SITE DESIGNATIONS

No relevant site designations

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area 0.06 hectares

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (Gross External Area)

Floorspace prior to demolition

A4 Drinking Establishment 469m²

Proposed floorspace

C3 Residential 1147.8m²

A1/A2/A3/A4 Shops/Café/Restaurant/Public House

335.9m²

Address: 184 Larkhall Lane, London, SW4 6SH

Application Number: 16/01847/FUL Case Officer: Richard McFerran

Ward: Larkhall

Date Validated: 22nd March 2016

Proposal: Demolition of existing vacant public house and erection of a five storey building (plus basement) to provide a 335.9sqm ground floor and basement commercial unit (Use Class A1, A2, A3 or A4) and 14 residential units (Use class C3) above, including the provision of refuse and recycling with associated landscaping, cycle parking, access and infrastructure.

Drawing numbers: Site Location Plan (14009(EX)001); Existing Plans (14009(EX)100); Existing Elevations (14009(EX)200); Basement Floor Plan (14009(PA)099 Rev B); Ground Floor Plan (14009(PA)100 Rev F); First Floor Plan (14009(PA)101 Rev E); Second & Third Floor Plans (14009(PA)102 Rev F); Fourth Floor Plan (14009(PA)104 Rev E); Roof Plan (14009(PA)106 Rev F); Elevations (14009(PA)200 Rev C); Sections (14009(PA)300 Rev C); Playspace (14009(PA)110);

Documents: Cover Letter – 22/03/2016; Design & Access Statement March 2016 (14009); Addendum to Design & Access Statement – July 2016 (14009-KD-160718); Surface Water Drainage Strategy – 29/02/2016 (AMA475 Rev A); Noise Impact Assessment (RP01-15040 REV 2); Transport Statement – March 2016 (KCH/MDRA/15/2514/TS02); Sustainability Report Revision 3 (03/03/16); Updated Marketing Report – March 2016; Sunlight & Daylight Assessment (April 2016); Sunlight & Daylight Additional Statement (06/10/2016);

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and satisfactory completion of a S106 agreement

Applicant: Mr Ross Kemp (Kingsbury Consultants)

Agent: Mr Eric Wong (MDR Associates)

RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Residential Type

Studio 1 2 3 4

Proposed Private houses 2 2 5 1 0

Social Rented 0 0 0 0 0

Shared Ownership 0 2 1 1 0

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Spaces

(general)

Car Parking Spaces

(Disabled)

Bicycle Spaces

Motorbike Spaces

Existing 5 0 0 0

Proposed 0 0 32 0

OFFICERS REPORT Reason for referral to PAC: The application is reported to the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with (1) of the Committee’s terms of reference.

1 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site comprises a two-storey building which is located on a prominent corner plot on the junction of Larkhall Lane and Union Road. The building is set back from the Larkhall Lane and Union Road frontages and follows the established building line of adjacent development. The forecourt areas to the front and side of the building are hard landscaped and allow provision for vehicular parking. The building is constructed from red brick with some attractive architectural detailing, particularly to the first floor windows, and a tiled mansard roof which is perforated by three large chimneys. The building is now vacant but was previously used as a public house at ground floor level with ancillary residential accommodation on the upper floor.

1.2 The building adjoins the south-western elevation of a large five-storey residential block (including mansard) known as Stanmore House. The pub is thought to have been built around the same time as this adjoining block (circa 1940) and formed part of the LCC Springfield Estate development. To the north-west of the site, separated by distance of approximately 7m, is 110 Union Road which is a modern part-two/part-four storey development fronting Union Road which features a health and community centre at ground and first floor levels.

1.3 The wider area is predominantly residential and is characterised by large blocks of mid-20th century social housing such as Oakwell House which occupies the corner plot on the opposite side of Union Road. Local amenities and transport connections can be found on Wandsworth Road which is approximately 240m to the north-west of the application site. Public open space, sports facilities and a children’s play area are also located nearby at Larkhall Park. The closest entrance to Larkhall Park is approximately 250m from the application site.

1.4 The host building is not locally or statutory listed nor are there any such buildings in the immediate vicinity of the application site. The site is not located within a conservation area however it is located diagonally across from the Sibella Conservation Area which is a development of smart suburban houses dating from the mid-late 19th Century.

1.5 The northern end of the site benefits from a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 4 which reduces to a 3 when calculated from the southern end of the site.

Figure 1: Image towards site from junction of Larkhall Lane and Union Road. Existing building located centrally with Stanmore House to right and 110 Union Rd to left.

Figure 2: Aerial image with the application site outlined in red.

2 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 15/03666/FUL - Demolition of existing vacant public house and erection of a six storey

building to provide a 331sqm ground floor and basement commercial unit (Use Class A1, A2, A3 and A4) , together with 16 residential units (Use class C3) above. Provision of refuse and recycling with associated landscaping, parking, and access. Application Withdrawn – 2nd October 2015.

3 PROPOSAL

3.1 Demolition of existing vacant public house and erection of a five storey(plus basement) building to provide a 335.9sqm ground floor and basement commercial unit (Use Class A1, A2, A3 and A4) and 14 residential units (Use Class C3) above, including the provision of refuse and recycling with associated landscaping, parking, access and infrastructure.

3.2 The existing building would be demolished and replaced with a five-storey structure,

including fourth-floor accommodation within a mansard roof. There also would be a basement serving the commercial unit. The building would be a brick finish with a series of projecting bay and inset balcony features on the Larkhall Lane and Union Road elevations. A copper clad mansard roof is proposed also with a series of inset balconies/terraces. The ground floor commercial unit would feature a series of large floor to ceiling windows in order to provide an active frontage to both the Union Road and Larkhall Lane frontages.

3.3 The replacement building would have a similar footprint to the existing building and

would follow the existing established building lines with the adjacent buildings at Stanmore House and 110 Union Road. However the footprint would increase to the north-west and would largely infill the gap between the existing building and the flank of 110 Union Road.

Figure 3: Existing and proposed building alignment and footprint.

3.4 The replacement building would feature a flexible commercial use at basement and

ground floor levels (A1/A2/A3/A4) with 14 residential units on the upper floors (2 x studios; 4 x 1 bed units; 6 x 2 bed units; and 2 x 3 bed units). As part of this housing component there would be a total provision of 4 affordable units (2 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) which would equate to 28.6% of the development. All of the affordable units would have a shared-ownership tenure.

3.5 The residential entrance would be located to the north-west side of the building and would be physically subdivided from the commercial space and forecourt. Access to the upper floors would be provided by a staircase and lift. Refuse storage would be provided at ground floor level together with a two-tiered bike store with a capacity for 26 bikes associated with the residential use. Cycle parking for visitors to the

commercial premises in the form of 6 stands within the commercial forecourt. Internally there would be a further 3 bike lockers for staff.

3.6 The forecourt areas to both the commercial and residential elements of the building

would be landscaped with an emphasis on soft-landscaping to provide a barrier from Union Road and Larkhall Lane. A portion of the landscaped area will be set aside to provide an element of doorstep play space. A half layby area is proposed on Union Road in order to provide an appropriate area for servicing.

Figure 4: Proposed CGI of completed development.

4 CONSULATIONS

Statutory Consultees 4.1 The following table summarises consultation on the application with statutory

consultees:

Statutory Consultee Summary of response

Thames Water

No objection subject to the inclusion of an informative regarding minimum water pressure.

Environment Agency No response received.

Other Consultees 4.2 A total of five local amenity groups (including Clapham Society; Friends of Larkhall

Park; Stockwell Park Residents Association; Larkhall Triangle Residents Association

and Stockwell Partnership) were also consulted on the proposals. No letters of objection or support were received.

Adjoining Owners/Occupiers

4.3 In addition to the above, site notices were erected within the vicinity of the site on or

before 15th April 2016, a press notice was posted in the Lambeth Weekender on the same date and a total of 350 letters were sent to the occupants of neighbouring properties. A total of 14 objections were received in response to this consultation process. These are summarised below together with an officer response:

Objection Summary Officer Response

The height of the proposed replacement building is too tall. It would result in an oppressive building which would not be in keeping with the adjacent buildings and overwhelm the surrounding area.

The height of the replacement building is considered to be acceptable. In particular the height of the parapet and mansard are considered to match those of the adjoining building at Stanmore House. It is also of a similar height and mass as Oakwell House on the opposite side of Union Road albeit this building sits higher due to the topographical differences on the opposite sides of the road. It is acknowledged that the proposed replacement building would be higher adjacent part-two, part-four storey building to the north-west which is known as No. 110 Union Road. However it is considered that despite this increase in height that an acceptable relationship would be maintained between the two buildings. This is on the basis that the step up in height would be limited – less than 3m. In any case the visual impact of the step up in height is softened due to the retention of the visual break between the two buildings which would be maintained despite the proposed building extending out towards the north-west boundary of the site. This visual break is also more significant at upper floor levels due to the massing of No. 110 Union Road and the inclusion of the mansard to the proposed building which slopes away from the boundary. The step up in height is also considered to be appropriate noting that the application site is located in a more prominent corner plot which is considered to be a natural location within the street scene for a building of increased height.

The height and bulk of the building will result in a reduction in sunlight and daylight to nearby properties and will cast additional shadows over the landscaped area to the front of the health centre and the

An independent review of sunlight and daylight matters has been conducted and concludes that there would be little reduction in the receipt of sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties. There would be no impact on Oakdale House given the

parking/pedestrian entrance to the rear of Stanmore House.

separation distance of the buildings whilst the impact on the adjoining property, Stanmore House, is minimal. The windows to the courtyard elevation on Stanmore House are already significantly compromised by the projecting walkways. Any additional overshadowing to the landscaped area in front of the health centre would be minimal and limited to early morning. Overshadowing to the courtyard area to Stanmore House is not considered to be a significant consideration given that it appears to be used for car parking as opposed to an amenity space.

The proposed landscaping is inappropriate. It should be a proper planted garden area like that to the front of the adjacent health centre.

The area of proposed landscaping is considered to be acceptable in the context of the site. The footprint of the building ensures that the building lines of the existing Larkhall Lane and Union Road elevations are maintained and the landscaping would replace the existing unsightly areas used for vehicular parking. Officers consider that this makes a significant improvement to the character and appearance of the area. However officers are satisfied with the indicative layout noting the need to maintain access to the commercial unit and residential properties. It should be noted that he proposed layout is indicative with the final landscaping and management plan reserved via condition.

A commercial use on this site would not be viable. Trade for public houses has significantly declined and the area is already well served by a range of drinking establishments. The use of the proposed commercial unit as a pub or restaurant would create additional noise which would conflict with the surrounding residential area.

The retention of a public house (Use Class A4) or alternative active frontage commercial use (Use Class A1-A3) is considered to be fully consistent with the requirements of Policies ED8 & ED10 of the Local Plan (2015). Policy ED8 deals with public houses and seeks to protect or retain public houses. The potential re-provision of a public house facility is therefore considered to accord with this policy aim. The potential loss of the public house is also considered to be acceptable in the context of this policy and ED10 (Local centres and dispersed shops) which seeks to protect and retain active frontage uses and dispersed local A Class uses.

The proposals will result in additional parking stress within surrounding streets where there

The future occupants of the residential unit will be prevented from applying for parking permits through a S106 obligation and as such will have no impact upon parking

already are existing capacity problems.

stress. Any vehicular parking attributed with a proposed commercial use is considered to be extremely limited noting that traffic modelling indicates that even a ‘worse case’ A1 convenience store would only result in 20 two-way trips per day with the fast majority of visits being made on foot. In addition a designated loading bay would be created in place of the existing vehicular cross-over to the site. This would not require the removal of any existing on-street parking spaces.

The proposed construction works associated with the redevelopment of the site will result in undue noise and disturbance to the residents of neighbouring properties and potentially cause structural problems.

Issues relating to noise and disturbance arising from construction activities are not considered to be material planning considerations noting given that they fall under the realms of Environmental Health legislation. However the submission of a Construction Management Plan is requirement of the conditions

The modern design of the proposals is out of keeping with the historic character of many of the building in the surrounding area. The use of glass balconies is a problem and are particularly unsightly when used for storage.

The detailed design of the building is considered to be acceptable and provide an appropriate response to the surrounding built environment. This is on the basis of the height, form and brick elevations of the building draws on nearby buildings including the adjacent Stanmore House. It is acknowledged that there are some features, namely balconies and the copper clad mansard roof, which differentiate the structure from surrounding development. However these features are considered to lend the structure a contemporary appearance without dominating the building or harming visual amenity.

There has been a distinct lack of engagement by the applicant with local resident in advance of submitting this application and the previously withdrawn scheme. The submitted documents state that a public meeting was held yet no notice appears to have been given to the residents of buildings which are immediately adjacent to the application site.

The applicant engaged twice with the Local Planning Authority at pre-application stage. In both instances it was made clear, both verbally and in writing, that for a development of this nature a thorough consultation exercise should be undertaken with local stakeholders in order to ascertain local views and shape the scheme ahead of submission. Section 2.5 of the submitted Design and Access Statement indicates that such a consultation exercise did take place. In any case it should be noted that the Local Planning Authority cannot insist on such consultation by the applicant in advance of submission. All statutory consultation duties that the Local Planning Authority are responsible for have been adhered to.

The proposals would result in increased overlooking into the medical centre at 110 Union Road and the flats that are on the floors immediately above.

The replacement building would be higher and closer to the boundary with No. 110 Union Road than the existing however it is considered that there would be minimal impact upon the residential properties within this block at third floor level due to the oblique angle between the windows that serve the third floor units within 100 Union Road and the flank elevation of the proposed replacement building. There would be no additional overlooking to the windows that service the health centre than that which occurs from the existing building.

This is an inappropriate location for another betting shop or nightclub within the surrounding area.

The proposed flexible commercial use is for (A1-A4). The replacement building does not include provision of a betting shop or nightclub both of which are considered to be Suis Generis uses. Any future use of the commercial facility for such a use would require a further application for planning permission.

Internal Consultation 4.4 The following table summarises consultation on the application with internal

consultees:

Internal Consultee Summary of response

Sustainable Urban Drainage Officer

No objections subject to a condition requiring the submission of a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage.

Transport Planning Officer

No objections subject to conditions relating to cycle parking, servicing and delivery, construction management and vehicular accesses. A s106 agreement is also required to ensure that residents of the development are unable to apply for parking permits and to secure the highway works for the half layby.

Urban Design Officer No objections subject to a series of conditions relating to design detail and landscaping.

Sustainability/Energy Consultant

No objections subject to conditions requiring the submission of a revised energy strategy, construction in accordance with the revised energy strategy and achieving an ‘excellent’ BREEAM rating.

Housing No objections subject to a S106 obligation ensuring that the shared ownership units are subject to the Mayoral income thresholds for intermediate housing.

5 POLICIES

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 sets out the Government's

planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It reinforces the development plan led system and does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Moreover, it sets out that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.3 The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2015) (as amended by Minor

Alterations to the London Plan (MALP) dated 14 March 2016) and the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015). The Local Plan contains detailed development management policies and site allocations. The Local Plan was submitted for examination to the government in March 2014. This process included a public hearing in July 2014 and continued with the Inspector issued her final report in August 2015. The Local Plan was formally adopted by Council on 23rd September 2015 when it superseded the Core Strategy (2011) and saved UDP policies (2007) and was given full weight in the determination of planning applications.

5.4 The key policies of the development plan which are considered relevant to the

assessment of this application are listed in the tables below:

London Plan (2015) (as amended by Minor Alterations to the London Plan (MALP) dated 14 March 2016)

Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply

Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential

Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments

Policy 3.6 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation

Policy 3.8 Housing choice

Policy 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities

Policy 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use scheme

Policy 4.4 Managing industrial land and premises

Policy 4.8 Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector and related facilities and services

Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions

Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction

Policy 5.7 Renewable energy

Policy 5.12 Flood risk management

Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity

Policy 6.9 Cycling

Policy 6.13 Parking

Policy 7.1 Lifetime neighbourhoods

Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment

Policy 7.3 Designing out crime

Policy 7.4 Local character

Policy 7.5 Public realm

Policy 7.6 Architecture

Policy 8.2 Planning obligations

Policy 8.3 Community infrastructure levy

Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015)

Policy H1 Maximising housing growth

Policy H2 Delivering affordable housing

Policy H4 Housing mix in new developments

Policy H5 Housing standards

Policy ED2 Business, industrial and storage uses outside KIBAs

Policy ED7 Evening economy and food and drink uses

Policy ED8 Public houses

Policy ED9 A2 uses

Policy ED10 Local centres and dispersed local shops

Policy T1 Sustainable travel

Policy T3 Cycling

Policy T8 Servicing

Policy T7 Parking

Policy T8 Servicing

Policy EN1 Open space and biodiversity

Policy EN4 Sustainable design and construction

Policy EN5 Flood risk

Policy EN6 Sustainable drainage systems and water management

Policy EN7 Sustainable waste management

Policy Q8 Design quality: construction detailing

Policy Q9 Landscaping

Policy Q12 Refuse/recycling storage

Policy Q13 Cycle storage

Policy Q14 Development in gardens and on backland sites

Policy Q15 Boundary treatments

Policy Q20 Statutory listed buildings

Policy Q22 Conservation areas

5.5 The following supplementary planning guidance is also relevant to the assessment of

this application:

London Plan Housing SPG (2016)

Housing Standards Minor Alterations to the London Plan (2016)

Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014)

Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction and Demolition SPG (2014)

Play and Informal Recreation SPG (2012) 5.6 The following additional guidance is also considered relevant to the assessment of this

application:

Lambeth Refuse and Recycling Storage Design Guide (2013)

Lambeth Parking Survey Guidance Note

Lambeth Guidance Note: Marketing of Employment Premises and Sites (2015)

6 Assessment

6.1 The remaining sections of this report set out the officer assessment of the application broken down by topic area. Land Use

6.2 The site features an existing public house with ancillary residential accommodation on the upper floor. The pub is understood to have been vacant for at least 5 years however despite this vacancy it is considered to be the established use class. The starting point for assessing the acceptability of the scheme on land use grounds is therefore the potential loss of the public house.

6.3 In policy terms it is noted that the importance of public houses is recognised and that there are policies in place to protect them from inappropriate development. This is reflected in Policy 4.8 (Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector and related facilities and services) of the London Plan which recognises the importance of public houses as valued local community assets, the loss of which should be justified by robust evidence.

6.4 In addition to this, Policy ED8 (Public houses) of the Lambeth Local Plan states that the council will use its available planning powers to support the retention of public houses. Changes to non-A or D class uses will only be acceptable where the proposal would not result in the loss of a valued facility and where there is no reasonable prospect in the medium term of the re-use or refurbishment for an alternative A or D class use, demonstrated through marketing evidence.

6.5 In relation to this a marketing report has been provided to support the proposals. The individual aspects of the report which make up the wider marketing exercise have been assessed in general accordance with the Council’s planning guidance note for the Marketing of Employment Sites and Premises (2015). It is noted that this application does not involve the loss of designated employment floorspace (i.e office or industrial use). However there is no specific guidance for marketing public houses and in any case the guidance note is considered to provide a broadly robust structure to assess the quality of the marketing exercise undertaken by the applicant.

6.6 The originally submitted marketing report was identical to the report submitted in support of the previously withdrawn application (ref: 15/03666/FUL). This was therefore not considered to be up-to-date. An updated document was therefore provided to explain the ongoing marketing undertaken over the course of the past 12 months. To this end it is considered that the broad thrust of the requirements within the aforementioned guidance note have been complied with. In particular it demonstrates that marketing of the premises begun in 2013 and that the marketing exercise included circulating details of the premises to over 7,000 industry contacts; erecting an ‘enquiries’ board on the property; listing details on the commercial property agency’s website; distributing the particulars of the opportunity via the Estate Agent’s Clearing Website (which circulates the details to over 500 London commercial agents); and placing an advert in the Estates Gazette magazine.

6.7 The marketing exercise was refreshed throughout the process including replacing adverts within the Estate Gazette magazine and redistributing the particulars through the Estate Agent’s Clearing Website. The submitted marketing report states that the commercial agent received a total of 21 enquiries throughout the marketing campaign. This included enquiries from established pub operators such as Antic Ltd. However none of the enquiries followed up with an offer, citing concerns about proximity to other drinking establishments, lack of footfall and the investment required to modernise the public house.

6.8 Officers are of the opinion that the updated marketing statement is sufficiently robust to support the redevelopment of the existing public house site. However it should also be noted that the Local Plan states that consideration should be given to whether the proposals would be a loss of a facility of value to the local community and the availability of other public houses within proximity of the application site. In response to this it is considered that this existing public house is extremely limited in terms of being a facility of any particular community value. This is considered to be reflected in the responses to the public consultation exercise which generally favoured the removal of the public house use in this location. It is also noted that the premises have been vacant for over five years and that there are other existing public houses within close vicinity of the site (including the Prince of Wales which is located on Union Road approximately 185m to the north-west of the application site) and a large swathe of drinking establishments in Clapham High Street/Clapham Old Town which remain a short walk from the application site.

6.9 In any case, it is noted that a flexible commercial use, including a possible A4 drinking establishment, would be retained on the ground floor (and basement) of the proposed replacement building. Furthermore, the change of use of the existing building to the other proposed commercial uses (A1, A2, A3) could be implemented under permitted development rights. Given all of the above considerations officers are of the opinion that the loss of the existing public house is acceptable on land use grounds.

6.10 As discussed, the replacement scheme proposes a flexible commercial use at basement and ground floor levels covering a range of A class uses including either A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurant) or A4 (drinking establishment). The replacement public house and the alternative range of A class uses are also considered to be acceptable on land use terms noting that they would provide an active frontage in this prominent corner location which is in keeping with the provisions of Policy ED8 of the Lambeth Local Plan.

6.11 In terms of the additional residential units on the upper floors of the replacement building these too are considered to be acceptable in the context of relevant land use policies. Policy H1 of the Local Plan states that the council will seek to maximise the supply of additional homes in the borough to meet and exceed the annual housing target for Lambeth as set out in the London Plan. In this case the density of the scheme is largely shaped by what constitutes an acceptable envelope for the replacement building in terms of the surrounding urban context which is discussed further at paras. 6.20 – 6.31 of this report. Given this and the need to provide a mix of units (as discussed below) it is considered that the proposed 14 units would therefore make an acceptable contribution to council housing targets.

6.12 Policy H4 of the Local Plan deals with housing mix in new developments. It states that the council will support proposals which offer a range of dwelling sizes and types to meet current and future housing needs. To this end the proposed market housing is considered to be broadly acceptable. It would provide a balanced mix of housing including 8 family sized units which would constitute over half of all proposed market housing units within the building.

6.13 In terms of affordable housing, Policy H2 (Delivering affordable housing) of the Local

Plan states that the Council will seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. For a site of this nature the requirement is 40% affordable which should be provided. Any shortfall in this affordable provision should be justified through a financial appraisal which demonstrates that this is the maximum amount of affordable housing that can be provided.

6.14 In relation to the above, it is noted that the affordable housing offer falls short of policy targets. The originally submitted application included a viability statement which sought to justify that the scheme could only provide two shared ownership units which constituted approximately 14.3% of the total number of units. In order to test this officers instructed BNP Paribas to undertake an independent review of the scheme’s viability. In response to this BNP Paribas identified a surplus which could be used to fund the provision of two additional shared ownership units together with providing a commuted sum of £61,221.

6.15 The applicant has agreed to these conclusions. The four shared ownership units

means that the total affordable housing provision within the scheme would constitute 28.6% of the total number of units. Given the thorough review undertaken by BNP Paribas, officers are satisfied that this, in conjunction with the commuted sum which will be secured via the s106, represents the maximum amount of affordable housing that the scheme can provide.

6.16 It is also acknowledged that the affordable housing component would be 100% shared

ownership which is considered to be an intermediate housing product in policy terms. This is contrary to Policy H2 of the Local Plan which states that 70% of new affordable housing units should be social and affordable rent and 30% intermediate provision. However officers are of the opinion that the affordable housing offer remains acceptable in this instance noting that the size and layout of the proposed development is not favourable to the provision of social and affordable rent. This is on the basis that the development would only feature a single core whereas registered social housing providers generally seek a separate core to ensure ease of management and ensure cost-effectiveness. The inclusion of a lift to provide wheelchair access to the upper floors also rules out the possibility for any horizontal tenure split. This layout ensures that a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) would not have been able to manage any social rented units within the building.

6.17 In any case the introduction of social or affordable rent tenures into the scheme’s

viability would have a significant impact on the overall provision of affordable housing. These products have a lower value in comparison to shared ownership units. As such BNP Paribas have concluded that should the Council insist on the provision of social rent the maximum that could be provided is two social rented units plus a commuted sum of approximately £21,000.00. The Council’s Housing Team were consulted on the proposals have raised no objections on the basis of the significant constraints on the development in terms of providing a policy compliant level of affordable housing.

6.18 The proposed development is considered to be providing the maximum number of

affordable housing units noting the thorough viability assessment that has taken place. However, given that the overall affordable provision would equate to 28.6%, below the policy aspiration of 40%, officers consider it appropriate to include a review mechanism to capture any future uplift in value within the scheme. The S106 Agreement will be secured through the S106 Agreement. The review mechanism will not include a grace period to ensure that the maximum uplift in value can be achieved.

6.19 In drawing the land use considerations to a conclusion, based on the aforementioned arguments it is considered that there is suitable justification for the redevelopment of the site based on the marketing evidence associated with the viability of the existing public house and other considerations such as what can be achieved under permitted development rights. Furthermore the proposed replacement uses, including commercial and residential is considered to be acceptable in principle. The affordable housing offer is also considered to be suitably justified.

Design and Conservation

6.20 The proposals seek the redevelopment of the site including the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a replacement five-storey structure including a copper-clad mansard roof. The building would feature a largely glazed commercial frontage at ground floor level with the upper elevations finished in red brick with copper bays and detailing.

6.21 The starting point in assessing the acceptability of the proposed scheme on design grounds is the loss of the existing building. Whilst the existing building does have some limited merit in terms of its proportions, detailing and making use of the vernacular, it is not of significant architectural value or a significant contributor to the townscape. Furthermore the building is not statutorily or locally listed or located within a conservation area. As such there is no policy presumption for its retention.

6.22 Policy Q5 (Local distinctiveness) of the Local Plan states that local distinctiveness should be sustained and reinforced through new development. Proposals should respond to positive aspects in terms of urban block and grain; built form (including roofscapes); siting and orientation; materials and architectural detailing. In addition, Policy Q7 (Urban design: new development) of the Local Plan states that new development will generally be supported if it has a bulk, scale/mass, siting, building line and orientation which adequately preserves or enhances the prevailing local character.

6.23 In comparison to the existing building it is noted that the proposed replacement building would represent an increase in height (above ground) from two storeys plus a mansard to four storeys plus a mansard. However it is considered that this increase in height, bulk and massing can be supported in this instance. In particular this is due to the built form of the existing buildings in the immediate surrounds of the application site which generally consist of four storeys plus a mansard. The submitted Design & Access Statement successfully demonstrates that the parapet line and ridge line of the proposed development would match the adjoining block at Stanmore House to the north-east and the opposite block at Oakwell House to the south-west. As such there would be a more consistent built form (including the roofscape) and massing to the buildings fronting Larkhall Lane. This is demonstrated in the below image of the proposed south-east elevation taken from the Design & Access Statement:

Figure 4: Proposed South East Elevation in context.

6.24 It is acknowledged that the proposed redevelopment would result in a building that

would be taller than the adjacent part-two, part-four storey building to the north-west which is known as No. 110 Union Road. However it is considered that despite this increase in height that an acceptable relationship would be maintained between the two buildings. This is on the basis that the step up in height would be limited – less than 3m. In any case the visual impact of the step up in height is softened due to the retention of the visual break between the two buildings which would be maintained despite the proposed building extending out towards the north-west boundary of the site. This visual break is also more significant at upper floor levels due to the massing of No. 110 Union Road and the inclusion of the mansard to the proposed building which slopes away from the boundary. The step up in height is also considered to be appropriate noting that the application site is located in a more prominent corner plot which is considered to be a natural location within the street scene for a building of increased height.

6.25 Policies Q5 and Q7 also require new development to be acceptable in terms of urban

block/grain, siting and respecting established building lines. In this context the proposed redevelopment of the site is also considered to be acceptable noting that the replacement building would follow the front and flank building lines of the existing structure.

6.26 In terms of the detailed design of the replacement building, Policy Q7 states that the new development should be visually interesting, well detailed, well-proportioned with adequate detailing/architectural Interest (which can include accent colour, decoration and ornamentation). In this context it is considered that the proposals are largely acceptable. The architectural language is influenced by the adjoining housing blocks in terms of the use of red brick providing a strong frame, the strong rhythm of the fenestration and the incorporation of a mansard roof of traditional proportions.

6.27 However elements of the detailed design also help lend the proposed replacement building a contemporary slant. This is largely achieved through the use of copper cladding to the mansard roof and a series of copper clad projecting bays on both street fronting elevations. These features help support the well-proportioned fenestration in terms of providing visual interest to the elevations. Details of materials and construction detailing will be secured via condition. This will help ensure a high quality finish and allow for an understanding regarding how the copper cladding will weather.

6.28 The ground floor commercial unit would feature a heavily glazed shopfront that would present itself on both Larkhall Lane and Union Road. This is also considered to be acceptable on design grounds noting that the glazed treatment helps provide the desired active frontages as envisaged by planning policy whilst also visually separating this commercial use from the residential uses on the upper floors. Again details of the shopfront and any associated plant equipment, security shutters, awnings etc will be secured via condition.

6.29 Policy Q9 (Landscaping) of the Local Plan states that development will be supported where it is fit for purpose, enhances existing planting and landscape features, maximises opportunities for greening, takes into account pedestrian/cycling desire lines and provide strong boundary treatments. In terms of landscaping it is considered that the constraints of the site mean that it is limited in terms of being able to provide high quality landscaped areas. Amenity space within the development is assessed in para 6.37 – 6.38. However on design grounds it is considered that the landscaping opportunities have been maximised as much as possible noting that the footprint of the proposed building would remain similar to the existing. It is therefore welcomed that the existing areas of hard surfacing which are used for vehicular parking would be soft landscaped with an element of ‘door step’ play space (see para 6.39) and appropriate pathways to residential and commercial entrances and refuse/cycle stores. Details of the final landscaping proposals and boundary treatments are secure through conditions.

6.30 Policy Q22 (Conservation areas) states that development proposals affecting

conservation areas will be permitted where they preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas by protecting the setting (including views in and out of the area). In the context of this policy it is noted that the application site is to the north-west of the Sibella Conservation Area. However it is considered that the proposed redevelopment would not have a detrimental impact upon the setting of the conservation area. As discussed the bulk, scale and massing is appropriate in the context of adjoining existing development. In this context there would be no harm to views in or out of the conservation area whilst the detailed design would also help tie the building into its surroundings.

6.31 In summary it is considered the proposed replacement building, noting the comments from the Council’s Urban Design Officer, would result in a development that is well proportioned, appropriately detailed and responds positively to the existing context. In order to secure a high quality finish conditions are attached requiring further details of materials, construction detailing, boundaries and landscaping.

Standard of residential accommodation

6.32 In terms of the size of the residential accommodation, proposals are now assessed

against the DCLG Technical Housing Standards (2015). This document sets out minimum floor areas for new units together with minimum dimensions for bedrooms. It is considered that all of the proposed units responds positively with all of the units exceeding the minimum standards as demonstrated in the below table:

Unit Number Number of Bedrooms & Persons

Gross Internal Floor Area

Minimum Requirement

U1 1B/2P 52.3m² 50m²

U2 3B/4P 75m² 74m²

U3 1B/2P 51m² 50m²

U4 2B/3P 63m² 61m²

U5 1B/2P 50.8m² 50m²

U6 2B/3P 63.3m² 61m²

U7 Studio 43.4m² 39m²

U8 2B/3P 63m² 61m²

U9 1B/2P 50.8m² 50m²

U10 2B/3P 63.3m² 61m²

U11 Studio 43.4m² 39m²

U12 2B/3P 63m² 61m²

U13 3B/4P 82.1m² 74m²

U14 2B/4P 74.4m² 70m²

Table 1: Proposed units sizes in comparison to minimum standards

6.33 In addition to the above it is consider that all single and double bedrooms would comply with the minimum dimensions set out within the Technical Housing Standards. Furthermore, the floor to ceiling height at fourth floor level would maintain a minimum of 2.5m despite being located within the mansard roof.

6.34 The new National Technical Standards also have implications on accessible housing. Under these updated standards the reference to lifetime homes has been removed, and instead 90% of new dwellings will need to be accessible and adaptable (as defined by building regulations – Part M4 (2)) and 10% of new dwellings will need to be ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ (also defined by building regulations – Part M4 (3)). The scheme is compliant with these standards.

6.35 Policy H5 (Housing standards) of the Local Plan is also a relevant consideration. It states that proposals for new developments should accord with good design and should provide dual-aspect accommodation unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This application proposes a total of 14 residential units. Eight of these will benefit from dual or triple aspect – the majority of the units within the scheme. However this leaves six units which would have a single aspect.

6.36 During the course of assessment officers asked the applicant to revisit this with the

intention of trying to reduce the number of single aspect units. In response to this an addendum to the Design and Access Statement was submitted. Within it the applicant demonstrates that in order to reduce the number of single aspect units the overall

number of units would decrease to eight. On balance officers consider that such a reduction would not make as meaningful a contribution to housing targets as the current proposals and would have a significant impact on the scheme’s ability to provide affordable housing. Given this, the fact that the single aspect units are limited to one bedroom properties and that none of them are north facing it is considered that there is adequate justification in this instance.

6.37 Policy H5 It also states that the council will require at least 50m² of communal amenity space per scheme for flatted development, plus a further 10m² per flat provided either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated within the communal amenity space. This proposal includes 48m² of landscaped communal space. It is acknowledged that this represents a shortfall of 2m² from the policy target. It is also acknowledged that the usability of this space is limited given its position in front of the primary elevations of the building, the lack of privacy and the proximity of Larkhall Lane and Union Road. However as previously mentioned the scheme is limited in terms of what it can provide in landscaping terms due to the constraints of the site. Given this and the close proximity to Larkhall Park it is considered that there is suitable justification for the proposed communal amenity space offer. For the purposes of clarification a landscape, management and maintenance plan will be secured via condition.

6.38 In terms of private amenity space, Policy H5 states that in addition to the

aforementioned communal requirements, 10m² should be provided as a balcony/terrace or consolidated within the communal amenity space. Each of the proposed flats would benefit from private amenity space in the form of balconies or roof terraces. However nine of the proposed units would fall short of the policy target of 10m². On balance officers are satisfied with proposed private amenity space noting that all of the proposed external amenity spaces would meet or exceed the lower requirements set out within the London Plan Housing SPG (2016). Furthermore, as previously discussed, the ability to provide communal amenity space is heavily constrained as such there is no possibility of an increase in its provision.

6.39 With regards to play space it is noted that the predicted child yield from the scheme is

relatively low (1.92). However the constraints of the site ensures that there isn’t sufficient space to provide the full range of on-site play space preferred by the Mayoral Play and Informal Recreation SPD (2012). A 19m² section of the communal amenity space would be provided for ‘door step’ playable space for under 5’s would be provided. Details of this will be secured by condition. In addition, using the adopted charging approach within the Local Plan (p259) an offsite contribution of £2,603.70 will be secured through the S106 Agreement to mitigate against the lack of on-site provision for older age groups.

6.40 In terms of daylighting within the proposed residential units, a sunlight and daylight

study was submitted in support of the application. This was subsequently independently reviewed on behalf of the Council by Chancery Group who state that there is a good level of compliance with BRE requirements for daylighting. Two living/kitchen/diners to units 11 & 12 would fall short of the BRE Average Daylight Factor (ADF) target of 2%. However Chancery Group have explained that these failures are resultant from projecting balconies and recesses and that the overall results are satisfactory in an urban location. The suggested shortfalls would be limited to market housing and as such the proposed four affordable units are considered to receive satisfactory daylighting. In addition Chancery Group also conclude that all rooms assessed would achieve good levels of sunlight amenity. Impacts on sunlight/daylight to neighbouring properties are assessed within para’s 6.47 – 6.52.

6.41 It is acknowledged that the applicant seeks maximum flexibility for the proposed commercial unit and as such has applied for a range of A class uses. The unit would be located within a residential-led development and would be in close proximity to nearby existing residential properties. In this context, it is important that the use of these units does not significantly harm residential amenity which is protected by Policy Q2 (Amenity). To ensure this, a series of conditions are attached, including establishing which A class is being implemented, details of opening hours prior to occupation, soundproofing requirements and requiring details of any extract equipment needed for the preparation of food and servicing.

6.42 In summary, it is considered that there is sufficient justification for policy shortfalls in

terms of communal and private amenity space and that in general the scheme proposes an acceptable standard of residential accommodation subject to the aforementioned conditions.

Neighbouring Amenity

6.43 Policy Q2 deals with amenity and states that the development will be supported if it

does not have an unacceptable impact upon privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties or create an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

6.44 In assessing the impact on residential amenity, consideration needs to be made to the relationship of the site, the nature of the proposed development and the location of

existing residential properties. It is therefore noted that there are only a limited number of residential properties within close proximity of the application site. These include the

following:

Stanmore House (residential block which adjoins application site to north-east).

110 Union Road (mixed-use block with health, education and community facilities at ground to second floor level and residential use at third floor level. Adjacent to application site to north-west).

Oakwell House (residential block located on opposite side of Union Grove). 6.45 With respect to privacy, outlook and sense of enclosure, it is considered that only the residential properties within the immediate vicinity of the application site could be

affected in such a way; however there is not considered to be a detrimental impact. Oakwell House is located on the opposite side of Union Road and there would therefore not be an impact on any of the residential units within this block. In addition, although the replacement building would be higher and closer to the boundary with No. 110 Union Road than the existing it is considered that there would be minimal impact upon the residential properties within this block at third floor level due to the oblique angle between the windows that serve the third floor units within 100 Union Road and the flank elevation of the proposed replacement building.

6.46 Smedley House is in much closer proximity than other nearby residential properties

noting that it adjoins the application site. It is noted that there would be additional overlooking to the existing area of hard landscaping to the rear of Stanmore House. However it is considered that there would not be an additional impact on windows servicing the flats within it noting the oblique angle between these windows and the replacement building, the existence of the external walkways to access these properties and the position of the projecting staircase which protects from direct views into the closest flats.

6.47 In terms of sunlight/daylight impacts it should be noted that the applicant submitted a full assessment of sunlight and daylight impacts with their previously withdrawn application 15/03666/FUL. This scheme (as shown in the below image) was similar to the current proposal in terms of use and footprint. However it did feature a double height mansard at roof level which ensured that the building was one storey higher than the current proposal.

Figure 5: Withdrawn application CGI 6.48 An addendum to the previous sunlight and daylight report has been submitted in

support of this application. It reasonably concludes that the previous sunlight and daylight assessment demonstrated that there would be little reduction in the receipt of sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties. In addition, as a result in the reduction in height of the current proposals it can be reasonably assumed that any previously identified minor fails of BRE guidance would be further reduced as a result of the amendments to the scheme. Chancery Group were appointed to undertake an independent review of sunlight and daylight (including a review of the report submitted with the previously withdrawn scheme) and are satisfied with this approach.

6.49 It is concluded that the separation distance to Oakwell House ensures that there would not be any material impact upon the existing daylight levels to the 20 flats within this building. However the report concludes that there are a number of failures to properties within the adjoining Stanmore House block. However Stanmore House features large projecting walkways which already significantly impacts the receipt of daylight to windows on the north-western elevation.

6.50 In terms of the technical assessment of Stanmore House, of the 36 windows

assessed, 21 (59%) will be fully compliant with the BRE Guidelines. Of the remaining 15 windows, 11 windows are located under the projecting walkways and demonstrate a relatively small absolute alteration no greater than circa 4%. Chancery Group have advised that this this alteration would not be noticeable or material. In context, the permitted 20% reduction from the BRE Guidelines target a value of 27% Visible Sky

Component (VSC) which would equate to an absolute VSC alteration of circa 5.4% which would normally be considered acceptable.

6.51 In terms of the remaining four windows, R1/62 and R1/63 located on the second and

third floor demonstrate a retained VSC value of 20.34% and 22.56%, which Chancery Group consider to be good for the location. The other two windows (R1/60 and R1/61), located on the ground and first floor retain a VSC value of 15.39% and 17.71%, which is greater than the existing levels of VSC for all of the window under the projecting walkways and to date have been considered sufficient.

6.52 The No Sky Line (NSL) analysis shows that only two rooms (R1 located on the ground

and first floor) would fall short of the BRE Guidelines. However, both rooms would retain good levels of NSL (over 50%) which is considered reasonable. In summary it is considered that the daylight impacts on Stanmore House are extremely limited and do not warrant the refusal of this application. In terms of sunlight, as the courtyard elevation of Stanmore House is orientated north, there is no expectation for sunlight and no assessment is considered to be required.

Transport

6.53 In terms of transport matters there is a clear policy presumption, as outlined in Policy T1 (Sustainable travel) of the Local Plan, in favour of the promotion of sustainable travel, minimising the need to travel and reducing dependence on the private car. This is reflected in Policy T7 (Parking) of the Local Plan which states development should be car-free, including permit-free schemes, particularly in areas where alternative modes of transport are available and where public transport accessibility is high.

6.54 The current proposals are considered to be policy compliant in this regard. The site, which is located within a Controlled Parking Zone, would not feature any on-site parking and the scheme will be secured as permit-free through the s106 agreement. This will prevent from residents from applying for parking permits which would allow them to park in surrounding streets exacerbating existing parking capacity problems in the area. Such an approach is acceptable noting that the site benefits from reasonably good accessibility (the northern end of the site where the residential entrance would be located benefits from a PTAL rating of 4) to public transport with numerous bus routes running along nearby Wandsworth Road. In addition Clapham North Underground Station and Wandsworth Road Overground Station are also in reasonably close proximity.

6.55 Policy T7 also states that new development should provide car club membership in new residential development. In order to comply with this a legal obligation will be secured through the s106 agreement in order to provide two year membership to a car-club

6.56 The TA submitted with the application sets both the existing number of vehicular trips for the site and predict the number of trips generated by the development. This has been reviewed by the Council’s Officer who is satisfied with the methodology used. The TA concludes that the net traffic generation (using a ‘worst case’ A1 convenience store noting the range of commercial uses applied for) for the proposed development in comparison to the established public house use would be as follows:

Net Traffic Generation

Arrivals Departures Two way

AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

3 2 4

PM Peak (1700-1800)

3 2 6

Daily 9 9 20

Table 2: Net Trip Generation (Residential and ‘Worst Case’ A1 Commercial)

6.57 The majority of trips generated would be associated with a possible retail use. However given the likely ‘convenience store’ nature of any retail provision it is likely that most trips will be made on foot by residents of neighbouring developments. The number of vehicular trips would remain low and would not therefore have a significant impact upon the surrounding highways.

6.58 In terms of servicing, Policy T8 (Servicing) of the Local Plan states that mixed-use development will be permitted where adequate provision is made for servicing appropriate to the scale, form and location of the proposed development, including provision for commercial vehicles, ensuring that is appropriate and acceptable in terms of impact on amenity of adjacent properties and road and traffic conditions of the location.

6.59 The proposals are also considered to be acceptable in this regard. This is resultant from satisfactory provision of a loading bay which would formed in place of the existing vehicular access to the site thereby ensuring there would be no reduction in parking bays along this stretch of Union Road. The loading bay would be able to house an 8-metre delivery vehicle and a large refuse vehicle without conflicting with the flow of passing vehicles or pedestrians. The highways works required to form this loading bay will be secured through a S278 Agreement.

6.60 Turning to cycle parking, the relevant standards for cycle parking are contained within

the London Plan. For a residential development of this size it would be expected to provide 22 cycle spaces. The submitted plans show a dedicated store with a capacity of for 26 bicycles. Further details of the store and storage units will be secured via condition as will details for short-stay and long-stay bicycle storage for the commercial unit.

Crime Prevention

6.60 Policy Q3 of the Local Plan deals with community safety. It states that in order to create a safe borough for all users, the council will expect development to utilise good design to design out opportunistic crime, anti-social behaviour and fear of crime in a site-specific manner. The design of development should also pay regard to shared space and communal areas within developments (particularly cycle stores and refuse stores) and ensure that materials and construction details are robust, durable and resistant to malicious damage. In order achieve this a condition is attached requiring the development to achieve ‘Secured by Design’ certification.

Sustainability

6.61 Policy 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide emissions) of the London Plan (2016) states that development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emmissions in accordance with the following energy hierarchy:

1. Be lean: use less energy 2. Be clean: supply energy efficiently 3. Be green: use renewable energy

6.62 Policy EN4 (Sustainable design and construction) requires that all development, including construction of the public realm, highways and other physical infrastructure, will be required to meet high standards of sustainable design and construction feasible, relating to the scale, nature and form of the proposal. Non-residential development should also meet BREEAM ‘Excellent’ unless it is demonstrated that it is not technically feasible or viable to do so in which a ‘Very Good’ rating should be required.

6.63 The Council’s Sustainability Consultant was consulted on the proposals and confirmed that it would be appropriate to attach conditions requiring the submission of a revised energy strategy to fully accord with the aforementioned London Plan Energy Hierarchy. This is on the basis that the submitted Energy Strategy did not fully demonstrate compliance with the Hierarchy in terms of a failure to provide a cooling strategy. A condition is also recommended to ensure that the non-residential elements of the scheme achieve an ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating.

Flood Risk

6.64 Policy EN6 requires that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) are incorporated in development proposals to mitigate and enhance the development’s impact on flood risk, water quality and habitat/amenity value.

6.65 The Council’s Sustainable Urban Drainage Officer was consulted on the proposals and raised no objections subject to the inclusion of a condition in order to secure details of SUDS to be incorporated into the development.

Employment

6.66 Policy ED14 deals with employment and training. It states that the council will support employment and training schemes to maximise local employment opportunities and help address skills deficits in the local population. In major developments, planning obligations will be used as necessary to ensure that job opportunities and apprenticeships are notified to the council or appropriate nominated agencies so that suitable local people can be given the opportunity to fill these vacancies. This will be secured through s106 obligation.

Planning Obligations & S106 Agreement

6.67 The proposed obligations to be secured through the S106 Agreement are as follows:

Obligation:

Securing the 4 ‘intermediate’ affordable housing units

An affordable housing review mechanism of the financial viability assessment

A commuted sum payment towards affordable housing of £61,221.00

Securing employment and training opportunities including apprenticeships, procurement, training and brokerage arrangements.

A clause to ensure car club membership for residents for a period of two years from occupation.

A permit capping arrangement to prevent residents from being eligible for resident parking permits.

Requirement to enter into a S278 Agreement to secure Highway alterations.

A payment of £2,603.70 towards off-site play space

7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1 The proposals will finally allow for the redevelopment of the site to provide a high-quality mixed-use scheme which will provide a range of planning benefits to include the following:

The provision of 14 new dwellings;

The provision of 4 ‘intermediate’ affordable housing units;

The retention of an ‘active frontage’ use at ground floor level;

High design standards which are respectful to the areas character and appearance;

Public realm/highways improvements in the vicinity of the site;

Regeneration benefits for the locality; and

Employment and training benefits for local people.

7.2 The demolition and potential loss of the existing public house is considered to be acceptable in land use terms noting the marketing exercise that has been undertaken. The retention of an ‘active frontage’ use and the additional residential accommodation is welcome with the latter making an appropriate contribution to housing targets given the constraints of the site.

7.3 The proposed bulk, mass and detailed design of the replacement building are acceptable ensuring that the development responds sensitively to the constraints of the site. The design is generally of a high quality and would not have a detrimental effect on local views, or cause significant harm to local amenity in relation to an unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight, sense of enclosure or loss of privacy.

7.4 Officers consider that the development would be in general compliance with the

Development Plan for the Borough and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would dictate that the application should otherwise be refused. Officers are therefore recommending approval of the scheme, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Recommendation

7.5 Grant conditional planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of a S106 Agreement.

7.6 Delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development to refuse planning permission in the event that the S106 agreement is not completed (by 31st January 2017) on the grounds that the development would have an unacceptable impact on – Affordable housing; Transport and highways; and Parks and Open Space.

7.7 In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to officers, having regard to the heads of terms set out in the report, to negotiate and complete a Section 106 agreement in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector.

Conditions(s) and Reasons(s)

1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the

expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004.)

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

approved plans listed in this notice, other than where those details are altered

pursuant to the requirements of the conditions of this planning permission.

Reason: Otherwise than as set out in the decision and conditions, it is necessary that

the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the

avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3) No non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) shall be used on the site unless it is

compliant with the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements (or any superseding

requirements) and until it has been registered for use on the site on the NRMM

register (or any superseding register).

Reason: To ensure that air quality is not adversely affected by the development in

line with London Plan policy 7.14 and the Mayor’s SPG: The Control of Dust and

Emissions During Construction and Demolition.

4) No demolition or development shall commence until full details of the proposed

construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Method

of Construction Statement shall include details regarding:

a) The notification of neighbours with regard to specific works;

b) Advance notification of road closures;

c) Details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage;

d) Details regarding dust mitigation;

e) Details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public

highway; and

f) Any other measures to mitigate the impact of construction upon the amenity of

the area and the function and safety of the highway network.

No demolition or development shall commence until provision has been made to

accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, off-

loading, parking and turning within the site or otherwise during the construction

period in accordance with the approved details. The demolition and development

shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details and measures approved

in the Method of Construction Statement.

Reason: Development must not commence before this condition is discharged to

avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and to

safeguard residential amenity from the start of the construction process (policies 7.14

of the London Plan (2015); and policies T6 and T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan

(2015)).

5) Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the details shown on

the drawings hereby approved, detailed drawings (at scale 1:10 or 1:20) of the

following items shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the

approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

a) Detailed elevations.

b) Details of windows (including technical details, elevations, reveal depths,

plans and cross sections)

c) Details of balconies (including underside), balustrades and privacy screens.

d) Details of entrances, canopies and doors (including technical details,

elevations, surrounds reveal depths, plans and cross sections)

e) Details of roof treatments and parapets.

f) Details of shopfronts and awnings.

g) Details of rainwater goods (including locations and fixings).

h) Details of boundary treatments including external walls, fences and gates.

i) Details of external furniture and ramps.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies Q2,

Q5, Q7, Q8 and Q15 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015)).

6) Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the details shown on

the drawings hereby approved, samples and a schedule of materials of the following

items shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

a) Elevations.

b) Windows.

c) Balconies (including underside), privacy screens and balustrades.

d) Entrances and doors.

e) Roofing, parapets and coping.

f) Shopfronts and awnings.

g) Rainwater goods.

h) Boundary treatments including external walls, fences and gates.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies Q2,

Q5, Q7, Q8 and Q15 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015)).

7) Prior to the occupation of development, a hard and soft landscaping scheme for all

communal external amenity areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority. The development hereby permitted shall be thereafter carried

out in accordance with the approved details within 6 months of the date of occupation.

All tree, shrub and hedge planting included within the above specification shall accord

with BS3936:1992, BS4043:1989 and BS4428:1989 (or subsequent superseding

equivalent) and current arboricultural best practice. The submitted details are

expected to demonstrate the following:

a) The quantity, size, species, position and the proposed time of planting of all

trees and shrubs to be planted.

b) An indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with

regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance and

protection.

c) Specification of which shrubs and hedges to be planted that are intended to

achieve a significant size and presence in the landscape.

d) Proposals for plant and tree maintenance.

e) The type and location of paving materials.

f) Design and location of seating and other street furniture.

g) Type, location and target age users of external play space.

h) Basement ventilation.

All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the local planning authority

for a period of ten years, such maintenance to include the replacement of any

plants/trees that die, or are severely damaged, seriously diseased, or removed,

upkeep of ground surfaces and hard landscaping features as well as cleaning

schedule to include removal of graffiti/chewing gum.

Reason: In order to ensure the satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of

visual amenity (Policies Q2, Q10 and Q9 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September

2015)).

8) Prior to the occupation of the development, full details of a lighting strategy, including

any lighting to be affixed to the buildings, shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority. The approved lighting shall be installed before

the development is first occupied, or in accordance with an agreed implementation

strategy, and retained thereafter for the duration of the development in accordance

with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to detailed design, to security

and community safety and to providing acceptable living environments for future

residents of the development (Policies Q1, Q3, Q6, Q7 and Q9 of the Lambeth Local

Plan (September 2015)).

9) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a detailed

scheme for the provision of surface water drainage has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority. The final drainage scheme shall be

designed in accordance with the submitted Surface Water Strategy (Amazi

Consulting, Febuary 2016), taking into account Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)

comments (April 2016) and will dispose of surface water by means of sustainable

drainage systems (SuDS) in accordance with the drainage hierarchy contained within

the London Plan Policy (5.12, 5.13 and SPG) and the advice contained within the

non-statutory technical standards. Where a Sustainable Drainage Scheme is to be

provided, the submitted details shall:

a) Provide demonstration that source control SuDS and features which could

improve water quality have been considered in the design;

b) Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development

which shall include the arrangements for adoption and any other arrangements to

secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime; and,

c) Provide detailed drawings of the drainage network including sizing of all SuDS

features on the site, with particular attention to the space required for the

appropriate number of FlowBlock units in the storage tank.

Reason: to comply with the NPPF and ministerial statement HCWS161, London Plan

Policy 5.12 5.13 and sustainable design and construction SPG and the Lambeth

Local Plan Policy EN6.

10) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, a waste management

strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority

and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters

which have been given in the application. The development shall thereafter be carried

out solely in accordance with the approved details. The strategy will be expected to

include the following details:

a) Refuse and recycling storage;

b) A waste management plan for each individual category of use;

c) The provision of litter bins inside and outside the commercial premises for use

by members of the public;

d) Details of the disposal of fat/oil from any cooking processes; and

e) Details relating to the collection of waste.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the

provision of recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the

area. (Policy EN7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015)).

11) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of the provision

to be made for cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be implemented in full in

accordance with the approved details before the use hereby permitted commences

and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.

Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote

sustainable modes of transport (policies T1, T3 and Q13 of the London Borough of

Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).

12) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, a ‘Delivery and

Servicing Management Plan’ for the management of deliveries and servicing of the

development, including the hours of such activities, shall be submitted to and

approved by the local planning authority. Servicing shall thereafter be carried out

solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order that the local planning authority and Transport for London may

be satisfied as to the effects of the scheme on the adjacent road network so as to

avoid hazard or obstruction to the public highway (Policies T6 and T8 of the Lambeth

Local Plan (September 2015)).

13) At least ten per cent of the residential units hereby permitted shall be constructed to

comply with Part M4(3) of the Building Regulations. Any communal areas and

accesses serving the M4(3) compliant Wheelchair User Dwellings should also comply

with Part M4(3). All other residential units, communal areas and accesses hereby

permitted shall be constructed to comply with Part M4(2) of the Building Regulations.

Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, older people and others

with mobility constraints (policies 3.8 of the London Plan (2015) and Q1 of the

London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the guidance in the London Plan

Housing SPG (2012)).

14) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, all other existing access

points not incorporated in the development shall be stopped up by raising the existing

dropped kerb/removing the existing bellmouth/and reinstating the footway verge and

highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge

and highway boundary.

Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety

and convenience of the highway users. (Policy T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan

(September 2015)).

15) Prior to the occupation of the development, full details of internal and external plant,

equipment, and trunking, including building services plant, ventilation and filtration

equipment, and exhaust ducting / ventilation, shall be submitted to, and approved in

writing by, the local planning authority. All flues, ducting and other equipment shall be

installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing on site

and shall be retained for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the

amenities of neighbouring occupiers. (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan

(September 2015)).

16) Noise from any mechanical equipment or building services plant, as measured in

accordance with BS4142: 2014, shall not exceed the background noise level L90B(A)

15 minutes, when measured outside the window of the nearest noise sensitive or

residential premises.

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the

amenities of neighbouring occupiers. (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan

(September 2015)).

17) There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music system fixed, used, or audible

outside the commercial premises (A1, A2, A3 or A4)

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the

amenities of neighbouring occupiers. (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan

(September 2015)).

18) The hours of operation of the commercial floorspace (Class A1, A2, A3 or A4) shall be

submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority prior to first

occupation of the premises and shall not operate other than in accordance with the

agreed hours unless agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers. (Policy Q2 of the Lambeth

Local Plan (September 2015)).

19) Prior to the occupation of the development, a Crime and Safety Management Plan (CSMP) for all uses within the development shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority. The CSMP shall include details of any CCTV coverage, how the development meets 'Secure by Design' standards and any other measures that will be taken to mitigate potential crime risks including robbery, anti-social activity, noise pollution, entry and exit security and risks to staff safety/welfare. All equipment and measures put in place as part of the CSMP shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the use and the use shall be operated in accordance with the approved CSMP.

Reason: To prevent crime and disorder occurring within and in the immediate vicinity of the site and in the interest of public safety (Policy Q3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015)).

20) Prior to first occupation of the commercial units (A1-A4), a BREEAM Post

Construction Review certificate and summary score sheet (or such equivalent

standard that replaces this) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority to show that an ‘Excellent’ rating has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability

(Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015)).

21) Prior to the commencement of development, a revised Energy Strategy, written in line

with the London Plan Energy Hierarchy, shall be submitted and approved in writing by

the Local Planning Authority. The assessment will be expected to demonstrate

compliance with the guidance set out in the Mayor’s Sustainable Design and

Construction SPG (2014) or any subsequent replacement.

The revised Energy Strategy shall demonstrate that the development will follow the

hierarchy of energy efficiency, decentralized energy and renewable energy

technologies to secure a minimum 35% reduction in CO2 emissions below the

maximum threshold set in Building Regulations Part L 2013. The strategy will also

incorporate the heating hierarchy, an overheating assessment and the application of

the cooling hierarchy.

The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the

approved details unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason : To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability

(Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015)).

Informatives(s)

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

2) Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related

legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer.

3) You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division

concerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or regulations made there under.

4) You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division with

regard to the extraction of any fumes from the premises.

5) Your attention is drawn to the necessity to register any food business with the Council's Environmental Health Division, under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 before the use commences. Failure to do so may result in prosecution.

6) You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within

the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities.

7) You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of illuminated

advertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from the Local Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

8) As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street

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

9) You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to

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

10) It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the

works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification.

11) The Environment Agency strongly recommends that the applicant consults their

Pollution Prevention Guidance notes (PPGs). These are aimed at a wide range of industries and activities that have the potential to cause pollution. They can be downloaded from their website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

12) The Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide (2013) can be viewed on the

planning policy pages of the council’s website.

13) For information on the NRMM Low Emission Zone requirements and to register NRMM, please visit “http://nrmm.london/”.

Background documents – Case file (this can be accessed via the planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7 926 1180). For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Democratic Services, 020 796 2170 or email.