) any adverse
impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or (ii) specific
policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
41
The London Plan 2011
The London Plan 2011 Policy 2.13 'Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas'
identifies the site as being an intensification area. This policy seeks to optimise
residential and non residential outputs and densities and contribute towards meeting
(or where appropriate) exceeding the minimum guidelines for housing and
employment capacity including realising the scope for intensification associated with
existing/proposed improvements in public transport accessibility and supporting wider
regeneration and integration of developments to the surrounding area.
42
The Core Startegy 2011
The Core Startegy 2011 identifies Canada Water as an Action Area to provide new
homes, office and retail development to improve Canada Water as a shopping
destination and transforming it into a Town Centre.
43
The Southwark Plan 2007 (Saved policies)
Canada Water is recognised as a Town Centre in the Southwark Plan 2007 and saved
policy 1.7 'Development within town and local centres' identifies town centres as
being appropriate locations for a range of uses including retail, leisure, services,
community use, entertainment, civic, cultural, tourism, employment and residential.
44
Canada Water Area Action Plan
The adopted Canada Water Area Action Plan (CWAAP) sets out a vision for Canada
Water to transform it from an out of centre style development into a vibrant town
centre which combines shopping, civic, leisure, business and residential uses.
45
Policy designations and the development plan
The application site is part of an Intensification Area in the London Plan, a Town
Centre in the Southwark Plan 2007 and the Core Strategy 2011, and forms the part of
the Core Area of the Canada Water Area Action Plan. The application site (formed of
both sites C&E) comprise proposals sites CWAAP7 and CWAAP8, and is located
within the Air Quality Management Area, Urban Density Zone, Canada Water Major
Town Centre, Canada Water Action Area Core and Canada Water Strategic District
Heat Network. Adjacent to the site is the Canada Water Basin, a designated Site of
Importance to Nature Conservation, surrounded by designated Borough Open Land.
The edge of the site as it meets the Basin is part of the Borough Open Land
designation.
46
47
Adopted CWAAP
The Core Strategy and AAP vision for Canada Water is to transform it from an out of
centre style development into a vibrant town centre which combines shopping, civic,
leisure, business and residential uses. The vision notes that existing facilities in the
centre are separated and poorly linked and that development in the town centre
should create a street based environment with high quality public realm and open
spaces. The strategy for the area involves expanding the amount of retail space by
around 35,000 sqm, at least 2,500 high quality new homes in the core area and at
least 875 affordable housing units. Alongside the target for new homes, the vision also
notes that around 2,000 jobs will be generated. The adopted Canada Water AAP
designates a number of proposals sites within the action plan area. This application
site is covered by CWAAP7 (Buildings C1, C2, C3 and C4) and CWAAP8 (Building
E1). It should be noted that CWAAP7 also encompasses Deal Porters Way, Surrey
Quays Leisure Park and Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and overflow car park.
Policy 32 states that permission will be granted for proposals in accordance with the
Proposals Map and Schedule of Proposals sites in Appendix 8 to the AAP. Proposal
Site ‘CWAAP 7: Decathlon site, Surrey Quays Leisure Park, Surrey Quays Shopping
Centre and overflow car park’ sets out the following:
Required land uses
Up to 35,000sqm of retail uses (Classes A1, A2, A3, A4);
a minimum of 5,000sqm of business use (Class B1);
leisure uses (Class D2); residential use (Class C3);
community use (Class D); hotel use (Class C1); public
open space; town centre parking.
Other acceptable uses
Student accommodation (sui generis use).
Estimated
capacity 1,530 residential homes (600 units on the shopping
(approximate)
centre and overflow car park, 500 units on the Leisure
Park and 430 units on the Decathlon site); 35,000sqm of
retail uses; 5,000sqm of business use, health facilities
(which complement rather than replace existing facilities)
and other community uses.
These amounts of development are stated to have been informed by feasibility testing
to ensure that development can be implemented consistently with design principles
and building heights set out elsewhere in the AAP. Estimates are stated elsewhere in
the AAP (in respect of all proposals sites) to be approximate and depend on factors
including compliance with other policies such as design policies. The designation
includes reference to the proximity of the Harmsworth Quays Printworks, and the
consideration of noise impacts and vehicular trips associated with that site on
development proposals surrounding it. Building heights are expected to range across
the site to provide visual interest, and help ensure a transition to surrounding sites,
creating an area which is easy to find your way around, with buildings being between
five and eight storeys in height on the shopping centre site and around Surrey Quays
Road. A taller building is identified as appropriate on the south-western corner of the
shopping centre. The AAP notes that pedestrian and cycle links around the town
centre are very poor and that development should help create safe, direct and
attractive routes through the centre for pedestrians and cyclists. The creation of
stronger links to Greenland Dock and the sharing of car parks provided for retail areas
are also referred to. These key principles are acknowledged to provide some flexibility
and could be implemented in several ways. Improvements to the site are to be
considered comprehensively. ‘Policy 17: Building heights in the core area’ of the
adopted CWAAP sets out the considerations that should be taken into account in
assessing the acceptability of tall buildings in the area.
48
Proposal Site ‘CWAAP8: Site E (Land at the corner of Surrey Quays Road and
Quebec Way’ sets out the following:
Required land uses
Residential use (Class C3) a minimum of 3,000sqm of
business use (Class B1).
Community use (Class D); hotel use (Class C1); retail use
(A classes).
Estimated
capacity 140 residential homes; 3,000sqm of business use.
(approximate)
The designation refers to this edge of centre site as suitable for residential-led mixed
use development. Again, this designation mentions the need for the layout and
distribution of development on the site to take into account the proximity of the
Harmsworth Quays Printworks and the implication this has for development proposals
for Site E, including the need for a non-residential buffer to the HQP site. New
pedestrian and cycle links through the site are also required, with a new softened
landscape boundary to the north western edge, to help retain a sense of greenness as
a key part of the character of this area
49
Draft Revised CWAAP
As stated earlier, the AAP was adopted in March 2012 following an examination-inpublic (EIP) which was held in summer 2011 and assumed that the Harmsworth
Quays Printworks would remain in situ. However, in 2011 the Daily Mail group
announced it would be vacating Harmsworth Quays Printworks. In light of this, the
Council is in the process of reviewing the AAP and a draft revised CWAAP was
approved by Cabinet in May 2013 and was subject to consultation over the summer.
50
The revised draft AAP isnow at an advanced stage, consultation has finished and the
preferred option was presented to Cabinet on 23 October 2013 with the next steps
being an Examination in Public and potential subsequent adoption. The draft AAP
does give a clear indication of the direction the Council would like to take, subject to
examination, although at this point, significant weight cannot be attached to its
detailed policies. In general terms, it will attain more weight as it moves towards
examination and adoption, as the likelihood that the revisions will be adopted
increases.
51
However, the change in circumstances which has generated the review of the AAP is
a material consideration to be weighed alongside any assessment of the adopted
policies and designations of the current AAP.
52
The proposed changes to the CWAAP relate mainly to:
• Southwarks ambition to promote activities and uses on Harmsworth Quays and
the adjacent sites which will boost the daytime economy and create a vibrant
town centre. These uses include offices, higher education, shops, leisure and
housing;
• Transport, including pedestrian and cycle routes;
• The height of new buildings and potential for public realm improvements;
• Open spaces to be protected from development;
• Infrastructure, including schools and leisure facilities.
The draft revised policy designation includes a higher estimated capacity for
residential accommodation, specifically 800 units over the Decathlon site, with an
additional unspecified figure on Site E; the estimated quantum for business and other
uses are not provided.
53
The proposed revisions to the CWAAP have been informed by several pieces of
evidence including a master-planning feasibility study for Harmsworth Quays and a
non-residential uses study. In addition to this, in November 2012 the Council also
held a consultation workshop on the future of Harmsworth Quays.
54
The draft revised CWAAP includes ‘CWAAP 7: Decathlon Site, Surrey Quays
Shopping Centre and overflow car park’ which sets out the following:
Required land uses
Up to 33,000sqm of retail uses (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4);
leisure uses (Class D2); residential uses (Class C3);
community use (Class D); public open space; town centre
car parking.
Student accommodation (sui generis use); business use
(Class B1); hotel use (Class C1).
Estimated capacity
1,400 residential homes (600 units on the shopping
centre and overflow car park, and 800 units on the
Decathlon site; 33,000sqm of retail uses; business use;
health facilities (which complement rather than replace
existing facilities) and other community uses.
The proposed changes to the designation for this site recognise the departure of the
Daily Mail printworks from the Harmsworth Quays site. There is also now a desire to
make the Canada Water basin and the surrounding public spaces a focal point in the
town centre. It is also recognised in the revised draft designation that there is
potential for tall buildings on the site. Justification for these would need to be based
on their potential to intensify the provision of town centre uses, their scope to provide
public space and the role in creating a town centre which is easy to understand and
move around.
55
The revised draft creates a much larger site designation, CWAAP24, incorporating the
Canada Water site E (the 'What!' store), the printworks, Mulberry Business Park and
Surrey Quays Leisure Park. In relation to Site E, this would replace the adopted
designation CWAAP8.
56
The draft revised CWAAP also includes ‘CWAAP 24: Site E, Mulberry Business Park,
Harmsworth Quays and Surrey Quays Leisure Park’, this does not currently include a
quantification of estimated capacity for Site E alone, but sets out the following for the
combined sites:
Required land uses
A mix of employment generating uses such as business
use (Class B1), retail use (Class A), community use
(Class D), including education and health uses and hotel
57
58
use (Class C1); and public open space.
Residential use (Class C3); student housing (sui generis
use).
Estimated capacity
Around 240,000sqm of floorspace. The number of new
homes would be dependent on the amount of nonresidential floorspace provided.
Building Heights
Tall building in excess of 30m in the core area must
demonstrate that they are of an exemplary design with
measured benefits for the public realm and surrounding
area.
As mentioned above, it is not considered that the detailed policies of the draft revised
CWAAP can be given significant weight at this stage of their preparation, although
they indicate that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the current AAP.
Proposed land use: assessment
The policy designations for sites C&E (CWAAP 7 & 8) within the adopted CWAAP set
out the required land uses as retail uses; business use; leisure uses; residential use;
community use; hotel use; public open space; and town centre parking. The
application proposal includes 16,643.9sqm of retail with 12,308.9sqm of this formed of
the Decathlon store as well as 2,800sqm of office space; 698.2sqm of cinema leisure
floorspace and a 658sqm health centre.
59
In respect of site C, residential accommodation is provided, as is retail, community
use, leisure use, significant new public open space and town centre car parking. The
retail element represents a significant contribution to the large quantum on CWAAP7.
The provision of a cinema and an additional health centre are welcome additions to
the area that will provide a service and community benefit to local residents. The
active frontages being provided will enliven the dock allowing it to fulfil a role as a
principle pedestrian thoroughfare to the town centre. It is to be recognised that the B
Class floorspace sought by policy is not provided and no hotel is proposed, although
the proposals do not preclude or prejudice these uses from coming forward elsewhere
within the wider designation or wider area covered by the AAP. The proposal for 829
residential units is in excess of the estimated capacity for the relevant parts of the
site, however it would nonetheless make a substantial contribution to the overall
housing provision sought within the designation, subject to the application of other
policies which are addressed further below. The overall quantum of housing provision
must also be viewed in the context of the departure of the Harmsworth Quay
Printworks. As previously mentioned the policies in the AAP were drafted on the
assumption that the printworks would remain and their departure would reduce
constraints on the quantum of residential development which could be accommodated
on the site. Their vacation from this site does therefore alter the character of the area
under which the original designation was made as there is no longer the same need
for the anticipated noise buffer to constrain residential development. It also presents
an opportunity to change the character of the town centre, opening up routes and links
through the site to the wider Rotherhithe /Canada Water area.
60
In respect of site E, both the required uses of residential and business use would be
provided. There would be a shortfall of B Class accommodation, although this is only
nominal. The proposal for up to 231 residential units exceeds the estimated capacity
of this site for residential floorspace, however similar considerations arise as in
respect of site C.
61
Officers consider that the proposals generally meet the objectives of AAP policy. The
quantum of retail floorspace proposed would form an important contribution to the
establishment of Canada Water as a Major Town Centre location, strengthening and
developing its reputation as a retail destination and retaining Decathlon who have
themselves become part of the identity of Canada Water and a flagship tenant. The
proposed scheme would provide a custom-designed Decathlon store with scope for a
considerable increase in floorspace (and a trading unit to allow them to operate
continuously during the construction works which is a requirement of any development
coming forward on this site prior to the expiry of the Decathlon lease in 2028). This will
ensure an anchor retailer prior to the delivery of the scheme which is a benefit to the
area. The application proposal also includes the creation of up to 1,030 new homes,
which would make a significant contribution to Southwark’s housing stock and form an
important contribution to the Canada Water housing targets. The development
proposal includes the creation of a new public realm landscaped area that could
complement the existing Canada Water Basin forming an important public space. The
proposal does not introduce any land uses not identified as acceptable in the CWAAP
designation.
62
There are areas of divergence from AAP policy and capacity estimates, as identified
above. The proposed development surpasses the expected quantum of development
designated for the site, albeit as part of a designation over a wider area. However it is
not considered that these should prevent the grant of planning permission, subject to
the application of other specific policies as addressed below. The shortfall in business
floorspace and a hotel use would not preclude the achievement of this development
elsewhere as part of the policy aspirations for the area, and the exceedance of
residential capacity estimates should be seen in the context of the anticipated
departure of the printworks. The expense of accommodating the requirements of
Decathlon has also generated viability considerations which has prompted increased
residential provision (and is addressed further below when addressing affordable
housing).
63
Overall, subject to the consideration of detailed policies as set out below, officers
consider that the application proposal would deliver land uses broadly in accordance
with those included in the CWAAP 2012, and that this is in accordance with the vision
for this area set out in the Core Strategy 2011 as a Major Town Centre destination.
Although significant weight cannot be given to the emerging revised AAP, the
proposals would also accord generally with the land use principles set out in the
current draft.
Environmental impact assessment
64
Applications where an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required will either
be mandatory or discretionary, depending on whether they constitute Schedule 1
(mandatory) or Schedule 2 (discretionary) development of the Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. In this case the
proposed development falls under Schedule 2, Category 10b ‘urban development
project’ of the EIA Regulations where the threshold for these projects is a site area
exceeding 0.5ha. The application site area is 3.76 ha and therefore is well above this
trigger threshold. An EIA would only be required for this current application site, if it is
likely to generate significant environmental effects having regard to the criteria set out
in Schedule 3 of the Regulations which include:
i). The characteristics of the development;
ii). The environmental sensitivity of the location; and
iii). The characteristics of the potential impact.
In the present case, a Screening Opinion was issued by the authority on the
application proposals (application reference 12-AP-2357). This determined that the
development proposal is EIA development (regulation 4(2) of the 2011 Regulations),
and the application is therefore accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
65
Prior to the submission of the application, the applicant requested a formal ‘Scoping
Opinion’ under Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations to ascertain what information the
local planning authority considered should be included within the Environmental
Statement (ES) (application reference 12-AP-2457).
66
Regulation 3 of the EIA Regulations precludes the granting of planning permission
unless the Council has first taken the ‘environmental information’ into consideration.
The ‘environmental information’ means the ES, including any further information, any
representations made by consultation bodies, and any other person about the
environmental effects of the development.
67
The submitted Environmental Statement (ES) comprises Main Text and Figures;
Technical Appendices; Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment; and NonTechnical Summary. Updated documents were submitted in August 2013 (ES
Addendum Technical Appendix A-1: Townscape and Visual Assessment by Ettwein
Bridges Architects, August 2013; ES Daylight and Sunlight Addendum Chapter (and
Appendices 12.1-12.5 by Waldrams, dated 12th August 2013). The ES details the
results of the EIA and provides a detailed verification of the potential beneficial and
adverse environmental impacts in relation to the proposed development, including the
following areas of impact (in the order they appear in the ES);
• Ground conditions and contamination;
• Hydrology, flood risk and drainage;
• Cultural heritage;
• Noise and vibration;
• Air quality;
• Townscape and visual;
• Socio-Economics;
• Waste;
• Daylight and sunlight;
• Wind;
• Ecology;
• Transport; and
• Residual effects.
68
In assessing the likely environmental effects of a scheme, the ES must identify the
existing (baseline) environmental conditions prevailing at the site, and the likely
environmental impacts (including magnitude, duration, and significance) taking
account of potential sensitivity receptors. It further identifies measures to mitigate any
adverse impacts, and a summary of potential positive and negative residual effects
remaining after mitigation measures is included in the ES in order to assess their
significance and acceptability. The Environmental Statement also discusses
alternatives, including the ‘no development scenario’ and this is discussed further
below.
69
Within the submitted ES the following generic matrix is used to define the level of
significance, described in the table below:Table 4: Significance Matrix
Magnitude of Impact
Sensitivity / Value
of receptor
Major
Moderate
Minor
Negligible
Very High
Substantial
Substantial
Moderate
Slight
High
Substantial
Moderate
Slight
Negligible
Medium
Moderate
Slight
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Slight
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
The four levels of significance defined by the generic matrix are described as follows:
• Substantial – very large or large change in environmental conditions (e.g.
unacceptable pollution levels, catastrophic destruction of habitat). This could
result in expedience of statutory objectives and / or breaches of legislation. An
effect which in isolation could have a material influence on the decision making
process;
• Moderate – Intermediate change in environmental conditions. An effect which
on its own could have some influence on decision making, particularly when
combined with other similar effects;
• Slight – Small change in environmental conditions. An effect which on its own
is likely to have a minor influence on decision making but when combined with
other effects could have a more material influence;
• Negligible – No discernible change in environmental conditions. An effect that
is likely to have a negligible influence, irrespective of other effects.
Effects are also described as:• Adverse – detrimental effects to an environmental resource or receptor; or,
• Beneficial – advantageous effects to an environmental resource or receptor.
In terms of Daylight and Sunlight impacts, the ES uses a different scale rating,
referring to being Major, Moderate and Minor.
70
Reference to cumulative effects includes reference to two types of cumulative
impacts:• Impact interaction – the interaction of individual effects, for example noise,
airborne dust or visual effects from the proposed development on a single
receptor; and
• Cumulative effects of several development schemes – which may on an
individual basis be insignificant, but when considered cumulatively may have a
significant effect.
71
Additional environmental information or ‘Further Information’ (ES Addendum May
2013) was received during the course of the application (May 2013 and August 2013)
and in accordance with Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations all consultees and
neighbours were re-consulted and a press notice re-advertised. The further
information included revisions to the planning application and is set out in appendix 4.
The ES and Further Information (ES Addendum – Regulation 22 response) has been
the subject of consultation, the details of which are set out at the end of this report.
The assessment of the ES and Further Information and the conclusions reached
regarding the environmental effects of the proposed development as well as mitigation
measures are set out in the report.
72
73
Alternatives
Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, an Environmental
Statement is required to provide ‘an outline of the main alternatives studied by the
applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for this choice, taking into
account the environmental effects’. The Environmental Statement has considered the
‘no development’ alternative, the use of alternative sites, and the evolution of the
design in response to issues raised by key stakeholders and preliminary assessment
of environmental impacts of the scheme.
74
The ‘no development’ scenario was discounted by the applicant because the following
adverse impacts were considered to result following from that scenario:• Continued limited range of shops in the town centre with Southwark residents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
continuing to shop outside the borough;
Continued lack of restaurants and cafes, no improvement to poor transport
links for pedestrians and cyclists, and no new links to the wider area,
particularly Greenland Dock;
No public realm / connectivity improvements as a result of the development;
No net increase in housing provision as a result of the development;
Current architecture would remain;
Re-development of an existing under-utilised previously developed site would
not be realised;
Contributions to the wider regeneration phases and objectives of the Canada
Water Area Action Plan would not be realised; and
The positive socio-economic benefits from the proposed additional retail and
leisure space would not be realised.
75
The ‘alternative site’ scenario was also considered by the applicant. The submitted
ES describes that the proposed development responds to the needs of two specific
sites highlighted in the Canada Water Area Action Plan and that no additional
alternative sites or locations for the proposed development were considered to be
appropriate.
76
The submitted ES also describes the Design Evolution of the scheme with four key
steps of the design evolution identified:• Relocating ‘Decathlon’ in a viable position that would create a suitable store
and allow ‘Decathlon’ to operate continuously during the construction process;
• Identification of key connections across the site;
• Development and testing of three masterplan scenarios that examined very
different layouts for the site but that all responded to the initial ‘Decathlon’ and
connectivity studies; and
• Detailed evolution of the individual buildings and their overall composition in
terms of heights and massing.
77
The final version of the proposed development is for the construction of five buildings
around a publicly accessible landscaped area. Alternative quantums and building
heights have been considered as part of the daylight and sunlight assessment
however this was not considered by the applicant to be a deliverable option.
78
Cumulative Impacts
The submitted ES has taken into account a number of committed (existing or
approved) development schemes in the vicinity of the site. This is in accordance with
the Circular (DETR, 1999), which refers only to cumulative impacts of other existing
and approved developments. There are eleven committed schemes, seven in
Southwark and four in Lewisham, and an overview of the possible cumulative impacts
of this proposed development with those committed schemes has been provided. A
table of the committed schemes considered is provided in appendix 3 of this report.
79
During construction of the proposed development, similar works on the other
committed developments in the area would be likely to result in temporarily increased
traffic, noise, emissions and visual impacts on the local townscape. The
implementation of mitigation measures described in the Construction Environmental
Management Plan for the development (as well as plans relative to other permitted
developments) will minimise the cumulative impacts from these construction effects.
80
The key cumulative impacts of the development once completed are described in the
applicants Environmental Statement and set out below:- Cumulatively the consented and proposed mixed use / residential developments
within 500m of the site are expected to result in approximately 1,290 residential units,
in addition to the units proposed by this application, contributing to the CWAAP
housing targets;
- The increasing population will result in additional demand on existing social
infrastructure, measures to mitigate these impacts are included as part of application
proposals;
- Likely net beneficial effect on the site and surround areas as a result of treating /
removing areas of contaminated land, as well as the inclusion of mitigation measures
to prevent land contamination during the operation of the development;
- No significant cumulative effect with respect to flood risk / drainage or water supply is
envisaged, subject to agreed mitigation with Thames Water and the Environment
Agency;
- Cumulative effects have been predicted and assessed in relation to noise and air
quality, and the results detailed in the submitted ES. The impacts of traffic flows
associated with proposed and committed developments have been assessed, along
with noise from fixed plant and aircraft noise. Mitigation measures are recommended
to prevent significant cumulative effects in association with noise and air quality.
Cumulative Impact with Mulberry Business Park
81
There are a number of consented and proposed schemes in the vicinity of the
development that are likely to have cumulative impacts with regards to social
infrastructure in the area, most notably the Kings College London development at the
former Mulberry Business Park.
82
A cumulative townscape and daylight/sunlight assessment was undertaken by the
applicants to take into account the intentions of Kings College to redevelop Mulberry
Business Park to create a new student and educational village. In terms of the
townscape assessment, the assessment states that aspirations for Mulberry Business
Park will have no significant adverse impact on views to or from the site in addition to
those already considered for the current Canada Water proposals. The daylight and
sunlight study also seeks to demonstrate that there will be no significant change to
surrounding properties daylight/sunlight in addition to those already assessed for the
Canada Water C and E schemes.
Conclusions of EIA
83
The ES concludes that in relation to the majority of environmental impacts, the
residual impacts of the proposed development (demolition, construction, and
operational phases) following mitigation would be negligible. However, it is explained
that there are likely to be some adverse impacts of minor to moderate significance,
particularly during the demolition and construction phases and traffic, as well as some
long term impacts from the completed development. There are also a number of
beneficial impacts as a result of the proposed development. The impacts described in
the submitted ES are summarised below:-
84
Ground conditions and contamination;
It is intended that a site specific ground investigation and risk assessment is
undertaken, the results of which will then determine the remediation works to be
carried out to reduce the risks from any potential contamination. The assessment
demonstrates that through the implementation of a number of mitigation measures,
the overall significance of environmental effects during the site preparation and
construction phases of the proposed development in relation to ground conditions will
be negligible. Any identified ground contamination will be mitigated, such that on
completion of the construction phase of the proposed development, the overall
significance of environmental effects with respect to ground conditions during the
operational and occupational phase will be slight beneficial. This issue is discussed
further in paragraphs 313-314 below.
85
Hydrology, flood risk and drainage;
A Flood Risk Assessment including Utilities, Foul and Surface Water Assessment has
been undertaken to inform the ES. A reduction in surface water runoff will be
achieved through the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in all phases. The
residual effects on the public sewer and water supply network during construction and
operation is considered to be negligible with mitigation. The effect on public sewer
flows and the potable water supply network will be negligible long term. Slight
beneficial effects to public sewer flows and water quality are expected such as peak
run-off from the site to surface water sewers being decreased. Providing the
mitigation identified in the Flood Risk Assessment is in place the residual flood risk will
be negligible. This issue is discussed further in paragraphs 324-325 below.
86
Cultural heritage;
The construction phase of the scheme is likely to result in direct impacts upon
archaeological features and deposits. A combination of responsive design and a
phased programme of archaeological investigation within the site are proposed to
ensure suitable mitigation. The following mitigation is proposed:Geoarchaeological monitoring and assessment of the palaeoenvironmental deposits
within the proposed development site;
A watching brief on groundworks for the scheme, and associated excavation of any
significant deposits (ensuring the recording of any Roman deposits or features);
A watching brief of groundworks to record any features associated with Albion Pond,
Quebec Pond, Canada Pond and Canada Yard.
Following the above mitigation, the ES concludes that the impact from the
development would be a permanent residual neutral to slight adverse effect.
87
Re-use of the dry dock will require minor modification to its structure. A watching brief
will be maintained during its re-excavation accompanied by recording of the exposed
structure. Bringing the dry dock back into both visibility and functional use would have
a moderate beneficial impact. Landscape and heritage interpretation will have a
moderate beneficial impact translating to a slight beneficial residual effect lasting the
lifetime of the development. This issue is discussed further in paragraphs 334-335
below and in the Planning Obligations section.
88
Noise and vibration;
The ES identifies that there would be significant noise and vibration impacts during the
construction phase of the proposed development. It is intended that a detailed
Construction Environmental Management Plan be prepared prior to commencement of
construction and that this will contain mitigation measures to reduce impacts. The
mitigation measures will result in short to medium term residual effects of moderate
adverse significance to the closest receptors. This issue is discussed further in
paragraphs 127-128 below.
89
During the operation of the development noise may result from mechanical ventilation
and road traffic associated with the buildings. It is proposed that operational mitigation
measures reduce impacts from the development, including the location of plant at
basement / ground level, specification of acoustic glazing and the use of high sound
insulation building envelope constructions. The internal ambient noise levels and
noise from fixed plant within the proposed development will result in residual effects of
negligible significance in the long-term. Predicted road traffic noise was modeled with
committed development and proposed developments and has shown that there will be
a negligible daytime effect during the operational phase of the proposed development.
There will be negligible residual vibration effects from the London Underground
Jubilee Line.
90
Air quality;
Impacts during construction will be mitigated by following the Greater London
Authority best practice guidance for control for dust emissions from demolition and
construction sites. The Construction and Environment Management Plan will be used
for mitigation measures to minimise emissions from construction machinery. The
emissions from the Combined Heat and Power units and boilers during the operational
stage will be mitigated by means of the design to ensure that the release height is
sufficient to ensure the impacts on air quality are negligible. The air quality effects
during construction have been classified as slight adverse residual effect. During
operation there will be a negligible air quality residual effect assuming that the
required mitigation measures are in place.This issue is discussed further in
91
Townscape and visual;
The submitted ES concludes that the new buildings will provide a new focal point and
landmark for views of the site. The residual effects of the development from the
applicants Townscape and Visual assessment have been concluded to be beneficial
in the submitted ES. The Townscape and Visual Assessment was updated in August
2013 and confirms that the proposal, taken together with the proposals at Mulberry
Business park, would have no adverse impacts. This issue is discussed further in
92
Socio-Economics;
During construction it is predicted that the proposed development will support 418 full
time equivalent construction jobs.
Once operational, the new residents and
commercial tenants (retail, restaurant, office and medical spaces) will contribute
directly to the local economy through the purchase of local goods and services. The
proposed development would contribute to meeting Southwark’s housing targets by
providing approximately 1,000 new homes. Landscaping around the development will
improve the public realm and provide enhanced green links for pedestrians and
cyclists to the wider area. If a health centre is provided, this could produce a
moderate beneficial effect on health care provision. The increased residential
population of the proposed development will result in demand for school places, but
this will be mitigated through appropriate section 106 contributions.
During
construction disruption, noise and dust impacts will be mitigated through effective
communication and good construction practice; the residual effects will be of slight to
moderate adverse significance. The operational phase will result in long term socioeconomic residual effects of substantial beneficial significance. This issue is discussed
93
Waste;
The residual effects from waste production during construction will be slight adverse,
due to the production of cut material during basement and foundation excavations and
any hazardous waste. The residual effects of waste production during the operation
phase from residential, commercial and public realm will be negligible. This issue is
discussed further in paragraphs below.
94
Daylight and sunlight;
The residual effect of loss of daylight and sunlight to surrounding properties as a result
of the proposed development is categorised in the applicants ES as minor adverse,
with one incidence of moderate adverse effect, being the loss of sunlight to Heligan
House. Following review of the documents Officers are of the view that the daylight
and sunlight impacts of the proposal should be re-classified as at least moderate
adverse. It should be noted that there is a degree of subjectivity in terms of quantifying
the impact, in this case the Council consider the number of windows affected to result
in a moderate adverse impact. This issue was raised previously with the applicant
however the Environmental Statement has not been revised in this regard as the
applicants maintain that there will be a minor impact. As such no mitigation measures
are suggested or offered. Issues surrounding daylight and sunlight are discussed
further in paragraphs 103-123 below;
95
Wind;
All existing areas at street level of neighbouring residential properties and open
spaces will be suitable for their intended use resulting in a negligible significance of
effects. The proposed development is anticipated to have a negligible effect on the
wind climate of the wider area. The residual effect from wind across the site of the
proposed development and neighbouring areas is negligible. This issue is discussed
96
Ecology;
The residual effects to the ecology within and surrounding the proposed development
are unlikely to have significant effects on the designation of sites of importance
surrounding the proposed development or protected species. Landscaping and other
ecology enhancements will result in a long term beneficial residual effect. These
impacts are discussed further in paragraphs 274-279 below.
97
Transport;
Subject to the mitigation measures being in place, it is concluded in the ES that the
proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the public transport
services in the area. The major transport issues can be divided into two main sections,
namely those impacts associated with the construction period and the key transport
mitigation measures.
98
The main issues associated with construction include the routing of HGVs, servicing
and construction logistics, onsite accommodation/storage and parking, sustainable
transport options for staff and commitments to utilise local staff and
suppliers/contractors where possible.
99
The main issues associated with construction include the routing of HGVs, servicing
and construction logistics, onsite accommodation/storage and parking, sustainable
transport options for staff and commitments to utilise local staff and
suppliers/contractors where possible.
100 The Key transport mitigation measures include the submission of a Framework Travel
Plan, preparation of a delivery and servicing plan prior to occupation, cycle and
pedestrian signage strategy, land allocation for potential future cycle hire docking
station, car club bays with membership for residents, transport network improvements
and the preparation of a full construction and logistics plan prior to commencement of
works on site, which can be secured through a planning condition. Transport impacts
are discussed further in paragraphs 136-156 below.
101 A detailed assessment of the potential and residual impacts of the proposed
development taking into account the findings of the ES is discussed further below;
Impact of proposed development on amenity of adjoining occupiers and
surrounding area
102 Policy
Saved policy 3.2 'Protection of amenity' of the Southwark Plan, states that planning
permission will not be granted for developments that result in a loss of amenity to
surrounding occupiers. The SPD: Residential Design Standards (2011) contains
detailed design and planning advice for new developments in order to safeguard and
retain acceptable levels of amenity for adjoining or nearby occupiers in terms of
outlook, privacy and daylight/sunlight. The Building Research Establishment (BRE)
provide further detail on site layout planning for daylight and sunlight.
103 Daylight and sunlight
The Building Research Establishment (BRE) 2011 guidelines – Site Layout Planning
for Daylight and Sunlight: a guide to good practice is the document referred to by most
local authorities. The BRE Guide covers amenity requirements for sunlight and
daylight to buildings around any development site. The introduction to the guidelines
state: "The guide is intended for building designers and their clients, consultants and
planning officials. The advice given here is not mandatory and this document should
not be seen as an instrument of planning policy. Its aim is to help rather than constrain
the developer. Although it gives numerical guidelines, these should be interpreted
flexibly because natural lighting is only one of the many factors in site layout design."
104 The amount of light available to any window depends upon the amount of
unobstructed sky that can be seen from the centre of the window under consideration.
The amount of visible sky and consequently the amount of available skylight is
assessed by calculating the vertical sky component at the centre of the window.
105 If the vertical sky component is greater than 27% then enough skylight should still be
reaching the window of the existing building. Any reduction below this level should be
kept to a minimum. The guidance states that If the vertical sky component with the
new development in place, is both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former
value (more than a 20% reduction), then occupants of the existing building will notice
the reduction in the amount of skylight. The VSC calculation only measures light
reaching the outside plane of the window under consideration, so this is potential light
rather than actual. Depending upon the room and window size, the room may still be
adequately lit with a lesser VSC value than the target values referred to above. The
guidelines advise that bathrooms, toilets, storerooms, circulation areas and garages
need not be analysed. The guidelines also suggest that where layouts of existing
neighbours are known that the distribution of daylight within rooms is reviewed
although bedrooms are considered to be less important.
106 Paragraph F6 of the BRE guidelines (page 62) states that when assessing loss of
daylight to an existing building the VSC methodology is generally recommended as it
does not depend on numerous variables outside of the control of a developer which
form part of the ADF formula.
107 A Daylight and Sunlight Report has been prepared by Waldrams Chartered Surveyors
for the application site, which assesses the proposed development against the
Building Research Establishments (BRE) guide ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight &
Sunlight 2011: A Guide to Good Practice, Second Edition’.
108 In terms of daylight, two methods were used to test levels, the Vertical Sky
Component (VSC) was used both within the development and for surrounding
properties, and in the development VSC and ADF was calculated. The ADF
calculation assesses the quality and distribution of light within a room served by a
window and takes into account the VSC. The VSC calculates the amount of daylight
reaching the outside face of the window. The applicants surveys do not include a 'No
Sky Line' which is an additional method of assessing impacts of a development by
looking at daylight distribution within a room.
109 As previously stated, the BRE guidance explains that a property should retain a VSC
level of at least 27%, in order to confirm that diffused daylighting remains satisfactory.
Should a property receive a VSC level of less than 27% following construction of a
new development, then the proposed VSC should not be less than 0.8 times its former
(existing) value, if the reduction in daylight is to remain unnoticeable. When the
internal layout and room-use in a dwelling is known, ADF can be used to assess
whether the resulting daylight levels are acceptable. ADF uses VSC to confirm the
angle of sky visibility and then formulates the quality of daylighting within the room,
taking into account the room’s use.
110 The BRE recommends the following minimum ADF values: - 2% for kitchens and open
plan living, 1.5% for living rooms, and 1% for bedrooms. The BRE advises against the
use of ADF as a tool to measure the impact of a development on adjoining or nearby
occupiers which instead should be considered using VSC. ADF is only considered as
an appropriate measure of assessing daylight to proposed dwellings.
111 As the site forms part of the wider Canada Water Area Action Plan, the applicant has
argued that the area is an overall emerging development and as such ADF should be
considered an appropriate tool. Officers are of the view that the existing dwellings
surrounding the site have been completed/occupied for a significant period of time
prior to the publication of the CWAAP and as such are not considered part of the
overall emerging scheme for Canada Water. Additionally, the room layouts and room
use for all buildings within the Water gardens are assumptions made by the developer
as opposed to being confirmed by either inspection or review of consented building
regulations drawings. For this reason the remainder of the assessment will focus on
VSC as this is seen to be the most accurate and relevant assessment.
112 Page 17 of the Waldrams report refers to Summary Table 2 which provides a distilled
summary of the existing vs. proposed VSC results only (i.e. without Daylight
Distribution or APSH results). This table confirms that in relation to Eden House,
Helligan House, Giverny House and Toronto House the majority of windows assessed
would experience material VSC losses, in excess of 40% of existing values. An
analysis of each building follows below.
113 Cedar House
Cedar House contains 24 windows which overlook the application site, of which 13
have an existing VSC in excess of 27%. The previously consented scheme retained
five windows with a VSC in excess of 27% whilst the proposed scheme retains three
windows with a VSC in excess of 27%. This results in 21 windows having less than
27% VSC and 13 windows that will experience a reduction of more than 20%. This
results in seven previously compliant windows (existing V. proposed) now failing to
meet the minimum requirements in terms of VSC as a result of having a VSC figure
below 27% and experiencing a loss of at least 20% of the former value that previously
had a VSC in excess of 27%.
114 Eden House
Eden House contains 54 windows which overlook the application site, of which 22
seven windows with a VSC in excess of 27% whilst the proposed scheme will retain
only five windows with at least 27% VSC. This results in 49 windows having less than
27% VSC and 45 windows that will experience a loss of more than 20%. Overall this
will result in 16 previously compliant windows (existing V. proposed) now failing to
meet the BRE guidance as a result of having a VSC figure below 27% and
experiencing a loss of at least 20% of the former value that previously had a VSC in
excess of 27%.
115 Heligan House
Heligan House contains 59 windows which overlook the application site, of which 28
have an existing VSC of at least 27%. The previously consented scheme retained 14
windows in excess of 27% VSC whilst the proposed scheme will retain eight windows
with at least 27% VSC. This results in 51 windows with less than 27% VSC and 53
windows that will experience a loss of at least 20% VSC. This demonstrates that 20
previously compliant windows (existing V. proposed) will now fail to meet the BRE
VSC guidelines as a result of having a VSC figure below 27% and experiencing a loss
of at least 20% of the former value that previously had a VSC in excess of 27%.
116 Giverney House
Giverney House contains 103 windows which overlook the application site, of which
52 have an existing VSC of at least 27%. The previously consented scheme retained
45 windows with at least 27% VSC whilst the proposed scheme will retain 14 windows
with at least 27% VSC. This equates to 89 windows having less than 27% VSC and 89
windows that will experience a loss of VSC in excess of 20%. A total of 37 previously
compliant windows (existing V. proposed) will now fail to meet the minimum VSC
requirements outlined by the BRE as a result of having a VSC figure below 27% and
excess of 27%.
117 Pavilion House
Pavilion house contains 65 windows which overlook the application site, of which 52
windows with at least 27% VSC whilst the proposed scheme will retain 32 windows
with at least 27% VSC. This results in 33 windows with less than 27% VSC and 33
windows that will experience a loss of more than 20% VSC. There will be 19
previously compliant windows that now fail to meet the minimum requirements in
terms of VSC as a result of having a VSC figure below 27% and experiencing a loss of
at least 20% of the former value that previously had a VSC in excess of 27%. The
results demonstrate that 47 previously compliant windows (existing V. proposed) will
no longer meet the guidelines as a result of having a VSC figure below 27% and
excess of 27%.
118 Toronto House
Toronto House contains 144 windows which overlook the application site, of which 81
windows with a VSC in excess of 27% whilst the proposed scheme will retain 21
windows with at least 27% VSC and 107 windows that will experience a loss of at
least 20% VSC. The results demonstrate that 47 previously compliant windows
(existing V. proposed) will no longer meet the guidelines as a result of having a VSC
figure below 27% and experiencing a loss of at least 20% of the former value that
previously had a VSC in excess of 27%.
119 Montreal House
Montreal House contains 175 windows which overlook the application site, of which 65
56 windows with at least 27% VSC whilst the proposed scheme will retain 42 windows
with 27% VSC. As such, 133 windows will experience a VSC of less than 27% under
the current proposal and 39 windows will experience a loss of VSC in excess of 20%.
Overall there will be 20 windows that previously complied with the guidance (existing
V. proposed) that no longer meet the minimum requirements as a result of having a
VSC figure below 27% and experiencing a loss of at least 20% of the former value that
previously had a VSC in excess of 27%.
120 In terms of sunlight, there are a number of occurrences in all surrounding buildings,
where the APSH with the proposed development in place is less than the
recommended BRE level. However in most cases, the total retained APSH level is in
excess of 25%, and reductions in winter are generally only marginally below the 5%
APSH criteria. It should also be noted that only livingrooms are considered important
in relation to sunlight, and most livingrooms retain adequate sunlight in the post
development condition. Again as room use has not been confirmed for the majority of
buildings on site, the focus of the assessment should be in relation to VSC. The
applicants assessment studied a number of alternative scenarios: mirror image,
removing overhanging balconies, and an assessment of the previous 2011 consent.
These have some value as a comparison with the proposed scheme, but primary
consideration must be the impact of the proposed development in relation to the
existing situation. It should however be noted that proposed scheme has a worse
impact than mirror image, which would confirm that existing buildings are not 'bad
neighbours' in the sense of being built too close to site boundary, or taking
unreasonable extent of light from the application site.
121 Conclusion on daylight and sunlight
The Council have had the applicants daylight and sunlight information assessed
independantly by an external consultant who has verified that the model used is
broadly accurate however the only way to completely confirm accuracy of the model
would be to complete a new one independant from that of the applicants. The
consultants shared the Councils concerns regarding the applicants over reliance on
ADF as a means to assess the impacts of the development mainly as a result of the
room size, layout and use being based on an assumption that cannot be verified. As
outlined above the appropriate tool for assessing the impact of the proposal on
adjacent buildings is VSC. In terms of VSC it is clear that the development will have
some moderate adverse impacts, as illustrated by the fact that 166 windows which
previously had levels of VSC in excess of 27% will now achieve levels below 27%, in
addition to experiencing at least a 20% reduction in VSC. This equates to 27% of
windows across all neighbouring buildings.
122 It is acknowledged therefore that there will be a noticeable adverse impact on some
local residents and officers consider this to be more significant than the slight/minor
adverse impacts outlined in the ES. However, the proposals would meet wider and
important policy objectives which are considered to outweigh these impacts on
balance. The residential units would make a significant contribution towards the
housing targets for Southwark and the Canada Water area, as reflected in policy and
the Council’s Strategic Housing objectives. The form of development would enable
substantial improvements to the public realm and townscape. The proposals would
also contribute to Canada Water achieving the policy objective of performing as a
Major Town Centre. If it is to realise its potential to become a housing, retail and
entertainment destination in line with the functions of a Major Town Centre then
certain adverse impacts are to be anticipated, including effects on daylight levels
which can be expected to a degree in highly urbanised areas. Overall officers consider
as a matter of judgment that the ability of the proposals to achieve these wider policy
objectives outweighs the effect on the daylight and sunlight of existing residents.
123 The previous planning consent did demonstrate that there would be an adverse
impact in terms of daylight and sunlight, however that scheme was unable to be
implemented and did not deliver a similar quantum of benefits to the Canada Water
Area. The current scheme is deliverable albeit with a greater degree of impact.
Officers consider as a matter of judgment that it would be appropriate in the absence
of any suitable alternative scheme,on balance and having consideration to the
proposed benefits and amenity impacts, to approve this current scheme to enable the
timely regeneration of the area to be brought forward, consistent with policy
aspirations.
124 Privacy and outlook
Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Design Standards 2011 states that
in order to prevent unnecessary problems of overlooking, loss of privacy and
disturbance, development should achieve the following distances:
• A minimum distance of 12m at the front of the building and any elevation that
fronts onto a highway;
• A minimum distance of 21m at the rear of the building.
125 The application proposal has been designed in accordance with these minimum
distances, both to surrounding properties and between habitable room windows within
the development site. The proposal is 20m away across the Albion Channel to the
closest neighbouring residents and each block is located over 12m away from each
other across new streets within the development site. This facade of the building is
considered a front with a very public face. Across the courtyard for C1 there are only
oblique relationships between blocks that are generally over a 30m distance.
Between blocks proposed on the development site and the Water Gardens
development on Surrey Quays Road a distance of 21.3m is retained. It is therefore
concluded that this will be sufficient to safeguard privacy. Outlook is a function of both
distance and the height of the surrounding buildings. As discussed above, there are
some concerns about daylight impacts, but it may be that notwithstanding, a
reasonable outlook can be maintained.
126 In terms of policy it is clear that the proposed development will provide a satisfactory
and policy compliant level of outlook for existing occupiers in adjacent blocks and will
maintain reasonable levels of amenity consistent with the Town Centre site. The
proposal is therefore compliant with saved policy 3.2 of The Southwark Plan and the
SPD: Residential Design Standards.
Noise and vibration
127 During construction, there is potential for noise and vibration impact upon existing
residents in the area. To reduce these potential impacts, a detailed Construction
Environmental Management Plan will be required prior to any works on the site, to be
agreed by the Planning Authority, and to include mitigation measures to reduce the
potential for adverse impacts from noise and vibration. The plan will need to include
measures to minimise vibration generation and noise, such as avoiding breaking out
concrete using percussion techniques, and using progressive building collapse. An
acoustic screen or barrier can also be used for static items of plant and work areas
where feasible. This impact was addressed in Paragraph 88 as part of the conclusions
on the Environmental Statement which considered any potential adverse impacts as
being part of the construction phase. It is intended that a detailed Construction
Environmental Management Plan be prepared prior to commencement of construction
and that this will contain mitigation measures to reduce impacts. The mitigation
measures will result in short to medium term residual effects of moderate adverse
significance to the closest receptors. This is considered an acceptable approach in
order to enable development.
128 During the operation of the proposed development there are no expected adverse
impacts in relation to noise. Any permanent plant associated with uses on the site will
be conditioned to ensure insulation that will prevent noise breakout. It is also
recommended that hours of opening of the retail uses are restricted up to 23:30 at
night, to prevent possible noise from visitors departing any new bars or restaurants
during night time hours.
129 Impacts resulting from increased population in the area
Strategic Policy 14 – ‘Implementation and Delivery’ - seeks to protect, enhance and
regenerate Southwark by working with infrastructure providers, using planning
obligations to mitigate development and carrying out meaningful consultation. A
number of objections have been received from residents, raising concerns about the
impact upon existing infrastructure in the area, from the increased population that
would result from the development. This is particularly in relation to impacts upon
public transport (the underground), the road network, schools, nurseries and
healthcare.
130 Policies within the Core Strategy and AAP describe how we can ensure that
development can achieve growth sustainably. Strategic targets are set out in the Core
Strategy for the growth in population in different parts of the borough, and policy 1
'Sustainable development' describes how we can allow the intensification of areas
through development, while considering the needs of the community where
development occurs.
This means we can regenerate areas while requiring
developments to contribute positively to the surrounding environment and
infrastructure. As part of this, strategic policy 14 'Implementation and delivery'
describes how development should use planning obligations to reduce or mitigate its
possible impacts.
131 In relation to impacts upon infrastructure that could result from an increased
population in the area, it should be noted that the as part of the development, the
applicant will be providing financial contributions to mitigate the impacts of the
development. The Canada Water AAP designates this site and a number of others for
development, and there is an expectation that population numbers will increase as a
result, particularly as the site is listed as an Intensification Area in the London Plan.
The AAP includes 'Policy 33: s106 Planning Obligations' which describes how
planning obligations will be used to deliver key infrastructure to mitigate the impact of
development. Appendix 6 and Appendix 7 go onto explain that the creation of a
successful and sustainable town centre will depend upon the creation of shared
infrastructure from which all future residents will benefit.
132 The plan describes what improvements are required, and the planning obligations
sought as part of this application proposal would be used in accordance with the
Plan's strategy for mitigating impacts of development in the Canada Water Area.
While the level of accommodation proposed in this development is in excess of that
set out in the adopted CWAAP designation, the level of financial contribution is based
upon quantum and uplift in population as a result of a development. Therefore these
planning obligations can be used to increase the capacity and quality of infrastructure
in the area, including transport, education, health and open space in the area, in
proportion to the size of the development, and this is discussed further below in this
report. It is also intended that a health centre form part of the development which will
provide additional GP capacity on the site for both future occupiers and neighbouring
residents.
Impact of adjoining and nearby uses on occupiers and users of proposed
development
133 The policy background for this section remains the same as that outlined in paragraph
102 above. Namely, Saved policy 3.2 'Protection of amenity' of the Southwark Plan,
states that planning permission will not be granted for developments that result in a
loss of amenity to surrounding occupiers. The SPD: Residential Design Standards
(2011) contains detailed design and planning advice for new developments in order to
safeguard and retain acceptable levels of amenity for adjoining or nearby occupiers in
terms of outlook, privacy and daylight/sunlight. The site is located within an area of
mixed commercial/retail and residential uses in addition to public uses such as the
library.
134 Adjacent to the site is the existing Harmsworth Quays Printworks site. This site has
historically created a noisy environment, that would potentially have adversely
impacted new residential nearby. However, the printworks have announced that they
will be vacating the site, and the departure of the printworks has already commenced.
Therefore it is not considered that any adverse impact would result from the operation
of the printworks upon future occupiers of this development proposal. Although the
Harmsworth Quays site could potentially be used for a new printworks, this is unlikely
given the nature and location of the site. The relocation of the printworks will result in
the removal of the requirement for a noise buffer and the revised CWAAP sets out a
designation for mixed uses on the HQP site.
135 There are no other uses in the area that would adversely impact future occupiers of
this development scheme, the character of which is in keeping with existing uses in
the area.
Transport issues
136 Policy
Saved policies 5.1 'Locating developments', 5.2 'Transport impacts', 5.3 ' Walking and
cycling', 5.6 'Car parking' and 5.7 'Parking standards for disabled people and the
mobility impaired' of the Southwark Plan (2007), require the impacts that a
development may have upon the transport network, be taken into account in the
determination of planning applications. Strategic policy 2 'Sustainable transport' of the
Core Strategy (2011) details that developments should seek to encourage walking,
cycling and the use of public transport rather than travel by car. Policy 6.3 of The
London Plan (2011) seeks to assess the effects of development on transport capacity
whilst CWAAP policies 6 ‘Walking and cycling, 7 ‘Public transport’, 8 ‘Vehicular traffic’,
9 ‘Parking for retail and leisure’ and 10 ‘Parking for residential development in the
Core Area’ seeks to ensure that the area is highly accessible, particularly by
sustainable types of transport and to reduce the impact of new development on
congestion and pollution.
Traffic movements
137 A revised Transport Assessment (TA) was submitted as part of the revised /
addendum submission in May 2013. This sets out an assessment of predicted
transport impacts in relation to the proposed development, using a revised modal split
methodology that uses more up to date survey results than that included in the
originally submitted TA. Officers are satisfied that the information that has informed
the preparation of the TA is now accurate and reflects the existing transport
characteristics of the area. This then allows a more precise assessment of the
expected impacts as a result of the development proposal upon the surrounding
highway network.
138 The TA presents modeling of junctions that could be impacted by the traffic generated
as a result of the development. As a result of the traffic associated with the
development proposal, alongside other committed schemes in the area, it is predicted
that the junction of Surrey Quays Road with Deal Porters Way and the Bus Station will
experience an increased ‘cycle time’ (the time of signal change at traffic lights) and
this could generate delays to bus and pedestrian movements. However the developer
proposes to install adaptive signal timing control that will reduce this impact. A sum of
£20,000 is required to provide for the installation of an adaptive signal timing system
at this junction, and will be secured through the legal agreement. There are also
some impacts on the traffic flows at the junction of Surrey Quays Road with Redriff
Road, and the applicant describes the possibility of works to improve the junction
layout that would reduce these impacts. The Canada Water Area Action Plan also
sets out aspirations to improve this junction, and a contribution from the developer
towards this would adequately mitigate possible impacts from this development. In
addition to this, and in line with the CWAAP, contributions have been secured towards
for the Lower Road Gyratory scheme which is included within the Strategic Transport
Contribution detail in the Planning Obligations section below.
139 Impacts on the bus network;
The development will result in an increase in the population in the area, which will in
turn increase demand upon the public transport network. While capacity is identified,
this has not been assessed in light of demand further along the bus route. For
example, while there may be space on buses at this particularly location, additional
demand as a result of this development will mean that passengers will be unable to
board at later bus stops in order to mitigate this issue Transport for London (TfL) have
requested a contribution of £330,000 to mitigate the impact on the bus services and
this has been agreed with the applicant.
140 Car parking: general
The car parking for Decathlon would be available as town centre parking for all visitors
to the area. The spaces will be available free to visitors to the town centre for a period
of up to four hours, after which a charge would be applied. The phasing of car parking
provision is linked to the construction of buildings in phases 1 and 2/3/4 (single
phase). The table below describes the parking phasing strategy.
Phase
Land Use
C1
Basement
Phase
1A/B
Decathlon
Phase
2
Phase
3 and 4
Total
C2-C4
Basement
Site E
Temp
E1
Basement
152 (18*)
Site C
Temp
Area
98 (7*)
-
-
-
Residential
-
-
-
49 (24*)
-
Decathlon
148 (14*)
-
102 (11*)
-
-
Residential
-
-
(62*)
-
93 (47*)
Decathlon
-
102 (11*)
-
-
Residential
148 (14*)
-
-
(62*)
-
-
Decathlon
148(14*)
-
102 (11*)
-
-
Residential
-
-
62 (*)
-
93 (47*)
*Figure in (brackets) represents the number of total spaces that are disabled/enlarged
spaces.
NB:- Site E basement car parking is to be provided before occupation of phase 3&4 to
ensure adequate disabled parking provision.
141 A Car Parking Management Plan can be secured through the legal agreement to allow
monitoring of car park use in the development as it becomes occupied. The following
information can be requested through the plan:- A regime of monitoring the use of spaces allocated to each user group (e.g.
shoppers, residents) and sub-groups (e.g. disabled drivers, electric vehicle users,
those shopping at Decathlon), including duration of stay;
- Measures to amend the allocation of spaces to ensure that disabled drivers and
those using electric vehicles are adequately accommodated;
- Proposals to convert any underused space to more productive uses (such as
additional cycle storage, display space or gym facilities;
- Methods of allocating parking to residents to ensure there is minimal financial penalty
if, at a later stage, they choose not to keep a car and no longer need their parking
space;
- Involvement of the Council in setting the regime of parking controls, including
maximum duration of stay and differential charging arrangements for Decathlon
customers versus other shoppers; and
- Provision and monitoring the use of electric vehicle charging points.
This will be agreed through the S106 Agreement.
142 Car parking for Decathlon and non-residential uses
According to Saved Southwark Plan requirements, a maximum of 142 spaces would
be considered acceptable for the quantum of Decathlon retail floorspace proposed,
while the London Plan would permit between a maximum of 208 and 312 spaces. TfL
have however stated that the existing parking associated with the Decathlon store is
lightly used, and in the context of the high Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL)
of the site (6a – highest accessibility), the proposed 250 spaces for Decathlon is
considered to be high.
143 The revised TA estimates the demand for car parking spaces based on surveys
undertaken in April of this year (2013). The peak demand is then factored as follows:- A factor is applied according to Decathlon’s records of customer numbers, so that
the April figures can be used to represent the peak month (August);
- A factor is applied to represent the anticipated increase in numbers resulting from the
increased retail floorspace/range of goods offered;
- A factor is applied to represent the expected increase in duration of stay resulting
from the increase in retail floorspace.
The result of this forecasting is that, in the busiest period, between 297 and 310
spaces are required. This indicates that, at the peak of demand, there may be an
overspill of up to 60 cars. However the proposed Travel Plan measures together with
good accessibility for pedestrians (including those walking from public transport
services) and cyclists will encourage the use of non-car modes of transport.
Additionally, while there is limited on-street parking available in the area, large car
parks are provided at Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and Leisure Park which are
open to other Town Centre users. Parking in those car parks is normally restricted to
drivers visiting those facilities, but it is likely that car drivers will visit a number of
facilities while they are in the area, and so will be able to leave the car elsewhere
while shopping at Decathlon. It is therefore unlikely that the overspill parking will lead
to queuing to the Decathlon car park or inconsiderate or unsafe parking in nearby
streets.
144 Residential car parking and disabled car parking
The quantum of residential car parking proposed on the site, is less than the maximum
that could be accepted in accordance with policies of the Saved Southwark Plan. This
is welcomed, given the high PTAL of this area, and the high level of cycle storage
spaces proposed. The development will be required to be ‘permit free and therefore all
occupiers of the development will be ineligible to apply for an on street parking permit’
when the proposed CPZ extension is put in place. This will prevent any overspill of
parking that will occur as a result of this development. This will be secured by
condition and through the legal agreement, with a contribution of £160,000 from the
developer. The interim arrangements for residents’ parking in phase 1 building C1
rely on a temporary parking solution within site E. Overall this is considered
acceptable; however the arrangements for disabled parking have disadvantages in the
short term. Spaces for disabled drivers should be located conveniently to residential
cores, while this proposal requires disabled drivers to cross Surrey Quays Road in
order to access residential cores. This is however a temporary solution, with parking
in the complete development provided in the linked basement under phases 1 and 3/4.
145 The applicant will need be required to provide a parking management strategy to
ensure that the disabled parking spaces are always allocated on the basis of need.
Given that not every wheelchair accessible unit owner will own a vehicle and not every
disabled driver will require a wheelchair unit. This will be secured by condition.
146 Three Car Club bays are to be provided. Discussions with regards to the location of
these bays are ongoing. The introduction of car club bays will reduce reliance on
private car ownership. The developer will be required though a legal agreement, to
provide a contribution covering 3 years membership to Zipcar car club for each eligible
adult of the residential element of the development.
147 Servicing and refuse collection
Saved policy 5.2 of the Southwark Plan requires major developments to accommodate
servicing requirements within the site boundary. This proposed development has
sought to address this through limited servicing access onto the site between buildings
C1 and C2, and the provision of loading bays on Surrey Quays Road. Overall it is felt
that the level of servicing and servicing provisions proposed by the applicant has
underestimated the level of goods vehicle movements required however this can be
given further consideration as part of a Service Management Plan condition.
148 Decathlon servicing
Goods vehicles servicing the Decathlon would use a dedicated facility accessed from
Surrey Quays Road, from a southbound direction only as the facility is inaccessible
from a northbound direction. In addition there is potential conflict between residential,
customer and servicing vehicles will occur when vehicles are exiting the site onto
Surrey Quays Road as a combined egress is proposed. Compared to other retail uses
of this size, and the service bay provision in unlikely to be sufficient for other A1 uses.
Servicing should be made personal to the applicant allowing re-assessment of
servicing should the end user change.
149 Other retail use servicing
At grade, servicing is proposed for the use of residential block C1 and all uses in C2.
Servicing will be controlled through this space as the space remains restricted
(through provision of bollards) and servicing is facilitated through a manned service.
All servicing vehicles will be required to undertake a three-point turn within the public
realm including larger vehicles reversing in close proximity to the front doors of the
Decathlon store. Further details of this management are required due to the potential
conflict with users of this space.
150 Residential servicing
Servicing for the residents is located on Surrey Quays Road close to sites C3 & C4
whilst the proposed super lobby is located at the northern end of the site. Therefore
further information is required to ensure that servicing occurs in the designated facility
as the proposed area for residential servicing is located some distance from the
residential core and not from Surrey Quays Road, (as close to the super lobby as
possible).
151 There are no specific provisions made for residents moving in/out, given that there is
no space to accommodate this it is anticipated that residents will want to get as close
to the entrance as possible for ease and reduce carry distance.
152 A detailed and robust Service Management Plan detailing all elements of servicing
that will associated with the proposed development will be required to satisfy the
council that the proposed development can be serviced without causing a negative
impact on the highway network.
153 Cycle storage
The proposed development falls short of meeting all policy required cycle storage
provision (residential) set out in Southwark and London Plan requirements. In line with
the London Plan and Southwark Plan a minimum of 1,322 cycle spaces are required.
The shortfall of cycle storage should be sought through condition.
Decathlon (Class A1 Use) – 62 customer spaces, 12 staff spaces (min 49 required);
Classes A1-A4 / D2 Cinema floorspace – 25 staff spaces (min 17 required);
Class B1 floorspace – 19 staff spaces (matches minimum required);
Residential units – 1,251 spaces, of which 281 for phase 1 (min required 1322/304)
154 Within Phase 1 Customer cycle parking for Decathlon customers is provided on street
within the landscaping of the C1-C2 shared surface road and along Surrey Quays
Road. There is also 12 staff spaces provided at basement level, with showers and
lockers also provided. Residential cycle parking provision has been improved in the
revised submission for phase 1. In building C1, separate provision is proposed to the
townhouses and on terraces to units at courtyard level. There are now 281 residential
bike spaces provided, 57% (159) of these are provided via either Sheffield Stands or
bike boxes (105 and 54 respectively) and 43% (122) provided via two tier racks.
However, this does not take into account the need for additional cycle parking for the
family sized (3 and 4 bedroom) units. Therefore it is necessary to amend the layout to
achieve an additional 23 spaces. In addition to this, lockers have been provided within
the residential bike stores for residential helmets, tools etc. The range of storage
types, and location of stores at courtyard, terrace and to individual townhouses, in
addition to larger cycle store areas, should encourage a maximisation of cycle use
associated with the development. The provision of bike lockers and individual stands
closer to residential units at courtyard / terrace level will be particularly attractive for
residents who are less inclined to use larger cycle store areas. Final details, including
the dimension of lifts and details of access arrangements to these internal storage
areas should be reserved by condition, this will ensure that sufficient space is provided
both for the trip to and from stores, and within a store area itself.
155 Travel plan
A good quality draft Travel Plan has been submitted with the application. In the event
that planning permission is granted and the development constructed, a final Travel
Plan will be required for the development. This should include a secure commitment
to surveying residents at 75% occupation of the development and at 3 and 5 years
post initial occupation. This survey should be via a TRAVL-approved Independent
Field Company in accordance with TfL policy. Commitment to updating the Travel
Plan following each survey, and commitment to measures identified through the Travel
Plan should also be provided.
156 Conclusion on Transport Issues
The proposed development will put increasing pressure on the demand of the public
transport network, in particular the bus network.. However, the applicant has been
required by TfL to contribute £330,000 to mitigate the impact on the bus service to
support additional services in the area. The traffic generated by the proposed
development will have an adverse impact on the highway. The applicant predicts that
the junction of Surrey Quays Road with Deal Porters Way and the Bus Station will
experience an increased ‘cycle time’. To mitigate the impact on this junction a sum of
£20,000 is required to provide for the installation of an adaptive signal timing system
at this junction. Further impacts have been identified at the junction of Surrey Quays
Road with Redriff Road. The council’s aspirations for improving this junction are set
out in the Canada Water Area Action Plan and a contribution from the developer
towards this would adequately mitigate impacts from this development. On a wider
scale, contributions have been secured towards for the Lower Road Gyratory scheme.
The applicant seeks 250 car parking spaces, whilst the applicants studies indicate that
a maximum of 297 to 310 spaces may be required. Therefore at the peak of demand,
there may be an overspill of up to 60 cars. As mitigation the applicant phase
undertaken a Travel Plan, identifying mitigation measures to encourage non-car
modes of transport. Limited on street parking, parking restrictions and the availability
of Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and Leisure Park will also help militate against the
overspill of any parking that will occur. The proposed development is expected to have
an adverse impact on public transport and the surrounding highway network.
However, mitigation measures have been identified and if implemented alongside the
development this is satisfactory.
Design issues
157 Policy context
Strategic policy 12 of the Core Strategy, 'Design and conservation' states that
development should 'achieve the highest possible standards of design for buildings
and public spaces to help create attractive and distinctive places which are safe, easy
to get around and a pleasure to be in'. The policy goes on to assert that development
should conserve or enhance the significance of Southwark's heritage assets their
settings and wider historic environment. Saved policy 3.13 'Urban design' of the
Southwark Plan asserts that the principles of good urban design must be taken into
account in all developments. This includes height, scale and massing of buildings,
consideration of the local context, its character and townscape as well as the local
views and resultant streetscape. Saved policy 3.12 'Quality in design' asserts that
developments should achieve a high quality of both architectural and urban design,
enhancing the quality of the built environment in order to create attractive and high
amenity environments people will choose to live in, work in and visit. London Plan
(2011) policies 3.5 ‘Quality and design of housing developments’ and 7.6’Architecture
aim to secure the highest quality of design. CWAAP ‘Policy 14: Streets and public
spaces’, ‘Policy 15: Building blocks’, and ‘Policy 16: Town centre development’
describe the CWAAP objectives for the design and form of development in the
Canada Water Action Area. The adopted AAP establishes a vision for a town centre
around a new high street that links the Canada Water underground station in the
north, to the Surrey Quays station in the south, and runs along the eastern edge of the
Canada Water Basin. The AAP proposes a small civic space at the southern edge of
the Basin to complement the Canada Water Plaza with its distinctive Library building.
This concept for the town centre not only reflects the prevailing connections around
the main transport interchanges, but also places the civic core around the significant
urban feature of the Canada Water Basin.
158 Saved Policy 3.20 ‘Tall Buildings’ of the Southwark Plan, requires that buildings that
are significantly taller than their surroundings or are over 30 metres tall should ensure
that they contribute positively to the landscape, are located at a point of landmark
significance, are of the highest architectural standard, relate well to its surroundings,
and contribute positively to the skyline or provide key focus within views. Policy 7.7
‘Tall buildings’ of the London Plan (2011) states that tall buildings should be limited to
areas of intensification, CAZ or town centres that have good access to public transport
and should relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of
surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm.
159 CWAAP Policy 17 ‘Building heights on sites in and adjacent the core area’ describes
the expected height of development proposals in the area, as well as the
circumstances when taller buildings will be considered acceptable. The draft CWAAP
tales a different approach to tall buildings given the relocation of the HQP.
160 NPPF Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ details that good design is a key aspect of
sustainable development, good planning and should contribute positively to making
places better for people.
161 Tall buildings
The proposed development includes a number of tall buildings, and it is recognised
that the adopted AAP does anticipate buildings over eight storeys in height on this
site. Notwithstanding this, the opening up of the town-centre to the west and the
implications of Harmsworth Quays likely redevelopment has meant that the Council is
reviewing the AAP in response to the changing context and the identification of
Canada Water as an intensification area. As detailed above, CWAAP Policy 17
‘Building heights on sites in and adjacent the core area’ describes the expected height
of development proposals in the area, as well as the circumstances when taller
buildings will be considered acceptable. The prevailing building heights in the
surrounding area are 5-8 storeys and tall buildings over 30m in height will be situated
in important locations, including a local landmark up to around 15 storeys located on
the south west of the corner of the shopping centre site. The policy designation notes
that this part of the site is less sensitive as it falls outside the strategic viewing corridor
between Greenwich Park and St Pauls Cathedral and would help mark the tube
station and form part of a cluster of tall buildings with the 16 storey towers on the
Hawkstone Estate. The draft CWAAP takes a different approach to building heights
with an aspiration for taller buildings of between 20-25 storeys, with taller buildings
being assessed on their contribution to the area in terms of regeneration and the wider
London skyline.
162 Site C takes up the prominent western face of the Canada Water Basin, equidistant
from the future high street and the transport hub at Canada Water. It is on the
intersection of important pedestrian routes to the Mast Leisure site and Russia Dock
Wood to the East and Southwark Park to the West. This intersection of important
local routes and connections suggests that the location has some significance to the
emerging town centre.
163 Within site C there are a number of tall buildings being proposed; three in Phase 1A
and two on the Phase 3 and 4 site. The tall buildings range from around 11 storeys in
height in Phase 1 and culminate in a 40 storey tower on Phase 4, which including its
roof-top garden will stand at 144.9m AOD. At the proposed scale, this is a similar
height to the Strata tower at the Elephant & Castle. As such it will be more than a
local landmark and it will instead become a London landmark., visible from a wide
area.
164 Saved policy 3.20 of the Southwark Plan applies to the proposals as follows..
i) Makes a positive contribution to the landscape
Landscape and the public realm is an important part of any proposal for a tall building.
It will not only create a setting for the towers, allowing them to ‘land’ appropriately but
also an opportunity for such a development to demonstrate the benefits that can flow
from expanding vertically in this way freeing up more space at grade in a congested
part of the city such as this. The urban context in this part of Southwark has been
affected by large footprint buildings and car parking filling sites and interrupting local
connections, poorly defined streets and a lack of legibility.
165 The proposal includes a number of notable public realm features:
• a substantial landscaped public space addressing the Basin in Phase 3/4;
• a new edge to the basin, with steps leading down to the water’s edge;
• an improved Albion Channel edge;
• a new route between Phases 1 and 3/4 which leads from the Basin to Surrey
Quays Road and Canada Street;
• a new ‘green link’ along the southern side of the Basin across Surrey Quays the first step in a connection to Russia Dock Woods to the east.
166 The inclusion of these public realm features in the proposal is welcomed and will be a
positive addition to the character and facilities in the town centre.
167 The applicants have sought to address the implications of their proposal on the local
and wider context through the public realm including:
• The micro-climate effect on the public realm of tall buildings;
• Replacing of existing tree canopy that would be lost as a result of the
development;
• Improving access to and across the Albion Channel with a publically
accessible lift at the Surrey Quays bridge over the Albion Channel;
168 In conclusion, the proposals for the public realm are extensive, wide ranging and will
complement the existing and proposed townscape. The buildings themselves have no
curtilage or boundaries, instead they site directly within the public realm. The
involvement of the landscape architects from the outset has resulted in a development
that prioritises landscape and seeks to maximise its quality with the lawn as a positive
feature and the hard landscaping providing potential space for events. This is a
matter that can be reserved by conditions linked to the phased delivery of the
development to ensure that the quality envisaged by the application is adhered to in
the constructed scheme.
169 ii) Is located at a point of landmark significance
A point of landmark significance is defined by the Southwark Plan (2007) as: “where a
number of important routes converge, where there is a concentration of activity and
which is or will be the focus of views from several directions.”
170 The site is roughly equidistant between the local transport hubs and, as such the focus
of activity is not simply around the Basin itself, but for residents and visitors seeking
the wider town centre and leisure site to the east. The recently constructed Ontario
Tower at Site A has established a focus for the area centered on the Station. This
proposal matches the public offer at Library Plaza with a new public space on this side
of the Basin, and together the two spaces complement each other, reinforcing the
Canada Water Basin as a point of landmark significance in its own right.
171 iii) Is of the highest architectural standard
The proposed development can be described as divided into three parts:• the new Decathlon Store encircled by residential accommodation in Phase 1;
• the new residential-led mixed-use scheme in Phase 3/4; and
• the mixed-use scheme on Site E in Phase 2 – proposed in outline.
The assessment will now consider each building in turn.
172 Phase 1A/1B - Building C1
The proposal for this site faces a number of challenges, the most complex challenge
being the enclosure of the large footprint Decathlon Store which takes up most of the
site. It has to accommodate this large and predominantly blank ‘box’ without allowing
it to dominate the surrounding context. The scheme achieves this in a similar way to
the earlier consented scheme reference 13/AP/1429 by encircling the ‘box’ with
entrances and residential accommodation, and providing the remainder of the
accommodation above it.
173 At the lower levels the accommodation comprises some single-aspect residential units
out of necessity. There is a mix of multi-level houses as well as flats but the majority
of the lower storeys, facing the street and water frontages, are taken up by the public
faces of the store and its associated office and servicing space, the separate
residential entrance lobbies to the blocks above, and some independent retail units.
174 On the roof of the store the scheme proposes an elevated communal garden offering
views across the Basin and to the streets and waterways below. Surrounding the
elevated garden are a series of buildings that rise to between four and 14 storeys
above the rooftop in three stepped blocks. A prominent feature of the roof-top garden
is the public MUGA (multi-use games area) which will be run by the store and create a
dynamic facility facing the Basin.
175 The proposed building varies in scale in response to their local context and result in a
highly modulated development. The tallest element takes up the prominent location
on Surrey Quays Road with a second tall element facing onto the Basin and marking
the entrance to the Albion Channel. At its base is a new ‘super-lobby’ which will be
the main entrance for this phase. Along the street – between the two phases – the
proposal is for a building that establishes a strong edge to the street, and matches the
proposed building to be located opposite as part of Phase 3/4 – building C2. It
includes a taller element at the centre of that important elevation. On Surrey Quays
Road, the curved edge of the street has given rise to a curved and terraced building
made up largely of duplexes on top of the Decathlon offices. At the junction of Surrey
Quays Road and the Albion Channel a mid-height block forms a ‘bookend’ to the
development and marks the corner before it drops in scale at the channel edge. The
Albion Chanel facade includes 5 individual multi-level houses which address the
promenade and a small public space established at the ‘elbow’ to the channel at the
former entrance to the dry-dock, which is proposed to be preserved under the store.
176 During pre-application discussions important aspects of the design were developed in
detail. These included:
• The relationship of the taller elements to the lower perimeter blocks was
improved with set-backs on either side to allow the taller elements to
distinguish themselves from the main block and ‘land’ appropriately in their
public realm
• Each block was considered both individually and as part of the wider
development. The main unifying devices are: brick is the predominant facing
material; pre-cast features highlight openings; and partly inset balconies give
the elevation depth and variety. In addition to this, in each block, the designers
have used these elements differently to give each building its own identity. For
example the block facing Basin has full-height windows and balconies whilst
the terraced houses use double-height openings and feature windows.
• The development has a well-established base, middle and top. At the
perimeter, the design of the base extends over the first two storeys with
double-height openings to lobbies and a colonnaded appearance at the retail
frontages. The edge of the elevated garden is similarly marked with a unifying
pre-cast parapet line that runs around the whole development. Finally, at the
top of each of the taller elements, a subtle increase in the attic storey heights
coupled with full-height windows and balconies give each building a more
•
•
•
refined roof-line.
The landscaping of the elevated garden has been developed in pre-application
discussions into a detailed and highly articulated landscaped space. This is an
important part of the communal residential amenity and includes a range of
spaces or ‘rooms’. Mature planting coupled with pathways and furniture
establish three distinct spaces or zones.
The MUGA is intended to be outward facing and is screened from the elevated
garden by a planted screen
The prominent frontage on to Surrey Quays was highlighted as an important
public face of the scheme. Here the design has to reconcile the servicing
requirements of the store as well as the main parking access for town
centre/retail users whilst maintaining an active frontage. In addition, the level
changes significantly across the site as the roadway approaches the bridge
over the Albion Channel. The design is reinforced by the landscaping to the
public realm and includes shop fronts, an entrance lobby and, at the upper
level, the offices for Decathlon themselves. In this way the scheme has
attempted to respond to Surrey Quays and maintain an outward-looking and
active presence on this important route.
177 Phase 2 – Building E1
This block is designed in outline at the moment with a maximum height of 37.8 metres.
As described above, its main purpose is to define the western edge of the wider public
space that stretches from the Canada Water Basin, across Surrey Quays, to Site E.
At the moment this block appears to be a simple block-like form. It has been designed
as a podium block with an elevated communal garden and is chamfered on its western
side to create a small public space on Surrey Quays.
178 The appearance of this block is reserved for future approval. Officers are satisfied
that with the inclusion of a comprehensive design code that embeds the council’s
current residential design standards and a consideration of the context, this part of the
application can be considered acceptable as the appearance of the building and its
internal layout will be secured through reserved matters.
The quality of
accommodation section of this report discusses the design specification for building
E1 in more detail.
179 Phase 3 and 4 – Buildings C2, C3 and C4
This proposal is for three large blocks which are located within a substantial new
public space to the west of the Canada Water Basin. This proposal envisages these
blocks as “elements” of a composition within a wider public space defined by Sites C
and E. They have been designed as pure forms, one lower and long (C2 – eight
storeys) forming a street along the edge of Site C1, a tall and slim block (C4 – 40
storeys) located at the south-east corner of the Basin and a mid-range block aligned
with Surrey Quays Road (C3 – 20 storeys).
180 In order to fulfill their purpose in the design, these blocks will have to be of
exceptional, almost sculptural quality in their own right and work together as a group.
From the outset this design has taken on a simple, starkly elegant design that
accentuates the geometric qualities of each individual block.
181 The long low block (C2) is raised at either end and hovers close to the edge of the
Basin. The horizontal emphasis of the balconies gives it a striking appearance. The
tall slim tower (C4) is designed as a simple square extrusion encircled by a ring of
balconies and columns. It has classical proportions and is topped by a simple glass
box that houses a garden and a communal space. The intermediate block (C3) is
proportioned to give the space a degree of enclosure whilst encouraging permeability
to the public space beyond.
182 The themes that the designers have developed on this site are the following:
• The material finishes of the buildings have been developed as a common
theme with each developing the theme individually. All are proposed to be
constructed with floor-to-ceiling glass with simple circular concrete columns.
• In C3 the columns sit proud of the facade and are an integral feature of the
elevation. This gives this intermediate block a confident gridded appearance.
This block plays the dual role of acting as a backdrop to the public space and
an important frontage onto Surrey Quays. It does this by staying true to the
grid and having a unified appearance in the round. It has neither a front nor a
back.
• Finally, C4 brings the structure to the edge of the building and sets the
accommodation back creating a block that is encircled by balconies. In this
design the columns have been turned into a delicate lattice that encloses the
building and gives it its verticality.
183 The strength of this design will depend to a large degree on the architectural detailing
during construction and the scheme is considered to be of an exceptional standard of
architectural design. The use of conditions will ensure that the simple, elegant
proportions and the clean relationship of column to glass is not affected by extraneous
features like grilles or bulky window frames.
184 The relationship between the public space and the wider town centre has been
considered in greater detail and found to be acceptable. Here the designers have
looked at how the gap between C4 and C3 relates to the wider town centre to the
south and east. The importance of this route to the wider town centre has led to
review of this space, and a re-design of the turning circle resulting in a significantly
improved pedestrian route which still ensures that C3 retains its elegant architectural
proportions, maximises the retail offer at grade and the public space preserves its
sense of enclosure. More has also been done in the design of the lower storeys to
make the base of the building double-height and maximise its transparency resulting
in a generosity at grade that encourages permeability to the emerging town centre
beyond.
185 The communal amenity provision for future residents has been designed in each of
the separate buildings but the most successful is a mature garden which will be
located at the top of C4. The design offers the whole roof over to communal amenity
and surrounds it with a triple-height glazed screen which forms the crown of the
building. As the most visible and the most public feature of this tower it will become
synonymous with this design. The garden will also have some public access, and the
arrangements for this are described in more detail in the planning obligations section
of this report. The public access to this most prominent feature of the development,
as seen in long views, is a significant benefit of the scheme and will provide members
of the public with opportunity to view stunning vistas across the London skyline.
186 iv) Relates well to its surroundings, particularly at street level
This aspect of the policy relates to the public realm and the appreciation of the
proposed buildings in the round. The nature of the design is that each block has
frontages on all its sides and Officers are satisfied that every effort has been made to
maximise the active frontages around each block.
187 In particular, the significantly improved relationship to the Basin, the emphasis on
double-height retail frontages and the creation of varied and interesting spaces around
and between the buildings and along the waterways has resulted in an outwardlooking development that will complement its public setting.
188 v. Contributes positively to the London skyline as a whole consolidating a
cluster within that skyline or providing key focus within views
Additional policy guidance is provided in London Plan (2011) policy 7.11 – London
View Management Framework which designates a number of views that make a
contribution to the image and character of London at the strategic level. In urban
design terms the scheme reinforces the concentration of activity around the Canada
Water Basin and creates a focus for local and wider views. The C4 tower establishes
an urban counterpoint to the Ontario Point tower at Site A and sits at the eastern edge
of the emerging town centre which rises from the Underground station by way of
Ontario Point, C1, C3 and onwards to C4. The two towers, the Ontario Point tower at
Site A and the proposed C4 tower, would provide a stepped relationship to each other
at either end of important routes through the emerging town centre, they act to
reinforce the significance of the town centre, and give it a focus around the basin
which is appropriate with C4 and its height, giving prominence to the heart of the Town
Centre and being supported by the further tall elements at C1 and C3.
189 The site forms part of the Canada Water Town Centre and the suitability of the site for
tall buildings is accepted as they give a unique identity and focus to the area,
improving legibility within the Action Area Core and shifting the focus of the Town
Centre to the central area of the basin between the Shopping Centre and the Canada
Water Underground Station. The use of tall buildings has enabled the creation of
generous area of public open space and new public routes creating an improved
sense of openness to the Basin and wider Town Centre.
An important consideration of a scheme of this scale is an assessment of the proposal
both in its local setting and on the wider London skyline. The contribution of this
development to the London skyline and local and wider views have been tested in the
strategic views as well as the important local and wider views, and was found to be
acceptable. The Strata Tower has demonstrated that towers of this scale are able to
improve the legibility of the townscape and consolidate the town centre placing
Canada Water on the wider London map. Given the substantial scale of the
development, views from the Tower of London World Heritage Site as well as views
from Tower Bridge and the neighbouring boroughs, especially those across the river,
have been considered and accurate visual representations prepared to demonstrate
the impact of the proposal on its local and wider context.
190 The scheme has been tested in the local and wider views which has included:
• Not just the statutory views, but also wider and local views in relation to
sensitive heritage assets and their settings
• The impact of the scheme on the Tower of London World Heritage Site - which
was considered to be acceptable.
• The view of the scheme in relation to the impact on Tower Bridge.
• All views comply with the requirements set out in the LVMF and include
Accurate Visual Representations (AVR).
191 Two points were raised by English Heritage in their consultation response. The first
related to the view from London Bridge (LVMF View 11B) where the tower at C4 is
visible to the right of Tower Bridge in the central view. The second related to the view
from the playing fields at Southwark Park which is a Grade II Registered Park and
Garden (listed in its own right as a heritage asset). Here the C4 tower is visible over
the tree canopy however this is not considered to compromise the heritage setting or
enjoyment of the open space.
192 Strategic view 11B;
This is a River Prospect and the most significant features in the view are, firstly, the
Tower of London World Heritage Site on the north bank and secondly, the Grade I
Listed Tower Bridge which gives the view a river focus and a sense of enclosure. To
the north the cluster of towers at Canary Wharf is visible and to the south, in the
distant backdrop, the tall buildings around Ontario Point are visible at Canada Water.
The new tower C4 would be visible in the distant backdrop of this view and to the right
of the south bastion to the south of Ontario Tower. This is not considered to intensify
any current established impacts either from Canary Wharf or Ontario Point and will
consolidate the taller elements around Canada Water without compromising the
heritage assets or the river views.
193 The LVMF emphasises the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site
and stresses, in paragraph 205 that “Development should not cause adverse impact to
the World Heritage Site and should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate the
Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage by unacceptably imposing on the
Tower, or have a negative impact on a person’s ability to recognise and appreciate
this Strategically Important Landmark.”
194 This is a dynamic view starting at the southern edge of the bridge (11B.2) and
extending to the middle of the bridge (11B.1) to take in the northern bank and the
world heritage site. The rendered view demonstrates that the C4 tower would be
invisible at the southern edge but drift into the view as the viewer approaches the
middle of the bridge. The limited visibility of the development in this view, as it is to
the south of Tower Bridge, will not affect the viewer’s ability to recognise or appreciate
the world heritage site in this view. At its most visible, (View 1B.1) it does not impact
on the visibility of Tower Bridge and is to the south of its prominent bastions.
195 The view from Grade II Registered Park and garden – Southwark Park
The rendered view demonstrates that the C4 tower will be visible over the tree canopy
from the football playing fields at the southern end of the park near the sports ground.
This area was originally called ‘The Oval’ which like its namesake at Kennington, was
a popular place for cricket and also athletics, training and football. The listing
description fro the park is extensive and concentrates on the gardens and the
Pleasure Grounds and charts the historic development of the park. It notes that “the
Oval was reduced in size when a new sports ground was constructed to the southeast in 1980. This includes floodlights, and all-weather running track, and football
pitches”.
196 The view submitted with the application demonstrates that the tower at C4 will be
visible only from this southern part of Southwark Park and the view includes Ontario
Tower to the north. In this location the park has been altered significantly and does
not benefit from the sense of enclosure at the better preserved northern or central
parts of the park which are defined by the bridle path and lake. In this location a view
of an elegant tower is not necessarily harmful. Indeed it could assist to orientate the
viewer towards the nearby town centre and transport hub at Canada Water and help
to establish the east-west ‘green’ link between Southwark Park and Russia Dock
Woods. In this way a singular elegant slender tower of this nature could be considered
in a similar vein to other London parks where taller elements were considered
appropriate where they mark key gateways or links and help to establish a hierarchy in
the townscape when the viewer is completely surrounded by nature.
197 Conclusions on design
The scheme was reviewed by the Southwark Design Review Panel in September
2012 [comments in appendix 2 of this report]. The Panel looked at the proposal’s
relationship with the Canada Water Basin, the Decathlon store and the wider town
centre and they considered the detailed design of the individual buildings. Whilst
there were differences of opinion among the Panel, there was a consensus on the
proposed height and the majority felt the design could be beautiful but needed to be
exemplary. They felt the scheme had benefitted from designers who had the ability to
deliver high quality buildings and they endorsed this strategic vision for the area. They
felt the challenge for the client, as much as the designers, is to secure the delivery of
this vision in its purest form.
198 The development does provide the opportunity to optimise the potential of the Canada
Water town centre site and provides a good level of public space. The NPPF
reinforces this and requires proposals to achieve a balance between: site coverage,
mix of uses and scale of development; and, in this case, the local character and
identity of the Canada Water town centre. The new public space will be a valuable
local resource and benefit from high levels of sunlight due to the open setting of this
space. Its location on the edge of the basin coupled with its scale ensures that the
new public space has a generosity and grandeur, becoming a new focus for the wider
town centre leading to the east. At the same time the narrower spaces between the
large buildings, the relationship of the main tower to the public space, as well as the
frontages onto Surrey Quays and the Albion Channel, have been the focus of officer
attention during discussions with the applicant.
199 The proposal results in a significant and meaningful positive addition to the London
skyline. Building C4 itself consolidates the emerging cluster at Canada Water and will
appear as an elegantly proportioned and reeded tower that is capped with a mature
garden. At this scale it is a London landmark and is of a quality that could make it the
pre-eminent marker in the emerging cluster.
200 The scale of buildings C1, C2, C3 and C4 is considered to be a driver of the
redevelopment of the Canada Water area, giving the Town Centre a new focus
centered around a tall building (C4) of exemplary design that allows major
improvements to be undertaken to the public realm at ground level and also results in
a much higher ratio of public space/private space than could be achieved with a low
rise development. The sculptural quality of the building will renew the focus of the
Canada Water Town Centre, putting Canada Water on the wider London Map as a
well-designed high quality retail/commercial and residential town centre in an
accessible location, enabling the intensification of the Canada Water area and the
realisation of the Councils aspirations to develop the area into a Major Town Centre.
The taller elements around buildings C1 and C3 help define the area as a major town
with a much more urban feel
201 In conclusion, this is a scheme of exemplary quality of architectural design and urban
design. It is led by a significant and meaningful contribution to the public realm which
complements a wider vision for the emerging town centre. It will result in a
consolidation of the emerging cluster of tall buildings at Canada Water and includes a
landmark building that could become its pre-eminent marker and has been endorsed
by the council’s Design Review Panel.
Quality of residential accommodation
202 Policy context
Saved policy 4.2 'Quality of residential accommodation' states that planning
permission will be granted for residential development, where it achieves good quality
living conditions, and includes high standards of accessibility, outlook, privacy, natural
daylight, ventilation, outdoor amenity space, safety, security and protection from
pollution including noise and light. An assessment of the quality of accommodation
has been carried out below, taking each phase of the development in turn. the
standard of accommodation will need to be exemplary due to the high density of the
proposals
203 Strategic Policy 5 ‘Providing new homes’ of the Core Strategy describes the density
range that development is expected to fall within in different parts of the borough. This
is also described in saved policy 4.1 ‘Density of residential development’ in the
Southwark Plan. This development site is located within the ‘urban density zone’ and
developments in this zone are expected to be between 200 and 700 habitable rooms
per hectare. The policy then goes on to describe that within the opportunity areas and
action area cores the maximum density range may be exceeded when developments
are of an exemplary standard of design. The criteria for what can be considered an
exemplary standard of design, is then set out in detail within the Residential Design
Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (SPD). Outlook, privacy and
disturbance - As described above, Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential
Design Standards 2011 states that in order to prevent unnecessary problems of
overlooking, loss of privacy and disturbance, development should achieve the
following distances:
204 Phase 1 – Building C1
This is the only building within the development whereby the internal layouts and full
design detail has been submitted for approval. The predicted daylight levels within the
proposed development have been assessed according to the BRE methodology
described in the impact on amenity section of this report. The method for assessing
internal daylight to proposed residential accommodation according to the BRE
Guidelines is the average daylight factor (ADF) and for sunlight, the annual probable
sunlight hours (APSH). The submitted Daylight and Sunlight Report prepared by
Waldrams for the planning application, shows that out of 676 rooms, there are 668 in
the proposed C1 building that meet the BRE Guidelines ADF criteria, which amounts
to 99% of the first phase. In relation to sunlight, the report shows that the majority of
habitable rooms, and in particular living rooms, will be sufficiently close to the BRE
Guidelines to be considered acceptable.
205 Outlook, privacy and disturbance - As described above, Supplementary Planning
Guidance for Residential Design Standards 2011 states that in order to prevent
unnecessary problems of overlooking, loss of privacy and disturbance, development
should achieve the following distances:
These minimum distances are fully complied within both around building C1 and
across the courtyard. Therefore officers are satisfied that there would be no adverse
impact upon future occupiers' outlook, privacy or resulting disturbance in relation to
the proximity between buildings.
206 Outdoor amenity space - Policy 4.2(ii) of the Southwark Plan and Section 3.2 of the
SPD on Residential Design Standards states that development should provide high
standards of outdoor/green amenity space. The draft SPD advises that development
should as a minimum meet and seek to exceed the following standards:
• 50m² of communal space per development;
• For units containing 3 or more bedrooms, 10m² of private amenity space;
• For units containing 2 or less bedrooms, ideally 10m² of private amenity space,
and where this is not possible the remaining amount should be provided to the
communal amenity space requirement.
207 The application proposal for building C1 includes a minimum of 10sqm private amenity
space to all units with 3 or more bedrooms. All units in the scheme benefit from
private amenity space provision in the form of a balcony or terrace of 5sqm or more,
and where any units with less than 3 bedrooms has any shortfall from 10sqm of
private amenity space this has been sufficiently accounted for within the extensive
communal courtyard area of 3,051sqm. The quantum of amenity space provided in
this phase and the inclusion of private amenity space to all units, including smaller 1
bedroom or studio units is a significant benefit of the proposed development. There
are also a number of large private amenity spaces provided to the family size units,
providing over 20sqm of terrace or balcony space to some units.
208 The communal courtyard provides 3,051sqm of shared amenity space, well in excess
of the required amount. The courtyard is made up of 155m of bench seating, 25no.
moveable seats, 272 trees and over 400sqm of lawn area for flexible amenity space.
A ‘woodland room’ is also proposed, with a dense planted area and seating providing
a quieter space for residents. A dedicated ‘play area’ and ‘outdoor dining’ area will
also be included, this design maximises the opportunities for residents outdoor
amenity, and will encourage residents to fully utilise this amenity area. Final details
and specification of planting should be required by condition to ensure that the
scheme achieves the high quality finish described in the application documents.
209 In terms of playspace, phase 1 (Building C1), includes within the courtyard a 100sqm
dedicated area for under 5’s play, in addition to the wider more flexible lawn spaces
that also provide opportunity for play. For 5-11 year olds and over 12’s, access to the
700sqm MUGA space will be provided, with residents able to use this area outside of
trading hours, specifically residents access is between 7pm – 10pm weekdays and
5pm – 10pm on weekends, with bookings to be made through the concierge. During
daytime hours it will be possible to access the MUGA through Decathlon as any other
member of the wider public would. The provision of playspace as part of building C1
is considered acceptable given the large size of the central communal courtyard,
however final details and specification, particularly of the dedicated play for under 5’s,
should be reserved by condition. Further opportunity to locate play equipment
sporadically for older children across the courtyard should also be considered as part
of the submission of any condition details, i.e. basket ball hoops or table tennis tables.
210 Internal space standards - Supplementary Planning Document for Residential Design
Standards 2011 in line with the Core Strategy and London Plan 2011 details minimum
space standards for residential units.
211 The table below shows the minimum sizes in the Residential Design Standards
compared with the range of unit sizes in the scheme:
Table 7:- Size of units
Unit size
Studio
1 bed (2 persons)
2 bed (3 persons)
2 bed (4 persons)
2 bed (average)
3 bed (4 persons)
3 bed (5 persons)
3 bed (6 persons)
3 bed (average)
4 bed (5 persons)
4 bed (6 persons)
4+ bed (average)
Minimum standard (sqm)
Proposed size range (sqm)
36
50
61
70
66
74
86
95
85
90
99
95
39.7 – 48.1
50.0 – 56.6
62.5 – 88.0
90.1 – 146.8
150.5 – 210.4
212 The proposed total floorspace areas in phase 1 building C1 meets Southwark’s
minimum standards in all cases, and generally exceed minimum standards by a
significant margin. The large size of the family units proposed is a particularly
beneficial feature of the proposed development. All individual room sizes within units
also comply with Southwark’s minimum requirements.
213 In summary, building C1 establishes an excellent standard for the quality of residential
accommodation in the development that can be followed in the submission of reserved
matters for later phases in compliance with the saved policies of the Southwark Plan
2007 (July), The Core Strategy 2011, The London Plan 2011 and the SPD:
Residential Design Standards.
214 Phase 2 – Building E1
The Design Specification and Place Making Document for the application sets out the
minimum criteria to be fulfilled by any reserved matters application on Phase 2
building E1.
215 The maximum floorspace allocated to E1 is less than the maximum volume as defined
by the parameter plans, ensuring modulations between blocks, and allowing flexibility
to internal arrangements allowing units to meet minimum quality standards set out in
policy. A private communal courtyard with a minimum area of 1,258sqm (excluding
lightwell areas) will be provided at podium level centrally within the site, and wrapped
by the blocks for residential accommodation. Private amenity space is to be provided
in accordance with the Mayor’s SPD (2012) and Southwark’s Residential Design
Standards SPD (2011).
216 A large majority of units (2/3) are to be designed as dual aspect, with no more than
5% of units as north facing and single aspect. All dwellings will comply with the BRE
guidelines for daylight and sunlight, and units will need to exceed both the GLA
Housing SPG and Southwark’s Residential Design Standards.
217 Phase 3 and 4 – Buildings C2, C3 and C4
The internal arrangement and distribution of units within each building will also
reinforce their quality of design. All three buildings are significant in scale and their
quality would be affected if the internal arrangement resulted in long internalised
corridors and single-aspect flats. As the internal layout to buildings C2, C3 and C4 are
reserved at this stage, and it will be necessary to condition the internal layout
appropriately, to avoid single aspect units with long internalised corridors. This will
assist in reinforcing their external design quality.
218 Indicative internal layouts have been provided at this stage to demonstrate that it is
possible to arrange the buildings appropriately internally. The indicative layout for C2
has been designed with 5 separate cores each serving at least two dual aspect units
on every floor. These cores appear as separate entrances between retail units at the
ground floor and would add interest and activity at the street level. The indicative
layout for C3 has similarly been designed with two separate cores each serving 3 dual
aspect units and two single-aspect flats on each floor. The Development Specification
and Place Making Document provides the approved blueprint to ensure that reserved
matters applications will achieve internal layouts of at least equal quality to the
indicative layouts described, and this is set out in more detail in the quality of
accommodation section of this report.
219 The design of C4 places great emphasis on achieving a slender narrow footprint. The
indicative internal design arranges a maximum of 7 units on each floor – similar to that
achieved at Ontario Tower – and results in a predominance of dual aspect units. Its
slenderness is demonstrated in the application material through a drawing, showing
that despite its height, which broadly matches that of the Strata Tower, it will be
approximately 22% narrower than Strata.
220 The Development Specification and Place Making Document sets out the following
standards and guidance that will be adhered to in relation to the internal layouts of
buildings C2-C4:
•
Street frontages will be maximised and transparent;
•
Double height, dual aspect commercial units at ground and mezzanine level;
•
Fully accessible residential units to be built to South East London Housing
Partnership (SELHP) standard;
•
All residential units to be designed to exceed the dwelling space standards as
set out in the Mayor’s Housing SPD (2012) and Southwark’s Residential
Design Standards SPD (2011) in line with SP5(4) of the SPD as follows:• opportunities for bulk storage to be provided;
• each building to maximise the numbers of dual aspect units
- in total 62.3% (min) of units in C2, C3 and C4 to be dual aspect which
is policy compliant;
- no more than 2.5% of units in C2, C3 & C4 to be single aspect north
facing due to construction and design constraints;
- facade elements to all units to be entirely glazed, ensuring a highquality environment is achieved for all units, including single aspect
units;
• each building to exceed the minimum ceiling height of 2.3m in the
principal living spaces;
• kitchens to be open plan, will receive natural light and ventilation via the living /
dining rooms. Bathrooms are internal and will be ventilated using whole house
vent systems;
• each building to exceed the amenity space standards;
• each building to exceed the BRE guidance;
• the units to meet Lifetime Homes standards;
• corridor lengths minimised as far as possible;
• the flat plans to stack so that bedrooms are above bedrooms, lounges above
lounges; and
• the development to meet CFSH4 and BREEAM excellent.
221 This development has a density of 1,006 habitable rooms per hectare, and therefore
standards for the quality of accommodation should be exceed, not merely met. The
above criteria, as set out in the Design Specification and Place Making Document
submitted with the application for approval, will ensure that at reserved matters stage
phase 2&3 will comply with the requirement for a high standard of accommodation and
there may be opportunity to further improve this at reserved matters stage where there
will be an opportunity to further refine and improve the scheme.
222 In addition to the Design Specification and Place Making criteria set out above, an
initial Daylight and Sunlight Assessment has been carried out for all outline phases of
the development (buildings C2, C3, C4 & E1). This assessment has been undertaken
using a number of assumptions in association with the provided indicative room
layouts, and in accordance with the set parameters of the external facades, including
the location of balconies, in phases 2&3. These ADF results show that all rooms on
the facades of buildings C2, C3, C4 & E1, even when taking the balconies into
account for C2, C3 & C4, all will meet an average daylight factor in excess of 2%,
which is the recommended level for the highest criteria room use – a kitchen. There is
a limited area in building C2, where due to the presence of balconies above, the ADF
level is below 2%, but still above 1%, which is the criteria for a bedroom. Therefore
the analysis shows that in practice, the BRE minimum criteria for daylight in new
developments is achievable in the outline phases, even without set internal layouts at
this time. The results of the APSH sunlight facade analysis also shows that most
facades will meet the BRE Guidelines for winter sunlight, with full compliance in the
tower building C4 and building E1. Buildings C2 & C3 do not meet the BRE criteria for
sunlight in all rooms, but this is because of the presence of balconies above, which in
themselves provide important access to sunlight for all occupiers as part of the use of
their external private amenity space. Therefore this is considered acceptable.
223 Conclusions on quality of accommodation
Officers are satisfied that the development meets and generally exceeds minimum
residential design standards in phase 1, and provides the appropriate mechanisms for
the achievement of minimum standards in later phases through the criteria set out in
the Design Specification and Place Making Document submitted for approval. The
achievement of these policy standards can also be secured by condition. Overall the
proposals satisfy policy requirements.
Mix of dwellings
224 General
Strategic Policy 7 'Family homes' of the Core Strategy 2011, requires that
developments of 10 or more units provide at least 60% 2 or more bedrooms and at
least 20% 3, 4 or 5 bedrooms in the urban zone. Saved policy 4.3 'Mix of dwellings' of
the Southwark Plan requires all major residential development to provide at least 10%
wheelchair accessible units. London Plan (2011) policy 3.5 ‘Quality and design of
housing developments seeks the highest quality of housing developments. . CWAAP
policy 23 ‘Family homes’ seeks a minimum of 60% of units with two or more
bedrooms, a maximum of 5% studio flats and minimum of 20% with 3 or more
bedrooms with directly accessible amenity space in the core area.
225 The table below shows the proposed mix of dwellings set out in phase C1 and
possible as indicative arrangements for phases 2, 3 and 4. It would be necessary to
condition a grant of planning consent to require the delivery of a policy compliant mix
of dwellings in the outline phases, at reserved matters stage.
Table 8:- Mix of Dwellings by Bedroom Number & Percentage of Phase or Total
Phase / Studio
1 bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
Building
1 / C1
11 (4.7%)
2&3/
C2, C3 &
C4*
28 (4.95%)
4 / E1*
-
Total
39 (3.8%)
70 (29.9%)
106 (45.3%)
174 (30.8%) 237 (41.9%)
92 (39.8%)
91 (39.4%)
336 (31.6%) 434 (42.1%)
41 (17.5%)
6 (2.6%)
(65.4% 2+beds)
(20.1% 3+beds)
126 (22.3%)
0
(64.2% 2+beds)
(22.3% 3+beds)
40 (17.3%)
8 (3.5%)
(60.2% 2+beds)
(20.1% 3+beds)
207 (20.1%)
14 (1.4%)
(63.6% 2+beds)
(21.5% 3+beds)
*Indicative at this stage
The development proposal complies with the required dwelling mix within each phase
and as a total of the development. The number of family sized units is policy
compliant however it is disappointing that more are not being proposed in the
affordable accommodation (Building E1 Phase 2).
226 Wheelchair accessible housing
Saved policy 4.3 also requires major residential schemes to deliver 10% wheelchair
accessible housing. The table below shows the number of wheelchair units in the
proposed development.
Table 9:- Wheelchair Units
Building / Phase Studio
C1 / Phase 1
C2-C4 / Phases
2 and 3
E1 / Phase 4
Total
-
1 bedroom
29
11
40
2 bedroom
2
28
29
59
3 bedroom
3
6
9
227 The development proposal includes a total of 106 wheelchair accessible units,
amounting to 10.1% of the scheme. Two studio apartments are also being provided
as wheelchair units however these have no been counted towards the total. It is
unfortunate that each phase does not provide the minimum 10% of units as
wheelchair accessible; however it is possible to secure the delivery of wheelchair units
across the scheme. Overall the proposed mix of dwellings, including accessible
homes, is policy compliant and acceptable in planning terms.
Density
228 Policy context
Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential of the London Plan states that development
should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant
density range shown in Table 3.2 of the Plan. It also requires local context, the design
principles and public transport capacity to be taken into account. Strategic Policy 5 –
Providing new homes of the Core Strategy sets out the density ranges that residential
and mixed use developments would be expected to meet. This application site is
located in the Canada Water Action Area Core, and is identified as an Intensification
Area in the London Plan 2011 and therefore in accordance with Strategic Policy 5
density may be higher than the normal range where an exemplary standard of design
and quality of accommodation is demonstrated. An assessment of the development
proposal against the criteria for excellent living standards as set out in Southwark’s
Residential Design Standard SPD 2011, is provided in the ‘Quality of accommodation’
section of this report.
229 Assessment
The proposed development has a density of 1,006 habitable rooms per hectare, based
upon the calculation method described in saved Appendix 2 of the Southwark Plan.
This density is in excess of the Urban Density range described for this area, which is
expected to be between 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare. The application
proposes buildings of a scale, height and quantum that greatly exceed the expectation
set out in the designations CWAAP 7 & 8 (2012). Policy 24 states that the only
exceptions to the above density range are when development has an exemplary
standard. The density of a development should respond to the location, context and
the index of public transport accessibility level (PTAL) with higher density development
being more acceptable in areas with excellent access to all forms of public transport.
The application site has a PTAL rating of 6a, which indicates the highest level of
accessibility to public transport, therefore densities in the upper end of the range
would be expected. The site is also located in a town centre where higher density
development would be considered appropriate. The site is identified as an
intensification area in The London Plan 2011 and the growth in housing is not
considered to harm the surrounding context or the amenity of existing residents. The
existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating the growth in housing and retail
and the S106 Agreement includes provision for funding to expand capacity.
230 The quantum of development is accommodated on the site in a series of taller
buildings, largely made up of commercial ground floors with residential flats above.
This allows a generous proportion of the site to be given over to public routes and a
new public space in the form of a central lawn. Therefore while the development
proposes a higher density of accommodation, this is well balanced with the provision
of open space located throughout the site. Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be
an impact on the townscape of the area as a result of the taller buildings, at ground
level the openness created within the site will help the proposal to contextualise with
the wider open spaces around the area and the Basin itself. Officers are therefore
satisfied that a density of this level can be accommodated on the site, provided the
quality of accommodation is of an exemplary standard in accordance with Strategic
Policy 5, as detailed in the ‘Quality of accommodation section’ above.
Affordable Housing
240 Policy context
The NPPF adopted in March 2012 states that local planning authorities should set
policies for affordable housing need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial
contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified and the agreed
approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities.
Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market
conditions over time.
241 The regional policies and guidance relating to affordable housing are set out in the
London Plan and the Mayor’s housing supplementary planning guidance (2012). The
London Plan forms part of the development plan for Southwark. The key relevant
policies within the London Plan in relation to this aspect of the application are:
242 Policy 3.8 Housing choice - The policy requires boroughs to take account of housing
requirements and identify the range of needs likely to arise. It sets out a number of
factors to take into account including to ensure that:
• new developments offer a range of housing choices
• provision of affordable family housing
243 Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed
use schemes. Part A of the policy requires that the maximum reasonable amount of
affordable housing should be sought with regard to a number of factors including:
• current and future requirements for affordable housing
• the need to encourage rather than restrain development
• the need to promote mixed and balanced communities
• the specific circumstances of individual sites
• resources available to fund affordable housing, to maximise affordable housing
output and the investment criteria set by the Mayor
• the priority to be accorded to provision of affordable family housing
244 Part B of the policy sets out that negotiations on sites should take account of their
individual circumstances including development viability.
245 The Mayor’s Housing supplementary planning guidance (SPG) (2012) provides further
guidance on implementing the London Plan housing policies.
246 The local policies are saved Southwark Plan Policy 4.4 Affordable housing, and Core
Strategy Strategic Policy 6 – Homes for people on different incomes Further guidance
on how to implement the policies is contained within the Council’s adopted Affordable
Housing SPD 2008 and draft Affordable Housing SPD 2011.
247 Core Strategy Strategic Policy 6 'Homes for people on different incomes' requires as
much “affordable housing on developments of 10 or more units as is financially
viable”. It also sets a minimum target of 8,558 net affordable homes between 2011
and 2026. It requires a minimum of 35% of affordable housing on developments with
10 or more units. Saved Southwark Plan Policy 4.4: Affordable housing, is used
alongside the overarching Core Strategy policy 6.
248 The Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD 2008 (Section 3.6) together with the
draft Affordable Housing SPD 2011 (section 6.3) clarifies the Southwark Plan and
Core Strategy policy framework and sets out the approach in relation to securing the
maximum level of affordable housing from developments
249 Strategic policy 6 'Homes for people on different incomes' of the Core Strategy 2011
requires a minimum of 35% affordable housing within the action areas in the borough.
The application site is located within the Canada Water Action Area and as such it is
expected for the development to secure 35% of the development as affordable,
calculated on a habitable room basis. The affordable housing should then be split
between social rent (70%) and intermediate (30%) units: see policy 22 of the adopted
AAP.
250 Strategic policy 6 of the Core Strategy and policy 22 of the AAP require the provision
of 875 affordable homes in the Canada Water Action Area between 2011 and 2026.
The draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document gives guidance on
how to calculate the level of affordable housing a development provides. It describes
the habitable room calculation for affordable housing purposes, which takes into
account an additional habitable room where the size of a room is 27.5sqm or more.
Saved policy 4.5 'Wheelchair affordable housing' of the Southwark Plan, also states
that for every affordable housing unit which complies with the wheelchair design
standards, one less affordable habitable room will be required.
251 Assessment
The applicant is currently unable to provide the minimum of 35% affordable housing
on the basis that financial viability will not accommodate this provision. In order to
support this, the applicant has submitted a comprehensive financial viability appraisal
which has been reviewed on behalf of the Council by the District Valuers Service
(DVS). The initial offer of was considered unacceptable by the DVS and further
negotiations and modeling allowed the offer to be increased slightly which again was
not supported by the DVS. Detailed negotiations and revisions to the model and
review mechanisms has resulted in an improved offer of 22.5% which is considered by
the DVS to be the highest amount of affordable housing that can viably be delivered
on site without compromising the deliverability of the scheme.
252 The viability report included reference to outstanding costs incurred by the applicant in
bringing the proposed development forward. The applicant has had substantial land
acquisition costs and together with the need to meet the requirements of Decathlon by
decanting them from the existing site to allow them to continue trading during the
construction of Phase 1 and then re-install them in the new retail unit has also added
significant costs and these have been accepted by the DVS as part of the viability
assessment.
253 In terms of affordable housing, all affordable provision will be provided in building E1,
which has now been brought forward to Phase 2 of the development. The applicant is
providing a total of 22.5% affordable housing which will equate to 711 habitable rooms
(approximately 231 units).
254 The affordable housing offer can be broken down as follows:
Affordable
Rent
Social Rent
Shared Ownership
(Southwark
Affordability
Criteria)
Shared
Total
Ownership
(GLA
Affordability
Criteria)
13
92
1 Bed
64
0
15
2 Bed
64
0
13
14
91
3 Bed
-
28
6
6
40
4 Bed
-
6
1
1
8
Total
128
34
35
34
231
255 In terms of affordable rent the rents will either be capped at 60% of market rents or
they will be in line with Local Housing Allowance figures, whichever is the lowest. The
applicant has submitted a viability report seeking to demonstrate that the proposed
development cannot support any more affordable housing. This has been reviewed
by the DVS and whilst there are some differences of opinion over certain elements of
the assessment, the DVS conclude that 22.5% is the maximum the development can
provide on the condition that E1 be brought forward to Phase 2 allowing the
development to be front loaded.
256 Whilst each site should be required to make a fair and reasonable contribution to
affordable housing in accordance with adopted policy, the DVS has advised that no
more affordable housing could be provided. No affordable housing is being provided
on Phase 1; instead all affordable housing is being brought forward to Building E1 in
Phase 2 as this front loading of the development would have a positive impact on cost
flows and in turn viability, allowing a higher level of affordable housing to be secured
than was initially offered. As detailed in the table above the social rented housing is all
3 and 4 bedroom units with all affordable rent units being 1 and 2 bedrooms. The
affordable rent units have been secured at 60% of Market Rent or Local Housing
Allowance whichever is the lower. Market rent in the SE16 area is currently £192 for a
1 bed unit and £225 for a 2 bed unit (at 60% of market rent) whilst Local Housing
Allowance is £188 for a one bed unit and £245 for a 2 bed unit.
257 The review mechanism has to be robust and effective. It has been established that C1
would be constructed as the first phase in order to accommodate Decathlon and will
not contain any affordable housing. In the event that building C1 is not substantially
commenced within 3 years of the date of the permission, then the entire scheme
would be reviewed.
258
Further appraisals are to be linked to construction rather than submission of reserved
matters applications and the reviews will be time limited to 12 months; if construction
of the relevant building (rather than phase) has not commenced within that period then
a further appraisal would be needed. As such, C2, C3 and C4 would each be treated
separately in the event they are not constructed simultaneously.
259 The review mechanisms are in place in order to secure the remaining shortfall in
affordable housing (currently 12.5%) as a commuted sum should land/property values
continue to increase over the course of the development period. This will allow the
Council to capture any increase in value as a commuted sum towards affordable
housing provision. 12.5% equates to 395 habitable rooms and using the standard
calculation of £100,000 per affordable habitable room, this would equate to a
maximum commuted sum of £39,500,000. This would result in a proportion of
affordable housing being provided off-site however it would provide the full policy
compliant quantum of affordable housing with the greater majority of it (22.5%) being
provided on site.
260 Members are being asked to approve the scheme with a review mechanism which, if it
is triggered, will provide a commuted sum for the delivery of further affordable housing
elsewhere. This is being recommended as the viability appraisal relies upon the fact
that there is no affordable housing in later phases of the development. Introducing an
element of affordable housing into these later phases would have impacts on the
viability assumptions which allow for the delivery of 22.5% affordable housing on site
as is proposed in advance of any possible review
261 Conclusions on affordable housing and viability
It is appreciated that the inability to provide a policy compliant 35% affordable housing
is contrary to AAP policy, particularly given the scale of the current proposals. The
viability appraisal submitted with the application outlines that a policy compliant
affordable provision would make the scheme unviable and the provision of 22.5%
affordable housing can be achieved through bringing the affordable housing phase
forward to Phase 2, thereby frontloading the development. This conclusion has been
carefully considered by the DVS who are of the opinion that 22.5% is the maximum
that can be achieved on this site without compromising the deliverability of the
scheme. In this respect the proposals are consistent with the general policy objectives.
262 The need to accommodate the requirements of Decathlon have added substantial
costs to the development which in turn has had an impact on financial viability and the
ability to provide affordable housing. Decathlon benefit from a lease until 2028 and
any scheme that comes forward on this site prior to the lease expiring will need to
accommodate the needs of Decathlon and, given the benefit in maintaining their
presence on the site, bear the costs of accommodating them as part of any proposals.
In this case this has meant delivering a necessary quantum of car parking and an
acceptable layout/size of unit with acceptable acquisition terms.
263 The retention of Decathlon on site is considered a benefit to the creation of a Major
Town Centre as they will, as an established retailer, become the anchor within an
extended and improved retail unit and will encourage other retail tenants to the area,
as part of a deliverable scheme that will provide a substantial number of homes as
part of the beneficial regeneration of the area. In this case the provision of 22.5%
affordable housing, supported by the DVS, is considered on balance to be acceptable.
If Members consider that the longer term aspiration of creating a Major Town Centre in
Canada Water and that the wider benefits that could ensue from these proposals is a
key priority for the area, then in this instance a lower level of affordable housing on the
site could be accepted as the proposal will be a major driver of the Canada Water
regeneration.
Landscaping
264 Policy
London Plan Policy 7.21 ‘Trees and Woodlands’ states that through planning
decisions, trees of value should be retained and any lost as the result of development
should be replaced following the principle of ‘right place, right tree’ and that wherever
appropriate, the planting of additional trees should be included in new developments,
particularly large-canopied species. The London Plan also advises that the
assessment of trees should be undertaken using a combination of amenity
assessment (BS5837) and a recognised tree valuation method (CAVAT or i-tree) that
also takes into account social, economic and environmental factors. Southwark’s
policies also recognise the importance of trees, with Core Strategy policy 11 ‘Open
spaces and wildlife’ stating that through development the protection of woodland and
trees will be undertaken, improving the overall greenness of places. Policy 11 also
identifies that development is required to avoid harm to protected and priority plants
and animals, to help improve and create habitat. Saved Southwark Plan policy 3.28
‘Biodiversity’ also confirms that in the determination of all planning applications the
local planning authority will take into account biodiversity and encourage the inclusion
in developments features which enhance biodiversity.
265 The Canada Water Area Action Plan 2012 includes Policy 18: ‘Open spaces and
biodiversity’ sets out the strategy in the Canada Water area to protect, maintain and
enhance a network of open spaces, green corridors and habitat for wildlife. In the
Core Area where the application site is located, development must:- Provide a high quality of public open spaces. These should have a variety of
functions, which could include a market, children’s play areas, performance space,
ecological and learning areas, places to sit, relax and take part in recreational
activities such as fishing;
- Provide safe, direct and attractive pedestrian and cycle routes to connect open
spaces and help link into the surrounding network;
- Improve the overall greenness of the area, through planting street trees, creating
living roofs and walls and providing habitats for wildlife which increase biodiversity.
266 Existing trees;
A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact assessment has been submitted with the
application. This identifies the dominant tree species to be found existing on the site
as London Plane, Crack Willow and Common Horse Chestnut. In total 93 trees plus 7
groups were surveyed of varying maturity and quality. Tree groups are defined as self
seeded and contain many small trees. Hence they were not counted individually as
they may be within dense undergrowth, too young or a low category in terms of value,
or a combination of these. In the revised submission, the applicant makes clear that
those trees intended for transplantation, are counted as removed, in order to account
for the possibility that transplantation may not be successful in practice – this is in
accordance with the advice provided by council officers. The tables below provide a
breakdown of the trees to be removed and retained on the site as a result of the
development.
267 Table 11 (a):- Trees to be removed to facilitate the development
Trees Removed
Girth Size
Total
Plane Trees on Surrey Young & semi-mature 25
Quays Road
(11.5-40cm girth)
Albion Channel
Semi-mature to mature 14
(22-48cm girth)
Other
Young to semi-mature
35
Groups
Young
7 groups
Total trees removed
74
Total trees removed: 74
individual trees plus 7
groups.
Table 11 (b):- Trees to be retained
Existing trees retained
Girth size
Total
Plane
Trees
Surrey Young to semi-mature 16
Quays Road
(15.5-35cm girth size)
Total trees retained
16
268 A total of 74 individual trees and tree groups require removal in order to facilitate
development. These trees were planted in the mid 1980’s as part of that phase of the
redevelopment of Canada Water. None of the trees on site are subject to a Tree
Preservation Order. Of these at least 32 are category B trees, the rest being category
C or R, and none are categorised as the highest quality (A) which would have merited
redesign to ensure retention. The trees earmarked for removal are required in order to
enable development and are not of a high enough quality to retain. As such it is
considered that comprehensive replanting is an acceptable approach. Given the
difficulty in successfully removing and re-establishing substantially sized trees in hard
surfacing, it is unlikely that the plan for transplanting will be feasible, therefore new
planting represents an improved strategy.
269 Proposed landscaping and tree planting
It is proposed to provide replacement tree planting for all trees removed, as well as
additional tree planting to mitigate the loss of trees on the site. The tables below
provide a breakdown of trees to be planted, and explains the net gain of trees after
implementation of all phases on the site.
270 Table 12 (a):- Trees to be planted
Trees Proposed
Girth Size
Total
14
Plane Trees Surrey Quays All proposed to be semiRoad
mature (min 35cm girth size)
Street Alignment (species
16
to be agreed)
19
E1 alignment (species to be
agreed)
Lawn Feature Trees
22
Green Link
3
Feature Clumps (Pine
28
Trees)
Albion Channel
Young to semi mature based 9
on species selection
Total Proposed
111
271 Table 12 (b):- Final landscaping strategy net tree gain
Total number of individual trees on site 127
(after implementation of all phases)
Net gain of trees on site (after 57
implementation of all phases)
272 Landscaping includes a total of 111 new specimen trees at grade which adequately
replaces the existing trees lost as a result of the development taking the total number
of trees on site to 127 (including the 16 retained trees). In addition to this, there are
272 small to medium trees proposed within the Courtyard at C1, and 12 at the top of
the C4 tower. Of the replacement trees at grade, nine are located on the Albion
Channel and 14 on Surrey Quays Road, with the rest located throughout the site,
above the basement level. The proposed tree planting will provide a net gain in tree
numbers and volume. In order to ensure that the type and quality of landscaping
aspired to, is sustainable, it needs to achieve a reasonable level of maturity and
longevity. This requires ample soil, water and exploitable rooting volumes which, in
turn, will rely on sufficient weight loading above the basement level, as well as
maintenance and other engineering tolerances to be considered at an early stage
within the design process. Tree pit sections are therefore required to show a greater
plant depth, than currently illustrated. In order for the tree planting to be sustainable
where tree planting is above basements and within hardscape, greater volumes of
exploitable soil need to be specified including load bearing cellular confinement
systems, and tree grills will not be acceptable. Details of this can be secured through
conditions.
273 In policy terms the replacement of existing trees, as part of a comprehensive
landscaping scheme that will ensure substantial areas around the basin are given over
to public space, is considered acceptable and is supported by officers.
Ecology and biodiversity
274 The submitted ES includes an assessment of potential impacts as a result of the
development upon ecology and biodiversity in the area. The site is located adjacent to
the Canada Water Basin, a designated Site of Importance to Nature Conservation
(SINC) surrounded by densely planted green edges on one side, designated as
protected Borough Open Land. Therefore key potential impacts receptors have been
identified as the Canada Water Basin SINC, breeding / nesting birds, wintering birds
and bats.
275 The development does have the potential to cause dust and disturbance during
construction that would adversely impact birds.
However measures will be
incorporated to reduce potential impacts, in the interest of surrounding residents, and
therefore birds will also be provided with some protection. There is also surrounding
nesting and suitable bird habitat within 500m of the site, at Greenland Dock and
Russia Dock Woodland. Conditions are also recommended by the Councils Ecology
Officer to reduce impacts and off-set negative impacts upon biodiversity in the area.
Overall, the impacts during construction would be temporary, and the final
development will incorporate measures to improve biodiversity permanently here.
276 In relation to bats, there is no record of bats roosting on the site, but bats are known to
be in the surrounding area. During construction, lighting could change foraging
behaviour, but given the close proximity of surrounding alternative habitat impacts are
likely to be negligible. During construction, measures will also need to be in place to
prevent adverse impact to fish within the Basin, and this can be secured by condition.
277 Measures are included within the design of the proposed development to improve the
biodiversity value of the scheme, and mitigate negative impacts, measures consist of
the following:- Habitat loss has been mitigated through new planting and landscaping across the
development, including roof gardens, biodiverse roofs and a species rich lawn;
- The proposed development has been designed to avoid impacting on the vegetation
on the western side of Canada Water which is habitat for waterfowl, birds and other
wildlife. The proposals include like for like aquatic planting to replace any aquatic
vegetation removed (as a result of the new steps from the public realm into the water);
- Landscaping design includes replanting of trees removed;
- A range of facade treatments on buildings and avoidance of large expanses of
uninterrupted plate glass has been incorporated into building designs to reduce risk of
bird strike; and
- The lighting proposals aim to limit light pollution around Canada Water and avoid
directing light at the dock edge and water.
278 The existing site condition is largely comprised of car parking areas and large retail
warehouse sheds, which have little value in terms of supporting a wide range of
species. The proposed development will include a new public space with lawn and
wildflower planting, biodiverse roofs and food growing areas, tree planting to generate
a net gain in tree numbers and enhancement of green links to Greenland Dock.
Coupled with conditions to require additional features such as bird and bat boxes in
the development, and mitigation of impacts during construction, officers are satisfied
that the development will not generate any significant permanent adverse impacts
upon ecology and biodiversity in the area, and that the proposed development offers
opportunity to enhance biodiversity in the area.
279 The issue of Ecology was considered as part of the Environmental Statement which
concludes that the residual effects to the ecology within and surrounding the proposed
development are unlikely to have significant effects on the designation of sites of
importance surrounding the proposed development or protected species.
Landscaping and other ecology enhancements will result in a long term beneficial
residual effect. This view is supported by officers.
Planning obligations (S.106 undertaking or agreement)
280 Saved policy 2.5 of the Southwark Plan and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan advise that
planning obligations should be secured to overcome the negative impacts of a
generally acceptable proposal. Saved policy 2.5 of the Southwark Plan is reinforced
by the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Section 106 Planning
Obligations, which sets out in detail the type of development that qualifies for planning
obligations. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations provide at regulation 122
that for a planning obligation to be lawfully taken into account when determining a
planning application for a development, or any part of a development, that is capable
of being charged CIL, the obligation must be:
- necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
- directly related to the development; and
- fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and in accordance
with the NPPF.
281 The table below demonstrates the standard contributions generated from the
Supplementary Planning Documents s106 toolkit and the contributions proposed by
the applicant:
Table 13:- Planning obligations;
Planning Obligation
Amount of planning gain Amount of planning gain
calculated by toolkit (£)
agreed by applicant (£)
Education
Employment in the
Development
Employment During
Construction
Employment During
Construction Management
Fee
Public Open Space
Children’s Play Equipment
Sports Development
Transport (Strategic)
Transport (Site Specific)
Transport for London
Public Realm
Health
Archaeology
Community Facilities
Admin Fee
Total
1,368,243
274,314
1,368,243
274,314
1,061,233
1,061,233
83,169
83,169
335,133
133,971
1,208,511
1,481,291*
794,678
330,000
1,051,578
1,162,762
16,135
177,378
124,784
9,603,180
335,133
133,971
1,208,511
1,481,291*
794,678
330,000
1,051,578
1,162,762
16,135
177,378
124,784
9,603,180
* Based on uplift in retail space.
These figures are broadly indicative and may be subject to change further to
negotiations with the applicant relating directly to the outline and mix which is subject
to refinement.
282 A contribution towards education provision in Southwark is required as part of the
development, in order to cover the capital cost of providing new school places
required as a direct result of a proposed development. Without appropriate mitigation
of the impacts from residential development upon education, schools will be put under
undue pressure and reduce the ability of the Local Education Authority (LEA) to fulfill
its statutory function, which will be unacceptable in planning terms. The Council is
currently looking at options for new schools in the area. The applicant has agreed to
pay the sum required under the section 106 SPD toolkit.
283 High levels of unemployment, low incomes and deprivation persist in the borough
because of certain barriers to employment that people experience, most notably the
lack of skills that are required in the jobs market. Reducing deprivation is an essential
part of developing socially sustainable communities, especially in growing and
intensifying communities. Sourcing local labor, and reducing the need to travel is a
fundamental part of creating of sustainable communities, and delivering the objectives
of the London and Southwark Plans. The WPC contribution would secure the cost of
providing a WPC to assist in the placement of unemployed jobseekers from the local
area into jobs within the final development either through an existing WPC
programme, or through setting up a new programme to target the employment sector
of the final development. The applicant has agreed to pay the sum required under the
S106 toolkit.
284 Residents in the Borough require access to primary healthcare; they will need to use
local PCT GP clinics, and acute and mental services which will directly impact on
demand for existing services. Standard charges apply to mitigate the additional
demand as per the S106 Planning Obligations SPD and the applicant has agreed to
pay the sum required under the S106 toolkit.
285 Strategic Transport contributions are sought for improvements to the Lower Road
Gyratory which is in close proximity to the site. Improvements are also sought to
increase the capacity of public transport provision across the borough, through the
delivery of the Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The transport measures sought
through the LIP include the facilitation of major public transport infrastructure projects,
bus network improvements, road safety education, training and publicity, extension
and improvement of the strategic cycle network, travel awareness publicity and
events, continuing development of the freight quality partnership, road safety and
speed reduction environmental measures, walking and cycling improvements,
interchange accessibility improvements and controlled parking zones. The applicant
has agreed to pay the sum required under the S106 toolkit and CWAAP.
286 The Council has a team of project and monitoring officers who ensure a consistent
and fair approach to the monitoring and delivery of planning obligations. The charge
collected is 2% of the monetary contributions up to £3m to be provided under S106
agreement and 1% above £3m. This is set out in the Council’s SPD and is an
essential part of the ensuring the delivery of the Council’s strategy on contributions
from new developments as reflected in the SPD.
287 It is the opinion of the Council that the planning obligations sought meet NPPF
guidance. The contributions would be spent on delivering new school places as a
result of the development, job creation during construction and in the final
development, improvements to open spaces and sports facilities, improvements to
increase the capacity of transport provision across the borough, improvements to the
public realm, new health facilities and improvements to community facilities. These
are necessary in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and
reasonably related to the impacts of the development. The S106 Agreement includes
provisions for public access to the roof garden of Building C4, public access to the Dry
Dock, public use of the MUGA in Building C1 and the use of the Decathlon car parking
for other Town Centre users. In addition to the financial contributions outlined above,
the applicant is also offering the following sums towards the following projects
identified by Friends of Russia Dock Woodlands: pathways resurfacing (£100,000);
solar panels (£30,000); wind turbine (£25,000) and weirs (£10,000). These
contributions were offered by the applicant during their consultation exercise, and are
outside of the normal toolkit provisions. Since the projects are not specifically listed in
the local Project Bank, and have not been subject to feasibility testing or costing by
the Council, then it would not be appropriate to fund them from within the toolkit sums.
They are however included within the S106 agreement in order to ensure that the
monies are secured and the projects then developed. The application is also CIL liable
for 129,304 sqm of floorspace resulting in a Mayoral CIL charge of £4,525,640.
288 In the absence of a legal agreement being completed by 14 January 2013, the
applicant would have failed to adequately mitigate against the impacts of the
development and, in accordance with Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003, it is
recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:
289 1. The development fails to adequately mitigate against the adverse impacts of the
development in accordance with London Plan policy 8.1 - Implementation, Policy 8.2 Planning obligations, Southwark Plan saved policy 2.5 - Planning Obligations, Core
Strategy policy 14 - Implementation and delivery and the Section 106 Planning
Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007).
290 2. The development fails to contribute towards increasing accessibility to employment
through training and other schemes in accordance with London Plan policy 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all, Southwark Plan saved policies 1.1 - Access to
Employment Opportunities and 2.5 - Planning Obligations, Core Strategy policy 14 Implementation and delivery and the Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary
Planning Document (July 2007).
291 3. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the quality and quantity of
open spaces and associated facilities in accordance with London Plan policy 2.18 Green infrastructure: the network of open and green spaces , Southwark Plan saved
policies 2.5 - Planning Obligations and 3.2 - Protection of Amenity, Core Strategy
policies 13 - High environmental standards and 14 - Implementation and delivery and
the Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007).
292 4. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the capacity of public
transport provision and improving accessibility to the development in accordance with
London Plan policy 6.4 - Enhancing London’s transport connectivity, Southwark Plan
policies 2.5 ‘Planning Obligations’ and 5.2 ‘Transport Impacts’, Core Strategy policies
2 - Sustainable transport and 14 - Implementation and delivery and the Section 106
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007).
293 5. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the quantity of health
facilities in accordance with London Plan policy 3.2 - Improving health and addressing
health inequalities and policy 3.16 - Protection and enhancement of social
infrastructure, Southwark Plan saved policy 2.5 - Planning Obligations, Core Strategy
policy 14 - Implementation and delivery and the Section 106 Planning Obligations
Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007).
294 6. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the quality and quantity of
community and leisure facilities, in accordance with London Plan policy 3.2 -
Improving health and addressing health inequalities and policy 3.16 - Protection and
enhancement of social infrastructure, Southwark Plan saved policy 2.5 - Planning
Obligations, Core Strategy policy 14 - Implementation and delivery and the Section
106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007).
295 7. The development fails to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing in
accordance with London Plan policies 3.11 - Affordable housing targets, Southwark
Plan policies 2.5 - Planning Obligations and 4.4 - Affordable Housing, Core Strategy
policies 6 - Homes for people on different incomes and 14 - Implementation and
delivery and the Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document
(July 2007).
Socio economics
296 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 sets out the government’s
commitment to ensuring that the planning system supports and encourages
sustainable growth and development. The social and economic dimension of
sustainable development can be broken down into 4 broad themes:Building a strong, competitive economy;
Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes;
Ensuring the vitality of town centres; and
Promoting healthy communities.
297 Policies in the London Plan, Southwark Plan and Canada Water Area Action Plan also
support the strategy for sustainable growth in London, and specifically the Canada
Water area as an opportunity area for growth. Taking each of the above themes in
turn, the impacts of this development upon socio-economics is assessed in more
detail below.
298 Building a strong, competitive economy
Southwark’s Economic Development Strategy (2010) explains that there are high
levels of economic inactivity, and a large number of benefit claimants in Southwark.
The borough remains the second most deprived borough in London for employment,
with a higher percentage of persons on state benefit, unemployed or with lowest grade
work when compared to the England average.
299 The vision for the regeneration of the Canada Water Area set out in the CWAAP
includes the objective to create more local employment opportunities. Southwark’s
strategic economic development priorities are to build sustainable, inclusive and
prosperous communities by reducing worklessness and sustaining high quality
employment for all residents.
300 During construction, it is estimated that the development will support 418 full time
equivalent construction jobs. The proposed development will also generate a number
of indirect economic benefits including the purchase of local goods for use in
construction and the spending of staff and visitors during the construction phase at
nearby retail units.
301 During the operational phase of the development, commercial tenants will contribute
to the local economy through the creation of new long-term employment opportunities.
It is estimated that approximately 194 new jobs will be created post construction
during the operational phases of the development. Overall the significance of this
effect is concluded to be moderate beneficial in the submitted ES. In addition to this,
the proposed development is estimated to create £15 million annually in household
spending, which may not all be spent in the Canada Water area, but it can be
expected that a high proportion of spending will be in Southwark.
302 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
Both the Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks wards have a mix of housing tenures, with a
higher proportion of homes that are houses and / or affordable in the Rotherhithe
ward. There is need for more affordable housing in the area, as currently the price of
an average property is around 8 times the average earnings of someone working fulltime in Southwark (Annual Survey of Hours and Earning national Statistics and HM
Land Registry).
303 The CWAAP sets out the expectation for a net increase of 2,500 new homes in the
area, with policies in both the Core Strategy and CWAAP requiring 35% of these
homes to be affordable.
304 The proposed development will provide a significant contribution to the achievement of
these housing targets by providing approximately 1,000 new homes, with a mix of
bedroom number. The proposed development would deliver the required 20+% of
larger family size units in each phases and across the development as a whole, whilst
also providing 60+% of units with 2 or more bedrooms. The number of affordable
homes to be delivered would amount to 22.5% of the scheme, and in light of the
current economic climate and the assessment of viability in this scheme (discussed in
more detail in the affordable housing section of this report), the overall number of
homes, family sized homes and affordable homes to be delivered in the development
is acceptable.
305 Ensuring the vitality of town centres
The existing Surrey Quays shopping centre was built in 1988 and sits alongside the
Decathlon retail shed. The town centre area is currently dominated by parking, which
gives an out of centre character to the area. Existing retail and leisure sites in the
area are identified in the CWAAP as development opportunity areas, indicating the
need to up grade existing facilities and the opportunity to intensify and diversify the
uses.
306 Strategic Policy 3 of the Core Strategy seeks the expansion of retail space within
Canada Water and confirms that Canada Water will become a Major Town Centre.
The CWAAP sets out development designations that estimate the provision of around
35,000sqm of additional shopping space and increased leisure space creating a range
of retail opportunities.
307 The proposed development supports the creation of retail provision, including
waterside restaurant and case outlets increasing the amount of active retail frontage in
the area. The quantum of retail floorspace would largely be dominated by the
provision of a new Decathlon store and would represent a contribution to the
achievement of additional shopping space envisaged in the CWAAP.
308 Promoting healthy communities
There are 10 GP practices within 1 mile of the proposed development, with 9 of these
accepting new patients. There are a number of hospitals located within 5 miles of the
site.
309 The CWAAP sets out the plan to regenerate the area around Canada Water, with a
vision to provide more and enhanced educational, health and community facilities
which meet the needs of the growing population.
310 During construction, there are likely to be effects associated with vehicle and plant
movements resulting in changes to air quality, however with the employment of
mitigation measures to reduce the effect of the development on local people, effect
upon the health of existing local residents, is concluded within the ES to be of slight to
moderate adverse significance and temporary in nature.
311 New open spaces, play areas, sports facilities, planted spaces and green links through
the site will have a beneficial, long term permanent effect on the provision of
recreational opportunities for local residents which in turn are likely to generate
associated health benefits. The proposed development includes opportunity for a new
health centre, which could provide services to new and existing neighbouring
residents. The health centre is a possible use in building E1, and as such would be
delivered Phase 2, and as a flexible space, this delivery of the health centre cannot be
assumed as a definite outcome of the development. Overall the impact on healthcare
provision, given existing capacity in the area, is concluded in the submitted ES to be
negligible; changing to moderate beneficial should the healthcare centre be delivered
as part of the development.
312 Conclusion on Socio-Economics
Overall, Officers agree with the conclusions of the submitted ES, and consider that the
impact of the development upon principle social and economic factors is expected to
be beneficial and in compliance with planning policy The development would support
the Town Centre by providing additional and high quality retail and leisure floorspace,
with provision for new public open spaces and the generation of jobs both during the
construction and operation phases of the development. The provision of new homes
would also be a significant contribution to meeting Southwark’s housing targets.
Ground Conditions and Contamination
313 On the site, as well as adjacent to the site, there is potential for historical and industrial
land uses that have generated contamination, including timber ponds, docks,
dockyards, timber sheds, land reclamation with unknown materials (including infilled
docks), depots, warehouses, a whitelead, sulphur and saltpetre works, tram and rail
lines and printing works.
314 Site investigation works will identify potential contaminates and suggest appropriate
mitigation, both during the construction and operational phases of the development.
Controlled working practices during construction, including the appropriate storage of
materials, will reduce potential exposure of construction workers to contamination.
During site investigation, if contaminated land is discovered, measures for either the
removal or treatment of the contaminated land will be explored, reducing the risk of
exposure to future residents or visitors to the site. These measures should be
secured by condition to ensure that appropriate mitigation is in place to respond to the
discovery of contaminants on the site.
Environment and Sustainability
315 Policies 5.2, 5.3, and 5.7 in The London Plan 2011 outline the measures that the
Mayor expects developments to incorporate as part of the sustainable design and
construction of energy efficient development schemes. In the consideration of energy
efficient measures, application proposals should apply the Mayors Energy Hierarchy,
using passive design and energy efficient measures to reduce heating and cooling
loads, and feasibility assessments for low and zero carbon energy systems described
in the London Renewable 'Toolkit'. Policy 5.6 ‘Decentralised energy in development
proposals’ states that development proposals should evaluate the feasibility of
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems, and where a new CHP system is
appropriate, also examine opportunities to extend the system beyond the site
boundary to adjacent sites. The London Plan also encourages developers to
investigate opportunities to incorporate energy from waste, or where technically
feasible, renewable energy in developments. In addition to this, where a district CHP
system provides part of a developments power and / or heating and / or cooling
demand, suitable renewable energy technologies should also be considered in
addition to the CHP system.
316 Southwark’s Core Strategy sets out the approach to achieving sustainable
development in the borough in Strategic Policy 1, describing that development will be
supported if it meets the needs of Southwark’s population in a way that respects the
limits of the planet’s resources and protects the environment. Strategic Policy 13
‘High environmental standards’ then sets out how this can be achieved, by requiring
development to meet the following targets relating to Code for Sustainable Homes,
BREEAM, renewable energy, CHP and surface water run-off.
317 The Canada Water Area Action Plan 2012 sets out in policy 20: ‘Energy’ the strategy
to establish a district heating system to serve both new and existing development. To
facilitate this, a strategic district heating area (SDHA) has been designated around the
core of the AAP area, which includes the application site. Development located in the
SDHA should be future proofed and designed for connection to the district heating
network. Southwark’s Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning
Document also provides further guidance on how to incorporate sustainable design
and construction methods into development.
318 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that the purpose of the
planning system is to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development.
Sustainable development is described as consisting of three broad dimensions,
economic, social and environmental. In relation to environmental implications of
development, section 10 ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change’ describes the key role that planning has in securing radical reductions
in greenhouse emissions, providing resilience to the impacts of climate change and
supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated
infrastructure.
319 The development proposes the inclusion of phased CHP units and integrated thermal
storage to serve residents annual energy demand, and provide the carbon savings
required by the London Plan and Southwark Plan. The Energy Strategy Addendum
has been submitted as part of the revised application, and explains how the phased
implementation of CHP systems on the site can maximise carbon savings across the
development as a whole.
320 At the completion of Phase 1 Building C1, temporary gas boilers will be put in place to
serve the development, prior to the initial CHP unit being included as part of Phase 2
to serve both residents of Phases 1 and 2. The temporary gas boilers will then be
demoted to backup boilers at the completion of the Phase 2 Buildings C2, C3 & C4.
At the point that Building E1 is completed (currently envisaged as Phase 2), the
second CHP unit will be commissioned to serve the whole development, this will be
through a thermal storage system that has increased capacity in conjunction with the
addition of CHP capacity. Through the integrated thermal store / CHP arrangement, it
is anticipated that after completion there will be a saving of 15.9% carbon dioxide
emissions.
321 It is also proposed to include Photovoltaic Panels, to reduce carbon emissions by a
further 5% from the development, and these will be located in all phases on the roofs
of buildings C1, C2 and E1. In conjunction with passive measures, CHP and PVs, the
overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will be by 29.6%. This is in excess of
the required reduction in carbon set down in London Plan policies. While the
proportion of this carbon saving from renewable energy is less than the required 20%
set out in Strategic Policy 13, officers are satisfied that the only practical solution for
the development is the incorporation of photovoltaics, which through the provision of
electricity combines well with the CHP solution, and would not double up heat
generation for the site. The incorporation of Biomass boilers in the CHP system has
been investigated; however the incorporation of a biomass system would make the
boiler less efficient, with an increased particle emission impacting air quality, and an
increased maintenance regime.
322 Both the Canada Water Action Plan and London Plan, ask developments to be
designed to allow future connections to district wide energy networks.
The
incorporation of a site with CHP solution will go some why to achieving this aim. It is
also recommended that the legal agreement include provisions to require further
investigation and, if feasible, connection to an area wide South East London CHP
District Heat Network (SELCHP). The energy centre to be included within the
proposed development can be designed to accommodate the potential for future
connection to the SELCHP should it become a feasible option.
323 The residential element of the development has been designed to achieve a minimum
Code for Sustainable Homes Level (CSH) 4, and the commercial elements are
expected to achieve BREEAM ‘excellent’, while community uses are required to
achieve a minimum BREEAM ‘very good’ level. The requirement to achieve these
minimum CSH and BREEAM levels should be secured by condition.
324 Water resources and Flood Risk
The development will require connection to existing water facilities, and in consultation
with Thames Water, it has been confirmed that capacity exists for the development.
The developer will need to continue to liaise with Thames Water regarding water
supply, and an informative is suggested that can be included on the decision notice
relating to this. Thames Water have also confirmed that a drainage strategy is
required to investigate how waste water from the development will be dealt with, and
conditions can be used to secure the submission of this for Planning Authority
approval in consultation with Thames Water.
325 A site specific flood risk assessment has been undertaken for the development. This
investigates the potential for flood risk, and how flood mitigation measures can be
incorporated into the scheme to respond to this. The Environment Agency has
confirmed that through the securing of these measures by way of condition, the
development will adequately deal with flood risk exposure. As part of the proposed
surface water strategy, a proportion of surface water runoff from the drainage
servicing the hardstanding areas in Phase 1, 2 &3 will be designed to discharge
unattenuated direct to Canada Water Basin and Albion Channel, and this drainage
solution is supported by the councils Ecology Officer.
326 Wind
The impact of the proposed development on the surrounding environments in relation
to wind speed, have been assessed as part of the ES submitted with the application.
This assessment shows that the ground level resulting winds following construction of
the development are predicted to be at level C4’ on the Comfort Assessment Criteria,
which is the lowest impact, meaning that the area would be suitable for long periods of
standing or sitting, without discomfort resulting from wind speeds in the area. This is
the case for the ground levels adjacent to neighbouring residential properties, in
streets and surrounding open spaces, including the Albion Channel and adjacent to
the Canada Water Library. Adjacent to the tower element of the proposed
development, building C4, and the walkway to the existing shopping centre site, wind
comfort is predicted to be ‘C3’ level or comfortable for short periods of sitting or
standing at times of strong wind. Largely impact to the wider area is categorised as
‘C4’ rating – lowest impact, with some limited areas with a ‘C3’ impact. Overall the
wind speeds during strong wind periods is predicted to remain acceptable for the use
of Canada Water for residents and visitors to the area.
327 In relation to wind comfort within the development, the new public space area is
predicted to have a comfort rating of ‘C4’ suitable for long periods of sitting or standing
during strong wind periods. On balcony levels in buildings C2, C3 & C4, additional
balcony wind protection screens have been included in the revised submission to
ensure comfort ratings of ‘C4’ or ‘C3’, that will allow future occupiers to fully utilise
these areas for private amenity, without disruption from uncomfortable wind exposure.
328 Air Quality
The majority of the borough is within an Air Quality Management Zone, and as a
result, developments are required to take account of any impacts upon air pollution as
a result of, or during construction of, a proposed development. An Air Quality
Assessment has been prepared by ADM Ltd and submitted as part of the ES for the
application.
329 There are potential impacts upon air quality as a result of construction of the
development, and in order to reduce this impact, it is necessary to secure appropriate
mitigation by way of condition or through provisions in the legal agreement. Measures
will need to be employed through the Construction Environmental Management Plan
to reduce dust during demolition and construction. During the construction phase and
occupation of the development, it is not expected that increased road traffic as a result
of this development, or adjacent developments combined, will increase the predicated
concentrations of NO2 significantly in the area. A Travel Plan will also be provided to
minimise emissions from vehicles. Other mitigation measures to reduce exposure of
future occupiers to poor air quality include, the use of Mechanical Heat Recovery
systems in residential, retail and car park areas; The fitting of a catalyst to CHPs to
reduce the emission concentration; and designing CHPs and boilers to minimise
emissions, including locating flues at a release height a sufficient distant from
sensitive receptors.
330 Estate Management
A Draft Estate Management Plan has been prepared for the application. This
describes the management arrangements that will be developed for the site,
throughout the construction and operation phases. The Plan sets out the following
arrangements during operation of the development:- Access to the roof garden on top of C4 will be made available to members of the
public by arrangement through the Estate Management Company. On the day the
staff will meet and escort the public to and from the roof. The roof garden will be
accessible to the public from 10:00 - 14:00 on three days per calendar month, one of
which will be a weekend day;
- A team will be put in place by the Estate Management Company to manage the
public realm elements of the Estate, including the soft landscaping components of the
Central Lawn;
- The Central Management Office will be set up in the base of building C1 (phase 1),
and this will provide residents with direct access to the range of services they manage;
- The main concierge facility for the development will be based in the residential lobby
of building C1; each building will also have a satellite concierge office at ground floor.
- The streets are not proposed for adoption and instead will be managed through an
Estate Management Company.
- The Estate Management company will also be responsible for the lift access to the
Albion Channel, cleaning of public areas and safety on the proposed steps to the
Basin.
331 A detailed Estate Management Plan for the operation of the development in
accordance with the framework set out in the draft plan can be secured by condition,
in addition to a Construction Management Plan for the demolition and construction
phases of the development.
332 Secured by Design
The application details have been developed in consultation with the Secured by
Design Officer, and the intention is to achieve secured by design certification in the
final development.
333 Impact on aviation
Some residents have raised concerns regarding the possible impact that the proposed
tall buildings, and cranes used to build these buildings, might have upon aviation
movements in the area. The council has consulted with the relevant aviation bodies
surrounding the site and no objections have been raised to the proposal. In addition
to this, separate legislation requires the inclusion of safety measures (such as
beacons on top of buildings / cranes over a certain height), and therefore no further
planning mitigation would be appropriate or required.
Archaeology
334 The proposed development site lies within the former Surrey Docks, which historically
formed part of the wider London Dock network. While Canada Water sites C and E
are not actually located within an archaeological priority zone, there is material of
interest on site likely to survive from earlier arrangements of the dock and the remains
of the dry dock that has been preserved on site under the present development. Due
to the long and recent history of the docks and those who worked there, there is a
significant public interest in the heritage of this area. The proposal provides some
opportunity to uncover some buried heritage assets and provide a level of display and
public access.
335 The proposals here would enable the excavation of the dry dock (lighter repair dock),
its conservation and display at pre-arranged times, under the proposed building. The
design of the proposed development incorporates the interior of the dry dock for
building services, and therefore the impact of locating this within the dock, would need
further consideration, to ensure that works are undertaken in a sensitive manner given
the historical significance of the dock feature. Conditions can ensure that work is
undertaken appropriately, and should include the monitoring of its excavation,
recording of features, and any other conservation works necessary. Conditions have
therefore been recommended by the councils Archaeology Officer, and would be
attached to any decision to grant planning permission for this development.
Conclusion on planning issues
336 Canada Water is identified in the development plan as an area in need of regeneration
where the application site forms a principal component of the wider Action Area. The
site is identified within the London Plan 2011 as an intensification area. The area
around Canada Water Basin has long been identified as being in need of
redevelopment and has the opportunity to build on the success of the previous
redevelopment around Canada Water Underground Station to make Canada Water a
Major Town centre to deliver the Council’s wider vision for the SWAAP as an attractive
Inner London destination.
337 The development proposal would deliver a high density mixed use scheme on a
brownfield site in a sustainable and easily accessible location. It will make a
significant contribution towards meeting London-wide and local housing targets for
new homes, including affordable housing, built to a high standard and providing
excellent standards of living accommodation. The proposal will help to consolidate the
reputation of Canada Water as a retail and entertainment destination as part of the
aspirations to become a Major Town Centre the provision of a varied mix of land uses
on the site, including a range of business, retail, community and leisure uses. In this
respect the scheme would generate a significant amount of employment opportunities
in the area, both at construction phase and within the completed development. In
addition, the proposal would result in an increase in local open space through the new
open space between C1 and C2/3/4 and the opening up of the Canada Water Basin
as well as smaller open spaces, accessibility to Albion Channel and new public routes
which will significantly improve pedestrian and cycle permeability around this part of
the Rotherhithe Peninsula as well as provide opportunities for enhancing biodiversity.
The proposal will assist in the delivery of public transport improvements on both buses
and by underground.
338 The outline application for C2/3/4 and E1 is broad in nature and as such matters such
as internal layouts and landscaping will be dealt with at the detailed design Reserved
Matters stage. However, no impacts at this stage have been identified that suggest
that the scheme have a significantly harmful impact on strategic and local views,
heritage assets or World Heritage Sites.
339 It is recognised that the redevelopment of Canada Water C and E has the potential for
significant environmental impacts and therefore an Environmental Statement was
submitted in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2011. In coming to a decision on the detailed and outline
applications, officers had full regard to the Environmental Statement and all
submissions relating to considerations contained in the Statement. This includes an
assessment of possible alternative options and why these were not feasible as well as
an assessment of the cumulative impacts of this and other nearby developments.
Following mitigation measures, there will be some adverse impacts associated with
the demolition and construction phases (for example, increased noise, dust, vibration
and construction traffic) but these impacts are short to medium term and none of these
issues are considered to amount ot such significant harm that would justify the refusal
of planning permission. Furthermore, they would not outweigh the significant and long
term benefits that would be gained from the redevelopment of the site.
340 Post construction it has been identified that there will be an adverse impact on a
number orf residents in terms of a loss of daylight/sunlight. It is acknowledged that
there will be an adverse impact on local residents and officers considered this to be
more significant than the slight/minor adverse impacts outlined in the applications ES.
341 In terms of daylight and sunlight it is clear that the development will have some
significant adverse impacts as demonstrated by the fact that 166 (equating to 26.6%
of windows across all neighbouring buildings) windows that previously had levels of
VSC in excess of 27% will now achieve levels below 27% in addition to experiencing
at least a 20% reduction in BSC and as such will have a noticeable impact.
342 This is ullustrative of the lower daylight levels that can be expected in urban areas,
and while high density developments should not maximise the devlopment potential of
sites at the expsne of existing residents, the benefits that would result from this
development would outweigh those areas where harm will result to surrounding
residents’ daylight and sunlight. This is particularly relevant in light of the number of
residnetial units being proposed, as a significant contribution towards Southwark’s
(and the Canada Water area) housing targets and the public realm and townscape
contribution of the development scheme.
The proposal will have significant
employment and retail benefits and mitigation through S106 monies (albeit no
mitigation for loss of daylight/sunlight). The development will be a significant
contributor to the Council’s Strategic Housing Objectives and the intention for Canada
Water to become a high density Urban Town Centre. If the opportunities in Canada
Water are to be realised to their full potential to become a Major Town Centre housing,
retail and entertainment destination in line with the functions of a Major Town Centre
then certain adverse impacts are unavoidable in urban areas
343 It is acknowledged that the proposal does not deliver all of the development plan
requirements, most notably:
• The proposals do not meet the minimum business floorspace for CWAAP 7;
• They do not include a hotel use as required by CWAAP 7;
• The proposals would involve tall building of a more substantial scale than that
anticipated by the AAP;
• The proposals would provide affordable housing at a level below that required
by the AAP; and
• The proposals would involve environmental effects, including impacts on the
daylight and sunlight;
• The overall development would be in excess of the required density for the
area;
• The quantum of parking being proposed is in excess of policy requirements.
Whilst it is noted that the proposal does not deliver all of the development plan
requirements for CWAAP7 it is considered reasonable not to expect the development
to deliver all of the requirements of SWAAP7 as this proposal site includes a wider site
that does not form part of this application and as such there is scope for further
provision on the extended site. The boundaries of site CWAPP7 are being revised in
the revisions to the SWAAP to exclude the Surrey Quays Leisure Park.
344 However, the proposals are considered deliverable and are consistent with the key
policies and objectives of the development plan which seek to bring forward the
redevelopment of Canada Water as part of the aspirations to create a Major Town
Centre. Whilst it is noted that the residential provision for CWAAP7 is in excess of
that specified in the CWAAP overall the residential provision is policy compliant across
the combined area.
345 The failure to provide the minimum business floorspace and hotel use should also be
considered on the basis of the wider site designation and the proposals would not
preclude the provision of this floorspace elsewhere within the CWAAP area. In this
case the application is not considered to be a departure from the development plan as
the application site is only part of the wide site designation. The proposed land uses
are all acceptable within the designation although it is noted that the quantums are
different to hose set out as required in the CWAAP. However, it is the view of officers
that these quantums would be capable of being delivered elsewhere within the wider
designated site. The proposed building heights are higher than expected under the
adopted CWAAP; however whilst the expected heights are set out in the CWAAP in
the text, they are not a fixed item in the actual allocation. As such the proposed
development is not considered to be a departure from the development plan.
346 The departure of the printworks, which in the past has placed constraints upon the
residential development of nearby sites, means that the character of the area would
be altered and that there is further scope for large-scale residential development
beyond that anticipated by the AAP policies, which are out of date insofar as they
assume the existence of that constraint. It is of course relevant that the designation in
the 2012 adopted CWAAP was formed on the basis that the Harmsworth Quays
Printworks remained on the neighbouring site. The location of the printworks here has
in the past placed complicated constraints upon neighbouring sites, particularly in their
ability to be developed for residential accommodation as there was a requirement for a
noise buffer to both protect residents from noise emanating from the Harmsworth
Quay Printworks, and to protect the functioning and operation of the printworks. The
vacation of the printworks from this site does therefore significantly alter the character
of the are, under which the original designation was made as there is no longer a need
for a noise buffer and there is an opportunity to change the character of the Town
Centre, opening up routes and links through the site to the wider Rotherhithe/Canada
Water area.
347 Insofar as affordable housing provision is below policy requirements in the AAP,
viability constraints demonstrate that this is the maximum provision which could be
achieved in order to bring forward the development of the site. Furthermore the
proposal includes the possibility of a review where there is a delay in the
commencement of affordable housing (Phase 2) implementation beyond three years
from the initial consent. Such a review would determine whether there is scope to
provide and increased level of affordable housing up to a maximum of 35%. Given the
improving market conditions this could result in an improved affordable housing offer,
however it would only come forward if the applicant does not meet the obligation to
provide the affordable housing within the first three years. Additionally, should all of
the affordable housing not be capable of being provided in Phase 2 then it will
overspill into Phase 3 to ensure it is provided in full.
348 Whilst there would be a loss of amenity to some local residents, a degree of harm is to
be anticipated if the opportunities in Canada Water are to be realised to their full
potential, particularly in an evolving area and the identified harm is substantially
outweighed by the benefits that would be achieved by the grant of permission for the
scheme. The previous planning consent for the site and the cut-back models are
considered undeliverable, albeit that they showed reduced impacts, and there is no
alternative scheme before the Council, whereas the current scheme is deliverable and
would provide substantial benefits.
349 The tall buildings are part of a scheme which is of exemplary design quality which
would make a substantial positive contribution to the skyline, whilst enabling
substantially improved pedestrian and cycle permeability on the ground, in compliance
with policies in the Core Strategy and London Plan. The proposals would make a
significant contribution to the wider regeneration of the area and would act overalll as
a driver for regeneration which strengthened and developed the reputation of Canada
Water as a retail destination and retain Decathlon who have themselves become part
of the identity of Canada Water, and a flagship tenant.
350 Having regard to all the policies considered, and any other material planning
considerations, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to
conditions, the completion of a legal agreement and referral to the Mayor of London.
Equalities Implications
351 Section 149 of the Equality Act provides that the council must, in the exercise of its
functions, have due regard to the need to:
a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that
is prohibited by or under this Act;
b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and persons who do not share it.
352 The submitted ES includes assessment of the Socio-Economic impacts of the
development. Overall it is considered that the development will have beneficial
impacts, providing job opportunities, new public spaces and facilities, and a significant
number of new homes. There is no significant adverse impacts identified that would
impact specific groups of particular characteristics.
353 The Council therefore consider that the proposed scheme and the regeneration of the
area that the development will bring about, which aims to deliver a mixed and
balanced community, is compatible with its equalities duties and will have some
beneficial impact on protected groups, the advancement of equality of opportunity and
the fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and persons who do not share it.
Community impact statement
354 In line with the Council's Community Impact Statement the impact of this application
has been assessed as part of the application process with regard to local people in
respect of their age, disability, faith/religion, gender, race and ethnicity and sexual
orientation. Consultation with the community has been undertaken as part of the
application process. The consultation undertaken by the applicant has also been
described in the applicants ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ which
accompanied the application.
355 The applicant’s consultation was undertaken by a Project Team, through engagement
with the local community, dating back to the Examination in Public of the Draft
CWAAP in September 2011. This included the following:- Two public exhibitions held at the Canada Water Library on 17 and 19 May and 20
and 22 September 2012;
- Stakeholder Group meetings;
- Meetings with key representatives; and
- Mailouts.
- Informal presentation to Planning Committee and Ward Members on 3rd July 2013.
356 Main stakeholder groups were identified and consulted by the applicant including:Canada Water Forum;
Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum;
Friends of Russia Dock Woodland;
Friends of Southwark Park;
Toronto and Montreal Residents Association;
St Olaf’s Norwegian Church;
Local Community Councils;
Rotherhithe Anglers Club; and
MP, AM and Local Councillors.
357 The applicants Statement of Community Involvement report describes that a range of
key themes emerged, including:- Support for the regeneration and better use of the site;
- Support for new and improved pedestrian routes, public realm, green routes an open
spaces;
- Support for new high quality of waterside retail, restaurants and commercial
activities, including a new cinema;
- The demand for a high quality convenience store and support for small independent
retailers;
- Support for the retention of Decathlon on site;
- Safety and security;
- New and improved street lighting, furniture and trees;
- The need for new children’s playspace;
- The protection and enhancement of wildlife;
- The amount, type and quality of residential accommodation to be provided;
- The amount of car parking to be provided;
- The need to minimise adverse impacts on neighbouring residents.
358 The submitted report describes the responses received, the method of consultation
undertaken and how the responses informed the development of the proposal.
Consultations
359 Details of consultation and any re-consultation undertaken in respect of this
application are set out in Appendix 1.
Consultation replies
360 Details of consultation responses received are set out in Appendix 2.
361 Summary of consultation responses
172 responses were received during consultation. The table below provides a
summary of the main neighbour objections to the application and describes where in
the report these matters are addressed.
Table summarising key neighbour objections
No.
Issue
Officer assessment/paragraph
numbers dealing with points raised.
1.
Heights of buildings not in keeping
with the character of the area, or
the policy designation for the area,
particularly 40 storey tower.
52-62
157-201
2.
Adverse impacts upon neighbours
daylight and sunlight / outlook /
privacy and overshadowing.
103-132
3.
Heights on C1, adjacent to canal
harmful to area and adjacent
residents.
157-201
4.
Cumulative impacts not taken fully
into account.
78-82 Cumulative Impacts
5.
Questionable urban design –
materials not in keeping with the
area.
157-201 Design Section
6.
Wind impacts not taken fully into
account – high winds already in the
area because of proximity of the
Basin and the River Thames.
95, 326-327
7.
Adverse impacts upon ecology and
biodiversity.
96, 274-279
8.
Additional strain on public transport
129-132
and other infrastructure (nurseries,
schools, healthcare, roads etc).
136-156
9
Fails to take full account of all
environmental effects.
64-101
10.
Errors in the submitted Transport
Assessment.
136-156 Addressed through revisions
to TA.
11.
136-156
12.
Not enough car parking for the
retail element.
Too many cycle spaces provided.
13.
Lack of affordable housing.
240-263
14.
Lack of open space.
202-223
15.
Not in keeping with the character of
the area.
157-201
16.
Adverse impacts during
construction, disturbance and
pollution.
64-101
17.
Increased traffic.
136-156
18.
Increased noise.
88-89
19.
Applicant’s consultation
inadequate.
20.
Commercial units in this area are
vacant, don’t let or sell easily.
The applicant has undertaken a
consultation exercise in addition to the
consultation exercises undertaken by
the Council as part of the application.
Paras 355-358.
296-312
21.
Height of the buildings and cranes
during construction could create
dangers in relation to helicopter
flight.
London City Airport and BAA have
been consulted on the proposal and
have raised no objections. Para 333.
22.
Access to the roof of the 40 storey
tower should be given to the public.
23.
No need for new cinema – one
existing in the area.
24.
Too many 1&2 bedroom units,
need more family sized units.
This will be provided and is
accommodated within the S106
Agreement. Para 287.
The provision of a cinema is compliant
with policy and is appropriate in the
proposed Town Centre location. Paras
46-63.
224-225
25.
No play options for children.
202-223
26.
Telecommunications is interfered
with in this area as a result of tall
buildings.
The Council have consulted Arqiva
(responsible for BBC and ITV
transmission) and no objections have
136-156
been raised. Appendix 2.
64-101
296-312
27.
Negative social and environmental
effects will result.
28.
Steps into the basin will be
dangerous.
29.
Limited benefits will result from the
development.
30.
Not enough residential parking
proposed.
31.
The development won’t provide
housing for the local population
and will be purchased by foreign
investors – won’t be affordable.
The development will provide 22.5%
affordable housing for Southwark
Residents plus the potential for more
through the review mechanism.
32.
The proposed application is
premature based on the fact that
the current AAP modifications are
in draft form only.
The application notes that the updated
CWAAP is in draft form only and as
such very limited weight is afforded to
that document. Paras 49-57.
A detailed health and safety audit will
take place as part of a reserved
matters application.
The development will improve
community facilities whilst providing
homes in a sustainable location.Paras
280-295 and 336-350.
136-156
362 62 Identical letters and five individual letters/email responses received from
neighbours in support of the development proposal. The key reasons for supporting
the application proposal are as follows:1. Redevelopment / regeneration of the area welcomed;
2. More / improved open space, public space adjacent to the basin;
3. More and better quality shops, cafes, bars and restaurants as a result of the
development;
4. Public access to the top of the 40 storey tower will allow beneficial viewing platform
for the public;
5. Quality of architecture;
6. Employment, training and jobs programme during construction welcome.
Human rights implications
363 This planning application engages certain human rights under the Human Rights Act
2008 (the HRA). The HRA prohibits unlawful interference by public bodies with
conventions rights. The term ’engage’ simply means that human rights may be
affected or relevant.
364 This application has the legitimate aim of providing a mixed use redevelopment. The
rights potentially engaged by this application, including the right to a fair trial and the
right to respect for private and family life are not considered to be unlawfully interfered
with by this proposal.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Background Papers
Site history file: TP/86-36-4
Application file: 13/AP/3260
Southwark Local Development
Framework and Development
Plan Documents
Held At
Chief executive's
department
160 Tooley Street
London
SE1 2QH
Contact
Planning enquiries telephone:
020 7525 5403
Planning enquiries email:
[email protected]
Case officer telephone::
020 7525 5365
Council website:
www.southwark.gov.uk
APPENDICES
No.
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Title
Consultation undertaken
Consultation responses received
List of schemes
Revision Development specification
list of consultees
AUDIT TRAIL
Lead Officer
Gary Rice
Report Author
Terence McLellan, Team Leader, Planning
Version
Final
Dated
28 October 2013
Key Decision
No
Head of Development Management
CONSULTATION WITH OTHER OFFICERS / DIRECTORATES / CABINET MEMBER
Officer Title
Comments Sought
Comments included
Strategic director, finance & corporate
services
No
No
Strategic director, environment and
leisure
No
No
Strategic director, housing and
community services
No
No
Director of regeneration
No
No
Date final report sent to Constitutional Team
28 October 2013
APPENDIX 1
1
Consultation undertaken
Site notice date: 14/02/2013 and subsequent re-consultations in May and August
2013.
2
Press notice date: 07/02/2013 and subsequent re-consultations in May and August
2013.
3
Case officer site visit date: Numerous, most recent 15/08/2013
4
Neighbour consultation letters sent: 07/02/2013 and subsequent re-consultations in
May and August 2013.
5
Internal services consulted:
Archaeology Officer
Design and Conservation
Ecology Officer
Environmental Protection Team
Planning Policy
Public Realm
Transport
Urban Forester
Parks and Open Spaces
Housing Regeneration Initiatives
Economic Development and Strategic Partnerships
6
Statutory and non-statutory organisations consulted:
Greater London Authority
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Metropolitan Police
Transport for London
Civil Aviation Authority
London City Airport
Natural England
CABE
English Heritage
Environment Agency
London Borough of Lewisham
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
London Borough of Greenwich
London Borough of Camden
City of London
City of Westminster
London Underground
Southwark Primary Care Trust
Aquiva
Royal Parks
BAA
EDF
Thames Water
Waste Management
7
Neighbours and local groups consulted:
See Appendix 5
8
Re-consultation:
May 2013
August 2013
APPENDIX 2
Consultation responses received
Internal services
1
Urban Forester
- A total of 74 individual trees require removal in order to facilitate the development. Of
these 17 are category B trees. These numbers do not correlate with the arboricultural
impact assessment, which states 39 removals and 15 category B trees respectively;
- No stem diameters have been provided, these are needed to gauge the effect of the
proposed felling and how any proposed landscaping can mitigate this loss;
- Of the remaining semi-mature trees on site 17 are recommended for transplantation
(13 category B) either to locations within new landscaping post development, or as
agreed to open space elsewhere. Given the difficulty in successfully removing and reestablishing substantially sized trees from hard surfacing it is unlikely that all or many of
these are feasible;
- Green / blue roofs are proposed with attenuation across the site;
- Landscaping includes a total of 37 new trees at grade within phase 1, 16 of these are
located on a concrete slab above the basement level;
- The landscape design has responded (in areas) to pre-application comments regarding
the need to re-establish avenues and the provision of a greater sense of enclosure
within open spaces which are likely to suffer from exposure and winds related to
adjacent towers;
- Conditions recommended in relation to tree planting and landscaping.
2
Ecology Officer
- Ecologically this development has potential to improve the boundaries of the Borough
SINC. The inclusion of biodiverse brown roofs, green wall and new trees, nesting and
roosting features and soft landscaping will offer real enhancement to the area for
ecology and health and wellbeing;
- Any lighting along the Canada Water and Albion Channel buffer zone edge should be
bat friendly. Trees should be beneficial to wildlife so limes would be welcome;
- A soft edge to the dock is desirable, Albion Channel also has the potential to be
softened and provide enhanced ecological habitat;
- Conditions recommended concerning vegetation clearance, biodiversity mitigation /
enhancement, ecological management plan, prevention of damage to a waterbody,
ecological monitoring, green roofs and bird / bat boxes.
3
Environmental Protection Officer
- No objections, recommend conditions concerning air quality, noise (construction and
operation phases), land contamination and environmental management plan.
4
Strategy and Partnerships Team (Local Economy)
- The total number of jobs provided on the site once completed will be small both as an
absolute figure and in relation to the amount of non-residential space proposed;
- Because so much of the non-residential space will be for Decathlon, the nature of the
functions of that type of retail store means that the number of staff employed is low,
when considering the size of the store.
5
Planning Policy
Providing new homes
- The application seeks permission for a maximum level of residential floorspace of
97,541.4sq.m. This could deliver up 1,046 units depending on the precise mix of units;
- Policy 21 of the AAP sets a target of 2,500 net new homes to be provided between
2011 and 2026. The provision of additional homes on these sites will significantly
contribute towards this target and is welcome. At detailed reserved matters application
stages, the exact quantity of housing will need to be specified as well as viability
information on the overall number of affordable homes to demonstrate the applicant will
be able to meet current policies;
- Policy 24 sets out the density range that new development is expected to comply with.
Sites C&E are within the Core Area density range which is 200 to 700 habitable rooms
per hectare. These ranges may be exceeded in the opportunity areas when
developments are of an exemplary standard of design. The factors that would constitute
exemplary design are set out within our Residential Design Standards SPD 2011. The
proposals are above the density ranges set out in the policy, therefore a detailed
justification will be required;
6
Affordable housing
- Policy 6 of the Core Strategy requires as much affordable housing on developments of
10 or more units as is financially viable. Policy 22 of the AAP requires 35% affordable
housing with a 70:30 social rented/intermediate split;
- The planning statement does not commit to an amount of affordable housing but
instead sets out a number of options which are still being discussed with the Council.
- Our priority is for on site affordable housing although the options which include on site
provision are pushing the delivery of affordable housing to the very final stages of the
scheme which is concerning
- The planning statement sets out that viability information will be used to establish the
final amount of housing that the scheme can provide.
- Suggest that mechanisms be put in place through the section 106 agreements for each
phase to include a review mechanism to ensure that the maximum amount of affordable
housing is delivered throughout the process;
- The information in the housing statement seems to suggest that they are aiming to
meet the tenure split, albeit at 60/40 social rent/intermediate.
7
Housing size, design and type
- Strategic Policy 7 'Family homes' of the Core Strategy 2011, requires that
developments of 10 or more units provide at least 60% of units with 2 or more bedrooms
and at least 20% with 3, 4 or 5 bedrooms in the urban zone. This mix is reiterated in
CWAAP Policy 23;
- The housing statement proposes that these requirements will be met across the
phases, although phase 1 does not meet the policy as it proposes a higher number of
studios (7%). It should be noted that policy sets out the minimum requirements that need
to be met and where possible the number of larger units, particularly three bedroom
family units, should be maximised. This is because Southwark’s housing evidence base
shows there is a greater need for more family housing across all tenures. The planning
statement shows that there are a small number of 4 bed units being proposed as well as
3 bed units;
- Policy 4.2 of the saved Southwark Plan requires new residential development to meet
high quality living standards. It also requires all the residential accommodation to be
designed to Lifetime Homes standards. Supporting this policy we have the Residential
Design Standards SPD 2011 which sets out our minimum room sizes and requirements
for the provision of amenity space etc. All new units will need to meet the minimums set
out within Southwark’s SPD and if the proposal is above the density range set out above
they will need to be exceeded to show exemplary design. The planning statement sets
out that all the units will meet or exceed these standards;
- Policy 4.3 of the saved Southwark Plan requires that a minimum of 10% of the
development needs to be suitable for wheelchair users. Whilst Policy 3.8 (Housing
Choice) of the London Plan allows 10% of new housing to be designed to be wheelchair
accessible or easily adaptable, Southwark requires the wheelchair units to be fitted out
as such from the outset in accordance with the South East London Housing Partnership
Wheelchair Housing Design Guidelines. This is irrespective of the tenure of the
wheelchair accommodation. Further detail will be required at the reserved matters
application stage to ensure that the Council’s standards can be achieved.
8
Design Review Panel
[Comments on pre-application proposal September 2012]
The Panel considered the notion of pure forms or object buildings within a wider public
space. They welcomed the overall size of the wider public space which matches the
scale of the Canada Water Basin. They understood the further subdivision of that public
space into sub-spaces but questioned the hierarchy of spaces and highlighted the
difficulties of designing object buildings in this way because they need to occupy that
public space without disrupting it. In addition to the microclimate implications of these
forms on the open space, pure object buildings like those proposed here need to create
active frontages and meaningful uses on all four sides. Certain uses are difficult to
manage when they have more than one frontage and could result in one side of these
object buildings becoming a ‘front’ and the other a ‘back’. The Panel felt the design team
could rise to the challenge of these buildings but needed to consider them in the round
through rigorous testing of local environmental conditions and with a coherent, site-wide
strategy for the proposed ground floor uses and their associated car parking, servicing
and deliveries.
In relation to the proposal for Phase 1 the Panel acknowledged the way the designers
had managed to accommodate the substantial rectangle of space required by the
Decathlon store. Notwithstanding this they felt the proposed arrangement of the store on
two levels encircled by residential accommodation raised a number of detailed questions
and concerns about: the interrelationship between these two distinct uses; how this
substantial building relates to its neighbours on Site B on the other side of the Albion
Channel and the existing buildings on Surrey Quays Road; the nature and quality of
public access to the store and the residential accommodation; as well as the quality of
the residential accommodation its associated communal amenity. The Panel felt the
Phase 1 proposal was less resolved in its architectural expression and confused in its
elevation. They encouraged the architects to refine their proposals and to try to articulate
the distinct parts more deliberately perhaps to break up the overall form into smaller,
more distinct parts.
9
In a scheme of this scale, the nature and quality of the residential accommodation is a
significant consideration. In both phases the delivery of exemplary quality of
accommodation should include a high proportion of dual aspect units and should be
defined in the planning application. The challenge with pure object buildings and a wraparound proposal of this type is to retain the purity of the proposed forms but also achieve
a high quality of design. The Panel felt the designers had the ability to rise to the
occasion but needed more detail to demonstrate how the scheme will deliver the
residential quality and adhere to the purity of the proposed form.
The Panel raised a question over the longer term sustainability of the design for Phase 1
given its reliance on the Decathlon Store. The scheme is characterised by its substantial
scale due to the proposed occupier. They asked the designers to consider the nature of
the scheme if this occupier was not always there or a different occupier was to take up
the space. Aspects of the scheme like its servicing as well as the provision of car
parking for residents and visitors alike remained unresolved and had not been presented
to the Panel. They felt this remained a substantial concern over the Phase 1 proposals.
If they were to remain unresolved these issues would affect the nature and quality of the
public spaces on Phase 2. The Panel asked the designers to design these fundamental
aspects of the Phase 1 prior to submitting an application.
In conclusion, the Panel welcomed the ambition and elegant qualities of this scheme.
However, they viewed the scheme with optimism and suspicion in equal measure. Whilst
there were differences of opinion, there was a consensus on the proposed height and
the majority felt the design could be beautiful but needed to be exemplary. The question
remains whether this ambition can be delivered to the desired quality, taking into
account the environmental concerns and without being value engineered by cost or
diluted by technical concerns like servicing or car parking. On balance, they encouraged
the design team’s longer term involvement on these sites. They felt the scheme had
benefitted from designers who had the ability to deliver high quality buildings and they
endorsed this strategic vision for the area. The challenge for the client, as much as the
designers, is to secure the delivery of this vision in its purest form.
[Application revised prior to submission]
Statutory and non-statutory organisations
10
Cllr Paul Noblet, Cllr Lisa Rajan, Cllr David Hubber – Surrey Docks Ward
Cllr Wilma Nelson, Cllr Jeff Hook, Cllr Columba Blango – Rotherhithe Ward
- welcome the aspiration of the development to help deliver some of the key aspects of
the Canada Water Area Action Plan such as additional health facilities, the creation of a
new open space and the retention of retail employment at Decathlon, however
regretfully oppose the outline application;
- Welcome the dwelling mix, with approximately 20% of units being at three or more
bedrooms, but extremely concerned about the level of affordable housing, the amount
clearly does not comply with Southwark’s Core Strategy;
- Also concerned about the evidence base for dealing with transport elements of the
development, contrary to both what our constituents and we have observed, the traffic
study suggest that traffic in the local area is falling and therefore the increase in vehicle
numbers will be acceptable;
- Given the high level of public transport accessibility in the area, six bus routes, the
Jubilee Line and the recently extended Overground services, the number of residential
vehicles should be reduced from current plans;
- Concerned about the impact of the new buildings at the north of the development on
the right to light of neighbouring Montreal and Toronto Houses, also concerned about
the light levels to building C2;
- Share the concerns of constituents about the height of the proposed residential tower,
believe that 41 storeys is simply too high and not in keeping with either the local area or
the delivery of the Canada Water Area Action Plan. The 41 storeys is far above both the
aim of the AAP to restrict development in the core are to between generally 5 to 8
storeys and the already secured planning permission for 10 storeys on site C.
11
Thames Water
- Following initial investigation, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing
waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. Should the
Local Planning Authority look to approve the application, Thames Water request a
condition be imposed, requiring the submission of a drainage strategy for approval by
the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. Other
informative / conditions are also recommended concerning non-return valve devices, no
impact piling, requirement for trade effluent consent, installation of properly maintained
fat trap on catering establishments, surface water drainage, and petrol / oil interceptors
in car parks;
- Recommend that an impact study of the entire redevelopment area of Canada Water is
carried out to confirm the extent of any network reinforcement required.
12
Tower Hamlets
- No objection.
13
City of Westminster
- No comments.
14
London Borough of Camden
- No objection.
15
Royal Borough of Greenwich
- No objections.
16
- No comments issued.
17
Greater London Authority Stage 1 Referral
- The application does not fully comply with the London Plan, a summary of the report
conclusions and remedies is set out below;
- Principle of development: The principle of redevelopment for a mix of uses is
consistent with the Local Plan and the objective of the London Plan to regenerate the
town centre promoting high level of growth and investment in this area of intensification;
- Affordable housing quantum, mix and density: The housing offer remains to be agreed
by the GLA would expect that affordable housing is delivered on site. This is subject to
further viability testing and discussion regarding possible review mechanism;
- Urban design: The principle of a tall building is supported and overall the development
is of a very high design standard. Some further work is required regarding the layout
arrangements to C1 and further consideration is also needed regarding the Quality and
Design Standards in the Mayor’s Housing SPG;
- Access: The route through from Surrey Quays Road needs to be resolved so that there
is an inclusive access solution;
- Climate change mitigation: The applicant needs to approach the energy strategy on the
basis of the site as a whole. The timing of the delivery of the CHP will be dictated by the
timing of the optimum heat loads. This needs to be modelled and carbon savings
presented along with a strategy for how the network could grow over time linked to the
phasing plan;
- Climate change adaptation: some matters can be controlled through suitable conditions
however further works is needed regarding drainage as set out in this report and further
details should be provided regarding the ventilation strategy;
- Biodiversity: Broadly acceptable subject to conditions;
- Air Quality: The GLA is currently in the process of further review of the air quality
impacts along wit the ventilation strategy;
- Noise: Broadly acceptable subject to conditions and review of the ventilation strategy;
- Transport: A number of transport matters are raised as set out in this report, please
refer to comments from Transport for London (TfL).
18
Transport for London (TfL)
Trip Generation Assumptions
- Consider the use of a pan-London average mode split for trips made by London
Overground inappropriate, given the development is significantly closer to Canada
Water Station than the average distance in London to a station served by London
Overground Stations;
- In relation to car driver mode share, consider that it is inappropriate to assume that this
has remained stable. Request submission of actual mode splits for the present day as
well as the number of customers accessing the store in 2008 and presently;
- Trip generation figures derived for the proposed development appear low, particularly
for public transport use;
- Trip generation for the office element of the site also appear low, and appear to have
been generated on a per employee basis as opposed to a floor space basis;
- The sites selected for assessment are appropriate, but the methodology should be
revised to ensure that trip generation is generated on a floorspace basis;
- Request further information on the size of the surgery and expected local catchment
before confirming this position is acceptable;
Modelling
- Concerned about the modelling provided in Section 7.2, particularly with regards to the
Surrey Quays Road / Deal Porters Way junction. Request evidence of model validation
by the model builder for the base situation, in order to provide TfL with sufficient
confidence that the models submitted, are valid representations of the existing
conditions;
- Request a capacity analysis of the proposals in relation to the Surrey Quays Road /
Lower Road junction;
- Welcome the commitment of the applicant to delivering the highway improvements at
this junction, and request this is secured through an appropriate planning condition /
s106 agreement;
19
Highway Impact of the Scheme
- Note proposals to extend cycle times of signalised junctions at both the Surrey Quays
Road / site access junction, and the Deals Porters Way / Surrey Quays Road junction.
TfL have concerns regarding the latter, given the heavy use of the unction by
pedestrians accessing both Canada Water bus station and Canada Water station;
- Also concerned about the impact of the extended cycle time upon the operation of
Canada Water bus station;
Car Parking
- Consider the level of car parking for the retail element to be excessive and advise the
applicant to adopt a restrained approach to car parking, reflecting both local conditions
and demand;
- Welcome the proportion of Blue Badge car parking for the retail element of the site,
which equates to 10% of all car parking spaces being designated for Blue Badge
holders;
- in relation to the car parking for the residential element of the site, welcome the
proposed parking ratio of 0.2 spaces per residential unit, and consider that such
provision accords with both the London Plan parking standards and Policy 10 of the
Canada Water Area Action Plan. Also welcome the commitment to provide electric
vehicle charging points which should be secured by condition;
London Underground / Overground
- TfL are content that the proposed level of development would have no adverse impacts
upon London Underground and London Overground services;
Buses
- request contributions to improve bus services and to relocate the southbound bus stop,
as well as contributions to improve the waiting environment of the northbound bus stop;
20
Cycling
- Welcome the level of cycle parking for both the residential and retail elements of the
site, however concerned that the office cycle provision is below London Plan standards;
- Request showers and lockers for retail and office staff;
- Highway works should be sought to promote safety and security of cyclists;
- Welcome commitment to the promotion of cycling through the safeguarding of land for
future expansion of the Barclays Cycle Hire scheme;
Pedestrians
- Request contributions towards the provision of wayfinding across the site;
Construction
- Request the submission of a Construction Logistic Plan (CLP);
Servicing
- Consider the servicing arrangements to be acceptable;
Travel Plan
- Welcome the submission of a Framework Travel Plan for the site, and support the
aims, targets and objectives put forward. Request a full Travel Plan for retail, residential
and commercial elements of the site to be secured through a s106 agreement.
21
London Underground
- No objection in principle to the application, subject to the imposition of conditions
restricting the potential for any structural constructions relating to this development
impacting the London Underground stations or tunnels.
22
Environment Agency
- No objection subject to conditions relating to flood risk, groundwater and contaminated
land, ecology, fisheries and pollution prevention.
23
Sports England
- Although a MUGA is proposed, no further sports facilities are currently proposed as
part of the proposed development;
- New developments should be required to contribute towards meeting the demand they
generate through the provision of on-site facilities and / or providing additional capacity
off-site;
- Sport England’s Sports Facilities Calculator (SFC) can help to provide an indication of
the likely demand that will be generated by a development for certain facility types, it
indicates that a population of 2,615 will generate a demand for 0.14 swimming pools
(£421,309), 0.21 sports halls (677,875), 0.02 indoor bowls centres (£32,792) and 0.09
artificial turf pitches (£92,959 3G or £81,759 Sand) – without such contributions, Sports
England object to this application.
(There is a shortfall of £5224 in comparison to that identified under the S106 Toolkit).
24
English Heritage
- Wish to comment that an impact has been identified on the LVMF view looking
downriver from London Bridge (LVMF11B.1), where the proposed new tower will appear
to the right of the south tower of Tower Bridge, thereby reducing the visual prominence
of Tower Bridge as the principal landmark in this view. In addition, note that the
proposed tower will be visually very prominent above the tree line in some views within
Southwark Park, which we believe causes some harm to the setting of the grade II
registered park.
25
Natural England
- The ecological survey submitted with this application has not identified that there will
be any significant impacts on statutorily protected sites, species or on priority
Biodiversity Action Plan habitats as a result of this proposal. However measures to
improve biodiversity in and around the area should be incorporated.
26
On behalf of Heathrow Airport Limited (BAA & Stansted)
- The proposed development has been examined form an aerodrome safeguarding
perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Therefore no objections to
the proposal;
- For information, wind turbines can impact on the safe operation of aircraft through
interference with aviation radar and/or due to their height. Any proposal that
incorporates wind turbines must be assessed in more detail to determine the potential
impacts on aviation interests.
27
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
- No objections, plans should be sent to the London Office.
[Case Officer Comment:- disk of all documents sent.]
28
Lambeth and Southwark Public Health
- The Canada Water AAP (4.7.20) stated that the London Plan Policy 3.2 would be
followed, this requires Health Impact Assessments (HIA) to ensure major developments
consider the impact of the development on health;
- Many aspects of the development do not appear to offer improved opportunities for
people to lead healthier lifestyles as recommended by the AAP (CWAAP: 2.2.1) but the
lack of a HIA makes it hard to be sure that this theme runs consistency through the
development;
- There are many health issues such as obesity and long-term conditions within the area
which may be ameliorated by thoughtful town planning and urban design. In particular,
the existing and new population would greatly benefit from an environment that
encourages higher levels of physical activity and restricts fast food outlets. Rotherhithe
ward also has higher levels of alcohol attributable admission to hospital than the
Southwark and national average, hence there needs to be good consideration of how
licensed premises and off licenses will operate in the new development;
- The proposal includes a new health centre of up to 658sqm, the proposal appears to
be in line with the AAP which stated that the preferred site for a new health centre was
on the Surrey Quays site as the site is close to public transport and in a central location.
Note that all matters relating to E7 are reserved. This is helpful as it will be important for
developer and NHS to work together to ensure that the new Health Centre is fit for
purpose, since over the whole life of the AAP there will be considerable rise in
population in the area;
- The nature of the peninsular means there is no scope for access to services north and
east of the area as the River Thames is the cut off point;
- Overall the report concludes that the additional population will be accommodated within
the existing health provision as there are ten GP practices within one mile of
development, nine of which are accepting patients, as well as the proposed new health
centre. The report states that ‘it is felt likely that the additional population will be
accommodated within the existing healthcare provision and the magnitude of the impact
is considered to be negligible.’;
- More evidence is required to underpin this judgments and use of the HUIDU model
might have been helpful here in order to make things more explicit. Given the increasing
amount of work that is going on in primary and community care as outlined above, more
information is needed to verify this claim. The cumulative impact of all the development
in this area also needs to be taken into account more fully in this or another appraisal.
One thing that is not clear is the number of new residents and commuters who will wish
to register with practices in the area and although it is not considered that the
demographic structure will alter, greater clarity about the actual numbers coming to the
area is also an important consideration.
29
Arqiva (BBC and ITV Transmission Engineers)
- No issues.
30
Royal Parks
- Objection on the basis that the proposal goes against Royal Parks Policy of
encroachment through the height of buildings around the parks and those that would
adversely impact the views from the parks.
31
Metropolitan Police Service
- Secured by Design should be a requirement for this development along with
consultation with the Crime Prevention Design Advisor.
Neighbours and local groups
32
2 responses received from Local Groups
33
Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum
(T&RAs represented at the meeting – Canada Estate, Bonamy/Bramcote, Mayflower,
Parkside, Swan Road, Hawkstone, St Helena & Oldfield, Tissiba & Haddonfield)
- Fully support the application which offers substantial benefits for the local area;
- The application will establish a high quality town centre for Canada Water with facilities
designed to meet the needs of local people;
- The scheme provides a large and attractive public square next to the dock basin;
- The RAHF members particularly like the architectural design of the scheme and
consider that the white tower will become a symbol of confidence and regeneration. The
quality of the scheme reflects the Forum’s pride and confidence in Rotherhithe and sets
the highest standard at the start of a period of major regeneration;
- The scheme will commit to providing job training and apprenticeship to help get local
people into permanent employment. Sellar have a good record in doing this with the
Shard and we welcome their involvement here;
- The Forum welcomes the developer’s willingness to work with tenant and residents
and with the Council to agree local priorities for s106 expenditure.
34
Toronto and Montreal House Residents Association (Fuller Long Planning Consultants)
- Wish to register the strongest possible objection to the proposed development;
- The proposal would be almost wholly contrary to the vision and development
parameters set out in the principle statutory document managing the development of this
site and the wider Canada Water Opportunity Area;
- The submission has not fully taken into account issues of acknowledged importance
within the Environmental Statement, and therefore the submission is not in accordance
with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations
2011;
- The Environmental Statement has not fully taken account of the cumulative impact of
likely development around the site and moreover, the submission of this hugely
significant development now, will significantly prejudice and unduly influence the review
of the current CWAAP, which is not due to for public consultation until April 2013, with a
view to adoption in April 2014;
- The proposed development, by reason of its siting, layout, design, height, mass and
bulk, would have a significant harmful impact upon the amenities of residents already
living in properties at Canada Water and especially those living in Montreal and Toronto
Houses. This will be particularly harmful to the levels of outlook, privacy, daylight and
sunlight, which they may reasonably expect to enjoy, even as part of an opportunity site.
The buildings on Albion Channel should be set-back;
- The daylight and sunlight assessment presents a marginal threshold of acceptability,
and warrants a thorough and independent scrutiny of assumptions made and
conclusions reached, by a suitably qualified person;
- The development would represent questionable urban design;
- The proposed building heights are unjustified in this area and would have an illogical
setting, the consequences of which would significantly harm the peaceful and human
scale of the Canada Water basin and the suburban character of the wider Rotherhithe
Peninsula, and could lead to an unexpected and harmful wind environment;
- There is no requirement to further ‘mark’ the regeneration of the area. The heights of
buildings are at odds with the CWAAP and with the prevailing character of the area, a
key criterion for assessing the suitability of sites for tall buildings;
- The proposals would fail to physically respect and interact with the heritage assets of
the Surrey commercial Dock system of which the whole area was, and remains, a part;
- The proposals are likely to have an adverse impact upon the ecology and biodiversity
of the Canada Water SINC and the public enjoyment of connecting waterways and
green-links;
- The proposed development would place exceptional, additional burdens on public
transport and other infrastructure, which may not have been fully taken into account in
the submitted planning application documents or in the adopted CWAAP;
- As such the development fails to fully take into account the environmental impacts,
would have a significant, detrimental impact on matters of acknowledged importance
and, would be dangerously prejudicial to the proper planning process of reviewing the
Canada Water AAP.
[A detailed critique- of the application is contained in the response letter. The above is a
summary of the points raised.]
35
71 responses received from Neighbours in objection to the application
36
49 John Kennedy House
- The applicant has submitted a flawed and error ridden Transport Assessment authored
by Rambolls, which has been integrated into the Environmental Assessment. The
applicant has carried out an erroneous approach and failed to adequately consider
inevitable, significant and likely impacts on people and the environment. Impacts
including traffic congestion and polluting emissions were not adequately considered and
adverse impacts were excluded by reducing (and wrongly framing) the area of TA study;
- A great many objections have been received to this application concerning traffic and
congestion which is also linked to pollution. To ensure good and proper planning these
matters and issues need to be tackled and sorted out;
- The applicant should make contributions to improve the surrounding road networks
through planning obligations;
- Very concerned about loss of view, outlook and light, affecting neighbours of the
proposed development;
- Very concerned that there is no barrier between the large round TFL vent in the plaza
and the development site, because of pollutants, and emissions from SELCHP;
- If Decathlon’s demands and requirements are far too onerous and depriving the
community of s106 / CIL, social housing, and viable delivery of the AAP etc, then
Southwark Council should consider compulsory purchase of the lease and putting in a
direct competitor to Tesco;
- The store is going to double in size and the sports facility provision to the public
community is disappointing;
- Rotherhithe also requires an updated robust, honest, comprehensive and transparent
road traffic study in order that changes to our AAP and wider area roads are well
planned and effective in reducing the adverse impacts and damage from pollution and
traffic;
- Car parking for the retail element is inadequate;
- The requirement to provide 1700 bicycle stands is wasteful, inflexible and is not
appropriate for the residential users because it would be better to provide less provision
using quality secure cycle lockers for residents and visitors;
- Car club vehicles can be in use a great deal on the road adding to congestion and
pollution unless they are electric etc. And club cars are likely to increase car use;
- In relation to affordable housing, the Rotherhithe area Housing Forum (a
‘representative’ forum) has endorsed a very low provision of affordable housing in this
development, clearly not in agreement with local elected Councillors, and more weight
should be given to elected Councillors;
- The CWAAP quantum for housing is going to be significantly and substantially
exceeded and this exposes 2009/10 assurances about AAP sustainability given to
residents and the CWAAP EiP as clearly being extremely flawed;
- It is essential, for good and proper planning, equality – fairness – etc. that all
developments in our area contribute towards facilities and improvements put in place in
Rotherhithe AAP area so that the Rotherhithe AAP area is sustainable and
developments gain the support of the Rotherhithe community affected by the
intensification.
37
30 Montreal House
- This new development, as a result of the proposed heights, will definitely affect the
amount of sunlight received during the summer seasons;
- The decision to have the development very close to the canal and with the proposed
height will mean that the buildings will be so close and facing each other and therefore
very little spaces between buildings and therefore a lack of privacy;
- The decision to place this building very close to the canal will deny residents the open
spaces which are vital for the outlook and enjoyment of this area. Lots of people with
young families live in this area. This lack of open spaces will make it look like ‘cement
and concrete city’;
- Construction very near the canal will definitely affect the water quality in the canal and
this will affect the ecology of Albion canal.
38
Flat 29 Toronto Court, Canada Water
- The proposed building heights are unacceptable and will have an adverse effect upon
properties and all occupiers at Toronto Court; furthermore the plans are contrary to the
Area Action Plan which stipulates building heights of between 5 and 8 storeys;
- The development as proposed is poorly designed in its siting, appearance and scale,
and it will be detrimental to the Albion Channel and the surrounding areas. Whereas the
Barratt development at Maple Quays has been design to display a range of contrasting
architectural styles, this is not the case for the proposed development which is not
appropriate in this area;
- Especially concerned about the excessive height of the building which will overshadow
and overlook both Toronto House and Montreal House; it will have a detrimental effect
upon natural light received into properties and will adversely affect privacy;
- No objection to the redevelopment of the site in question but call upon the Local
Authority to excise its control in ensuring that what is approved is sensitive to the
location and to the needs of local residents.
39
39 Toronto House, Surrey Quays Road
- Strong concerns regarding the planning application;
- Most residents move into Canada Water because of its unique qualities within London,
it has clean, open spaces, a unique river/pond/lake, and already sufficient facilities
(Tesco, Surrey Quays shopping centre, and the library), it is not as congested and
claustrophobic as compared to central London;
- The current population in Canada Water / Surrey Quays is at its optimum, with extra
new residents moving once the Barratt Homes buildings are completed. The Canada
Water tube station is already very busy in the mornings / evenings, and with the
upcoming new residents following completion of existing constructions, the public
transport will be even more congested;
- The existing facilities in Canada Water are fine – Tesco, shopping centre, a good
number of restaurants, cinema, bowling centre, library, estate agents and open spaces.
No need for extra facilities;
- The proposed development is extensive and the construction projects will cause a lot
of pollution during the day (noise, air) and impact on limited natural environment;
- Canary Wharf is already extremely convenient for Canada Water residents to do
shopping, go to work to the Wharf;
- On the other hand, Surrey Quays needs some significant redevelopment. The shops
and buildings (either residential or commercial) are all rather shabby, there are not a lot
of restaurants, is very dark at night and susceptible to crimes. Surrey Quays / Deptford
is the area that needs extensive regeneration.
40
No address, representation on behalf of residents in the area
- Letter on behalf of 19 residents in the area who strongly oppose the construction of
high rise building(s) on the Decathlon plot. The area has recently had a construction of
a 26 storey building which has greatly affected the quality of life of residents;
- The Decathlon plot is one of the few open areas left in Canada Water;
- The buildings (particularly high rises of 20 and 40 storeys) will completely block the
very little sunlight received by neighbouring homes;
- Sunlight has already been compromised by the Maple Quays construction;
- Environment Statement Volume 1 Chp 2 para. 2.3.1 states the factors contributing to
the need for redevelopment in Canada Water, however the allocated proposed max
floorspace areas for retail (other than Decathlon) is just 3.2% or 4334sqm of total
proposed development floorspace area;
- The road near the plot is narrow and the development will increase traffic, and hence
noise dramatically;
- Already been living with construction noise and pollution for the last 4 years, more
construction would take away at least another 4 years of quality of life. The blocks
constructed don’t have enough space for any vehicle to enter, delivery vans are
constantly blocking the road near these blocks leading to hazardous driving conditions;
- Residents are not aware of the proposals, there should have been more publicity;
- Infrastructure in the area needs to be improved before more blocks can be given
permission to build (i.e. Primary Schools, GPs, Leisure Centre and Tube Station).
41
No address, resident of Woodland Crescent
- Strong objection to the proposed 40 storey tower proposed for the development of the
current Decathlon site;
- Tall structure would be obtrusive and out of keeping with the generally low rise nature
of the area, impacting on sunlight for many as well as overlooking may residences;
- Such structures are more suitable for the high rise Canary Wharf area and no the area
around Canada Water which has new building heights with the exception of Ontario
Point of 8 to 12 storeys;
- Previous Conrad Phoenix proposals for the site are completely in keeping with the
area.
42
No address, by email
- Completely oppose any construction of further high rise plots at Decathlon;
- Do not want more high rise towers and the potential noise, pollution this will invariably
bring.
43
No address, by email
- Overall consider that the area would benefit by replacing the existing retail units with
the new mixed development;
- Concerned about the proposed 40 storey building, consider 40 storeys to be far too
high a development for the area and it will block light to existing developments in the
area.
44
27 Harwood Point, 307 Rotherhithe Street
- Strong objections to development plans regarding the height of proposed buildings;
- Oppose any construction higher than 5 storeys and find it unsightly as well as
environmentally unfriendly to the area.
45
13 Bywater Place
- A 40 storey building in this area would be obtrusive to the current landscape;
- Not keen on the idea of replacing useful commercial real estate with residential real
estate as it will mean that there is less on offer for the residents of the area;
- The volume of additional residential units is dubious in light of current challenges to
local infrastructure (broadband, roads, tube etc);
- Also concerned about the impact of local wildlife along the canals and Russia Dock
Woodlands.
46
18 Baltic Court, Timber Pond Road
- Public consultation too short, exhibition needs to be held again for longer, with more
publicity and local councillors in attendance;
- No family homes of 3 and 4 bedrooms provided for;
- Nothing to stop affordable homes being bought by developers to rent out to the
students attending the facilities proposed for the Harmsworth Quays development;
- No provision to extend Alfred Salter Primary School by purchasing the land opposite on
Robert Close, to cater for the influx of extra children;
- Strain on Canada Water Station due to population increase;
- No car parking provided, residents will park on street;
- The units opposite the Library remain ‘to let’ or ‘unsold’;
- The tower is too tall and an eyesore. Views from Stave Hill across London slowly
disappearing. The Water Gardens, Ontario Tower and possibly the development at
Harmsworth Quays have, or will impact on any view. The area is low rise, the tower is
out of character with the rest of the area, and there is a privacy issue with tall towers
looking down on those houses and flats lucky enough to have a garden or balcony;
- Height could be an issue for helicopters, also City Airport;
- If the tower is granted permission, then local residents should be allowed to have
access to the roof garden.
47
SE16 6RG, Residents at the Water Gardens
- Huge development for a small site;
- Long low block looks like a cross between the Heygate and Churchill Gardens; the
mid-rise has stumpy proportions – ugly looking, big concrete of the bad constructions of
the 60s/70s – very ugly huge concrete blocks with no respect for the environment the
area, wildlife living in the area;
- Darkness, decrease of light and sunlight in the area;
- The garden square is nice, but the massing doesn’t make much of the lakeside
location. Why not something more festive along the water front, a missed opportunity for
a water side location;
- It’s not really using the facing to Canada Water very well, this building could be
anywhere;
- The tower and two other lighter blocks are enormous;
- Huge and uninspired;
- Not a nice place to live, no green space, not environmentally friendly, not human
friendly, no plants.
48
No address
- Very opposed to the high rise nature of the proposals. The surrounding area is
predominantly low rise and 40 storeys would change the nature of the area altogether;
- Block light to surrounding dwellings;
- Concerned that the schools and medical facilities in the area cannot cope with the
number of new dwellings proposed;
- Already have local schools that are oversubscribed;
- No need for a cinema when there is one very close to the site at Surrey Quays leisure
park. This would lead to increased noise late at night, disturbing the surrounding
residential areas;
- Concerned that the number of parking spaces seem very insufficient for the
development proposed both for the residents and for the shoppers at any retail site.
This will lead to increased parking and traffic on the surrounding road;
- The area has plenty of 1 and 2 bedroom units, and a severe lack of 4 bedroom units or
more, or larger dwellings suitable for families with secondary school aged children. In
order to build a community we need families to stay, not to move out when children are 7
or 8.
49
16 Wolfe Crescent
- The height and massing are inappropriate for a development in this area and contrary
to all Southwark Plans;
- The 41 storey block, with 20 storey block alongside, is particularly offensive. It will
dominate the skyline and with the block already permitted alongside Canada Water
Station will give the appearance of an American city centre;
- Nothing said about affordable housing, made clear in the CWCF that none is intended.
Told that the ideal of 25% affordable housing is not provided, that there will be no 3
bedroom apartments with private recreation space, that all residential properties will be1
and 2 bed bought as pieds-a-terre. The development despite it’s massive size will make
no significant contribution to Southwarks housing stock;
- Nothing said about the impact on the wildlife at Canada Water or the lake or Albion
Channel, could there be an assessment by TRUE?
50
19 Fishermans Drive
- Objection to the plans to build a 41 storey tower block in the Decathlon plot;
- Concerned that a building of this dimension and height would significantly reduce the
skyline of the area, and is not in keeping with the original surrounding developments
which are classified suburban;
- A development of this size will reduce light. Once occupied the accommodation would
significantly increase traffic and parking congestion to the surrounding roads.
51
No address
- Greatly concerned at the impact this would have on the travel links in the area, with the
tube station already being overcrowded at peak times. Feels it would have a significant
negative effect on the local community.
52
44 Montreal House, Surrey Quays Road
- Whilst the plan on a whole is a big improvement on the existing plan, want to object to
the height of the south end of building C1;
- The 13 storey slab will be much closer to the canal than the existing building and the
make the canal appear a gloomy canyon;
- This building will dominate the edge of the dock, as well as the plaza and iconic library
building;
- Buildings should be lower nearer to the dock and canal, and rise in height further away
from the canal and water edge. This would preserve the vista across the plaza to the
dock and the new development, rather than blocking it with an unimaginative hulk of
building.
53
No Address
- These developments will block sunlight to existing buildings and houses, parking is
already a problem and it will only get worse. Noise pollution will increase greatly
reducing the quality of life in this area. Furthermore, the construction and the existence
of these proposed towers will severely disrupt the wildlife that currently exists in our area
(i.e. assorted waterfowl – some migratory, hedgehogs, foxes etc.).
54
No address, resident of Water Gardens Square
- High rise buildings will destroy the enjoyment of living in the area;
- Construction work for high-rise building to the new developments near Canada Water
tube station is a hazard to residents and the environment;
- There will be large vehicles operating on the site, which is dangerous for residents
especially children. Cranes on high rise buildings are dangerous (accident at Vauxhall);
- Dust from construction will be harmful to residents and the environment;
- This area has the benefits of the city, but also the benefits of suburban life. It has been
quiet and peaceful, the proposal will change this;
- High-rise buildings will block natural sunlight for a large number of flats nearby;
- The existing construction work around Canada Water tube station has been disturbing
already, more construction work is unacceptable.
55
No address, resident of Water Gardens Square
- Unacceptable to start more construction work in the area, let alone more high rises;
- The area gets very crowded with heavy traffic, unbearable noise and less available
public facilities over recent years;
- There are lots of children in the area and more building work will cause more pollution,
dust, noise and the high rise buildings will block sunlight.
56
Flat 461 Heligan House, Water Gardens Square
- Opposed to high rise developments being built on Decathlon site;
- Character of the area is low rise, with the exception of building by the Station. High
rise buildings will disrupt the character of the general neighbourhood;
- High rise buildings would affect the right to light of many residents in the Water
Gardens Square development;
- The proposed new development would contribute to noise and traffic problems in an
area which isn’t designed to support a high volume and / or frequency of motor or
pedestrian traffic. A development that is smaller than the proposed 40 floors would be
much more acceptable, and would not contribute unduly to congestion in the area.
57
No address, Needleman Street
- Opposed to the proposed 40 floor high rises at Surrey Quays site;
- The view from Stave Hill, which has offered a panorama around London, is beginning
to be eroded away with the constant building of high rise developments;
- The infrastructure, i.e. schools, transport etc. which are struggling as it is without this
proposed project;
- Value sunlight and open skies.
58
No address, Bywater Place
- Objection to the proposed development around the Decathlon site;
- With all the existing building and development work going on currently, approval of
further development, especially around Decathlon, by the council would negatively and
more importantly permanently overload the existing infrastructure and fundamentally
change our current quality of life.
59
13 Woodland Crescent
- Opposed to high rise buildings in the Surrey Quays area;
- Main attraction of this peninsula was the feeling of space and openness;
- Supportive of the redevelopment of the Surrey Quays area, the area lacks good bars,
restaurants, quality shops and leisure facilities, the new library is fantastic;
- High rise buildings will spoil the skyline, reduce daylight, block out the sunlight and turn
the area into yet another anonymous commercial zone;
- Other considerations of noise, parking etc.;
- A 40 storey tower will look incongruous with the surrounding area and dominate the
peninsula.
60
445 Heligan House
- Concerned with proposals to construct 5 buildings ranging from 5 to 40 storeys on the
Decathlon plot;
- If buildings are higher than 5 storeys, all the south-west facing flats in Water Gardens
lose their direct access to sunlight and daylight and would in effect be in shadow for
most of the daylight hours;
- All the south facing flats will face the north facing facade of one of the buildings in the
complex resulting in a loss of privacy not to mention a loss of the view of Canada Water;
- Such a large complex of so many storeys indicates an increase of persons in the area,
this implies an increase in noise levels in the area as well as an increase in vehicular
traffic and its concurrent risks as well as an exacerbation of the problem of too many
cars for too few parking spaces.
61
No address, resident of Eleanor Close
- Strongly oppose the construction of any further high rise buildings anywhere in the
Surrey Quays site, particularly on the Decathlon site;
- The original consultation of the area regeneration concluded that the maximum height
of any buildings should be 8 storeys;
- There was a promise that along with the huge increase of population through this
property expansion, not only would public spaces, transport services and community
facilities be created / improved or expanded to support demand and alleviate pressure
on new and existing residents and business, also a new atmospheric, lively and
community feel to our streets and paved areas was a huge selling point for earlier
planning sign offs – so far only positive is the library with no facilities;
- No play options for children, poor take up of commercial units, shopping centre lacking
in so many ways, ponds and canal terribly neglected, Rotherhithe tunnel has a
debilitating effect on traffic around the entire island, there are no community centres /
spaces, the sports facilities are totally inadequate, telecommunications don’t work,
phones drop out frequently and broadband is cripplingly slow;
- All original and existing developments prior to the new Barratt’s expansion are
maximum 4-5 storeys which are essential limits to maintain healthy levels of light and air
space and encourage the natural spaces to remain a home for nature;
- Surrey Quays is a family environment and should remain as it is unobstructed.
62
51 Acorn Walk
- Opposition to the construction of high rises in this area;
- Detrimental effect of this type of development is well documented in terms of the
negative social and environmental impact.
63
No address, resident of Fishermans Drive
- Against multifloor buildings on Decathlon plot;
- Area cannot fit so many new flats;
- Already problems getting on the tube, and getting doctors appointment;
- The area is overcrowded, there are not enough nurseries in the area or even
playgrounds;
- Traffic is a nightmare with traffic jams everyday on Lower Road.
64
No address, SE16 6AU
- Please sort out the local roads before allowing redevelopment which will result in an
influx of people to the area to live;
- The height of the proposed Tower is too tall and out of keeping with the surrounding
low level housing and flats. The Ontario Tower on Surrey Quays Road went above the
promised height so the height of these towers will create a precedence for the height of
any future towers;
- The proposed steps / seating onto Canada Water are a possible danger.
65
No address, resident of Timber Pond
- There is already a cinema, why is another cinema needed?;
- Why is office floorspace needed in this area? There is empty office floorspace in zones
1, 2 and 3 that needs filling. Industrial businesses like the printworks would be a better
option;
- Is it necessary to have a green space when Stave Hill (ecology park) is just a stones
throw away and the area is not far from Southwark Park;
- The towers will block sunlight to the green space;
- The towers will create a wind tunnel;
- There is a bridge near the canal that should be left unchanged and cleaned up;
- A second hill should be put forward, that is higher than the existing Stave Hill;
- No need for more retail space (other than Decathlon) when already plans to improve
the shopping centre;
- There is already a huge issue with leaving Rotherhithe by road at certain times and
more people in the area will mean more people using cars. Restricted parking is
needed, Dominion Drive should be a through road, and another way of leaving
Rotherhithe should be created;
- More affordable housing needed;
- Local people should have first opportunity to buy homes;
- Should be a mixture of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes and not just 1 and 2 rooms with
decent liveable size of floorspace for each home;
- Lots of new buildings in the area being constructed with little time for locals to consider
how they feel about the new buildings, and how these buildings effect the environment
and community;
- Wrong type of buildings for this area, green space is pointless when the concept art
shows buildings that look morbidly dark, dank and depressive;
- Buildings should reflect the history of Rotherhithe or be built with lighter bricks that
generate a light and non-aggressive atmosphere;
- The tower should not be built for many reasons, including the following, there are many
helicopters in the area, blocking sunlight, invading privacy and creating uncomfortable
atmosphere to live in, impact on wildlife, doesn’t fit in with anything in the area, there is a
restriction on heights in the area, skyline / view from Stave Hill would be ruined, and a lot
could still be done without building the tower;
- This plan echo’s the mistakes of the past with 1950’s housing boom.
66
144 Montreal House
- Support the redevelopment of these sites, but do have concerns with the current
proposal;
- The height of Core A of building C1 at the corner of Albion Channel and Canada Water
Basin, part of this building is 6 storeys rising to 12 storeys near the Basin. The 12 storey
segment is too high and there will be loss of daylight and sunlight caused by this 12
storey building;
- In order to blend in with other developments in the area, the building should be of
similar height, 6 and 8 storeys would be more in keeping with the area.
67
Flat 573 Giverny House, Water Gardens Square
- The applicant presents their enormous buildings as the new town centre of the Canada
Water area and that a forty storey tower would act as a landmark for the Rotherhithe
peninsula. This is wholly unnecessary as Barratt’s twenty six storey Ontario Point can
already be seen from miles around and Canada Water has an existing focal point in the
Canada Water Basin nearby the station and the public plaza between them. Any further
towers should be clustered around the public transport hub;
- The Canada Water Action Area Plan estimates the capacity of Site C to be 430
residential units with a further 140 on Site E. It also states that the sites are suitable for
buildings of between 5 and 8 storeys;
- Public transport in the area is already heavily congested;
- The applicant is reluctant to provide the normal percentage of affordable homes within
the development, with any that they do provide being in the final ‘Site E’ phase;
- If the sites only become viable if the buildings permitted are grossly disproportionate,
when compared with those around them, then perhaps the applicant paid the previous
landowner, Conrad Phoenix, too much money. See no reason why the area should be
bighted in order to satisfy a speculator’s investment;
- The arrangement of blocks in Water Gardens allows more light to reach Albion
Channel and the properties in the pre-existing Woodlands Crescent development, and
maintains the South-East facing vista established by Woodlands Crescent which means
the morning sunlight can reach the communal gardens of both developments;
- The images supplied by BKR Sustainable Solutions suggest a significant loss of sky /
sunlight to neighbouring properties, yet this is dismissed in Ramboll’s Environmental
Statement – Non-technical Summary as ‘minor’;
- The height, width and placement of the various blocks would result in a distinctly
‘canyon-like’ and oppressive streetscape.
68
No address, SE16 6SF
- Against the plan to build a 40 storey high building, it will increase the population
significantly, putting pressure on limited public resources, including transportation,
schools, shopping, nursery, health care, and library. It will significantly change the
outlook of this area;
- Support plans to create retail stores, health centres, especially another large
supermarket. Currently the 24 hour Tesco store did not cope with the high volume of
customers.
69
No address, Toronto House
- The volume and height of the new buildings is too high, it will completely change the
area;
- It will decrease the value of every other property in Maple Quays;
- Currently a convenient but quiet location, the amount of new residents will change this;
- With the new buildings, the volume of people living in the area will increase
dramatically and will make it unbearably crowded. Taking the tube in the morning will be
a bigger nightmare than it already is and this is not acceptable;
- The new buildings will be too close to Toronto House and Montreal House and will
change the view dramatically. The height of buildings will also cause a loss of sunlight
for the south facing flats;
- Don’t object to the idea of having a town centre but don’t see the need to have this
amount of residential and commercial units, which in my opinion are unnecessary.
70
Helier Court, Eleanor Close, SE16 6PZ
- At 40 storeys the proposed building will further change the character of the area.
Canada Water has principally been a low-rise residential area;
- This application will further increase traffic on Surrey Quays Road, which has already
been increased with the recent new developments;
- Application includes up to 698.2sqm of cinema floorspace. There is already a local
cinema in the Mast Leisure Centre;
- The application will further imbalance the ratio of residential to commercial premises in
the area. Canada Water has very few commercial outlets, it badly needs more high
quality shops, restaurants and cafes to provide a balanced environment and provide a
high street feel;
- Important that the frontage onto Canada Water remains clearly accessible to the
general public and is not restricted to the occupiers or owners of the new buildings.
Canada Water is a resource for the whole community and should not be restricted to
those who can afford to live in the new developments.
71
253 Dovecote House, Water Gardens Square
- Strongly against this proposal, and don’t believe this benefits in anyway the local
residents, the area and the local wildlife, but only Sellar’s own financial interests;
- Not against the construction of new houses in the area or the development of Canada
Water in anyway, however very strongly object to the Sellar development;
- Scale and size of New York / Canary Wharf and not in line with the nature of the area
or other developments already completed;
- Impact on light, especially due to the size of the buildings;
- Impact on residents quality of life, impact on local infrastructure and transport;
- Very limited to no green areas proposed;
- Very limited to no benefits to the area;
- Increase in noise in the area, due to scale of work required and post completion;
- Impact on traffic and transport in the area;
- Negative Impact on wildlife and not pleasant looking.
72
19 Woodland Crescent
- The buildings C2, some of C1 and all of C4 together will completely obstruct all the sun
that its received to all floors of neighbouring houses;
- Strongly oppose buildings over 6-7 floors in line with all other developments in this
area;
- The developments like what is being proposed should be balanced with some
additional benefit to the area. The openness of Decathlon and adjoining areas will fast
disappear concrete jungle taking over with no one caring about the quality of life of the
residents around;
- The traffic between Canada Water tube station and Seven Islands is extremely busy at
best of times, this will make matters worse;
- Canada Water and surrounding areas have seen unprecedented development. There
are numerous other developments increasing the population of the area, the shopping
mall is creaking at its seams, Canada Water tube station is becoming overcrowded at
peak hours making it difficult to commute to work, lack of health centre, lack of school
space, etc. all facilities under further stress.
73
- The Sellar proposals are not at all compatible with the CWAAP conclusions;
- Sellar’s proposal will ignore the current building line, remove trees and result in a 13
storey high building within a few feet of the water. This will create a claustrophobic
effect of the towering height in combination with the substantial encroachment. Also
object to the subsequent loss of the trees / wildlife and a serious loss of natural light;
- Understand that the development plans to construct a new, additional, pedestrian
footbridge over the canal, quite close to Toronto House, in the area of the current
children’s’ playground. This would create a huge increase in pedestrian traffic from their
new development to Canada Water bus and tube station. This will create additional and
unwanted noise, litter, security risk all under balconies in Maple Quays;
- Sellar have had ineffective consultation with residents;
- Substantial loss of amenity (photo’s provided), the current natural light and views from
the lounge and balcony of the flat will be substantially impacted by the proposal. The
proposals will have a devastating impact on the enjoyment of the homes in Maple
Quays.
74
No address
- Object strongly to the proposal for a 40 storey building on the current ‘Decathlon’ site,
totally out of character with the area and greatly exceeds the already high buildings
being built at present;
- Not opposed to some degree of high rise development in the area, but this is totally
over the top;
- Would like to understand more about how the residents of these new dwellings are
going to be serviced for schools, medical needs, etc as the existing services in the area
are already stretched to breaking point.
75
No address, SE16 7TZ
- Concerned about the number of residential units proposed as well as the height of the
40 storey building;
- The supermarket and station have now reached their peak usage capacity. During the
peak times the station is always very crowded and, then there are delays on Jubilee line,
platforms sometimes even have to be closed due to overcrowding, there are no concrete
proposals in the application to address these problems;
- The 40 storey building proposed in the plan does not seem to fit into the general
architecture of the neighbourhood particularly around the basin. Canada Water has
always been dominated by 7-8 storey buildings, which has allowed for a lot of sunlight
and less wind, especially taking into account the fact that the area is already quite windy
due to its proximity to the river. Concerned that having a second high building will make
the area significantly darker and windier and will prevent residents from enjoying the
beautiful open area around the basin;
- A 40 storey building will also take away from the general architecture of the area.
76
No address
- The 41 storey building proposed will completely destroy the views from Stave Hill and
various other points such as Greenland Dock of the City, 5-8 storeys would be
supported.
77
70 Bywater Place
- These plans will irrevocably change the nature of the area, clearly there is a need for
more housing, but not such tall blocks;
- Acutely aware of the need for housing for local people to have homes and not foreign
investors to raise the price of housing to make a quick profit;
- The transport system cannot cope with such an influx of numbers.
78
563 Giverny House, Water Garden Square
- Object to the access of vehicles related to phase 4 (What shop) via Canada Street.
This street is extremely busy with pedestrians mainly primary school children and
mothers walking to and from the local primary schools;
- Any more traffic down this street will increase risk of a traffic incident and proposed that
the access is changed to Surrey Quays Road instead.
79
Anonymous, no address
- Forty-storeys is a very tall building and looking at the artists impressions, the whole
plan includes not only the forty storey block but quite a few other developments around
it;
- This may be a big mistake as it will bring up too much of a population into the
neighbourhood, the level of traffic has already built up to a borderline manageable level;
- The police station at Lower Road is closed down, more people in the area will require
more police;
- Residents support more restaurants, shops and particularly food stalls, and restaurants
on the streets.
80
17 Wolfe Crescent
- The density of the proposed development will bring the area to saturation point. With
the transport and congestion getting on and off the peninsular is already at near
breaking point;
- Not enough consideration to open and green spaces;
- The development proposed is obviously aimed at singles or couples and in doing so
the investor buy to let market; this means the people who then move into the area are
often just in ‘transit’ this has the effect of a disjointed community;
- A 40 storey tower block is questioned and reflects past mistakes;
- The proposal has absolutely no regard for people and a community.
81
No address
- Oppose the 40 floor development at the Decathlon plot due to the level of noise, the
construction it will create and how much sunlight will be blocked. The maximum height
of the development should be restricted to no more than 8 floors.
82
No address, resident of SE16
- In support of some aspects of the proposal, the principle of redevelopment of the
existing underused site, the separate affordable housing provision, and the massing of
that block (E1) which offers a sense of human scale to the site and in keeping with
surrounding housing, also welcome the introduction of much needed coffee / craft shops
/ non-supermarket retail outlets;
- However feel that the proposed 40 storey (plus) tower is entirely inappropriate for
Canada Water especially when considered in the context of the size of the wildlife
sanctuary it faces;
- The only other nearby towers are 20-25 storeys high and already dominate the skyline.
Strongly believe that a new 40 storey tower in this location would not only be
inappropriate but would be intimidating to the users and residents alike;
- Need to carefully consider the excessive use of full height glazing and clear-glass
balconies when facing public spaces or roads, as can be seen from the occupied
apartments nearby, and become a patchwork of tenants’ bed-sheets / blinds / curtains,
with personal items such as boxes, bicycles and rubbish bags stored on balconies,
which will downgrade the appearance of the public space.
83
53 Plough Way
- Supportive of the need to develop this area, however a 41 storey building is physically
too large, intrusive on the area and puts extra pressure on already-busy public transport
infrastructure. Also note the proportion of affordable housing falls significantly below
Southwark’s own requirement.
84
No address
- The health and quality of living, transport infrastructure, geography, the demographic
balance and a long forgotten ban that was to stop more high rises seem to have been
overlooked and fallen by the way side due to promise of huge money;
- Bermondsey is unique in its ample amount of open spaces such as Southwark Park,
Kings Stairs Gardens, Stave Hill and of course the river side. Challenge whom would
want to sit in a manmade concrete surround with such beauty and variety easily
accessible;
- Building a 42 level block with over 200 new residents is pure greed in an already over
built small area that has no real community or soul, a condensed army of commuters
who all leave at around the same time and the public transport system is already
dangerously overcrowded at rush hour at Canada Water.
85
No address
- The reasonable position supported by the community and agreed by the London
Borough of Southwark is in danger of being steam-rolled;
- The environmental impact of any development on this sensitive site should be of
utmost concern, the balance of development should be such that Canada Water is not
dwarfed by inappropriately high buildings, its environmental benefits should be
preserved, bird and wildlife surrounding Canada Water should not be impacted and sight
lines should be preserved.
86
362 Eden House, Water Gardens
- Daylight and sunlight and overshadowing is a concern. According to the available
documents there have been no assessments done on the impact of the new
development on existing properties. Creating high rise buildings in the close proximity to
existing properties will lead to reducing daylight availability. The assessments of
sunlight in open spaces was done for just one day and does not take into account
seasonal variations in daylight and therefore does not give a representative picture of
the sunlight limitations that the new buildings create;
- Industrial dust pollution, during the recent construction of the buildings around Canada
Water the level of dust in the air was unacceptable. Not worried about the aesthetic
consequences of the dust, but unfortunately it also leads to exacerbation of lung
diseases such as bronchial asthma and common dust allergy;
- Aesthetic considerations, according to the existing plans the proposed buildings are
hideous and its an insult to London and its architecture and one might hope that in itself
it should be a valid enough reason to stop this development;
- Visually aggressive designs such as this one are well known to correlate negatively
with emotional states of people residing or visiting the area, and also suggested that it
has a negative impact on crime rates.
87
17 Wolfe Crescent
- Residents do not want a Canary Wharf look nor a Manhattan one;
- The height and density are too much, Canada Water does already have difficulties
dealing with the enormous influx of people over the past 5 years, so does Lower Road;
- A 40 storey tower is objectionable, and the developer fails to mention 3 other buildings
that are over 15 storeys, and over the normal height of the area;
- Convinced that the maquette is not to scale and the new buildings will look, and be,
even higher. Am sure that the developer does not count the very high roof terrace on
the top of the 40 storeys within the height;
- The Canada Water Basin looks very much threatened by the ‘nearness’ of the
buildings, nothing is said about the impact on wild-life either;
- There is a huge environmental impact.
88
67 Bywater Place
- concerned that the height of some of the proposed buildings and the nature of the
development will have a negative impact on local residents, traffic congestion and the
environment;
- The proposed 40 storey height of the building is completely out of character with the
area, and only 10 floors shorter than One Canada Square of Canary Wharf;
- The creation of nearly 1050 residential units in such a concentrated area will put even
greater strain on the already restricted local amenities, school facilities, shopping
facilities, parking and traffic for the area;
- The application does not refer to the building of any day-care or school facilities, there
are currently two schools within walking distance of the proposed development;
- The amount of parking seems insufficient to accommodate residents, office workers,
retail shoppers, and other visitors to the development. The streets are already jam
packed with parked cars;
- Unclear whether a new supermarket proposed, currently only have one serving the
area;
- The erection of tall buildings so close to the natural habitat in Canada Water Basin may
interfere with the flight pattern of birds.
89
42 Elephant Lane
- The plan contains one extremely tall building, which will dwarf everything else in the
area;
- The tall tower is going to cast a massive shadow over everything in the area, including
the water itself;
- The plan indicates that there will be a public ‘garden’ the majority of which will be
between and behind two buildings, including the tall tower. The current design appears
to give the public a view of the back of two blocks of flats, and the area will be
overshadowed;
- The majority of the potential restaurant and cafe areas will be on the inside, looking at
on the public area, which will be dark, and have no view of the water;
- The style of the architecture looks very futuristic on the plans, but is apparently going to
be made of a shiny white material. Is this appropriate for the surrounding brick built
developments that currently exist there – it appears there is no attempt to balance with
current building;
- The whole application has been very badly publicised.
90
No address, resident of Water Gardens
- The plans are completely disproportionate to the area and the 5 tower blocks would be
ugly and do not fit in with the area heritage an environment;
- The facilities proposed by Sellar are also minimal (no new schools or swimming pool)
and in some cases redundant (cinema), and the small addition of facilities will only be
enough to serve the residents that the development will bring to the area, not sufficient
to improve current facilities. It will create further stress on the transport system that
cannot cope with further influx on a massive scale;
- The new development would bring considerable noise and stress to the area;
- The new development does not cater for families, but proposes mainly 1 and 2 bed
flats. What is the point of regenerating an area if no community facilities are provided;
- The people of the area do a great deal to maintain the area and wildlife and it is unfair
of the developer to profit from the hard work done by local people;
- Canada Water is a nesting area with a lot of bird species residing there, what will be
done to support and attractive wildlife to the area;
- The proposal would bring a lot of darkness to the area, to the neighbouring flats and to
the Albion Channel, this is unacceptable and a breach of the right of the local people
and neighbouring flats;
- The agreement for the area is to build 5-7 storeys so why is this proposal being
considered;
- The regeneration should focus on building sustainable family accommodation of
reasonable, good local schools, community facilities.
91
46 Elephant Lane
- How can an underground car park be dug and be made safe so close to the huge
volume of water in Canada Water Lake;
- Not clear what percentage of housing will be social;
- There will be further impact on the environment of such high rises, the area around
Canada Water station is already quite oppressive and dangerously windy.
92
No address
- 40 floors is a terrible idea, it is going to be ugly;
- Big problem in relation to schools, transport, doctors, nurseries and many other utilities
that the area is already lacking. There are not enough primary schools to cater for all
these new people;
- The development will devalue the area.
93
33 Brandrams Wharf, Rotherhithe Street
- 41 storeys is simply too high, and not in keeping with either the area or the delivery of
the Canada Water Action Plan.
94
169 Montreal House
- The proposed development is completely out of scale and context for the site, area and
AAP. This proposal is being driven by the desire for profits thinly veiled as being in the
interests of the community;
- The number of towers together with the height of the tallest tower, are completely out
of scale and context with the immediate area;
- The proposed development is contrary to the Area Action Plan, particularly in relation
to building heights;
- The amount of apartments being introduced will place a strain on local infrastructure
and community resources. The Transport Assessment is insufficient and should be
undertaken at peak times, congestion on roads and lack of community facilities
(including child-care) already;
- The positioning of tall buildings up to 52.1m immediately adjacent to the canal and
Montreal and Toronto House will have a significant detrimental impact on outlook and
living environment;
- Building C1 will cause a significant reduction in the sunlight and daylight to Montreal
and Toronto House, as acknowledged in the application documents;
- The proposal will have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy of the
neighbouring residents, with flats proposed directly looking across and / or down into
their dwellings from a short distance. Single aspect dwellings in Montreal House. The
lower floors of the proposed development will equally have problems with privacy;
- Building C1 is positioned too close to the boundary of the site, resulting in loss of
walkway / public space.
95
10 Murdoch House, Moodkee Street
- Object to the application on grounds of density, height, environmental impacts, traffic
and lack of parking provision;
- Understand from the applicant that the planned density is 997 habitable rooms per
hectare, this is around 4 times the 2005 London average;
- The proposed 40 storey tower will be twice the height of Columbia Point and Regina
Point – the highest existing buildings in the area;
- The designers have not given adequate consideration to the windy character of this
area;
- The design is generally tired and uninspiring;
- Lower Road is already significantly overloaded with queues stretching from Deptford
and St James’s road at peak times;
- The scheme only provides 222 residential parking places for 1046 units, this will cause
parking problems in neighbouring streets.
96
45 Frederick Square
- Oppose the 41 storey tower at Canada Water which is out of context with the
surrounding area and will overwhelm it;
- Concerned about he infrastructure available for all these new units in Rotherhithe,
Bermondsey and Canada Water;
- Southwark is becoming a borough that only the rich can afford, it has historically had a
rich diverse community.
97
- Key objection relates to the height of the proposed development, which at times is 40
storeys high, also the developers have not met Toronto / Montreal House residents
concerns about height, the loss of sunlight and the monolithic nature of the proposed
developments;
- The proposed development does not fit will with either the Albion Channel or the
Canada Water Basin;
- The development does not provide sufficient information about he extra pedestrian and
vehicle impacts, the Canada Water transportation links are already congested;
- There is insufficient information in the application about he impact on wind flows and
loss of daylight for existing residents around Canada Water Basin. The Albion Channel
and Canada Water support a good amount of birdlife which makes the area a pleasant
place to live, shop and work. This proposed development is unsympathetic to the
existing land use and natural environment;
- Despite many interactions, the developers did not take account of our objections about
height and loss of daylight.
98
26 Toronto House (multiple)
- The proposal is not consistent with the Canada Water Area Action Plan;
- The regeneration of this area should be consistent with the style of the Maple Quays
developments;
- The proposed design appears to do little to either maintain, or enhance the existing site
with respect to open space, local ecology and heritage;
- The buildings that border Albion Channel will see the eradication of existing green /
open spaces near the junction of the Albion Channel with the Basin, due to the
encroachment of the proposed buildings, it would appear that these buildings will
effectively be immediately adjacent to the old mooring posts along the channel, this is
not a sympathetic way to treat the scarce remaining feature of the areas past;
- The availability of sufficient light plays an important role in local ecology systems and
the area of the channel is a breeding area for local bird wildlife. The loss of light will
clearly impact upon the growth of local reeds and other plant-like material required to
sustain the ecology of the local area;
- Loss of existing open space, the height and design of these buildings immediately
adjacent to the Albion Channel and the building and population density are of concern;
- Also concerned about the impacts of light reduction to Toronto and Montreal House;
- Fail to see how residents concerns have factored into the design proposals;
- From the information that has been supplied in the planning submission, based upon
the equinox, a number of apartments will be impacted by a reduction in light that
exceeds the BRE – it is then stated by the proponent that this is acceptable;
- The testing and modelling of daylight and sunlight impacts should be repeated, with
increased scope;
- Toronto and Montreal House have been designed to maximise energy efficiency and
carbon footprint, if potential environmental impacts from the proposed development will
reduce solar heating that was previously considered a benefit by the council in Montreal
and Toronto House, this should be of concern to the council;
- Concern that a wind tunnel effect will also be created;
- Loss of outlook will result;
- Unless there is a committed specialist retailer willing to take on the economic risk of the
retail space at this stage, how can local residents feel confident that this space will be
taken up given the current empty units beneath Montreal House and the fact that even
when properly fitted out retail spaces have become available in Surrey Quays Shopping
Centre can remain empty for periods at a time;
- Concerned about potential impacts upon the already heavily congested Jubilee Line
and buses during peak period that have not been allayed and require proper analysis;
- Concerned about the potential precedent that would be caused by the approval of any
phase or aspect of the submitted proposal in its current form. This proposal represents
a significant deviation to the current AAP and as a result of it, creates a range of
unacceptable consequences upon the local area.
99
25 Toronto House
- The proposed development is out of scale and context for the site, area and AAP;
- The development is monumental rather than human in scale;
- It will tower over the basin and channel, rather than sensitively interact with it, the
height of the existing building is quite similar – these buildings will not go with the rest,
they have absolutely nothing to do with it;
- If this is approved, it will be very difficult to keep to the perimeter block approach
advocated in neighbouring sites, and a key opportunity to develop this site into a vibrant
and interesting place will be lost to be replaced a corporate development of little
character;
- The scale and siting of the buildings will seriously harm the amenity of existing
neighbours in terms of light, outlook and privacy;
- There are significant questions over the ecological impact of the development, i.e.
there’s already been a reduction in the bird population in the channel and this plan will
make it worse;
- The developers have presented their plans to residents, but despite their assurances,
have failed to properly interact with them or take their views on board in a meaningful
way, i.e. we have expressed concern about the height of the new buildings in every
meeting and asked that these are lowered but no change to the plan has been made;
- The volume of residents in the area will be too high for the existing infrastructures, i.e
taking the tube will be impossible:– something that’s already very hard today given the
existing high number of residents and passengers changing at Canada Water.
100 9 Toronto House
- The development will have a negative effect on occupiers of Montreal House and on
Canada Water as a whole;
- The development is completely out of character compared to the surrounding area and
the Canada Water AAP;
- Instead of integrating with other immediate developments in the area, the proposed
development will tower over them including the Albion channel and the Canada Water
Basin;
- Very concerned about the direct impact it will have on residents of Toronto House, the
closest neighbours to the proposed development;
- Loss of light to properties is of great concern.
101 105 Montreal House
- The Canada Water Area Action Plan was intended to foster development in a sensitive
and cohesive manner such as to facilitate in the long term a thriving community. One of
the key points of CWAAP was the stipulation of building heights, a restriction to adhere
to buildings of between 5 to 8 storeys high, at least within the vicinity of Canada Water
basin;
- The proposed development by Sellars, which included buildings 13 storeys high and a
tower block of 40 storeys high, as far as I can see makes no attempt to be sensitive to
the surroundings;
- Sellars promised the highest of design quality of buildings but if no attention is paid to
its surroundings they will sit like sore thumbs and contribute nothing to the area;
- The layout of the proposed buildings appears to restrict movements and linkages to the
Basin and the Channel. It would seem that the proximity of the proposed buildings
would have an adverse impact on the biodiversity value of the channel which feeds into
Canada Water;
- The adopted CWAAP was subject to the Habitats Directive and a significant move
away from this as proposed should warrant a rigorous reassessment of environmental
impacts;
- The developers have not properly taken into account the historic assets of the area and
demonstrated how the development will mitigate the adverse impacts upon the heritage
of the historic dock system and the manner as to how they will preserve and enhance
them;
- Another environmental factor would be the possibility of the creation of wind tunnels
created by the height and proximity of the proposed buildings;
- The heights of proposed buildings and their proximity to existing buildings will affect the
access of residents of the existing buildings to sunlight and daylight. The loss of sunlight
and daylight will have an impact on the usage of energy inside both existing as well as
the proposed homes;
- There is also the concern of privacy as the proposed taller buildings will enable the
new residents to look into the dwellings of existing residents and vice versa;
- Do no object to the redevelopment of the site, but do object to the current proposal
submitted by Sellars.
- The design of the proposed development is uncharacteristic of the area and is in
significant conflict with the Canada Water AAP, particularly in relation to building heights.
The development will tower over the Canada Water basin overshadowing any
surrounding structures and changing the character and perception of Canada Water.
The design of the proposed buildings is simplistic and unexciting, with crude rectangular
forms being dominant throughout the development, which is uncharacteristic of the
surrounding area;
- The proposed development comprises several tall buildings (8, 10 and 13 storeys) in
close proximity to Toronto and Montreal Houses, the impact upon privacy and outlook
will therefore be detrimental. The green open space that currently exists at the junction
of the Albion Channel with the Canada Water Basin is planned to be removed by the
developers;
- The developer has carried out a sunlight / daylight assessment, which shows the
significant impact the development will have on surrounding structures and in particular
Montreal House. Disappointed thatimpacts are discarded as minor adverse. Particularly
astounded by the claim made by the developer that ‘since some of the rooms in
Montreal House are already suffering less light than BRE guidelines further light loss is
acceptable’;
- The proposed development will comprise over a 1000 new apartments, which may put
a strain on local infrastructure and community resources. Tube networks particularly
may suffer, as even now there is significant congestion during peak hours at Canada
Water Station. Road traffic is also a major concern. The study provided by the
developer is insufficient and does not consider the worst case scenario;
- Wind tunnelling will be created by the proposed high rise buildings, making the existing
strong winds even worse in the area. The wind study provided by the developer is
insufficient and does not provide an objective picture of the impact the new development
will have on wind environment.
103 16 Wolfe Crescent
- The height and massing are inappropriate for a development in this area and contrary
to all Southwark Plans;
- The forty-one storey tower block situated between Canada Water and BHS, with a 20
storey block alongside, is particularly offensive. It will dominate the skyline;
- Nothing is said in your outline about affordable housing and it was made clear at the
CWCF briefing that none is intended. We were told that talks were taking place with
Southwark Council about renovating affordable housing elsewhere instead. This
development, despite its massive size will make no significant contribution to
Southwark’s housing stock;
- Nothing is said in the outline nor at the developers consultation briefing, about the
impact on the wildlife at Canada Water nor indeed about the lake on Albion Channel.
- Object to the positioning of a tall building up to 52.1m immediately adjacent to the
canal and Montreal and Toronto House will have a significant detrimental impact on the
outlook and therefore living environment of neighbouring residents;
- Loss of sunlight and daylight will have a tangible impact upon the energy use inside
both existing and proposed homes, contrary to the Councils Residential Design Guide;
- Also adverse impacts upon privacy of adjoining occupiers.
- The proposed development is unsympathetic to the existing area, and consists of
massive high rise buildings in close proximity to the existing Maple Quays development
and impacting on the pleasure of living in a reasonably open area and the enjoyment of
Canada Water and the Albion Channel as natural and unspoilt attributes to the area;
- The specific impact on residents of Toronto and Montreal Houses is the proximity of a
tall building in such close proximity that it takes light and heat from flats in those two
buildings. In addition the effect on the Albion Channel is likely to construct a wind tunnel
with effect strong enough to drive away the wildlife, which is the main attribute of the
Albion Channel, but also to effect potential damage on balconies and windows of nearby
flats.
106 2, 11 & 35 Toronto House (3 letters raising the same concerns)
- The proposed development is out of scale and context for the site, area and AAP;
- Specifically the number of towers together with the height of the tallest tower which is
40 storeys in height are completely out of scale and context with the immediate area and
ugly in appearance;
- The proposed development is contrary to the Area Action Plan, particularly with
regards to the proposed buildings heights where the plan stipulates building heights
should be between 5 and 8 storeys high. The planning regeneration of the area should
therefore be used as a strong guide to consider the proposal against;
and community resources especially the local health clinics and the infant school;
- Specific concerns relate to impacts upon transport infrastructure in the area; road
traffic; and the positioning of the tall building up to 52.1m high immediately opposite
Montreal and Toronto House;
- The development is monumental rather than human scale, it will tower over the basin
and channel, rather than sensitively interact with it;
- The scale and siting of the buildings will seriously harm the amenity of existing
neighbours in terms of light, outlook and privacy;
- The layout, siting and height of buildings will be likely to dramatically alter and increase
winds in the area, effecting amenity and ecology;
- The application fails to properly assess and take account of the built and community
heritage of the area, historic assets and ecological impacts.
107 32 Toronto House
-Would like to object to several aspects of the plans. (No further information given)
108 9 responses received from individual neighbours and 61 identical letters in support of the
application
109 22 Bywater Place
- Fully support the application and nice to see the area being developed.
110 No address, Brunswick Quay
- In general support the application, subject to one condition, that there is public access
to the top levels of the 40 storey block. I think the views from the top floors from this
peninsular location will be spectacular. If top floors were restaurants that would put
Surrey Quays on the map.
111 No address
- Overall a good impression of the plans;
- To make the area more lively and liveable, the key is to have more retail and
entertainment spaces;
- Shops should be small sized and merged with living areas, to remove the ‘mall feeling’
that Maple Quays has, it should get more of a ‘high street’;
- Restaurants, pubs, etc are key for the development.
112 SE16 6YN
- The planning details presented by the developer are clear and through, although there
were some doubts about the 40 storey tower, this is acceptable as it leaves more open
space at ground level.
113 SE16 6SW
- Strongly support the plan and hope it will be approved by the council quickly. It would
make the area more pleasing to the eye.
114 15 Poplar House, Woodland Crescent
- The plans are superb, especially with regard to getting some shops, cafes and bars in
the area. Would also like a gym.
115 33 Plover Way, Surrey Quays
- The plans look great and very supportive of getting some bars, cafes and shops in the
area, a gym would also be good.
116 1 Aberdale Court, Garter Way, Rotherhithe
- In favour of the development, keen on increasing the vibrancy of the area, especially
after dark and creating a night time economy, which doesn’t exist at present;
- Keen on an Everyman cinema and a Waitrose or other supermarket, happy that
Decathlon stay;
- Only concern is loss of private parking spaces and increased use on the Jubilee line
and overground.
117 No address
- Impressed with the plans for Canada Water, it would be a shame if this were not given
the go ahead, the only problem is the infrastructure has not been put in place.
118 61 identical letters received with the following comments
- Fully support the planning application as submitted as a major step forward in creating
the new town centre for Canada Water;
- The proposed new shops, cinema and employment spaces will bring substantial
benefits for existing and future tenants and residents in terms of local amenities, jobs
and town centre activity. At the same time the scheme protects and expands the
operation of Decathlon as a major employer and retailer in the area;
- Support the proposed training programmes and jobs that will be generated by the
construction and landscaping works and urge the council to confirm the proposals for
local employment so that residents from the surrounding community can take up the
opportunities that will be made available;
- Also back the proposed large new public space on Site C, which make the best
possible use of the waterside setting. Believe that this will become a much-loved local
amenity right at the heart of Canada Water.
119 2 responses received from neighbours with comments on the application
120 No address, SE16 6YQ
- Commendable plans for the area, and would change the profile of Canada Water, and
have the following comments;
- Parking, objective for Canada Water is to promote a family friendly area, see a good
proportion of 2-4 bedroom developments in planning. However, there does not seem to
be much parking especially in building C1, strongly believe that providing parking for at
least the 2 bed plus apartments is very important and will make the development work
for families ;
- Building C2 does not seem to be adding much to the area and sticks out like a sore
thumb in the plan. Ends up spoiling the views of quite a few flats in C1 and C2 and
would also affect the amount of sunlight these flats receive;
- Families need storage, plans don’t seem to support this requirement;
- Opportunity for local residents to get the first choice in buying off plan should be made
one of the conditions as quite often buildings go and launch their projects in Asia to
investors who have never even been to London;
- Unclear what proportion of the development will be affordable.
121 No address, Brunswick Quay
- Would like to support the application, but think that there should be public access to the
top levels of the 40 storey block and have the top floors as restaurants. This would be
great for the area.
Re-consultation 1
122 Re-consultation was undertaken on 24 May 2013 to take into account revisions
undertaken by the applicant and the resultant changes to the development description.
The relevant changes included the following;
A reduction in the maximum number of residential units from 1,046 to 1,030;
Increase in the overall amount of floorspace to 138,146.8sqm (GEA) [previously
137,612.4sqm (GEA)];
Internal and external detailed design amendments to building C1;
The Decathlon retail car parking spaces to be made available to the general public as
‘town centre’ parking;
Provision of disabled parking;
Provision of additional street tree planting;
Provision of additional balcony wind protection to buildings C2-C4;
Amendments to the indicative internal layouts of buildings C2 and C3;
Provision of indicative phase 2 and 3 basement plans;
Revised sizing and phasing arrangement for centralised combined heat and power
(CHP) plants to serve the entre proposed development;
Provision of PVs to roof of Buildings C2 and E1 to increase renewable energy provision;
Additional design detail and specification requirements for Buildings C2-C4 and E1;
Revisions to the parameter plans to safeguard road between Site E and Mulberry
Business Park and Harmsworth Quays.
The description of development was changed accordingly, and the following
documents were submitted as part of the revised planning application:Revised Development Specification and Place
Environmental Statement
Making Document;
Addendum, Figures &
Revised Parameter Plans;
Appendices;
Revised Context Elevations;
New Document Draft Estate
Revised Phase 1 Drawings;
Management Plan;
Revised Detailed C2, C3, C4 Drawings;
New Document Temporary
Revised Indicative C2, C3, C4 Drawings;
Decathlon Car Park Plan;
Revised Phase 1 Landscaping Drawings;
Design and Access Statement
Revised illustrative Masterplan Drawings;
Addendum & Addendum
Revised Illustrative Landscape Drawings;
Appendices;
Revised Transport Assessment;
Revised Highway Planning Drawings;
Revised Daylight and Sunlight Report
Planning Statement Addendum;
Energy Strategy Addendum.
Consultation responses received following re-consultation
123 Following reconsultation on the 24 May 2013, 17 letters/emails of objection were
received and two letters/emails of support. The main points have been summarised and
addressed below;
124 26 Toronto House
- The revisions are disappointing and do little to overcome or address any of the
concerns previously outlined and the earlier objections/comments are therefore still
relevant;
- the Council should recognise the long term commitment of local stakeholders in the
area and there are significant concerns regarding the deviation from the AAP;
- The proposed design appears to do little to either maintain, or enhance the existing site
with respect to open space, local ecology and heritage;
- The buildings that border Albion Channel will see the eradication of existing green /
open spaces near the junction of the Albion Channel with the Basin, due to the
encroachment of the proposed buildings, it would appear that these buildings will
effectively be immediately adjacent to the old mooring posts along the channel, this is
not a sympathetic way to treat the scarce remaining feature of the areas past;
- The availability of sufficient light plays an important role in local ecology systems and
the area of the channel is a breeding area for local bird wildlife. The loss of light will
clearly impact upon the growth of local reeds and other plant-like material required to
sustain the ecology of the local area;
- Loss of existing open space, the height and design of these buildings immediately
adjacent to the Albion Channel and the building and population density are of concern;
- Also concerned about the impacts of light reduction to Toronto and Montreal House;
- Fail to see how residents concerns have factored into the design proposals;
- From the information that has been supplied in the planning submission, based upon
the equinox, a number of apartments will be impacted by a reduction in light that
exceeds the BRE – it is then stated by the proponent that this is acceptable;
- The testing and modelling of daylight and sunlight impacts should be repeated, with
increased scope;
- Toronto and Montreal House have been designed to maximise energy efficiency and
carbon footprint, if potential environmental impacts from the proposed development will
reduce solar heating that was previously considered a benefit by the council in Montreal
and Toronto House, this should be of concern to the council;
- Concern that a wind tunnel effect will also be created;
- Loss of outlook will result;
- Unless there is a committed specialist retailer willing to take on the economic risk of the
retail space at this stage, how can local residents feel confident that this space will be
taken up given the current empty units beneath Montreal House and the fact that even
when properly fitted out retail spaces have become available in Surrey Quays Shopping
Centre can remain empty for periods at a time;
- Concerned about potential impacts upon the already heavily congested Jubilee Line
and buses during peak period that have not been allayed and require proper analysis;
- Concerned about the potential precedent that would be caused by the approval of any
phase or aspect of the submitted proposal in its current form. This proposal represents
a significant deviation to the current AAP and as a result of it, creates a range of
unacceptable consequences upon the local area.
125 Resident - Water Gardens Square
- The application shows a disregard for the local environment and character of the area;
- The tower is excessive in size and does not comply with local policy;
-Opening up the waterfront will result in increased rubbish in the water and adverse
impacts on wildlife.
126 27 Orchard House
- The tower is too high and will leave residents of Orchard House with little to no views,
diminished daylight and virtually no sunlight.
- The proposed development is completely out of scale and context for the site, area and
AAP. This proposal is being driven by the desire for profits thinly veiled as being in the
interests of the community;
- The number of towers together with the height of the tallest tower, are completely out
of scale and context with the immediate area;
- The proposed development is contrary to the Area Action Plan, particularly in relation
to building heights;
and community resources. The Transport Assessment is insufficient and should be
undertaken at peak times, congestion on roads and lack of community facilities
(including child-care) already;
- The positioning of tall buildings upon to 52.1m immediately adjacent to the canal and
Montreal and Toronto House will have a significant detrimental impact on outlook and
living environment;
- Building C1 will cause a significant reduction in the sunlight and daylight to Montreal
and Toronto House, as acknowledged in the application documents;
- The proposal will have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy of the
neighbouring residents, with flats proposed directly looking across and / or down into
their dwellings from a short distance. Single aspect dwellings in Montreal House. The
lower floors of the proposed development will equally have problems with privacy;
- Building C1 is positioned too close to the boundary of the site, resulting in loss of
walkway / public space.
128 Resident - Timber Pond
- The reduction in units from 1046 to 1030 is insulting;
- Why do we need new offices in this area, they should be in central London;
- The transport system in already crowded during peak hours and traffic will increase;
- Is a green space really necessary when Stave Hill is so close by, additionally the
towers will block sunlight to the greenspace and will create a wind tunnel;
- An additional hill should be made, higher than Stave Hill;
- There is enough retail in the area;
and community;
129 Resident - Water Gardens Square
- Massing is too high and there is no community benefit;
- The development will result in high winds and there will be sunlight/daylight impacts;
- no kids play areas or school provision or leisure facilities;
- Impact on traffic, wildlife, public transport and quality of life of residents;
- Poor design, over crowding, pollution, disconnect with the rest of the area, old
fashioned design, breach of policy.
130 19 Eleanor Close
- The tower is completely out of scale for the area and not in keeping with its character
and will dominate the area;
- The increase in the number of units will result in a negative impact on the amenities of
existing residents;
- the proposal is contrary to the CWAAP.
131 13 Wolfe Crescent
- The proposed tower is too tall and the development will have an adverse imapct on
the already overstretched transport links;
- The development will result in increased parking problems and there is a potential for
light issues to result in a negative impact.
132 Toronto and Montreal House Residents Association
- Confirm that previous objections still stand;
133 Fuller Long Planning Consultants (on behalf of TMHRA)
- The proposed revisions do not overcome the concerns of the TMHRA;
- The development would be un-neighbourly and will have significant impacts on the
existing residents in terms of residential amenity and daylight/sunlight;
- A full independent daylight and sunlight review should take place;
- The development is categorically contrary to the CWAAP;
- The consideration of the scheme is premature given the ongoing work to update the
CWAAP;
134 DP9 (on behalf of British Land)
- British land have significant land interests in Canada Water, including Surrey Quays
Shopping Centre and Harmsworth Quays and whilst supportive of the principle of the
development there are concerns that the tower will result in a micro-climate that will
make the area around Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and the Dock edge unsuitable for
outdoor use (seating/public space).
- British Land have an established Right of Way to the western entrance of Surrey
Quays Shopping Centre and the indicative landscaping proposals have not been
amended to reflect this right of way.
- The proposal will have an impact on the areas ecosystem and services in the area are
already stretched to beyond reasonable limits;
- There is no space for car parking and the impact on health and other amenities is
severe and the development will occupy the only remaining free space in the area.
136 SE16 6HW
- The design of the Chipperfield buildings will be a depressing symbol of what could
have been for Canada Water;
- The style of buildings will look cheap and soiled after a time;
- the Macreaver Lavington buildings are sympathetic to the existing architecture and will
age in a more dignified manner.
137 10 Murdoch House
- Object to the application on grounds of density, height, environmental impacts, traffic
and lack of parking provision;
- Understand from the applicant that the planned density is 997 habitable rooms per
hectare, this is around 4 times the 2005 London average;
- The proposed 40 storey tower will be twice the height of Columbia Point and Regina
Point – the highest existing buildings in the area;
- The designers have not given adequate consideration to the windy character of this
area;
- The design is generally tired and uninspiring;
- Lower Road is already significantly overloaded with queues stretching from Deptford
and St James’s Road at peak times;
- The scheme only provides 222 residential parking places for 1046 units, this will cause
parking problems in neighbouring streets.
138 No address
- The proposed tower is too tall and is in breach of local recommendations and
guidelines.
139 49 John Kennedy House
- The letters of support are multiple and identical and no weight should be given to them.
140 573 Giverney House
- The revised daylight and sunlight study uses the same argument repeatedly, namely
that some dwellings in Montreal House are already quite dark. The development will
have a significant adverse impact in terms of daylight and sunlight;
- The viability of the scheme has been used as a threat allowing the applicants to do
what they want or nothing will get built.
141 20 Harwood Point
- Support for the development on the basis of the much needed benefiots it will bring to
the area, including commercial, recreational and housing benefits. the development will
attract businesses and will support jobs and economic growth in the area.
142 18 Princes Court
- A great scheme that will help with the overall regeneration of the area however more
recreation and leisure facilities are needed.
Re-consultation 2
143 Reconsultation was undertaken on the 16 August 2013 in order to take into account
additional and revised information in the determination and assessment of the
application. The additional information received included;
Tibbalds Covering Letter dated 9 August 2013;
Daylight and Sunlight Report (and Appendices 1-7.3) by Waldrams dated 12th August
2013 Review of Mulberry Estate Planning Application by Ramboll, dated 9th August
2013;
ES Addendum Documents:
ES Addendum Technical Appendix A-1:
Townscape and Visual Assessment by Ettwein Bridges Architects, August 2013;
ES Daylight and Sunlight Addendum Chapter (and Appendices 12.1-12.5) by Waldrams,
dated 12th August 2013
Consultation responses received following re-consultation
144 Following reconsultation on the 16 August 2013 eight letters/emails of objection were
received and one letters/emails of support. the main points have been summarised and
addressed below;
- Advice sought on what documents have been submitted, their contents and the reason
why they have been resubmitted;
- Confirmation sought that previous letters of objection will still stand;
- Provision of a summary of the resubmitted documents would be helpful;
-What is the purpose and content of the cumulative impact assessment;
- Will an assessment be made of how the proposals impact on the existing CWAAP and
overall local strategy;
- Have any of the issues previously raised been addressed?
- The continual need to resubmit objections is frustrating;
- Confirm that previously submitted letters/emails will be given equal weight;
- All previous concerns and objections are still relevant.
147 15 Woodland Crescent
- The height of the proposal has not been reduced and as such previous comments
made should still be considered;
148 14 Midship Close
- The proposed tower block is very tall and would alter the character of the area and mar
the view from Tower Bridge. the tower should be reduced in height and perhaps made
wider/longer;
- The character of the Albion Channel will change forming a higher and less attractive
horizon;
- The design is boxy and the buildings have very little to commend them.
149 6 Woodland Crescent
- Whilst generally in favour of the proposals, 40 floors is too high for a building in this
area and would dwarf everything else around it in what is a residential area;
- There would be increased pressure on local services;
- The proposal should be reduced to 20 floors.
150 Water Gardens Square
- The new buildings will block sunlight to the buildings at the Water Gardens;
- It would be beneficial to know what the buildings are going to look like.
151 SE16 6XD
- Concerned about traffic congestion, overcrowding on public transport, height of the
tower and loss of open spaces.
152 573 Giverney House
- Seeks to confirm that previous letter of objection has been received.
156 No address
- The proposal sounds great and the area is in need of bars, restaurants and shops. It
seems strange that so many buildings have been built with little or no commercial
provision.
- The development will result in an increased loss of VSC and ADF below the BRE
guidelines and the situation will be much worse than under the consented scheme or the
mirror image.
-The proposed development needs to be lower in height and set further back from the
Albion Channel.
- Southwark Council, by allowing this, will let one of its developments become blighted in
a way that is patently unacceptable.
158 Anonymous
- The influx of people is more than the local community and infrastructure can sustain.
Road traffic, medical centres and local schools will be extremely adversely affected.
- The height of the buildings will be excessive.
159 4 Cedar House
- There will be a loss of daylight/sunlight and an increase in noise/pollution.
- The area around Canada Water Station and Surrey Quays Road will become a
dangerous traffic zone, there is insufficient parking and existing dangerous parking due
to lack of provision/traffic.
- Canada Water suffers from a lack of local amenities (including medical
centres/schools) and investment in public amenities should be made first.
160 Anonymous
- Increased buildings on a relatively small site will reduce ground level light and make
the community feel dark and claustrophobic.
- Will there be enough infrastructure to cope with the increase in residents i.e. GP and
A&E Services, nurseries, schools, public transport and parking.
161 8 Maple Leaf Square
- Building C4 will be excessive in height and will be the tallest building in the area and
the tallest building between the Shard and Canary Wharf. This building would be
dominant in its locality and inappropriate in its context, its difficult to assign it any
particular architectural merit and it should be reduced in height.
162 Cunard Walk Resident
- The Jubilee Line is already extremely busy during peak hours. The development will
put increased pressure on services (doctors, schools) and shops.
164 - The latest update is a hugely complex set of documents and we would request that any
further updates come with clear, concise easy to read summaries as without this the
submission of complex documents is prejudicial towards small local groups who do not
have the technical expertise or resources to regularly review this level of complex
information in short time frames available for providing comments.
- The submission still fails to address most of the key concerns.
- The daylight and sunlight review has errors particularly in terms of room function and
this will impact on the conclusions taken.
- There are several areas of concern such as;
- The comment that only ADF needs to be considered as Toronto House and Montreal
House are part of the same "Master Plan" incorporating the proposed scheme. As
clearly argued in previous letters of objection, it is difficult for the developer to argue this
case given that they are proposing a scheme that is so significantly different to what has
been outlined in the Canada Water Area Action Plan - so other factors such as VSC,
winter sunlight, etc must be considered as relevant and important considerations.
- The principal argument upon which the results of the analysis are meant to be
considered acceptable is the claim that although the new scheme will result in
reductions in ADF and VSC that is well in excess of the BRE, that some "flexibility"
should be allowed. However, there is no guidance available on what is an acceptable
target. Considering the raw data presented in Tables 2 and 3 of the report dated 12
August 2013, for Toronto House:
- Only 27% of the apartments will meeting minimum BRE requirements for VSC - the
vast majority will in fact be below the standard. What is more concerning is that more
apartments will infact be more than 40% below the standard than complying with it - with
some apartments as high as 80%. Even excluding the impacts of balconies well in
excess of 50% of the apartments are below the minimum BRE threshold. This is beyond
the realms of being "flexible" and is not reasonable.
- In terms of ADF, given that each of the apartments within Toronto House that faces the
proposed scheme has a windowed living area and kitchens that face the scheme, we
have a significant number of rooms that are falling below minimum levels - what is
further concerning is that a number of our residents within social housing have limited
mobility and spend a lot of their day time within the living areas of the apartment. This
again suggests the impacts are beyond the realms of being "flexible" and is not
reasonable.
- The mirror image scenario analysis cannot reasonably be considered appropriate for
Toronto House given that Toronto House doesn't even factor into the design of the
mirror image. A mirror image of Toronto House would reflect the open space created by
the children's playground and a building that sweeps away from its neighbour across the
channel as it opens up to Canada Water. Using the mirror image of Montreal House
(including the the vent for the Underground - which surely is not relevant as it is not part
of the residential site) as the basis of analysis upon Toronto House appears to contradict
the basis of "mirror" analysis. Unless a compelling and reasonable argument can be put
forward, it would seem unreasonable for the mirror scenario analysis for Toronto House
to be based upon the mirror image of Montreal House.
- The comparison provided between the consented and proposed schemes between
tables 2 and 6 further highlights the negative impacts of caused by the scale of the
proposed scheme versus a previously consented plan and the extent to which the
proposed scheme cannot be considered as part of the existing master plan. Again by
way of comparison for Toronto House, a far greater proportion of apartments comply
with the BRE for VSC but most notable is that for those apartments that will not comply
with the BRE, the magnitude of the deviation is far less pronounced for the consented
scheme versus the proposed scheme - for example the percentage of windows that
would be more than 40% below the BRE is less than 10% for the consented scheme
whereas the proposed scheme is almost 30% - highlighting our argument that the scale
and massing of the proposed scheme is not appropriate and inconsistent with the
Canada Water Area Action Plan. Again, this highlights that the scheme is beyond the
realm of being "flexible" and unreasonably impacts upon Toronto and Montreal House.
- Finally and perhaps most significantly, is the discussion around what is an appropriate
threshold to apply given that the current proposal fails on such a large number of
windows when applying the BRE guidelines. It is the view that the proposal fails the
minimum BRE guidelines for so many existing neighbouring residents should be the
primary concern
- The report suggests the apparently tenuous argument that because a very small
number of apartments experience daylight and sunlight well below the BRE in Montreal
House, that this threshold creates a precedent that can be applied to all apartments. The
logic of this argument is flawed - such discretion being applied by exception does not
infer a reasonable minimum standard that can be applied across a development to a
significant number of people who do not currently experience material issues with
daylight and sunlight. Further, the residents who purchased the apartments in question
could make their own investigations and an informed decision to live in these apartments
- this is a significantly different proposition to the suggestion in the report that it would be
reasonable to apply this standard across the board - despite the fact that this new
development proposal has come subsequent to residents making their decision to live in
their apartments in Toronto and Montreal House and the daylight sunlight report proving
that the proposed development would have a significantly more negative impact upon
these apartments than what they would have reasonably expected under the consented
scheme or development consistent with the Canada Water Area Action Plan. What has
been proposed in the report does not constitute what is "flexible" and is not
unreasonable.
- One thing that was mentioned in the introduction of the report, but no further analysis
was provided in the body of the report, were the impacts during winter months - what is
the summary view given the specific concerns raised around the massing, scale,
proximity and relative location of the development and concerns that it will effectively
block out winter sun for neighbouring apartments?
- On a more general note, the statistics reported for Montreal House, probably does not
convey the fact there are a significant subset of single aspect apartments that will
experience quite adverse impacts.
- Given the identified errors and the additional questions that have been raised, we feel
uncomfortable in continuing to review this report and more importantly, question any
trust that can be placed in its conclusions. On this basis we must object to the report’s
submission as several discrepancies have been identified. In our opinion, and since this
is now the THIRD iteration of daylight and sunlight analysis within this single application,
we must again request that Southwark Council independently commission a daylight
specialist to undertake further testing and analysis. Without this, residents will not deem
it acceptable, at this point of the submission process, to simply change a few numbers
on a report and resubmit. In the spirit of fairness and accuracy, it is felt that it would be
reasonable to request that a surveyor and/or a daylight specialist comes out to review
each apartment and to provide analysis on the impacts of loss of existing daylight and
sunlight into each apartment, as well as to assess the outcomes under the range of
standard input parameters used for conducting such analysis. Further, given that the
report clearly demonstrates that such a large number of residents will be adversely
impacted and experience daylight and sunlight well below the minimum BRE standard,
we would call for an independent review of how the developer can continue to justify this
as being acceptable.
- As previously noted, this new scheme differs excessively and significantly from the
original consented scheme. The massing and scale of the development proposed by the
developer has caused alarm as residents acquired property in good faith on the
understanding that they would have a certain level of enjoyment over the course of the
125 year lease e.g. natural daylight and sunlight across the entire year including the
winter solstice consistent with the area action plan at the time. As mentioned previously,
residents are required to source our heat from an energy centre and would therefore feel
uncomfortable in incurring any additional costs with respect to energy because of the
scale and excessive massing of this proposed scheme and the encroachment that has
been identified as a high level concern.
- Given the proximity and the fact that it has been clearly noted that Montreal/Toronto
are the closest neighbours it is requested that further independent testing be undertaken
by the Council at this time before consent is granted.
- On a final note, it is a concern to hear that the project proponent intends to discuss the
changes that were recently submitted on the 9th of September at the CW Forum but that
the date for this application ends on the 8th of September, 2013.
165 Canada Water Resident
- The Jubilee Line is already very busy at the moment during rush hour, the increase in
the number of people will make it unbearable.
- What about new bus routes? What about increasing the frequency of buses and the
Overground?
- Nurseries, schools, GP's and hospitals will need to be increased - can they provide
services for the additional people.
- Police surveillance should be increased to avoid vandalism that overcrowded places
can encourage due to anonymity.
- Stacking people in tall buildings without giving the appropriate infrastructure to have a
good quality of life might help solve housing problems but it leads to many others.
166 Water Gardens Square Resident
- None of the original objections have been addressed.
- A 40 storey tower is not appropriate for the area - even the smaller Barratt scheme has
put massive pressure on local services and the lack of investment in infrastructure is
starting to show.
167 Brunswick Quay Resident
- There have been 70 individual responses to the original proposals. 65% of which cited
objections to the proposed tower.
- The application was submitted ahead of the CWAAP review and was in clear conflict
with these guidelines at the time of application.
- The amended plans do not address any concerns in terms of scale, height, massing,
density.
- Measures should be considered to protect the long term occupancy intent for both
private and social sectors and these measures should be identified in the Estate
Management Plan.
- What measures have been undertaken by Southwark Council to confirm that medical
centres have additional capacity for the new residents.
- It is appropriate that any new development make a contribution to the improvement of
the local environment by way of a S106 agreement wit Southwark Council Street
Cleansing Section who can address the issue of the cleansing responsibility of all
publically accessible communal areas/walkways, pathways, tree pits, planting areas and
passage ways.
168 Canada Water Resident
-The number of new homes is more than the local infrastructure can sustain, particularly
transport (Jubilee Line), GP's and schools.
- The development should consider the cumulative impact, which it fails to do at present.
- More attention should be given to the ecology of Canada Water Basin.
- The buildings are bulky and disproportionate, the housing problem need to be resolved
with ways that are considerate to the current look and feel of an area.
- Daylight will be affected for a much bigger radius than just the immediate area.
169 Wolfe Crescent Resident
- The whole area is now built up and crowded with many new development s having
been erected in recent years. Traffic has increased which is an issue for nearby primary
schools. the 40 storey building could clearly have an effect on lower buildings nearby.
there are already shops and cinemas within a five minute walk, the need for this
development is questionable.
170 SE16 Resident
- The reduction in units from 1046 to 1030 is insulting;
- Why do we need new offices in this area, they should be in central London;
- The transport system in already crowded during peak hours and traffic will increase;
- Is a green space really necessary when Stave Hill is so close by, additionally the
towers will block sunlight to the greenspace and will create a wind tunnel;
- An additional hill should be made, higher than Stave Hill;
- There is enough retail in the area;
and community;
171 19 Fairmont House
- Objection due to the lack of integrating the sites CHP heating system with the
Southwark Wide District Heating System. LBS should ensure that Sellars are required to
connect to the LBS DH Network and not dismiss it on the grounds provided.
APPENDIX 3
Table: 3.1 List of schemes for consideration for the Cumulative Effect
Site No.
Application Reference Description of Development
and Site Address
London Borough of Southwark
1
09-AP-1999
Surrey Quays Leisure
Site
(AKA
Mast
Leisure Site) Surrey
Quays Road, SE16
1LL
Outline application for the demolition of all existing
buildings and erection of buildings ranging from 2 to 10
storeys (36.3 AOD) comprising 11,105sqm leisure
floorspace (including cinema) (class D2), 2,695sqm
retail floorspace (class A1-A3), 49,276sqm of private
and affordable residential accommodation (class C3),
495 car parking spaces and associated works
including public and private open space, as well as
detailed design for 123 rooms (4,250sqm) of student
housing (sui generis use), 2,500sqm commercial
floorspace (class B1), 86 residential units (including in
the 49,276sqm referenced above) (class C3) and the
external appearance of any elevation facing
Harmsworth Quays Printworks.
Planning Permission Granted:- 20/10/2010
Date permission lapses:- 19/10/15
Not yet implemented.
2
11-AP-4206
Hybrid outline / full application for the erection of an
extension to the existing shopping centre comprising
Surrey
Quays retail floorspace (approximately 10,564sqm of use
Shopping
Centre, classes A1 retail, A2 services, A3 cafe / restuarant, A4
Redriff Road, SE16 drinking establishments and A5 hot food takeaways),
7LL
alterations to the appearance of the existing shopping
centre, landscaping, and reconfiguration of part of the
existing car parking and associated highway works
(full) together with the erection of a single level car
parking deck above part of the existing car park,
incorporating
additional
retail
floorspace
(approximately 450sqm of use classes A1, A2, A3, A4
and A5) (outline).
3
11-AP-2565
Demolition of three existing warehouse buildings and
construction of 7 blocks between 3 and 6 storeys high
Quebec
Way (max 21m AOD); containing 366 residential units (142x
Industrial
Estate, 1 bed, 113x 2 bed, 98x 3 bed and 13x 4 bed) and
Quebec Way, SE16
commercial floorspace for class A1 (shops) / A3
(restaurant / cafes) / D1 (non-residential institutions) /
D2 (assembly and leisure) uses; with basement car
parking, motorcycle and cycle storage, ancillary
storage spaces and a new route through the site into
Russia Dock Woodlands. New vehicle and pedestrian
accesses to be created from Quebec Way.
4&5
09-AP-1870
& Erection of a series of buildings comprising a 26 storey
variation
reference tower, with ground floor mezzanine (maximum height
92.95m AOD), and 9 individual buildings ranging from
10-AP-2734
4 to 8 storeys in height to provide 668 residential units,
Site A Canada Water, 958sqm of retail (class A1, A2, A3), and 268sqm of
Surrey Quays Road, community use (class D1), creation of a new open
SE16
space and construction of new roads, pedestrian and
cycle routes and new access to the highway, together
with associated works including the provision of public
cycle facility, basement car parking for 166 cars and
cycle parking, servicing, landscaping and plant areas.
Implemented and occupied.
6
07-AP-2806
Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a
series of buildings up to 8 storeys comprising 256
Mulberry
Business residential units, 5,105sqm of class B1 (office)
Centre, Quebec Way, floorspace, basement car parking with access to
SE16 7LB
Canada Street, and landscaping works.
Technically implemented, no construction of buildings
on site.
7
08-AP-1563
Demolition of existing health centre and the
construction of 212 new dwellings including affordable
Land at Downtown housing, in 2 part one, part four storey residential
Road
and
Salter buildings with undercroft car park (Blocks A/B and G);
Road, SE16 6NP
1 part one, part two, part four storey residential
building with undercroft car park (Block C); 2 part one,
part two and part three storey terraced housing
buildings (Block H); 1 part one, part four storey health
centre (1,535sqm) including community centre
(124sqm) and residential building (Block E), together
with associated car parking, a new children’s play
area, landscaping and infrastructure works.
Permission implemented, currently being constructed
on the site.
8
DC/02-52533/X
Revised outline application for the comprehensive
redevelopment of Convoys Wharf to provide a mixedConvoys
Wharf, use development of up to 445,200sqm.
Prince Street, SE8
3JH
Currently application decision pending.
9
DC/08/68523/lX
The demolition of existing buildings at Cannon Wharf
Business Centre, and construction of buildings 3 to 8
Cannon
Wharf storeys plus two buildings 20 and 23 storeys in height,
Business Centre, 35 comprising 6,588sqm commercial units (use classes
Evelyn Street, SE8 B1, A1, A2, A3, A5 & D1) and 679 residential units with
5RT
on-site energy centre, 401 car parking spaces, cycle
parking, and associated landscaping, with accesses
onto Evelyn Street, Rainsborough Avenue and
Yeoman Street.
10
DC/09/73189/XC
Crown, New Baltic
Park,
Bridge
and
Victoria
Wharves,
bounded by Grove,
Dragoon and Evelyn
Streets together with
Oxestalls Road, SE8
The comprehensive redevelopment of land bounded
by Oxestalls Road, Grove Street, Dragood Road and
Evelyn Street SE8, but excluding Scott House, 185
Grove Street (formerly known as Diploma Works).
Outline planning application for the whole site
comprising: The demolition of existing buildings on the
site, excluding former Public House on Grove Street.
The phased redevelopment of the site to provide a
maximum of 1,029,670sqm (gross external floor area)
comprising up to 905 residential units (853,218sqm) ad
17,645sqm non-residential floorspace comprising A1
shops, A2 financial and professional services, A3
restaurants and cafes, A4 drinking establishments, A5
hot food takeaways, B1 business, D1 non-residential
institutions and D2 assembly and leisure uses.
Erection of buildings ranging in height from 4 to 8
storeys.
11
DC/10/73437/X
The construction of new buildings between 1 and 8
storeys in height to accommodate 4,126sqm of
Marine Wharf West, commercial
floorspace
(use
classes
Plough Way, SE16 A1/A2/A3/B1/B1c), 532 residential units (including 78
7UE
units provided as an ‘Extra Care’ facility), car parking,
pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping, new
public open space along the route of the former Grand
Surrey Canal and other associated works.
Appendix 4
Revised Development Specification and Place Making Document;
Revised Parameter Plans;
Revised Context Elevations;
Revised Phase 1 Drawings;
Revised Detailed C2, C3, C4 Drawings;
Revised Indicative C2, C3, C4 Drawings;
Revised Phase 1 Landscaping Drawings;
Revised Illustrative Masterplan Drawings;
Revised Illustrative Landscape Drawings;
Revised Transport Assessment;
Revised Highway Planning Drawings;
Revised Daylight and Sunlight Report
Revised drawings were also provided, and the main design changes comprised of the
following:A reduction in the maximum number of residential units from 1,046 to 1,030;
Increase in the overall amount of floorspace to 138,146.8sqm (GEA) [previously
137,612.4sqm (GEA)];
Internal and external detailed design amendments to building C1;
The Decathlon retail car parking spaces to be made available to the general public as ‘town
centre’ parking;
Provision of disabled parking;
Provision of additional street tree planting;
Provision of additional balcony wind protection to buildings C2-C4;
Amendments to the indicative internal layouts of buildings C2 and C3;
Provision of indicative phase 2 and 3 basement plans;
Revised sizing and phasing arrangement for centralised combined heat and power (CHP)
plants to serve the entire proposed development;
Provision of PVs to roof of Buildings C2 and E1 to increase renewable energy provision;
Additional design detail and specification requirements for Buildings C2-C4 and E1;
Revisions to the parameter plans to safeguard road between Site E and Mulberry Business
Park and Harmsworth Quays.
Appendix 5 - List of neighbour consultees
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
Time and Talents St Marychurch Street London SE16
via email x
26 Wolfe Crescent London SE16
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
111 BRUNSWICK QUAY LONDON SE16 7PX
9 BRUNSWICK QUAY LONDON SE16 7PU
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
99 REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7PS
6 BRUNSWICK QUAY LONDON SE16 7PY
110 BRUNSWICK QUAY LONDON SE16 7PZ
18 SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7LL
FLAT 6 SERPENTINE COURT CHRISTOPHER CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PR
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 12 DEAUVILLE COURT ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PY
27 RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7JJ
21 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YP
3 SYCAMORE HOUSE 22 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YR
84 NEPTUNE STREET LONDON SE16 7JP
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
11 AYLTON ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7JL
FLAT 6 RISDON HOUSE ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JH
59 ALBION ESTATE SWAN ROAD LONDON SE16 7DL
18 IRWELL ESTATE NEPTUNE STREET LONDON SE16 7JR
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
48 AYLTON ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7JN
FLAT 5 NEPTUNE HOUSE MOODKEE STREET LONDON SE16 7AU
FLAT 11 MURDOCH HOUSE MOODKEE STREET LONDON SE16 7BJ
FLAT 3 CLEGG HOUSE MOODKEE STREET LONDON SE16 7BH
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
9 CONISTON COURT ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PX
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
8 GARTER WAY LONDON SE16 6XA
FLAT 2 QUILTING COURT GARTER WAY LONDON SE16 6XF
FLAT 8 HELIER COURT ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PZ
9 COLLETTE COURT ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PW
FLAT 5 BASQUE COURT GARTER WAY LONDON SE16 6XD
FLAT 10 ADELPHI COURT GARTER WAY LONDON SE16 6XB
FLAT 1 ABERDALE COURT GARTER WAY LONDON SE16 6XG
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 14 GRANTHAM COURT ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PT
FLAT 1 FAIRWAY COURT CHRISTOPHER CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PJ
FLAT 2 CAREER COURT CHRISTOPHER CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PN
FLAT 4 DERWENT COURT ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PS
FLAT 10 HAROLD COURT CHRISTOPHER CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PP
FLAT 7 DURELL HOUSE WOLFE CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6SN
FLAT 1 JAMES HOUSE WOLFE CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6SR
FLAT 4 GORHAM HOUSE WOLFE CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6SP
FLAT 1 CARLETON HOUSE WOLFE CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6SL
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 9 MONKTON HOUSE WOLFE CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6SS
13 CEDAR HOUSE 1 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YL
FLAT 1 YEW HOUSE 2 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YH
1 ROWAN HOUSE 3 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YF
FLAT 133 BASQUE COURT GARTER WAY LONDON SE16 6XE
7 WOLFE CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6SF
ST JOHNS PRIMARY SCHOOL ST ELMOS ROAD LONDON SE16 6SD
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
8 CYPRESS HOUSE 5 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YQ
2 POPLAR HOUSE 11 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YJ
10 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YN
5 SPRUCE HOUSE 4 WOODLAND CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6YG
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 13 SCOTIA COURT CANADA ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7AZ
FLAT 8 MANITOBA COURT CANADA ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7AY
FLAT 11 RITCHIE HOUSE HOWLANDS ESTATE MOODKEE STREET LONDON SE16 7BL
FLAT 6 CALGARY COURT CANADA ESTATE NEPTUNE STREET LONDON SE16 7AX
FLAT 11 WELLS HOUSE HOWLAND ESTATE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 7BN
FLAT 1 EDMONTON COURT CANADA ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7BQ
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
PIZZA HUT THE MAST LEISURE PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 1LL
EAST WAREHOUSE CANADA WATER RETAIL PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 2XU
UNITS 52 AND 52A CITY BUSINESS CENTRE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XB
UNITS 24 TO 27 MULBERRY BUSINESS CENTRE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 1LB
UNITS 16 TO 18 GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR MULBERRY BUSINESS CENTRE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 1LB
FORMER DOCK MANAGERS OFFICE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XU
UNIT 45 CITY BUSINESS CENTRE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XB
UNIT B QUEBEC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LF
STORE AYLTON ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 1JL
MANAGEMENT SUITE SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 1LL
SURREY DOCKER REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 2LW
46-50 SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 1LL
DAILY MAIL BUILDING SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 1PQ
THE MAST LEISURE PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 1LL
SURREY QUAYS LEISURE PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 1LL
SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7LR
28 REGINA POINT CANADA ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7BB
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 51 BEECH HOUSE AINSTY ESTATE SWAN ROAD LONDON SE16 7DQ
73 REGINA POINT CANADA ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7BD
FLAT 22 LARCH HOUSE AINSTY ESTATE SWAN ROAD LONDON SE16 7DH
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
10 SWAN ROAD LONDON SE16 7DT
22 TURNER COURT ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JU
32 ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JQ
62 ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JY
3 TEMERAIRE STREET LONDON SE16 7JE
14 CLACK STREET LONDON SE16 7JT
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
5 SETH STREET LONDON SE16 7HA
67 SWAN ROAD LONDON SE16 7DY
2 ATLANTA HOUSE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7PN
1 ATLANTA HOUSE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7PN
LITTLE CROWN 56 ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JQ
3 BRUNSWICK HOUSE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7PP
28A ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JQ
THE ALBION 20 ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JQ
1 CANADA HOUSE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7PH
2 CANADA HOUSE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7PH
62 IRWELL ESTATE NEPTUNE STREET LONDON SE16 7JS
30 AYLTON ESTATE RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7JW
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
198 BRUNSWICK QUAY LONDON SE16 7PT
CHRISTIAN PENTECOSTAL MISSION INTERNATIONAL UNIT 1 MULBERRY BUSINESS CENTRE QUEBEC WAY LONDON
SE16 7LB
16 PUMP HOUSE CLOSE LONDON SE16 7HS
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
22 LOCK KEEPERS HEIGHTS 117 BRUNSWICK QUAY LONDON SE16 7PW
1 TEREDO STREET LONDON SE16 7LW
100 REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7LH
28 QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LF
2 QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LQ
159A LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
FLAT A 167 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
FLAT 3 149 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
FLAT C 167 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
159B LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
FLAT B 167 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
2A BRUNSWICK QUAY LONDON SE16 7PY
159C LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
GROUND FLOOR FLAT 171 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR FLAT 171 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
1A BRUNSWICK QUAY LONDON SE16 7PU
FLAT 2 70 RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7JZ
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
ALBION PRIMARY SCHOOL ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JD
FLAT 2 BUCHANAN COURT WORGAN STREET LONDON SE16 7WB
FLAT 12 BURRAGE COURT WORGAN STREET LONDON SE16 7WA
FLAT 3 BYARDS COURT WORGAN STREET LONDON SE16 7WD
36 SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7NA
7-9 SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7LJ
53-55 SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7NB
UNIT 2A QUEBEC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LQ
ALFRED SALTER PRIMARY SCHOOL QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LP
PETROL FILLING STATION SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7LL
SCHOOL HOUSE ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JF
FLAT 9 BURRHILL COURT WORGAN STREET LONDON SE16 7WG
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 8 ELBOURNE COURT WORGAN STREET LONDON SE16 7WF
FLAT 4 CABOT COURT WORGAN STREET LONDON SE16 7WE
56 MONTREAL HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AP
30 MONTREAL HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AN
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
108 MONTREAL HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AQ
FLAT 18 TORONTO HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AJ
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
CAR WASH AT CAR PARK SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7LL
556 GIVERNY HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RL
66 CANON BECK ROAD LONDON SE16 7DN
UNIT B TORONTO HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AJ
UNIT A2 TORONTO HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AJ
FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR FLAT 68 CANON BECK ROAD LONDON SE16 7DN
UNIT C TORONTO HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AJ
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 60 FAIRMONT HOUSE NEEDLEMAN STREET LONDON SE16 7AW
FLAT 112 FAIRMONT HOUSE ALBATROSS WAY LONDON SE16 7BT
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
UNIT C MONTREAL HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AQ
UNIT B MONTREAL HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AQ
UNIT A MONTREAL HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AQ
UNIT C QUEBEC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LF
5 SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7LR
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
103B CHANNEL HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RF
FLAT 19 HANOVER HOUSE DOMINION DRIVE LONDON SE16 7AS
CANADA WATER LIBRARY 21 SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7AR
LIVING ACCOMMODATION 20 ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JQ
LIVING ACCOMMODATION THE CHINA HALL 141 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2NQ
UNIT 300 EDEN HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RH
FLAT 2 1 TEREDO STREET LONDON SE16 7LW
FLAT 1 1 TEREDO STREET LONDON SE16 7LW
LIVING ACCOMMODATION 56 ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JQ
4 CHINA HALL MEWS LONDON SE16 2XN
UNITS 14 TO 18 GROUND FLOOR MULBERRY BUSINESS CENTRE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LB
UNITS 14 TO 18 FIRST FLOOR MULBERRY BUSINESS CENTRE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LB
ASSEMBLY HALL 1 NEPTUNE STREET LONDON SE16 7JR
UNIT 4 CANADA WATER RETAIL PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 2XU
FLAT C SECOND FLOOR 171 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
GALA BINGO THE MAST LEISURE PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 1LL
FLAT 3 MYLES COURT 86 NEPTUNE STREET LONDON SE16 7JP
UNIT 24 MULBERRY BUSINESS CENTRE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LD
26-28 ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JQ
UCI CINEMA THE MAST LEISURE PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7LL
FLAT B FIRST FLOOR 171 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
4 DRAKE CLOSE LONDON SE16 6RS
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 8 NIAGARA COURT RENFORTH STREET LONDON SE16 7BA
SOUTH AND WEST WAREHOUSES CANADA WATER RETAIL PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 2XU
FIRST FLOOR FLAT CHURCH OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF OUR LADY 2 ST ELMOS ROAD LONDON SE16 6SJ
601 PAVILLION HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RN
QUINCEYS THE MAST LEISURE PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7LL
HOLLYWOOD BOWL THE MAST LEISURE PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7LL
FATTIE ARBUCKLES THE MAST LEISURE PARK SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 7LL
4 HITHE GROVE LONDON SE16 2XP
FLAT 7 1 HITHE GROVE LONDON SE16 2XS
FLAT 37 COLUMBIA POINT CANADA ESTATE MOODKEE STREET LONDON SE16 7BE
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 49 COLUMBIA POINT CANADA ESTATE MOODKEE STREET LONDON SE16 7BG
ROOM D 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
UNIT 13A CITY BUSINESS CENTRE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XB
22-24 ALBION STREET LONDON SE16 7JQ
ROOM H 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
FIRST FLOOR 59 SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE REDRIFF ROAD LONDON SE16 7LL
CLUBROOM CANADA ESTATE NEPTUNE STREET LONDON SE16 7BE
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
461 HELIGAN HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RJ
344 EDEN HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RH
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
102 CHANNEL HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RF
103A CHANNEL HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RF
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
233 DOVECOTE HOUSE WATER GARDENS SQUARE LONDON SE16 6RG
29 KINBURN STREET LONDON SE16 6DW
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
3 CLIPPER CLOSE LONDON SE16 6DR
41 TIMBER POND ROAD LONDON SE16 6AG
1 IRONSIDE CLOSE LONDON SE16 6DS
4 WINDROSE CLOSE LONDON SE16 6DU
18 MIDDLETON DRIVE LONDON SE16 6RZ
6 STANHOPE CLOSE LONDON SE16 6RX
2 GREENACRE SQUARE LONDON SE16 6SE
2 HARDY CLOSE LONDON SE16 6RT
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
6 HAWKE PLACE LONDON SE16 6RU
FLAT 15 MANSION WHARF HOUSE 101 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XG
FLAT 8 COURTHOPE HOUSE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XH
ROTHERHITHE POLICE STATION 99 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XQ
THE CHINA HALL 141 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2NQ
UNIT 7 DOCK OFFICES SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 2XU
129 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
193 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2LW
16 HOTHFIELD PLACE LONDON SE16 2XJ
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
UNIT 10 TO 11 DOCK OFFICES SURREY QUAYS ROAD LONDON SE16 2XU
201-203 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2LW
FLAT 9 VIRGINIA COURT ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PU
24 ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PE
16 ELEANOR CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PA
FLAT 15 BALTIC COURT ARCHANGEL STREET LONDON SE16 6AB
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 14 LACINE COURT CHRISTOPHER CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PL
14 CHRISTOPHER CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PQ
1 CHRISTOPHER CLOSE LONDON SE16 6PG
5 MAPLE LEAF SQUARE LONDON SE16 6SB
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
17 FISHERMANS DRIVE LONDON SE16 6SG
23 ST ELMOS ROAD LONDON SE16 6SA
21 ST ELMOS ROAD LONDON SE16 6SA
40 FISHERMANS DRIVE LONDON SE16 6SQ
38 FISHERMANS DRIVE LONDON SE16 6SQ
FLAT 25 BALTIC COURT TIMBER POND ROAD LONDON SE16 6AU
CHURCH OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF OUR LADY 2 ST ELMOS ROAD LONDON SE16 6SJ
FLAT 7 SAUNDERS HOUSE CANADA STREET LONDON SE16 6SW
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 3 AMHERST HOUSE WOLFE CRESCENT LONDON SE16 6SH
FLAT 74 VANCOUVER HOUSE NEEDLEMAN STREET SE16 7BW
FLAT 16 BURLINGTON HOUSE PROVINCE DRIVE LONDON SE16 7BZ
FLAT 8 VANCOUVER HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD SE16 7BU
UNIT B VANCOUVER HOUSE NEEDLEMAN STREET SE16 7BW
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 18 OAKVILLE HOUSE DOMINION DRIVE LONDON SE16 7BX
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 34 OTTAWA HOUSE ALBATROSS WAY LONDON SE16 7BY
FLAT 18 BLICK HOUSE NEPTUNE STREET LONDON SE16 2XE
FLAT 9 RAVEN HOUSE OSPREY ESTATE 1 TAWNY WAY LONDON SE16 2NQ
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
FLAT 5 DUNLIN HOUSE OSPREY ESTATE 2 TAWNY WAY LONDON SE16 2NH
FLAT 7 ORCHARD HOUSE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XF
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
ROOM B 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
ROOM A 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
UNIT A VANCOUVER HOUSE SURREY QUAYS ROAD SE16 7BU
ROOM F 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
ROOM E 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
ROOM C 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
ROOM G 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
2B QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LB
UNIT 2 TO 3 CITY BUSINESS CENTRE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XB
ROOM K 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
ROOM J 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
ROOM I 153 LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XL
UNITS 16 AND 16A CITY BUSINESS CENTRE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2BX
UNIT 1A QUEBEC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE QUEBEC WAY LONDON SE16 7LF
UNIT 5 AND UNIT 15 CITY BUSINESS CENTRE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XB
36 TAWNY WAY LONDON SE16 2NG
UNIT 40 AND 41 CITY BUSINESS CENTRE LOWER ROAD LONDON SE16 2XB
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
07/02/2013
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
SE16 6YQ
by email
by email
by email
by email
by email
33 PLOVER WAY LONDON SE16 7TS
by email
BY EMAIL
27 Harwood Point 307 Rotherhithe Street London SE16 5HD
22 Bywater Place London SE16 5ND
13 Bywater Place London SE16 5ND
BY EMAIL
19 Fishermans Drive London SE16 6SG
by email
by email
by email
by email
144 Montreal House Surrey Quays Road London SE16 7AQ
by email
by email
Fishermans Drive SE16 6SG
by email
by email
by email
13 Woodland Crescent London SE16 5XN
by email
Flat 461 Heligan House Water Gardens Square London SE16 6RG
by email
by email
by email
44 Montreal House Surrey Quays Road London SE16 7AP
by email
by email
by email
By Email XXXX
by email
67 Bywater Place London SE15 5NE
32 Toronto Place Surrey Quays Road London SE16 7AJ
17 Wolfe Crescent London SE16 6SF
by email
by email
563 Giverny House Water Garden Square London SE16 6RL
by email
70 Bywater Place London SE16 5NE
by email
by email
by email
by email
53 Plough Way London SE16 2LS
by email
by email
362 Eden HOuse Water Gardens Square London SE16 6RH
by email
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
169 Montreal House
Rotherhithe area housing forum
10 Murdoch House Moodkee Street London SE16 7BJ
45 Frederick Square London SE16 5XR
Flat 41 Toronto House Surrey quays Road London SE16
26 Toronto House London SE16 7AJ
by email
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
by email
42 Elephant Lane London SE16 4JD
46 Elephant Lane London SE16 4JD
33 Brandrams Wharf 127-131 Rotherhithe Street SE16 4NF
Flat 29 Toronto Court Canada Water London SE16
25 Toronto House SE16
9 Toronto House Surrey Quays Road London SE16 7AJ
by email
by email
Unit 2 Toronot House Surrey quays Road London SE16 7AJ
Fuller Long Planning Consultants Studio 107, Curtain House 134-146 Curtain road London EC2A 3AR
8 Troon Close London SE16
8 Troon Close London SE16 3DX
19 Glenbow Road Bromley Kent BR1 4RN
5 Scotia Court London SE16 7AZ
53 Skenfrith House Commercial Way London SE15 1NE
7 Scotia Court Canada Water London SE16 7AZ
11 Columbia Point Canada Estate London SE16 7BE
20 Regina Point Canada Estate London SE16 7BB
78 Regina Point Canada Estate London SE16 7BD
52 Regina Point Canada Estate Neptune Street London SE16 7BD
2 Niagra Court Canada Estate London SE16 7BA
12 Regina Point Renforth Street London SE16 7BB
75 Regina Point Canada Estate Neptune Street London SE16
10 Scotia Court Canada Estate London SE16 7AZ
75 Regina Point London SE16
74 Regina Point London SE16 7BD
63 Regina Point Canada Estate London SE16
49 Regina Point Canada Estate London SE16 7BD
2 Columbia Point London SE16
74 Ryan Point Canada Estate London SE16 7BD
7 Edmonton Court London SE16 7BQ
149 Woolstaplers Way London SE16 3UU
27 Regina Point London SE16 7BD
3 Edmonton Court London SE16 7BQ
Flat 26 Regina Point Canada Estate London SE16 7BB
33 Esmeralda Road London SE16 5RJ
5 Niagara Court London SE16 7BA
Flat 1 42 Cranswick Road London SE16 3BH
21 Hurst Road Erith Kent DA8 3EQ
33 Esmeralda Road London SE1 5RJ
24 Grafton House Trinity Estate Grove Street London SE8 3LP
7 Niagara Court Canada Estate London SE16 7BA
24 Grafton House Trinity Estate Grove Street London SE8 3LP
28 Credon Road Bonamy Estate London SE16 3AB
99 Caroline Gardens London SE15 2SE
162 Caroline Gardens Asylum Road London SE17 2BJ
6 Cragie House Balaclava Road London SE15 5PR
Flat 1 54 Barkworth Road London SE16 3BZ
53 John Kennedy House Rotherhithe Old Road London SE16 2QE
18 Holywell Close London SE16 3EF
1 Birkdale Close Masters Drive London SE16 3DN
39 Caroline Gardens Asylum Road London SE15 2SF
18 Moreton House Slippers Place London SE16 7EQ
80 Chilton Grove London SE16 2DW
18 Janeway Street London SE16 PS
2 Kingsdown Close London SE16 3DW
5 Ablett Street London SE16 3BL
28 Credon Road London SE16 3AB
68 Columbia Point Canada Estate London SE16 7BG
6 Barkworth Road London SE16 3BY
92 St Helena Road London SE16 2QY
18 Holywell Close London SE16 3GF
18 Rooke Way Greenwich London SE10 0JB
12 Niagara Court Canada Estate L9ondon SE16 7BA
18 Rooke Way Greenwich London SE10 0JB
18 Prince's Court off South Sea Street Surrey Quays London SE16 7TD
49 John Kenney House Rotherhithe Old Road London SE16 2QE
34 Saint Helena Road London SE16 2QU
Via Email
by email
Water Garden's Square SE16
3rd Floor Victoria House Bloomsbury Square WC1B 4SE
by e-mail
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
by email
Spectrum Planning, Arqiva Hill Village Road Four Oaks Sutton Coalfield B75 5JJ
26 Toronto House Surrey Quays London SE16 7AJ
20 Harwood Point 307 Rotherhithe Street London SE16 5HD
by email
14 Midship Close Rotherhithe London SE16 6BT
By Email XXXXXX
Canada Water Resident by email SE16 6XD
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
20/06/1837
The Studio 5 Griggs Place London SE1 3AT
By Email XXXX
BY Email XXXX
By Email XXXX
19 Fairmont House Needleman Street London SE16 7AW

Report and appendices , item 6.1 PDF 1 MB

Transcription

Similar documents

canada water - Southwark Council

Stunden LaufBasel Stunden LaufBasel

NEW 2009 Edition SurePass - United Educational Services

SRI CHINMOY

.and they`re giving away free cable splitters to do it The Student

+ SURREY QUAYS SHOPPING CENTRE