1

Location Surrey County Cricket Club Kennington Oval London SE11 5SS

Ward OVALProposal

The demolition of the Lock/ Laker Stands and the erection of a new seating standincorporating a concourse and hospitality level providing ancillary facilities for groundmanagement, spectator toilets and refreshment facilities andcorporate hospitality, with an external media area and operational parking.

Application No 01/02120/FUL/ARH/17496

Applicant Surrey County Cricket Club

Agent Peter Pendleton And Associates Ltd194 New Kings RoadLondonSW4 4NF

Date Valid 2 October 2001

Considerations

UDP ViewParliament Hill to Palace of Westminster

Plans01.1710.00/01RevB /02RevB, /03RevA, /04RevC, /05RevD, /06RevC,/07RevC, /08RevC, /09RevC, /10RevC, /11RevE, /12RevC, /14RevC,/15RevA, /30RevB Aerial perspective received 11.09.01

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT

2

Officer Report

01/02120/FUL

SummaryRe-development of the Oval Cricket Ground by Surrey County Cricket Club (SCCC)

On 11th December 2001 Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planningpermission for the following applications subject to the completion of a S106agreement:

01/02120/FUL (demolition and re-building of the Lock Laker Stand)01/02121/FUL (demolition and re-building of the Vauxhall end stands)01/02310/FUL (retention of Vauxhall Chalet Complex for a further 5 years),01/02311/FUL (retention of hospitality boxes and steel supporting structure behindthe Gover Stand for a further 5 years).

(Please see appendices for full planning reports for PAC on 11.12.01 for each ofthese applications).

It is necessary to report back to PAC as some of the aspects of the proposals havechanged. These aspects are as follows.

1. The Friends of the Oval asked for the provision of automated traffic barriers toprevent illegal parking, especially on busy match days, for the adjacentKennington Park Estate, to be included in the S106. The Club had offered toprovide funding for 4 such barriers. However, this would be in place of 4additional parking attendants, originally negotiated into the proposals by Officers.The Council's Housing section, responsible for parking enforcement in the Estate,has stated the use of automated traffic barriers would be more effective thanadditional parking attendants on busy match days. Therefore, it is recommendedto Members that the offer for the funding of the barriers is accepted, and theagreed provision of parking attendants is omitted from any legal agreement.

2. For the two major applications at the Lock/Laker end, and Vauxhall end, of theGround, a further condition was recommended by Officers to be included for eachof these applications, namely;

"the sale of retail goods and hot and cold food and drinks outside of thehospitality/function/banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be carried out only inthe permanent concessions buildings identified on the plans approved."

The Club contest this condition, and have stated that a restriction on the number ofconcessions that can be provided would be prejudicial to the Club's income. Officersbelieved that the purpose of the permanent concessions buildings identified on thedrawings submitted on the concourses under the stands was to:

(a) provide more suitable structures to house concessions (such as hot foodproviders), linked to a permanent electricity supply rather than generators

(b) allow freer movement of spectators around the Ground rather than manoeuvringaround mobile concession units.

The Club has stated that the amount of concession space as existing as compared tothe proposed would remain approximately the same. With the expansion in capacity

3

(approx 4000), the Club would need to provide additional concession space toaccommodate the increase in demand.

The issue has been put to the Friends of the Oval, who have stated that they do notobject to concessions which do not require heating/cooking/cooling facilities, butunequivocally object to concessions which create noise and other pollution.

Officers understand the Club's requirements in this regard, and the concerns of localresidents. Therefore, it is recommended that the condition be amended to;

"Any concession unit requiring machinery/equipment/plant for the purposes ofcooking/heating or refrigeration of food and drink shall be housed in the permanentconcessions buildings indicated on the approved drawings, and connected to apermanent power supply, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planningauthority." (Reason: To protect the amenities of the local residents).

In this way, hot and cold food and drink concessions would be restricted to thepermanent concessions buildings and linked to a permanent power supply ratherthan using generators, and any mobile units would not require generators as powerwould not be required (these would probably be for the sale of retail goods).

The Friends of the Oval object to the last section of that condition, 'unless otherwiseagreed in writing by the local planning authority, because this would allow the Club tochallenge this condition.

3. The minutes of PAC of 11.12.01 are incorrect. Minute 3 (h) refers to a conditionrestricting the use of the hospitality/banqueting/function facilities in the proposedLock Laker stand to sporting events only. This condition was proposed only forthe Vauxhall end. These minutes need to be amended.

The planning reports and the draft decision notices for all of these applications havebeen updated following PAC on 11.12.01. (in compliance with the minutes of themeeting). The main aspects requiring updating were;

� Appn. 01/02311/FUL (temporary hospitality boxes and supporting steel structure),condition 4 which required full details of the erection and removal of thehospitality boxes and base structure to be submitted to the Council 3 monthsprior to commencement of the works has been deleted. Condition 5 has beenamended to state 'the base structure of the hospitality units must be erected for aperiod of no more than 10 weeks in any one year, until the end of 2006.'

� Appn 01/02120/FUL (Lock/Laker Stand), condition added to restrict mobileconcession units, to be amended as above if agreed. Minor corrections wererequired to the wording of conditions, and an informative required stating theUDP polices used to assess the application, these have been implemented.

� Appn. 01/02121/FUL (Vauxhall end), a condition was required restrictingfunctions at the Vauxhall end to sporting events only. The following condition hasbeen added;

'The hospitality/function/banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be used inconjunction with sporting events only and shall not be used forhospitality/function/banqueting purposes independently, or in conjunction with, anyother event held at the Ground.(Reason - In order to protect the amenities of local residents)'.

4

Minor corrections were required to the wording of conditions, these have beenimplemented.

All four reports are, therefore, being presented to Committee to gain approval to thechanges detailed above.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE, 11TH DECEMBER 2001

SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS REPORTED FOR THE SURREY COUNTYCRICKET CLUB, THE OVAL

APPLICATION NO. 01/02120/FUL – RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THELOCK LAKER STAND.

APPLICATION NO. 01/02121/FUL – REDEVELOPMENT OF THE VAUXHALL END.

The Surrey County Cricket Club is seeking to re-develop the Ground to make it aworld class sporting venue and to continue its location as a Test Match venue. Thereare two current major applications on this agenda.

One application is to demolish the Lock/Laker stands and erect a new multi-levelseating stand incorporating a concourse and hospitality level providing ancillaryfacilities for ground management, spectator toilets and refreshment facilities, andcorporate hospitality, with an external media area and operational parking. Therewould be associated facilities such as a cricket heritage museum, Club shop andClub offices. The development involves re-development of part of the existing PeterMay Enclosure, and would be opposite existing former GLC blocks of flats(Lockwood and Lohmann Houses).

The other application is to demolish the arc of existing stands and buildings at theVauxhall end of the Ground and to construct one new seating Stand incorporating aconcourse and hospitality level, and would provide ancillary facilities for groundmanagement, spectator toilet and refreshment facilities, and corporate hospitality,with an external media area and operational parking. The development would beopposite existing former GLC blocks of flats (Lockwood and Lohmann Houses).

As a result of the major applications, the capacity of the Ground would increase from19,114 to 23,000, an overall increase of approx. 4000. It is proposed to construct theLock Laker Stand before the Vauxhall End Stand. There are also two minorapplications on this agenda, one for the renewal of temporary planning permission fora period of 5 years for the Vauxhall Chalet Complex housing hospitality suites andassociated spectator accommodation (01/02310/FUL), the other for the erection of asteel support structure to be retained on the site from April 2002 to September 2006together with the erection of a temporary hospitality structure to be erected (on anannual basis) on top of the support structure (01/02311/FUL).

Lock Laker Application - The new Lock Laker Stand would contain 5 levels and abasement containing a large lower seating tier, and smaller upper tiers accessedfrom hospitality and function rooms. Part of the proposal would involve re-development of part of the Peter May enclosure by replacing the single-tier seatingstand. In general the building would be higher than the existing Lock Laker Standand but in most instances would be further away from the site boundary. The overallincrease in capacity of the Lock Laker Stand and the Peter May Enclosure would be

5

998. The main aim of the proposal is to increase the amount ofhospitality/function/banqueting space that can be used during major cricket matches(Test Matches and One Day Internationals), and to improve these facilities for yearround non-cricket related activities (functions such as trade seminars). The amountof floorspace for these purposes would increase from 441sq.m to 1880sq.m. Suchactivities provide important revenue for the Club and increased revenue from thatdevelopment would drive the re-development of the Vauxhall end.

Vauxhall End Application - The proposal at the Vauxhall end would see the removalof the collection of temporary and out-dated stands and buildings and theconstruction of a new Stand varying between one and two tiers which would rise upin height to a pinnacle at the end of the Ground opposite the Pavilion, effectivelyhaving a ‘horseshoe’ shape. The two-tier sections would be on the opposite side ofthe Ground to the Pavilion, and would be the highest parts of the Stands. Thesewould generally be lower than the existing buildings at this end. However, the one-tier sections at the sides of the Ground would be higher than the existing one-tierstands. The seating would generally move in towards the cricket pitch though andaway from the site boundary, in some cases quite considerably (13m in the case ofthe two-tier sections). The current capacity of the Vauxhall end stands is around10,500. The proposal would increase the capacity here to 13,500.

The applications have been assessed using national and regional planning guidance,and UDP policies. This assessment is based on one hand on regional guidancewhich identifies the need for the provision of world class sporting venues in London,and the Council’s encouragement of the improvement of the Ground for this purpose,and on the other hand the effect the proposals may have on adjacent occupiers, forthe most part residential occupiers, and on the local transport and traffic situation.

The main objections that have emerged from consultation are linked to;

� the height, scale and design of the proposed buildings, their impact on theamount of light received by occupiers of flats around the Ground and the outlookof those occupiers,

� the potential increased intensity of use through the increase in spectator capacityleading to further traffic and pedestrian generation around the Ground, parkingproblems, the inability for the public transport system to absorb this increase,increased noise disturbance, litter, and the potential holding of non-cricket relatedevents on the pitch such as pop concerts.

Officers consider that on balance the development proposals would improve thefacilities of this important site in the north of the Borough while not seriously affectingthe amenities of adjacent occupiers or having a detrimental impact on the localtransport system. It is considered that the proposals comply with national, regionaland UDP policy. Planning permission for the two major applications is recommendedsubject to a Section 106 agreement aimed at;

� encouraging use of public transport to the Ground, the use of Vauxhall TrainStation to counter-balance existing over-use of The Oval tube station,

� increased marshalling and management of spectators at major matches, and alsoparking enforcement

� controlling hours of use of conferencing and banqueting facilities,� noise control and litter collection measures,� extension of community initiatives� identifying coach parking areas

6

� precluding the use of the Ground facilities for events (such as concerts) which arenot currently proposed, in order to protect local amenity.

Planning permission is also recommended for the two minor applications.

SITE – SURREY COUNTY CRICKET CLUB, THE OVAL

APPLICATION NO. 01/02120/FUL – Re-development of the Lock Laker Stand

SITE DESCRIPTION

The grounds of the Surrey County Cricket Club are bounded by Kennington Oval andcover an area of approximately four hectares. The site of the Oval lies adjacent toVauxhall and St Marks Conservation Areas and Grade 2 Listed Buildings, namely St.Mark's Church of England Primary School (at the western end of the site) and OvalHouse 52-54 Kennington Oval (towards the eastern end of the site). There is also aGrade 2 listed terrace on the northern side of Harleyford Road approaching the Oval.

The northern section of Kennington Oval mainly contains blocks of flats owned by theCouncil, such as Lockwood and Lohmann House adjacent to the Pavilion and theexisting Lock/Laker stand, and Grace House at the Vauxhall end of the Ground.

The southern section also has similar housing, particularly at the Vauxhall end, suchas Shrewsbury House, and also a terrace of houses adjacent to the junction ofHarleyford Road and Kennington Oval, but there are other uses including ArchbishopTension's Secondary School and the Parish Hall of St.Mark.

This application relates to the Lock and Laker Stand and part of the Peter MayEnclosure at the Pavilion end of the Ground. This Stand does not neighbour a listedbuilding or the boundary of a conservation area but is not far from the St.MarksConservation Area and Oval House.

PLANNING BACKGROUND

The site has a long and complex history. Various planning permissions have beengranted within the ground, most of these relate to the upgrading of the facilities andextension of the Club’s facilities. The following are the major decisions asdetermined by Council:

1. Planning permission was refused on 10 September 1973 for the redevelopment ofthe site by the provision of cricket facilities, including pavilion, spectator seating and

7

restaurant, the erection of an office building, 180 flats and 8 shops and the provisionof car parking accommodation.

2. Planning permission was granted on 13 April 1988 (for a limited period until 15May 1994) for the erection of a part 5 and part 3 storey temporary stand at theVauxhall End.

3. Planning permission was granted on 28 January 1988 for the erection of a newsports centre with associated facilities, showers, bar, snack bar, spectators facilities(now the Bedser Stand and Ken Barrington Centre).

4. Planning permission was granted on 28 February 1990 for the erection of a newboundary wall around the ground with railings and gates to the West Stand.

5. Planning permission was granted on 11 November 1991 for alterations andextension of the Member's Pavilion to provide additional seating, function rooms,hospitality rooms and ancillary areas, and the erection of a new security office.

6. Planning permission was renewed on 18 November 1993 for the retention until 12April 1988 of the temporary stand at the Vauxhall End.

7. In March 1995, and again in June 1996, planning permission was refused for theretention of steel supporting structures allowing temporary hospitality suites to beinstalled adjacent to the Gover Stand. An application, relating to the above, wasreceived in March 1997, which was subsequently withdrawn.

8. In 1995 an outline application was received for the redevelopment of the Oval bythe erection of new stands, terraces, and hospitality boxes, together with a concoursemall and community facilities. Following negotiations with Officers, the applicationwas withdrawn

9. A report was presented to the Environmental Services committee on 21 November1995. The report outlined the latest position on the proposals for furtherimprovements to the Oval. The Committee noted: a) The current stage reached in theprogression of an outline proposal b) agreed planning principles as a basis for furtherdiscussions with the club c) welcomed in principle the making of improvements andlooked forward to further discussions with the club. The details of this report arediscussed in the ‘Planning Considerations’ section of this report.

10. In December 1997 the Environmental Services Committee agreed the ColinBuchanan & Partners Waterloo & Vauxhall Car & Coach Parking Strategy Phase IIreport –Draft Strategy. This Strategy is outlined further on in this report in the'Planning Considerations' section.

11. In 1997 an application was received for the demolition of the existing stands andterraces at the Vauxhall end. The erection of new terraces to provide 15,168 newseats; the erection of a permanent platform for the installation and use of 120temporary spectator boxes for a maximum of 26 days per annum. In June 1998 TownPlanning Applications Committee resolved to grant planning permission for thedevelopment, subject to a S106 to ensure double glazing to Grace and ReadHouses, operation hours and hours of delivery, coach parking, method statementrelating to the design and erection/dismantling of boxes, easing of pedestrianmovement between the ground and Oval Station, the limiting of "days of use" of theboxes, the use of parking attendants and a statement on match tickets stating thelack of public parking in the area and giving details of public transport. Following

8

Committee, Officers met with the Club's agent to progress the S106. Whilstdiscussing the S106 and the conditions attached to the resolved consent, it becameclear to the Club, for various reasons, that they would not be able to fulfil the headsof agreement or comply with some of the conditions to be imposed. The Clubsubsequently withdrew the application.

12. In 1998, planning permission was given to extend an existing toilet block in thePeter May stand.

13. In March 1998 the Environmental Service Committee agreed the Colin Buchanan& Partners Waterloo and Vauxhall Car & Coach Parking Strategy Phase III report –Revised Strategy. This Strategy is outlined further on in this report in the 'PlanningConsiderations' section.

14. Planning permission was approved in February 1999 for the construction of twonew emergency escape gates in the existing site boundary wall opposite LohmannHouse.

15. Planning permission was granted in March 1999 for the retention of the VauxhallChalet hospitality suite complex and associated spectator accommodation, for afurther period until 28 April 2003.

16. In March 1999 permission was granted for the refurbishment of the Peter MayStand, including conversion of storerooms and stewards' rest area into retail unitsand 250mm increase in height of rear safety barriers.

17. Also in March 1999 permission was approved to raise the rear seating and rearsafety barrier of the Surridge Stand (to Exit F). Realignment of Exit F. Erection of anew toilet block with additional seating above, together with additional seating atpitch edge.

18. In November 1999 permission was granted for the installation of spectator standlighting, emergency lighting and loudspeaker facilities including floodlights, circulationarea passage lights, loudspeaker trumpets and 950 extra seats in the Peter MayStand.

19. Two applications were submitted on 27th April 2000 and were subsequentlywithdrawn. One was for the demolition at the Vauxhall end of the The Oval of part ofthe Peter May, Fender, Gover and Jardine stands, together with the SurridgeEnclosure, and the Chalet Complex, and giving up of the use of the Temporary Standand Chalets, and the erection of a single tier 13,500 capacity seating facility, above aconcourse providing ancillary facilities for Ground Management, spectator toilet andrefreshment facilities, with a media area and operational parking. The second wasthe for the demolition of the Lock, Laker, and part of the Peter May Stand and theerection of a new five level building comprising tiered seating, executive balconyseats, together with bars restaurants and associated space to provide individual andcorporate hospitality /banqueting facilities, to also be used for D2 and A3 purposes,conferences and private events, a club shop, a cricket heritage museum, educationalcentre together with 284 square metres of 81 office floor space on two floors toprovide replacement administrative offices for Surrey County Cricket Club.

There were a number of objections received to the above applications, in part relatingto the height and bulk of the proposed Lock/Laker Stand and its effect on daylightlevels to the residents in adjacent flats in Lohmann and Lockwood Houses. The

9

applications were withdrawn in view of these objections with a view to amendingthem, and these amendments are incorporated within the current applications.

20. On 15th June 2001 planning permission was granted for the erection of atemporary building at the rear of the Gover Stand to provide hospitality suitesbetween 11th and 25th June and 13th and 30th August 2001.

21. On 8th March 2001 advertisement consent was refused for the retention of twosigns at the Vauxhall West Gate. The Club appealed against the decision and thiswas upheld on 31.8.01.

22. On the 18th September 2001 advertisement consent was granted for thecontinued display of an existing advertising board above the Turnstile.

23. There is another current application for the site, the report for which is also in thisagenda. This is for the demolition at the Vauxhall end of the remaining stands andthe erection of a new seating stand incorporating a concourse and hospitality levelproviding ancillary facilities for ground management, spectator toilet and refreshmentfacilities, and corporate hospitality, with an external media area and operationalparking.

24. There are two other current applications. One is for the renewal of temporaryplanning permission for a period of 5 years for the Vauxhall Chalet Complex housinghospitality suites and associated spectator accommodation. The other is for theerection of a steel support structure to be retained on the site from April 2002 toSeptember 2006 together with the erection of a temporary hospitality structure to beerected (on an annual basis) on top of the support structure. These applications arealso on the agenda for this Planning Applications Committee.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is for the demolition of the Lock/Laker stands and the erection of a newmulti-level seating stand incorporating a concourse and hospitality level providingancillary facilities for ground management, spectator toilets and refreshment facilities,and corporate hospitality, with an external media area and operational parking.There would be associated facilities such as a cricket heritage museum, Club shopand Club offices. The development involves re-development of part of the existingPeter May Enclosure.

The development would extend from the Pavilion building, curving around theGround on Kennington Oval (North), encompassing the existing Lock and Lakerstands and part of the Peter May stand, adjacent to Clayton Street and TheCricketers Public House.

The main Stand (as distinct from the Peter May Enclosure re-development) wouldhave 5 levels. The building would appear to have two parts, a part fronting the pitchcontaining the seating tiers, and a part to the rear which would contain service areas(kitchens, etc.) and circulation space. The height of the building to the main roofwould be 20.8m. This roof slopes downwards towards from the pitch towardsKennington Oval, at the eaves the height would be 19.7m. There would be a small

10

section of roof higher than this which is to the lift and staircase tower which would be22.8m high. Between this Stand and the Pavilion and connected to both would be aglass-fronted building with three levels at 16.2m high which would contain the CricketClub's administration offices. On the other end of the Stand adjacent to ClaytonStreet, part of the existing Peter May Enclosure will be re-developed into anuncovered seating tier sloping down towards the pitch, which would be a maximum of7.3m high.

The current Lock stand is approx. 15.2m in height and the current Laker stand isapprox. 14.8m in height. The main roof of the new stand would be 5.6m higher thanthe Lock stand at 20.8m (4.5m higher at the eaves) and approx. 6m higher than theLaker stand (4.9m at the eaves). The existing Peter May stand is 4.8m high, themaximum height of this would increase by 2.5m, although this would not be a solidbuilding and this height includes a windshield to the rear protecting the rear of thestand.

Whilst the highest part of the new Locker/Laker Stand would be higher, it would besited further away from the boundary in an attempt to lessen the impact on LohmannHouse. However, part of the building would be closer to Lockwood House. Theminimum distance between the new Stand and Lohmann House would be 24mcompared to an existing distance of 17m. The minimum distance to LockwoodHouse would be 27m compared to an existing distance of 28.5m. However, the partof the new Stand next to the glazed office section would be more significantly closerto Lockwood House at 38m compared to 45m.

The proposal, in effect would extend the length of the existing Lock/Laker stand byapprox. 7m around the Ground. The Peter May Enclosure will be re-developed forapprox. 40m of its length adjacent to the existing Lock/Laker stand, and there will bea new vehicle access point opened up approx. 8.5m wide between this and the restof the Peter May enclosure adjacent to Clayton Street.

The main roof of the proposed Stand would be approx. 4.2m lower than the main roofof the neighbouring Pavilion, 2.2m lower at the point of the lift/stair tower roof.

The Stand will be arranged over five levels and laid out as follows:

Lower Seating TierThe lower tier would be set to closely follow the Test boundary (whilst replacing partof theexisting grassed area), following the curve of the boundary of the pitch. The newStand would project 18m further towards the pitch than currently is the case. Theexisting pitch is very large and there is an extensive area of the pitch not used.

Ground LevelLocated at Ground Level would be the main entrance, lift and stair access, Club shop(135sq m) and educational centre/ museum (328 sq. m) together with a coveredconcourse providing food and drink concessions, lavatories, shops and direct accessto the lower seating tier. The applicant has stated that the Museum could alsoinclude a Cricket Hall of Fame, and would operate from 10.00am to 4.00pm openingon weekdays.

11

Permanent concessions/stores/WC buildings would be constructed under thenorthern part of the two-tier section on the concourse area (and also under the PeterMay Enclosure). These would be solid flat-roofed buildings (materials not specifiedat present) with roller shutters.

Level OneOn Level One would be the main banqueting space of 559 sq.m with additionalassociated circulation and service space. The banqueting space couldaccommodate up to 485 diners and a hospitality area would contain approx. 120covers. The space is arranged to enable flexible subdivision through moveablepartitions.

Level TwoLevel Two would contain an office area, the Laker restaurant and a lounge bar.Function space would comprise 485sq.m, and office space 142sq.m. This floorwould have space for a 250 capacity executive restaurant and associated loungewith access to the 750 seat upper seating balcony (these figures are included in theoverall capacity of the Stand, the diners are allocated seats within the stand). Thespace is arranged to enable flexible subdivision through moveable partitions. Therewould also be an open plan office (142 sq. m) at this level.

Level ThreeOn Level Three there would be 17 hospitality boxes with services and circulation.There would be an open plan office space (142 sq.m), kitchen/food preparation area,WCs, and also mechanical and electrical plant. The boxes comprise 13 x 20 personcapacity suites and 4 x 10 person suites. Acoustic sliding/folding room dividers willenable flexible sub-division of the space and for non-cricket uses. There would becapacity for 300 diners.

Level FourLevel Four has the same arrangement as Level Three with 17 corporate boxes butwithout the office space.

Hospitality FacilitiesThe hospitality areas are designed to meet the requirements associated with viewingcricketand as spaces which can be re-formed to meet space demands outside those times.This would mean that with the Lock Laker Stand 1880 sq.m of space could be re-arranged and organised to be available for conferences and related activities such aslectures and trade seminars.

The following table shows the amount of hospitality/function proposed compared toexisting.

12

FloorFunction Space

Hospitality

ExistingLock Laker

ProposedLock Laker

Existing LockLaker

ProposedLock Laker

Ground0 0 0 0

First0 0 0 0

Second163 485 67 0

Third0 211 211 418

Fourth0 0 0 418

Totals163 1044 278 836

Change881 558

CapacityThe current capacity of the Lock and Laker Stands is 2451 seats and 182 hospitalityseats, a total of 2633 seats, and the existing capacity of the Peter May Stand is 4614.The proposal would mean that the capacity of the Lock/Laker stand would be 4791,an increase of 2158, plus 600 hospitality seats, an increase of 418 seats. Thecapacity of the Peter May stand would be reduced from 4614 to 2854. Therefore, theoverall increase in capacity directly related to this development would be 998. Inconnection with the proposed re-development of the Vauxhall end, the increase incapacity of the Ground would be approx. 4000.

DesignThe Lock Laker Stand would be a light modern structure contrasting with themasonry detailing and vertical elements of the Pavilion. The front elevation facingthe cricket pitch would obviously have the horizontal element due to the tiers ofseating. However, the base of the building above the lower tier would have red brickarches as an arcade to reflect the architecture of the centre of the Pavilion (thewindows to the Long Room). This red brick theme would continue to the rear of theStand where the base of the building would be finished in solid red brickwork. The'lightness' of the building is achieved by the heavy use of glazing, in particular a largeexpanse to the rear corridor area at the back of the Stand at levels two and three, forboth elevations of the office section between the Pavilion and the new Stand, and forthe stair/lift tower. White-painted exposed steel supporting structures are used, inparticular to the glazing at the rear of the Stand, and apparently such structures havebeen used to reflect the nearby gasometer. Blockwork in the form of off-white snap

13

faced blocks with a feature joint every second course would be used for the upperparts of the Stand, with a string course near the base and cornice line. The cornicecill would be in reconstituted stone, coloured to match the brickwork. The claddingpanels at high level are to be white bi-directional flat cladding panels with integratedlouvre panels. The glazing would be double-glazed anti-sun units with a lowemissivity coating in white powder coated aluminium frames; the circulation route isalso to be double-glazed anti-sun units with a low emissivity coating in powdercoated low profile framing colour to match the glass; the entrance is to be framelessstructural glazing assembly. Fascias would be formed metal steel, coloured white.The roofs would be curved profiled metal sheeting, coloured silver although thearchitect has stated that this would weather to a pale grey colour. The seating wouldbe white plastic with black frame.

The main entrance would be located in a direct line from the main entrance gate, andits glazed appearance with high walls is meant to contrast with the old Pavilionbuilding. This entrance would provide views through to the grass playing area andwould be focused on the Test Wicket. This is meant to be the 'front door' to theGround.

The layout of the building is clearly to have the seating areas and 'function'floorspace at the front of the building facing the pitch and service and circulationspace to the rear. There would be balconies at the end of the Stand facing the pitchwhich would wrap around return wall of the building. However, these are falsebaclonies at the end and are to be used only for maintenance purposes.

CONSULTATIONSThe proposed development was advertised by way of a press notice in the localnewspaperand by 4 site notices located near the site.

The Vauxhall Society, Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum, Harleyford CourtTenants Association, Tenants Corner, Kennington Park Tenants Association, Visionfor Vauxhall, Friends of Vauxhall Park, Friends of the Oval, Kennington CrossNeighbourhood Association, Manor of Kennington Residents Association,I.M.P.A.C.T., Vauxhall St Peters Heritage Centre, English Heritage, the Federation ofStadium Communities and Transport for London were consulted.

The following occupiers were all consulted by individual letter.

� Read House (flats 1 to 40), Clayton Street� 1,2 Bedser Close,� Harleyford Road - 90 to 106 (even), St Marks CE Primary School, Rothesay

Court (flats 1 to 49),� Kennington Oval - Oval House 52 to 54, 54 to 64, Archbishop Tension's School,

Bishop Montgomery Hall, St Mark's Vicarage, Lockwood House (flats 1 to 121),Lohmann House (flats 1 to 86), The Cricketers Public House, 14A to 16Kennington Oval, Oval Mansions (flats 1 to 60), Grace House (1 to 50), SurreyTavern Public House, Blades House (flats 1 to 20), Cynthia Mosley Day Nursery,

� Meadow Road - Shrewsbury House (flats 1 to 32), Stoddart House (1 to 67)� 155 Vauxhall Street.

14

At the time of writing 18 objections have been received, including letters from the'Friends of The Oval' and from the 'Kennington Park Estate Residents' Association,on the grounds that;

1. The proposal would lead to greater congestion on the street with people waitingaroundthe Ground.

2. The proposal can only increase the lack in levels of daylight and sunlight currentlyenjoyed by local residents, whilst presenting a more limited view from the windows ofthedwellings. The proposed building would be much higher than neighbouringresidential blocks such as Lohmann and Lockwood Houses, in effect dwarfing them.

3. Why don't they spread the development around the ground more?

4. Concerns are raised about the absence of transport facilities to support theproposal. Theadditional capacity will need more buses, tubes and car parking facilities.

5. Concern has been raised about the potential increase in noise levels from the newbanqueting facilities, restaurants, bars, conferences, early morning deliveries etc.Why does the cricket club need to increase the amount of function/restaurant space -it already has a large amount of floorspace for this purpose? Why can't the existingSurrey Tavern be leased to the Cricket Club, this would mean that further functionspace wouldn't be needed.

6. Concerns are raised about the bright light generated by the floodlights duringday/night games.

7. Construction and demolition works etc. would cause further disruption to residents,in particular, it would create many dangers to young children in the neighbourhood.

8. The amount of beer glasses and bottles and general litter left in the surroundingareas would increase.

9. If the proposal were to go ahead residents would suffer a loss of privacy throughoverlooking, and their light and view would be severely curtailed. The developmentis too large for this densely packed residential area.

10. The Oval is only full for a few days per year, such as for Test Matches and forOne-Day Internationals. Concern has been raised that with the increase in groundcapacity through re-development, Surrey CCC will now find other events like popconcerts attractive to stage.

11. The overall scale of the proposed building will create an oppressive corridor inthis densely populated residential area, which already suffers from a high percentageof fear, and incidence of street crime.

12. Residents in the area strenuously object to the suspension of residents parkingrights on days when the Oval is in use for major events.

13. The architectural design of the Stand is poor and does not reflect existingbuildings in the area.

15

14. It seems unnecessary to allow the Cricket Club to increase the building size atthe Oval since the site is completely under-utilised at present with capacityattendances numbering 5-10 a year, leaving approximately 355 days a year when itis under-utilised. Surely maximising the use of the existing site would be of greaterbenefit to all rather than increasing the building size.

15. The educational and museum facility in the Lock and Laker development ismerely an appendage, more to win "brownie points" than to meet a need. There isalready a world- famous cricket museum in London at Lords and an educationalfacility should not be walled up in a cricket ground where few go but taken out to theschools and to their playing fields. Local schools need playing fields and practisefacilities not museums. If the museum were dropped from the scheme, the Lock andLaker building could be made smaller and more neighbour-friendly.

16. Agreement was obtained under a draft Section 106 Agreement for double-glazingof properties near the ground on the previous planning application in 1998. If thedevelopment goes ahead, double-glazing would be needed this time as well.

17. We note that the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) regarding the OvalCricket Ground is consistently misquoted in Council literature and in Surrey CCC'splanning applications. At the Environmental Services Committee meeting on 19thDecember 1996 the wording was changed by a vote of 6 to 2. The new wordingrequired that any developments to the Oval "will improve the amenities ofsurrounding residential accommodation".

18. What benefits would the re-development have for the community? CCTV andtraffic barriers to non-residents' vehicles are needed in the area.

19. The neighbouring occupiers have been subject to a protracted process ofplanning applications made and withdrawn, which would affect the level of objectionto the current applications.

20. Concern that the high buildings would reflect traffic noise along the red route.

21. While SCCC continually promote in their correspondence with the media theirneighbourly intentions and their will to listen to the neighbours, this comes acrosssomewhat superficially. They are within their own world, and do not experience theneighbours'.

Three of the objectors have stated that they have no objection in principle to the re-development of the Ground and understand the need for the Club to generatefinance, if this re-development is of a much smaller scale.

English Heritage have no representations to make on this proposal in design terms.The Archaeology section have indicated that although the site does not lie in an areadesignated as an Archaeological Priority Area, the site lies close to the junction oftwo major Roman roads. In addition, there is a possibility that the remains of CivilWar defences are present on the site. There is therefore the potential for significantarchaeological remains to survive on the site. Clarification of the potential impact ofthe proposed scheme upon the archaeological resource is required. This may bebest provided by an archaeological desk-based assessment. A condition has beenrequested to achieve this.

Transport for London (TfL) have been involved in the on-going proposals fordevelopment at the Ground. Because of their involvement through the process, their

16

initial comments on the previous applications from 2000 are relevant and so to arecomments received on the Club's 'Supplementary Review of the Traffic andTransport Effects of the Redevelopment of the Oval Cricket Club' received with thecurrent applications. The initial comments were:

'London Bus Service and London Underground have no objection to the proposal. Itwould have no effect on London Buses infrastructure. The development does notsignificantly increase the current capacity of the ground, and the alternative usesproposed would have little effect on Peak demand. The hours of opening for theproposed Cricket Heritage Museum is welcomed in terms of managing demand atpeak periods. The proposed conferencing facilities will not result in material trafficimpact, given there is no additional off-street car parking proposed. StreetManagement (TfL.) is concerned about obstruction on the highway caused byservicing and coaches setting down. It is therefore important that all waiting andloading restrictions are enforced. In the long term TfL would like to establish buspriority in both directions on Kennington Oval and would like to explore this with theCouncil with a view to achieving this in the near future.

The promotion of access by public transport and initiatives to link ticket sales totravelcards is welcomed and London Underground Ltd would like to take this forward.This should be explored with TfL as soon as possible. The new turnstilearrangements are welcomed and improvements to pedestrian facilities between theground and bus stop/rail and underground station, which will further promote non-caruse. These measures should be made conditional of any planning permissiongranted.'

Further comments made to the current applications are;

'Based on the additional information provided, TfL has no new objections to theproposals. However, we would like to make the following additionalrecommendations;

� The developer should undertake physical improvements to the public realm andpedestrian links about the site, in conjunction with increases in marshalling atmajor events

� On-street trading regulations and on-street waiting restrictions need to berigorously enforced in the vicinity of the site

� There needs to be an increase in the number of cycle parking spaces (50proposed)

� TfL (Street Management) should be supplied with details of the plans forconstruction and demolition associated with the proposals.'

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

1. NATIONAL POLICYPlanning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13 -"Transport" places importance on theintegration of transport and land use planning. Local authorities are advised toensure that major new attractions are readily accessible by a range of means oftransport. Whilst this is not a proposal for a new attraction, due to its proposedincrease in capacity it is considered that PPG13 should be taken into account.

Kennington Oval is considered to be accessible by a range of means of transport. Itis served by British Rail (South West Trains services are available to the Surrey area,and to Waterloo Station) and London Underground Stations (the Vauxhall Station is

17

about 350 metres to the north west of the Ground, and the Oval Station is locatedless than 100 metres to the south east of the cricket ground), together with numerousbus routes provided by London Bus Services. Neither of the above-namedorganisations raised any objections towards the re-development, having beeninvolved with previous proposals for re-development of the Ground in the same wayas TfL. No capacity difficulties are envisaged.

PPG 15 ."Planning and the Historic Environment" say the desirability ofpreserving or enhancing conservation areas is a material consideration indevelopment proposals which are outside the conservation area but would affect itssetting. The site lies outside conservation areas.

English Heritage have no representations to make on this particular proposal indesign terms, and have requested that an archaeological survey is carried out.

PPG17 -"Sport and Recreation" promotes sporting excellence and encouragesparticipation in sports (either as players or spectators). It links sports with recreationand tourism and encourages the development of facilities that benefit both visitorsand residents.

The Club proposes to provide facilities including a cricket heritage museum andeducational centre and are considering other uses that could benefit both visitors andresidents. It is considered that the maintenance and redevelopment of the Oval as aworld class venue, together with the provision of the additional facilities, accords withPPG 17.

PPG 24 -"Planning and Noise" gives advice on how the planning system can beused to minimise the adverse impact of noise.

The Council’s Regulatory Services (Noise and Pollution) section raise no objectionstowards the proposal. A number of conditions relating to noise control arerecommended. A summary of that section’s comments are included later in thereport.

2. REGIONAL POLICY'Initial Proposals for the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy - Towards the LondonPlan' (May 2001) by the Greater London Authority (GLA) makes reference to theimportance of sport and recreation in London. In particular, it states that 'London isan important location for international, national and local sports activities. However,some existing international facilities are inadequate to meet modern requirements.To reflect its world city role, London should be able to host a range of world classsporting events.'

The Council has taken such guidance into consideration in the assessment of theapplication.

3. PREVIOUS COUNCIL DECISIONSOn the 21st of November 1995 the Environmental Services Committee agreed areport entitled "Further development of the Oval Cricket Ground: PlanningPrinciples". The report outlined the latest position on the proposals at that time forfurther improvements to the ground, and approved planning principles as follows:

(i) Improving the operation of the Fosters Oval as a major sporting venue.

18

Whilst increasing the intensity of the use of the Ground, development should makeuse of the opportunity to enable a more efficient operation of the Ground and shouldensure that the impact of events and activities at the Ground on the surroundingresidential area, in terms of traffic, congestion of the pavements, noise, disturbanceand litter, is reduced as far as possible.

(ii) Ground capacity in relation to site developmentProposals for increased capacity will need to demonstrate that a satisfactory form ofdevelopment can be achieved in terms of the form, massing, scale and structure ofthe resulting development, in particular the affect in neighbouring residential streets.

(iii) TransportThe relationship of increased capacity at the Ground to the capacity of publictransport infrastructure needs to be clearly shown. More emphasis is to be placed onpublic transport. The development will need to ensure satisfactory access andservicing.

(iv) General Environmental ImpactAny proposal to extend the stands/seating should pay careful regard to theresidential accommodation in close proximity. In particular, amenities such asdaylight, sunlight, privacy, visual outlook, noise, including noise from public addresssystems and the effect of any artificial lighting shall be safeguarded.

(v) Community BenefitsProposals for improvements at the Oval should lead to further integration of thismajor sport venue within the local community and Lambeth as a whole.

(vi) DesignA high quality architectural treatment will be a prerequisite for any further majorimprovements at the Oval. New structures should be of a "landmark" nature andworld class in quality showing a detailed attention to resolving the many issuesinvolved. The development should seek to maximise the open appearance of theGround and its relationship to the surrounding area to achieve a permeable feel andappearance.

(vii) Conservation IssuesThe development will need to take into consideration the adjoining conservationareas/listed buildings/strategic views etc.

The above principles have been taken into account in the assessment of the currentapplication.

In March 1998 the Environmental Services Committee agreed the Colin Buchanan &Partners Waterloo and Vauxhall Car & Coach Parking Strategy Phase III report –Revised Strategy. This Strategy was formulated in partnership with Lambeth Counciland included around 70 consultation bodies. It is concerned with regeneration of theVauxhall and Waterloo areas, and directed at the need to ensure that car and coachparking is controlled as part of that regeneration. It states that ‘successful re-generation of the area is likely to lead to a substantial increase in the demand for carand coach parking, and in the absence of any strategy to encourage access by publictransport and restrict visitor parking, this growth could actually negate some of thebeneficial effects of regeneration’.

The Strategy, therefore, aims to provide adequate parking for local businesses,residents and tourist coaches whilst protecting the area from the unwelcome

19

consequences of inessential traffic. The effect of this Strategy on the Oval is that it isproposed that the area of Vauxhall bounded by Kennington Park Road, KenningtonLane, Fentiman Road and Lambeth Road would become one of several coach banareas were coaches would be restricted, both in terms of movement and parking.The Strategy suggests that a 20 minute drop-off bay should be included onKennington Oval.

However, Transport for London (TfL) have objections to this as the drop-off bay mayaffect the operation of bus lanes on Kennington Oval (south), and are concerned thata bay on Kennington Oval (north) would affect traffic and bus flow on occasions whentraffic is diverted along here when the flow on the south side is disrupted for anyreason. Therefore, the inclusion of a drop-off bay has not been pursued, and theCouncil is seeking through a S106 agreement for the Club to identify suitable coachparking and dropping-off/picking-up points outside of the Strategy areas.

4. UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Policy RL32 -'Oval Cricket Ground' -states that "the Oval Cricket Ground has thepotential to provide for additional sport and leisure facilities. The Council willencourage the expansion and widening of the sport and leisure facilities. Additionaluses may also be viewed favourably if they enhance the ground as a sporting andleisure venue and do not seriously affect the amenities of surrounding residentialaccommodation.’

Policy CD2 -'Proposals for Development' states that in considering developmentproposals, whether they are for a new building, an extension or alteration to anexisting building or a change of use, the Council will ensure that the character orappearance of a conservation area is preserved or enhanced. This applies to land,buildings and trees within a conservation area as well as proposals outside, that theCouncil considers would affect the character or appearance of the area itself.

Policy CD15 - `Design of New Development’ is relevant to this proposal. Thisstates that the Council, in its role of promoting and controlling development, will seekto achieve a high quality of design in all new development, carefully related to itssurroundings and contributing positively to the area. The appearance of publicfrontages is especially important and public facilities will be sought whereappropriate. The amenity of the neighbourhoods will be safeguarded.

Particular regard will be paid to the following factors, and to the Standards Chapter ofthe Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance, where applicable when consideringnew development in relation to its surroundings: (i) layout, including building lines,plot widths, historic development patterns and relationship to neighbours; (ii) height,bulk, scale; (iii) open spaces, including public open spaces, on or near the site; (iv)particular natural or man-made features on or near the site; (v) hard and softlandscaping and boundary treatment; (vi) vehicular and pedestrian movement,servicing and parking; (vii) materials and colour; (viii) character of the area; (ix)accessibility; (x) safety and health aspects (including noise and pollution) andsecurity; (xi) impact of existing wildlife habitats and creation of new habitats; (xii)visual interest for the public, especially at ground floor level, including the pedestrianenvironment; (xiii) crime prevention.

Standard ST3 -'Daylight and Sunlight' states that good standards of daylight andsunlight should be achieved in new buildings and extensions. The Building ResearchEstablishment Report: Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight -a guide for good

20

practice (1991), provides advice on site layout planning to achieve good sunlightingand daylighting within buildings and in open spaces between them.

Policy V17 -"High Buildings in Vauxhall" states that planning permission forbuildings that significantly exceed the height of their surrounds in the Vauxhall areawill not normally be granted. Development will be expected to have a similar scale tothe surrounding area.

Policy ENV19 -"Noise control" states that developments, which are likely togenerate noise inappropriate, to the local environment will be refused. The Councilwill seek the reduction of noise at source, in preference to the use of soundinsulation, as a means of reducing noise pollution. In addition, the Council willencourage the most appropriate siting of noise sources within developments and,where appropriate, will impose conditions on planning permissions to limit the hoursof operation of noisy processes and activities.

Policy T17 -"Transport implications of development proposals" states that alldevelopment proposals will be assessed for their contribution to traffic generationand impact on road congestion and against the present and potential availability ofpublic transport, and its capacity to meet increased demand.

With regard to RL32, the Council recognises that the Oval is one of the only two firstclass cricket venues in London and is an important venue for International TestMatch cricket, maintaining London's position as a world centre of sport. Whilst theCouncil wishes to support and strengthen the Oval's position as an importantsporting facility, nevertheless great care needs to be exercised when dealing withany proposed improvements in view of the potential impact on the surroundingresidential area and the likely high level of public interest. As per the consultationsection of this report, the main issues arising from the public are:

� The appearance, bulk, scale of the proposed building� The affect to local residents in terms of noise/disturbance.� Increased traffic/parking/congestion problems� Loss of sunlight/daylight/view

The assessment of these issues and other issues is set out in the following pages.

As regards CD2 and CD15, the site is not within a defined conservation area but isadjacent to the Vauxhall and St Marks Conservation Areas. The Lock Laker Stand isnear to the boundary of the St.Marks Conservation Area, the boundary of which is onthe west side of the Oval tube station end of Harleyford Road. That ConservationArea also contains Oval House, 52-54 Kennington Oval, which is a Grade 2 Listedbuilding, although that listed building is approx.150m from the proposed Stand(Policy CD13 – Setting of Listed Buildings, has not been used in the assessment ofthis particular proposal due to the relatively long distance of this listed building to theLock Laker Stand). Because of the proximity of the proposal to the boundary of theConservation Area, design criteria for the re-development of the site can be stringent.

Sports grounds such as the Oval generally do not relate well to their surroundingareas. This situation is because all the buildings and structures within the ground areorientated toward the pitch leaving the usually featureless backs of these buildings toface the surrounding environment. However, the rear of the building backing on toKennington Oval has been designed to give this elevation visual interest andpermeability. The use of a large amount of glazing, exposed steel supports and

21

white cladding panels would give this elevation an unimposing and ‘light’ feel. Theglazing at the rear of the Stand would allow a view of circulation of people within thecorridors. The glazed rear and front elevations of the office section between theStand and the Pavilion would act as a focal point and would allow views from themain gate through to the pitch. Materials and design ideas have been used to takereferences from existing buildings in the area, in particular the use of red brick on therear of the base of the Stand and arches as part of an arcade at the front to reflectthe red brick of the Pavilion and the windows of the Long Room, and the style of thesteel supports to the glazing at the rear of the Stand to reflect the nearby gas-holder.

In general, though, the building has a contemporary design in character with much ofthe existing design of the Ground, in particular the Ken Barrington Centre/BedserStand on the other side of the Pavilion. This type of design is needed in this instanceas contemporary techniques are required to design a sports stadium building,particularly given the need to accommodate a large amount of spectators; it is notconsidered appropriate that a design be proposed of traditional building to mirror thePavilion. The riser height and the 800mm tread in the seating tiers are set out toprovide comfort with a standard higher than the standards for cricket-watching stadia(above a maximum of C90 meaning that the eye level of a spectator is 90mm higherthan eye level of a spectator sitting directly below and in front). It is considered thatthe proposed building has been designed in such a way as to not detract, but to takereference from, the original buildings in the area, and this would not detract from thecharacter and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area. It is, therefore,considered that the proposal complies with policies CD2 and CD15. Neither EnglishHeritage nor the Council's Conservation Officer has raised any objections towardsthe design of the proposal.

Objections have been received stating that the height of the proposed developmentis out of keeping with the adjacent buildings. However, measured at the main roof,the height of the development would be 20.8m high compared to the heights ofLockwood and Lohmann Houses which are 18m high. This difference is notconsidered to be substantial and reflects the general height of adjacent buildings,and it is considered that in terms of height/scale the development would comply withthe requirements of policies CD2 and CD15.

In relation to ST3, the proposal has been assessed against the British ResearchEstablishment’s (BRE) ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide toGood Practice’ (1991). This Guide assesses daylight as a percentage of the total skythat provides direct skylight to a window. This is assessed as the vertical skycomponent (VSC). If the vertical sky component is greater than 27% then enoughskylight should still be reaching the windows of the existing building. Any reductionbelow this level should be kept to a minimum.

In the previous withdrawn application for re-development of the Lock Laker stands,the Club engaged Delva Patman Associates to assess the effect of the proposal onthe neighbouring properties. Sample assessments were carried out to potentially themost affected windows of Lohmann House and Lockwood House. The studiesshowed that the proposal would result in a reduction in the level of both daylight andsunlight currently enjoyed by some surrounding properties. However, this reductiondoes not reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight below the levels recommendedwithin the BRE Guidelines. This previous scheme proposed a new Stand larger thanthat currently proposed.

In light of this, the Council commissioned its own independent daylight/sunlight studycarried out by Gordon Ingram Associates. Gordon Ingram Associates concurred with

22

Delva Patman's Study. They stated that all the main windows of the habitable roomswould appear to retain a VSC of 27% or more, and that the Council should, therefore,be reassured that if planning consent is granted for this proposal it will not materiallyreduce the daylight and sunlight levels to the adjoining residential flats. Consideringthat the current scheme is not as large as the previous one, it is considered that theabove findings are relevant and that the proposal would not materially reduce thedaylight and sunlight levels to the adjoining residential flats.

As regards V17, the proposed stand would not be considerably taller than theexisting stand, and would blend with the heights of the existing Pavilion and KenBarrington Centre/Bedser Stand at this end of the Ground. The site also lies withinthe Background Consultation Area (BCA) of Parliament Hill to the Palace ofWestminster. Officers are of the opinion that this development would not adverselyaffect strategic and local views, given that the height of the building, if completed,would not be significantly tall. Officers are of the opinion that the proposed Standwould comply with V17 because of the non-substantial increase in height.

As regards ENV19, the report accompanying the application provided a section onenvironmental noise criteria. The Council's Regulatory Services Department wereconsulted on this documentation.

The Council's Regulatory Services Officer has raised no objections to the proposaland agreed in principle to the methodology of future noise surveys to be undertakenIt is the officer’s opinion that the environmental noise from the operation of fixed plantand machinery should not significantly increase the background noise level, however,surveys must be done to establish the existing background noise level and to setpredicted noise levels. The Officer has advised that the assessment of noise issuescould be treated as a reserved matter and dealt with by condition.

The Officer considered the possible impact of noise from the restaurants and thekitchens, and stated that these do not overlook the residential properties and are wellscreened on that elevation by the provision of lobbied areas/corridors. The Officerstated further that it is not anticipated that there would be any impact fromentertainment noise to the residents as a result of this development.

Double glazing to all of the flats nearby has been requested by a local resident. Asthere is no significant perceived threat of noise disturbance as outlined above, it isnot considered that it is reasonable to require the Club to install double-glazing inadjacent residential properties. In a draft S106 agreement as part of the previouswithdrawn scheme, double glazing for adjacent flats was included. This was directlyrelated to disruption that would have been caused by the proposed hospitality standat the Vauxhall end, which consisted of a permanent platform with 18 boxes on iterected and dismantled several times a year. However, the proposed re-development of the Ground would see the removal of all of the temporary structuresat that end, and the draft S106 agreement seeks the removal of these once the newLock Laker Stand is completed if planning permission is granted.

With regard to the concern about the increase in traffic noise and other sounds'bouncing off' the new high structures, the Officer states that this is not likely to be aproblem. In practice the traffic noise at present includes a degree of sound pressurereflection from the existing structure and perimeter walls. Any reflections from thenew higher structure will be reduced by a longer distance over a longer sound pathfrom the traffic to the windows of the adjacent flats, and some absorption by thebuilding.

23

The Officer has stated that the Council has the powers to control noise and dust(including that caused during construction} under the Control of Pollution Act 1974and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Regulatory Services enforces thislegislation. The developer should be encouraged to apply for a Prior Consent forNoisy Works under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. It is the Council'sstandard practise to restrict noisy work to the following periods: Monday to Fridays0800 to 1800hrs , 0800 to 1300hrs on Saturdays, and no noise is to be audible at thesite boundary outside these hours or on Sundays and Public Holidays.

Also, the Council’s Regulatory Services Officer has stated that the position of thekitchen extraction discharge would be considered to be in a reasonably practicalposition not to cause nuisance, and refuse arrangements are adequate. Most of thefood served in the banqueting/hospitality areas will have been pre-cooked by acatering company off-site, and delivered on the day of the event – the kitchens wouldeffectively be preparation areas. A condition has been added requiring details of thedischarge point on the roof.

There have been previous complaints about the use of generators by concessionsorganisations who use mobile units. The application proposes permanentconcessions buildings with mains supplies. However, in the event of mobile unitsbeing used in addition, the S106 agreement seeks to ensure that the use of incominggenerators is curtailed.

It is, therefore, considered that the proposal would not lead to increased noise levelsthat would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers, and thus it complieswith Policy ENV19.

As regards T17, the Club has submitted a Travel and Transport Report as part of theapplication which was submitted to Transport for London (TfL) and the Council’sTransport Officer. No concern has been expressed by either TfL or the TransportOfficer over the ability of the local public transport system to cope with the overallincrease in capacity of the Ground of approx. 4000 related to both current proposals,either at train and underground stations or the bus network. Neither raise objectionsto the proposals for the Ground as a whole, subject to a series of measures whichmust be addressed as part of the development to combat concerns over travel to andfrom the Ground.

There is no off-street parking provision for spectators to events at the site. Mainroads in the area are controlled by waiting restrictions and other surrounding streetsare subject to control by a weekday parking control scheme using meters. Atweekends, the parking meters do not operate but spaces are strictly limited toresidents’ use at peak times. Thus, information and education encouraging the useof public transport is needed. Evidence at present shows that during the highattendance cricket matches at the Ground (normally Test Matches and One-DayInternationals) the majority of spectators use The Oval tube station rather thanVauxhall Train Station, and that bottlenecks occur between the Ground and the tubestation. Also, a large amount of spectators circulate around the outside of theGround trying to find their allocated entrance gate, and because of crowdedpavements step on to the highway, endangered their own safety and that of vehicleusers. Thus, measures have been required by the Council to address theseproblems and which should be incorporated within a S106 agreement to include;

� Measures to encourage spectators to use public transport, in particular statingthat there are no parking facilities available in the vicinity of the Ground

24

� Measures to encourage spectators to use Vauxhall station ratherthan The Oval tube to reduce pedestrian congestion between theGround and the tube station (such as adverts on tickets and thereplay screen, announcements on PA.) etc.

� Measures to improve circulation within the Ground� Identifying appropriate sites to secure coach parking� The installation of cycle parking facilities� Marshalling of pedestrians during high attendance games� Construction and demolition details� Enforcing of bus route and parking restrictions.

The Club has accepted that the movements of people to and from, as well as withinthe Ground, are issues that must be addressed. A new ticket system will be inoperation which will allow spectators to enter by the Pavilion and Vauxhall endsregardless of where their seat is and find their seat by circulating internally. This shiftin movement within the Ground should reduce confusion and have a substantialimpact on conditions outside the Ground on match days by reducing the amount ofpeople using the footway.

The Club is prepared to provide up to 100 cycle stands within the Ground to cater forspectators or employers through the S106 agreement, therefore complying with theCouncil’s encouragement of sustainable forms of transport within the Borough. Thisis considered an appropriate number, the Council’s Transport Officer considers thatany more would be over-provision and would not be used.

The Club has undertaken a complete survey of internal and external use of signageadvertising the Cricket Ground facility and its location. It is liaising with the VauxhallEmployers Group, as this issue is fundamental to the regeneration of the area. Aclause has been included on the draft S106 agreement requiring on-goingconsultation with the Group to lead to signage being installed from Vauxhall Stationto the Ground.

Servicing and delivery will be as existing through the main gates at either end of theGround.

The Ground is well served by public transport, both from the Underground andoverland train services, and by a number of bus routes that operate very close to it,and it is not considered that the increase in attendance through the Lock Lakerproposal alone, and combined with the Vauxhall end proposal, would createsignificant problems of travel to and from the Ground and circulation around it onbusy days, subject to the measures that would be included as part of the S106agreement.

Given the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy T17.

5. OTHER MATTERS

The following section addresses additional material planning issues, and furtherpoints of objection and concern raised by local residents.

It is proposed that if planning permission is granted for both applications for re-development of the Ground, the development will be phased, the Lock Laker Standwould be constructed first followed by the Vauxhall end development. This is

25

because the Club can not afford to fund one large construction project, and incomefrom the Lock Laker development will help to fund the construction of the Vauxhallend. The Club have applied to retain the temporary hospitality boxes at the Vauxhallend for a further 5 years while the Lock Laker Stand is constructed, and have statedthat these will be removed soon after completion of the Lock Laker Stand. This willform part of the S106 agreement, as will a programme of construction work for the re-development of the Ground.

The Club, in conjunction with market research undertaken, carried out anassessment on the impact on regeneration resulting from the proposed newdevelopment in context of recent studies of the regeneration impact of NorthLambeth. From this the Club believes that the proposals for re-development of theGround would create a total of 43 jobs (36 direct jobs (full-time equivalent), 3.5indirect jobs in local suppliers and 3.5 induced jobs through spending). It was alsostated that the new development would support local retail suppliers in the food,beverage, office supplies and conference support services. If such employment isgenerated through the development, this is welcomed by the Council and would helpthe re-generation of the Vauxhall area.

A number of residents are concerned that the development of the Ground does notinclude benefits for the community. As a result of discussions between Officers andSCCC, the Club is pursuing the following initiatives for use by the local community:� Developing classrooms in the Ground for use on occasions by disadvantaged

youths and those who have difficulty in mainstream education.� As part of Lambeth's future sports strategy, the Club will explore how the

community might gain use of the ground for practice.� How the proposed museum might usefully contribute to cultural and educational

programmes in the area as a component of Lambeth's community educationprogramme.

The Club currently is involved in working with the Lambeth community, in particularproviding coaching for schools and cricket clubs, and allowing use of the playingfacilities at the Ground by schools and other community groups.

Residents are concerned that late night and early morning disturbance will be causedby the proposal. The Cricket Club has indicated that a 9.00am start for conferencesis expected, with a 7.30am start for preparation. The close of a conference day wouldbe around 5.00pm. Evening social events would be covered by the arrangements forprivate lettings. It is proposed that the spaces let for private events would closeduring most of the year on Monday to Thursday evening at 11 pm, with 11.30pmcompletion of departures. Sundays would be 10.30pm and 11 pm, whilst Fridays andSaturdays could be up to 12 midnight. The facility for extending these periods overthe Christmas and New Year period is also sought, subject to Licensing Control. TheClub obviously has a number of high attendance cricket matches in the summers,and already uses the Lock Laker Stand for functions during the cricket season and inthe off-season, all of which involve early starts in the morning and late night finishes.Also, the Surrey Tavern serves function events all year around, and this does notcome under the Club’s control. The Club has confirmed that the level of functions inthe off-season or distinct from cricket matches will not increase. Additionally, theClub has confirmed that morning starts on busy days such as Test Matches would be7.30am (apparently the time as existing) and that finishing times would be 12midnight(1am was proposed by the Club but through Officers’ advice this time was reducedby an hour). The Council does not feel that the development will lead to an increasein disturbance to the local residents compared to the existing activities of the Club.

26

Several neighbouring occupiers object to the proposal because it is considered that itwould have a detrimental impact on the outlook and view from those residents’ flats.However, although the Stand would be an average of approx. 5m higher (at theeaves at the rear) than the existing Stands, it is considered that there would besufficient separation distances between the new development and the adjacent flatsin Lockwood and Lohmann Houses. In some cases these distances would begreater than the existing situation. The minimum distance between the new Standand Lohmann House would be 24m compared to an existing distance of 17m. Theminimum distance to Lockwood House would be 27m compared to an existingdistance of 28.5m. The part of the new Stand next to the glazed office section wouldbe closer to Lockwood House at 38m compared to 45m. Given these separationdistances though it is not considered that there would be a sufficient alteration ofoutlook and view that would warrant a refusal of planning permission. The existingview is of a large spectator stand, as would the potential view, with a buildinggenerally higher but further away. The proposal, in effect would extend the existingLock/Laker stand by approx. 7m around Kennington Oval. However, this multi-storeysection would mainly be adjacent to Bowling Green Lane and not directly in front ofthe windows of adjacent flats, and it is not considered that a significant loss ofoutlook or view would occur.

Overlooking has been raised as a concern between the new Stand and adjacentflats. However, the openings and visibility towards Lockwood and Lohmann Housesare from circulation space at the rear of the Stand where it is not likely that users willstop to use the openings as a vantage point to overlook these adjacent properties.This, combined with the relatively large separation distances mentioned above,would mean that it is unlikely that a loss of amenity through overlooking would occur.The UDP does contain standards in respect of separation distances, but this relatesto the development of sites involving the creation of residential units, and their impacton existing residential buildings. As the proposal does not involve residentialdevelopment such standards have not been used. There are balconies proposedthat would wrap around the exposed flank of the new Stand. The Club have statedthat these balconies at this point would be used for maintenance purposes only, acondition has been added to ensure that this would be the case.

This proposal does not include installation of floodlighting. Any floodlighting requiredfor day/night games will be brought in temporarily for that occasion as happens atpresent. The floodlighting does not require planning permission as the structures aretemporary and in place for no more than 28 days in a year. Also, there are noproposed alterations to the existing public address system.

Local residents have stated that this area of Kennington suffers from a large amountof crime, and are concerned that the building would lead to higher instances in streetcrime. Apparently the area around Bowling Green Lane and Kennington Oval hasseen several such instances before. Residents are concerned that the new Standwould create a ‘Corridor of Crime’. However, the Council would state that it is not theClub’s responsibility to address crime in this area and the new Stand is not of a dis-similar scale to the existing. Nevertheless, the Council has put this concern to theClub who have agreed that, in an effort to address security concerns in some way,the existing CCTV cameras on this side of the site will be partly trained on thisapparently sensitive area. It is intended that this measure will be incorporated withinthe S106 agreement.

Local residents are concerned that the increase in spectator capacity would lead tomore traffic. The Council’s Transport Officer has advised that due to the existingparking restrictions in the area and the plentiful supply of public transport, the

27

proposals would not lead to an increase in traffic generation to the Ground on matchdays, and is satisfied through the Club’s statement that the level of non-cricketfunctions will not increase as a result of a proposal. On busy match days, traffic andpedestrians are marshalled by police and stewards and parking restrictions areenforced, and this would continue to be the case, and measures to ensure this havebeen included within the S106 agreement and also for the Club to pay for parkingattendants. The Council is attempting to ensure that there is designated parking forcoaches for busy cricket match days somewhere near the Ground through the S106agreement – coaches will not be allowed to park temporarily around the stadium.

One of the objectors has stated that ‘residents in the area strenuously object to thesuspension of residents parking rights on days when the Oval is in use for majorevents.’ Officers are not aware that parking rights are suspended. Main roads in thearea are controlled by waiting restrictions and other surrounding streets are subjectto control by a weekday parking control scheme using meters. At weekends, theparking meters do not operate but spaces are strictly limited to residents’ use at peaktimes. Thus, it is not considered that this objection can be substantiated.

Residents are concerned that the increase in attendance will increase the amount oflitter left around the Ground. It is the Council’s understanding that the Club isresponsible for cleaning up the Ground after large events at present and refuse onKennington Oval and surrounds is collected by the Council. As part of the proposedS106 agreement, measures for future collection of litter after major events will bediscussed to ensure that the area is effectively cleaned up. This may place moreresponsibility on the Club to collect litter around the Ground, although in the event itis considered that the outcome will mean that litter is effectively collected and takenaway from the site after high-attendance cricket matches. It is considered thatadequate measures will be put in place so that the development will not lead to a lossof amenity to local residents through uncollected litter through increased attendance.The Council's Streetscene Officer has indicated that the existing refusestorage/removal facilities from within the Ground are satisfactory in terms of theproposed works.

The Club has stated that the number of non-cricket events at the Ground (such asfunctions, trade seminars, etc.) will not increase as part of the proposal. One of thepurposes for the new Lock Laker Stand is to provide more function/hospitalitycapacity on high income-generating important cricket matches, such as Test Matchesand One-Day Internationals. The Club has confirmed that one or two AustralianRules Football games will continue to be played in the off-season, but that otherevents such as pop concerts would not be held. The Council is seeking through theS106 agreement to ensure that the number of major cricket matches, other sportsevents and other non-sporting events are restricted.

There has been concern from local residents regarding marshalling of crowds duringthe major events at the Ground. In addition to additional stewards to marshal crowdsbeing required by the S106 agreement, the provision of stewards and policeoperating around the site at such major events (Test Matches and One DayInternationals) is governed by a Stadium Safety Certificate. This Certificate has to beapplied for yearly and determines how many police and stewards the Club needs tohave present around the Ground at these major events. An increase in capacityshould lead to increased police and steward presence.

One of the comments received from the ‘Friends of The Oval Campaign’ receivedthrough consultation is that on 19th December 1996 Environmental ServicesCommittee voted in favour of the Campaign’s request that the wording of the draft

28

UDP be changed. In the third sentence of RL32 of the adopted UDP regarding TheOval, the policy states that ‘additional uses may also be viewed favourably if theyenhance the Ground as a sporting and leisure venue and do not seriously affect theamenities of surrounding residential accommodation’. At the draft stage at thatCommittee in 1996, it was resolved to change the wording to ‘…..and improve theamenities of surrounding residential accommodation.’ It is not clear why the revisedwording was not incorporated in the adopted UDP, Officers have tried to trace theprocess in an attempt to find out the reason but have been unsuccessful However,given the wording of Policy RL32 forms part of an adopted UDP, it is that wordingthat has been used in the assessment of this application, and it is not considered thatthe development will have a serious affect on the on the amenities of surroundingresidential accommodation

Many objectors have stated that the area is predominately residential and furtherdevelopment of the Ground would conflict with this main use. However, it isconsidered that the Ground is a landmark in its own right. It is a long-establishedpart of this area, and together with a number of non-residential uses, it is consideredthat the area has a mixed-use nature with the Oval being an important part of it. TheGround is an important feature of north Lambeth, and it’s will to improve its facilitiesand generate increased income to ensure this is considered viable as it is notconsidered that those improvements would be significantly detrimental to the amenityof local residents.

It has been mentioned that the Club should have submitted an Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) with the applications for re-development. However, currentlegislation does not require that an EIA is prepared for a site of this size. It isconsidered that adequate information has been submitted in the form of a Transportand Traffic Report, a Daylight/Sunlight Analysis, and additional information in thecovering reports to the applications (giving conferencing floorspace and employmentfigures,etc.), in order that the Council can make a full assessment on the proposals.In effect, an EIA has been submitted but in individual sections.

CONCLUSION

In terms of National, Regional and Unitary Development Plan Policies, the principleof improving and extending the facilities at the Oval is welcomed, accords withobjectives and complies with individual policies.

The re-development of the Ground will enable a number of processes.

The scheme, as part of the overall redevelopment proposals, will help to produce aworld-class cricket ground, an important feature and resource for the Borough,London and the region as a whole.

This proposal will enable the eventual removal of all temporary facilities at theVauxhall End of the Ground as part of its subsequent redevelopment.

Pedestrian links from the public transport stops will be improved. There will be betterpedestrian access to and around the Ground. The new ticketing facilities enable entryat point of choice, and pedestrian circulation will be within the Ground. Officersconsider that these measures will ease congestion inside, but more importantly,outside the Ground.

29

The conference, banqueting and similar services would be improved and increasedto help fund the overall improvements to the Ground, and it is not considered thatthese services would have significant detrimental impact on the amenities ofneighbouring occupiers.

The incorporation of a combined Museum, with classroom, and the use of theGround for cricket practice, will mean that the Club will be more fully integrated withinthe local community and further contribute to the regeneration of the area. TheMuseum may also include a Cricket Hall of Fame, which could act as a communityresource, whilst bringing tourists into the area.

The development will lead to the creation of new jobs which will help in theregeneration of the Vauxhall area.

The Ground is a landmark in its own right. The proposed new Stand has beendesigned to provide a form, massing and scale, which will not materially impact onthe amenities of surrounding residential accommodation. It is not considered that theincreased intensity of use of this part of the Ground would be detrimental to theamenity of local residents.

The proposals comply with the objectives of guiding development at the Groundidentified by Environmental Services Committee in 1996.

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECTTO CONDITIONS AND A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT TO SECURE THEFOLLOWING:

1. An undertaking to remove the existing 'temporary' hospitality units at the VauxhallEnd, and not to continue with the occasional units, at a specified time aftercompletion of the Lock and Laker development.

2. An undertaking to address the provision of coach parking.

3. An undertaking to address the issues of visitor management and parkingenforcement, and meeting the costs of additional parking attendants forinternational fixtures.

4. An undertaking to encourage the use of public transport- better information,signage and the possibility of discounts for those using public transport to andfrom the ground.

5. Management of ticketing and turnstiles.

6. Management of the conference/entertainment suites, and hours of operation.

7. Noise control measures- limiting/stopping the use of outside generators and orimposing proper noise restrictions on their use.

30

8. Litter collection.

9. Monitoring of Kennington Oval/Bowling Green Lane from the Ground’s existingCCTV cameras.

10. Development and increase in community initiatives.

11. Phasing of construction in relation to the whole re-development of the Ground.

12 Continued liasion with Vauxhall Employers’ Group with regard to signage linkingVauxhall to the Ground

13. Restriction of the number of major events that can be held at the Ground.

31

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 Full details, including samples of external finishes shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commencedand the development shall be completed in accordance with the details therebyapproved. (Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) issatisfactory.)

2 Detailed plans and elevations at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100 of theconcessions, WC's and stores buildings to be placed on the concourse, includingdetails of materials to be used, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the localplanning authority before the development is begun (Reason - In order that the localplanning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal)

3 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strictaccordance with the plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of theLocal Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of thepremises is satisfactory.)

4 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract fromthe appearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

5 The balconies on the flank elevation of the multi-level spectator Stand shallbe used for maintenance purposes only and shall not be used by spectators,customers using the function/hospitality/banqueting floorspace, or other members ofthe general public (Reason - To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residentialproperties).

6 The applicant shall undertake an environmental noise survey as outlined inthe report accompanying the application and submit the results to the local planningauthority (Reason - To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residentialproperties).

7 The applicant shall submit to the local authority a detailed report predictingthe expected environmental noise from fixed plant or equipment including proposednoise mitigation measures to be agreed by the local authority before the workcommences(Reason - To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residentialproperties).

8 The total noise levels from all equipment and plant shall not exceed thetypical background noise level measured as a La 90 at the site boundary at any timeof the day. Adequate measures will be taken to ensure that there are no tonalcharacteristics in the resulting noise (Reason - To safeguard the amenities ofneighbouring residential properties).

9 Before any plant/machinery is used on the premises it shall be enclosedwith sound insulating material and mounted in a way which will minimisetransmission of structure borne sound, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed bythe Local Planning Authority, and be retained for the duration of its use. (Reason:To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.)

10 There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audibleoutside the building hereby approved (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of

32

adjoining building hereby approved and the area generally.)

11 Full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority before the use commences: (a) soundproofing of the premises;(Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the detailsof the proposal(s).)

12 All fumes from the cooking processes shall be extracted via the flue hereinapproved which shall be erected before the use commences and thereafter retained,and satisfactorily maintained, for the duration of the use. (Reason: To ensure thatno nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoiningoccupiers or of the area generally.)

13 A lorry management statement detailing the frequency of deliveries, themovement of vehicles on the site and on Kennington Oval, and lorry routes throughthe demolition and construction phase of the development hereby permitted shall besubmitted to and approved by the local planning authority and Transport for London(TfL) before the development is begun (Reason - In order that the Council and TfLare satisfied that a scheme of management of construction vehicles is in place)

14 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured theimplementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a writtenscheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved bythe Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordancewith the detailed scheme approved pursuant to this condition. The archaeologicalworks shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to theLocal Planning Authority. (Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigationbefore any archaeological remains are disturbed by the approved development.)

Notes to Applicant

1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may berequired under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

3. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Divisionconcerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food,Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-lawsor regulations made thereunder.

4. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of theControl of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in thisrespect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental HealthDivision.

5. Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick andDisabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for theDisabled to Buildings (B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means ofaccess, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of personsvisiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled.

6. In determining this application Policies RL32, CD2, CD15, ST3, V17 andENV19 of the Lambeth Unitary development plan were relevant to thedecision.

33

Location Surrey County Cricket Club Kennington Oval London SE11 5SS

Ward OVALProposal

The demolition at the Vauxhall end of the remaining stands and the erection of a newseating stand incorporating a concourse and hospitality level providing ancillaryfacilities for ground management,spectator toilet and refreshment facilities, and corporate hospitality, with an externalmedia area and operational parking.

Application No 01/02121/FUL/ARH/17496

Applicant Surrey County Cricket Club

Agent Peter Pendleton & Assocaites Ltd194 New Kings RoadLondonSW6 4NF

Date Valid 15 October 2001

Considerations

UDP ViewParliament Hill to Palace of Westminster

Plans01.2230.00/1Rev.B 01.1710.00/02RevB /03RevRevC, /04Rev.C/05RevRev.C, /06Rev.C, /07Rev.D, /08Rev.D, /09Rev.C, /10Rev.C,/11Rev.A, Aerialpersepective received 11.1.01 existing and proposedphotographsperspectives received15.10.01

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT

34

Officer Report

01/02121/FUL

SummaryRe-development of the Oval Cricket Ground by Surrey County Cricket Club (SCCC)

On 11th December 2001 Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planningpermission for the following applications subject to the completion of a S106agreement:

01/02120/FUL (demolition and re-building of the Lock Laker Stand)01/02121/FUL (demolition and re-building of the Vauxhall end stands)01/02310/FUL (retention of Vauxhall Chalet Complex for a further 5 years),01/02311/FUL (retention of hospitality boxes and steel supporting structure behindthe Gover Stand for a further 5 years).

(Please see appendices for full planning reports for PAC on 11.12.01 for each ofthese applications).

It is necessary to report back to PAC as some of the aspects of the proposals havechanged. These aspects are as follows.

4. The Friends of the Oval asked for the provision of automated traffic barriers toprevent illegal parking, especially on busy match days, for the adjacentKennington Park Estate, to be included in the S106. The Club had offered toprovide funding for 4 such barriers. However, this would be in place of 4additional parking attendants, originally negotiated into the proposals by Officers.The Council's Housing section, responsible for parking enforcement in the Estate,has stated the use of automated traffic barriers would be more effective thanadditional parking attendants on busy match days. Therefore, it is recommendedto Members that the offer for the funding of the barriers is accepted, and theagreed provision of parking attendants is omitted from any legal agreement.

5. For the two major applications at the Lock/Laker end, and Vauxhall end, of theGround, a further condition was recommended by Officers to be included for eachof these applications, namely;

"the sale of retail goods and hot and cold food and drinks outside of thehospitality/function/banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be carried out only inthe permanent concessions buildings identified on the plans approved."

The Club contest this condition, and have stated that a restriction on the number ofconcessions that can be provided would be prejudicial to the Club's income. Officersbelieved that the purpose of the permanent concessions buildings identified on thedrawings submitted on the concourses under the stands was to:

(c) provide more suitable structures to house concessions (such as hot foodproviders), linked to a permanent electricity supply rather than generators

(d) allow freer movement of spectators around the Ground rather than manoeuvringaround mobile concession units.

The Club has stated that the amount of concession space as existing as compared tothe proposed would remain approximately the same. With the expansion in capacity

35

(approx 4000), the Club would need to provide additional concession space toaccommodate the increase in demand.

The issue has been put to the Friends of the Oval, who have stated that they do notobject to concessions which do not require heating/cooking/cooling facilities, butunequivocally object to concessions which create noise and other pollution.

Officers understand the Club's requirements in this regard, and the concerns of localresidents. Therefore, it is recommended that the condition be amended to;

"Any concession unit requiring machinery/equipment/plant for the purposes ofcooking/heating or refrigeration of food and drink shall be housed in the permanentconcessions buildings indicated on the approved drawings, and connected to apermanent power supply, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planningauthority." (Reason: To protect the amenities of the local residents).

In this way, hot and cold food and drink concessions would be restricted to thepermanent concessions buildings and linked to a permanent power supply ratherthan using generators, and any mobile units would not require generators as powerwould not be required (these would probably be for the sale of retail goods).

The Friends of the Oval object to the last section of that condition, 'unless otherwiseagreed in writing by the local planning authority, because this would allow the Club tochallenge this condition.

6. The minutes of PAC of 11.12.01 are incorrect. Minute 3 (h) refers to a conditionrestricting the use of the hospitality/banqueting/function facilities in the proposedLock Laker stand to sporting events only. This condition was proposed only forthe Vauxhall end. These minutes need to be amended.

The planning reports and the draft decision notices for all of these applications havebeen updated following PAC on 11.12.01. (in compliance with the minutes of themeeting). The main aspects requiring updating were;

� Appn. 01/02311/FUL (temporary hospitality boxes and supporting steel structure),condition 4 which required full details of the erection and removal of thehospitality boxes and base structure to be submitted to the Council 3 monthsprior to commencement of the works has been deleted. Condition 5 has beenamended to state 'the base structure of the hospitality units must be erected for aperiod of no more than 10 weeks in any one year, until the end of 2006.'

� Appn 01/02120/FUL (Lock/Laker Stand), condition added to restrict mobileconcession units, to be amended as above if agreed. Minor corrections wererequired to the wording of conditions, and an informative required stating theUDP polices used to assess the application, these have been implemented.

� Appn. 01/02121/FUL (Vauxhall end), a condition was required restrictingfunctions at the Vauxhall end to sporting events only. The following condition hasbeen added;

'The hospitality/function/banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be used inconjunction with sporting events only and shall not be used forhospitality/function/banqueting purposes independently, or in conjunction with, anyother event held at the Ground.(Reason - In order to protect the amenities of local residents)'.

36

Minor corrections were required to the wording of conditions, these have beenimplemented.

All four reports are, therefore, being presented to Committee to gain approval to thechanges detailed above.

SITE – SURREY COUNTY CRICKET CLUB, THE OVAL

APPLICATION NO. 01/02121/FUL – Development at the Vauxhall End.

For ‘Site Description’ and ‘Planning History’ see the report for the current planningapplication for redevelopment of the Lock Laker Stand, application no.00/02120/FUL, which is included elsewhere in this agenda.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application relates to the Vauxhall end of the The Oval. For the purposes of thisapplication this relates to the arc of existing stands and buildings around the Groundfrom the Bedser Stand/Ken Barrington Centre next to the Pavilion around to thePeter May Enclosure opposite Clayton Street and adjacent to the existing Lock LakerStand, also next to the Pavilion. This arc incorporates uncovered seating stands, theSurridge Enclosure, the Gover Stand, the Jardine Stand and the Peter MayEnclosure, and the Fender Stand which is a covered stand opposite and on the otherside of the pitch from the Pavilion. The Jardine and Gover Stands have existingmulti-storey hospitality/function boxes behind them which are temporary and easilyconstructed/dismantled.

The proposal is to demolish all of these stands and buildings and to create one Standfollowing the curve of the Ground from the Bedser Stand to the Peter May Enclosure.This Stand would be at its lowest at these end points and, incorporating 24 sections,would rise up in height to a pinnacle at the end of the Ground opposite the Pavilionadjacent to Grace House, Oval Way and St.Mark’s Primary School. It wouldeffectively have a ‘horseshoe’ shape.

The Stand would vary between either one or two tiers. The higher parts, between theexisting police control box (behind the Surridge Enclosure at its junction with theGover Stand) opposite to the terrace of houses adjacent to the junction ofKennington Oval (south) and Harleyford Road, and the Jardine Stand and VauxhallChalet Complex (opposite Grace House and Vauxhall Street), would have two tiers.Between these tiers would be hospitality/corporate boxes, and underneath would beconcessions for refreshments, and other facilities such as WCs. The rest of theStand would be single tier.

On average the new Stand will be higher than the existing assortment of stands andbuildings, however, the new Stand would be moved further away from the siteboundary and towards the pitch, in some case a considerable distance. The playingsurface of The Oval is very large, and there is much capacity to move seatingtowards the wicket at the centre of the pitch.

The highest parts of the Stand will be around the existing Fender Stand, Gover Standand Vauxhall Chalet Complex (temporary hospitality/function boxes on several

37

levels). The temporary hospitality boxes mounted on a steel framework during thesummer months are the highest part of this end of the Ground at 16m. However, theChalet Complex is the highest year-round structure at 14.6m. The Fender Stand is8.6m high. The maximum height of the proposed Stand would be 13.2m at thesepoints. However, spectator seating at this point would be moved considerably furtheraway from the boundary, and thus adjacent buildings. At the point of the Complex,the seating would be moved approx. 13m towards the pitch, creating a separationdistance of 37m to Grace House compared to 23.75m as existing. This ability tomove seating opposite the Pavilion towards the pitch is effected by the ‘oval’ shapeof the Ground – there is more playing space to encroach on at the ends of that oval.This means that there is less ability to move the seating further towards the pitch atthe narrower sides of that oval shape.

Therefore, in some cases the single tier sections would not be considerably furtherforward than the existing seating although in many cases there would be a significantmove towards the pitch. In general, there would be an increase in heights betweenexisting and proposed seating tiers at these points. For example, the lower sectionsof the Stand opposite Stoddart House on Kennington Oval (south) would be 4.5mhigh compared to 4.2m high as existing. However, this section would be 3.5m furtheraway from Stoddart House which is currently 28m away. A section of the Standopposite Shrewsbury House on the same road would be 8.4m high compared to4.2m as existing. However, that section would be 43m away from ShrewsburyHouse compared to 28.75m as existing, an increase in distance of 14.25m. Asection opposite 14/15 Kennington Oval (north) would be 5m high compared to 4.6mas existing, and would be 18.5m away from those residential buildings compared to17m as existing.

TiersAs the Stand slopes up away from the pitch to allow the angle of viewing for thespectators, a void area develops below the Stand. This concourse would be used forthe location of a number of concession boxes selling refreshments and other goods,WCs, first aid facilities and for the groundsman’s stores. The concourse would alsobe for access to staircases to take spectators to the lower tier. At the outer edge ofthe Stand would be staircases taking spectators to a walkway feeding furtherstaircases to the upper tier, and also a level below that to the hospitality/corporateboxes that are sandwiched between the two tiers.

The outer edge of the Stand at Level One incorporates the staircases, and a storageroom, a kitchen, and WC’s. The walkway provides access to the hospitality boxesand main banqueting room.

Hospitality FacilitiesThere would be 17 hospitality boxes providing 580sq.m of floorspace, and thebanqueting room would have an area of 357sq.m. The space of both can be re-arranged and sub-divided or can incorporate larger and fewer units through the useof moveable partitions. The hospitality areas are designed to meet the requirementsassociated with viewing cricket and as spaces which can be re-formed to meet spacedemands. This would mean that with the Vauxhall End 937sq.m of space could bere-arranged to suit clients using the facilities.

38

The following table shows the amount of hospitality/function proposed compared toexisting. This shows that the overall amount of hospitality/function space woulddecrease by 263sq.m

FloorFunction Space (sq.m)

Hospitality (sq.m)

ExistingVauxhall

ProposedVauxhall

ExistingVauxhall

ProposedVauxhall

Ground0 0 0 0

First0 357 390 580

Second0 0 390 0

Third0 0 210 0

Fourth0 0 210 0

Totals0 357 1200 580

Change+357 -620

The hospitality floorspace at this end of the Ground will only be used in relation tocricket matches. In the off-season, functions would be restricted to the new LockLaker Stand.

CapacityThe current capacity of the Vauxhall end stands is around 10,500. The proposalwould increase the capacity here to 13,500. In connection with the current proposalfor the re-development of the Lock Laker Stand (and part of the Peter May Stand) thecapacity of the Ground will increase from 19,114 to 23,000, an overall increase ofapprox. 4000.

DesignAs a result of the shape of the existing playing area and the nature of the stands,much of the viewing accommodation is not focused on the centre of the playing area,and there is little scope for providing catering and toilets below the seating tier. Theoverall aim of the Stand is to focus the viewing accommodation on the centre of theTest wicket, utilise the grassed area outside the Test boundary for increasedspectator accommodation and bringing spectators closer to the pitch, and maintainthe dominance of the Pavilion. The design of the seating accommodation is basedupon a circular geometry radiating from the centre of the Test wicket. The first rowsof seats are set as close to the Test match boundary as possible as is commensuratewith security and safety measures. The front 20 rows of seats are set out withminimal intrusion by the requisite 1.2m gangways. The riser height and the 800mmtread in the seating tiers are set out to provide comfort with a standard higher thanthe standards for cricket-watching stadia (above a maximum of C90 meaning that the

39

eye level of a spectator is 90mm higher than eye level of a spectator sitting directlybelow and in front).

The exterior shape of the seating bowl would be set back to respond to the reducedwidth of the site available along the sides of the Ground. The perimeter edge of theseating would be formed from a special shaped pre-cast concrete combined seat-edge unit in textured white aggregate finish. The top and rear of the Stands areenclosed by concave windshields made of sloping opaque glass designed to preventdirect views out of the Ground into neighbouring residential properties, and alsoreflect the sound of the crowd back into the Ground to restrict noise impact. Thesewindshields would rise up 1.2m higher than backs of the top-most seats – this ineffect makes the heights of all the sections of Stand mentioned above artificially highby 1.2m, the windshields would be translucent and, therefore, the increase in heightwould be less dramatic.

The Stand would be a light modern structure. The 'lightness' of the building isachieved by the use of off-white snap faced blockwork, white bi-directional claddingpanels, and white-painted exposed steel supporting structures at the rear of theStand, which apparently reflect the nearby gasometer. On the two tier sectionsfacing Grace House and St.Mark’s School there would be glazing to the kitchens,WCs and stores. The walkway between the two tiers would be external from theseating and would be visible from the public realm.

Permanent concessions/stores/WC buildings would be constructed under the two-tiersection on the concourse area. These would be solid flat-roofed buildings (materialsnot specified at present) with roller shutters.

This application runs in tandem with the current application for the re-development ofthe Lock Laker. If permission is granted for both, the Lock Laker would be built firstand once completed work would begin on the Vauxhall end – the Club can not affordto run one large construction project at the same time and the income generated bythe Lock Laker development would help to fund the construction of this new Stand.

The Club proposes that the area between the Stand and the western boundary of thesite would be lanscaped with areas of grass and tree-planting.

CONSULTATIONS

For a list of all consultees, see the report for the current planning application forredevelopment of the Lock Laker Stand, application no. 00/02120/FUL, which isincluded elsewhere in this agenda.

At the time of writing 11 responses have been received, 2 in support and theremainder objecting, including letters from the 'Friends of The Oval' and from the'Kennington Park Estate Residents' Association, on the grounds that;

1. The proposal would lead to greater vehicular and pedestrian traffic causingdisturbance and congestion.

2. Concerns are raised about the absence of transport facilities to support theproposal. Theadditional capacity will need more buses, tubes and car parking facilities.

40

3. If the proposal were to go ahead residents’ light and view would be severelycurtailed. The development is too large for this densely packed residential area.

4. Concern has been raised about the potential increase in noise levels from the newhospitality facilities, both during the day and evening. Why does the cricket clubneed to increase the amount of function/restaurant space - it already has a largeamount of floorspace for this purpose? Why can't the existing Surrey Tavern beleased to the Cricket Club, this would mean that further function space wouldn't beneeded.

5. Concerns are raised about the bright light generated by the floodlights duringday/night games.

6. Construction and demolition works etc. would cause further disruption to residents,in particular, it would create many dangers to young children in the neighbourhood.

7. The amount of beer glasses and bottles and general litter left in the surroundingareas would increase.

8. The Oval is only full for a few days per year, such as for Test Matches and forOne-Day Internationals. Concern has been raised that with the increase in groundcapacity through re-development, Surrey CCC will now find other events like popconcerts attractive to stage. Pop concerts will lead to problems of drinking, drugabuse and graffiti.

9. Residents in the area strenuously object to the suspension of residents parkingrights on days when the Oval is in use for major events.

10. The architectural design of the Stand is poor and does not reflect existingbuildings in the area.

11. It seems unnecessary to allow the Cricket Club to increase the building size atthe Oval since the site is completely under-utilised at present with capacityattendances numbering 5-10 a year, leaving approximately 355 days a year when itis under-utilised. Surely maximising the use of the existing site would be of greaterbenefit to all rather than increasing the building size.

12. Agreement was obtained under a draft Section 106 Agreement for double-glazingof properties near the ground on the previous planning application in 1998. If thedevelopment goes ahead, double-glazing would be needed this time as well.

13. It is noted that the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) regarding the OvalCricket Ground is consistently misquoted in Council literature and in Surrey CCC'splanning applications. At the Environmental Services Committee meeting on 19thDecember 1996 the wording was changed by a vote of 6 to 2. The new wordingrequired that any developments to the Oval "will improve the amenities ofsurrounding residential accommodation".

14. The neighbouring occupiers have been subject to a protracted process ofplanning applications made and withdrawn, which would affect the level of objectionto the current applications.

Some objectors have stated that they have no objection in principle to the re-development of the Ground and understand the need for the Club to generatefinance, if this re-development is of a much smaller scale.

41

English Heritage do not object to the proposal in design terms and have the followingcomments to make;

“I do not consider that the proposed new stands will have an adverse impact uponthe setting of the listed school building (St.Mark’s Primary School) on the corner ofHarleyford Road and Kennington Oval - there is sufficient distance between the twoin my view. My only slight concern is the loss of the view of the pavilion (which,along with the rest of the ground, is outside the Vauxhall Conservation Area) that onecurrently enjoys as one approaches the ground along Harleyford Road. This is animportant visual stop to the view along the main thoroughfare in the ConservationArea although I accept that the glazed elements within the tiers of the stand mayallow sufficient visual permeability through the new structure to at least get a senseof what architecturally is on offer beyond. This could be taken up with the applicant,but on balance I'm not going to object to what is proposed, especially as it will gosome way to 'tidying up' this end of the ground."

The Archaeology section have indicated that although the site does not lie in an areadesignated as an Archaeological Priority Area, the site lies close to the junction oftwo major Roman roads. In addition, there is a possibility that the remains of CivilWar defences are present on the site. There is therefore the potential for significantarchaeological remains to survive on the site. Clarification of the potential impact ofthe proposed scheme upon the archaeological resource is required. This may bebest provided by an archaeological desk-based assessment. A condition has beenrequested to achieve this.

Transport for London (TfL) have been involved in the on-going proposals fordevelopment at the Ground. Because of their involvement through the process, theirinitial comments on the previous applications from 2000 are relevant and so to arecomments received on the Club's 'Supplementary Review of the Traffic andTransport Effects of the Redevelopment of the Oval Cricket Club' received with thecurrent applications. The initial comments were:

'London Bus Service and London Underground have no objection to the proposal. Itwould have no effect on London Buses infrastructure. The development does notsignificantly increase the current capacity of the ground, and the alternative usesproposed would have little effect on Peak demand. The hours of opening for theproposed Cricket Heritage Museum is welcomed in terms of managing demand atpeak periods. The proposed conferencing facilities will not result in material trafficimpact, given there is no additional off-street car parking proposed. StreetManagement (TfL.) is concerned about obstruction on the highway caused byservicing and coaches setting down. It is therefore important that all waiting andloading restrictions are enforced. In the long term TfL would like to establish buspriority in both directions on Kennington Oval and would like to explore this with theCouncil with a view to achieving this in the near future.

The promotion of access by public transport and initiatives to link ticket sales totravelcards is welcomed and London Underground Ltd would like to take this forward.This should be explored with TfL as soon as possible. The new turnstilearrangements are welcomed and improvements to pedestrian facilities between theground and bus stop/rail and underground station, which will further promote non-caruse. These measures should be made conditional of any planning permissiongranted.'

Further comments made to the current applications are;

42

'Based on the additional information provided, TfL has no new objections to theproposals. However, we would like to make the following additionalrecommendations;

� The developer should undertake physical improvements to the public realm andpedestrian links about the site, in conjunction with increases in marshalling atmajor events

� On-street trading regulations and on-street waiting restrictions need to berigorously enforced in the vicinity of the site

� There needs to be an increase in the number of cycle parking spaces (50proposed)

� TfL (Street Management) should be supplied with details of the plans forconstruction and demolition associated with the proposals.'

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

7. NATIONAL POLICYPlanning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13 -"Transport" places importance on theintegration of transport and land use planning. Local authorities are advised toensure that major new attractions are readily accessible by a range of means oftransport. Whilst this is not a proposal for a new attraction, due to its proposedincrease in capacity it is considered that PPG13 should be taken into account.

Kennington Oval is considered to be accessible by a range of means of transport. Itis served by British Rail (South West Trains services are available to the Surrey area,and to Waterloo Station) and London Underground Stations (the Vauxhall Station isabout 350 metres to the north west of the Ground, and the Oval Station is locatedless than 100 metres to the south east of the cricket ground), together with numerousbus routes provided by London Bus Services. Neither of the above-namedorganisations raised any objections towards the re-development, having beeninvolved with previous proposals for re-development of the Ground in the same wayas TfL. No capacity difficulties are envisaged.

PPG 15 - "Planning and the Historic Environment" say the desirability ofpreserving or enhancing conservation areas is a material consideration indevelopment proposals which are outside the conservation area but would affect itssetting. The site lies outside a conservation area.

English Heritage have no objection to the proposal in design terms and a conditionwill be added to any planning permission requiring an archaeological survey to becarried out before any development begins.

PPG17 -"Sport and Recreation" promotes sporting excellence and encouragesparticipation in sports (either as players or spectators). It links sports with recreationand tourism and encourages the development of facilities that benefit both visitorsand residents.

The Club proposes to provide facilities including a cricket heritage museum andeducational centre and are considering other uses that could benefit both visitors andresidents. It is considered that the maintenance and redevelopment of the Oval as aworld class venue, together with the provision of the additional facilities, accords withPPG 17.

43

PPG 24 -"Planning and Noise" gives advice on how the planning system can beused to minimise the adverse impact of noise.

The Council’s Regulatory Services (Noise and Pollution) section raise no objectionstowards the proposal. A number of conditions relating to noise control arerecommended. A summary of their comments are included later in the report.

2. REGIONAL POLICY'Initial Proposals for the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy - Towards the LondonPlan' (May 2001) by the Greater London Authority (GLA) makes reference to theimportance of sport and recreation in London. In particular, it states that 'London isan important location for international, national and local sports activities. However,some existing international facilities are inadequate to meet modern requirements.To reflect its world city role, London should be able to host a range of world classsporting events.'

This guidance has been taken into account in the assessment of the proposal.

3. PREVIOUS COUNCIL DECISIONSOn the 21st of November 1995 the Environmental Services Committee agreed areport entitled "Further development of the Oval Cricket Ground: PlanningPrinciples". The report outlined the latest position on the proposals at that time forfurther improvements to the ground, and approved planning principles as follows:

(ii) Improving the operation of the Fosters Oval as a major sporting venue.Whilst increasing the intensity of the use of the Ground, development

should make use of the opportunity to enable a moreefficient operation of the Ground and should ensure that theimpact of events and activities at the Ground on thesurrounding residential area, in terms of traffic, congestionof the pavements, noise, disturbance and litter, is reducedas far as possible.

(ii) Ground capacity in relation to site developmentProposals for increased capacity will need to demonstrate that a satisfactory form ofdevelopment can be achieved in terms of the form, massing, scale and structure ofthe resulting development, in particular the affect in neighbouring residential streets.

(iii) TransportThe relationship of increased capacity at the Ground to the capacity of publictransport infrastructure needs to be clearly shown. More emphasis is to be placed onpublic transport. The development will need to ensure satisfactory access andservicing.

(iv) General Environmental ImpactAny proposal to extend the stands/seating should pay careful regard to theresidential accommodation in close proximity. In particular, amenities such asdaylight, sunlight, privacy, visual outlook, noise, including noise from public addresssystems and the effect of any artificial lighting shall be safeguarded.

(v) Community BenefitsProposals for improvements at the Oval should lead to further integration of thismajor sport venue within the local community and Lambeth as a whole.

44

(vi) DesignA high quality architectural treatment will be a prerequisite for any further majorimprovements at the Oval. New structures should be of a "landmark" nature andworld class in quality showing a detailed attention to resolving the many issuesinvolved. The development should seek to maximise the open appearance of theGround and its relationship to the surrounding area to achieve a permeable feel andappearance.

(vii) Conservation IssuesThe development will need to take into consideration the adjoining conservationareas/listed buildings/strategic views etc.

The Council has taken such guidance into consideration in the assessment of theapplication.

In March 1998 the Environmental Services Committee agreed the Colin Buchanan &Partners Waterloo and Vauxhall Car & Coach Parking Strategy Phase III report –Revised Strategy. This Strategy was formulated in partnership with Lambeth Counciland included around 70 consultation bodies. It is concerned with regeneration of theVauxhall and Waterloo areas, and directed at the need to ensure that car and coachparking is controlled as part of that regeneration. It states that ‘successful re-generation of the area is likely to lead to a substantial increase in the demand for carand coach parking, and in the absence of any strategy to encourage access by publictransport and restrict visitor parking, this growth could actually negate some of thebeneficial effects of regeneration’.

The Strategy, therefore, aims to provide adequate parking for local businesses,residents and tourist coaches whilst protecting the area from the unwelcomeconsequences of inessential traffic. The effect of this Strategy on the Oval is that it isproposed that the area of Vauxhall bounded by Kennington Park Road, KenningtonLane, Fentiman Road and Lambeth Road would become one of several coach banareas were coaches would be restricted, both in terms of movement and parking.The Strategy suggests that a 20 minute drop-off bay should be included onKennington Oval.

However, Transport for London (TfL) have objections to this as the drop-off bay mayaffect the operation of bus lanes on Kennington Oval (south), and are concerned thata bay on Kennington Oval (north) would affect traffic and bus flow on occasions whentraffic is diverted along here when the flow on the south side is disrupted for anyreason. Therefore, the inclusion of a drop-off bay has not been pursued, and theCouncil is seeking through a S106 agreement for the Club to identify suitable coachparking and dropping-off/picking-up points outside of the Strategy areas.

4. UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Policy RL32 -'Oval Cricket Ground' -states that "the Oval Cricket Ground has thepotential to provide for additional sport and leisure facilities. The Council willencourage the expansion and widening of the sport and leisure facilities. Additionaluses may also be viewed favourably if they enhance the ground as a sporting andleisure venue and do not seriously affect the amenities of surrounding residentialaccommodation.’

Policy CD2 -'Proposals for Development' states that in considering developmentproposals, whether they are for a new building, an extension or alteration to anexisting building or a change of use, the Council will ensure that the character or

45

appearance of a conservation area is preserved or enhanced. This applies to land,buildings and trees within a conservation area as well as proposals outside, that theCouncil considers would affect the character or appearance of the area itself.

Policy CD13 – ‘Setting of Listed Buildings’ states that the Council will exercise itsdevelopment control powers to protect the setting of listed buildings. Developmentswhich adversely affect their setting, or important views of them, will not normally bepermitted.

Policy CD15 - `Design of New Development’ is relevant to this proposal. Thisstates that the Council, in its role of promoting and controlling development, will seekto achieve a high quality of design in all new development, carefully related to itssurroundings and contributing positively to the area. The appearance of publicfrontages is especially important and public facilities will be sought whereappropriate. The amenity of the neighbourhoods will be safeguarded.

Particular regard will be paid to the following factors, and to the Standards Chapter ofthe Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance, where applicable when consideringnew development in relation to its surroundings: (i) layout, including building lines,plot widths, historic development patterns and relationship to neighbours; (ii) height,bulk, scale; (iii) open spaces, including public open spaces, on or near the site; (iv)particular natural or man-made features on or near the site; (v) hard and softlandscaping and boundary treatment; (vi) vehicular and pedestrian movement,servicing and parking; (vii) materials and colour; (viii) character of the area; (ix)accessibility; (x) safety and health aspects (including noise and pollution) andsecurity; (xi) impact of existing wildlife habitats and creation of new habitats; (xii)visual interest for the public, especially at ground floor level, including the pedestrianenvironment; (xiii) crime prevention.

Standard ST3 -'Daylight and Sunlight' states that good standards of daylight andsunlight should be achieved in new buildings and extensions. The Building ResearchEstablishment Report: Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight -a guide for goodpractice (1991), provides advice on site layout planning to achieve good sunlightingand daylighting within buildings and in open spaces between them.

Policy V17 -"High Buildings in Vauxhall" states that planning permission forbuildings that significantly exceed the height of their surrounds in the Vauxhall areawill not normally be granted. Development will be expected to have a similar scale tothe surrounding area.

Policy ENV19 -"Noise control" states that developments, which are likely togenerate noise inappropriate, to the local environment will be refused. The Councilwill seek the reduction of noise at source, in preference to the use of soundinsulation, as a means of reducing noise pollution. In addition, the Council willencourage the most appropriate siting of noise sources within developments and,where appropriate, will impose conditions on planning permissions to limit the hoursof operation of noisy processes and activities.

Policy T17 -"Transport implications of development proposals" states that alldevelopment proposals will be assessed for their contribution to traffic generationand impact on road congestion and against the present and potential availability ofpublic transport, and its capacity to meet increased demand.

With regard to RL32, the Council recognises that the Oval is one of the only two firstclass cricket venues in London and is an important venue for International Test

46

Match cricket, maintaining London's position as a world centre of sport. Whilst theCouncil wishes to support and strengthen the Oval's position as an importantsporting facility, nevertheless great care needs to be exercised when dealing withany proposed improvements in view of the potential impact on the surroundingresidential area and the likely high level of public interest. As per the consultationsection of this report, the main issues arising from the public are:

� The appearance, bulk, scale of the proposed building� The affect to local residents in terms of noise/disturbance.� Increased traffic/parking/congestion problems� Loss of sunlight/daylight/view

The assessment of these issues and other issues is set out in the following pages.

As regards CD2, CD13 and CD15, the site is not within a defined conservation areabut is adjacent to the Vauxhall and St Marks Conservation Areas. The Vauxhall endis adjacent to the boundary of the Vauxhall Conservation Area, the boundary ofwhich is on the west side of Kennington Oval. That Conservation Area also containsSt.Mark’s Primary School which is opposite the proposed siting of the two-tier sectionof the Stand adjacent to the junction of Kennington Oval and Harleyford Road. Thisend is also in close proximity to St.Mark’ Conservation Area. Because of this, designcriteria for the re-development of the site can be stringent.

Sports grounds such as the Oval generally do not relate well to their surroundingareas. This situation is because all the buildings and structures within the ground areorientated toward the pitch leaving the usually featureless backs of these buildings toface the surrounding environment. However, the rear of the building backing hasbeen designed to give this elevation visual interest and permeability. The use ofglazing, exposed steel supports and white cladding panels would give this elevation aless imposing and ‘lighter’ feel than may otherwise be experienced if the design andmaterials were different.

The style of the steel supports to the glazing at the rear of the Stand take referencefrom the nearby gas-holder. Materials have been proposed that would reflect theproposed material for the proposed new Lock Laker Stand, and the existing BedserStand/Ken Barrington Centre.

The Stand would have a contemporary design in character with much of the existingdesign of the Ground, such as the Ken Barrington Centre/Bedser Stand on the otherside of the Pavilion. This type of design is required in this instance as contemporarytechniques are required to design a sports stadium building, particularly given theneed to accommodate a large amount of spectators. The riser height and the800mm tread in the seating tiers are set out to provide comfort with a standard higherthan the standards for cricket-watching stadia (above a maximum of C90 meaningthat the eye level of a spectator is 90mm higher than eye level of a spectator sittingdirectly below and in front). It would be very difficult for a modern stadium to reflecttraditional buildings within its area given the specific functional design that isrequired. The Stand would follow the natural shape of the pitch and the site, and thetapering and fall in height between the two-tier section and the Bedser Stand wouldgive visual interest and allow views across the Ground towards the Pavilion. This isconsidered an important feature as the Stadium would not have a uniform height thatoften happens with such structures which effectively turn their back to sites outside ofthe Ground.

47

The concave and opaque glass windshields would rise up 1.2m higher than backs ofthe top-most seats – this in effect makes the heights of all the sections of Standmentioned above artificially high by 1.2m, the windshields would be translucent and,therefore, the increase in height would be less dramatic.

It is considered that the proposed building has been designed in such a way as to notdetract from the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area, andindeed contribute to the enhancing of the Conservation Area through the removal ofthe adhoc accumulation of buildings at this end. It is regrettable that some views ofthe Pavilion from close up to the Ground on Harleyford Road would be obscured,however, it is considered that long range views from this road will still be possible,and such views are not identified as an element in the character statement for theVauxhall Conservation Area. The Stand would be a significant distance of approx.60m away from St.Mark’s Primary School, and it is, therefore, not considered that itwould have a detrimental impact on the setting of, or views of, this listed building.The proposed development would be some way from the boundary of the St.Mark’sConservation Area, the single-tier section would be the closest to this. It is,therefore, considered that the proposal complies with policies CD2, CD13 and CD15.Neither English Heritage nor the Council's Conservation Officer has raised anyobjections towards the design of the proposal. A condition has been includedrequiring details of the appearance and materials of the single-storey concessionsbuilding proposed on the concourse.

Objections have been received stating that the height of the proposed developmentis out of keeping with the height and scale of the adjacent buildings. However, themaximum height of the development would be 13.2m compared to 12m in the case ofGrace House and 22.7m in the case of Shrewsbury House. This difference inrelation to Grace House is not considered substantial, and the development would besubservient to the heights of other buildings such as Shrewsbury House, also giventhat the seating in these areas would be moved considerably further away from thoseadjacent buildings by at least 13m. It is considered that in terms of height/scale thedevelopment would comply with the requirements of policies CD2 and CD15.

In relation to ST3, the proposal has been assessed against the British ResearchEstablishment’s (BRE) ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide toGood Practice’ (1991). This Guide assesses daylight as a percentage of the total skythat provides direct skylight to a window. This is assessed as the vertical skycomponent (VSC). If the vertical sky component is greater than 27% then enoughskylight should still be reaching the windows of the existing building. Any reductionbelow this level should be kept to a minimum. Initial calculations in accordance withthis Guide have been carried out that suggest that the VSC would not be reducedbelow 27%. In relation to the proposed Lock Laker Stand, the Club engaged aspecialist to measure the potential effect on light to adjacent residential flats, as didthe Council, and both specialists came to the conclusion that the VSC would not bereduced below 27%. Given that in the case of the Vauxhall end the Stand would belower in height and separation distances between it and adjacent buildings would begreater, it is not considered that the proposal would cause a loss of daylight to thewindows of adjacent flats to the detriment of the occupiers, and thus the proposalcomplies with ST3.

As regards V17, the proposed Stand would not be considerably taller than theexisting stands, and in some cases would be lower than these at this end of theGround. The site also lies within the Background Consultation Area (BCA) ofParliament Hill to the Palace of Westminster. Officers are of the opinion that thisdevelopment would not adversely affect strategic and local views, given that the

48

height of the building, if completed, would not be significantly tall. Officers are of theopinion that the proposed Stand would comply with V17 because of the non-substantial increase in height.

As regards ENV19, the report accompanying the application provided a section onenvironmental noise criteria. The Council's Regulatory Services Department wereconsulted on this documentation.

The Council's Regulatory Services Officer has raised no objections to the proposaland agreed in principle to the methodology of future noise surveys to be undertakenIt is the officer’s opinion that the environmental noise from the operation of fixed plantand machinery should not significantly increase the background noise level, however,surveys must be done to establish the existing background noise level and to setpredicted noise levels. The Officer has advised that the assessment of noise issuescould be treated as a reserved matter and dealt with by condition.

The Officer considered the possible impact of noise from the restaurants and thekitchens, and stated that these do not overlook the residential properties and are wellscreened on that elevation by the provision of lobbied areas/corridors. The Officerstated further that it is not anticipated that there would be any impact fromentertainment noise to the residents as a result of this development.

The Club has confirmed that the hospitality floorspace at this end of the Ground willonly be used in relation to cricket matches. In the off-season, functions would berestricted to the new Lock Laker Stand.

The Officer has stated that the Council has the powers to control noise and dust(including that caused during construction} under the Control of Pollution Act 1974and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Regulatory Services enforces thislegislation. The developer should be encouraged to apply for a Prior Consent forNoisy Works under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. It is the Council'sstandard practise to restrict noisy work to the following periods: Monday to Fridays0800 to 1800hrs , 0800 to 1300hrs on Saturdays, and no noise is to be audible at thesite boundary outside these hours or on Sundays and Public Holidays.

Also, the Council’s Regulatory Services Officer has stated that the distance of thekitchens from neighbouring occupiers is sufficient enough not to cause smellproblems to those occupiers, and refuse arrangements are adequate. Most of thefood served in the banqueting/hospitality areas will have been pre-cooked by acatering company off-site, and delivered on the day of the event – the kitchens wouldeffectively be preparation areas. However, the position of the kitchen extractiondischarge has not been indicated on the drawings submitted, a condition has beenincluded requiring details of this.

There have been previous complaints about the use of generators by concessionsorganisations who use mobile units. The application proposes permanentconcessions buildings with mains supplies. However, in the event of mobile unitsbeing used in addition, the S106 agreement seeks to ensure that the use of incominggenerators is curtailed.

It is, therefore, considered that the proposal would not lead to increased noise levelsthat would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers, and thus it complieswith Policy ENV19.

49

As regards T17, the Club has submitted a Travel and Transport Report as part of theapplication which was submitted to Transport for London (TfL) and the Council’sTransport Officer. No concern has been expressed by either TfL or the TransportOfficer over the ability of the local public transport system to cope with the overallincrease in capacity of the Ground of approx. 4000 related to both current proposals,either at train and underground stations or the bus network. Neither raise objectionsto the proposals for the Ground as a whole, subject to a series of measures whichmust be addressed as part of the development to combat concerns over travel to andfrom the Ground.

There is no off-street parking provision for spectators to events at the site. Mainroads in the area are controlled by waiting restrictions and other surrounding streetsare subject to control by a weekday parking control scheme using meters. Atweekends, the parking meters do not operate but spaces are strictly limited due toresidents’ use at peak times. Thus, information and education encouraging the useof public transport is needed. Evidence at present shows that during the highattendance cricket matches at the Ground (normally Test Matches and One-DayInternationals) the majority of spectators use The Oval tube station rather thanVauxhall Train Station, and that bottlenecks occur between the Ground and the tubestation. Also, a large amount of spectators circulate around the outside of theGround trying to find their allocated entrance gate, and because of crowdedpavements step on to the highway, endangered their own safety and that of vehicleusers. Thus, measures have been required by the Council to address theseproblems and which should be incorporated within a S106 agreement to include;

� Measures to encourage spectators to use public transport, in particular statingthat there are no parking facilities available in the vicinity of the Ground

� Measures to encourage spectators to use Vauxhall stations rather than The Ovaltube to reduce pedestrian congestion between the ground and the tube (such asadverts on tickets and the replay screen, announcements on PA.) etc.

� Measures to improve circulation within the Ground� Identifying appropriate sites to secure coach parking� The installation of cycle parking facilities� Marshalling of pedestrians during high attendance games� Construction and demolition details� Enforcing of bus route and parking restrictions.

The Club has accepted that the movements of people to and from, as well as withinthe Ground, are issues that must be addressed. A new ticket system will be inoperation which will allow spectators to enter by the Pavilion and Vauxhall endsregardless of where their seat is and find their seat by circulating internally. This shiftin movement within the Ground should reduce confusion and have a substantialimpact on conditions outside the Ground on match days by reducing the amount ofpeople using the footway.

The Club is prepared to provide up to 100 cycle stands within the Ground to cater forspectators or employers through the S106 agreement, therefore complying with theCouncil’s encouragement of sustainable forms of transport within the Borough. Thisis considered an appropriate number, the Council’s Transport Officer considers thatany more would be over-provision and would not be used.

The Club has undertaken a complete survey of internal and external use of signageadvertising the Cricket Ground facility and its location. It is liaising with the VauxhallEmployers Group, as this issue is fundamental to the regeneration of the area. A

50

clause has been included on the draft S106 agreement requiring on-goingconsultation with the Group to lead to signage being installed from Vauxhall Stationto the Ground.

Servicing and delivery will be as existing through the main gates at either end of theGround.

The Ground is well served by public transport, both from the Underground andoverland train services, and by a number of bus routes that operate very close to it,and it is not considered that the increase in capacity would create significantproblems of travel to and from the Ground and circulation around it on busy days,subject to the measures that would be included as part of the S106 agreement.

Given the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy T17.

5. OTHER MATTERS

The following section addresses additional material planning issues, and furtherpoints of objection and concern raised by local residents.

It is proposed that if planning permission is granted for both applications for re-development of the Ground, the development will be phased, the Lock Laker Standwould be constructed first followed by the Vauxhall end development. This isbecause the Club can not afford to fund one large construction project, and incomefrom the Lock Laker development will help to fund the construction of the Vauxhallend. The Club have applied to retain the temporary hospitality boxes at the Vauxhallend for a further 5 years while the Lock Laker Stand is constructed, and have statedthat these will be removed soon after completion of the Lock Laker Stand. This willform part of the S106 agreement, as will a programme of construction work for the re-development of the Ground.

The Club, in conjunction with market research undertaken, carried out anassessment on the impact on regeneration resulting from the proposed newdevelopment in context of recent studies of the regeneration impact of NorthLambeth. From this the Club believes that the proposals for re-development of theGround would create a total of 43 jobs (36 direct jobs (full-time equivalent), 3.5indirect jobs in local suppliers and 3.5 induced jobs through spending). It was alsostated that the new development would support local retail suppliers in the food,beverage, office supplies and conference support services. If such employment isgenerated through the development, this is welcomed by the Council and would helpthe re-generation of the Vauxhall area.

A number of residents are concerned that the development of the Ground does notinclude benefits for the community. As a result of discussions between Officers andSCCC, the Club is pursuing the following initiatives for use by the local community:

� Developing classrooms in the Ground for use on occasions by disadvantagedyouths and those who have difficulty in mainstream education.

� As part of Lambeth's future sports strategy, the Club will explore how thecommunity might gain use of the ground for practice.

� How the proposed museum might usefully contribute to cultural and educationalprogrammes in the area as a component of Lambeth's community educationprogramme.

51

The Club currently is involved in working with the Lambeth community, in particularproviding coaching for schools and cricket clubs, and allowing use of the playingfacilities at the Ground by schools and other community groups.

Residents are concerned that late night and early morning disturbance will be causedby the proposal. The Cricket Club has indicated that preparation times for importantcricket matches would begin at 7.30am and that finishing times would be 12 midnightwith departures at 12.30am (1am was proposed by the Club but through Officers’advice this time was reduced by an hour). The Club obviously already has a numberof high attendance cricket matches in the summer, and already uses the Lock LakerStand for functions during the cricket season and in the off-season, all of whichinvolve early starts in the morning and late night finishes. The Council does not feelthat the development will lead to an increase in disturbance to the local residentscompared to the existing activities of the Club as the function floorspace would onlybe used for cricket-related purposes and functions at other times would be focusedon the Lock Laker end of the Ground, and the hours of use are not consideredexcessively early and late and would be controlled by a clause in the S106agreement.

Several neighbouring occupiers object to the proposal because it is considered that itwould have a detrimental impact on the outlook and view from those residents’ flats.On average the new Stand will be higher than the existing assortment of stands andbuildings, however, the new Stand would be moved further away from the siteboundary and towards the pitch, in some cases a considerable distance. The playingsurface of The Oval is very large, and there is much capacity to move seatingtowards the wicket at the centre of the pitch. The highest parts of the Stand will bearound the existing Fender Stand and Vauxhall Chalet Complex (temporaryhospitality/function boxes on several levels). The Complex is the highest part of thisend of the Ground and 14.6m. The Fender Stand is 8.6m high. The maximumheight of the proposed Stand would be 13.2m at these points. However, spectatorseating at this point would be moved considerably further away from the boundary,and thus adjacent buildings. At the point of the Complex, the seating would bemoved approx. 13m towards the pitch, creating a separation distance of 37m toGrace House compared to 23.75m as existing. In general, there would be anincrease in heights between existing and proposed seating tiers at these points. Forexample, the lower sections of the Stand opposite Stoddart House on KenningtonOval (south) would be 4.5m high compared to 4.2m high as existing. However, thissection would be 3.5m further away from Stoddart House which is currently 28maway. A section of the Stand opposite Shrewsbury House on the same road wouldbe 8.4m high compared to 4.2m as existing. However, that section would be 43maway from Shrewsbury House compared to 28.75m as existing, an increase indistance of 14.25m. A section opposite 14/15 Kennington Oval (north) would be 5mhigh compared to 4.6m as existing, and would be 18.5m away from those residentialbuildings compared to 17m as existing.

Therefore, although the Stand would be on average higher than the existing stands, itis considered that there would be sufficient separation distances between the newdevelopment and the adjacent flats in Stoddart, Shrewsbury and Grace Houses, OvalMansions (which is currently boarded up) and 14/15 Kennington. Given this, it is notconsidered that there would be a significant alteration of outlook and view that wouldwarrant a refusal of planning permission. The existing view is of large spectatorstands, as would the potential view, with a stadium generally higher but further away.

This proposal does not include installation of floodlighting. Any floodlighting requiredfor day/night games will be brought in temporarily for that occasion as happens at

52

present. The floodlighting does not require planning permission as the structures aretemporary and in place for no more than 28 days in a year. Also, there are noproposed alterations to the existing public address system.

Local residents are concerned that the increase in spectator capacity would lead tomore traffic. The Council’s Transport Officer has advised that due to the existingparking restrictions in the area and the plentiful supply of public transport, theproposals would not lead to an increase in traffic generation to the Ground on matchdays, and is satisfied through the Club’s statement that the level of non-cricketfunctions will not increase as a result of a proposal. On busy match days, traffic andpedestrians are marshalled by police and stewards and parking restrictions areenforced, and this would continue to be the case, and measures to ensure this havebeen included within the S106 agreement and also for the Club to pay for parkingattendants. The Council is attempting to ensure that there is designated parking forcoaches for busy cricket match days somewhere near the Ground through the S106agreement – coaches will not be allowed to park temporarily around the stadium.The desire by the Council to ensure that the use of Vauxhall Train Station isencouraged more than Oval tube station to prevent bottlenecks may lead to morespectators approaching the Ground from the Vauxhall end. However, throughmarshalling on busy match days, potential congestion problems should beaddressed.

One of the objectors has stated that ‘residents in the area strenuously object to thesuspension of residents parking rights on days when the Oval is in use for majorevents.’ Officers are not aware that parking rights are suspended. Main roads in thearea are controlled by waiting restrictions and other surrounding streets are subjectto control by a weekday parking control scheme using meters. At weekends, theparking meters do not operate but spaces are strictly limited to residents’ use at peaktimes. Thus, it is not considered that this objection can be substantiated.

Residents are concerned that the increase in attendance will increase the amount oflitter left around the Ground. It is the Council’s understanding that the Club isresponsible for cleaning up the Ground after large events at present and refuse onKennington Oval and surrounds is collected by the Council. As part of the proposedS106 agreement, measures for future collection of litter after major events will bediscussed to ensure that the area is effectively cleaned up. This may place moreresponsibility on the Club to collect litter around the Ground, although in the event itis considered that the outcome will mean that litter is effectively collected and takenaway from the site after high-attendance cricket matches. It is considered thatadequate measures will be put in place so that the development will not lead to a lossof amenity to local residents through uncollected litter through increased attendance.The Council's Streetscene Officer has indicated that the existing refusestorage/removal facilities from within the Ground are satisfactory in terms of theproposed works.

The Club has stated that the number of non-cricket events at the Ground (such asfunctions, trade seminars, etc.) will not increase as part of the proposal. One of thepurposes for re-development proposals at the Ground is to provide morefunction/hospitality capacity on high income-generating important cricket matches,such as Test Matches and One-Day Internationals. The Club has confirmed that oneor two Australian Rules Football games will continue to be played in the off-season,but that other events such as pop concerts would not be held. The Council is seekingthrough the S106 agreement to ensure that the number of major cricket matches,other sports events and other non-sporting events are restricted.

53

There has been concern from local residents regarding marshalling of crowds duringthe major events at the Ground. In addition to additional stewards to marshal crowdsbeing required by the S106 agreement, the provision of stewards and policeoperating around the site at such major events (Test Matches and One DayInternationals) is governed by a Stadium Safety Certificate. This Certificate has to beapplied for yearly and determines how many police and stewards the Club needs tohave present around the Ground at these major events. An increase in capacityshould lead to increased police and steward presence.

One of the comments received from the ‘Friends of The Oval Campaign’ receivedthrough consultation is that on 19th December 1996 Environmental ServicesCommittee voted in favour of the Campaign’s request that the wording of the draftUDP be changed. In the third sentence of RL32 of the adopted UDP regarding TheOval, the policy states that ‘additional uses may also be viewed favourably if theyenhance the Ground as a sporting and leisure venue and do not seriously affect theamenities of surrounding residential accommodation’. At the draft stage at thatCommittee in 1996, it was resolved to change the wording to ‘…..and improve theamenities of surrounding residential accommodation.’ It is not clear why the revisedwording was not incorporated in the adopted UDP, Officers have tried to trace theprocess in an attempt to find out the reason but have been unsuccessful However,given the wording of Policy RL32 forms part of an adopted UDP, it is that wordingthat has been used in the assessment of this application, and it is not considered thatthe development will have a serious affect on the on the amenities of surroundingresidential accommodation

Many objectors have stated that the area is predominately residential and furtherdevelopment of the Ground would conflict with this main use. However, it isconsidered that the Ground is a landmark in its own right. It is a long-establishedpart of this area, and together with a number of non-residential uses, it is consideredthat the area has a mixed-use nature with the Oval being an important part of it. TheGround is an important feature of north Lambeth, and it’s will to improve its facilitiesand generate increased income to ensure this is considered viable as it is notconsidered that those improvements would be significantly detrimental to the amenityof local residents.

It has been mentioned that the Club should have submitted an Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) with the applications for re-development. However, currentlegislation does not require that an EIA is prepared for a site of this size. It isconsidered that adequate information has been submitted in the form of a Transportand Traffic Report, a Daylight/Sunlight Analysis, and additional information in thecovering reports to the applications (giving conferencing floorspace and employmentfigures,etc.), in order that the Council can make a full assessment on the proposals.In effect, an EIA has been submitted but in individual sections.

CONCLUSION

In terms of National, Regional and Unitary Development Plan Policies, the principleof improving and extending the facilities at the Oval is welcomed, accords withobjectives and complies with individual policies.

The re-development of the Ground will enable a number of processes.

54

The scheme, as part of the overall redevelopment proposals, will help to produce aworld-class cricket ground, an important feature and resource for the Borough,London and the region as a whole.

This proposal will enable the eventual removal of all temporary facilities at theVauxhall End of the Ground as part of its subsequent redevelopment.

Pedestrian links from the public transport stops will be improved. There will be betterpedestrian access to and around the Ground. The new ticketing facilities enable entryat point of choice, and pedestrian circulation will be within the Ground. Officersconsider that these measures will ease congestion inside, but more importantly,outside the Ground.

The conference, banqueting and similar services would be improved and increasedto help fund the overall improvements to the Ground, and it is not considered thatthese services would have significant detrimental impact on the amenities ofneighbouring occupiers.

The incorporation of a combined Museum, with classroom, and the use of theGround for cricket practice, will mean that the Club will be more fully integrated withinthe local community and further contribute to the regeneration of the area. TheMuseum may also include a Cricket Hall of Fame, which could act as a communityresource, whilst bringing tourists into the area.

The development will lead to the creation of new jobs which will help in theregeneration of the Vauxhall area.

The Ground is a landmark in its own right. The proposed new Standhas been designed to provide a form, massing and scale,which will not materially impact on the amenities ofsurrounding residential accommodation. It is not consideredthat the increased intensity of use of this part of the Groundwould be detrimental to the amenity of local residents.

The proposals comply with the objectives of guiding development atthe Ground identified by Environmental Services Committeein 1996.

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECTTO CONDITIONS AND A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT TO SECURE THEFOLLOWING:

2. An undertaking to remove the existing 'temporary' hospitality units at the VauxhallEnd, and not to continue with the occasional units, at a specified time aftercompletion of the Lock and Laker development.

8. An undertaking to address the provision of coach parking.

9. An undertaking to address the issues of visitor management and parkingenforcement, and meeting the costs of additional parking attendants forinternational fixtures.

55

10. An undertaking to encourage the use of public transport- better information,signage and the possibility of discounts for those using public transport to andfrom the ground.

11. Management of ticketing and turnstiles.

12. Management of the conference/entertainment suites, and hours of operation.

7. Noise control measures- limiting/stopping the use of outside generators and orimposing proper noise restrictions on their use.

8. Litter collection.

12. Monitoring of Kennington Oval/Bowling Green Lane from the Ground’s existingCCTV cameras.

13. Development and increase in community initiatives.

14. Phasing of construction in relation to the whole re-development of the Ground.

12. Continued liasion with Vauxhall Employers’ Group with regard to signage linkingVauxhall to the Ground.

13. Restriction of the number of major events that can be held at the Ground.

56

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 Full details, including samples of external finishes shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commencedand the development shall be completed in accordance with the details therebyapproved. (Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) issatisfactory.)

2 Detailed plans and elevations at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100 of theconcessions, WC's and stores buildings to be placed on the concourse, includingdetails of materials to be used, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the localplanning authority before the development is begun (Reason - In order that the localplanning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal)

3 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strictaccordance with the plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of theLocal Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of thepremises is satisfactory.)

4 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract fromthe appearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

5 The applicant shall undertake an environmental noise survey as outlined inthe report accompanying the application and submit the results to the local planningauthority (Reason - To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residentialproperties).

6 The applicant shall submit to the local authority a detailed report predictingthe expected environmental noise from fixed plant or equipment including proposednoise mitigation measures to be agreed by the local authority before the workcommences (Reason - To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residentialproperties).

7 The total noise levels from all equipment and plant shall not exceed thetypical background noise level measured as a La 90 at the site boundary at any timeof the day. Adequate measures will be taken to ensure that there are no tonalcharacteristics in the resulting noise (Reason - To safeguard the amenities ofneighbouring residential properties).

8 Before any plant/machinery is used on the premises it shall be enclosedwith sound insulating material and mounted in a way which will minimisetransmission of structure borne sound, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed bythe Local Planning Authority, and be retained for the duration of its use. (Reason:To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.)

9 There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audibleoutside the premises. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining premisesand the area generally.)

10 Full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority before the use commences: (a) soundproofing of the premises;(b) insulation of the premises (including ventilation); (c) means of fume extractionfrom the premises (Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be

57

satisfied as to the details of the proposal(s).)

11 All fumes from the cooking processes shall be extracted via the flue hereinapproved which shall be erected before the use commences and thereafter retained,and satisfactorily maintained, for the duration of the use. (Reason: To ensure thatno nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoiningoccupiers or of the area generally.)

12 A lorry management statement detailing the frequency of deliveries, themovement of vehicles on the site and on Kennington Oval, and lorry routes throughthe demolition and construction phase of the development hereby permitted shall besubmitted to and approved by the local planning authority and Transport for London(TfL) before the development is begun (Reason - In order that the Council and TfLare satisfied that a scheme of management of construction vehicles is in place)

13 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured theimplementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a writtenscheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved bythe Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordancewith the detailed scheme approved pursuant to this condition. The archaeologicalworks shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to theLocal Planning Authority. (Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigationbefore any archaeological remains are disturbed by the approved development.)

14 Details of a scheme for hard and soft landscaping of the area between thespectator Stand hereby approved and the western boundary of the site (adjacent toSt.Mark's Primary School and Grace House) shall be submitted to, and approved by,the local planning authority before the development is begun (Reason - In order toensure that this area is adequately landscaped in the interests of visual amenity)

15 The hospitality/function /banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be usedin conjunction with sporting events only and shall not be used forhospitality/function/banqueting purposes independently or in conjunction with anyother event held at the ground.(Reason: In order to protect the amenities of localresidents)

Notes to Applicant

1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may berequired under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

3. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Divisionconcerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food,Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-lawsor regulations made thereunder.

4. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of theControl of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in thisrespect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental HealthDivision.

5. Your attention is drawn to Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick andDisabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the

58

Disabled to Buildings (B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means ofaccess, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of personsvisiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled.

59

Location Surrey County Cricket Club Kennington Oval London SE11 5SS

Ward OVALProposal

Renewal of temporary Planning Permission for a period of 5 years for the VauxhallChalet Complex, housing hospitality suites and associated spectatoraccommodation.

Application No 01/02310/FUL/OWP/17496

Applicant Surrey Cricket Club

Agent Galton & Townsend92 Kingston RdWimbledonLondon SW19 1LA

Date Valid 20 August 2001

Considerations

UDP ViewParliament Hill to Palace of Westminster

PlansPhotos, OVAL/8489A005, OVAL/COMA003A,OVAL/8489A004 RevA

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT

60

Officer Report

01/02310/FUL

SummaryRe-development of the Oval Cricket Ground by Surrey County Cricket Club (SCCC)

On 11th December 2001 Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planningpermission for the following applications subject to the completion of a S106agreement:

01/02120/FUL (demolition and re-building of the Lock Laker Stand)01/02121/FUL (demolition and re-building of the Vauxhall end stands)01/02310/FUL (retention of Vauxhall Chalet Complex for a further 5 years),01/02311/FUL (retention of hospitality boxes and steel supporting structure behindthe Gover Stand for a further 5 years).

(Please see appendices for full planning reports for PAC on 11.12.01 for each ofthese applications).

It is necessary to report back to PAC as some of the aspects of the proposals havechanged. These aspects are as follows.

7. The Friends of the Oval asked for the provision of automated traffic barriers toprevent illegal parking, especially on busy match days, for the adjacentKennington Park Estate, to be included in the S106. The Club had offered toprovide funding for 4 such barriers. However, this would be in place of 4additional parking attendants, originally negotiated into the proposals by Officers.The Council's Housing section, responsible for parking enforcement in the Estate,has stated the use of automated traffic barriers would be more effective thanadditional parking attendants on busy match days. Therefore, it is recommendedto Members that the offer for the funding of the barriers is accepted, and theagreed provision of parking attendants is omitted from any legal agreement.

8. For the two major applications at the Lock/Laker end, and Vauxhall end, of theGround, a further condition was recommended by Officers to be included for eachof these applications, namely;

"the sale of retail goods and hot and cold food and drinks outside of thehospitality/function/banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be carried out only inthe permanent concessions buildings identified on the plans approved."

The Club contest this condition, and have stated that a restriction on the number ofconcessions that can be provided would be prejudicial to the Club's income. Officersbelieved that the purpose of the permanent concessions buildings identified on thedrawings submitted on the concourses under the stands was to:

(e) provide more suitable structures to house concessions (such as hot foodproviders), linked to a permanent electricity supply rather than generators

(f) allow freer movement of spectators around the Ground rather than manoeuvringaround mobile concession units.

The Club has stated that the amount of concession space as existing as compared tothe proposed would remain approximately the same. With the expansion in capacity

61

(approx 4000), the Club would need to provide additional concession space toaccommodate the increase in demand.

The issue has been put to the Friends of the Oval, who have stated that they do notobject to concessions which do not require heating/cooking/cooling facilities, butunequivocally object to concessions which create noise and other pollution.

Officers understand the Club's requirements in this regard, and the concerns of localresidents. Therefore, it is recommended that the condition be amended to;

"Any concession unit requiring machinery/equipment/plant for the purposes ofcooking/heating or refrigeration of food and drink shall be housed in the permanentconcessions buildings indicated on the approved drawings, and connected to apermanent power supply, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planningauthority." (Reason: To protect the amenities of the local residents).

In this way, hot and cold food and drink concessions would be restricted to thepermanent concessions buildings and linked to a permanent power supply ratherthan using generators, and any mobile units would not require generators as powerwould not be required (these would probably be for the sale of retail goods).

The Friends of the Oval object to the last section of that condition, 'unless otherwiseagreed in writing by the local planning authority, because this would allow the Club tochallenge this condition.

9. The minutes of PAC of 11.12.01 are incorrect. Minute 3 (h) refers to a conditionrestricting the use of the hospitality/banqueting/function facilities in the proposedLock Laker stand to sporting events only. This condition was proposed only forthe Vauxhall end. These minutes need to be amended.

The planning reports and the draft decision notices for all of these applications havebeen updated following PAC on 11.12.01. (in compliance with the minutes of themeeting). The main aspects requiring updating were;

� Appn. 01/02311/FUL (temporary hospitality boxes and supporting steel structure),condition 4 which required full details of the erection and removal of thehospitality boxes and base structure to be submitted to the Council 3 monthsprior to commencement of the works has been deleted. Condition 5 has beenamended to state 'the base structure of the hospitality units must be erected for aperiod of no more than 10 weeks in any one year, until the end of 2006.'

� Appn 01/02120/FUL (Lock/Laker Stand), condition added to restrict mobileconcession units, to be amended as above if agreed. Minor corrections wererequired to the wording of conditions, and an informative required stating theUDP polices used to assess the application, these have been implemented.

� Appn. 01/02121/FUL (Vauxhall end), a condition was required restrictingfunctions at the Vauxhall end to sporting events only. The following condition hasbeen added;

'The hospitality/function/banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be used inconjunction with sporting events only and shall not be used forhospitality/function/banqueting purposes independently, or in conjunction with, anyother event held at the Ground.(Reason - In order to protect the amenities of local residents)'.

62

Minor corrections were required to the wording of conditions, these have beenimplemented.

All four reports are, therefore, being presented to Committee to gain approval to thechanges detailed above.

APPLICATION NUMBER: 01/02310/FUL

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is the Oval cricket ground located on Kennington Oval. TheVauxhall Chalet Complex is situated at the Vauxhall Street end of the ground. Thecurrent stand is situated between the Fender Stand and the Peter May enclosure.The site is located close to the Vauxhall Conservation Area.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has a long and complex history. Various planning permissions have beengranted within the ground, most of these relate to the upgrading of the facilities. Themost recent history is as follows:� 6th November 1998- Permission granted for the extension to the toilet block under

the Peter May stand.� 17th March 1999- Permission granted for the retention of the Vauxhall Chalet

hospitality suite complex and associated spectator accommodation for 5 years.� 31st March 1999- Permission granted for raised seating and safety barrier on the

Surridge Stand and the erection of a new toilet block.� 23rd September 1999 and June 2001- Erection of temporary building at rear of

Gover Stand to provide hospitality suites.� 12th March 2001- Refuse consent for 2 signs at Vauxhall West Gate.� Two applications are currently pending which involve the redevelopment of the

Oval and erection of new stands around the site.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Renewal of temporary planning permission for a period of 5 years for the VauxhallChalet Complex housing hospitality suites and associated spectator accommodation.The current stand is a part 5 storey, part 3 storey building housing hospitality suitesfor use in conjunction with the Oval cricket ground. The 5-storey building is 14metreshigh with the 3-storey building extending to an 8.6metre height. Additional informationsubmitted with the application has stated that the maximum number of spectators touse the facility would be 690 on any one day, the preparation for each day of use willnot be before 8am and the building shall be vacated at 10.30pm each day.

CONSULTATIONS

Consultations were sent out to The Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum;Vauxhall Society; Friends of the Oval; Harleyford Court Tenants Association; TenantsCorner, Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association, Kennington Park TenantsAssociation, Friends of Vauxhall Park, Manor of Kennington Residents Association,Vauxhall St Peters Heritage Centre, IMPACT and Vision for Vauxhall. Commentshave been received and are listed below.

63

A site notice was erected, the application was advertised and neighbour notificationswere sent to the all properties at Cynthia Moseley Nursery and 1 –50 Grace House,(all Kennington Oval). Two letters have been received and raised the followingobjection:� The Vauxhall Chalet Complex has given the local residents a lot of noise and

disruption over the years.� These temporary structures should have been removed by Surrey cricket club as

the promise was made to concentrate the facilities at the other end of the ground.� The letter sent in regarding the application for the retention of the Vauxhall Chalet

Stand actually relates to the temporary stand behind the Gover Stand (ref.no:01/02311/FUL) and is presented elsewhere on the agenda.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Policy RL32 of the UDP recognises the Oval Cricket Ground has the potential toprovide for additional sport and leisure facilities. The Council will encourage theexpansion and widening of the sport and leisure facilities. Additional uses may alsobe viewed favourably if they enhance the ground as a sporting and leisure venue anddo not seriously affect the amenities of surrounding residential accommodation.

The proposal seeks to renew the temporary consent granted (97/01857/FUL) thatapproved the temporary hospitality suites for a period of 5 years. This permission isdue to expire on the 28th of April 2003 and Surrey Cricket club have sought to extendthe permission to allow the stand to remain until it can be removed to allow theproposed redevelopment of the ground. The stand is currently situated 30metresfrom Grace House and 25metres from Oval Mansions. Oval Mansions is currently aderelict block of flats whilst Grace House is fully inhabited. As the building is currentlyconstructed and used during the cricket season, the proposed retention for atemporary period of 5 years is not likely to cause an additional impact on the localresidents.

Currently the 14metre high part of the stand is higher than the existing Fender Stand,whilst the lower level suite at 8.6metres rises approximately 3metres above the PeterMay enclosure. The main concern of the local residents relates to the hours ofoperation and the noise that emulates from the use of the suites. Any consentgranted would have a condition attached, which will control the hours of operationand to ensure that the stand has acoustic boxes around the generators that are used.

With regards to the impact of the stand on the adjoining residents, Policy CD15relates to the design of new developments. In this case the proposal is for theretention of the existing stand for 5 years and should be assessed with regards to itsimpact on the local residents. Any consent granted will provide the cricket club withconsent for 5 years lasting up to 2006 with the intention of removing the block shouldthe redevelopment plans be granted consent. The orientation of the site is such thatthe road behind the stand has restricted sunlight in the early to middle part of theday. The residents behind are situated some 25- 30 metres away from the existingstructure and so the loss of light will be minimal.

The councils Regulatory Services departments were consulted and have made noobjections to the scheme but have recommended conditions relating to constructionand use times.

CONCLUSIONS

64

The proposed retention of the Vauxhall Chalet complex suites will not have adetrimental impact on the adjoining residential properties and as such complies withPolicies RL32 and CD15 of the UDP. Therefore the application is recommended for atemporary period of 5years from the date of any decision.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant temporary consent.

Conditions:

1. The roof of the building shall not be used for any purpose other than theaccommodation of TV Broadcasting equipment with related personnel andshall not be used for the accommodation of spectators.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the areagenerally).

2. The limited period for the retention of the building(s)/structure(s) shall be for 5years from the date of the decision notice. On or before the expiration ofwhich period the building(s)/structure(s) shall be removed, unless a furtherplanning permission has been granted.(Reason: The type of building is not such as the Local Planning Authority isprepared to approve other than for a limited period, having regard to thematerials and type of structure proposed.)

3. Any noise from the plant/equipment associated with the hospitality suitecomplex shall not be audible at the boundary.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties.)

4. The temporary hospitality suite complex hereby approved shall not be usedbefore 8.30am on each day of usage and must be vacated within two hoursafter the completion of each game.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties.)

5. All plant/equipment associated with the hospitality suite complex shall beenclosed in acoustically louvered boxes. Details of these enclosures shall besubmitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior touse on site.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties.)

65

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The roof of the building shall not be used for any purpose other than theaccommodation of TV Broadcasting equipment with related personnel and shall notbe used for the accommodation of spectators.(Reason: To safeguard the amenitiesof the adjoining premises and the area generally).

2 The limited period for the retention of the building(s)/structure(s) shall befor 5 years from the date of the decision notice. On or before the expiration of whichperiod the building(s)/structure(s) shall be removed, unless a further planningpermission has been granted.(Reason: The type of building is not such as the LocalPlanning Authority is prepared to approve other than for a limited period, havingregard to the materials and type of structure proposed.)

3 Any noise from the plant/equipment associated with the hospitality suitecomplex shall not be audible at the boundary.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance toneighbouring properties.)

4 The temporary hospitality suite complex hereby approved shall not beused before 8.30am on each day of usage and must be vacated within two hoursafter the completion of each game.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouringproperties.)

5 All plant/equipment associated with the hospitality suite complex shall beenclosed in acoustically louvered boxes. Details of these enclosures shall besubmitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to use onsite.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties.)

6 No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside thehours of 8.30am to 6.30pm.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouringresidential properties.)

7 No catering works shall be carried out outside the hours of 8.30am to10pm.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring residentialproperties.)

Notes to Applicant

1. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may berequired under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In connection with the soundproofing condition, you should consult theCouncil's Building Control Section before carrying out any works.

3. In determining this application the following policies RL32 + CD15 of theLambeth Unitary Development Plan were relevant to the decision

66

Location Surrey County Cricket Club Kennington Oval London SE11 5SS

Ward OVALProposal

Erection of a temporary steel support structure, (on an annual basis) from May toSeptember 2002 - 2006 together with the erection of temporary hospitality structureto be erected (on an annual basis) on top of the supporting structure.

Application No 01/02311/FUL/OWP/17496

Applicant Surrey County Cricket Club

Agent Galton & Townsend92 Kingston RdWimbledonLondon SW19 1LA

Date Valid 7 September 2001

Considerations

UDP ViewParliament Hill to Palace of Westminster

PlansAssorted Photos, OVAL/537A001, OVAL/537A002, OVAL/COMA00RevA

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT

67

Officer Report

01/02311/FUL

SummaryRe-development of the Oval Cricket Ground by Surrey County Cricket Club (SCCC)

On 11th December 2001 Planning Applications Committee resolved to grant planningpermission for the following applications subject to the completion of a S106agreement:

01/02120/FUL (demolition and re-building of the Lock Laker Stand)01/02121/FUL (demolition and re-building of the Vauxhall end stands)01/02310/FUL (retention of Vauxhall Chalet Complex for a further 5 years),01/02311/FUL (retention of hospitality boxes and steel supporting structure behindthe Gover Stand for a further 5 years).

(Please see appendices for full planning reports for PAC on 11.12.01 for each ofthese applications).

It is necessary to report back to PAC as some of the aspects of the proposals havechanged. These aspects are as follows.

10. The Friends of the Oval asked for the provision of automated traffic barriers toprevent illegal parking, especially on busy match days, for the adjacentKennington Park Estate, to be included in the S106. The Club had offered toprovide funding for 4 such barriers. However, this would be in place of 4additional parking attendants, originally negotiated into the proposals by Officers.The Council's Housing section, responsible for parking enforcement in the Estate,has stated the use of automated traffic barriers would be more effective thanadditional parking attendants on busy match days. Therefore, it is recommendedto Members that the offer for the funding of the barriers is accepted, and theagreed provision of parking attendants is omitted from any legal agreement.

11. For the two major applications at the Lock/Laker end, and Vauxhall end, of theGround, a further condition was recommended by Officers to be included for eachof these applications, namely;

"the sale of retail goods and hot and cold food and drinks outside of thehospitality/function/banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be carried out only inthe permanent concessions buildings identified on the plans approved."

The Club contest this condition, and have stated that a restriction on the number ofconcessions that can be provided would be prejudicial to the Club's income. Officersbelieved that the purpose of the permanent concessions buildings identified on thedrawings submitted on the concourses under the stands was to:

(g) provide more suitable structures to house concessions (such as hot foodproviders), linked to a permanent electricity supply rather than generators

(h) allow freer movement of spectators around the Ground rather than manoeuvringaround mobile concession units.

The Club has stated that the amount of concession space as existing as compared tothe proposed would remain approximately the same. With the expansion in capacity

68

(approx 4000), the Club would need to provide additional concession space toaccommodate the increase in demand.

The issue has been put to the Friends of the Oval, who have stated that they do notobject to concessions which do not require heating/cooking/cooling facilities, butunequivocally object to concessions which create noise and other pollution.

Officers understand the Club's requirements in this regard, and the concerns of localresidents. Therefore, it is recommended that the condition be amended to;

"Any concession unit requiring machinery/equipment/plant for the purposes ofcooking/heating or refrigeration of food and drink shall be housed in the permanentconcessions buildings indicated on the approved drawings, and connected to apermanent power supply, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planningauthority." (Reason: To protect the amenities of the local residents).

In this way, hot and cold food and drink concessions would be restricted to thepermanent concessions buildings and linked to a permanent power supply ratherthan using generators, and any mobile units would not require generators as powerwould not be required (these would probably be for the sale of retail goods).

The Friends of the Oval object to the last section of that condition, 'unless otherwiseagreed in writing by the local planning authority, because this would allow the Club tochallenge this condition.

12. The minutes of PAC of 11.12.01 are incorrect. Minute 3 (h) refers to a conditionrestricting the use of the hospitality/banqueting/function facilities in the proposedLock Laker stand to sporting events only. This condition was proposed only forthe Vauxhall end. These minutes need to be amended.

The planning reports and the draft decision notices for all of these applications havebeen updated following PAC on 11.12.01. (in compliance with the minutes of themeeting). The main aspects requiring updating were;

� Appn. 01/02311/FUL (temporary hospitality boxes and supporting steel structure),condition 4 which required full details of the erection and removal of thehospitality boxes and base structure to be submitted to the Council 3 monthsprior to commencement of the works has been deleted. Condition 5 has beenamended to state 'the base structure of the hospitality units must be erected for aperiod of no more than 10 weeks in any one year, until the end of 2006.'

� Appn 01/02120/FUL (Lock/Laker Stand), condition added to restrict mobileconcession units, to be amended as above if agreed. Minor corrections wererequired to the wording of conditions, and an informative required stating theUDP polices used to assess the application, these have been implemented.

� Appn. 01/02121/FUL (Vauxhall end), a condition was required restrictingfunctions at the Vauxhall end to sporting events only. The following condition hasbeen added;

'The hospitality/function/banqueting facilities hereby approved shall be used inconjunction with sporting events only and shall not be used forhospitality/function/banqueting purposes independently, or in conjunction with, anyother event held at the Ground.(Reason - In order to protect the amenities of local residents)'.

69

Minor corrections were required to the wording of conditions, these have beenimplemented.

All four reports are, therefore, being presented to Committee to gain approval to thechanges detailed above.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is the Oval cricket ground located on Kennington Oval. Theportion of the ground to which this application relates is that area directly behind the“Gover Stand”, which is an uncovered stand located in the northern part of theground. The hospitality suites will be located at the end nearest the VauxhallConservation Area.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has a long and complex history. Various planning permissions have beengranted within the ground, most of these relate to the upgrading of the facilities. Themost recent history is as follows:� 6th November 1998- Permission granted for the extension to the toilet block under

the Peter May stand.� 17th March 1999- Permission granted for the retention of the Vauxhall Chalet

hospitality suite complex and associated spectator accommodation for 5 years.� 31st March 1999- Permission granted for raised seating and safety barrier on the

Surridge Stand and the erection of a new toilet block.� 23rd September 1999- Erection of temporary building at rear of Gover Stand to

provide hospitality suites.� 12th March 2001- Refuse consent for 2 signs at Vauxhall West Gate.� There are currently two applications pending consideration for the redevelopment

of the site including new stands.� In March 1995, and again in June 1996, planning permission was refused for the

retention of steel supporting structures allowing temporary hospitality suites to beinstalled adjacent to the Gover Stand. An application, relating to the above, wasreceived in March 1997, which was subsequently withdrawn.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Erection of a steel support structure to be retained on the site from April 2002 toSeptember 2006 together with the erection of temporary hospitality structure on anannual basis on top of the structure. The structure for the suites will be 7.5metreshigh and will cover approximately 125sq.metres. However the application has beenamended to require the structure to be erected in May and be removed in Septemberof each year required.

The height of the hospitality suites rises to 16metres, these boxes to be erectedseveral times per cricket season. The hospitality suites will hold up to 216 spectatorsper day and is powered by from an independent power source.

CONSULTATIONS

Consultations were sent out to The Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum;Vauxhall Society; Friends of the Oval; Harleyford Court Tenants Association; TenantsCorner, Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association, Kennington Park Tenants

70

Association, Friends of Vauxhall Park, Manor of Kennington Residents Association,Vauxhall St Peters Heritage Centre, IMPACT and Vision for Vauxhall. Commentshave been received and are listed below.

A site notice was erected and neighbour notifications were sent to the all propertiesat Shrewsbury House, Kennington Oval, 60- 64 Kennington Oval, 96- 106 HarleyfordRoad, St Marks C of E Primary, Cynthia Mosely Nursery and 1 –50 Grace House, (allKennington Oval). Three letters were received and raised the following objections:� The area around the Oval is predominantly residential and the development will

affect the quality of life in terms of noise and increase in traffic and pollution.� The stand will cut out all the light to flats in Shrewsbury House.� The residents are sick of the cricket club putting in retrospective applications

every year whilst they carry on with their other plans.� The proposed green structure has an impact on the outlook of the local residents

as it is ugly and out of place.� Surrey cricket club flout the regulations every year and making the structure

permanent for the next five years will have an impact on the local area.� The structure goes up every year and has never been a problem before.

Neighbour have been re-notified and as of yet no objections have been received. Anyresponses will be reported orally at the committee.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Policy RL32 of the UDP recognises the Oval Cricket Ground has the potential toprovide for additional sport and leisure facilities. The Council will encourage theexpansion and widening of the sport and leisure facilities. Additional uses may alsobe viewed favourably if they enhance the ground as a sporting and leisure venue anddo not seriously affect the amenities of surrounding residential accommodation.

The proposed hospitality suite would be situated behind a 5metre high wall behindthe Gover stand which itself is located approximately 20 metres from the main road.The main bulk of the stands (the temporary boxes) are highly visible from the mainroad and the proposed permanent structure is also highly visible. However to thetemporary nature of these boxes it is not felt that they would have a detrimentalimpact on the adjoining listed buildings and the Vauxhall Conservation Area.

Policy CD16 relates to the design of new development. The proposed hospitalitysuites will be situated next to the existing spectator stand and as such the structurewill not adversely affect the setting of the adjoining Vauxhall conservation area or thelisted Oval House some 50 metres away. The letters of objection relates mainly tothe retention of the green structure for a permanent period and states that thedismantling of the structure was tolerated beforehand. The permanent retention ofthe structure will create an eyesore and have a detrimental impact on the area andthe local residents. The applicant has agreed to erect and remove the base structureon an annual basis between the months of May and September. The metal basestructure will be visible from Harleyford Road and in the past, applications for thetemporary erection of the stand have been approved. Hours of erection and dates willbe controlled via a condition attached to any consent granted.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed erection of the hospitality suites will not have a detrimental impact onthe adjoining residential properties and as such complies with Policies RL32 andCD16 of the UDP. Also the temporary erection of the base structure will not have a

71

detrimental impact on the area. In order to protect the adjoining resident’s amenitystrict hours of control will be applied to any consent. Therefore the application isrecommended for a temporary period.

1. The temporary hospitality suite complex hereby approved shall not be usedbefore 8.30am on each day of usage and must be vacated within two hoursafter the completion of each game.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties.)

2. All plant/equipment associated with the hospitality suite complex shall beenclosed in acoustically louvered boxes. Details of these enclosures shall besubmitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior touse on site.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties.)

3. Full details of the dates of the erection of the hospitality boxes and basestructure on site must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to thecommencement of work on site.(Reason:- To ensure that the amenities of the local residents is protected.)

4. The base structure of the hospitality suites must be erected no earlier thanthe 1st of May and removed before the 15th of September on an annual basisuntil 2006.(Reason:- To ensure that the amenities of the local residents is protected.)

5. Work on the construction of the base structure and the hospitality suites shallstart no earlier than 8.30am and must finish by 6pm Monday to Saturday. Nowork must be carried out on Sundays.(Reason:- To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties).

72

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strictaccordance with the plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of theLocal Planning Authority. (Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of thepremises is satisfactory.)

2 The temporary hospitality suite complex hereby approved shall not be usedbefore 8.30am on each day of usage and must be vacated within two hours after thecompletion of each game.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties.)

3 All plant/equipment associated with the hospitality suite complex shall beenclosed in acoustically louvered boxes. Details of these enclosures shall besubmitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to use onsite.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties.)

4 Full details of the dates of the erection and removal of the hospitality boxesand base structure on site must be submitted to and approved by the Local PlanningAuthority prior to the commencement of work on site. These details should besubmitted 3 months prior to the proposed works to allow full consultation with localresidents (Reason - To ensure that the amenities of local residents is protected).

5 The base structure of the hospitality suites must be erected no earlier thanthe 1st of May and removed before the 15th of September on an annual basis until2006. (Reason - To ensure that the amenities of the local residents are protected)

6 Any noise from the plant/equipment associated with the hospitality suitecomplex shall not be audible at the boundary.(Reason:- To avoid nuisance toneighbouring properties.)

7 The hospitality suites and base structure must not be delivered to the siteoutside the hours of 8.30am and 6pm Monday to Saturday. No work must be carriedout on Sundays or Bank Holidays.(Reason:- To safeguard the amenities ofneighbouring residential properties).

8 No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside thehours of 8.30am to 6.30pm.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouringresidential properties.)

9 No catering works shall be carried out outside the hours of 8.30am to10pm.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring residentialproperties.)

10 The limited period for the retention of the temporary hospitality stand shallbe until September 2006; on or before the expiration of which the hospitality standshall be removed, unless a further planning permission has been granted.(Reason:The type of building is not such as the Local Planning Authority is prepared toapprove other than for a limited period, having regard to the materials and type ofstructure.)

Notes to Applicant

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

73

required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

3. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Divisionconcerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food,Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-lawsor regulations made thereunder.

4. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of theControl of Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in thisrespect you are advised to contact the Council's Environmental HealthDivision.

5. In determining this application the following policies RL32 and D16 of theLambeth Unitary Development Plan were relevant to the decision

74

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2001

1 to 19

House

1 to 20Baltimore

1 to 15

Playground

1 to 12

HOTSP

UR ST RE

ET

Games Court

Play Area

Ward Point

1 to 9 8

1 to 113

LB

Nain by

House

Gaysley House

Sambro

o k Hou

s et rey H

o use

Tol pa

id e Hou

se

Sc hool

2.8m

Point

Elkingt on

Off ice

Neighbourh ood

LOLLARD STREET

DISTIN

STREE

T

12 to 18

34 to 40

Club

1 to 45

1

to 2 6

249231

239

2.7m

2.9m

TCP

19 to

NeedhamHouse

1

to 3 2

Br ittany Point

Nursery

1 to 31

1

to

47

Rup

ert H

ouse

Vic arag e

War

d

Bdy

CR

1 to 88

30 to 33

8 to 11

Sub Sta

El

Et he lred

1 to 31

Ba ltimor e House

Tolpa

ide H

ouse

1 to 20

Playground

BM

253

Games

Court

11

11

1

1 1

11

11

1

11

1

1

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00753/FUL

10 Lollard StreetLondonSE11 6UP

Conservation AreaBoundary :

75

Location Nursery School 10 Lollard Street London SE11 6UQ

Ward BISHOP'SProposal

Erection of temporary portakabins along with new link to existing nursery, along withassociated alterations.

Application No 02/00753/FUL/DCKP/22281

Applicant Ethelred Nursery School

Agent Househam Henderson Architects70-74 City RoadLondonEC1Y 2BJ

Date Valid 25 April 2002

Considerations

Plans930A, L105C, 900, L100C, 910A, L200C, 911A, L201A, C312B, 51629/101/P1, 920,fencing details (25.04.02), details of colour (13.03.02), Photographs

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

76

Officer Report

02/00753/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. Appropriateness of the design of extensions and alterations.

1.2. Impact of proposed extensions and alterations on the residential amenity ofadjacent residential properties.

2. Site Description

2.1. Ethelred Primary School is located at first floor level on the roof of a car park.

2.2. The school premises comprise a building, one storey in height, and a playgroundarea.

2.3. The site is surrounded by four blocks of multi-storey flats, namely SembrookHouse, Elkington Point, Ward Point and Brittany Point.

3. Planning History

3.1. There is no planning history for the site.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Installation of a new temporary portakabin nursery/ outreach centre with a newlink back to the existing nursery on the asphalt roof deck and concrete planter tothe south east of the school. Externally, the new nursery is clad with colouredgalvanised steel. The whole unit will sit on a framework of steel beams that will beseen to run around the perimeter. Galvanised steel mesh will then infil the gapbetween the beams and the floor to prevent the build up of refuse and preventchildren crawling underneath.

4.2. Construction of a new link between the existing nursery and the new portakabin.The new link will be clad in pressure treated timber constructed on a lightweightinsulated timber framework.

4.3. Extension to the existing playground and construction of a new stretch of fencingto enclosed the enlarged playground.

4.4. Internal alterations to the existing nursery comprising the conversion of thestorage space to teaching space.

4.5. Installation of a new storage shed to the existing playground, approximately2m (width) x 5m (length) x 2.4m (height).

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. Two site notices were posted and the following parties were notified directly:Association of Waterloo Groups, Lambeth Estates Residents Association, SouthBank Employers Group, Waterloo Amenities Group, Waterloo Action Centre,Waterloo Community Development Group, Kennington Estates ResidentsAssociation and Lambeth Towers and Lambeth Road T.A, the NeighbourhoodOffice, 1-32 Sambrook House, 1-88 Elkington Park, 1-113 Brittany Point, 1-98Ward Point.

77

5.2. Three letters of support and one letter of objection have been received.

5.3. The author of the objection letter lives at Brittany Point and raises the concern thatthe proposal may block out existing daylight. Concern is also raised about theincreased noise levels.

5.4. The Education Department has no objection to the proposal.

5.5. Residents of the flats were also issued with letters from Lambeth Housingoutlining the scheme and no objections were received.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. ED:4 New education premises or extensions (UDP) states that theCouncil will generally approve planning proposals for conversionsproviding that the development will not have adverse effects on thegeneral amenity of the area or be located where noise or traffic maydisturb learning.

6.1.2. In terms of CD18: Extensions (UDP), extensions should be confined tothe rear or least important facades and should be in keeping with thescale of the building and space around it. The height and form of thebuilding should be in keeping with the building and its setting.

6.1.3. Policy 7 Protection of Residential Amenity states that in mixed useareas, the scale, design, layout and intensity of non-residential uses willbe controlled in relation to residential uses to protect residential amenity.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The proposed land use will remain unchanged.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The proposed link and portakabin are in keeping with the scale, designand height of the existing school building. Notwithstanding this, theproposed portakabin is of a temporary nature and it is unlikely to bevisible from any street frontage as the school is located at first floor leveland is surrounded by three residential tower blocks.

6.3.2. It is considered that the proposed use of colours and materials of theportakabin will provide interest in an area which is currently sterile anddull. Furthermore, as the portakabin is unlikely to be visible from anystreetscape, the use of bright colours will not have a negative impact onthe area.

6.3.3. It is considered that the proposed mesh fencing is acceptable in designterms. The visually permeable nature of the fencing will enhancesurveillance both of the playground and areas just outside the school.

6.3.4. It is proposed to remove the roller shutter doors of the existing buildingsituated along the south-west elevation, and to brick up the opening. It isalso proposed to create an opening and double door in the existingbrickwork wall along the south-east elevation. The roller shutter doors

78

and brick wall would not be visible from outside the perimeter walls ofthe school.

6.3.5. The proposed shed will replace an existing timber shed. Although thiswill be larger than the existing shed, the majority of the shed will bescreened by the high perimeter wall and therefore only the rooftop will bevisible from outside the school premises.

6.3.6. In light of the above, it considered that the proposed extensions andalterations are acceptable in design terms and therefore in keeping withPolicy CD18: Extensions (UDP).

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. It is proposed to locate the portacabin, link building and playgroundextension on a portion of amenity space belonging to the adjacent blocksof flats. However, it appears that the area is not well used, probablybecause it is isolated and surveillance is poor. Furthermore, there areother areas of amenity space for residents use which enjoy greatersurveillance. There is also a public park directly opposite the flats. Giventhe fact that the area is not well used and that there are other areas ofopen space in close proximity, the loss of this amenity space isconsidered acceptable. The Housing Department has agreed in principleto lease of this amenity space to the school subject to the matter beingtabled at the next residents meeting.

6.4.2. It is considered that the new portakabin and link building will not result inan undue loss of daylight/ sunlight to Brittany Point as the proposal is incompliance with the BRE report standards for daylight/ sunlight. Inaddition, there are only two small windows facing Brittany Point, whichare both located over 2m above ground level. Therefore there would beno privacy/ overlooking issues.

6.4.3. The proposed mesh fencing along the south-west elevation directlyabuts a window at Ward Point. Although it may result in a slight loss ofdaylight, it is considered that because of the open nature of the fence,the loss of daylight will be minimal. Regarding sunlight, the affected flatfaces north-west and therefore any overshadowing of the window will befrom the Tower Block rather than the proposed fence.

6.4.4. As mentioned above, the proposed playground area is not well utilised,therefore, the extension will result in an increase in noise levels and willhave an impact on the residents living in Ward Point. However, as theseresidents already experience noise from the existing playground, whichis currently only 8m away from their windows, and that the playgroundwill only be used during the daytime, this is considered acceptable. It isconsidered that the increase in noise will not affect the residents inBrittany Point as a significant amount of noise will be blocked out by theproposed link and portakabin.

6.4.5. On balance it is considered that the proposed extensions and newplayground will not have an undue impact on the residential amenity ofthe adjacent residents and is therefore in keeping with ED4 (UDP) andPolicy 7.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. Not applicable

79

6.6. Regeneration and Town Centre Issues

6.6.1. Not applicable

6.7. Other

6.7.1. Not applicable

7. Conclusion

7.1. It is considered that the proposals are acceptable, given their location and giventhat they are of similar scale, design and height to the existing building. Thereforethe proposal is in keeping with Policy CD18 of the UDP.

7.2. It is considered that on balance the residential amenity of the adjacent residentialbuilding will be preserved and therefore that the proposal is in accordance withPolicies ED4 (UDP) and 7 (Deposit UDP).

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant planning permission

80

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

2 The limited period for the retention of the portakabin shall be until 30 July 2007; onor before the expiration of which period the portakabin shall be removed, unless a furtherplanning permission has been granted. (Reason: The type of building is not such as theLocal Planning Authority is prepared to approve other than for a limited period, havingregard to the materials and type of structure proposed).

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. In determining this application Policies CD18 and ED4 of the UDP and Policy 7 ofthe Draft Deposit applied.

81

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

North Pole

(PH)

Cl arke

House

Church

Rect ory

Gro ve

Centre

TCB

PH

FITZWIL LI AM R OAD

LI STON RO AD

LYDON RO AD

Sco ut L ane

TOW

N

TCB

Works

The

Church

Playground

Fire

Station

Tower

Braidwood Court

GRAFTO NSQ UARE

GRAFTON SQ UARE

16. 0m

15. 2m

15. 6m

16. 5m

BM

16.6 2m

TC B

Peoples

29

78

73 4434

22

12

2 1

99a

11

13

7 to

2133

1816

108

4

1

1115

75

87

5

1

4

20

12

2

3137

11

29

1

13

9

1

2

201 to 412

39

2 4

2018

131511

5a

28

Mari time House

1to

3

4

to6

13

29

The Ga bles

18a

39

OLD

8

21

Pos ts

7

23

The London

Acadamy

(College)

46

20

21

22

23

24

25

2627

31

1

1

1

11 1

1

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00325/FUL

13-21 Old TownLondonSW4 0JT

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

82

Location Shop And 10 Flats 13-21 Old Town London SW4 0JT

Ward CLAPHAM TOWNProposal

Installation of new shopfront to existing building along with associated alterations.

Application No 02/00325/FUL/DCSM/21257

Applicant SFI

Agent Design CoalitionThe Old MillCastle StreetOngarEssex CM5 9JY

Date Valid 15 May 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaClapham

Plans1392/0021392/204/B1392/502/DG1259 A, B, C, D, E

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

83

Officer Report

02/00325/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The main issues involved relate to whether the new shopfront and signage areconsidered acceptable in terms of the impact on the character and appearance ofthe building and Conservation Area, and the impact on residential amenity ofsurrounding residents.

1.2. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of these issues and it is thereforerecommended that planning permission be granted.

2. Site Description

2.1. The building to which this proposal relates is a nineteenth century, three storeyterrace of five properties located on the eastern side of Old Town, North of thejunction with Grafton Square. The property lies within the Clapham ConservationArea, and is adjacent to a Listed Building ( number 23 Old Town). The site lieswithin a designated Archaeological Priority Area.

2.2. The upper floors of the property have recently been converted and are occupiedas ten self-contained residential flats, with access via an external stairway fromthe rear of the property. The ground floor unit is currently vacant, with anunimplemented A3 use. It is this unit that the application relates to, with theintended occupiers being the Slug and Lettuce.

3. Planning History

3.1. On 12th January 1999, planning permission was granted for the conversion of theexisting accommodation on the first and second floors, together with the creationof a third floor mansard roof extension into 5 self contained residential flats.(Planning reference 98/00725/FUL). This has been implemented.

3.2. On 27th August 1998, planning permission was granted for a change of use fromvacant retail (A1) to (A3) Food and Drink. ( Planning reference 98/00283/FUL).The previous ground floor accommodation comprised of 5 units, 2 of whichformed a double unit and shopfronts. The units ( apart from number 17) had beenvacant for a long period of time and were in a semi-derelict state.

3.3. On 17th November 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of asingle storey extension for restaurant purposes (Class A3) in connection with theproposed ground floor use. (Planning reference 98/00295/FUL). This has beenimplemented.

3.4. There is currently an additional application for advertisement consent relating tothe display of 1 internally illuminated fascia sign, 1 internally illuminated projectingbox sign and awnings. This application( 02/00364/ADV) also appears on the agenda with a recommendation forapproval.

3.5. There is also an application relating to the ground floor premises for theinstallation of a flue, encased in a brick stack, fixed to the side (south) elevation ofthe building, and formation of an acoustic plant compound to the rear to provideenclosure for condensors. (Planning reference 01/03183/FUL). This applicationappeared on the agenda for the 11th June PAC meeting with a recommendationfor approval.

4. Scheme Details

84

4.1. The current application is for the installation of a new shopfront to the existingground floor unit in conjunction with its proposed occupation by the Slug andLettuce.

4.2. As mentioned above there is also an application for advertisement consent(02/00364/ADV) for the display of 1 internally illuminated fascia sign, 1 internallyilluminated projecting box sign and awnings.

4.3. It is appropriate that these applications are considered together and therefore theplanning considerations below address both of these proposals.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. The residents of 2 (10-20 The Gables),4,11, 21 (flats 1-10), 23 and 29 Old Townhave been notified. The Clapham Society, Clapham Antiquarian Society and theClapham Common Management Committee have also been consulted. A sitenotice has been displayed and the applications advertised in the local press. Fiveletters of objection have been received from local residents and the ClaphamSociety. The objections relate to the following :

� The internally illuminated signs, projecting sign and design of the shopfront(particularly the large amount of glass) are out of character with the street.

� The design of the shopfront is out of keeping with the character of Old Townand is inappropriate for a Conservation Area.

� The design is generic ‘Slug and Lettuce’ used on all pubs in ‘High Street’locations.

� The projecting sign is above the entrance gates for the flats above and willincrease the impression that the gate is for the pub only. This could lead toproblems of people using the passageway and loitering outside the gate afterclosing time.

� Noise pollution through windows and doors� Light pollution from the illumination at the front of the pub.� There are already a large number of pubs and restaurants in the area.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. In this instance the proposal will be assessed against the followingrelevant policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan :

6.1.2. CD2 : Development In Conservation Areas6.1.3. CD17 : Shopfronts6.1.4. CD15 : Design of new development6.1.5. CD20 : Display of Advertisements6.1.6. The Councils draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on shopfronts is

currently being piloted prior to consultation with local amenity andcommercial organisations. It is proposed to be adopted later this year asSPG. It is currently being used as a basis for decision-making on a pilotbasis. It therefore currently has the status of officer guidance emanatingfrom the Design and Conservation Team.

6.1.7. The new deposit version of the Unitary Development Plan containspolicies relevant to this application but which carry little weight at thisearly stage as they are not interim policies. These relate to policies 34(Shopfronts and Advertisements) and 42 (Conservation Area).

6.2. Design and Conservation Considerations

85

Shopfront

6.2.1. Policy CD2 states that when considering alterations to existing buildings,the Council will ensure that the character or appearance of aConservation Area is preserved and enhanced. Policy CD 15 indicatesthat the Council will seek to achieve a high quality of design, carefullyrelated to its surroundings and contributing positively to the area

6.2.2. Policy CD17 states that the Council will seek to establish shopfronts of ahigh quality of design, ensuring they are well related to theirsurroundings. In Conservation Areas all new shopfronts andadvertisements should relate well to existing buildings and thestreetscene, be of a high quality with appropriate design materials andpreserve and enhance the character of the area.

6.2.3. The draft SPG on Shopfronts states that in some cases, where theexisting shopfront is of little or no quality, innovative design may bepermitted. In this instance although the building has an historic core, itsfront elevation has been altered and refurbished over time. It wasgenerally in a poor state of repair prior to the approval of the applicationsfor the change of use on the ground floor and the residentialaccommodation above. There are no original shopfront features thatwere considered to be worthy of retaining given these alterations. Inaddition the new shopfront will replace what was formally three separateshop units. For these reasons it is considered that a modern approachto the shopfront is acceptable in principle.

6.2.4. The Councils Conservation Officer have given detailed commentsregarding the design. It is considered that the proposal represents asimple and streamlined addition to the building. The proposed materialsare textured render in buttermilk which match the existing upper floors.A timber fascia board in a buttermilk colour is also proposed which isconsidered acceptable. The Conservation Officer has also requestedthat the panel above the glass door is glass rather than solid and that themetal window frames are powder coated. The applicant has confirmedthese points in writing. The metal frames will be colour coated in offwhite.

Adverts and Awning

6.2.5. With regards to the signage, Policy CD20 states that in ConservationAreas signs should normally be located at fascia level. Size, design andmethod of illumination will be carefully controlled. Advertisementsshould respect the scale of the buildings on which they are displayed,together with the surroundings.

6.2.6. The proposed signs relate to a convexed metal fascia above the doormeasuring 4.4 metres in length and 0.6 metres in depth, and a metal boxsign, projecting 1 metre from the wall and 1 metre in height. It is locatedat the end of the building on the render column immediately adjacent tothe gate leading to the entrance to the flats at the rear of the building.Both signs are proposed to be internally illuminated.

6.2.7. It is considered that both the fascia sign and the projecting sign aremodest in size and can be accommodated on the large front elevation.The projecting sign is located in the traditional area at fascia height andthere is no more than one proposed on the building. The SPG states thatinternally illuminated shopfront fascia and projecting signs will bediscouraged. However the applicant has confirmed that the lettering willbe fretcut and back lit rather than applied to the metal background sothat only the letters are illuminated. The Conservation Officer considers

86

this acceptable and to not be detrimental to the character andappearance of the Conservation Area.

6.2.8. Four awnings are proposed above each of the four windows. PolicyCD20 states that in Conservation Areas permission will only be grantedfor retractable blinds which have no adverse impact on the quality of thestreetscene. Very bright, fluorescent or metallic finish blinds will not bepermitted. Although the awnings are not retractable it is considered thatthe shallow projection of 0.4 metres and their height of 1.1 metre has aminimal impact on the streetscene and the Conservation Area. Theseare a stainless steel frame in blue and the material is vinyl with a canvastexture satin finish in dark blue. It is considered that the material andcolour are both acceptable. There are three spotlights under eachawning.

6.3. Amenity Impact

6.3.1. The proposal is not considered to have an impact in terms of noise tonearby residential properties. The windows and doors are fixed shut andfitted with acoustic seals and the Noise and Regulation team have noobjection to the proposal.

6.3.2. The illumination of the signs is not considered to have any adverseimpact on neighbouring residents. The illuminations are neither flashingor intermittent and will not be harmful to the windows of the flats above.Additionally it is not considered that these signs will be harmful to publicsafety.

6.4 Third Party Representations

6.4.1 There have been issues raised that have not been addressedabove. Concerns relate to the location of the projecting sign above thegate that leads to the entrance to the flats at the rear of the building andthat this will increase the impression that the gate is for the pub. It is alsoconsidered that this could lead to problems of people using thepassageway and loitering outside the gate after closing time.

6.4.2 This is an issue that relates to the use of the unit which was consideredin the planning application for the change of use from A1 to A3. Theprojecting sign is not located above the gate, rather next to it and it isconsidered to relate appropriately to the ground floor unit.

6.4.3 Another issue raised related to the large number of pubs and restaurantsin the area. Again this is an issue that was considered in the applicationfor change of use of the property and is not an issue that can beconsidered in this application.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The design of the shopfront is considered acceptable and the proposal is notconsidered to be harmful to the appearance or character of the building orConservation Area. There are no adverse impacts on the amenity ofneighbouring occupiers as a result of this proposal.

7.2. The proposal generally complies with policies CD2, CD15, and CD17 of theadopted Unitary Development Plan and policies 34 and 42 of the deposit UnitaryDevelopment Plan, and draft SPG on Shopfronts.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approval of the application is recommended.

87

88

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

3 Except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works andworks of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent workwith regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. (Reason: Toensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

4 The timber fascia board shall be painted in buttermilk colour Reason : To ensurethe external appearance of the building is satisfactory.

5 The metal window frames shall be colour coated. Reason: To ensure the externalappearance of the building is satisfactory.

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. In determining this application the following policies of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan were relevant to the decision : CD2, CD15, CD17, andpolicies 34 and 42 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan. The draft SPG onshopfronts was also relevant.

89

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

North P ole

(PH)

Cl arke

House

Church

Rect ory

Gro ve

Centre

TCB

PH

FITZWIL LI AM R OAD

LI STON RO AD

LYDON RO AD

Sco ut L ane

TOW

N

TCB

Works

The

Church

Playground

Fire

Station

Tower

Braidwood Court

GRAFTO NSQ UARE

GRAFTON SQ UARE

16. 0m

15. 2m

15. 6m

16. 5m

BM

16.6 2m

TC B

Peoples

29

78

73 4434

22

12

2 1

99a

11

13

7 to

2133

1816

108

4

1

1115

75

87

5

1

4

20

12

2

3137

11

29

1

13

9

1

2

201 to 412

39

2 4

2018

131511

5a

28

Mari tim e House

1to

3

4

to6

13

29

The Ga bles

18a

39

OLD

8

21

Pos ts

7

23

The London

Acadamy

(College)

46

20

21

22

23

24

25

2627

31

1

1

1

11 1

1

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00364/ADV

13-21 Old TownLondonSW4 0JT

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

90

Location Shop And 10 Flats 13-21 Old Town London SW4 0JT

Ward CLAPHAM TOWNProposal

Display of 1 internally illuminated fascia sign, 1 internally illuminated projecting box sign andawnings.

Application No 02/00364/ADV/DCSM/21257

Applicant S F I Group

Agent Design CoalitionThe Old MillCastle StreetOngarEssex CM5 9JY

Date Valid 27 May 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaClapham

Plans1392/205/B1392/002section of awning1392/204/E

Recommendation GRANT ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT

91

Officer Report

02/00364/ADV

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The main issues relate to whether the proposed signage and awnings areconsidered acceptable in terms of the impact on the character and appearance ofthe building and Conservation Area, the impact on the residential amenity ofsurrounding residents and public safety.

1.2. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of these issues and it is thereforerecommended that advert consent be granted.

2. Site Description

2.1. See report relating to application 02/00325/FUL for site description.

3. Planning History

3.1. See report relating to application 02/00325/FUL for the site history.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The application is for advertisement consent for the display of 1 internallyilluminated fascia sign, 1 internally illuminated projecting box sign and awnings.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1 A site notice was displayed and the application was advertised in the local press.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1 The relevant policies and planning considerations for this proposal havebeen discussed in the report relating to application 02/00364/FUL for theinstallation of a new shopfront.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed signage and awnings are considered acceptable, and are notconsidered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building orConservation Area. There are no adverse impacts on the amenity ofneighbouring occupiers or public safety as a result of this proposal.

7.2. The proposal generally with policies CD2 and CD20 of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan, and policies 34 and 42 of the deposit Unitary DevelopmentPlan, and draft SPG on Shopfronts.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approval of the application is recommended.

92

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

Notes to Applicant

1. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

2. In determining this application the following policies of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan were relevant to this decision : CD2, CD20 and policies 34 and42 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan. The draft Supplementary PlanningGuidance on Shopfronts is also relevant.

93

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

Garage

Sco ut L ane

TOW

N

TCB

LB

Sun

(PH)

Clapham

Congregational

Church

Works

19. 0m

17. 3m

Trough

30

40

48

58

29

41

43 t o 53

38

36a

36

28

1816

1

201 to 412

3947

Libr ary

Princ e of W ales

(PH)

Mari tim e House

18a

OLD The London

Acadamy

(College)

Pr in ces Close

1

SYCAMORE MEWS13

14

2627

31

38

39

OL D TOW

N

Garag e

The

Lodge

DOWNER'S COTTAGES

PH

Wi ndsor Cour t

THE POLYGON

Librar y

Wor ks

Nattr ass

House

COMMON NOR

T H SIDE

18. 8m

19. 5m

LB

PCs

PH

3a 3

3c 3b

1

to

9

10 to

15

28

27

29

32

53

59

4

5

5b

9

4

63

El

Sub Sta

14 to 16

8

18

6

2

1

ORLANDOROAD

17

20. 4m

2 1

THE PA VEMENT

Geor

ge

West

Hous

e

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00569/FUL

40-42 Old TownLondonSW4 0LB

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

94

Location Business 40-42 Old Town London SW4 0LB

Ward CLAPHAM TOWNProposal

Application for the variation of condition 8 of planning permission 99/01893/FUL in respectof the A1/A2 use to vary the hours of opening to 0800 to 2000 Mondays to Saturdays,Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Application No 02/00569/FUL/DCSM/21128

Applicant Peachdrive Properties Ltd

Agent RPS Group PlcHarbourside House4-5 The GroveBristolBS1 4QZ

Date Valid 25 February 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaClapham

PlansSite location Plan

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

95

Officer Report

02/00569/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The main issues involved in this application relate to whether the extension of theopening hours is considered acceptable in terms of the impact on amenity onnearby residents and residents above the premises, and the impact on parkingand traffic congestion.

1.2. The scheme is considered acceptable in terms of these issues and it is thereforerecommended that planning permission be granted.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site lies on the eastern side of Old Town on the corner withOrlando Road. It is located within the Clapham Conservation Area with viewssouth to the Grade II* Listed Holy Trinity Church and east to the Grade II* Listedlate 17th and 18th century properties. The site lies between the elegant FlemishRenaissance style late Victorian library (1889) and the attractive early VictorianPrince of Wales Public House.

2.2. The site previously consisted of a forecourt and some double height workshopsand was formerly used as a petrol filling station, although in recent years hasbeen used as a car repair garage.

2.3. The site now consists of a four-storey building with frontages on both Old Townand Orlando Road which is currently under construction. The upper floors havepermission for residential accommodation and the ground floor has permission foran A1/A2 shop unit and two B1 units.

2.4. This application relates to the A1/A2 shop unit which is the middle/corner groundfloor unit with frontages on both Orlando Road and Old Town.

3. Planning History

3.1. On 7th April 2000 permission was refused for the demolition of workshop buildingsto facilitate redevelopment of the site to provide a four-storey building containing aClass A1/A2 shop unit and 2 Class B1 Office units on the ground floor and 10 self-contained flats on the upper floors together with associated amenity space, carparking and means of access. (Ref 99/01893/FUL). Permission was also refusedon this date for Conservation Area consent for the demolition of the workshopbuildings to facilitate redevelopment of the site in accordance with the associatedplanning permission. Planning permission and Conservation Area consent wererefused for the following reasons:

1) In view of the prominence of the site it is considered that the detaileddesign of the building does not relate sufficiently to the neighbouringbuildings and would fail to make a sufficiently positive contribution tothe character of the Conservation Area contrary to Policy CD2 of theLambeth Unitary Development Plan

2) The proposed fourth storey would result in a development that is undulybulky and out of scale with neighbouring buildings and would thereby bycontrary to Policy CD15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3.2. On the 23 August 2000 planning permission and Conservation Areaconsent were granted on appeal for the above proposals.

3.3. On 14th May 2001 planing permission was refused on appeal for a revisedscheme to that granted consent on appeal on 23 August 2000. This related to the

96

demolition of workshop buildings to facilitate the redevelopment of the siteincluding two A3 units, one B1 unit and10 self contained flats.

3.4. Permission was granted on the 30 April 2002 for the display of two internallyilluminated hanging logo signs, two externally illuminated projecting signs, andtwo externally illuminated fascia signs.

3.5. There are two additional applications currently pending consideration relating tothis site. One is for the use of the pavement as an outdoor seating area(02/00806/FUL). The other is for the installation of a new shopfront.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The current application is for the variation of condition 8 of the planningpermission 99/01893/FUL. This stated that :

The B1 and A1/A2 units permitted shall not be open to the public outside thehours of 0800 to 1900 Mondays to Saturdays inclusive and not at all onSundays or Bank Holidays.

4.2 The proposal is to extend the opening hours on Monday to Saturday for anadditional hour in the evening from 0800 to 2000 as opposed to 0800 to 1900. Itis also proposed that the shop opens on Sundays and Bank Holidays for the samehours of 0800 to 2000.

4.3 These extended hours relate to the unit being used as a Starbucks coffee shop.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. The residents of 1-3 Clapham Common North Side, 36 (A) and 38 Old Town and43-53 ( Orlando Court), and 56 –60 (evens) Orlando Road have been notified.The Clapham Society and Clapham Town Centre Manager were also consulted. Asite notice has been posted and the application advertised in the local press.

5.2. Three letters of objection have been received from residents on Orlando Road.Objections are on the following grounds :� The proposal will increase parking congestion in Orlando Road where it is

already very difficult to park in the evenings.� The extension till 8pm is opposed as it makes it harder for residents returning

from work to find parking spaces.� There are already plenty of cafes and restaurants and the noise on a summers

evening from these carries half way down Orlando Road.� The premises are on the corner of a residential street.� It is not unreasonable for residents to expect some days when it is shut along

with the other cafes on Old Town.� Opening hours should be restricted on Sundays and bank holidays to 1800

hours to reduce the effect of commercial activity in this predominantlyresidential area.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. In this instance the proposal will be assessed against the followingpolicies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan :

6.1.2. S14 : Food and Drink6.1.3. EMP 12 : Amenity and Design6.1.4. T`17: Transport implications of development proposals6.1.5. The new deposit version of the Unitary Development Plan contains

policies relevant to this application but which carry little weight at thisearly stage. These relate to policies 7 Protection of Residential Amenity

97

and, 9 Transport Impact and 29 The Evening and Late Night Economy,Food and Drink and Amusement Centre Uses.

6.2. Amenity Impact

6.2.1. Policy S14 states that in considering proposal for cafes, regard will begiven to the impact of the proposal, either alone or cumulatively withother similar uses in the local area on the amenity of nearby residentsand workers and road safety, parking and traffic congestion. Theproposed opening hours of the business is one of the factors that will betaken into account.

6.2.2. Policy EMP 12 also states that all new employment-generatingdevelopment will be expected to relate satisfactorily to existingdevelopment and be acceptable with regard to the need to safeguardresidential amenity. Particular attention will be paid to the followingfactors: activity generated, traffic generation, and impact on amenity interms of noise.

6.2.3. The main issue relates to the impact of noise to nearby residentsparticularly those in Orlando Road behind the site and those living abovethe property.

6.2.4. The proposed extension on Mondays to Saturdays is only an additionalhour to 2000 hours and is not considered to be late, particularly whenconsidering the opening hours of the nearest Food and Drinkestablishment, the Prince of Wales public house next to the site. It is notconsidered that the closing time of 2000 hours is unacceptable whencompared to the 2300 hours closing time of the public house. Similarlythe opening of the coffee shop on Sundays and bank holiday Mondays isconsidered acceptable in this respect. Although the coffee shop willhave increased opening hours in the morning in relation to the publichouse (0800 hours compared to 1100 hours) the acceptability of theextended hours is compounded by the nature of the use.

6.2.5. The use does not provide any alcoholic beverages which can beassociated with general disturbance. Condition 7 of the originalapplication also states that ‘ there shall be no amplified sound,speech or music audible outside the premises’. A noise insulationscheme has also been approved. In view of this it is considered that theuse is unlikely to be harmful to the amenity of residents above thepremises or to those living nearby in Orlando Road in respect of noise.

6.2.6. The development of an outdoor seating area is currently forconsideration under application 02/00806/FUL. This applicationproposes a seating area which would be located on the pavementfronting Old Town and does not involve the use of the pavement onOrlando Road. Any approval would be subject to limiting the number oftables and chairs and the times at which the outside seating areas canbe used. Tables and chairs would be restricted to four and sixteenrespectively and the area would not be used before 10.00am onSundays and Bank Holiday Mondays in order to protect the amenity ofresidents in the residential flats immediately above. This would becontrolled by way of a condition.

6.3. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.3.1. Policy T 17 states that all development proposals will be assessed forcontribution to traffic generation, and impact on road congestion.

6.3.2. Orlando Road is located in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Thecontrolled hours are between 08.30 to 06.30 Mondays toFridays/Saturdays. Between these hours only residents with parkingpermits can use the on street parking bays and outside of these hours

98

parking is not restricted to permits. Residents concerns relates to theexacerbation of parking congestion particularly in the early evening whenreturning from work. Starbucks will be open for an additional hour and ahalf after the CPZ ends and on Sundays and bank holidays when thereare no parking controls. The Councils Transport department haveconfirmed that there are no plans to extend the hours of the CPZ in thisarea.

6.3.3. It is not considered that the use of the premises as a Starbucks willcreate an unacceptable amount of increased parking stress. The use isunlikely to encourage specific journeys to Old Town by car, unlike forexample a restaurant use, and its use will more likely be part of a multipurpose trip to Old Town to use existing facilities. Additionally anyparking in relation to the use of Starbucks is likely to be very short term.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed extension of opening hours in relation to the A1/A2 use isconsidered to be acceptable in terms of the impact on the amenities ofsurrounding residents in respect of noise, and on parking and traffic congestion.

7.2. The proposal complies with policies S14, EMP 12 and T17 of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan and policies7, 9 and 29 of the deposit Unitary DevelopmentPlan.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approval of the application is recommended.

99

Conditions and/or Reasons

Notes to Applicant

1. In determining this application the following policies of the adopted UnitaryDevelopment Plan were relevant to this decision : S14, EMP12, T7 and policies7,9 and 29 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan.

2. This consent hereby varies condition 8 ofthe planning permission dated 23rdAugust 2000 ( APP/N5660/A/00/1042295) regarding hours of operation and relatessolely to the use ofthe A1/A2 part of the premises.

100

101

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

BROADHINTON ROAD

LILLIESHALL ROAD

The Farm House

Lynw ood

El

Sub Sta

16. 0m

18. 0m

18. 0m

BM 17.00m

10

16

22

22a

2

1

61

49

42

66

5423 t o 33

21

15

23

23a

24

30

31 to 33

35

38

3

NORT H ST RE ET

LILLIESHALL ROAD

CHA

PH

BM 16 .31m

m

BOBB IN CLOSE

44 67

65c

65a

65

63

47

1

2

8

18

44

42a

42

30

3

13

21

27

35

43

1a

1

9

30

22

23

17

45

2

29

16

3

26

14

11

40

15.5 m

45

23

25

12

9

21

38

28

10

9

6

58

7

4

3

8

10

13

15

57

12 14

46

11

13

11

13

Posts

11

11

11

11

1

1

11

11

11

1 1

11

11

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00703/FUL

42 Lillieshall RoadLondonSW4 0LP

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

102

Location 42 Lillieshall Road London SW4 0LP

Ward CLAPHAM TOWNProposal

Enlargement of basement involving formation of new window and light well to front elevationalong with associated alterations.

Application No 02/00703/FUL/DCAP/32214

Applicant Mr & Mrs Chandler

Agent London Basement Company292 Worton RoadIsleworthTW7 6EL

Date Valid 20 May 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaClapham

Plans01, 02, 03, 04A

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

103

Officer Report

02/00703/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

The main consideration is the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the buildingand the amenities of the neighbouring residents. The proposal must therefore complywith UDP Policies CD18, H10, CD2 and ST8.

2. Site Description

The application premises comprise a three-storey, single family dwelling house, with anoriginal two-storey rear addition. The property is situated at a break in the roofline of theterrace. Number 44 Lillieshall Road and the rest of the terrace to the south-west is onestorey higher than the part of the terrace to the north east, which includes the applicantpremises. The property has a northwest facing rear garden measuring approximately24m long by 6m wide.

It is located within the Clapham Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

00/01988/FUL – Erection of a rear roof extension with raised roof ridge and two dormerwindows, together with the installation of three rooflights on the front roofslope, erectionof a second floor level rear extension and installation of rear lantern rooflights.REFUSED, 19 December 2000.An appeal was logged and dismissed for the above-mentioned application on 14 May2001. Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/A/01/1058955.01/0090F/FUL – Erection of full rear mansard roof extension with two rear dormers,together with installation of rooflights to front elevation and associated alterations.REFUSED, 31 May 2001.01/01844/FUL – Erection of 2 dormer windows to rear elevation and additional rooflightto front elevation along with associated alterations. APPROVED, 14 January 2002.

4. Scheme Details

Enlargement of basement involving formation of new window and light well to frontelevation along with associated alterations.

This application proposes the creation of a playroom at basement level within theexisting ‘footprint’ of the dwelling itself. In order to facilitate the installation of a baywindow at basement level – to match the existing bay on ground floor level – a lightwellis proposed in the front yard area. The lightwell is proposed to be approx. 2.4m belowground level, 1.8m deep and 3.6m wide. The lightwell is proposed to be enclosed with aplain metal handrail with balustrade infill.

5. Consultation Responses

Letters of notification were sent to surrounding properties in Lillieshall Road. TheClapham Society was also consulted. A site notice was also erected near the property.

One letter of objection was received in response to the above consultation. The objectorobjected to the following:

104

� The proposed works would break the uniform character which currently exists to thefront of the terrace.

� The excavation of the basement floor would require major alterations to the drainagesystem because it runs underneath it. These alterations to the drainage systemwould detriment the drains of the whole terrace.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant PoliciesRelevant Policies: CD2 – Residential Extensions

CD18 – ExtensionsH10 – Residential development standardsST8 – Residential extensions

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)(27/11/2000)

Policy CD18 requires that extensions should be in scale with the building and the spacearound it. Furthermore, the height and form of the extension should be in keeping withthe building and its setting, and extensions should respect the plan form, period,architectural characteristics and detailing of the original building. The Policy also statesthat where it is necessary to increase the window area of basement rooms to satisfydaylight requirements, account must be taken of the alignment of the windows on otherfloors of the building, and where possible the new windows should be of traditionalproportions. Also, additional windows should be in keeping with the originalcontemporary pattern.

* The windows proposed are in line and of the same style and design of thoseappearing on the ground floor. The lightwell are of such a design to provide sufficientdaylight into the new room.

Policy ST8 (referred to by Policy H10) seeks to ensure that extensions do not have adetrimental impact on neighbouring properties or visual amenities.

* The proposed works would take place on lower ground floor, thus, most of theproposed works would not be visible at all from the neighbouring properties.

The SPG for Residential Extensions generally require that extensions should be inkeeping with the character of the building, and should not be of detriment to the light oramenity of neighbouring properties.

* See Policies CD18 and ST8.

Paragraph 8.3 (Lightwells) of the SPG deals specifically with lightwells:

“Lightwells: The creation of a basement room with a lightwell at the front of ahouse may be acceptable if the following guidelines are met:i) The front garden will need to be large enough to accommodate the new

facility,

* A large enough front garden exists.

ii) A lightwell may not be acceptable if the result would be detrimental to theappearance of the front of the house, within its garden setting,

The proposed works would take place on lower ground floor, thus, most ofthe proposed works would not be visible at all from the neighbouringproperties. The windows proposed are in line and of the same style and

105

design of those appearing on the ground floor. Thus, the proposal wouldblend in well with the existing terrace and dwelling.

iii) A lightwell may not be acceptable if the uniform character of a row or terraceor other houses would be compromised,

The windows proposed are in line and of the same style and design of thoseappearing on the ground floor. Thus, the proposal would blend in well withthe existing terrace and dwelling.

iv) A lightwell should have fenestration appropriate to the character of thebuilding (this may in some cases need to be in keeping),

The appropriate fenestration is proposed which are in keeping with thebuilding.

v) To reduce the impact on the garden, an acceptable lightwell will normallyhave a steep enclosure and be suitably protected for example by railings. Ifthe garden is small, this may be an indication that the site lacks capacity for alightwell.”

Railings are proposed to enclose the lightwell.

6.2. Amenity Impact

The front garden of the dwelling is relatively small, however in light of sections (i) and (v)quoted above, the garden is not an ideal amenity area, due to its size and location on arelatively busy street. In this instance the size of the front garden is not considered as anindication that it lacks the capacity for a lightwell.

The 2.4m-deep lightwell would be suitably protected by means of enclosure by plainmetal handrail with balustrade infill.

The basement windows would be in keeping with the original contemporary pattern ofthe dwelling itself and the terrace concerned. Combined with the fact that the lightwellwould not be visible from the street, the fact that the room already exists under theground floor of the dwelling, and the fact that the proposal is of a modest scale, therewould be no detrimental impact to the appearance of the front of the house or its gardensetting, nor would the uniform character of the terrace be compromised.

The one letter of objection received objected to the following:

� The proposed works would break the uniform character which currently exists to thefront of the terrace.

The windows proposed are in line and of the same style and design of thoseappearing on the ground floor. Most of the proposed works are also at lower groundfloor and would therefore not visible from the neighbouring properties.

� By excavating the basement floor, would require major alterations to the drainagesystem which currently runs underneath it. These alterations to the drainage systemwould detriment the drains of the whole terrace.

This is not seen as a Planning matter.

7. Conclusion

106

In view of the above, the relative small scale and the general design of the proposal, it isconsidered that this application would not have any detrimental impact on the amenitiesof neighbouring properties or in terms of general visual amenity, with regard to thesubject dwelling or the street scene. In these respects the application conforms toPolicies CD2, CD18, H10, ST1 and ST8 of the Adopted Lambeth Unitary DevelopmentPlan and the Adopted Residential Extension Guidelines.

8. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the attachedconditions.

107

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 Except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works andworks of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent workwith regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. (Reason: Toensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

2 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

3 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

4 Making good of damage. Any damage to the building caused by the works shouldbe made good.(Reason: In order to safeguard the character and appearance of this part ofthe Conservation Area.)

5 Any new sash windows shall be of clear glass in vertical sliding sash frameswithin a recessed box frame. They must also be of painted softwood with the sashescounterbalanced by weighted cords and pulleys. They must match the design, mouldingsand glazing bar pattern of any original windows that survive the same floor level.(Reason: Inorder to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.)

6 All windows on the external faces of the development shall be set within115mm(minimum) reveals from the face of the building.(Reason: In order to safeguard thecharacter and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.)

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. In determining this application the following policies of the Unitary DevelopmentPlan were relevant to the decision: CD2, CD18, H10, ST8 and the AdoptedResidential Extension Guidelines(SPG) (27/11/2000).

108

109

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

TURR ET G ROVE

ROZEL ROAD

NORT H S TR EET

14. 8m

12. 0m

14. 2m

BM 16.08m

16. 2m

15. 7m

60

1

11

10

2

67

65c

65a

65

63

12

2

58

44

42a

42

30

26

16

12

10

35

13

2331 41

43

18

10

42

18

7

17

27

27a29

41

28 13

2 60581

32

28

20

7a

11

45

3

REC TORY

G RO VE

26

15. 9m

15. 5m

BM 12.21m

30

39 37

15

13

41

44

57

46

Posts

51

2223

49

47

30

31

43

1

4

STEPHEN PLACE

ROZE L R O

AD

Surgery

IVELEY ROAD

Vic ar age

657

4135 37

29 31

38

28

188

1

21

11

661

663

671

23

6b

6a64a

42

2a

9

7

23a

11

1

1

1 1 1

11

11

1

11

1

11

11

111

1

11

111

111

11 1 1 1 1 1

11 1

1

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/01283/FUL

24 Turret GroveLondonSW4 0ET

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

110

Location 24 Turret Grove London SW4 0ET

Ward CLAPHAM TOWNProposal

Loft conversion involving erection of a rear roof extension and three roof lights to frontelevation along with associated alterations.

Application No 02/01283/FUL/DCNA/40175

Applicant Mr Henley & Ms Glynn

Agent C.D Martin48 Blackwood RoadDosthillTamworthSTAFFS B77 1JN

Date Valid 8 May 2002

Considerations

Plans679/1, 679/2, 679/3,679/4

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

111

Officer Report

02/01283/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The main planning considerations are the impact that the proposal will have onthe appearance of the building and wider terrace, and on the amenity of theoccupiers of the neighbouring properties. Although contrary to the UnitaryDevelopment Plan Policy and SPG, it is considered that the erection of a rear roofextension will not harm the appearance of the building or uniformity of the terracedue to the proliferation of similar extensions in the area.

2. Site Description

2.1. The property is located on the south side of Turret Grove, close to the junctionwith Rozel Road. It is a two storey terraced house with semi basement level insingle family occupation. The property is located within a terrace of sevenproperties, backing on to the side elevation of 7 Rozel Road to the rear. Theproperties to the east of this terrace are located in the Rectory GroveConservation Area.

2.2. Two of the properties to the west of the site, at 18 and 20 Turret Grove have rearroof extensions as does the adjacent property to the east at 26 Turret Grove.Several of the properties located to the rear of the site on Rozel Road also havelarge rear roof extensions, as do properties on the south side of Turret Grove tothe other side of the junction with Rozel Road.

3. Planning History

3.1. There is no planning history associated with this property.

3.2. On 27 July 1998 planning approval was granted for the erection of a dormerwindow to the rear roof space and the installation of three velux windows to thefront at number 20 Turret Grove.

3.3. On 14 May 1998 a planning application for a roof extension was withdrawn for 18Turret Grove as the development was found to comply with the criteria forpermitted development. The extension was undertaken under permitteddevelopment rights.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The present application is for a loft conversion involving the erection of a rear roofextension and three rooflights to the front roof elevation.

4.2. The proposed roof extension will raise the height of the ridge of the roof by 0.25m,moving the ridge back towards the rear by approximately 0.35m. The structurewill project back by 3.3m forming a flat roof. The rear elevation of the property willbe effectively raised vertically by 2.5m to meet the roof. The wall will be of brick tomatch the existing with three windows installed. The windows will include detailsto match the existing windows to the rear elevation and will be 0.85m wide and1.0m high.

112

4.3. Three rooflights will be installed in the front roof slope. Two, of the dimensions0.9m high and 0.9m wide will be installed towards the ridge of the roof with alarger one, 1.25m high and 0.8m wide, located towards the west side of theroofslope, set up approximately 1m from the eaves.

5. Consultation Responses ( Consult details would be picked up from Uni-form recorddata)(Include heading for responses on reviewed proposals if necessary):

5.1. Letters of consultation were sent to the occupiers of the neighbouring propertieson Turret Grove, and to the rear of the site on Rozel Road. A letter was also sentto the Clapham Society.

5.2. No responses were received as part of the consultation process.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies ( including national guidance )

6.1.1. CD18 Extensions – states that extensions should be in scale with thebuilding and space around it. Roof extensions must not harm theproportions or architectural integrity of the building. Windows of roofextensions should relate to those in the main building.

6.1.2. H10 Residential Development Standards – indicates that proposals willbe assessed against the relevant standards including:

6.1.3. ST8 Residential Extensions – states that consideration will be given tothe siting, massing, scale, impact on general amenity and overlooking ofproposals for development.

6.1.4. ST3 Daylight and Sunlight – states that regard will be had to the impactupon daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties.

6.1.5. SPG Policies for Residential Extensions and Alterations – expands onthe policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. It states thatextensions, including roof extensions, should be subordinate to thebuilding. Full width roof extensions will not normally be permittedparticularly where these will compromise the rear neighbourhoodroofscape.

6.2. The main planning considerations are the impact that the proposals would haveon the appearance of the building and any potential impacts on the amenitiesenjoyed by neighbours.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The proposed installation of three rooflights in the front roof slope isconsidered acceptable in terms of the resulting appearance of thebuilding and would maintain the general street scene in accordance withPolicies H10, CD18 and ST8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

6.3.2. The proposed mansard roof extension at the rear would be contrary tothe SPG since it would span the full height and width of the roof.However, it is considered that this case presents exceptionalcircumstances. A large number of properties on Turret Grove itself, andRozel Road to the rear of the property, have full size rear roof extensions

113

and it is considered that these have now become an established featureof the local pattern of development. Consequently the proposed rearroof extension would be in keeping with the character of the area.

6.3.3. Although the proposal involves the raising of the ridge of the roof, it isnot considered that this will have a detrimental impact upon the terrace.The proposed mansard will be of similar dimensions and appearance tothe extension at the adjacent property, number 26, including the heightof the ridge. The increase in height is negligible and will be hardlynoticeable from street level.

6.3.4. The overall design of the mansard is to be in keeping with the extensionto the adjacent property, 26 Turret Grove. The brickwork will match theexisting on both the subject property and the adjacent extension, with asimilar window arrangement. The windows will also follow the design ofthe windows to the main rear elevation.

6.3.5. Due to the property’s location towards the junction with Rozel Road, therear extension will be visible from this street. It is not considered thatthis will have a negative visual impact or undermine the uniformity of theterrace in this row due to the proliferation of similar structures to the rearroof slope on Turret Grove, to both sides of Rozel Road, and to the rearof the property.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The extension would not result in a detrimental increase in overlookingto that provided by the upper floor windows. Furthermore, many of thesurrounding properties already have roof extensions with additionalwindows at this level. The proposal would not result in an undue loss oflight, visual intrusion or other adverse impact on the amenities of anyneighbouring properties. With respect to amenity the proposeddevelopment broadly complies with Policies H10, ST5 and ST8 of theAdopted Unitary Development Plan.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed development, whilst contrary to SPG, would nevertheless beappropriate in relation to the local context and is therefore not considered out ofcharacter. It would not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring propertiesand would broadly comply with Policies H10, CD18, ST5 and ST8 of the AdoptedUnitary Development Plan.

8. Recommendation

8.1. GRANT planning permission subject to conditions

114

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 Except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works andworks of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent workwith regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. (Reason: Toensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

2 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

3 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

4 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract from theappearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the London Building Acts (Amendment)Act 1939 - Part VI in relation to the rights of adjoining owners regarding party wallsetc. These rights are a matter for civil enforcement and you may wish to consult asurveyor or architect.

5. In determining this application the following policies of the Unitary DevelopmentPlan were relevant to the decision: H10, CD18, ST5 and ST8, and SPG.

6. You are advised that the proposed rear roof extension hereby approved is contraryto the Council's Adopted Guidelines on Residential Extensions and Alterations but isconsidered acceptable due to the established pattern of development in the locality.

115

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

36

85

90

20

21

22

Tank

PO

81

77

75

69 t o 73

67

65

65a68

SOMERLEY4

SocialEducation

Centre

LB

263

61

59

57

374

80

70

60

73

6757

6060a

58a

58b3

7

58 56

54

392

388386

378

52

50

44

40

BM 1 3.2 9m

1 to 6

MP 3.25

411 to 417409

404 402

400396

At lantic

(PH)

BRIXTON

ATLA NTIC ROAD

Granville Court

71

48

1 to 8

1 to 8

37

47

200 to 206

to 321

399

391

1

to

4

Mayf ield

House

Ho u seMa tl oc k

Clarence

House

Connaught

Mansions

1 to 46

COLDHARBOUR LANE

Mansions

Carlton

2 to

16

LB

14. 1m

SL

13. 1m

13. 0m

TCBs

Southwyc k Ho

3028

36

32

3426

39

35to

9 to 21

VI NING STREET

47 to 85

45

to41

1 t o 45

2422 1218 2016 14

to8

405

401

1 to 6

7 to 12

13 to 18

Lord Dav id Pitt House

82

74

78

888

4

90

87

7076

86

CRBoro Const & W ard Bdy

Boro Con st & Wa rd Bdy

CR

TCBs

TCBs

11

11

11

1

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

11

11

11

11

111

11

11

11

1

1

1

11

11

111

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00027/FUL

3 Vinning Street & 58b Atlantic RoadLondonSW9

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

116

Location 58B Atlantic Road And 3 Vining Street London

Ward TULSE HILLProposal

Demolition and rebuilding of the properties for use as retail/offices ( A1 and A2 ) on groundfloor together with 2 self-contained flats on upper floors.

Application No 02/00027/FUL/JAB/19747

Applicant Leslie Charles

Agent Jeanne Sillet Architects31 Spencer Road,London,SE24 0N3

Date Valid 30 January 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaBrixton Town CentreUDP Sites DataPreferred hotel/office area site

PlansVSO 001B-009B, 010A,011A,013B,20E-22E,23D-28D, 32E + VSPH01,02 03

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

117

Officer Report

02/00027/FUL58B ATLANTIC ROAD AND 3 VINING STREET, LONDON SW9

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. Whether the gain from improving the appearance of this corner site within aconservation area, outweighs on balance the loss of office floor space (Use ClassB1), within the Town Centre.

2. Site Description

2.1. The site is located on the western side of Atlantic Road at its junction with ViningStreet and includes 2 late 19th century three storey terrace properties, whichcontain retail shops (Use Class A1) at ground floor, with mixed residential andoffice on the first and second floors.

2.2. The property is not listed, but is within the Brixton Conservation Area, and thesecondary shopping frontage of a Major Centre. As a corner site it constitutes theend of terrace for both Vining Street and this section of Atlantic Road.

2.3. With the exception of the ground floor retail unit fronting Vining Street, the buildingis in a serious state of disrepair. The roof of the corner section has failed, whilstthe roofs of both properties are structurally inadequate. There is substantial waterdamage, damp and rot to both the walls, rafters and bearers. The drainagesystem is in a state of collapse, and the outer walls have weakened and arebowing outwards.

3. Planning History

3.1. It is likely that the upper levels within this terrace were all originally residential.3.2. In August 1989 planning permission was granted for the change of use of 3 Vining

Street and conversion of the first and second floors from offices to use as one 2bedroom unit, together with the installation of a new shopfront. At this time theoffices had been vacant for some time.

3.3. A letter on the planning history file indicates that in June 1990 the upper floorsmay have been in residential use.

3.4. The Council applied for 54 to 58 Atlantic Road to be included as Listed Buildings,however this was refused in November 1993 by the Department of NaturalHeritage.

3.5. On 23rd January 2001 planning permission (ref: 00/01943/FUL) was granted forthe conversion for use as retail/offices (Use Classes A1/A2) on the ground floor,together with 2 self contained flats and B1 studio and office space on the upperfloors, including the erection of a three storey rear extension, formation of aterrace within the roof at third floor level and associated alterations to theelevations.

3.6. Both properties have been vacant for some time, with the exception of the groundfloor of 3 Vining Street which is utilised as retail (A1). The first floor of 3 ViningStreet was last utilised just over a year ago as a solicitors office (Use Class A2),whilst the second floor had been vacant for some time.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Demolition of the first and second storeys, and rebuilding of the building for use asretail/offices (Use Class A1/A2) on ground floor together with 2 self contained flatson the upper floors, erection of a third floor rear extension and roof terraces.

4.2. This proposal is essentially a revision of planning permission 00/01943/FULgranted last year, with the main differences being demolition and reconstruction of

118

the first and second floors and conversion of the upper levels of 3 Vining Streetfrom offices (Use Class B1) to residential.

4.3. The layout of the residential units is also revised from 2 one bedroom flats in theupper levels of 58B Atlantic road, to 2 two bedroom flats, one on each of theupper levels. Both flats have access to their own roof terrace with access via acommunal stairwell. A roof extension, previously approved would contain theupper level of the stairwell. The pitched front roof extension will contain aservices cupboard and storage areas within the roof void.

5. Consultation Responses:

5.1. A site notice was posted, the application was advertised in the Local Press, andletters of notification were sent to the Brixton Society, the Brixton Residents andTraders Association, English Heritage, the Brixton Town Centre Manager and thefollowing surrounding properties:• 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67 Atlantic Road• 2, 3, 5-7 Vining Street

5.2. No objections were received to the proposal.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. Adopted Unitary Development Plan:• Policy H1 Provision of housing• Policy H8 Residential above shops• Policy H10 Residential Development standards• Policy EMP7 Loss of business and industry (B1 and B2)• Policy CD2 Proposals for development• Policy B16 Atlantic Road

6.1.2. The new deposit version of the UDP contains policies relevant to thisapplication but which carry little weight at this early stage. These arepolicies:• 4 Town Centres and Community Regeneration• 15 Additional Housing• 21 Location and loss of offices• 32 and 33 Building design and extensions• 42 Conservation Areas

6.1.3. However new UDP Policy 23 (Protection and Location of otheremployment uses), is an interim policy and carries more weight as it hasalready been subject to extensive consultation and reflects newGovernment Guidance issued since the last UDP was published.

6.1.4. Supplementary Planning Guidance – SPG4 Room Sizes6.1.5. National Policy Guidance – PPG3 Housing

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The use of the ground floor units as retail is long established and in linewith council policy. Their use within Use Class A2 (professionalservices, banks, estate agents, etc) would continue to provide vitality tothe shopping parade. Furthermore the use of the upper floors of 58BAtlantic Road as 2 self contained flats was approved in January 2002,within the previous proposal. The predominant issue with this proposalis therefore the change of use of the upper floors of 3 Vining Street from55.30 sq.m of office space (Use Class B1) to residential (in conjunctionwith 58B Atlantic Road).

6.2.2. This property is in a grossly dilapidated state, and whilst there is a lackof history for 3 Vining Street, it appears that it may have not been

119

occupied by an authorised use since 1989. The last use as a solicitorsoffice was unauthorised, and was only utilising one room within theupper floors. However no marketing for office use has been carried out.

6.2.3. A number of policies in both Unitary Development Plans resist the loss ofoffice space (Use Class B1), including EMP7 within the adopted UDPand Policy 21 within the deposit Unitary Development Plan. FurthermoreBrixton Town Centre is a preferred office location with Policy 21 statingthat small office units are protected in Brixton, unless these are long-standing vacant space above shops. Whilst it appears that the upperfloor may have been vacant for an extended period of time there is noclear evidence of this.

6.2.4. PPG3 encourages the use of vacant properties within urban areas forresidential due to the lack of housing, particularly in London. This issupported by Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and Policy 15 of theadopted UDP. Whilst Policy H8 states that the return to residential useof accommodation above shops will be encouraged, this does notoutweigh the loss of office space where no evidence of marketing hasbeen provided. However this proposal also needs to be balancedagainst the impact it will have on the conservation area, and in particularthe existing state of the building.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. Extensions: The building currently has an open space to the rear of thecorner of Atlantic and Vining Roads at second and third floor level. It isproposed to infill this space to provide bathrooms for the first and secondfloor flats. The extension would not extend beyond the existing rearbuilding line or height of the building. It would not have a significantimpact beyond the curtilage of the site and was considered acceptablewithin the consent granted in January 2001.

6.3.2. The roof extensions, terraces and alterations were consideredacceptable, and were granted approval within the January 2001 planningapplication.

6.3.3. However since that time the emerging UDP has been put on deposit andis now a relevant consideration. It is considered that Policies 32, 33 and42 are similar in their intention to Policies CD2, CD15 and CD18 of theadopted UDP previously considered. Furthermore it was considered thatthe proposed roof terraces would not result in a significant loss of privacydue to overlooking and complied with Standard ST5 regarding privacyand space between buildings.

6.3.4. Demolition and Rebuild: Both properties have been structurallyundermined for a number of years due mainly to inadequate drainageand roofing. A Structural report has been provided which states that thebuilding is now in such a bad state, with substantial rotting, damp andwater damage, that it will be necessary in order to comply with currentBuilding Regulations, to remove the majority of the floors and outer wallsof the upper levels. The safest way to undertake this work is to demolishthe upper levels, and rebuild them.

6.3.5. Provided the building is rebuilt utilising the same materials and windowspatterns as existing, it is considered that this proposal would enhancethe character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in line withPolicies CD2 and B16 of the adopted UDP, and Policy 42 of the depositUDP. Policy B16 specifically applies to this terrace and states thatCouncil will encourage the complete rehabilitation or redevelopment ofthe terraces at 57-81, 54-68 and 70-86 Atlantic road, to provide groundfloor shops/commercial premises and upper floor flats for rent.

6.3.6. The property has been given a Conservation Area Partnership (CAP)grant from English Heritage to carry out this work, in order to bring this

120

focal end of terrace property up to habitable standards and back intouse. The applicant has stated that “Unfortunately it is not provingfinancially viable to carry out the level of renovation work needed to bringthe buildings back into proper use. Although a significant proportion ofthe works was theoretically eligible for CAP grant aid only £25,000 isavailable. Therefore we are hoping to secure consent for a revisedscheme which will allow the owner to claim tax relief on the residentialrenovations under central government regeneration policy. This is theonly strategy we can find to make it possible to progress the project.The properties are now very seriously dilapidated, and the CAP grantwhich is a critical component in the calculations may be with drawnunless an agreed scheme can be developed and put out to tender verysoon.”

6.3.7. Whilst financial circumstances are not a planning consideration andcannot be taken into account, it is considered that the proposal will resultin the renovation and improvement of these prominent properties,thereby enhancing both the buildings and the character and appearanceof the Conservation Area.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The proposed residential units are a lot larger than the previouslyapproved units as they stretch across both properties, with one on eachfloor. The units will be self contained with separate access from ViningStreet. Each unit will utilise a roof terrace. The layout of the units androoms sizes complies with Policy H10 and Supplementary PlanningGuidance, and is therefore considered acceptable.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Whilst the loss of the office floor space within the upper levels of 3 Vining Streetwould normally be resisted, it is considered that the loss of this small amount ofoffice space is unlikely to impact significantly on the vitality of this major centre orthe amount of employment in the area.

7.2. Furthermore the demolition and rebuild required in order to safely and effectivelyrenovate these buildings is welcomed in order to bring this property back to ahabitable standard to be fully utilised.

7.3. Therefore on balance, given the gain to the Conservation Area and Town Centreresulting from the improvements to the buildings it is considered that the loss ofthis small amount of office floor space would be justified in this instance.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approval of the proposal is recommended.

121

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The redevelopment, and reconstruction of the facade and shell of the buildings,shall be substantially completed within 2 years from the demolition commencing.(Reason: In order to safeguard the character and appearance of this part of theconservation area.)

2 Full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority before any work on the site is commenced: (a) Design and materialsto be used in the construction of new shopfronts and stallrisers, (b) Design andmaterials to be used in the construction of the projecting shop fascias and first floorwindows cills, (c) Means of enclosure of proposed roof terraces, (Reason: Inorder that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal.)

3 The works approved in condition 2 shall be installed before the use commences,and thereafter retained, and satisfactorily maintained, for the duration of the use.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining properties and ensure that the externalappearance of the building is satisfactory.)

4 Any new sash windows in the 1st and 2nd floors shall be of clear glass in verticallysliding sash frames within a recessed box frame. They must also be of painted softwoodwith the sashes counterbalanced by weighted cords and pulleys. They must match thedesign, mouldings, and glazing bar pattern of any original windows which survive on thesame floor level. (Reason: In order to safeguard the character and appearance of this partof the conservation area.)

5 Except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works andworks of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent workwith regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. (Reason: Toensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

6 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract from theappearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. In determining this application the following polices were relevant: H1, H8, H10,EMP7, CD2, B16 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, and 4, 15, 21, 32, 33,42 and 23 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan.

122

123

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

6

Tank

PO

81

77

75

69 t o 73

67

65

65a

68

SOMERLEYTON ROAD

207 to 214

SocialEducation

Centre

LB

263

61

59

57

374

80

70

60

73

6757

60

60a

58a

58b37

58 56

54

392

388

386

378

52

50

44

40

BM 13.29 m

1 to 6

MP 3.25

411 t409

402

00396

Atlantic(PH)

BRIXTON

30

30a

32

ATLA NTIC ROAD

36

Granville

Court

48

1 to 8

to 8

37

47

200 to 206

100 t o 1306 to 321 7 to 113

399

391

43

Granville Arcade

m

1

to

4

yf ield

Hous e

Ho u seMa tl oc k

Clarence

House

y

Connaught

Mansions

1 to 46

COLDHARBOUR LANE

Mansi ons

Carlton

2 to

16

LB

14. 1m

SL

372

12.8m

13. 1m

13. 0m

TCBs

Southwyck House

3028

36

32

3426

39

35to

9 to 21

VI NING STREET

47 to 85

45to41

1 t o 45

24 22 1218 2016 14to8

405

401

1 to 6

7 to 1 2

13 to 18

Lord David Pitt House

82

74

78

8884

90

87

7076

86

CRBoro Const & W ard Bdy

Bo ro Const & Ward BdyCR

TCBs

TCBs

11

11

11

11

1111

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00030/CON

58B Atlantic Road &3 Vining StreetLondon

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

124

Location 58B Atlantic Road And 3 Vining Street London

Ward COLDHARBOURProposalDemolition of the first and second storeys.

Application No 02/00030/CON/JAB/19747

Applicant Leslie Charles

Agent Jeanne Sillett31 Spenser RoadLondonSE24 0N3

Date Valid 30 January 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaBrixton Town CentreUDP Sites DataPreferred hotel/office area site

PlansVSO 001B-009B,010A,011A013B,20E-22E,23D,32E +VSPH 01,02,03

Recommendation GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

125

Officer Report

02/00030/CON

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. Whether the rebuild of this building would make a positive contribution to thecharacter or appearance of the conservation area.

2. Site Description

2.1. A full description of this site can be found within this agenda under planningapplication 02/00027/FUL.

2.2. However it should be noted that the building is in a serious state of disrepair. Theroof of the corner section has failed, whilst the roofs of both properties arestructurally inadequate. There is substantial water damage, damp and rot to boththe walls, rafters and bearers. The drainage system is in a state of collapse, andthe outer walls have weakened and are bowing outwards.

3. Planning History

3.1. The planning history is addressed within application 02/00027/FUL, elsewhere onthis agenda.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Demolition of the first and second storeys, in connection with the rebuilding andredevelopment of the building for use as retail/offices (Use Class A1/A2) onground floor together with 2 self contained flats on the upper floors, erection of athird floor rear extension and roof terraces.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. Consultation was carried out in conjunction with application 02/00027/FUL and afull assessment of this can be found addressed within that report, elsewhere onthis agenda.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Policy CD3 Demolition6.1.2. The new deposit version of the UDP contains policy 42(c) regarding

demolition within conservation areas which is relevant to this applicationbut which carries little weight at this early stage.

6.2. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.2.1. Policy 42(c) of the deposit Unitary Development Plan is in line withPolicy CD3 which states that proposals for partial demolition andreconstruction of unlisted buildings may be acceptable providing that thestructural stability and architectural integrity of the retained elements aresafeguarded.

6.2.2. In this case the building is now in such a bad state, with substantialrotting, damp and water damage, that the safest way to undertake thiswork is to demolish the upper levels, and rebuild them.

126

6.2.3. The proposal includes rebuilding utilising the same materials andwindows patterns as existing, and it is considered that this proposalwould enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

6.2.4. The redevelopment of the site has been recommended for approvalwithin planning permission 02/00027/FUL, elsewhere on this agenda.

7. Conclusion

7.1. This building is in a bad state of repair, and the rebuild would enhance itsappearance and the character of the conservation area. A satisfactoryredevelopment proposal has been recommended for approval.

7.2. Approval of the conservation area consent for demolition is thereforerecommended for approval.

127

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The buildings, or parts thereof, shall not be demolished before a contract for thecarrying out of works of redevelopment of the site has been made and planning permissionhas been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides. (Reason: Toensure that premature demolition does not take place before development works start inorder that the visual amenities of the area are safeguarded.)

Notes to Applicant

1. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and relatedlegislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's BuildingControl Officer.

2. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

3. In determining this application the following policies were relevant: CD3 of theadopted Unitary Development Plan, and 42 of the deposit Unitary DevelopmentPlan.

128

129

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

DUCI E STR EET

34

38

148

141

1

13

Church

Adventist

Day

Seventh

Ru

78

12

4

27

26

26

43

80

65

Baptist Church

82

92

2

10

94

79 8193

108

1

13

2

12

1

711

95 105

2a4a

6a

2

122

12

27

13

1

2

TINTERN STR EET

20. 2m

20. 1m

7892

7993

107121

137

119 121a

19. 4m

BM

20 .93m

118

a

120

a

122 128

19. 6m

6

10

129

LB

2b

106 TIN

TERN

STR

EET

S Gantry

18

Adven tist ChSeve nth

Day

Kenyon

120

BM 19.97m

STREET

DUCIE

19. 9m

7

67

85

77

Ward Bdy

CR

St aff ord Mansions

1 to 22

1 to 12

1 to 20

Vic kery

Hous e

Beresfo rd

Hous e

Rubens Place

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

111111

11

111111111

1 1 1 1 1

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00080/FUL

112 Sandmere RoadLondonSW4 7QH

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

130

Location 112 Sandmere Road London SW4 7QH

Ward FERNDALEProposal

Conversion of dwelling into 3 self contained flats involving the erection of ground floorextension and loft conversion with roof lights to front and rear roof slopes with associatedalterations.

Application No 02/00080/FUL/DCKP/21402

Applicant Croftcope Ltd

Agent A Worthington23 Arragon GardensStreathamLondonSW16 5LY

Date Valid 22 May 2002

Considerations

Plans112SAN-os, 1, 2a, 3, 4a, 5a, 6

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT

131

Officer Report

02/00080/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. Suitability of the property for conversion

1.2. Appropriateness of unit sizes and internal room sizes

1.3. Visual impact of extension and rooflights on the adjacent Conservation Area

1.4. Impact of extension on neighbouring property

1.5. Parking

2. Site Description

2.1. The site is located in Sandmere Road which is characterised by predominantlyresidential land uses.

2.2. A Victorian terraced house occupies the site, which is three storeys in height.

2.3. The property backs directly onto the Ferndale Road Conservation Area (CA46).

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission was refused in April 1996 for the erection of an additionalsecond floor level.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Conversion of the dwelling into 3 self contained flats comprising a two bedroomunit on the ground floor, a one bedroom unit on the first floor and a three bedroomunit spanning the first and second floors and loft space.

4.2. Erection of a ground floor rear extension - 2m (length) x 3.2m (width) x 2.375m(height from ground to eaves). The roof was originally a flat roof, but subsequentlychanged to a pitched roof to address the conservation officer's concerns.

4.3. Loft conversion with associated roof lights to front and rear roof slopes along withassociated alterations.

4.4. The proposal also includes a bathroom in the basement.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. A site notice was posted, the application was advertised in the press and thefollowing parties were notified directly: Brixton Residents and Traders Association,Brixton Society, Clapham Society, 91, 93, 95, 97, 108, 110, 114 &116 SandmereRoad 113, 115 119 Ferndale Road.

5.2. One letter of objection was received, the concerns of which are detailed below.

5.2.1. Sandmere Road cannot sustain 3 flats in terms of parking and rubbishand 3 flats will be incredibly noisy.

132

5.2.2. The proposed extension will block light from my flat.

5.2.3. Such a significant change will mean construction taking several months,which will disrupt my flat.

5.3. The application was re-advertised, due to changes made to the roof of theextension. The application was re-advertised to the above parties as well as 111Ferndale Road.

5.4. No further objections have been received.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies6.1.1. H17: Flat Conversions (UDP). Conversions of existing houses with

gardens will normally be permitted only where they exceed two storeysin height and contain six or more habitable rooms. Regarding dwellingmix, where reasonably possible, no more than one unit in a schemeproviding up to 5 units should be one bedroom units. The balance shouldcomprise a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom units. One parking bay is requiredfor a conversion into 3 units.

6.1.2. Policy 17: Flat Conversions (Deposit UDP) states that conversions ofdwellings will be permitted where the property has a floor area of at least120sqm or is a smaller property at least three or more storeys in height.Where the dwelling to be converted has a rear garden then family unit(s)(two or more bedrooms) on the ground and sub-basement floor shouldbe included.

6.1.3. H10:Residential Standards (UDP)

6.1.3.1. ST8: Residential Extensions (UDP) - no extensions will normally beallowed which would result in the garden area being reduced to anunacceptable level detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers.Proposed extensions must not have a detrimental impact onneighbouring properties or visual amenities.

6.1.3.2. ST13: Refuse storage and collection (UDP) - adequate provisionmust be made for refuse storage and for its convenient collection.

6.1.4. CD2: Proposals for Development (UDP). Extensions or alterations to anexisting building must ensure that the character or appearance of aconservation area is preserved or enhanced.

6.1.5. CD18: Extensions (UDP) states that extensions should be confined tothe rear, should be in scale with the building and in keeping with thebuilding and its setting.

6.1.6. H1: Housing provision (UDP) - Council will endeavour to make provisionfor 7700 additional dwellings in the Borough during the period 1992-2006.

6.1.7. SPG4: Internal Layout and Room Sizes

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. No change in use is proposed. The intensification of use from one tothree dwellings is considered acceptable as the size of the dwelling islarger than the minimum standard size for flat conversions (Policies H17

133

and 17) and the applicant has agreed to limited the number of parkingpermits granted to the site. Furthermore, the proposal will assist Councilin realising its aim of increasing housing provision in the Borough (H1).

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The number of one bedroom units has been limited to one. There is alsoa two bedroom unit and three bedroom unit. Therefore a mix of units hasbeen provided in accordance with policy.

6.3.2. In terms of policy H17 (UDP), the three bedroom unit should be locatedon the ground floor, providing access to amenity space. However, thethree bedroom unit is not located on the ground floor as the ground flooris not reasonably capable of conversion to such a unit. In addition, interms of Policy 17 (Deposit UDP), a family unit is defined as either a twoor three bedroom unit and therefore, in terms of this policy a twobedroom unit at ground floor is acceptable.

6.3.3. It is considered that the proposed 3 bedroom unit is not ideal, as it is splitover three levels and comprises two awkwardly shaped bedrooms.However, in terms of the current policies there would be no reason torefuse this application on this basis.

6.3.4. All the internal room sizes comply with SPG4, with the exception of theliving room of unit 3 which does not comply with the requirement that inrooms with sloping ceilings at least 50% of the floor area should normallyhave a floor to ceiling height of at least 2.3m. Although this has not beenadhered to it is considered that as approximately 50% of the minimumarea for a living room (15.8m) is greater than 2.3m in height, it isconsidered acceptable.

6.3.5. The proposed extension replaces an old storage shed and bathroom.The new extension will extend beyond the existing building byapproximately 0.5m. The new brickwork is to be second hand LondonYellow stock.

6.3.6. The proposed doors are painted softwood timber french doors to matchexisting details of the main house

6.3.7. The roof is a pitched slate roof

6.3.8. The two rooflights are conservation grade and lie flush with the profile ofthe roof.

6.3.9. The Conservation Officer is satisfied that the proposed extension androoflights would not have a negative impact on the adjacent conservationarea. Therefore the proposal is in line with Policy CD2 (UDP).

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. As stated in the previous section, the proposed extension is only 0.5mlonger than the current extension. It is considered that the extension willnot result in an undue loss of daylight/ sunlight to the adjacent propertyas the proposal is in compliance with the BRE report standards fordaylight/ sunlight. In addition, there are no windows proposed on theside extension and therefore there would be no privacy/ overlookingissues. Furthermore, it will not reduce the size of the garden to

134

unacceptable levels. Therefore it is considered acceptable in terms ofST8.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. A conversion into three flats would require 1 parking bay. However,because it is a terraced house with limited space for car parking withinthe curtilage of the site, it would be impossible to meet the requirementfor one off street parking space.

6.5.2. In light of the above and in accordance with the results of the WestBrixton Parking Survey, the applicant has been requested to enter into as106 agreement restricting the number of permits issued to two. Theapplicant has agreed to this.

6.6. Regeneration and Town Centre Issues

6.6.1. Not applicable to this application.

6.7. Other

6.7.1. The applicant has not provided details on Refuse Storage. This will bemade a condition of approval.

6.7.2. The applicant has been asked to enter into a S106 agreement that aland charge would be imposed to the effect that only two parking permitswould be issued (save allowance for disabled/mobility impairedoccupiers). This is required in terms of the West Brixton Parking Surveyresults.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The dwelling is suitable for conversion as it is greater that 120sqm and threestoreys in height

7.2. The proposed conversion is appropriate as it proposes a family unit at groundfloor and a suitable dwelling mix. The proposal is also in line with the minimumroom size requirements.

7.3. The rooflights and extension will not have a negative impact on the conservationarea or impact on the amenity of the adjacent dwellings.

7.4. The car parking will be limited to two permits through an S106 agreement.

8. Recommendation

8.1. GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION - SUBJECT TO S106 TO RESTRICT THENUMBER OF PARKING PERMITS ISSUED ON THE PROPERTY TO 2

135

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

2 Full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority before any work on the site is commenced: (e) the means and positionof refuse storage and disposal. (Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority maybe satisfied as to the details of the proposal(s).)

3 Materials of rear extension shall be reclaimed yellow stocks to match the originalbrickwork(Reason: In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the adjacentconservation area)

4 Roof of rear extension shall be slate or reconstituted slate - Redland Cambrain,Olway Welsh blue/grey or Britslate(Reason: In order to safeguard the character andappearance of the conservation area)

5 Joinery of french window shall be painted soft wood with framing details/ pattern tomatch existing Victorian original examples found within house(Reason: In order tosafeguard the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area)

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. You are advised to consult with the Council's Planning and Transportation Divisionconcerning compliance with requirements under the Buildings Acts 1939 and LocalGovernment Act 1985 where a development involves the naming of a street and/orbuilding or the numbering/renumbering of a property.

5. In determining this application, Policies H1, H10, H17, CD2 and SPG4 of the UDPand Policy 17 of the UDP were used.

136

137

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

LB

LB

BM 62.82m

LEIGHAM VAL

Cou rtTraemore

58. 7m

57. 1m

KNOLLY'S ROAD

75. 5m

BROXHOLM ROA D

Thurlow

Towers

Tina C

ourt

Pevensey

Court

35

45

49

55

63

1 to 35

2 to 26

7573

7977

1 to 8

89

114

102

90

78

66

60

58

56a56

54a54

40

513

311

715

45

59

73

87

101

80

66

52

51

Ca nute

Cou rt

1 to 12

71

81

Const & Ward Bd y

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

01/00010/FUL

74-76 Knollys RoadLondonSW16 2JX

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

138

Location 74-76 Knollys Road London SW16 2JX

Ward KNIGHTS HILLProposal

Retention of the existing use as a guest house.

Application No 01/00010/FUL/DCJF/25749

Applicant Mr A Crookes

Agent Hamlin Iles & Crago40 The BroadwayCheamSurreySM3 8BD

Date Valid 9 January 2001

Considerations

PlansK34/06B;K34/05B

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

139

Officer Report

01/00010/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1 The main issues are the loss of the residential accommodation and the impact onresidential amenity. It is considered that the guesthouse is an exception to policiesH19 and AT6 in the adopted Unitary Development Plan, since it primarily providesshort-term accommodation to homeless local people. The building has been usedas a guesthouse, predominantly for persons referred from the Council, for at leastthe last thirty years, and provides a valuable service to the community, as well asbeing a local business. In addition the guesthouse does not have any significantimpact on residential amenity, and there have been no third party representationsobjecting to the proposal.

2. Site Description

2.1. The site is positioned on the south side of Knollys Road, which is a residentialstreet. The site comprises of two, two and a half storey semi-detached residentialproperties, which are currently occupied as a guest house. The guesthouse hasfourteen ensuite rooms, and provides breakfast for all the guests only. There arecentral cooking facilities where guests can cook their own evening meals. Theguests are predominantly referred from local Councils. For example in May 2002,three rooms were occupied by guests referred from Wandsworth, two rooms byguests from Lambeth and Croydon, and one room each from Bromley, Ealing andSouthwark.

2.2. The owner of these properties also owns 80 Knollys Road, which he occupies.The area in front of these properties is hard standing, which is used for carparking.

2.3. The site is approximately 900 metres from Norwood Road, which is well served bypublic transport. It is also about 3/4 mile from Streatham Hill Station and about 1/2mile from Tulse Hill and West Norwood Stations.

3. Planning History

3.1 Planning permission was refused for the use of the above property as a guesthouse in 1975. The planning reference for this application is 25749/1. There wasan appeal in 1977 for the above refusal and an enforcement notice. Theenforcement notice was quashed and the planning permission was granted for atemporary period of five years. The reason that the Inspector considered that thiscase justified an exception to the Council policy, which sought to retain residentialaccommodation, was that the guesthouse met a need for the provision of short-term accommodation for local homeless people. The temporary consent was given,to enable the Council to review the situation should the nature of the use change,for example to that more like a hotel.

3.2 In 1982, planning permission was granted for the continued use of the site as aguesthouse for a further five years. (Planning reference- 0249/82/25749/2)

3.3 In 1990, planning permission was granted for the continued use as a guesthouse,together with internal alterations to provide additional toilet accommodation, until 29February 1996. (Planning reference- 90/0151) In 1991, planning permission wasgranted for the formation of extended crossover outside No 76 and No 74 KnollysRoad. (Planning reference- 91/0388)

140

3.4 In 1995, planning permission was granted for the continuation of existing use as aguesthouse for a further five years until 21st February 2000. (Planning reference-95/3493) In 2000, planning permission was granted for the formation of anextended crossover outside No. 76 and new crossover outside No 74. (Planningreference- 99/0187/FUL)

4. Scheme Details

4.1 The proposal is for the retention of the existing use as a guesthouse. Theguesthouse provides 14 guestrooms, all of which have ensuite facilities. It primarilyprovides short-term accommodation for homeless people. For example, in May2002, ten of the fourteen rooms were occupied by persons referred from housingdepartments of Lambeth and other nearby London Boroughs. The applicant isapplying for permanent consent.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. The residents of 1- 35 (inclusive) Perensey Court, 63 Knollys Road, 72 and 78Knollys Road, and 79, 81 and 83 Broxholm Road. The Norwood Society wereconsulted and a site notice was posted. One letter has been received in support ofthis planning application.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1 This proposal is to be assessed against H19 and AT6 in theadopted Unitary Development Plan, in order to determine whetherthe proposed scheme is acceptable. Policy AT6 requires that ahotel development proposal does not involve the loss ofresidential land or accommodation. There is thus a generalpresumption against the change of use from residential to hotels,guesthouses, bed and breakfast establishments and short-termlets.

6.1.2 The new deposit version of the UDP contains Policy 28, which is relevant tothis application, but carries little weight at this early stage. Policy 28 statesthat smaller hotels can be located in or on the edge of district centres, wherethere is good public transport access. However new UDP policy 14 (Parkingand Traffic Restraint) is an interim policy and carries slightly more weight as ithas already been subject of some consultation and reflects new GovernmentGuidance issued since the last UDP was published.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1 The building is an existing guest house, and is not in the Council's preferredhotel locations. The building was originally built as two residential dwellinghouses, but has been used as a hotel/ guesthouse for at least the pasttwenty-five years under temporary planning consents. Should this planningapplication be granted, it would result in the permanent loss of tworesidential units. The principle of the change of use therefore conflicts withpart of Policy AT6 and Policy H19.

6.2.2 However, the guesthouse predominantly supplies short termaccommodation to local homeless people referred from the Council, and ismeeting a specific local need. It is an established use, and has beenoccupied in this use for over twenty-five years by the current owner. It is

141

therefore considered that it can be considered as an exception to thePolicies AT6 and H19 in the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. There are no design and conservation considerations.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1 The proposal is considered to be complementary to the area's characterand functioning, not threatening to the local environment or amenity, norwould result in a concentration of hotel uses in the locality. The proposaltherefore complies with Policy AT6 in the adopted Unitary DevelopmentPlan. In addition, there have been no objections from local residents. It isconsidered that the proposal would not have a significant impact on theamenity of the surrounding area.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. The adopted Unitary Development Plan states that 1 parking spacewould normally be required per 20 bedrooms, with a maximum of 1 spaceper 15 bedrooms. Interim Policy 14 in the deposit Unitary DevelopmentPlan states that 1 car parking space is required for 15 rooms. The area ofhardstanding in front of the buildings provides space for minimal carparking, and servicing of the site. There are no parking restrictions in thesurrounding area. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to impairresidential safety nor the safe and efficient movement of traffic in the area,and therefore the proposal complies with Policy AT6 in the adoptedUnitary Development Plan.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The proposal does not comply with all parts of Policies H19 and AT6, as it wouldresult in the permanent loss of residential accommodation and is not located in theCouncil's preferred hotel locations. However, the lack of objections and the letterof support indicate that the hotel does not have any significant impact onresidential amenity, and it is difficult to see what the material harm would be ingranting consent for this proposal. The guesthouse has existed for the pasttwenty-five years, and provides short-term accommodation to homeless localpeople. It offers a useful service to the community and is a local business. Giventhis, it is considered that the proposal can be considered as an exception to thepolicies H19 and AT6 in the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

8. Recommendation

8.1. The recommendation is that this planning application should be APPROVED,subject to conditions, including making the consent personal to the applicant.

142

143

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 This permission shall be perosnal to Mr A Crookes, and shall not enure for thebenefit of the land and upon the aforementioned ceasing to use the prmeises for thepurpose(s) herein permitted, this permission shall cease and become null and void.Reason:In granting this permission, the Local Planning Authority has had regard to the specialcircumstances of the case and wishes to have the opportunity of exercising control over anysubsequent use in the event of Mr A Crookes vacating the premises.

Notes to Applicant

1. In determining this application, policies H19 and AT6 of the adopted LambethUnitary Development Plan were relevant to the decision.

2. This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may berequired under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

144

145

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

War d Bdy

CR

LB

BM 63.3 2m

PH

Tennis Cour t

60. 6m

BM

61.56m

61. 1m

Games Cour t

NORWOOD PARK ROAD

ELD ER R OAD

Long mea d House

Norwoo

k

81

1

16

2

83

89

21

20

1

87

88

10980

97

98

103

36

54

56

60

1923

14

59

1013

1418

2023

36

22

35

21

34

19

33

17

32

16

3115

30

12

29

11

28

8

27

7

26

6

25

3

24

2

36

22

35

21

72

78

1

3

2

6

8

to

1416

2224

to

3038

4446

to

52

54

56

58

32

36

57

to

65

45

to

55

33

to

43

31

13

to

23

22

67

7169

70

to5

to25Elder wood Pl ace

60

STABLE M

EWS

44

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11111

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

11

1

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00314/FUL

The Park Tavern Public House54-56 Elderwood RoadLondonSE27 9ND

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

146

Location Park Tavern Public House 54-56 Elder Road London SE27 9ND

Ward KNIGHTS HILLProposal

The replacement of window with new door to the rear garden along with associatedalterations.

Application No 02/00314/FUL/FDW/12339

Applicant Punch Pub Company Ltd

Agent Creative Union2M/1 Forge LaneHalesowenWest Midland,B62 8EB

Date Valid 17 May 2002

Considerations

Conservation AreaElderwood

Plans03B

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

147

Officer Report

02/00314/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The application is for the creation of a new doorway to replace an existing windowat the rear of the public House which will provide access to the rear garden.

1.2. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on surrounding visualamenity.

1.3. There have been problems with amplified noise from the pub and NoiseAbatement Notices were served on 3rd April 2002. Given this, concern is raisedfrom local residents regarding the potential noise implications from the use of therear garden.

1.4. The application is not for a change of use as the garden forms part of the publichouse and could be used by customers without the benefit of planning permission.Given this, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in planning terms.Should there be problems with noise and disturbance from the pub, this can beadequately dealt with through the Council’s Regulatory Services under theEnvironmental Protection Act 1990.

2. Site Description

2.1. Public House located on the western side of Elder Road. The pub is 2storeys high with a pitched roof.

2.2 The site is bounded either on both sides by residential properties and thesurrounding area is residential in character.

2.3 The site is within the Elderwood Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

3.1. No relevant planning history.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The replacement of a window to the rear of the premises with a timber doorleading to the rear garden. The pub is undergoing internal refurbishment includingforming improved access to the rear garden. The internal works do not requirethe benefit of planning permission.

4.2. The drawings also include the formation of a 500mm high timber post and ropeboundary treatment around the front forecourt which is under the pub ownership.This part of the scheme does not require the benefit of planning permission as theproposed front boundary treatment does not exceed 1m in height.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. Site notice and press advert were displayed. The following were consulted:

50 – 60 Elder Road (evens)

Local Amenity Groups: Crystal Palace Triangle Community Association, KnightsHill Residents Association and the Norwood Society.

148

Two letters raising objections to the scheme have been received. The objectionsare summarised as follows.

The pub is in a quiet residential area and the proposal will result in an increase innoise levels should the pub’s garden be made open to the public. Objections areraised to the construction of a beer garden of any sort. Concerns are raisedregarding noise levels and beer glasses and rubbish being disposed of in theadjacent garden. The pub has already been in breach of noise regulations (theCouncil’s Regulatory Services have been involved). At the moment the access tothe garden is via the pub’s kitchen and the garden space has not been used as apub garden for at least 2 years. The use of the pub garden would constitute achange of use.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. CD15 Design of new development and CD2 Proposals for Development.

6.1.2. The new deposit version of the UDP contains policies relevant to thisapplication but which carry little weight at this early stage. These arePolicy 33 Alterations and Extensions and Policy 42 Conservation Areas.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. A letter received from a neighbouring occupant states that the reargarden has not been used for pub customers in the past and thisproposal would constitute a change of use. This is not considered to bethe case. The use of the premises, including the rear garden is a PublicHouse (Use Class A3). Residential accommodation above the pub isancillary to the use as a public house.

6.2.2. The planning application is for the door only. Whilst the proposal mayresult in utilising the garden space by customers there is no change ofuse involved. The garden forms part of the public house.Notwithstanding this, the garden area could be made more accessible byinternal rearrangements which would not require the benefit of planningpermission.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The site is within the Elderwood Conservation Area and Policy CD2which states that the Council will ensure that the character orappearance of a Conservation Area should be preserved or enhancedand Policy CD15 which states that the Council will seek to achieve ahigh quality in design are relevant. The existing rear elevation ischaracterised by timber windows and doors which are in a poor state ofrepair. The proposed alteration includes replacing a small timberwindow with a door. The Conservation Officer raises no objection to theproposal and it is not considered that this modest proposal will have anyimpact on the character or appearance of the main building orConservation Area as a whole.

6.4. Amenity Impact

149

6.4.1. Concern is raised from the neighbouring occupants regarding anincrease in noise from the public house by customers using the reargarden as the proposed door leads to the garden of the pub.

6.4.2. The existing internal layout renders it difficult to fully utilise the existingrear garden by customers.

6.4.3. The Council’s Regulatory Services have served an Abatement Notice inrespect of Noise Nuisance to the licences of the premises relating to livemusic from the premises. The notices are dated 3rd April 2002 andrequire :

‘to cease the playing of amplified music by yourself or by others on thepremises, at the sound levels which cause a nuisance inneighbouring dwellings’.

The Council’s Noise and Pollution Group have concerns regardingthe proposed door and comment that a door may be a licenceto allow music to escape from the rear of the property,especially if left open.

In this case, there is a history of noise nuisance from the public house tosurrounding residential occupants. However, given that the applicationis for a door only and the pub garden is in existence, it would beunreasonable to refuse the application on the basis of potential noisedisturbance. The Council’s Regulatory Services Group are aware of thehistory of noise nuisance at this site and it is considered that problemsrelating to noise can be dealt with under the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990. However, a condition is recommended to ensure that theproposed door is self closing and shall not be propped open to minimiseany potential noise disturbance.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed doorway is considered acceptable and in accordance with PolicyCD2 and CD15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve planning permission.

150

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 The door hereby approved shall be fitted with a self closing device, which shall bekept in working order. The door shall not propped open at any time during hours ofoperation of the public house. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoiningproperties.)

Notes to Applicant

1. The public house is located in a residential area and the playing of amplified musicon the premises should not be at sound levels which cause a nuisance inneighbouring dwellings or gardens. Your attention is drawn to the content of theAbatement Notice in respect of Noise Nuisance served by the Council from theplaying of loud music on the premises which was served on the Licencees dated 3rdApril 2002.

2. The following policies are relevant to this decision; CD15 and CD2 of the UnitaryDevelopment Plan and Policies 33 and 42 of the Deposit Unitary DevelopmentPlan.

151

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

10. 9m

5

Bromfe

l deW

78

1 to 12Haltone House

Su rco t House76

1 to 12

Playground

Larkhall

Infants

School92

53

63

71

75

79

73

77

81

93

Gara

ge

KELM

AN CLOSE

1

93a

Surge ry

ouse

El

Sub

St a

9.1m

157

155

Playground

BM 7.38m

1 to 16

1 to 6WinslowHouse

1 to 16

1 to 1 6

Larkhall

Jun ior

Sc hool

1 to 38

LAR KHALL LA

N E

Duke

of York(PH)

80

137 135

123

10

2

139139a

13 9b

139c14 1

SM EDLEY STREET

13

PH

Dalemai n

Ho use

6.8m

7.0m

Wood H ouse

Kings ley Hous e

Stan

more Ho us

e

143

11

Marlo wHo use

Bo urneHo us e

1 to 9

Sprin

g fiel d

Court

GoringHouseSonningHouse

UNION ROAD

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00238/FUL

Police Depot 157 Larkhall LaneLondon SW4 6RF

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

152

Location Police Depot 157 Larkhall Lane London SW4 6RF

Ward LARKHALLProposal

Increase of internal office accommodation along with external alterations such as newdoors, windows and rooflights.

Application No 02/00238/FUL/DCKP/20922

Applicant Metropolitan Police Authority

Agent Miss J RaganEstates GroupMetropolitan Police ServiceCobalt Square1 South Lambeth RoadLondon SW8 1SU

Date Valid 23 January 2002

Considerations

PlansALP/01, ABP1/07, ABP/07, A(E)3, ABP/06, A(E)2, ABP/05, ABP/08,ABP/09,ADP/01

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

153

Officer Report

02/00238/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. Appropriateness of the proposed alterations

1.2. Impact of the intensification of use and proposed alterations on the surroundingresidential properties.

1.3. Transport issues relating to the intensification of use and proposed alterations.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site is situated on the south east side of Larkhall Lane betweenSmedley Street and Union Road, and is approximately 0.6 hectare in size.

2.2. The site is utilised by the Metropolitan Police Authority.

2.3. The site comprises two buildings, identified on the location plan as Block A andBlock B, which are separated by a large yard.

2.4. This proposal relates to the building identified as Block B. Block B is a two storeyhigh building, although only portion of the first floor is constructed. The buildingpresently accommodates the MPS Territorial Support Group.

3. Planning History

3.1. The application site was redeveloped following planning permission granted in1979, to provide light industrial floorspace together with the construction of a newmeans of access to Union Road.

3.2. In 1980, the Metropolitan Police sought confirmation from the Council that use ofthe site for the location of their forensic science laboratories and the buildingsurveyor's workshops would not require consultation under the then applicableCircular 7/77. A letter dated 2 June 1980 gave confirmation that formalconsultation under the Circular was not required.

3.3. Since that date there have been three formal consultations under Circular 18/84.The first was for the temporary use of the building as a 'Forward ReceptionCentre', against which the Council raised objection. The second was a minoralteration to accommodate ventilation equipment, to which the Council raised noobjection. The third proposal was to use the premises to base a uniformed policeestablishment described as the Territorial Support Group and storage of theirvehicles in unit B and to locate their Forensic Science Unit in unit A. The Councilraised no objection to this proposal.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. As stated above, the MPS's Territorial Support Group is presently accommodatedin the building. The additional space will provide accommodation for part of theSpecialist Operation Team who will be moving from the Police accommodation atLambeth. This is part of a series of moves as a result of a new Police initiative tocentralise all call handling and borough designated despatch into three newcentres, one of which will be based at Lambeth. Previously this was carried out atindividual Borough Police stations throughout the Metropolitan Police District.

154

4.2. In order to facilitate the above, planning permission is sought for the following:

4.2.1. The extension of the first floor, increasing the floor space by 1510sqm, toaccommodate engineer's workshops, offices (including a general office,squad office and smaller individual offices), a briefing room, conferenceroom, computer room and writing room, various storage rooms, kitchenand toilet facilities. This extension will take place within the existingbuilding envelope.

4.2.2. At ground floor there will be no increase in accommodation. There willhowever, be internal modifications to provide locker accommodation and26 parking bays, which will necessitate alterations to the external fabricof the building, which will be described in 4.2.3. The parking bays will beused for operational purposes for the specialist operation team's carsand vans.

4.2.3. External alterations comprising:

4.2.3.1. South-east elevation - 3 new roller shutter vehicular access doors, anew external fire door, a new aluminium door, a new window andinfilling of a window and two doors at ground floor level and 8windows at first floor level

4.2.3.2. South-west elevation - 2 external vents and fire escape door atground floor and a window at first floor.

4.2.3.3. North-east elevation - a fire escape door and louvre at ground floorand 4 windows, a fire escape door and fire escape stairs at first floor.

4.2.3.4. North-west elevation - 7 external louvres and a fire escape door atground floor.

4.2.3.5. Roof level - 78 roof lights and 2 ward interlay roof lights. Theproposed aerial platform has been removed from this application.

4.2.3.6. The proposed materials will be similar to the existing materials toensure that the alterations are in keeping with the existing building.

4.3. The new accommodation will house a maximum of 68 new staff from the existingsite at Lambeth, increasing the numbers by approximately a third. Of the 68 newstaff, 6 will work from the building on a full time basis. Approximately 26 staffmembers will visit the site once every 24 hours and approximately 36 staffmembers will visit the site once in a 7 day period. Staff will visit the site either byfoot, by public transport or by car (2/3 persons per car).

4.4. Only 10 of the new staff will be essential car users and will be allowed to park onsite.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. Three site notices were posted and the following parties were notified directly:Clapham Society, Larkhall Park Residents Association, 65-93a (odd) & 80-92(even) Union Road, Surcot House, 155 Larkhall Lane, Duke of York Public House,Stanmore House, Winslow House, Springfield Court, 11-13 Smedley Street,Oakwell House, Kingsley House & Larkhall Infants School.

5.2. Two letters of objection have been received.

5.2.1. The author of the first letter states that the existing extractor duct isnoisy. Any more lighting pointing onto the back windows would notfavourable. Any windows on the first floor that overlook the author'sgarden (Flat A, 88 Union Road) would not be favourable.

155

5.2.2. The author of the second letter states that the proposal will result in anincrease in the number of vehicles moving at high speed at night, moresirens and greater disturbance, The police vans and cars move often athigh speeds, especially at night, and represent a number of obvioushazards and sources of disturbance to those living close to the Depot.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. Policy CD18: Extensions (UDP) states that alterations should respect theplan form, period, architectural characteristics and detailing of theoriginal building and should use matching materials. Additional windowsand doors should be in keeping with the original contemporary pattern.

6.1.2. Policy H10: Residential Standards (ST5) Privacy and space betweenbuildings states that the layout of residential development should provideadequate privacy for residents in the dwelling and the adjoiningproperties.

6.1.3. Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity (Deposit UDP) states that inmixed use areas the scale, design, layout, hours of use, intensity,concentration and location of non-residential uses will be controlled inrelation to the residential uses to protect residential amenity.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The land use will remain unchanged, although the use will be intensified.The impact of the intensification of use is discussed in sections 6.4 and6.5.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The proposed alterations will take place within the existing buildingenvelope, therefore there will be no increase in height or bulk.

6.3.2. The proposal will however necessitate external works. Along the UnionRoad frontage, a fire escape door and two louvres are proposed atground floor and one additional window is proposed at first floor. Alongthe south-east elevation a new window, fire escape door, an aluminiumdoor and three roller shutter doors are proposed at ground level and 10new windows are proposed at first floor. Along the north-east elevation afire escape door and a louvre are proposed at ground floor and fireescape stairs, a fire escape door and four new windows are proposed atfirst floor. Seven louvres and a fire escape door are proposed at groundfloor along the north-west elevation.

6.3.3. The proposed windows and doors are in keeping with the design andmaterials of the existing windows and doors. The colour of the louvresand roller shutter doors are in keeping with the existing colour scheme.Therefore it is considered that the alterations will not have a negativeimpact on the appearance of the building. Rather it considered that theadditional windows, doors and louvres will provide some interest andvariety to the building which for the most part comprises blank facades.

6.3.4. Roof lights are also proposed. As the roof is relatively flat, the rooflightswill hardly be seen from the streetscape and therefore will not affect theappearance of the building.

156

6.3.5. In light of the above it is considered that the proposal is in line withPolicy CD18 of the UDP.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The impact of the intensification of use on the adjacent residentialproperties has been considered

6.4.1.1. An additional 68 people will be reporting to the site, increasing thenumber of staff by a third. However, only 6 members of staff will bebased on the site. Approximately 26 staff will only visit the site onceevery 24 hours and approximately 36 members of staff will only visitthe site once in a 7 day period. Staff will usually visit the site on footor via public transport, or alternatively by car with 2 or 3 people pervehicle.

6.4.1.2. There will be no commuter parking. Parking will only be provided forthe 10 employees who use their vehicles in connection with policework. The proposal also includes 26 additional parking bays on theground floor of Block B. However, these spaces will be used forvehicle storage rather than as an active parking lot. The vehicles willonly be used as part of pre-planned operations and not as responsevehicles so there will not be an increase in the number of speedingpolice cars in the vicinity of the site.

6.4.1.3. Given that the increase in the number of people operating from thesite will be relatively small, as will the increase in traffic volumes, it isconsidered that the impact of the intensification of use on theresidential amenity will not be significant.

6.4.2. The impact of the new windows at first floor on the privacy of theadjacent residential properties has also been considered.

6.4.2.1. Along the Union Road frontage one window has been proposed atfirst floor. In terms of Policy H10 (ST5), for dwellings of two storeys,wherever possible, a minimum distance of 20m should bemaintained between each window of another habitable room orkitchen. The residential properties on the other side of Union Roadare located over 25m away from the proposed window. Therefore itis considered that this window will not have an impact on the privacyof these residential properties.

6.4.2.2. Regarding the additional windows along the south-east elevation,these are located over 25m from the abutting residential buildingsand over 45m from the residential properties on the opposite side ofUnion Road. Therefore it is considered that the windows will notimpact negatively on the adjacent residential properties.

6.4.2.3. The north east elevation is abutted by a public house, which has nowindows along its south west elevation, and therefore the privacy ofthe public house will not be impacted on in any way.

6.4.2.4. Given that the rooflights are located a significant distance from theadjacent residential properties and the relatively flat nature of theroof, it is considered that these will not have an impact on theresidential amenity of the area.

157

6.4.2.5. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal is in keepingwith Policy 7 of the Deposit UDP.

6.4.3. Regarding the proposed external fire escape staircase along the northeast elevation, this is abutted by a two storey high side wall of theabutting property which contains no windows. Therefore, there will be noimpact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The top half of thestaircase will be visible from Larkhall lane through a small gap betweenthe side wall of the adjoining property and Block B. It is considered thatthis will not have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the buildingor the street.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. There are currently 75 outside parking space, which are not all used.Therefore there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional 10vehicles. The area just outside the property is in a CPZ and thereforethere would not be scope for employees to park on the street. In light ofthe above, it is considered that there will be little impact on the on-streetparking.

6.5.2. Whilst the traffic impact associated with providing an additional 26internal parking bays and parking for 10 vehicles externally is difficult tomeasure, the Transport and Highways Group have stated that from theinformation supplied it does not appear that there will be an adverseimpact.

6.5.3. However, as 26 additional bays will be provided internally, in order tolimit additional parking on the site, Transport have requested that acondition be imposed limiting the number of outside parking spaces to75. As part of this condition a plan showing these parking spaces mustbe submitted to and agreed by Council.

6.5.4. The Transport and Highways Group have no objection to the proposal,provided that the above condition is adhered to.

6.6. Regeneration and Town Centre Issues

6.6.1. Not applicable

6.7. Other

6.7.1. Not applicable

7. Conclusion

7.1. The appearance of the building will be maintained as the proposed alterations willbe in keeping with the design and materials of the existing building. The proposalis therefore in accordance with Policy CD18 (UDP).

7.2. It is considered that the intensification of use and proposed alterations will nothave a significant impact on the residential amenity and therefore the proposal isin keeping with Policy 7 of the Deposit UDP

7.3. Provided that the number of outside parking bays is restricted to 75, the Transportand Highways Group have no objection to the proposal

8. Recommendation

158

8.1. Grant planning permission

159

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

2 The number of formal outside parking bays shall be limited to 75 and shall beindicated on a plan to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: In order todiscourage motorised trips)

Notes to Applicant

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

2. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

3. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and relatedlegislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's BuildingControl Officer.

4. In determining the application policy CD18 of the UDP and Policy 7 of the DepositUDP applied

160

161

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

36

School

22

28

2

6

2

11

13

58a

CLAYLANDS ROAD

17

27

FENTIMA N RO

31

to

4 4

21 to 30

8 to

17

20

to11

5

7

3

1

328

330

2

58

324

320

TCB

ELIAS PLACE

Meml

War

BM

4. 87

BM 5 .86m

5.0m

7

BM 4.83m

Hanover Ar ms

(PH)

23

31

38

28a

5.0m

BM

6.45

m

Works

11

CLA

PHAM

RO

AD

Tank

42

28

4446

48

41

37

35

23

13

911

2

16

5.5m

5.5m

Kingf isher

Playground

PR IMA ROPA

RK RO A

D

KENNI

NGT

ON

336

2

12

14

16

18

26 9

15

1

9

11

10

2

21

1719

15

11

3 2

LB

El Sub S ta

PH

ROMAN R

OA D

ELIAS PLACE

CLAYL

ANDS PL

ACE

PALF

REY P

LACE

CLAYLA NDS ROAD

12

14

El

Sub Sta

28

334

50

OFF LE

Y

ROAD

Stan

e St re

et

Yard

Builder's

1

Wor

ks

5

7

Old Churc h

Court PO

Host el

Belgrav e

House

4 to 6

11

11

11

11

1

1

11

11

1

11

1

11

1

1

11

1

111

11

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

01/00981/FUL

18 Clapham RoadLondonSW9 0JG

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

162

Location Shop & Flat 18 Clapham Road London SW9 0JG

Ward OVALProposal

Retention of private car hire use on part of the ground floor. Use of the remainder of theground floor as a mobile phone store (A1).

Application No 01/00981/FUL/OWP/12477

Applicant Newman Associates

Agent Mr P Bayfield3 Chale RoadLondonSW2 4JB

Date Valid 4 June 2001

Considerations

Conservation AreaSt. MarksTunnel SafeguardingUDP ViewParliament Hill to Palace of Westminster

PlansSW9 OJG/Clar-180, 189

Recommendation REFUSE PERMISSION

163

Officer Report

01/00981/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The main issue is the retention of the 24hour cab office and its impact on thesurrounding area.

2. Site Description2.1. The property is situated within a commercial terrace that lies between Claylands

Road to the south and Elias Place to the north. The building includes threestoreys with a shop unit on the ground floor and residential accommodationabove. The property lies within the St Marks Conservation Area. The property iscurrently being used as an unauthorised minicab office and a mobile phone shop.It would appear from the history of the premises that its authorised use is as alaundrette, which itself falls into a sui generis use class.

3. Planning History3.1. Feb 1996- Planning permission granted for alterations, additions and use of

ground floor as a self-service laundrette.96/1561- Retention of use as a radio- controlled mini cab office and private carhire- Refused on the 23rd July 1997 for the following reason:“The use is having an adverse effect on the amenities of surrounding residents byreason of noise and increased disturbance associated with such use”.

3.2 Subsequently the applicant appealed against the council’s decision and thePlanning Inspectorate dismissed this appeal on the 21st May 1998.An enforcement notice was served on the 23rd March 1999 and this was appealedagainst and subsequently dismissed on the 1st of November 1999. A hearing washeld on the 22nd September 2000 but the council had to withdraw prosecution ofMr Taiwo and Mr Akinwunmi on the basis that they informed the court at thehearing that they had ceased trading from the site in November 1999. They statedthat the premises had been sub-let to Newman Associates. Therefore thecouncil’s enforcement action against Mr Taiwo and Mr Akinwunmi had to bewithdrawn and as such no further action was taken.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Change of use of part of the ground floor from unauthorised private car hire tomobile phone store (A1) with the retention of the private car hire office on theground floor. Upon visiting the premises it appears as though the works havealready been implemented.

4.2. The history of the premises appears to indicate that the site was granted consentfor the use as a laundrette in the early 1990’s. It is not clear whether or not thiswas implemented.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. A site notice was erected and the application was advertised in the local press.Consultations were sent to the Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum, VauxhallSociety and the Clapham Society. No comments have been received. Neighbournotifications were sent to 16, 18 and 20 Clapham Road and 17- 19 ClaylandsPlace.

5.2. Two letters of representation have been received, one objection and one petitioncontaining 450 signatures supporting the application. The objection states that theuse of the site as a 24hr minicab office has caused noise, disturbance and litterduring the night.

164

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies6.1.1. Policy S15 of the Lambeth UDP Policy S15 states that Mini-cab offices

and driving school offices will not normally be permitted in areas, whichare primarily residential. Elsewhere the Council will consider the likelyimpact on:(i) the amenity of nearby residents;(ii) road safety and traffic congestion;(iii) on-street parking; and(iv) bus stops and bus operation.Permission will not normally be granted where the proposal would belikely to have a significant negative impact on road safety and/or trafficcongestion (for example, if the site is close to a road junction, pedestriancrossing or bus stop, or in a road which is especially narrow or heavilytrafficked). Permission will also normally be refused if the proposal wouldbe likely to lead to an increase in unauthorised on-street parking.However, where it is possible to overcome these problems through theprovision of off-street parking under the control of the applicant,permission will normally be granted.The Council will have regard to proposed measures to reduce the impactof the use, such as radio control of vehicles, when considering aproposal.Where mini-cab offices would be a source of nuisance because of thelikelihood of late-night noise, the Council may impose restrictions on thehours of business operation.Where appropriate, planning conditions will cover such matters as theuse of radio control of cars, the use of off-street parking, and restrictionson hours of operation. Consents may be made personal to the applicant.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The minicab office has been in use for a few years now and complaintshave been received from local residents in the past. The proposal seeksto partition off half of the premise for use as a mobile phone shop (A1).This part of the application would be an acceptable use for the parade ofshops and as such a retail unit would be welcome.

6.2.2. However the problem lies with the continuing use of the premises as a24hour-minicab office with a drivers room and a reception. The previousapplications refused and upheld on appeal related to the noise anddisturbance caused by the use of the site on the amenity of nearbyneighbours.

6.2.3. The ground floor units along the parade of 2- 20 Clapham Road arecommercial premises with residential properties on the upper floors. Alsoto the rear of the site lie the residential premises of Claylands Place. Thenature of the area has not fundamentally changed since the planningInspectorate dismissed the previous appeals.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. No external changes are proposed to the shop front.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The applicants have not stated the hours that they wish to use thepremises however it appears that currently the property is in use 24hours. The reception area and drivers room within the property suggest

165

that people will be able to order cars from the premises at all hours, tothe detriment of the adjoining residential properties. The congregation ofpersons outside of the premises would lead, especially later in theevening, to an increased impact on the residents above in terms ofnoise. In addition it would appear from previous decisions andinformation on the file that the police have been called to the site in thepast, after the local pubs close, to dispel fights. This leads to noise lateat night, to the detriment of local residents. Therefore the proposal iscontrary to S14 (i).

6.4.2. The use of conditions to control the hours of opening etc. would beinappropriate in this case as the history points towards the owners of thesite failing to comply with council and Planning Inspectorate decisions.Although it could be argued that the new applicants are different fromprevious decisions, it would appear that a number of car hire companiesoperate from the same site, some of which have mentioned in previousreports and enforcement notices. Therefore there is no reason to believethat the operation of this premises would be differently run. Therefore theapplication is contrary to Policy S15.

6.4.3. Paragraph 7 from the inspectors decision letter(APP/N5660/C/99/1021630) dated the 1/ 11/1999 states that “theprevious inspector dismissed the planning appeal in view of theharm that the use caused to the living conditions of the occupiersabove the office, I agree with this decision.”

6.4.4. The main issue is the impact of the 24hour operation of the premises onthe local residents. In addition Policy S15 looks at the imposition ofconditions to control the hours of operation, however due to the historyof the site and the letter of objection received from a local resident, it isfelt that this would not overcome the council’s concerns.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. Clapham Road is a controlled parking zone and with the inclusion of adriver’s room in the premises this gives the impression that additionalvehicles will be parked outside the property. This may lead to anincrease in on street congestion in addition to the traffic that movesalong Clapham Road at all other times. Paragraph 6 of the appealdecision (T/APP/N5660/C/99/1021630) against the enforcement noticefor the removal of the minicab office states that the minicab office addsits own noise and disturbance to the area, over and above that of the A3trunk road.

6.5.2. Due to the physical constraints of the site it is not possible to provide anyoff- street parking. Therefore the nature of the office hours is such thatvehicles and persons could be congregating outside of the site at allhours. The decision letter from the Planning Inspectorate relating to theenforcement notice also states that the operation of a 24hour mini-caboffice would create activity whilst local residents are sleeping when therewould be a lower level of background noise.

6.6. Regeneration and Town Centre Issues

6.6.1. None.

6.7. Other

6.7.1. None.

7. Conclusion

166

7.1. The proposed creation of an A1 mobile phone shop is supported by council policyin general especially in a parade of shops. However the retention of the mini- caboffice would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of surrounding residentsby way of the noise and increased disturbances associated with such use and iscontrary to Policy S15.

8. Recommendation

8.1. The application is recommended for refusal.8.2. The Borough Solicitor be authorised to serve an enforcement notice under the

Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) to secure the removal of theunauthorised mini- cab office including legal proceedings if necessary.

167

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The proposed retention of the 24hour mini- cab office would, by virtue of theincreased noise and associated disturbances with such a use and hours of operation, wouldhave a detrimental impact on the adjoining residents, contrary to Policy S15 of the LambethUDP.

Notes to Applicant

1. The applicant is advised that the creation of the mobile phone shop is acceptableby the council.

168

169

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

T

44

54

1

5

Pond

243

65

39. 2m

ABBO

TS WOO

DROA

D

49

BM

40. 12 m

39. 8m

ElSu b Sta

1

43

W

51

47

40. 2m

HOA

D LY

RO

A D

38

57

Playing Field

5959 a

6161a

63

63a

Court

Te nnis

St reatham Hi ll and

Clapham High School

SP

37. 2m

39. 0m

4 9m

37. 2m

Playing F ield

Bo ro Co ns t & L B Bdy

St reatham Hi ll and

Clapham High School

11

1

11

11

11

1 11

11

1

11

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

01/01979/DET

Streatham Hill & Clapham High School42 Abbotswood RoadLondon SW16 1AW

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

170

Location Streatham Hill And Clapham High School 42 Abbotswood RoadLondon SW16 1AW

Ward ST. LEONARDSProposal

Approval of details of hard and soft landscaping, pursuant to condition 2 of planningpermission for extension of school building (ref:00/02243/FUL) granted 8 March 2001.

Application No 01/01979/DET/AB/20847

Applicant The Girls Day School Trust

Date Valid 11 July 2001

Considerations

PlansBRY/3965A, and STR/15 08as amended in red(deleting alternative Bscaled at 1.50 )

Recommendation GRANT APPROVAL OF DETAILS

171

Officer Report

01/01979/DET

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. In this instance it is considered that the main issue is the impact on visualamenities, and upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

2. Site Description

2.1. This is a site, in the southwestern corner of a school complex, is being developedfollowing the granting of the planning permission described below. Neighbouringthe site to the southeast are two storey red brick houses, which are withinStreatham Park & Garrads Road Conservation Area. Adjoining to the north, withinthe school complex, is a modern yellow brick sports hall. To the west of the site isTooting Bec Common.

3. Planning History

3.1. On 8.3.2001 planning permission was granted for the demolition of a single storeyschool block and erection of new 2 storey school building to provide a musicrecital hall, students common room, seminar, practice rooms, classrooms andancillary accommodation. Condition 2 of the permission requires submission andapproval of materials and planting to be used in the hard and soft landscapedareas.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Application is made for Approval of Details of hard and soft landscaping pursuantto Condition 2 mentioned above. The landscaping comprises:- Three beds ofplants along the south-eastern site boundary, by The Spinney, containingMahonia charity, Eleagus ebingeil Limelight, Prunus Otto Luyken, Aucubacrotonifolia, Hypericum hoserianum, Euonyhus emerald gaiety, Lonicera pileata,A bed along the western site boundary, by the Common and in front of the sportshall, is proposed to be planted to reinstate an area used as an access road duringconstruction. This would contain five silver birch / holly trees (Betula Pendula, Ilexaquifolium) along the boundary, and other trees and shrubs comprising:-Pyracantha alexandra pendula, Cornus alba sibirica, Prunus Otto Luyken, Lonicapileata, Cotoneaster skoghol, Euonyhus darts bleni. To the rear of the proposednew building four new trees, Prunus Sarcentii, are proposed.

4.2. Boundary treatment comprises:- New 1.8m high close boarded fence, with oak posts, between the school entrance gates onto The Spinney, and The Common, and along the boundary of the school with the Common. A new brick boundary wall is proposed between the front building line of houses in The Spinney, and the school’s rear access gates onto The Spinney. This would be approx 2m high, 12m long, scalloped between five brick piers. The proposed facing bricks of this wall, which are to match the neighbouring houses, is the subject of a separate application for approval of details, considered in accompanying report.

5. Consultation Responses

172

5.1. Adjacent owners / occupiers namely 1 to 5 The Spinney, the Streatham Society,Tooting Common Management Advisory Committee, The Balham Society and LBWandsworth have been consulted.

5.2. One letter on behalf of the Friends of the Tooting Commons raises objection tothe insufficient density of the proposed silver birch and the insufficient height ofthe holly trees. No screening is proposed in front of the new music block or alongby the Spinney.

5.3. The Tree Officer states that the planting of nine silver birch / holly trees, asoriginally proposed along the boundary with the Common, behind the Sportsblock, and beneath the canopy of existing trees, would seem over dense. And thenumber of these trees should be reduced by half. No objections are raised to theshrubs.

5.4. the Conservation Officer and the Landscape Architect have no objections.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies6.1.1. Relevant policies comprise ENV9 landscaping, CD2 impact of

development on Conservation areas, CD15 design of new development,of Unitary Development Plan, and policies 32 & 36 design, 42conservation areas.

6.2. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.2.1. The proposed development would be located between the large schoolsports hall, to the northwest, and the two story houses in theConservation Area, to the southeast, and would face the Common.There are a number of various preserved trees along the boundary ofthe site with the Common and The Spinney.Following the Tree Officer’s comments the number of proposed treesalong the boundary with the Common has been reduced by half.It is considered that the proposed landscaping treatment would providesufficient screening enhancing the setting of the proposed developmentand would be acceptable in terms of visual amenity. It is not consideredthat the proposals would harm either the appearance or character of theStreatham Park & Garrads Road Conservation Area.

7. Conclusion

7.1. It is therefore recommended that the landscaping details be approved.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant Approval of Details

173

174

Conditions and/or Reasons

Notes to Applicant

1. Policies CD2 , CD15, ENV9 of Unitary Development Plan, and policies 32 &36, 42 of the replacement Deposit Development Plan, were relevant to thedecision.

175

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

202

426

Barker Walk

Barker Walk

40413435

1514

25

24

27

29

15

Sh

44 42

WO

ODFI E

L D

AVE NU

E

29

31

46

50

7

43. 5mBM 44.9 4m

NE

60

58

WOODFI ELD GROVE

12

10

12

8

4

159

2

6

10

21

28

30

1

23

BM 47 .63m

45. 2m

Gareth Court

1111a

26

30

Pool

Woodfie ld C

ourt

Posts

Posts

LB

30

28 2927

26

14

5

7

8

13

61

21

1 to 6

Barker

Walk

El Sub St a

MOUNT EPHRAIM R OAD

40

49

Shaf tes

CoPosts

3344 42

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00131/FUL

21 Woodfield AveLondonSW16 1LQ

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

176

Location 21 Woodfield Avenue London SW16 1LQ

Ward ST. LEONARDSProposal

Erection of first floor side extension, part one/two storey rear extension, loft conversionwith dormers to side and rear elevations and roof light to front elevation along withassociated alterations.

Application Type: Full Planning Permission

Application No 02/00131/FUL/DCCD/25029

Applicant Mr. S. Karim

Agent Robin Redsull ( Architect RIBA )Highweald StudioReeves GatehouseStaplecross RoadNorthiam, East SussexTN31 6JN

Date Valid 7 May 2002

Considerations

Plans0112/01 (amended in red), 0112/04,proposed floor plans,proposed front elevation,0112/05,Side elevation,0112/06, 0112/07,0112/08, 0112/02, 0112/03

Recommendation Grant Permission

177

Officer Report

02/00131/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. This application was deferred by the planning applications committeemeeting of 11th June on the grounds that more information on the previousdecisions relating to this site was required. This additional information isnow provided in the planning history section below.

1.2. The main issues are the impacts of the proposals on the appearance of thedwelling and the potential for any adverse impacts on the amenities ofneighbouring properties.

2. Site Description

2.1. The site is a detached two-storey single family dwelling house located on theeastern side of Woodfield Road, near the junction with Mount Ephraim Road. Thesite does not fall within a Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission was refused on 1st October 1998 for the erection of a twostorey rear extension and first floor side extension (Ref.98/01102/FUL/CG/25029). The proposed first floor side extension was similar tothat which is currently proposed, although it would have been approximately 1mshorter (flush with the rear main elevation). The proposed two storey rearextension would have been the same height as the original house, the ridge lineof its roof extending out from that of the of the main building. The application wasrefused on the grounds that its bulk, size and scale would result in a significantloss of light and an adverse visual impact and enclosing effect, detrimental to theamenity of adjoining residential occupiers.

3.2. Planning permission was granted on 25th February 1999 for the enlargement ofthe dwelling house comprising first floor side extension and part single/part two-storey rear extension (Ref. 98/02300/FUL/LE/25029). The proposed first floor sideextension was essentially the same as that which is currently proposed. Theproposed two storey rear extension was of the same height and depth as thatwhich is currently proposed but was 0.5m narrower and had a different designwhich included a 2 storey semi-circular bay. The single storey rear extension hada flat roof and was of the same depth as that which is currently proposed.

3.3. Planning permission for the erection of a roof extension together with associatedalterations including new rear and side windows was refused on 8th August 2000and was dismissed at Appeal on 7th December 2000 (Ref.00/00450/FUL/JAB/25029). This proposal involved extending the existing hippedroof over the existing side extension and the side extension which was approvedon 25th February 1999. This would have enlarged the hipped roof, forming acentral flat section. The application was refused on the grounds that the roofextension would be out of scale with surrounding development and would have anoverbearing and enclosing affect on adjoining properties.

3.4. Planning permission was granted on 28th June 2001 for the erection of side andrear dormer windows including pitched roof extension over the first floor rearextension (Ref. 01/00327/FUL/DCCD/25029). These proposals were essentiallythe same as those for which planning permission was granted in February 1999,with the addition of a side and a rear dormer. Other (minor) differences to theFebruary 1999 scheme include a flat rear elevation to the rear extension (ratherthan a rounded rear elevation) and alterations to the fenestration.

178

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first floor side extension, a partone/two storey rear extension, a loft conversion with dormers to side and rearelevations and a roof light to the front elevation along with associated alterations.

4.2. The first floor side extension would be located to the rear of the existing first floorside extension. It would be 7.75m in depth, projecting 1.15m beyond the existingfirst floor rear elevation of the property and set back 2.65m from the main rear wallof the proposed two storey rear extension. It would be the same width as theexisting first floor and ground floor side extensions (3.3m) and would have aheight of 5.8m decreasing to 5.6m at the rear as a result of uneven ground level.The extension would have a flat roof with a tiled apron surround to match existing.There would be a single window in the rear elevation

4.3. The proposed part one / part two storey rear extension would comprise of a4.5m wide, 7.5m high two storey section with hipped roof flanked by two groundfloor sections. The southern ground floor section would be 3.9m wide with a 4.6mhigh rearward-facing monopitched roof and the northern ground floor sectionwould be 3.4m wide with a 3.5m high side-facing monopitched roof.

4.4. The rear extensions would be of equal depth, protruding some 3.8m beyond theexisting first floor rear elevation of the property. The ground floor sections wouldeach have a single window in the rear elevation and the two storey section wouldhave two rear windows at first floor level and a 1m deep projecting bay at groundfloor level with French doors at the rear and windows at the side. There would bea pitched roof over the bay which would span the full width of the two storey rearextension.

4.5. The proposed rear dormer roof extension would be 2.3m wide and 2.6m high andwould have a hipped roof. The dormer ridge would be set down 0.7m from themain roof ridge and the flank roof slopes of the dormer would be set in 0.5m infrom the flank roof slopes of the main roof. The dormer would have a singlewindow in the rear elevation.

4.6. The proposed side dormer would also have a hipped roof and would be 2.4m wideand 3m high. It would be set down 1.5m from the main roof ridge. It would have asmall (0.65m x 0.65m) window in the side elevation and would be located over anew staircase to the loft.

4.7. The proposed escape rooflight on the front roof slope would measureapproximately 1.2m in height and 0.8m in width.

5. Consultation Responses ( Consult details would be picked up from Uni-form recorddata)(Include heading for responses on reviewed proposals if necessary):

5.1. There have been objections from the residents of two neighbouring properties.5.2. The comments made by one of the objectors are concerned with the first floor

side extension and two-storey rear extension. The main concern is that theseelements would reduce levels of light received by windows at number 61 MountEphraim Road and would adversely affect the level of privacy enjoyed by thegarden and neighbouring windows of that property.

5.3. The other letter of objection is concerned with the size of the proposed reardormer window, stating that this would have an overbearing effect and wouldoverlook the rear garden of 59 Mount Ephraim Road, causing a substantialreduction in privacy. There is also concern that the proposals in general would beout of scale for the house and the area that surrounds it.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. Unitary Development Plan Policies:

179

6.1.1.1. H10: Residential Development Standards6.1.1.2. CD15: Design of new development6.1.1.3. CD18: Extensions6.1.1.4. ST5: Privacy and space between dwellings6.1.1.5. ST8: Residential extensions

6.1.2 The Council’s Guidelines for Residential Extensions and Alterations.

6.2. Design Considerations

6.2.1. The scale, design, fenestration and materials of the proposeddevelopment would be in keeping with the character and appearance ofthe existing property.

6.2.2. The objection that the proposed rear dormer would be overbearing isnoted. However, the dormer would be set well within the main rear roofslope and would be modest in size, in accordance with the Council’sSupplementary Planning Guidance. It is therefore considered that thedormer would not be overbearing in appearance but would instead be asympathetic and visually subordinate addition. The other proposalswould similarly be in scale with the existing building.

6.3. Amenity Impact

6.3.1. The location, scale and design of the proposed extensions and theorientation of the properties on this part of Woodfield Avenue wouldensure that there would be no undue impact on the daylight or sunlightreceived by any neighbouring properties.

6.3.2. With the exception of the proposed flank dormer window over the stairs,all new windows would be rearward facing and would afford similarviews to those which are possible from existing ground and first floorwindows. Whilst the objection to the rear dormer window on grounds ofoverlooking is noted, the dormer would be located a minimum of 20maway from the rear garden of 59 Mount Ephraim Road and would bemore than 20m away from the nearest windows in that property. In viewof these facts it is not considered that the proposals would result in anundue loss of privacy to any neighbouring properties.

6.3.3. The objection that the first floor side extension and two storey rearextension would reduce levels of light received by windows at number 61Mount Ephraim Road and would adversely affect the level of privacyenjoyed by the garden and neighbouring windows of that property isnoted. However, it is not considered that the proposals would have anundue adverse impact in either of these respects. Moreover, a similartwo storey rear extension and first floor side extension could beconstructed under the planning permissions of February 1999 and June2001.

7. Conclusion

7.1. In view of the above it is considered that the proposals would comply with UDPPolicies H10, CD15, CD18, ST5 and ST8 and The Council’s SupplementaryPlanning Guidance for Residential Extensions and Alterations.

8. Recommendation

8.1. GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions:8.1.1. 181C Development to begin within 5 years8.1.2. 114C Other External Finishes

180

8.1.3. 118C No new plumbing8.1.4. 122C No permitted development - windows

181

Consultations

Site Notice posted on

Advert Publication Date

List Of Internal Consultations, Statutory Bodies And Local Amenity GroupsConsulted.

Mr B BloiceStreatham Society220, Woodmansterne RoadLondonSW16 5UA

List Of People Who Sent In Comments About This Application.

Flat A61 Mount Ephraim RoadLondonSW16 1LP

Flat C61 Mount Ephraim RoadLondonSW16 1LP

59 Mount Ephraim RoadLondonSW16 1LP

59 Mount Ephraim RoadLondonSW16 1LP

List of Neighbours Consulted

STREET HOUSENUMBER

HOUSE NAME FLATNUMBER

POSTCODE

Mount EphraimRoad

61 Flat A SW16 1LP

Mount EphraimRoad

61 Flat B SW16 1LP

Mount EphraimRoad

61 Flat C SW16 1LP

182

Mount EphraimRoad

59 SW16 1LP

WoodfieldAvenue

23 SW16 1LQ

WoodfieldAvenue

34 SW16 1LQ

183

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 Except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works andworks of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent workwith regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. (Reason: Toensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

3 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract from theappearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (GeneralPermitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order withor without modification) no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorisedby this permission, if any, shall be constructed. (Reason: To safeguard the amenities ofneighbouring residential properties.)

Notes to Applicant

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

2. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and relatedlegislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building ControlOfficer.

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you are advisedto contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the London Building Acts (Amendment)Act 1939 - Part VI in relation to the rights of adjoining owners regarding party walls etc.These rights are a matter for civil enforcement and you may wish to consult a surveyor orarchitect.

5. In determining this application the following policies of the Unitary DevelopmentPlan were relevant to the decision: H10, CD15, CD18 and Standards ST5 and ST8.

184

185

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

CW

GOL

D SBO

R O' R

OAD

CRIM

SWOR

TH

ROA

D

THO RPARCH R

BM 2. 15m

2.0m

1.8m

1.9m

11

59 57

63 6

62

52

31

47

39

72

62

666470

68

7678

110

132

122

60

36

48

42

89

7377

79

75

71

74

CO W

49

53

53a

55a

55

BP

BP

CW

GOL

D SBO RO

' ROA

D

CRIM

SWO

RTH

ROAD

9

32

20

5

27

38

6

11

19

29

1.9m

1.6m

106

78

86

96

29a

65 63

68667270

7674

64

54

39

51

61

28

16

17

L Twr

65 to 75

53 to 64

43 to 52

53 to 64

C

D

D

D

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00879/FUL

94 Crimsworth RoadLondonSW8 4RL

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

186

Location 94 Crimsworth Road London SW8 4RL

Ward STOCKWELLProposal

Loft conversion to include rear mansard and 1 additional front rooflight together withassociated alterations.

Application No 02/00879/FUL/DCNA/40125

Applicant FRP Group PLC

Agent TWD1a Salcott RoadLondonSW11 GDQ

Date Valid 25 April 2002

Considerations

Plans020061 AI(0)1 A,020061 AI(0)2 B

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

187

Officer Report

1. 02/00879/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The main planning considerations are the impact that the proposal will have onthe appearance of the building and wider terrace, and on the amenity of theoccupiers of the neighbouring properties. Although contrary to the UnitaryDevelopment Plan Policy and SPG, it is considered that the erection of a rear roofextension will not harm the appearance of the building or uniformity of the terracedue to the predominance of similar extensions in the area.

2. Site Description

2.1. The property is located on the west side of Crimsworth Road. It consists of a twostorey terraced house located in a row of similar properties. The rear of the siteoverlooks the New Covent Garden Market.

3. Planning History

3.1. There is no relevant planning history associated with this property.

3.2. Several of the other properties in this road have had similar loft conversionspermitted. The most recent of these grants include;

� 23 November 2000 – 51A Crimsworth Road;� 26 May 2000 – 55A Crimsworth Road;� 31 August 2001 – 61, 65, 67 and 73 Crimsworth Road,

3.3. with almost all of the properties on the east side of Crimsworth Roadhaving permission for a loft conversion. Other properties to the west sidealso have similar extensions including the adjacent property at 92Crimsworth Road.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The proposal is for a loft conversion involving the erection of a full width rearmansard roof extension and roof lights to the front roof slope.

4.2. The rear roof extension will project 3.0m from the ridge to the rear elevation of theproperty, forming a flat roof. It will then slope down sharply by approximately 3mto meet the rear elevation of the property at eaves level. The rear elevation of theroof extension will include a window to the north of the elevation and a windowand door looking out over the rear two storey projection. These features will beset vertically into the extension and will project out by 0.6m.

4.3. The single window will be in line with the window below at first floor level on therear elevation, and of the dimensions 0.85m wide and 1.0m high. The secondwindow will be of similar dimensions with double doors adjacent to this, openingout on to the established roof terrace. The doors will be 1.5m wide and situatedadjacent to the boundary with 96 Crimsworth Road in place of an existingdoorway. The doors will feature a window above, infilling the area up to the heightof the windows.

188

4.4. It is also proposed to install a rooflight to the front elevation roofslope in additionto the two rooflights existing on this elevation. This will be located to the north ofthe roofslope, situated 1.75m up from the eaves and of the dimensions 1.2m highand 0.7m wide.

4.5. The proposal also involves the alteration of a window at first floor level to the flankwall of the rear projection. The outlook currently consists of two small verticalwindows and it is proposed to alter these to provide for a single window, 1.15mwide and 1.2m high, which is of the same design and dimensions as otherwindows to this elevation.

5. Consultation Responses ( Consult details would be picked up from Uni-form recorddata)(Include heading for responses on reviewed proposals if necessary):

5.1. Letters of consultation were sent to the neighbouring properties on CrimsworthRoad. No planning objections were raised as a result of this consultation althougha non-planning objection was made by the occupiers of 96 Crimsworth Road.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies ( including national guidance )

6.1.1. CD18 Extensions – states that extensions should be in scale with thebuilding and space around it. Roof extensions must not harm theproportions or architectural integrity of the building. Windows of roofextensions should relate to those in the main building.

6.1.2. H10 Residential Development Standards – indicates that proposals willbe assessed against the relevant standard including:

6.1.3. ST8 Residential Extensions – states that consideration will be given tothe siting, massing, scale, impact on general amenity and overlooking ofproposals for development.

6.1.4. ST3 Daylight and Sunlight – states that regard will be had to the impactupon daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties.

6.1.5. SPG Policies for Residential Extensions and Alterations – expands onthe policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. It states thatextensions, including roof extensions, should be subordinate to thebuilding. Full width roof extensions will not normally be permittedparticularly where these will compromise the rear neighbourhoodroofscape.

6.2. The main planning considerations are the impact that the proposals would haveon the appearance of the building and any potential impacts on the amenitiesenjoyed by neighbours.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The proposed installation of an additional rooflight in the front roof slopeis considered acceptable in terms of the resulting appearance of thebuilding and would maintain the general street scene in accordance withPolicies H10, CD18 and ST8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

189

6.3.2. The installation of a single window to the flank wall of the rear projectionin place of two smaller windows is considered acceptable. The designand dimensions of the window will be identical to the other threewindows to this elevation, with the new window located in line with these.It is not considered that overlooking will increase to an unacceptablelevel as it will replace two existing windows at the elevation and position.

6.3.3. The proposed mansard roof extension at the rear would be contrary tothe SPG since it would span the full height and width of the roof.However, it is considered that this case presents an exceptionalcircumstance. A large number of properties on Crimsworth Road havefull size rear roof extensions, granted as recently as August 2001, and itis considered that these have now become an established feature of thelocal pattern of development. Consequently the proposed rear roofextension would be in keeping with the character of the area.

6.3.4. The proposed mansard will provide for a less bulky structure thanexisting at the adjacent property 92 Crimsworth Road. The extensionwill not project beyond the existing eaves line of the roof, and will finishflush with the rear wall of the main building. The materials to be usedwill match the existing.

6.3.5. It is not considered that the roof extension will increase overlooking to anunacceptable level. The property has a roof terrace above the twostorey rear projection which is accessed through a door to the roof. Thisis a common feature of the properties in the terrace. It is not consideredthat the roof extension will increase overlooking more than currentlyexists. To the rear of the site is the New Covent Garden Market and,therefore, the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon theamenity of residences to this elevation.

6.3.6. It is not considered that the rear roof extension will have a negativevisual impact or undermine the uniformity of the terrace in this row due tothe predominance of similar structures to the rear roof slope on bothsides of Crimsworth Road.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The extension would not result in a detrimental increase in overlookingto that provided by the upper floor windows. Furthermore, many of thesurrounding properties already have roof extensions with additionalwindows at this level, with second floor rear roof terraces being acommon feature. The proposal would not result in an undue loss of light,visual intrusion or other adverse impact on the amenities of anyneighbouring properties. With respect to amenity the proposeddevelopment broadly complies with Policies H10, ST5 and ST8 of theAdopted Unitary Development Plan.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed development, whilst contrary to SPG, would nevertheless beappropriate in relation to the local context and is therefore not consider out ofcharacter. It would not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring propertiesand would broadly comply with Policies H10, CD18, ST5 and ST8 of the AdoptedUnitary Development Plan.

190

8. Recommendation

8.1. GRANT planning permission subject to conditions

191

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished tomatch the adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, textureand profile. (Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) issatisfactory.)

2 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

3 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract from theappearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the London Building Acts (Amendment)Act 1939 - Part VI in relation to the rights of adjoining owners regarding party wallsetc. These rights are a matter for civil enforcement and you may wish to consult asurveyor or architect.

5. In determining this application the following policies H10, CD18, ST5, ST8 of theUnitary Development Plan, and SPG were relevant to the decision.

6. You are advised that the proposed rear roof extension hereby approved is contraryto the Council's Adopted Guidelines on Residential Extensions and Alterations but isconsidered acceptable due to the established pattern of development in the locality.

192

193

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

23

BELL ASIS

AVENUE

99

18

8

6

93

89

FFEL AVE

37

42

28

13

27

2628

1

7

9

19

2

8

1

132

4

26

28

35a

El Sub Sta

BELLASI S AVE NUE

Tennis Courts

Te lfor d Park Lawn Tennis C lub

48. 2m

46. 3m

45. 8m

46. 3m

BM

46. 0

7m

KIL

LIESE

R

AVEN

UE

GOO DMAN CRESCENT

83

41

56

24

8385

CRIFFEL AVENUE Surgery

11

33

2212

2

1

1 1 1 11

1

11

11

11

11

11

1

1

11

11

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

01/02012/FUL

Tennis Club35A Killieser AvenueLondonSW2 4NX

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

194

Location Tennis Club 35A Killieser Avenue London SW2 4NX

Ward STREATHAM HILLProposal

Replacement of 2 grass tennis courts with 2 all-weather tennis courts,enclosure of courtswith new and realigned chain-link fencing, provision of additional floodlights to existing all-weather tennis courts.

Application No 01/02012/FUL/AB/20514

Applicant Mrs B Greenwood

Date Valid 5 September 2001

Considerations

Conservation AreaTelford Park

PlansSite plan,two unnumbered plansfloodlight details 3sheets, letter 5.4.02drainageassessmentletters dated 3.8.01,17.7.01, April 01.

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT

195

Officer Report

01/02012/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. It is considered that in this instance the main issues are the impact of theproposed all weather surface tennis courts, enclosure fences and floodlights, onthe amenities of nearby residential properties, and on the character andappearance of the Conservation Area.

2. Site Description

2.1. The grounds of the Lawn Tennis Club lie to the rear of residential properties onKillieser Avenue and Criffel Avenue to the east and north and the west and southof the grounds are adjoined by more residential development on Bellasis Avenue,Goodman Crescent and Sternhold Avenue.

2.2. The grounds of the tennis club measure approximately 6.2 hectares and containfive all weather courts, two of which presently have floodlighting facilities, and 2grass courts.

2.3. The site is located within Telford Park Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

3.1. In January 1980 planning permission was granted for the development of the clubwhich included the erection of six 10 metre high posts, each carrying twoluminaires, to provide floodlighting for two of the five courts.

3.2. On 21 April 1997, planning permission was approved for the removal of theexisting floodlights and the installation of 6 metre high standard angled floodlightprojectors. This permission has not been implemented.

3.3. On 20.8.1998 planning permission was granted for the erection of 21 x 7.6 metreshigh floodlight columns. This proposal supersedes the previously approved 6metre high columns and would replace columns 10metres high. A Section 106Agreement provides that the floodlights are centrally controlled and not illuminatedbetween the hours of 10.00pm and 8am Mondays to Sundays inclusive notbetween 9.00pm on Sundays and 8.00am on Mondays.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Formation of two hard, all-weather surface, tennis courts, green-coatedtarmacadam like the other courts at the Club. These would replace the two grasstennis courts and would be set 1.5m away from the site boundary withneighbouring rear gardens of 6 to 14 (even) Criffel Avenue. The courts would forma rectangle approx 33m x 31m enclosed by a dark green chain link fence2.75metres high. No floodlighting is proposed to the new courts.

4.2. It is also proposed to slightly realign part of the chain link fencing which enclosesthe other courts. This involves enlarging the enclosures by moving three fences adistance of between one and two metres.

4.3. Installation of nine floodlights and columns, 6.7 metres high, to the two southern-most courts. These would replace four existing floodlight columns 9.5 metreshigh.

5. Consultation Responses

196

5.1. Adjacent owner’s occupiers namely 1 to 9, 11, 13 to 26 Bellasis Avenue, housesand flats at 2 to 28 even Criffel Avenue, 2 to 8 even Goodman Crescent, housesand flats at 17 to 43 odd, and 45 and 47 Nursing Home Killieser Avenue, theClapham Society, Streatham Society, Head of Sports and Recreation, RegulationServices- Noise/Pollution, have been consulted, and Notices have been displayedin the roads around the site and in the local press.

5.2. 13 letters of objection received from neighbouring residents, a number beingtennis club members, are summarised as follows:-

� Loss of green haven, loss of outlook / visual amenity.� Site at heart of the Conservation Area provides the local community

with a gathering space, a safe recreational space for children, summerfetes and fireworks, this is likely to be lost with the new courts.

� Fails to preserve or enhance the conservation area or carefully relate tosurroundings

� Following previous grant of planning permission and implementation ofnew floodlights, old floodlights not removed.

� Floodlights look ugly.� It is a Lawn Tennis Club, the second oldest in the country, a grass court

is a valuable resource.� Grass courts have been a central feature of the estate since it was laid

out. The grass courts could be brought back to beneficial use at lesscost.

� The loss of the grass would spoil the lines of the bank and Victoriansteps.

� The proposed chain link fence near the boundary, at a height of 3.75metres, would have a significant impact on the view from the reargardens of Criffel Avenue resulting in loss of visual amenity, detrimentalto the conservation area.

� Fence should not exceed a height of 2.75m.� Application contains very little information on drainage.� Insufficient demand to justify the new courts. There is only a problem of

space on sunny weekends warm June evenings, around clubtournament or Wimbledon. Restored and well maintained grass courtswould relieve pressure. There are also three other tennis clubs within aone mile radius

� Lack of floodlighting `limit their use outside summer months.� There should be better programming of use of courts� Increased traffic/parking.� Site provides a base for the London Air Ambulance� Further development is not sustainable� Club should strike a balance of the needs of its members, the

community and its commercial interests� Drawings ambiguous, application details insufficient� Concern that nearby tree will be damaged by excavation work for the

new courts.� Result in light pollution� Grass courts are pleasant to play on and very quiet� Loss of amenity contrary to Council policy, and the proposal is similar to

a proposal in Bromley, dismissed on appeal

5.3. The Head of LB Lambeth Sports and Recreation states the Club’s plans andworks on developing the sport fits into Lambeth’s Sports Strategy objectives of

197

improving facilities and making sport more sustainable. The Club is working withthe Lawn Tennis Association and if they achieved “club vision “ status would havestrong sports development and community links. I would like to see thisformalised, which I know they are working on.

5.4. The Noise and Pollution Section raise no objections, subject to Conditions.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. It is Council policy to endeavour to preserve the existing stock of publicand private tennis courts in the Borough (UDP Policy RL35). Theproposed replacement Lambeth Plan, on Deposit at the time of writing,also provides for the protection of playing fields and courts for sportingactivities (ref policy 45 (I) ). In addition Policy 48(H) provides that lightpollution should be minimised. Floodlighting should not lead tounacceptable intensification of use, harming residential amenity.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. Telford Park Lawn Tennis Club is home to some of the Borough’s fewremaining lawn tennis courts. Replacement of the grass courts with theproposed all weather surface courts would enable them to be used to agreater extent in accordance with the long established authorised use.The Club states that it wants to encourage young people to get moreengaged in sport and to do this we must make more room for themwithout making the adults feel squeezed. As a result the hard all-weathersurfaces are proposed

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The proposed 2.75m high chain link fence surrounding the new courts ispermeable and colour coated green. It is not considered that this is likelyto cause any significant visual intrusion. The courts themselves will alsobe coloured green, in keeping with their setting.The Tennis Club was designed by Tarver as an integral part of theTelford Park estate and whilst the tennis courts have amenity value toresidents as green open space, it is also the function of the space as atennis club that has historical significance. It is not considered that theTennis Club's proposals will encroach upon the overall shape or extentof the open space. It is considered reasonable for the Tennis Club towish to upgrade their facilities. It is not considered that the proposedworks would be detrimental to the character or appearance of theConservation Area.

6.4. Amenity Impact6.4.1. The replacement of the grassed area with an all weather surface would

be visible from neighbouring residential properties. The all weathersurface and the open chain link enclosing fence would be colouredgreen, similar to that of other courts at the club. It is not considered thatthis would be out of keeping with the character of the tennis club. Nor isit considered that it would result in an unacceptable loss of visualamenity to neighbouring properties.

198

6.4.2. The new all weather courts would be located between the rear gardenboundaries of properties fronting Criffel Avenue, a distance of 1.5m fromthem, and a bank where the ground level rises approx 1m. A grassedarea will remain on the raised level, near the club house, beyond theproposed all weather courts. Whilst the provision of an all weathersurface would result in the loss of a grass surface that may be enjoyed,as a view by neighbouring residents, and for social and recreationalactivities, including children’s play, it is not considered that this providessufficient reason to refuse loss of the grass surface.

6.4.3. The provision of an all weather surface is likely to require a drainagesystem to deal with surface rainwater and to prevent waterlogging of thesite, and possibly of neighbouring residential gardens. A relevantCondition is therefore proposed to ensure submission of drainagedetails.

6.4.4. The application also provides Installation of nine floodlights andcolumns, 6.7 metres high, located on the two southern-most courts.These would replace four existing larger floodlight columns, which are9.5 metres high. It is considered that this would result in an improvementin the visual amenity of the club. A Condition is proposed to ensure thaton implementation of this consent the large columns are completelyremoved.

6.4.5. In order to ensure consistency in preventing unacceptable light pollution,it is recommended that a supplemental to the Section 106 Agreement,associated with the previous permission, be made so that the floodlightsare centrally controlled and not illuminated between the hours of10.00pm and 8am Mondays to Sundays inclusive not between 9.00pmon Sundays and 8.00am on Mondays.

6.4.6. It is not considered that the proposed all weather courts would haveadverse affects on nearby trees located in the rear gardens ofneighbouring property.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. The applicant states that the current membership comprises 134 juniorand 185 adult members, and that the Sports Plan and Business Plansubmitted to the Lawn Tennis Association specify very modest increasesin membership of an additional 42 juniors and 24 adults by the end of2006.

6.5.2. A present it is reported that 70% of Club members live within one mile ofKillieser Avenue, and most walk or cycle. The schoolchildren that arecoached during the week tend to come on foot. A minority of parents willno doubt continue to drop the youngest children off by car on Saturdaymornings. The Applicant also states that it is difficult to imagine that theexpansion in Club membership will have a significant impact on trafficand parking. This seems to be confirmed my many of the objections whorefer to lack of demand and ease with which it is possible to book a courtat the Club for a game of tennis.

6.5.3. No transport objections area raised.

7. Conclusion

7.1. It is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss ofamenity in the area, and would not have a detrimental impact on the character orappearance of the Conservation Area.

199

8. Recommendation

8.1. It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions anda Supplemental Section 106 Agreement.

8.2. The Agreement to provide that following the installation of the floodlights, herewithapproved, a centrally controlled management system be implemented to regulatethe time of operation and light spread of the floodlights erected, to ensure that thefloodlights are not illuminated between the hours of 10.00pm and 8.00amMondays to Saturdays inclusive not between 9.00pm on Sundays and 8.00am onMondays. The relevant tennis courts shall not be used until the provisions of theAgreement are fully in place.

200

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

3 Full details, including samples of external finishes shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced andthe development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

4 Full details of drainage for the two all weather tennis courts shall be submitted toand approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced on site(Reason In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of theproposal)

5 The floodlights herewith approved shall not be in use between the hours of10.00pm and 8.00am Mondays to Saturdays inclusive and not between 9.00pm onSunday and 8.00am on Mondays (Reason: To safeguard amenities and minimisedisturbance to the occupants of neighbouring properties)

6 The floodlights herewith approved shall not be other than specifically designedequipment that once installed minimises the spread of light near to or above horizontal.( Reason: To safeguard amenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants ofneighbouring properties)

7 The floodlights herewith approved shall be focussed on the tennis courts only andshall not shine directly onto any neighbouring properties. ( Reason: To safeguardamenities and minimise disturbance to occupants of adjoining properties)

8 Where the distance between the boundary of the residential curtilage and theclosest wall of the dwellinghouse is less than 20 metres the light level at the boundaryshall not be greater than 5 Lux when measured in the horizontal plane. (Reason: Tosafeguard amenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants of adjoining properties)

9 Where the distance between the boundary of the residential curtilage and theclosest wall of the dwellinghouse is greater than 20 metres the light level at the boundaryshall not be greater than 10lux when measured in the horizontal plane (Reason: Tosafeguard amenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants of adjoining properties)

10 Where the distance between the boundary of the residential curtilage and theclosest wall of the dwelllinghouse is greater than 20 metres the light level at theboundary shall not be greater than 10 lux when measured in the horizontal plane. (Reason: To safeguard amenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants ofneighbouring properties.)

11 The floodlights for each tennis court herewith approved shall be separatelyoperated and turned off when the tennis court(s) is/are not in use. (Reason: To safeguardamenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants of neighboouring properties.)

Notes to Applicant

201

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. Policies CD2, CD15, RL35 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan, andPolicies 32, 35, 42, 45, 48, of the replacement Plan now on Deposit, wererelevant to the decision

202

203

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

Tennis Court

BURY ROAD

Radbourne

Centre

Hall

77 a77b

77 c77d

79b79d

81c81a

83a

83b83c

83d

Telfer sco t

Junior Mixed &

31. 0m

Tennis Courts

Tennis Courts

97 a

97 b97c

97d

91a

91b91c

91d

49 to 83

95

12 THORNTON GARDENS

118

106

77

26a

26b

26c

26d

34a

34b

34c

34d

72

67a67b

67c67d

BM

30. 6

2m

30. 0m

29. 5m

MIDMOOR RO AD

RAD

BOUR

N E

RO

A D

70a

St Bede's

RC Infants School

Grafton

Tennis Club

St Bede's

RC Church

32. 4m

60

74

2

El Sub Sta 55b

55d

55a

55c 58

72

68

Inf ant s School

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

11

11

11

1

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

01/03379/FUL

Grafton Tennis Club70A Thornton RoadLondonSW12 0LF

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

204

Location Grafton Tennis Club 70A Thornton Road London SW12 0LF

Ward THORNTONProposal

Change of use of tennis club building to children’s day nursery.

Application No 01/03379/FUL/RJE/25145

Applicant Mrs Carol Evelegh

Agent Ferrybank Professional ServicesThe Studio55C Surbitaton RoadKingstonSurrey KT1 2HG

Date Valid 26 February 2002

Considerations

Plans2143/01 - 02

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

205

Officer Report

01/03379/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The acceptability of the change of use to a nursery building in respect to policiesand standards in the Lambeth UDP.

1.2. The impact of the change of use on the amenities of adjoining residentialoccupiers.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application relates to a backland site located behind the rear gardens ofhouses along Radbourne Road, Thornton Road and Thornton Gardens. The landand buildings are currently used as a tennis and squash club but is currentlyvacant. The site is accessed via a lane from Thornton Road and the rest of thesite is used as the childrens playground.

2.2. North west of the site is St Bede’s Primary School and St Bede’s Roman CatholicChurch.

3. Planning History

3.1. Planning permission was granted on the 15th April 1992 for the use of the mainhall and adjacent room as a children’s play group for up to 34 children. A conditionof this permission stated that the permission is personal to a Mrs M E McCaheryand no other person otherwise the permission will be null and void. The use as anursery ceased approximately 18 months ago.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Change of use of the main clubhouse building to a children’s day nursery.

4.2. The proposal relates to the change of use of the main clubhouse building,adjacent to the tennis courts, to a day nursery for 32 children incorporating an80m2 classroom at the front, a lounge area, store and WC facilities. The daynursery is to operate between 9am and 4.00pm, Monday to Friday requiringapproximately 6 new staff. No alterations are proposed to the exterior of thebuilding.

5. Consultation Responses:

5.1. Statutory press and site notice procedures have been undertaken and nos. 57 –79 Radbourne Road, 12 &14 Thornton Gardens and St Bede’s infant school havebeen consulted individually by letter. Six letters of objection have been receivedand are summarised as follows:

� Concern is raised about the volume of cars using the single track lane offThornton Road, to the rear of properties along Thornton Gardens.

� The proposal would result in noise disturbance from screaming and shoutingchildren which was a consequence of its previous use as a nursery untilrecently.

� The proposal may result in congestion and parking problems.� There should be a limit on the number of children.� St Bedes’s School and the White House School both have nursery classes

and are within yards of the Grafton Tennis Club. There is, therefore, noshortage of nursery places in the immediate vicinity.

206

5.2. Many issues of objection relate to the associated activities of and current state ofthe existing tennis club and issues of security which are not planning related anddo not relate to the proposal under consideration.

5.3. Ofsted have been consulted and consider that the premises are suitable for daycare and raise no objection to the proposal.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. Policy SOC2 relating to private and voluntary day care provision.6.1.2. Policy RL34 relating to the preservation and use of sports facilities.6.1.3. Policy ED1 relating to the provision of nursery education.6.1.4. Policy ED4 relating to new education premises or extensions.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. The land is currently used as a tennis and squash club (leisure use) andhas been used as a nursery until recently.

6.2.2. Policy RL34 states that the Council will endeavour to preserve public,private and educational playing fields, tennis courts and other sportsfacilities. Policy ED1 states that the Council will continue to help increasethe number of full-time and part time places for nursery education. PolicySOC2 also states that the Council will support developments of privateand voluntary sector day care provision for children under five.

6.2.3. The proposal would involve the conversion of the existing mainclubhouse to a nursery facility together with the adjacent garden. Theapplicant and the chairman of the tennis club have confirmed by letterthat the nursery use would have no impact on the current use andfunction of the tennis club as the tennis club operates at evenings andweekends. Therefore, as the proposal would not involve the loss of theuse of the existing sports facilities, and the nursey use would ensure thatan important local need is still addressed, it is considered that the use ofthe clubhouse building as a day nursery is acceptable in this case and isconsistent with Policy RL34 and Policy ED1.

6.3. Amenity Impact

6.3.1. Policy ED4 and Policy SOC2 states that proposals should not haveadverse effects on the general amenity of the area. An objection hasbeen received from a local resident relating to noise and disturbance thatmay result from children in the proposed use. The building has been inuse as a day nursery for at least 6 years. The Council’s Noise andRegulatory Services Team have been contacted and indicate that nonoise complaints have been recorded.

6.3.2. The proposed day nursery would cater for 32 children which would be 2less children than the previous day nursery, with the majority of activitiesconcentrated indoors and during the day, operating between 9am and4pm, Monday to Friday.

6.3.3. The application building is also located adjacent to St Bede’s PrimarySchool which incorporates a rear playground area. It is thereforeconsidered that any noise created by children from the proposed nurseryis not likely to exceed the existing noise levels from St. Bede’s Primary

207

School. Whilst it is considered that the day nursery would cause littlenoise disturbance to the neighbouring properties, conditions would alsobe imposed on any permision to limit the hours and days of operation ofthe premises as a day nursery, and on when the rear garden amenityspace can be used for the nursery.

6.4. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.4.1. Objections have also been received regarding the potential exacerbationof the parking problems in the area associated with the day nursery. Asthe proposal is effectively a renewal of a previous planning permission,officers from the Council’s Transportation Section consider that as thereis no proposed increase in the number of children on the site, theproposal would not impact significantly on the current parking situationduring dropping off and picking up times. Therefore, no objection israised.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal provides an opportunity to continue the use of the clubhousebuilding of the existing tennis club as a day nursery. The proposal would notinvolve the loss of the existing tennis and squash facilities and would cater for 2less children than the previous use granted planning permission on the 15th April1992. It is considered that the day nursery would not create any significant impacton the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers and would not impactsignificantly on the current parking situation during dropping off and picking uptimes. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be consistent with Polices SOC2,RL34, ED1 and ED4 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

208

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

3 The use hereby permitted shall not operate otherwise between the hours of8.00am and 4.00pm, Monday to Friday.(Reason: to safeguard the amenities of neighbouringresidential occupiers.)

4 There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audible outside thepremises.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of heighbouring residential properties)

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division concerningcompliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and PublicHealth and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or regulations madethereunder.

4. You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Directorate ofOperational Services with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collectionfacilities.

5. In connection with the soundproofing condition, you should consult the Council'sBuilding Control Section before carrying out any works.

6. Policies relevant in determining this application are SOC2, RL34, ED1 and ED4.

209

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

15

29. 4m

1

41

86

69

62

Games Cour t

52

1

2

1

2

1

50

1

5

2

14

24

1

13

23

BM 29. 78m28. 7m

BURNBURY ROAD

3638 4 0

42 4 4

46

58

7

15

23

25

37

El Sub Sta

2

14

26

38

13

23

35

12

22

32

CAMBRAY ROAD

MIDMOOR RO AD

47

50

62

72

82

33

43

53

55 to 59

61

44

57

59to63

11

11

1 11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

1

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

02/00788/FUL

35A Midmoor RoadLondonSW12 0EW

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

210

Location 35A Midmoor Road London SW12 0EW

Ward THORNTONProposal

Loft conversion involving erection of one dormer and installation of one rooflight at rear andthree rooflights at the front, together with associated alterations.

Application No 02/00788/FUL/DCHL/24923

Applicant N. Carter-Rowe Esq.

Agent Alsop Verrill Planning Conultancy28 Battersea SquareLondonSW11 3RA

Date Valid 16 May 2002

Considerations

PlansMR/3/05 Rev C, MR/3/06Rev C, MR/3/07 Rev D,MR/3/08 Rev B

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

211

Officer Report

02/00788/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

The main issue is the effect that the proposed rear roof extension will have on the characterand appearance of the building and the terrace within which it is located, and on the amenityof neighbouring residents.

2. Site Description

The application site is a two storey mid-terrace property located on the southern side ofMidmoor Road, within a residential area. The property has an original two storey rearaddition with a recently erected external staircase that provides access from the first floorside of the rear addition to the rear garden amenity space below. Excluding the externalstaircase, this is the original form of the building, and of all the properties in this terrace, andof those to the rear.

The property is in use as two self-contained maisonettes. This application relates to the firstfloor maisonette.

The rear of the application site adjoins the Hyde Park Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

On 21st September 2000 planning permission was refused for theerection of a second storey, rear roof extension, withassociated alterations (Ref: 00/02707/FUL).

On 31st January 2002 an appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning permission (Ref:00/02707/FUL) for the erection of a second storey rear roof extension was dismissed.

4. Scheme Details

The current application involves a rear roof extension that comprises a flat roofed dormer.The proposed dormer would measure 2.8m wide, 1.8m in height and 2.6m in depth. Thedormer would be set 0.3m from the ridge, 0.6m from the eaves, 0.8m from the party walladjoining no.37A Midmoor Road and 2m from the party wall adjoining no.33 Midmoor Road.

The fenestration of the proposed dormer consists of three uPVC triple glazed windows.

One rooflight is proposed to the rear elevation, to be located between the proposedextension and the party wall adjoining no. 33 Midmoor Road.

Three rooflights are proposed to the front elevation.

5. Consultation Responses

Two submissions have been received in response to consultation.

One submission states that dormer windows to the rear should be done as disceetly aspossible, maintaining the character and style of the surrounding properties.

One submission objects to the proposal on the following grounds:- it will block out light to no.37A Midmoor Road- it will overlook and reduce the privacy to 37A Midmoor Road

212

- it will look out of character with existing structures.

6. Planning Considerations

Relevant Policies

Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies include:

Policy H10: Residential Development StandardsPolicy CD2: Proposals for new developmentPolicy CD18: ExtensionsStandard ST5: Privacy and space between buildingsStandard ST8: Residential extensions

The Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Residential Extensionsand Alterations is also relevant.

Design Considerations

SPG 5.2(2) stipulates that dormers should be subordinate to the roof, being small enough topreserve the dominance of the main pitch, and that dormer windows should be set wellwithin the slope of the roof away from the eaves, ridge and party walls. The proposeddormer would be set sufficiently away from the eaves, ridge and party walls to ensure thepreservation of the dominance of the rear roofslope. The size, bulk, and scale of theextension would be in keeping with the proportions, character and appearance of the mainbuilding and accords with SPG 5.2(2) and CD18.

SPG 5.2(3) specifies that the design of dormer windows should have regard to the building’sfenestration pattern, materials, detailing, and solid-to-void ratio. The fenestration of theproposed dormer follows the form, proportions and style of the windows of the parentbuilding at both ground and first floor level. The fenestration pattern and general design ofthe proposed dormer is in keeping with the character and architectural integrity of the mainbuilding.

One objection is based on the grounds that the dormer window would be out of keeping withthe existing structures. There are numerous rear roof extensions of similar size, scale anddesign that exist both along the southern side of Midmoor Road and the northern side ofBurnbury Road. It is considered that the proposed dormer would not be out of keeping withthe parent building, the terrace within which it is located or the surrounding area generally.

The application site adjoins the Hyde Farm Conservation Area. Given that the proposeddvelopment cannot be seen from the public realm from within the Conservation Area, andcombined with its modest proportions, traditional style, siting and location, it is consideredthat the proposed dormer would not adversely affect the character and appearance of theHyde Farm Conservation Area. In this respect the proposal accords with Policy CD2.

The proposed rear rooflight and rooflights to the front elevation would not be detrimental tothe appearance of the parent building and would not result in an unacceptable loss ofamenity in general. The proposed rooflights are therefore considered acceptable andaccord with Policy CD18 and SPG generally.

Amenity Impact

A concern is raised regarding overlooking and loss of privacy to no.37A Midmoor Road. Byvirtue of its siting and orientation, it is consdidered that the proposed dormer would notresult in an unacceptable loss of privacy for adjoining residents. Although the rear gardenamenity space directly below and to the adjoining properties (no.37/37A Midmoor Road) will

213

be partly visible from the new windows, it is not considered that overlooking will besignificantly increased beyond that which currently exists from the existing first floor rearwindows. Views of the garden areas of properties to the rear (Burnbury Road properties)will be shielded by the two 2-storey rear addition that dominates the outlook from theproposed extension.

The impact of overlooking onto windows of habitable rooms of properties at the rear of theapplication site (Burnbury Road properties) would be negligible as the nearest directlyfacing windows of these dwellings are located more than 20m from the proposal. Thisaspect of the proposal accords with Policy H10 and Standard ST5 and ST8.

A concern is raised regarding loss of light to the neighbouring property, no.37A MidmoorRoad. However, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any loss of light toneighbouring properties, including no.37A Midmoor Road, as the proposed dormer would bepositioned at roof height and therefore any shadow will fall back on the main roofslope.

7. Conclusion

In view of the above assessment, it is concluded that the proposal would be in keeping withthe character and appearance of the parent building and would not adversely affect visualamenity in general. The proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouringproperties. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policies CD2, CD18,H10, ST5 and ST8 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan and adoptedSupplementary Planning Guidance.

8. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the attached conditions.

214

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 Except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works andworks of making good to the retained fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent workwith regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile. (Reason: Toensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

3 No new plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed on theexternal faces of the building(s). (Reason: Such works would seriously detract from theappearance of the building(s) and be injurious to visual amenities.)

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. In determining this application the following policies of the Unitary DevelopmentPlan were relevant to the decision: H10, CD2, CD18, Standard ST8 andSupplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Extensions and Alterations.

5. You are advised that the unauthorised external staircase to the rear elevation andthe installation of uPVC windows to the front and rear elevations do not form part ofthis application, do not appear to have received planning permission, and as suchcould be in breach of planning control and could be liable to enforcement action.

215

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

EFF

R A PA RA

DE

16. 3

m

70

95

85

112

PH

82a

82

97a

97b

27

13

1

59

69

79

72

58

66

2a

2

14

26

38

63

533

1a

1

67

63

5132

42

2

14

24

49

41

25

15

5

42

BM 16.12m

RAILTON R OAD

15. 5m

20

16. 0m

JELF ROAD

RA TTR AY ROAD

PROBERT ROAD

TALMA RO AD

St G

eorg e' s

Resid

ence

s

to1

11

72

Chapleton

House

13 to 19

15. 8m

PH

1 to 21

49b

t r e

91a

91b

66

64

113

MP

3.5

BM 16.07m

MAYALL ROAD

Somerleyton

Passage

105 to 111

18

21

18

20

30

the DeafCentre for

St Vincents

TCB

34

38 PROBERT ROAD

BO B MARLEY WAY

1

49

D

56

60

14. 9m

LEESON ROAD

29

14

19

15

7

1

1

6

Playground

25

37

D

31

37

39

49

Adventure

49a

1

5

52

54

Montego Close

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

01/02682/FUL

67 Talma Road &2A Barnwell RoadLondon

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

216

Location 67 Talma Road And 2A Barnwell Road London

Ward TULSE HILLProposal

Demolition of workshops at 2a Barnwell Road and workshop buildings to rear of 67 TalmaRoad, erection of 3 storey dwelling fronting Barnwell Rd, erection of a 2 storey terracecomprising 3 live work units to rear and partial rebuild of67 Talma Rd as 2 self contained unit along with associated parking and works.

Application No 01/02682/FUL/DCSW/

Applicant Trevor Newman

Agent Nagan Johnson2 Pontypool PlaceLondonSE1 8QF

Date Valid 25 February 2002

Considerations

PlansTMR100a, TMR101, TMR102,TMR103b, TMR104b,TMR105b, TMR106b,TMR107,TMR108, TMR109

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO S.106 AGREEMENT

217

Officer Report

01/02682/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. The proposal comprises a new 3 storey house at the front of 2a Barnwell Road; aterrace of 3 two-storey live/work units at the rear of 2a Barnwell Road, accessedby a driveway from Talma Road; and a roof extension and 3 storey rearextension to the existing terrace house fronting Talma Road to create twodwellings.

1.2. The proposal has been assessed in relation to its effects on the streetscape,surrounding residential amenity, parking, and loss of employment generating land.

1.3. With regard to residential amenity, it is considered that the proposal would resultin a general improvement in the appearance of the area. Parking spaces areprovided on site in accordance with maximum parking standards set out in theproposed UDP interim parking policy.

1.4. It is not considered that the proposal would affect the privacy of neighbours to adegree which warrants refusing the application.

1.5. The current proposal has been assessed in relation to the Council’s interim policyfor work-live/live work development, and whilst it is not deemed to be anemployment use, it does provide more workspace than previously approved, andonly 50 square metres less than the existing site. Overall this aspect of thedevelopment is considered to be acceptable, however it would be appropriate torequire a legal agreement to ensure the following:- that each unit is occupied as a single integrated unit and is not subdivided

without further permission;- that the work area is used for employment use only and not for residential

accommodation; that the residential part of unit is used only for residentialpurposes in association with the work part of the unit;

- that only the inhabitants of the live/work units are persons working in theunits; and

- that in the event that the live/work unit ceases to be used as such, that theunit’s use change solely to B1 use, and not residential use.

2. Site Description

2.1. The application site comprises two adjoining properties, one fronting BarnwellRoad and the other fronting Talma Road, at its intersection with Jelf Road.

2.2. 2A Barnwell Road contains a vacant part one/part two storey brick builtwarehouse type building that occupies the entire site. It is a long narrow site witha width of 5.2 metres and a depth of 36.8 metres and extends along the rearboundaries of 58 – 66 Railton Road, a 3-storey parade of shops and residentialaccommodation. Adjoining the property to the north is a car repair/panelbeaterworkshop.

2.3. Adjoining the site to the west is the second subject property, 67 Talma Road. Thisis an irregular shaped site with narrow frontage onto Talma Road and containing atwo storey residential property in two flats at the front of the site, and single storeydwelling and various sheds and garages, which were once stables, towards therear of the site, accessed by a driveway along the northern boundary.

2.4. Adjoining the properties to the west, south and south west are terraces of threestorey Victorian houses with small rear gardens.

3. Planning History

3.1. Conditional planning permission was granted in March 1984 for change of use of2A Barnwell Road from a vacant warehouse to a vehicle repair shop for a limitedperiod of one year.

218

3.2. In February 1992, planning permission was granted for demolition of the existingstructure at 2A Barnwell Road and the erection of a new building for use as avehicle repair workshop and ancillary offices. This was not implemented.

3.3. In 1998, planning permission was refused for change of use of 2A Barnwell Roadfrom a car repair garage into a combined residential dwelling and double heightB1 (light industrial) unit as the proposal would result in the loss of employmentgenerating floorspace, contrary to policy EMP11 of the UDP.

3.4. This decision was allowed at appeal as the inspector was of the view that theproposed development would bring with it substantial benefits to the immediatesurrounding area; and that the layout, shape, condition access and parkingsituation concerning the site justified an exception to be made to loss ofemployment floorspace policy. Conditions included a requirement that no part ofthe development shall be subdivided, and that the occupation of the residentialaccommodation be limited to a person solely or mainly employed in the business.

3.5. With regard to 67 Talma Road, the file indicates that in 1989 the house wasderelict, and that some time in the past, the yard to the rear was used for a scrapmetal business. There is a single storey dwelling at the rear of the property.There is no information on file about planning permission for its construction.

3.6. An application to convert the dwelling to two flats, with a two storey rear extensionwas submitted and withdrawn in 1989.

3.7. In 1990 planning permission was granted to use the ground floor as a nursery andthe first floor as a residential unit, together with the erection of a part one/part twostorey rear extension.

3.8. The property is not currently used as a nursery but the extensions approved in1990 have been implemented.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. The application is described as demolition of workshops at 2a Barnwell Road andworkshops to rear of 67 Talma Road; erection of a 3 storey dwelling frontingBarnwell Road; erection of a 2 storey terrace to rear, comprising 3 live work unitsand partial rebuild of 67 Talma Road as 2 self-contained units, along withassociated parking and works.

4.2. The 3 storey dwelling fronting Barnwell Road is a flat roof 4 bedroom single familydwelling with courtyard to rear. The building would extend across the full width ofthe property and would be 9.5 metres deep, with materials comprising paintedrendered plaster wall and timber boarded panels. The existing street wall wouldbe rebuilt, forming the front wall of the new dwelling.

4.3. The live work units comprises a two storey terrace of three units, with aworkspace at ground level and one bedroom residential flats above. Materialscomprise timber boarded panels and profiled zinc roofing.

4.4. The existing terraced house fronting Talma Road is to be redeveloped to create a1 x 3 bedroom flat and 1 x 4 bedroom flat. Works include erection of an additionalfloor to the original house, removal of an existing two storey extension at the rearand the erection of a 3 storey rear extension. Rendered facades with hardwoodwindows are proposed.

5. Consultation Responses

5.1. The following adjoining owners were consulted. 1 –10, 12,14 Barnwell Road; 1 –4,6 Jelf Road, 56 – 70 Railton Road (evens), business adjacent to 56 Railton Road;42, 61, 63, 65 Talma Road.

5.2. A site notice was posted.5.3. The Brixton Residents and Traders Association, Brixton Society and Water Lane

Society were also consulted.5.4. Seven letters of objection have been received.

219

5.5. Three objections are from neighbouring properties to east, fronting Railton Roadwho are concerned about loss of light and privacy and noise from the proposedlive/work units.

5.6. Three objections are from neighbouring properties fronting Barnwell Road. Theseraise concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy from the live/work units, theresidential development at 2A Barnwell Road and noise during construction.

5.7. A further objection was received from the neighbouring property on Talma Road,to the north. This concerns privacy and overlooking from the live/work units.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. In assessing this application it is appropriate to consider whetherproposed works are acceptable in the context of the Council’s UnitaryDevelopment Plan (UDP).

6.1.2. In particular it is necessary to consider any loss of employment use, thedesign and appearance of the development, any effects on the amenityof the surrounding area, and whether the proposal would have traffic andparking implications.

6.1.3. Relevant policies from the Adopted UDP include EMP6 (Protection ofland generating employment), T12 (Parking Standards), CD15 (Designof New Development), and CD18 (Design of Extensions).

6.1.4. The new deposit version of the UDP contains policies relevant to thisapplication but which carry little weight at this early stage. These arepolicies 32 (building scale and design) and 33 (alterations andextensions).

6.1.5. New UDP policy 14 (Parking and Traffic Restraint), Policy 23 (Protectionof Employment Uses) and Policy 24 (Work-Live/Live-Work Development)are interim policies and carry more weight as they have already beensubject to extensive consultation and reflect new Government Guidanceissued since the last UDP was published.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. Current UDP policy EMP6 states that permission for development ofland currently, or last, in employment-generating use for non-employment use will normally be refused. There are exceptions,whereby such a development may adversely affect surroundingresidential amenity, or have traffic implications. Factors such as lengthof vacancy and demand for such properties are also relevant.

6.2.2. Draft UDP Policy 23 reflects this policy, and states that if a site is vacantit should be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect in themedium term of re-use or re-development to modern standards. Thisshould follow a thorough marketing exercise, and vacancy shouldgenerally be for a period of at least a year.

6.2.3. Under Policy 24 of the Draft UDP it states that for Work-Live proposals,the development must comprise a site which provides predominantlynon-family accommodation and is predominantly employment floorspace(minimum 70 square metres) with separate servicing. The proposalentails a 50:50 split between 3 individual work spaces at ground floorlevel and 3 one bedroom flats at 1st floor level. This is defined as live-work development, which for planning policy purposes is considered tobe residential development and is treated as loss of employment whendeveloped in place of previous employment uses.

6.2.4. These policies apply to 2A Barnwell Road which is a vacant vehiclerepair workshop (Class B2). Planning permission was granted in 1999to demolish the workshop and replace it with a three-storey house and

220

B1 studio space at the rear. The B1 studio space provided a floor areaof approximately 130 square metres. The property was vacant at thetime, and has continued to be derelict since then. No marketingevidence has been provided but the application states that the applicantpurchased the property in mid 2001 having been on the market since1999, after the appeal was determined.

6.2.5. In assessing this current proposal, it is appropriate to consider thePlanning Inspector’s decision on the previous application whereby theexception criteria under EMP6 were applied. It was determined thatthere were several factors concerning the layout, shape, condition,access and parking situation relating to the site which would justify theloss of some employment generating floorspace. It was concluded thatthe benefits arising from the development would outweigh any harm thatwould result from a small loss of floorspace. It was also noted that whilstthe previous occupier had not given rise to any complaints, it wasconsidered that a future Class B2 user could cause significantdisturbance to neighbours, and potential traffic problems.

6.2.6. The current application proposes approximately 170 square metres ofB1 floorspace over the rear of 2A Barnwell Road and 67 Talma Road.This exceeds that approved under the previous application, but isapproximately 50 square metres less than the current B2 workshopspace.

6.2.7. It is acknowledged that the size and position of the site in a largelyresidential area may give rise to some adverse effects on amenity if it isretained as a B2 use, which is the prevailing use. Even under thepreviously approved scheme, the access arrangements are such thatthere may be effects on local parking and traffic. The current schemeproposes improved access by way of Talma Road, and provides a largeramount of employment floorspace than that previously approved.Overall, it is considered to be an improvement over the applicationpreviously approved under the appeal.However, in approving any scheme it would be appropriate to ensurethat this commercial floorspace be retained in perpetuity by way of aSection 106 agreement.

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. Policy CD15 of the current UDP states that the Council will seek toachieve a high quality of design in all new development, and that itcontributes positively to the area. Of particular note is the requirementthat new development take account of height, bulk, scale, materials,colour, and character of an area. CD18 requires that extensions be inkeeping with the building and surroundings, stating that roof extensionsmay be acceptable, providing they do not harm the proportions orarchitectural integrity of the building.

6.3.2. Standard ST1 requires that residential development be of a highstandard in design and layout, relating well to its surrounding area andrespecting the scale, height, bulk, character and amenities of nearbybuildings.

6.3.3. The proposal has been considered in light of its potential impact on thestreetscape of Talma Road, Jelf Road and Barnwell Road in particular,taking into account the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidelines(SPG) “Guidelines/Policies for Residential Extensions and Alterations”.This seeks to protect the local character and distinctiveness, confirmingthat roof extensions should be modest in scale and discouragingadditional floors on houses.

6.3.4. The application proposes a three storey detached family dwellingfronting Barnwell Road. It is of a modern design, with a flat roof and

221

rendered walls, in contrast to the adjoining and nearby Victorian brickterraced properties. However it is not considered that the proposal is of adesign which conflicts with the general style or pattern in this area, andon this basis, the proposal is considered acceptable. The scale andheight of the building is in keeping with the surrounding area.

6.3.5. For the live/work units similar modern design principles are proposed.The height is similar to the existing building and that which was allowedunder appeal. Being set back at the rear of the site and not visible fromany public place, there would be no adverse effect on the generalstreetscape.

6.3.6. With regards to the extensions to the property fronting 67 Talma Road,this involves removal of an existing two storey rear extension, and partlyreplacing this with a 3 storey extension. An additional floor is alsoproposed for the original property to accommodate two bedrooms. It isproposed to provide 1 x 3 bedroom flat and 1 x 4 bedroom flat. Materialswould comprise brickwork and rendered masonry.

6.3.7. With regard to the rear extension, overall these works are considered tobe modest in comparison to the existing extension, and would not harmthe character of the existing building. The curved wall presents amodern design feature, creating some visual interest to the building

6.3.8. Policy CD18 of the current UDP states that roof extensions may beacceptable providing they do not harm the proportions or architecturalintegrity or character of the streetscene. Policy ST8 applies criteria forresidential extensions, requiring that that they are in scale to surroundingbuildings and avoid overlooking.

6.3.9. The proposal is considered to be an innovative design solution to extendthe property. Originally a flat roof extension was proposed, but this wasconsidered to be unacceptable on the basis that it would be visible fromthe street and disrupt the existing roof pattern. The amended proposalshows the roof being set back and sloping upwards from the TalmaRoad frontage with the bulk and mass of the new roof to the middle andrear of the original building. Given that this property is on a corner andset back further from the road from those adjoining, there would be onlylimited visibility of the roof extension from Jelf Road and Talma Road.Where it is visible, its highest point is still less than the ridgeline of theadjoining terrace on Jelf Road. On this basis, the proposed roof additionis considered to be acceptable and would not harm the general patternof the roofscape in this area. On this basis it is considered to complywith relevant policies and standards concerning roof extensions.

6.3.10. The proposal complies with minimum room sizes under SPG4. Amenityspace and communal garden space is provided comprisingapproximately 25 square metres to the ground floor flat fronting TalmaRoad, approximately 33 square metres to the single dwelling frontingBarnwell Road, and the live work units would share a communal spaceof approximately 30 square metres. Policies 32 and 33 of the draft UPDapply similar criteria with regard to extensions and alterations and assuch the proposal complies in this regards.

6.4. Amenity Impact

6.4.1. The proposal has been considered in light of any potential effect on theamenity of surrounding residential properties, particularly with regard tostandard ST5, which refers to privacy and space between buildings andST8 which sets out criteria for residential extensions.

6.4.2. With regard to the single dwelling fronting Barnwell Road, this haslargely been considered in light of any potential for overlooking. Giventhat the building envelope and height are similar to the current building

222

and that previously approved, it is not considered that it would have anyadverse effects in terms of overshadowing or loss of light.

6.4.3. Concerning privacy, the main consideration with regard to thisapplication relates to overlooking of rear gardens to adjoining propertiesin Barnwell Road and Railton Road. An objection was receivedregarding this matter. A small balcony is proposed at second floor levelat the rear but given that it is 900mm deep and setback within thebuilding’s envelope, it is not considered that it would have anysignificantly greater effect in terms of overlooking than a window in thislocation.

6.4.4. With regard to the live-work unit, originally a 3 storey building wasproposed, with balconies at third floor level. Several objections werereceived regarding the scale of development. The development hasbeen reduced to two storeys with small balconies orientated towards therear gardens of Barnwell Road and Talma Road. The proposal providesa separation from the rear of 63 Talma Road by approximately 17metres. Whilst the separation distance is 3 metres less than minimumstandard of 20 metres, as set down under ST5, it is not considered thatthis reduced amount would affect the privacy of this neighbour to adegree which warrants eliminating windows or refusing the application.

6.4.5. Balconies are proposed at first floor level in these units, however, theseare small (1 metre deep) and largely set within the existing buildingenvelope with the effects considered to be comparative to windows.Whilst there may be some potential for overlooking to the rear gardensof 4 Barnwell Road and 63 Talma Road, it is considered that the setbackthat is maintained, as well as the size of the balconies are such that thiswould not be so adverse as to require a design change or refusal. Unit 2in particular would not have any effect in terms of overlooking. Whilst anobjection was received from the occupier of 63 Talma Road, the reducedheight to two storeys is considered sufficient to address these concerns.

6.4.6. Objection letters were received from adjoining properties on RailtonRoad, with concerns raised about the height and bulk of the live-workunits. The proposal has subsequently been reduced in scale along thisboundary to a point where the building line matches that of the existingbuilding and is significantly less bulky than that building allowed onappeal. The curved walls that are proposed also assist in reducing theimpact on these properties. As such, it is not considered that theproposal would have an adverse effect on the amenity of theseneighbours. There are windows in the sidewall of the existing workshopfacing out to the rear of Railton Road properties. As this wall is to beretained and comprises part of the sidewall of the new units, thewindows are to be retained. A condition requiring obscure glazingshould ensure that there is no potential for overlooking.

6.4.7. Originally a terrace was proposed for the second floor level at the rear ofthe two flats fronting 67 Talma Road. The Council expressed concernabout the potential for overlooking to rear gardens of properties frontingBarnwell Road and this feature has since been eliminated from theproposal. A condition should ensure that there is no potential for aterrace to be created. Only a small bathroom window is proposed for therear wall closest to this boundary, so there would be no impact in termsof overlooking at first floor level. With regard to the second floorbedroom window in the southern elevation, although this is only 17.5metres from the rear windows of Barnwell Road properties, this isconsidered to be adequate separation given it is a bedroom, rather thana lounge.

6.4.8. Overall, whilst the new buildings that are proposed may result in somepotential for overlooking, it is considered that the site configuration andpositioning is such that any form of development would have potential for

223

some overlooking. The reduced scale of development and appropriateconditions should ensure that privacy is not significantly affected, andoverall the scheme is considered to be appropriate for the site.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. Standard ST11 of the current UDP sets a minimum parking standard ofone parking space per dwelling. Interim Policy 14 of the Draft UDP setsa maximum of 0.5 spaces for 3 + bedroom and 0.25 spaces for 1bedroom studios. This equates to a maximum of 3 spaces. Four spacesare provided.

6.5.2. The Council’s Transport Group advised that the parking area for theoriginal scheme was very tight, requiring a clear 6 metres in front of allspaces. The plans have been amended and this is now provided.

6.5.3. Overall the current proposal represents an improvement over thepreviously approved development which proposed access to the B1 unitfrom Barnwell Road. The current proposal provides four parking spacescontained within the site and with access via a driveway along theboundary.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal involves the demolition of workshops at 2a Barnwell Road andworkshops to rear of 67 Talma Road; erection of a 3 storey dwelling frontingBarnwell Road; erection of 3 live work units as a 2 storey terrace to rear andpartial rebuild of 67 Talma Road as 2 self-contained units, along with associatedparking and works.

7.2. With regard to standards for residential development, the proposal has beenassessed against relevant criteria, including parking standards, daylight/sunlight,overlooking, privacy, layout and design. Overall, the proposal is considered tocomply with these standards. It is considered that the proposal makes a positivecontribution to the area, improving the outlook and visual amenities of adjacentresidential accommodation. Whilst the distance between the new buildings andthe balconies have the potential to result in some overlooking of the rear ofproperties surrounding the site, it is not considered that this would be significant toa degree which warrants amending the proposal further or refusing theapplication.

7.3. The live-work units would result in the loss of employment generating floorspace,contrary to Policy EMP6 of the Adopted UDP and Policy 23 of the Draft UDP.However the scheme proposed is considered to provide an acceptablecompromise given the constraints of the site and the surrounding residential uses.The building that this replaces has been vacant since 1999, with an extantplanning permission allowing development as a combined residential and B1 unit.Whilst the current application proposes less employment floorspace than theexisting property, it does exceed that allowed under appeal. In order to ensurethat this workspace is maintained in perpetuity, a Section 106 legal agreementand relevant conditions would be appropriate.

7.4. Having assessed the development against the relevant policies, taking intoaccount the amenity of surrounding properties and the general character of thearea, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant planning permission, subject to a legal agreement requiring the following;- that each unit is occupied as a single integrated unit and is not subdivided

without further permission;

224

- that the work area is used for employment use only and not for residentialaccommodation; that the residential part of unit is used only for residentialpurposes in association with the work part of the unit;

- that only the inhabitants of the live/work units are persons working in theunits; and

- that in the event that the live/work unit ceases to be used as such, that theunit’s use change solely to B1 use, and not residential use.

225

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 Full details, including samples of external finishes shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced andthe development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

3 The roof area of the extension to 67 Talma Road hereby permitted and indicatedon Plan number TMR 105b shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar areawithout the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority. (Reason:To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.)

4 Following the implementation of this consent, notwithstanding the provisions ofthe Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any orderrevoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) no buildings, extensions oralterations permitted by Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the1995 Order shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local PlanningAuthority. (Reason: To safeguard the character and the amenities of the premises andadjoining properties.)

5 No processes shall be carried on or machinery installed which are not such ascould be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity ofthat area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke soot, ash, dust or grit.(Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally.)

6 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

7 Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall becarried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of thecontamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the waterenvironment. The method and extent of this investigation shall be agreed with the PlanningAuthority prior to the commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures toprevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provision for monitoring, shallthen be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before developmentcommences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measuresapproved..(Reason: In order to prevent pollution of the water environment.)

Notes to Applicant

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. In determining this application policies EMP6, T12, CD15 and CD18 of the AdoptedUnitary Development Plan and policies 14, 23, 24, 32, and 33 of the Draft Deposit

226

Unitary Development Plan were relevant to the decision.

227

N

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

L.B. Lambeth LA086487 2002

23

BELL ASIS

AVENUE

99

18

8

6

93

89

FFEL AVE

37

42

28

13

27

2628

1

7

9

19

2

8

1

132

4

26

28

35a

El Sub Sta

BELLASI S AVE NUE

Tennis Courts

Te lfor d Park Lawn Tennis C lub

48. 2m

46. 3m

45. 8m

46. 3m

BM

46. 0

7m

KIL

LIESE

R

AVEN

UE

GOO DMAN CRESCENT

83

41

56

24

8385

CRIFFEL AVENUE Surgery

11

33

2212

2

1

1 1 1 11

1

11

11

11

11

11

1

1

11

11

LAMBETH PLANNING APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEE

Case Number:

Application Address:

01/02012/FUL

Tennis Club35A Killieser AvenueLondonSW2 4NX

Conservation AreaBoundary :

50 0 50 100 Meters

i

228

Location Tennis Club 35A Killieser Avenue London SW2 4NX

Ward STREATHAM HILLProposal

Replacement of 2 grass tennis courts with 2 all-weather tennis courts,enclosure of courtswith new and realigned chain-link fencing, provision of additional floodlights to existing all-weather tennis courts.

Application No 01/02012/FUL/AB/20514

Applicant Mrs B Greenwood

Date Valid 5 September 2001

Considerations

Conservation AreaTelford Park

PlansSite plan,two unnumbered plansfloodlight details 3sheets, letter 5.4.02drainageassessmentletters dated 3.8.01,17.7.01, April 01.

Recommendation GRANT PERMISSION

229

Officer Report

01/02012/FUL

1. Summary Of Main Issues

1.1. It is considered that in this instance the main issues are the impact of theproposed all weather surface tennis courts, enclosure fences and floodlights, onthe amenities of nearby residential properties, and on the character andappearance of the Conservation Area.

2. Site Description

2.1. The grounds of the Lawn Tennis Club lie to the rear of residential properties onKillieser Avenue and Criffel Avenue to the east and north and the west and southof the grounds are adjoined by more residential development on Bellasis Avenue,Goodman Crescent and Sternhold Avenue.

2.2. The grounds of the tennis club measure approximately 6.2 hectares and containfive all weather courts, two of which presently have floodlighting facilities, and 2grass courts.

2.3. The site is located within Telford Park Conservation Area.

3. Planning History

3.1. In January 1980 planning permission was granted for the development of the clubwhich included the erection of six 10 metre high posts, each carrying twoluminaires, to provide floodlighting for two of the five courts.

3.2. On 21 April 1997, planning permission was approved for the removal of theexisting floodlights and the installation of 6 metre high standard angled floodlightprojectors. This permission has not been implemented.

3.3. On 20.8.1998 planning permission was granted for the erection of 21 x 7.6 metreshigh floodlight columns. This proposal supersedes the previously approved 6metre high columns and would replace columns 10metres high. A Section 106Agreement provides that the floodlights are centrally controlled and not illuminatedbetween the hours of 10.00pm and 8am Mondays to Sundays inclusive notbetween 9.00pm on Sundays and 8.00am on Mondays.

4. Scheme Details

4.1. Formation of two hard, all-weather surface, tennis courts, green-coatedtarmacadam like the other courts at the Club. These would replace the two grasstennis courts and would be set 1.5m away from the site boundary withneighbouring rear gardens of 6 to 14 (even) Criffel Avenue. The courts would forma rectangle approx 33m x 31m enclosed by a dark green chain link fence2.75metres high. No floodlighting is proposed to the new courts.

4.2. It is also proposed to slightly realign part of the chain link fencing which enclosesthe other courts. This involves enlarging the enclosures by moving three fences adistance of between one and two metres.

4.3. Installation of nine floodlights and columns, 6.7 metres high, to the two southern-most courts. These would replace four existing floodlight columns 9.5 metreshigh.

5. Consultation Responses

230

5.1. Adjacent owner’s occupiers namely 1 to 9, 11, 13 to 26 Bellasis Avenue, housesand flats at 2 to 28 even Criffel Avenue, 2 to 8 even Goodman Crescent, housesand flats at 17 to 43 odd, and 45 and 47 Nursing Home Killieser Avenue, theClapham Society, Streatham Society, Head of Sports and Recreation, RegulationServices- Noise/Pollution, have been consulted, and Notices have been displayedin the roads around the site and in the local press.

5.2. 13 letters of objection received from neighbouring residents, a number beingtennis club members, are summarised as follows:-

� Loss of green haven, loss of outlook / visual amenity.� Site at heart of the Conservation Area provides the local community

with a gathering space, a safe recreational space for children, summerfetes and fireworks, this is likely to be lost with the new courts.

� Fails to preserve or enhance the conservation area or carefully relate tosurroundings

� Following previous grant of planning permission and implementation ofnew floodlights, old floodlights not removed.

� Floodlights look ugly.� It is a Lawn Tennis Club, the second oldest in the country, a grass court

is a valuable resource.� Grass courts have been a central feature of the estate since it was laid

out. The grass courts could be brought back to beneficial use at lesscost.

� The loss of the grass would spoil the lines of the bank and Victoriansteps.

� The proposed chain link fence near the boundary, at a height of 3.75metres, would have a significant impact on the view from the reargardens of Criffel Avenue resulting in loss of visual amenity, detrimentalto the conservation area.

� Fence should not exceed a height of 2.75m.� Application contains very little information on drainage.� Insufficient demand to justify the new courts. There is only a problem of

space on sunny weekends warm June evenings, around clubtournament or Wimbledon. Restored and well maintained grass courtswould relieve pressure. There are also three other tennis clubs within aone mile radius

� Lack of floodlighting `limit their use outside summer months.� There should be better programming of use of courts� Increased traffic/parking.� Site provides a base for the London Air Ambulance� Further development is not sustainable� Club should strike a balance of the needs of its members, the

community and its commercial interests� Drawings ambiguous, application details insufficient� Concern that nearby tree will be damaged by excavation work for the

new courts.� Result in light pollution� Grass courts are pleasant to play on and very quiet� Loss of amenity contrary to Council policy, and the proposal is similar to

a proposal in Bromley, dismissed on appeal

5.3. The Head of LB Lambeth Sports and Recreation states the Club’s plans andworks on developing the sport fits into Lambeth’s Sports Strategy objectives of

231

improving facilities and making sport more sustainable. The Club is working withthe Lawn Tennis Association and if they achieved “club vision “ status would havestrong sports development and community links. I would like to see thisformalised, which I know they are working on.

5.4. The Noise and Pollution Section raise no objections, subject to Conditions.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Relevant Policies

6.1.1. It is Council policy to endeavour to preserve the existing stock of publicand private tennis courts in the Borough (UDP Policy RL35). Theproposed replacement Lambeth Plan, on Deposit at the time of writing,also provides for the protection of playing fields and courts for sportingactivities (ref policy 45 (I) ). In addition Policy 48(H) provides that lightpollution should be minimised. Floodlighting should not lead tounacceptable intensification of use, harming residential amenity.

6.2. Land Use

6.2.1. Telford Park Lawn Tennis Club is home to some of the Borough’s fewremaining lawn tennis courts. Replacement of the grass courts with theproposed all weather surface courts would enable them to be used to agreater extent in accordance with the long established authorised use.The Club states that it wants to encourage young people to get moreengaged in sport and to do this we must make more room for themwithout making the adults feel squeezed. As a result the hard all-weathersurfaces are proposed

6.3. Design and Conservation Considerations

6.3.1. The proposed 2.75m high chain link fence surrounding the new courts ispermeable and colour coated green. It is not considered that this is likelyto cause any significant visual intrusion. The courts themselves will alsobe coloured green, in keeping with their setting.The Tennis Club was designed by Tarver as an integral part of theTelford Park estate and whilst the tennis courts have amenity value toresidents as green open space, it is also the function of the space as atennis club that has historical significance. It is not considered that theTennis Club's proposals will encroach upon the overall shape or extentof the open space. It is considered reasonable for the Tennis Club towish to upgrade their facilities. It is not considered that the proposedworks would be detrimental to the character or appearance of theConservation Area.

6.4. Amenity Impact6.4.1. The replacement of the grassed area with an all weather surface would

be visible from neighbouring residential properties. The all weathersurface and the open chain link enclosing fence would be colouredgreen, similar to that of other courts at the club. It is not considered thatthis would be out of keeping with the character of the tennis club. Nor isit considered that it would result in an unacceptable loss of visualamenity to neighbouring properties.

232

6.4.2. The new all weather courts would be located between the rear gardenboundaries of properties fronting Criffel Avenue, a distance of 1.5m fromthem, and a bank where the ground level rises approx 1m. A grassedarea will remain on the raised level, near the club house, beyond theproposed all weather courts. Whilst the provision of an all weathersurface would result in the loss of a grass surface that may be enjoyed,as a view by neighbouring residents, and for social and recreationalactivities, including children’s play, it is not considered that this providessufficient reason to refuse loss of the grass surface.

6.4.3. The provision of an all weather surface is likely to require a drainagesystem to deal with surface rainwater and to prevent waterlogging of thesite, and possibly of neighbouring residential gardens. A relevantCondition is therefore proposed to ensure submission of drainagedetails.

6.4.4. The application also provides Installation of nine floodlights andcolumns, 6.7 metres high, located on the two southern-most courts.These would replace four existing larger floodlight columns, which are9.5 metres high. It is considered that this would result in an improvementin the visual amenity of the club. A Condition is proposed to ensure thaton implementation of this consent the large columns are completelyremoved.

6.4.5. In order to ensure consistency in preventing unacceptable light pollution,it is recommended that a supplemental to the Section 106 Agreement,associated with the previous permission, be made so that the floodlightsare centrally controlled and not illuminated between the hours of10.00pm and 8am Mondays to Sundays inclusive not between 9.00pmon Sundays and 8.00am on Mondays.

6.4.6. It is not considered that the proposed all weather courts would haveadverse affects on nearby trees located in the rear gardens ofneighbouring property.

6.5. Highways and Transportation Issues

6.5.1. The applicant states that the current membership comprises 134 juniorand 185 adult members, and that the Sports Plan and Business Plansubmitted to the Lawn Tennis Association specify very modest increasesin membership of an additional 42 juniors and 24 adults by the end of2006.

6.5.2. A present it is reported that 70% of Club members live within one mile ofKillieser Avenue, and most walk or cycle. The schoolchildren that arecoached during the week tend to come on foot. A minority of parents willno doubt continue to drop the youngest children off by car on Saturdaymornings. The Applicant also states that it is difficult to imagine that theexpansion in Club membership will have a significant impact on trafficand parking. This seems to be confirmed my many of the objections whorefer to lack of demand and ease with which it is possible to book a courtat the Club for a game of tennis.

6.5.3. No transport objections area raised.

7. Conclusion

7.1. It is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss ofamenity in the area, and would not have a detrimental impact on the character orappearance of the Conservation Area.

233

8. Recommendation

8.1. It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions anda Supplemental Section 106 Agreement.

8.2. The Agreement to provide that following the installation of the floodlights, herewithapproved, a centrally controlled management system be implemented to regulatethe time of operation and light spread of the floodlights erected, to ensure that thefloodlights are not illuminated between the hours of 10.00pm and 8.00amMondays to Saturdays inclusive not between 9.00pm on Sundays and 8.00am onMondays. The relevant tennis courts shall not be used until the provisions of theAgreement are fully in place.

234

Conditions and/or Reasons

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later thanthe expiration of five years from the date hereof. (Reason: To comply with Section 91 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

2 The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance withthe plans herein approved without prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the premises is satisfactory.)

3 Full details, including samples of external finishes shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site is commenced andthe development shall be completed in accordance with the details thereby approved.(Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.)

4 Full details of drainage for the two all weather tennis courts shall be submitted toand approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced on site(Reason In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of theproposal)

5 The floodlights herewith approved shall not be in use between the hours of10.00pm and 8.00am Mondays to Saturdays inclusive and not between 9.00pm onSunday and 8.00am on Mondays (Reason: To safeguard amenities and minimisedisturbance to the occupants of neighbouring properties)

6 The floodlights herewith approved shall not be other than specifically designedequipment that once installed minimises the spread of light near to or above horizontal.( Reason: To safeguard amenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants ofneighbouring properties)

7 The floodlights herewith approved shall be focussed on the tennis courts only andshall not shine directly onto any neighbouring properties. ( Reason: To safeguardamenities and minimise disturbance to occupants of adjoining properties)

8 Where the distance between the boundary of the residential curtilage and theclosest wall of the dwellinghouse is less than 20 metres the light level at the boundaryshall not be greater than 5 Lux when measured in the horizontal plane. (Reason: Tosafeguard amenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants of adjoining properties)

9 Where the distance between the boundary of the residential curtilage and theclosest wall of the dwellinghouse is greater than 20 metres the light level at the boundaryshall not be greater than 10lux when measured in the horizontal plane (Reason: Tosafeguard amenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants of adjoining properties)

10 Where the distance between the boundary of the residential curtilage and theclosest wall of the dwelllinghouse is greater than 20 metres the light level at theboundary shall not be greater than 10 lux when measured in the horizontal plane. (Reason: To safeguard amenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants ofneighbouring properties.)

11 The floodlights for each tennis court herewith approved shall be separatelyoperated and turned off when the tennis court(s) is/are not in use. (Reason: To safeguardamenities and minimise disturbance to the occupants of neighboouring properties.)

Notes to Applicant

235

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

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

3. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the requirements of the Controlof Pollution Act 1974 concerning construction site noise and in this respect you areadvised to contact the Council's Environmental Health Division.

4. Policies CD2, CD15, RL35 of the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan, andPolicies 32, 35, 42, 45, 48, of the replacement Plan now on Deposit, wererelevant to the decision

236