Location Arches 288, 290 and 292 Milkwood Road London SE24 0EZ

Ward Herne Hill

Proposal Application

Change of use of arches 288, 290 and 292 comprising the use of Arch 288 for storage and distribution (Class B8), Arch 290 as a commercial kitchen (Class B1(c)) and Arch 292 as a restaurant and takeaway (Use Class A3/A5) and involving alterations to the front elevations; installation of new doors and windows, installation of adjustable louvres and roller shutters.

Applicant Deliverance Ltd

Agent Michael Mills: Firstplan 25 Floral Street London WC2E 9DS

Date valid 22 February 2011

Case Officer Mrs Rebecca Saville

Application Reference

11/00621/FUL

Recommendation(s) Grant conditional planning permission

Advert Publication Date

15th March 2011

Site Notice posted on

15th March 2011

1 SUMMARY OF THE MAIN ISSUES

1.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are -

• Land use - The principle of the use of Arch 288 for storage (Class B8), Arch 290 as an industrial kitchen (Class B1c) and Arch 292 as a restaurant and takeaway (Use Class A3/A5).

• Design - The effect of the alterations to the frontages on the character and appearance of the host building and the area, including the adjoining Herne Hill Conservation Area.

• Amenity - Whether the proposed uses of the property would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of nearby residents.

• Transport and highways issues – Whether the proposed uses would have an unacceptable effect on the highways

• Crime prevention - Whether the use of the site within a Class A5 use would impact on community safety or create a risk of anti social behaviours.

• Refuse and recycling - Whether sufficient measures have been proposed for the storage and collection of refuse and recycling.

2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The arches are located on Milkwood Road, below the platforms of Herne Hill railway station. There is pedestrian access to the railway station from Milkwood Road via a tunnel under the lines. The site lies close to the intersection of several main roads, and therefore is well connected by bus routes. Milkwood Road and Railton Road run to the north, Croxted Road and Norwood Road to the south, Dulwich Road and Half Moon Lane runs east-west. These connections create accessible routes to the main centres of New Cross, Brixton, Clapham and Croydon. The site has excellent access to public transport with a PTAL of 6a. The site is not in a Controlled Parking Zone.

2.2 The surrounding area is mixed in character with retail premises at

ground floor level and residential accommodation above. The nearest residential accommodation is sited 12m away on the opposite side of Milkwood Road. The opposite side of the road also includes the rear entrances of shops, including Sainsbury’s, which front Herne Hill.

2.3 The arches that comprise the application site are three in a row of ten

arches between the junction of Milkwood Road and Herne Hill and the arch giving pedestrian access to Herne Hill Station. Network rail are carrying out a programme of refurbishment to the pedestrian access and eight other arches, including the three included in this application.

2.4 Although the main station building is listed the listing is specifically

limited only to the entrance block and, as this is located on the other

side of the railway lines from the application site, it is considered that the application site does not form part of the setting of the listed building. The site abuts the Herne Hill Conservation Area and is located in the primary shopping area of the Herne Hill District Centre and in MDO 30.

3 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1. On 14 April 2003 an application for the change of use of arches 282, 283 from car repair (sui generis) to food & drink (class A3) and arches 284, 285 from storage (class B8) to food & drink (class A3), together with alterations to the existing arch infill facades (02/02931/FUL ) was refused for the following reasons: - • The development would have resulted in the unacceptable loss of established employment generating uses for which no evidence was submitted to demonstrate that no demand existed for continued employment use, nor that the buildings were unsuitable for such purposes. • The proposed changes of use would have resulted in an over concentration of A3 uses, which would have adversely affected the retail character and vitality of the parade in the Herne Hill district centre, and would have created an unacceptable harmful impact on the amenity of the local area. • The proposed changes of use would have led to an increase in pedestrian movements, where the pavement was inadequate to deal with additional stress. • The proposed changes of use would have led to an increase in parking during the evening on Milkwood Road, which would have exacerbated an existing problem with on street parking close to the traffic signals, which would have had harm highway safety and the free-flow of traffic at this location.

3.2. On 3rd March 2010 an application for the change of use of arches to provide Shops, Restaurant & Cafes and Offices (Use Classes A1, A3 and B1) involving alterations to arch frontages including installation of new shopfronts and security shutters and landscaping involving removal of crossovers and reinstatement of pavement and kerb line (09/03305/FUL) was approved by the Planning Applications Committee. The proposed use of each unit was as follows:

• 276 (the arch giving pedestrian access to the station) – A1

• 278, 280 & 282 - B1

• 284, 286 & 288 - A1

• 290 & 292 - A3 This permission has been implemented in that building works have

started but the permitted uses have not yet commenced.

4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4.1 The application is for the change of use of arches 288, 290 and 292

comprising the use of Arch 288 for storage and distribution (Class B8), Arch 290 as a commercial kitchen (Class B1c) and Arch 292 as a restaurant and takeaway (Use Class A3/A5) and involving alterations to the front elevation; installation of new doors and windows, installation of adjustable louvres, roller shutters and removal of existing crossover.

4.2 The three units would be connected to form part of the same business

with a kitchen in unit 290, a customer waiting area, food collection and some dining in unit 292 and ancillary storage, office and rest room in unit 288. The table below clarifies the changes in use class that this would entail -

Arch

no.

Use before

2009

Vacant Use permitted

by application

09/03305/FU

L

Use proposed in

application

11/00621/FUL

288 Car repair B2 At least

5yrs

Shop A1 Storage, office, rest

room

B8

290 Art

gallery/studi

o

B1 At least

2 years

Restaurant A3 Kitchen B1

(c)

292 Carpentry/

joinery

B2 At least

2 years

Restaurant A3 Food collection,

waiting & dining

A3/5

4.3 The proposed shop fronts would be sited within the original arches

with an infill of ‘Danehill’ Yellow Facing bricks either side of the shopfront. The three frontages would be of a similar overall design but the details would vary according to the use of the Arch. All three would have a fascia at a height of 2.1m; above the fascia would be aluminium framed glazed screens. Arch 292 would have ventilation grilles while Arches 290 and 288 would have adjustable louvres. The fascias would incorporate the housing for roller shutters and the shutters would be of open mesh which would allow some view of the unit behind. The design of the three shopfronts of this application would be similar to that permitted for all eight arches under permission 09/03305/FUL.

5 CONSULTATIONS AND RESPONSES

Consultation with local residents 5.1 A site notice was posted on 11th March 2011. Fifty two letters of

consultation were sent to residents at the following local addresses –

• Milkwood Road (odds) 282 – 296, Bank Mansions 1 – 3, Bank Chambers 1 - 3

• Herne Hill (evens) 130 – 140, Central Buildings 1 - 9

• Railton Road (odds) 299 – 327

Consultation with local amenity groups 5.2 The following local amenity groups were consulted –

• Herne Hill Society; no objection but requested conditions regarding noise, use of vehicles, storage and collection of rubbish and traffic generation be imposed to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.

• Brixton Society; no response received to date

• Herne Hill Traders’ Association; no response received to date

• Herne Hill and Park View Tenants’ Association; no response received to date

• Milkwood Residents’ Association; no response received to date 5.3 In addition to the comments from the Herne Hill Society one letter of

support, three letters commenting on the proposal and twenty two letters of objection were received.

5.4 The material planning objections are discussed below

Assessment

Objections: Council’s Response:

The proposed use should occupy an industrial estate not a residential road.

Milkwood Road is an area of mixed use which includes other retail premises, and technically the site has business use. It is considered that conditions can be imposed to mitigate any loss of amenity to local residents to acceptable levels.

The architecture is attractive and should be enjoyed.

The proposed development would not detract from the architectural integrity of the existing arches.

Noise in the evening and at night including noise from delivery scooters and noise from closing the shutters.

It is recommended that, in the event of an approval, conditions should be imposed to limit the hours of operation and delivery times to limit the noise disturbance to local residents. It is also recommended that conditions should be imposed to limit noise from ventilation equipment and from amplified music. Although closing shutters can be noisy the

noise is for limited duration and the timing would be limited by the restrictions on operating hours.

Air pollution form the scooters There are existing high volumes of traffic in the area and scooters would be unlikely to add significantly to the existing air pollution

Vehicles delivering to the premises would impede the traffic in Milkwood Road

The Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy team raised no concerns regarding vehicles delivering to the premises.

The delivery scooters would reduce road safety.

The Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy team raised no concerns regarding delivery scooters. The applicant pointed out that the peak hours of the business would fall outside the peak hours of other traffic.

Scooters parked on the pavement would be unsightly and would block the pavement.

The scooters would be parked within Arch 288. Parking on the pavement is prohibited by traffic legislation and parking enforcement officers would be able to target problematic parking.

Waste left on the street would be unsightly.

The waste would be stored in Arch 288.

The Railway Arches should be used for small independent businesses. A chain business would be detrimental to the feel of the area.

The Planning Division would welcome planning applications from small independent businesses but cannot reasonably refuse permission for this application as no policy exists to resist ownership of a proposal.

Internal consultations 5.5 The following Council departments were consulted on the proposals -

• The Planning Conservation and Design team requested more details of the roller shutters and their housing.

• The Regulatory Services (Food Safety) team raised concerns over the ventilation and require additional information through imposed condition.

• The Transport Planning and Strategy team raised no objections subject to a condition requiring no deliveries to be made before a Delivery Management Plan has been approved and a condition regarding the installation of cycle parking.

• The Crime Prevention Design Adviser considered the proposal a good one subject to the installation of CCTV and laminated glazing of 7.5mm thickness.

• The Council’s Streetcare team have not responded as yet.

External consultations 5.6 The following external body was consulted on the proposals -

• Network Rail have not responded as yet. 5.7 The London Borough of Southwark was consulted on the proposed

development and responded but did not comment on the merits of the case.

6 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES 6.1 National Policy Policies:

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

6.1.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – ‘Delivering Sustainable

Development’ attempts to ensure that development and growth are sustainable. The guidance outlines the positive role for the planning system in guiding appropriate development to the right place. Local authorities should operate on the basis that applications for development should be allowed having regard to the Development Plan and all material considerations, unless the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to the interests of acknowledged importance.

6.1.3 Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) sets out the Government's

comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable economic development in urban and rural areas.

6.1.4 Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) sets out the objectives to

integrate planning and transport at the national, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight.

6.1.5 Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 24 ‘Planning and Noise’ provides

advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business. The guidance notes that noise is particularly intrusive

during the hours when people are normally sleeping, which it defines as 23.00hrs to 07.00hrs.

6.2 The London Plan 6.2.1 The London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now includes

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

6.2.2 It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and

improve London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and, proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

6.2.3 The following London Plan Policies are considered relevant to this

application: Pollicy 2A.1 Sustainability criteria Policy 2A.8 Town Centres

Policy 3D.1 Supporting town centres Policy 3D.3 Maintaining and improving retail facilities

6.3 Local Planning Policies 6.3.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

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

6.3.2 The following policies are considered relevant to this application:

Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) S3 Economic development S4 Transport S9 Quality of the built environment S10 Planning obligations PN9 Herne Hill

Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond 5th August 2010

Policy 4 Town centres and community regeneration Policy 7 Protection of residential amenity

Policy 9 Transport impact Policy 14 Parking and traffic restraint Policy 19 Active frontage uses Policy 24 Use of railway arches Policy 29 The evening and late night economy, food and

drink and amusement centre uses Policy 32 Community safety/designing out crime Policy 33 Building scale and design Policy 37 Shop-fronts and advertisements Policy 47 Conservation areas Policy 57 Planning Obligations

6.3.3 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) provide guidance for

applicants in the preparation of schemes. They explain and provide further guidance to the interpretation and application of Lambeth UDP policies, the London Plan and relevant Government policies. The SPD is a material consideration in the determination of applications involving all forms of residential development.

6.3.4 The following supplementary planning documents are considered

relevant to this application:

• Shopfronts and signage (March 2008)

6.3.5 The UDP states that MDO 30, Herne Hill Station, Railton Road and various properties between 128 and 140 Herne Hill, promotes the improvement of the listed station with safer access from both sides.

7 ASSESSMENT 7.1 Land use and Principle of Change of Use 7.1.1 The key land use issue is whether the proposed use of the premises

as a restaurant and takeaway (Use Class A3/A5) and light industry/storage (Use Class B1c/B8) is acceptable in principle for this site in a District Centre. The following policies are relevant to this issue –

• Core strategy Policy S3(d) supports “the vitality and viability of Lambeth’s hierarchy of major, district and local centres .. for retail, service, leisure, recreation and other appropriate uses.”

• UDP Policy 4 states that “Major and district town centres will be regenerated and sustained for a wide range of shopping, services, leisure, community, civic, arts, entertainment and other facilities, accessible and available to all sections of the community. In the core of these areas, active frontage uses should be A class or D class. Within these core areas of Major and District town centres ground floor changes of use from Class A1 retail uses will not be permitted where less than 50% of original units would remain in Class A1 use.”

• UDP Policy 19 states that development in local centres should have uses with active frontages open to the public. Uses within Classes A and D would be appropriate as would other publicly accessible uses with significant ground floor window display and entrance at ground floor level. All street frontage building in these locations should have uses, frontages and entrances oriented towards the street.

• UDP Policy 24 seeks to protect industrial or storage use of railway arches but also states that “For vacant arches, and where it is demonstrated that existing arches are no longer suitable for continued employment use, a number of uses, including active frontage uses, may also be acceptable, subject to the Plan’s other policies. A variety of small business premises and uses should, wherever possible, be provided in groups of arches.

• UDP Policy 29 seeks to avoid an over-concentration of food and drink uses by limiting such uses to no more than 25% of the original units in a district centres, such as Herne Hill. In addition the Policy states that no more than 2 in 5 consecutive units should be in A3 use.

Arch 288

7.1.2 The current application proposes using Arch 288 for storage (Class B8). Permission 09/03305/FUL included consent for the change of use of Arch 288 to retail (Class A1) use. This use has not been implemented and therefore the previous use for car repairs (Class B2) is still extant. While the conversion of a unit in a district centre from retail (Class A1) to storage (Class B8) would be contrary to UDP Policy 4 there is no policy restriction on a conversion from car repairs (Class B2) to storage (Class B8). It should also be noted that under the General Permitted Development (Amendment) Order 2005 the conversion from B2 to B8 of premises with a floor area of less than 235m² is permitted development and that as Arch 288 has a floor area of 106m² it would fall within this provision.

Arch 290

7.1.3 Similarly permission 09/03305/FUL for the use of Arch 290 as a restaurant (Class A3) has not been implemented and therefore the former use as a studio and art gallery (Class B1) remains extant. There is no policy restriction on conversion of a premises from art gallery/studio (Class B1) to kitchen (Class B1(c)). It should also be noted that under the General Permitted Development (Amendment) Order 2005 conversion between uses in the B1 use class is permitted development.

7.1.4 Had permission 09/03305/FUL been implemented, the loss of a retail

unit (Class A1) at Arch 288 and the loss of a restaurant (Class A3) at Arch 290 would comprise the loss of active front uses in a District Centre and this would have been contrary to Policy 19. However the permission has not been implemented and the extant uses are not

active front uses, as such the proposed development falls outside the scope of this aspect of Policy 19.

Arch 292

7.1.5 Although permission 09/03305/FUL has not been implemented the granting of the permission for the use of Arch 292 as a restaurant sets a precedent. Lambeth land use policy was developed before revisions to the General Permitted Development Order made a distinction between restaurant (Class A3) use and hot food takeaway (Class A5) use therefore Lambeth Policy does not restrict the conversion of properties from Class A3 to Class A5 in principle. There would be no objection on policy grounds to the principle of the conversion of Arch 292 from a restaurant (Class A3) to a hot food takeaway (Class A5). The effects of such a conversion, including the effects on residential amenity and local traffic, could provide reasons for refusal and are discussed below.

7.1.6 UDP Policy 29 seeks to avoid an over-concentration of food and drink

uses both in terms of no more than 25% of the original units in a District Centre being in A3 use and in terms of no more than 2 in 5 consecutive units being in A3 use. The whole row of Arches (numbers 276 – 292) is being redeveloped and none of them are in current use; even where permissions have been granted it cannot be assumed that they will be implemented. Although permission 09/03305/FUL has not been implemented, the approval of this application has accepted the use of two of the Arches included in this application (nos. 290 and 292) as restaurants (Class A3) use and therefore the current application would decrease the overall number of units in food and drink use relative to this permission. It is considered that the proposed development conforms to this aspect of UDP Policy 29.

7.1.7 UDP Policy 4 seeks active front uses in District Centres and this

policy states that in District Centres active front uses should be uses that fall in either A class or D class. The proposed development would offer an active front use for Arch 292, the restaurant (Class A3/A5). Arch 290 would be used as a kitchen (Class B1(c)) and would have a fully glazed frontage. The kitchen use would not be an active front use and there would be no direct access to the street so that technically it would not be defined as an active front nevertheless the glazed frontage would bring many of the benefits of an active front, such as visual interest, to the street scene.

7.1.8 In considering this application there is some conflict between UDP

Policy 4 which seeks active front uses in District Centres and Policy 24 that encourages industrial and storage use for railway arches. The Unitary Development Plan does not indicate which policy should be given more weight in assessing applications for development of railway arches in a District Centre. Similarly Core Strategy Policy S3 seeks both to maintain a stock of sites in employment use and

support the vitality and viability of District Centres by maintaining the predominant retail function. It was noted in the officer’s report for application 09/03305/FUL that of the entire row of arches all but one had been vacant for a number of years. At pre-application stage for the current application it was considered that a flexible approach was an appropriate response to the demonstrated lack of demand for the arches. It was also considered that the B class uses proposed in this application are not incompatible with district centre uses. Given the lack of demand for the arches demonstrated with application 09/03305/FUL and the planning history of these arches the current proposal is considered acceptable.

7.1.9 UDP Policy 24 also encourages the use of arches for a variety of

small business premises and local residents have expressed a preference for small business uses. There are eight arches in total and the approval of this application would leave five arches available for small businesses. It is also noted that before the planning application in 2009 all but one of the arches had been vacant for a significant amount of time despite the economic prosperity at that time. It is considered that it would not be reasonable to recommend the refusal of this application in the hope of attracting small businesses.

7.1.10 Permission for the use of Arch 288 for storage (Class B8) and Arch

290 for a light industrial kitchen (Class B1c) would constitute permission for these arches to be used for any other use in these classes. Although it is considered that the site is suitable for the uses proposed in the current application the Planning Division has significant concerns that this location would not be suitable for all uses within these classes. Alternative business (B classes) uses could raise significant issues regarding residential amenity and traffic. It is therefore recommended that a condition should be attached to any permission restricting the uses of the Arches to those proposed in this application to ensure that alternative business uses would be properly assessed by the Council to ensure that they would not have unacceptable impacts.

Land Use - Conclusion

7.1.11 Given that permission 09/03305/FUL has not been implemented the proposed use of Arch 288 for storage (Class B8) and the use of Arch 290 as a kitchen (Class B1(c)) are in accordance with policy. Given that permission 09/03305/FUL has been granted for the use of Arch 292 as a restaurant (Class A3) there is no policy objection to the conversion of this Arch for restaurant and hot food takeaway (Class A3/A5) use. The proposed development is acceptable in land use terms, the implications for design, residential amenity and transport are considered below.

7.2 Design Considerations

7.2.1 In assessing the design considerations the following policies are particularly relevant –

• Core Strategy Policy S9 states that “The Council will improve and maintain the quality of the built environment and its liveability,”

• UDP Policy 33 states that “All development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding area.”

• UDP Policy 37 seeks high quality design in shopfronts as this contributes significantly to the character of shopping areas. It prohibits roller shutters that allow no view of the shop when closed.

• UDP Policy 47 states that “Development outside conservation areas should not harm the setting of the area or harm views into or from the area.”

• SPD ‘Shopfronts and signage’ offers more detailed guidance on design.

7.2.2 The proposed shop fronts would be sited within the original arches

with an infill of Danehill Yellow Facing bricks either side of the shopfront. The three frontages would be of a similar overall design but the details would vary according to the use of the Arch. All three would have a fascia at a height of 2.1m, above the fascia would be aluminium framed glazed screens. On either side of the glazing Arch 292 would have ventilation grilles while adjustable louvres would be fitted in Arches 290 and 288. The fascias would incorporate the housing for roller shutters and the shutters would be of open mesh which would allow some view of the unit behind. Arch 292, the restaurant, would have a glazed frontage with centrally placed doors. Arch 290, the commercial kitchen, would have a glazed frontage allowing views of the kitchen but no entrance. Arch 288, the storage and distribution unit, would have folding doors.

7.2.3 The design proposed for the three shop fronts included in this

application would be similar to the approved design for all eight arches under permission 09/03305/FUL. The Council’s Conservation and Urban Design team raised no objection to the proposed shopfronts in principle but were concerned about whether the shutter boxes would be incorporated in to the shopfront. It is recommended that in the event of an approval a condition should be imposed requiring the Council’s approval of details to ensure that the shutter box would be incorporated into the shop fascia. It is considered that, with the imposition of such a condition, the design of the shop fronts would be of a sufficient quality as to satisfy UDP Policy 37 and Core Strategy Policy S9.

7.2.4 The open mesh design of the shutters would allow a view of the unit

behind and would be in accordance with the SPD and UDP Policy 37. 7.2.5 During the assessment of this application the applicant submitted

amended drawings for the front elevations to facilitate the ventilation systems. The Council’s Conservation Officer raised no objections to

the amendments and it is considered that the proposed alterations to the design are acceptable.

7.2.6 The Herne Hill Conservation Area includes the pavement in front of

the application site but does not include the application site itself. In this location the application site has a significant effect on the setting of the conservation area and views in to and out from the conservation area. It is considered that the proposed shop fronts would be of an acceptable design that would not have a detrimental effect on the Herne Hill Conservation Area.

7.3 Amenity Issues 7.3.1 UDP Policy 7 states that “The right of people to the quiet enjoyment of

their homes will be respected.” UDP Policy 33 states that “Development should protect the residential amenity of existing and future residents by:

• Having an acceptable standard of privacy;

• Having an acceptable impact on levels of, and impact on daylight and sunlight

• Not creating unacceptable overlooking

• Not creating an undue sense of enclosure”

Sunlight, daylight and sense of enclosure 7.3.2 The application does not propose any extensions to the building which

is set away from residential property and therefore there would be no increase in the sense of enclosure to neighbouring residents. Similarly there would be no loss of sunlight or daylight to neighbouring residential accommodation. Privacy and overlooking

7.3.3 There would be no extension to the existing building which is sited away from residential property and therefore there would be no increase in overlooking resulting from extensions to the building. An intensification of use can increase overlooking but in this case all the windows would be a ground floor level facing on to the street and therefore there would be no significant loss of privacy to residential property as a result of the proposed development.

Conclusion

7.3.4 The proposed development would not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residents in terms of an increase in the sense of enclosure or overlooking or a loss of sunlight, daylight or privacy.

7.4 Noise

7.4.1 National, regional and local planning policies all seek to safeguard the

wellbeing of residents without unreasonably restricting business uses. PPG 24 seeks to minimise the adverse impact of noise without

placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business. It defines noise exposure categories but states that these are only applicable when introducing residential use to an existing source of noise, not when introducing noise to residential area. In paragraph 10 it states that unjustifiable obstacles should not be placed in the way of noisy job creation, but it may be appropriate to apply conditions to control future intensification. London Plan Policy 4A.20 ‘Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes’ recommends that Boroughs should reduce noise by:

• minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals • separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources wherever practicable

UDP Policy 7 states that “The right of people to the quite enjoyment of their homes will be respected. In predominantly residential areas the establishment of a new, or intensification of an existing, incompatible non-residential use, likely to have a materially adverse environmental and/or traffic impact, will not be permitted.” However this has to be balanced with Core Strategy Policy S3(e) which states that the Council will maintain “a stock of other sites and premises (not in KIBAs) in commercial use across the borough subject to the suitability of the site and location.”

7.4.2 The proposed development could result in additional noise

disturbance to local residents as a result of both noise from the premises and of noise from additional travel to and from the site. Residents of the flats on the other side of Milkwood Road have raised objections on the basis of potential disturbance from noise. Officers note the inner urban location of the site and its position below a railway station. Noise from inside the building

7.4.3 The premises are set 12m away from residential accommodation and it is considered that most uses of the premises such as talking and eating would not generate noise that would disturb the local residents. However the proposed development could generate noise on the premises by playing amplified music either for the customers or for the staff. It is recommended that in the event of an approval a condition should be imposed prohibiting amplified sound that can be heard outside the premises to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Ventilation equipment 7.4.4 Noise can also be generated by equipment on the site such as

ventilation or air conditioning equipment. It is recommended that in the event of an approval a condition should be imposed requiring that

any noise generated should not rise above background noise levels to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Customers 7.4.5 Milkwood Road is a moderately busy road and the rear entrances to

shops in Herne Hill face the application site. The road junction at Herne Hill is very busy and there is additional noise from the trains. In this location a small degree of additional noise and disturbance in the afternoon and evening caused by customers coming to and from the premises would not cause an unreasonable disturbance to neighbouring residents. Additional movements at quieter times, such as after 11pm, would be more disturbing to residents. It is noted that rail services continue past midnight generating noise into the sensitive period for sleeping. The proposed operating hours are noon to 11pm every day and it is recommended that in the event of an approval a condition should be imposed limiting the operating hours to those proposed in order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Delivery scooters

7.4.6 The proposed development includes the delivery of food to the surrounding area by scooter. The traffic issues raised by this are discussed below. Scooters can be noisier than cars and their uncontrolled use could disturb local residents, particularly the residents of the flats on the other side of Milkwood Road and flats with Herne Hill addresses that back onto Milkwood Road. On the other hand the area is already busy and noisy during the day. The applicant has carried out a study of the noise generated by scooters at an existing site used by Deliverance, the company proposing to use this site, and compared it to measured background noise in Milkwood Road. The study found that on average the background noise level is unlikely to be exceeded.

7.4.7 It has been recommended above that the operating hours of the

business should be limited in the interests of residential amenity and it is recommended that a similar condition should be imposed to limit delivery times to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. It is recommended that this condition should also limit the times at which scooters may return to the premises to ensure that there is no generation of unreasonable noise at night.

Conclusion

7.4.8 The site is located in Inner London where complete tranquillity cannot be expected. With the imposition of the conditions recommended above it is considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on residents’ quiet enjoyment of their homes.

7.5 Air Quality (dust, odours and fumes)

7.5.1 The London Plan Policy 4A.19 ‘Improving air quality’ states that “The

Mayor will, and boroughs should, implement the Mayor’s Air Quality

Strategy and achieve reductions in pollutant emissions and public exposure to pollution”. UDP Policy 29 states that food and drink uses will only be permitted where the specific nature of the use is acceptable taking account of specific measures such as ducting and flues.

7.5.2 Kitchens and restaurants can generate odours and fumes. The

scheme involves the provision of a ventilation and extraction system which would be provided to mitigate the fumes and odours emanating from the use. The Council’s Food Safety Officer raised concerns regarding the siting of the vents at low heights. The applicant stated that the detailed specification of the extractor system had yet to be finalised. In this situation the Council’s Food Safety Officer was willing to accept the approval of the application subject to a condition requiring the Council’s approval of the specification of the ventilation system and it is recommended that in the event of an approval such a condition should be imposed to ensure that the proposed development would not undermine residential amenity with respect to odours and fumes and would be in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.19 and UDP Policy 29.

7.6 Transport 7.6.1 In assessing the transport effects of the proposed development the

following policies are particularly relevant:

• Core Strategy Policy S4 seeks to minimise the need to travel.

• UDP Policy 9 ‘Transport Impact’ states that “Development with an unacceptable transport impact … will be refused”,

• UDP Policy 14 ‘Parking and Traffic Restraint’ states that parking for new development may be accommodated on-street providing it meets certain conditions.

• UDP Policy 29 (iii) The Evening and Late Night Economy, Food and Drink and Amusement Centre Uses requires that vehicular movements (including those of customers) with regards to food and drink uses should not cause a noise nuisance to local residents or cause traffic problems.

7.6.2 The site is located close to a busy road junction at Herne Hill where

several roads converge on the route under the railway line. The Centre of Herne Hill is well served by buses and the site has a PTAL of 6a. The site is not located in a Controlled Parking Zone. The site is close to Herne Hill station and this location would allow people to collect food on their way home from work. In this respect the proposed development would minimise the need to travel in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S4.

Trip generation

7.6.3 The information submitted with the application includes predictions of the trip generation which predicts that the majority of trips during peak hours would be deliveries made by scooter. The peak for trip

generation would be in the evening outside the peak times for other traffic. The applicant has stated that there would usually be 12 bikes operating from the site, rising to a maximum of 18 at peak times. The Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy team considered that the level of increase in trip generation would not have any impact on highway safety or operation. The use of scooters for delivery would tend to reduce dependence on private cars in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S4 and it is considered that the additional trips would not have an unacceptable transport impact.

Servicing 7.6.4 Servicing would take place at Arch 288 from the street. The Council’s

Transport Planning and Strategy team considered that this arrangement would be acceptable as it would have to be in accordance with the existing ‘Waiting’ and ‘Loading’ restrictions on Milkwood Road. The applicant has suggested that there would be one or two deliveries a day with a typical dwell time of ten minutes and the Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy team considered that this would not have an adverse impact on highway safety or operation. In this respect the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy.

Vehicular crossing of the pavement 7.6.5 Permission 09/03305/FUL included the reinstatement of the pavement

where there are crossovers to the Arches. The current application requests the retention of the crossover for Arch 288 to provide access for delivery scooters. The Transport Planning and Strategy team accepted the principle of vehicle movement in this area but raised concerns about the increase in vehicle movements across the footway which could raise safety issues if it is not appropriately managed. The applicant has submitted a draft Traffic Management Plan, the Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy team indicated that the Traffic Management Plan as drafted would be acceptable but requested that a condition should be imposed on any permission requiring the Council’s formal approval and the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan. It is recommended that such a condition should be imposed on any approval to ensure that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable traffic impact contrary to UDP Policy 9.

Cycle parking 7.6.7 The application proposed the provision of cycle parking for staff in

Arch 288. Two Sheffield cycle stands would be provided giving secure parking for four cycles. The Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy team were satisfied with the proposed cycle parking but requested that in the event of permission being granted a condition should be imposed to ensure that the cycle parking would be installed.

7.6.8 On street cycle parking is already available nearby in Milkwood Road close to the rear access to Herne Hill station and it is therefore considered that additional cycle parking is not required for customers of the proposed development. Conclusion

7.6.9 With the imposition of the conditions recommended above it is considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable transport impact and therefore the development would be in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S4 and UDP Policies 9, 14 and 29.

7.7 Crime Prevention 7.7.1 Core Strategy Policy S9(f) states that the Council will create “safe and

secure environments that reduce the scope for crime, fear of crime, anti-social behaviour and fire” and Policy 32 of the UDP (2007) states that development should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. This requirement is contained within Section 17 of The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which imposes an obligation on the local planning authority to consider crime and disorder reduction in the assessment of planning applications. UDP MDO 30 promotes safer access to both sides of Herne Hill station.

7.7.2 The Council’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA) considered

that the proposed development to be a good one that would increase the natural surveillance of the street in this area. The development would tend to promote safer access to the rear of Herne Hill station and reduce the fear of crime in accordance with Core Strategy Policy S9 and MDO 30.

7.7.3 The Crime Prevention Design Adviser also recommended the

installation of CCTV to cover the customer area and that the glazing in the main frontage should be laminated glass with a minimum thickness of 7.5mm. In the event of an approval it is recommended that an informative should be added to the decision notice to bring these recommendations to the attention of the applicant to ensure that the proposed development would not generate an opportunity for crime.

7.7.4 It is considered that the proposed development would tend to promote

a safer environment and would not create opportunities for crime and the development would therefore be in accordance with UDP Policy 32 and Core Strategy Policy S9.

7.8 Refuse and recycling

7.8.1 Policy S8 states that the Council will contribute to the sustainable management of waste in Lambeth. The applicants have stated that refuse and recycling would be stored in Arch 288 and collection would be daily. This provision is considered to be acceptable while the three arches are in use as one business.

7.8.2 The planning division is concerned that issues could arise if the

arches were used as separate businesses as neither Arch 290, the kitchen, or Arch 292, the dining area would have storage space for waste and recycling. It has been recommended above that the use of Arch 290 should be restricted to the use proposed in this application and therefore any change of use would require planning permission and the provision for waste storage would be assessed as part of the assessment of the planning application.

7.8.3 Arch 292 has an unimplemented but extant permission for use as a

restaurant (Class A3). The permission has a condition requiring the submission of a waste management plan. While this is not considered necessary while the business includes all three arches it is recommended that such a condition should be re-imposed if Arch 292 is used as a restaurant separate from Arches 288 and 290.

7.9 Infrastructure/s106 7.9.1 The previous permission, 09/03305/FUL, for the change of use of all

eight arches included a s106 agreement for a contribution towards the Herne Hill Regeneration scheme. The s106 included a s278 agreement for works to the frontage of the site including re-instatement of kerbs and resurfacing of the footway. Both contributions have been received by the Council and therefore this is not an issue in the assessment of this application.

7.10 Other issues 7.10.1 The site is not located near a secondary school and therefore would

not undermine healthy eating policies. 8 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 The main issues relating to this application are whether the proposed

changes of use and associated alterations to the frontages would be acceptable land uses for this site in principle and whether they would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area, including the Herne Hill Conservation Area, the amenity of neighbouring residents and local road networks.

8.2 Having had regard to the above it is considered that the proposed changes

of use and associated alterations to the frontages would, in principle,

be in accordance with policy. It is considered that, given the imposition of conditions as described above and detailed below, the proposed development would not have an unreasonable detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, the amenity of local residents or on local road networks.

9 RECOMMENDATION

Grant Conditional Planning Permission REASON FOR APPROVAL In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Saved Development Plan and Core Strategy all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposals in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant:

London Plan (2008)

Pollicy 2A.1 Sustainability criteria Policy 2A.8 Town Centres

Policy 3D.1 Supporting town centres Policy 3D.3 Maintaining and improving retail facilities

Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) S3 Economic development S4 Transport S9 Quality of the built environment PN9 Herne Hill

Lambeth Unitary Development Plan: Policies as saved beyond 5th August 2010

Policy 4 Town centres and community regeneration Policy 7 Protection of residential amenity Policy 9 Transport impact Policy 14 Parking and traffic restraint Policy 19 Active frontage uses Policy 24 Use of railway arches Policy 29 The evening and late night economy, food and

drink and amusement centre uses Policy 32 Community safety/designing out crime Policy 33 Building scale and design Policy 37 Shop-fronts and advertisements Policy 47 Conservation areas Policy 57 Planning Obligations

CONDITIONS Standard 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 strictly in

accordance with the approved plans listed in this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Land use 3 Unit 288 shall be used for storage/distribution (Class B8), and other agreed

ancillary uses within Units 290 and 292 hereby permitted, and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification and for no other purpose without planning permission first being obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any subsequent use should not be to the detriment of residential amenity or highway safety in this mixed use area in accordance with Policies 7, 9 and 14 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

4 Unit 290 shall be used as a commercial kitchen (Class B1(c)) and for no

other purpose, including any other purpose in Class B1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification and for no other purpose without planning permission first being obtained via the submission of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any subsequent use should not be to the detriment of residential amenity or highway safety in this mixed use area in accordance with Policies 7, 9 and 14 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

Design 5 Notwithstanding the approved plans of the development hereby permitted,

a detailed side elevation of the proposed shopfront in context with the railway arch, clearly indicating the projection of the proposed shutters at a minimum scale of 1: 20 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the facility.

Reason: To safeguard the quality of the built environment and the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Lambeth Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) Policy S9 and Policies 33, 37 and 47 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

Residential Amenity

6 The Class A3 and A5 use hereby permitted within Unit 292 shall only be

open to customers between the hours of 12.00hrs to 23.00hrs, Monday to Sunday and Bank Holidays. All customers shall vacate the premises within 30 minutes of service ceasing and all staff shall vacate the premises within 45 minutes of service ceasing.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policies 7 and 29 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

7 The Class B1(c) and Class B8 uses hereby approved, within Units 288 and

290 respectively, shall only operate between the hours of 09.00hrs to 23.00hrs, Monday to Sunday and Bank Holidays. All staff shall vacate the premises within 45 minutes of service ceasing and shall not return before 09.00hrs.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policies 7 and 29 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

8 The movement of goods to the site shall not take place at any time before

09.00hrs or after 19.00hrs and not at all on Sundays or public holidays.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy 4A.20 of the London Plan and Policies 7 and 29 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

9 There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audible

outside the premises.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area in accordance with Policies 7 and 29 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

. 10 Environmental noise from the use of extractor fans, compressors and

associated equipment and any other plant equipment shall not exceed the typical background noise (La90) when measured as a LaEQ 15mins at a position of 1 metre from any residential window.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the locality in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.20 and Policies 7and 29 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

11 Prior to the first use of either the kitchen or the restaurant/take away

hereby permitted, written specifications of the extractor systems shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved extractor systems shall be installed before the uses commence and shall thereafter be retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. All fumes from the cooking processes shall be extracted via the flue in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the locality in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.19 and Policies 7and 29 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

Transport 12 No deliveries shall be made from any part of the site prior to the Council’s

approval in writing of a Delivery Management Plan to include how scooters will enter and exit the premises. The Delivery Management Plan shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any deliveries and folowed thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity in accordance with Policy S4 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2011) and Policies 7, 9, 14 and 29 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010.

13 None of the uses hereby approved for Arches 288, 290 and 292 shall commence until two Sheffield cycle stands allowing secure parking for four cycles have been installed in Arch 288. The cycle stands shall

thereafter be retained solely for their designated use.

Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with London Plan 4A.19, Lambeth Local Development Core Strategy (January 2011) Policy S4 and Policies 9 and 14 of the Lambeth UDP: Policies saved beyond 5th August 2010

Waste 14 Prior to the commencement of the use of Arch 292 as a restaurant and

hot food takeaway (Class A3/A5) separate from the uses of Arches 288 and 290 as kitchen and storage areas, a waste management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The waste management plan, which shall include details of the recycling or disposal of customer litter and waste from the cooking process, shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure that in the event of Arch 292 being used separately from Arches 288 and 290 adequate provision would be made for the management of recycling and waste from the premises, in the interests of the residential amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy S8 of the Lambeth Local Development Core Strategy (January 2011).

15 Prior to the commencement of the use of Arch 290 as a commercial

kitchen (Class B1(c)) separate from the uses of Arches 288 and 290 as restaurant and storage areas, a waste management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The waste management plan, which shall include details of the recycling or disposal of customer litter and waste from the cooking process, shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details for the duration of the use.

Reason: To ensure that in the event of Arch 292 being used separately from Arches 288 and 290 adequate provision would be made for the management of recycling and waste from the premises, in the interests of the residential amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy S8 of the Lambeth Local Development Core Strategy (January 2011).

Informatives 1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be

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

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

3 You are advised that the Council’s Crime Prevention Design Adviser

recommends that CCTV should be installed to cover the customer area and that the glazing in the main frontage should be laminated glazing with a minimum thickness of 7.5mm.

4 Your attention is drawn to Environmental Health legislation regarding noise

nuisance and the London Borough of Lambeth Code of Practice for Construction Sites which is available on the Lambeth website at http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/Environment/Pollution/CodePracticeConstructionSites.htm

5 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.

6 Your attention is drawn to the necessity to register your 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.

7 Thames Water recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat trap on all catering establishments. We further recommend, in line with best practice for the disposal of Fats, Oils and Grease, the collection of waste oil by a contractor, particularly to recycle for the production of bio diesel. Failure to implement these recommendations may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewage flooding and pollution to local watercourses. Further information on the above is available in a leaflet, 'Best Management Practices for Catering Establishments' which can be requested by telephoning 020 8507 4321

8 If you have questions regarding the storage and collection of waste and

recycling please contact the Council’s Commercial Services Manager, Matthew Lawrence, on mlawrence@lambeth.gov.uk or 020 792 60443. The London Borough of Lambeth's 'Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements: Guidance for Architects and Developers' (May 2006) is available on the planning pages of the Council's website: www.lambeth.gov.uk.