a) Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and
b) Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Case No. 18/05425/FUL (agenda item five, page 169 of the agenda pack, and page three of the second addendum).
The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and second addendum that had been published on the day of the meeting. A verbal amendment to Conditions 15 and 24 were also proposed. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration. In 2015 a mixed use redevelopment scheme comprising 3,633m2 of Class B1/B2 floor space and 124 residential units was approved and the previous industrial buildings were demolished in 2016. The proposed scheme would consist of four blocks ranging from two to 16 storeys, which would include 4150m2 of commercial/employment floor space, 134 new homes, of which 66 would be affordable and 68 would be for market. Communal amenity space areas were proposed at second floor podium level and on the roof of Block C for the use of all residents, which would be controlled by S106 legal agreement. There would be changes made to the brick colour used in the proposal which would help to reduce the visual massing of the development. The scheme proposed four disabled car parking spaces and 313 cycle parking spaces; with 300 long-stay (248 residential and 52 commercial) and 13 short stay (4 residential and 9 commercial) spaces proposed. There would be a play space area of 488m2 proposed at second floor podium level and communal amenity space of 530m2 (292m2 at second floor podium level and 238m2 on the roof of Block C. Extensive views analysis was undertaken to inform assessment of the impact on strategic and local views and heritage assets. The closest statutorily listed building was approximately 230m away, Ruskin Park was approximately 300m away and Loughborough Park Conservation Area was 116m at its closest point. Images were shown of views of the site and proposed materials in the local context. There were no residential properties with directly facing habitable room windows that would be less than 20 metres from the proposed site. Existing residential properties would be approximately 35 to 68 metres away from the development. The completed development was forecasted to provide 380 new jobs, which would be a net increase of 330 more than the previous use on the site.
Following the officer’s presentation, the objectors raised the following concerns:
· The calculations on density were based on the location being considered as a central London location, whereas it should be considered as an urban location.
· The proposed scheme would result in an overly dense development which would be out of scale with its surroundings.
· The application did not adhere to Council policies and the London Plan, and should be rejected.
· There were 108 objections to the scheme and discrepancies in dealing with these.
· The concerns of the GLA and Historic England were not addressed.
· The comments from September 2019 were not referred to in the report.
· Officers’ statements on the quality and attractiveness of the application were subjective with no empirical data.
· Public transport infrastructure would be unable to cope with the demand generated by the development, especially at rush hour peak times.
· The proposal was for a gated community, with private green space and no community green space.
· Improved cycling and walking routes are required and there is no through route as envisaged in the masterplan for the area.
The applicant, agent and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:
· Peabody was founded over 150 years ago and had built over 66,000 new homes, including 3,000 in Lambeth.
· The proposed scheme offered 50% affordable housing on a habitable room basis, including affordable rent and shared ownership homes, which would make significant contributions to local housing needs.
· The scheme would provide better employment space than the previously approved application.
· There would be better amenity space available to all residents.
· The proposal would provide high quality homes and design with good quality materials.
Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:
· The site was a non-designated industrial site and the quantum of workspace proposed would be a good offer.
· The site is not designated as a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA).
· The GLA had issued its stage 1 response and its further views would be received at stage two including viability.
· There would be no heritage harm to Ruskin Park.
· Officers considered the GLA request for further information on energy strategy to have been addressed.
· There would be 60% dual aspect properties and there would be no north-facing single aspect properties. The scheme was designed so that it would be southwest facing and therefore allow a good amount of light to come in. 92% of rooms met daylight targets which would be considered reasonable for an urban locality. Officers advised that it would be possible to amend the rear elevation of Block A to improve the daylight (Average Daylight Factor) to the living rooms, living kitchen diners and kitchen diners on the second, third and fourth floors of the affordable rent units identified which did not meet the ADF Criteria. Consideration could also be given towards improved annual usability of the amenity balcony areas to these units.
· There would be mechanical ventilation as proposed in paragraph 7.3.15 of the officer report which would provide fresh air.
· The provision for over 12s play space had been factored into the amenity space and would comply with policy. There would be two parks available at easy walking distance. There was no policy basis to require a contribution for Grove Adventure Playground.
· TfL had not objected to the scheme but had outstanding issues about cycle docking which had been resolved as a S106 contribution would be made.
· Officers had not identified any safety issues in relation to a possible congestion on Herne Hill Road at the corner with Coldharbour Lane. The footway was within acceptable limits. As Coldharbour Lane was part of the healthy route network, there would be an opportunity to review the width of the pavement.
· The arches were linked to another application and not the one in question, and therefore Members could not require the pavement to be widened. The development will provide an active frontage facing the Arches.
· The northern part of the site had a PTAL rating of 4 and the southern part of the site had a PTAL rating of 3.
· The site was considered to be ‘urban’ for density purposes. Officers considered that the density of the scheme would be acceptable. This was an area where the Council was seeking to attract new small and medium businesses, and this scheme would help to deliver this.
· The extant planning permission was a material consideration.
· The scheme proposed a S106 contribution of £50,000 towards Herne Hill station, which would develop and promote lift access at the station.
· The development did not result in a noticeably greater height on Herne Hill Road compared to the extant permission. The part 14/part 16 storey taller elements would be visible but not jarring due to the use of different, contrasting bricks.
The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:
· A Member that had originally been concerned with the density and height, had decided that these concerns were outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
· Members commended the scheme for the affordable housing provision.
· One Member believed that the proposed site had been used wisely, and welcomed the three bedroom housing and the breakdown of the bulk of tower blocks.
· The uplift in affordable housing negotiated by officers post application submission was welcomed.
· Members expressed concerns that pedestrian safety for crossing from the corner of Coldharbour Lane going towards the train station had not been adequately addressed and requested whether it could be an addition to S106 contribution. They also expressed concern about the number of single aspect homes.
· A Member believed that the design of the site and its impact on the community could be better with more imagination and expressed continued concern of the overheating of rooms and lack of fresh air.
· A Member considered that any harm to heritage assets would be negligible and the benefits would outweigh the harm. Officers drew Members’ attention to guidance on the legislative and policy approach to heritage assets contained within the published agenda pack. Officers advised that if members considered that there would be harm to a heritage asset, even if such harm was negligible, then such harm must be given considerable importance and weight when weighed against the public benefits arising from the development. There was a strong presumption against granting planning permission for development which would harm a heritage asset. However it could be outweighed by public benefits if powerful enough to do so.
· It was a dense scheme but a modest increase on the extant scheme.
At 22:00 the Committee elected to proceed with the meeting for a maximum of a further 45 minutes in order to conclude the remaining matters of business.
It was MOVED by Councillor Windle, SECONDED by Councillor Clark, and
RESOLVED, five votes for, one vote against.
1. To grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the conditions as outlined in the officer’s report, published addenda and verbal update, any direction as may be received following further referral to the Mayor of London and the following:
i. An informative requesting that the pedestrian experience at the road crossing to the north of the site be looked at as part of Healthy Routes contribution
ii. An informative requesting that the ability of this site to contribute to pedestrian permeability be safeguarded in the future should neighbouring sites come forward for development.
iii. Amended Condition 15 (Detail Drawings and Samples) to read as follows:
15 Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, no development shall take place until drawings at a 1:10 scale (including sections) showing construction detailing has been be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drawings and samples shall include details of the following:
a) Samples and specification of all external materials;
b) Sample panels of brick to be built on site (fixings, mortars, materials etc) for inspection and approval. Sample panels should include example of horizontal banding and soldier coursing detail proposed.
c) All external construction detailing in the form of 1:10 scale drawings (including sections) including balconies, windows and doors, vertical fins, recessed brick panels, residential and commercial entrances and canopies, residential signage, commercial shopfront signage and Herne Hill Road planting beds.
d) Amended rear elevation of Block A that incorporates design amendments to improve the daylight (Average Daylight Factor) to the living rooms, living kitchen diners and kitchen diners on the second, third and fourth floors of the affordable rent units identified which did not meet the ADF Criteria and annual usability of the amenity balcony areas to these units.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and that it protects or enhances the character and appearance of the listed building and the Albert Embankment Conservation Area (policies Q2, Q11 and Q22 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015)).
iv. Amended Condition 24 (Delivery and Servicing Management Plan) to read as follows:
24 The use hereby permitted shall not commence until a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The use hereby permitted shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved details. The submitted details must include the following:
a) frequency of deliveries to the site;
b) frequency of other servicing vehicles such as refuse collections;
c) dimensions of delivery and servicing vehicles with vehicles entering and exiting from the site, ensuring that vehicles do not exceed 7.5 tonnes;
d) proposed loading and delivery locations; and
e) a strategy to manage vehicles servicing the site.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area (Policy Q2 of the London Borough of Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements (Policy T8 (Servicing) - Lambeth Local Plan 2015).
2. To delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:
a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and
b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
3. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within 6 months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the matters identified in the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.