Committee STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Report Title Rollins House Excelsior Works, Rollins Street SE15 1EP

Ward New Cross

Contributors Michael Forrester

Class PART 1 9 July 2015

Reg. Nos. (A) DC/14/88305 Application dated 09.07.2014 Applicant Signet Planning on behalf of Renewal Group Ltd Proposal Redevelopment of Units A, B, C, D Rollins

House, workshop to north, and surrounding hard standing Excelsior Works, Rollins Street to create a mixed use building comprising residential and commercial floor space and associated new landscaping (Outline Application).

Applicant’s Plan Nos. Parameter Plan 10 (ITL10011-SK-001 Rev A);

Parameter Plan 02 - Existing Ground Levels (002 Rev 08); Parameter Plan 03 - Existing Buildings to be Retained (003 Rev 08); Parameter Plan 04- Proposed Minimum and Maximum Plot Extents and Heights (004 Rev 25); Parameter Plan 05 - Proposed Lower Floor Uses (005 Rev 22); Parameter Plan 06 - Proposed Upper Floor Uses (006 Rev 22); Parameter Plan 07 - Proposed Ground Levels (007 Rev 24); Parameter Plan 08 - Proposed Surface Parking and Enclosed Car Extent & Broadcast Vehicle Area at Ground Level and Above (008 Rev 20); Parameter Plan 09 - Proposed Car Parking Extent Below Ground Level (009 Rev 19); Parameter Plan 11 - Landscape and Open Space Plan, Ground Level (TOWN428.1(08)5001); Parameter Plan 12 -Landscape and Open Space Plan Roof Level (TOWN428.1(08)5002). Parameter Plan 13 - Proposed Critical Distances (013 Rev 05); Parameter Plan 14 Buildings to be Demolished (014 Rev 00); Indicative Phasing Plan (006 Rev 07); Site Location Plan (007 Rev 00).

Background Papers (1) Case File LE/5/B/TP

(2) Core Strategy (2011) (3) Development Management Local Plan

(2014) (4) The London Plan (2011) and Further

Alterations (2015)

Designation Core Strategy – Strategic Site Allocation 3

Screening See Section 5 of Appendix A to this report

1.0 Introduction

1.1 At its meeting on 13th November 2014 the Strategic Planning Committee received a report from the Head of Planning in respect of an outline planning application for the redevelopment of Units A, B, C, D Rollins House, workshop to north, and surrounding hard standing Excelsior Works, Rollins Street to create a mixed use building comprising residential and commercial floor space and associated new landscaping. The proposals are for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and construction of a four-storey building comprising 442sqm of B1 space (ground floor) and 16 flats with open space to the north of the new building and basement parking accessed from Rollins Street.

1.2 The full report to the 13th November 2014 Strategic Planning Committee is included as Appendix A to this report.

1.3 Following representations from the applicant and interested parties, and discussion by members of the Committee it was resolved that the application be deferred for three matters to be addressed:

1. Further information on the architectural and historical significance of Rollins House to inform a consideration of the retention of all or part of Rollins House in the current proposals (Reason for Deferral 1).

2. The applicants to demonstrate how they have held further discussions with the current occupiers of Rollins House to explore the potential to either retain them in the building or relocate them in the wider development (Reason for Deferral 2).

3. Officers to provide a confidential report on the impact on the financial viability of the overall Surrey Canal development of the Rollins House site being included or treated separately from the overall development(Reason for Deferral 3). .

1.4 This current report sets out the steps that have been taken in respect of each reason for deferral and presents the findings of that further work. Officers to conclude that in the light of the information presented in this report that there is sufficient information on which to determine the application. Based on the policies in the development plan so far as they are relevant to the development and having regard to all other material considerations the report recommends that the application be approved subject to conditions and a s.106 agreement.

2.0 Property/Site Description and Planning History

2.1 There have been no material changes to the site and its surroundings since the report in November 2014 however these details are set out below to re-familiarise Members with the site and planning context. The only change to the description of the site is in the date of the building fronting Rollins Street (see para. 2.4 below). In the report to the November Strategic Planning Committee this building is described as a "1930's building". Further research has, however, concluded

that although the design is typical of pre-WWII buildings, the analysis of historic maps indicates that it is more likely to have been built in the post-war period. In addition a new planning application has been received for the redevelopment of part of the application site by the existing occupier of that part of the premises (see para. 2.13 below).

Rollins House

2.2 Rollins House is located on the north side of Rollins Street within the Excelsior Works industrial estate. Excelsior Works is bounded to the west by the former Jewson’s site, to the east by the East London Line Extension and to the north by Surrey Canal Road. The Excelsior Works industrial estate contains approximately 6,378sqm of B Class and live/work floorspace. There are a number of industrial units within the estate and a large three-storey industrial warehouse known as Guild House. A new temporary roof level extension to Guild House (for office use) was granted planning permission in 2013 and has now been completed.

2.3 Directly to the south of the application site on Rollins Street is the Winslade housing estate comprising a four storey block of maisonettes. Rollins Street connects with Ilderton Road to the west.

2.4 The application site is made up of a number of buildings. Rollins House Block A (fronting Rollins Street) is a post-war building with art deco/modernist elements clad in brick and render. The building originally comprised two floors but the original ground floor has been excavated to create an upper and lower ground floor to provide 4 x 1B units on each floor. The conversion work has not been completed and these units are currently vacant with some informal storage use. The first floor (known as Unit B) of Block A is a single Live/Work unit with independent access from Rollins Street. Rollins House Block B (to the rear) is a four-storey building split into 12 flats. Rollins House Block/Units C & D (fronting onto an access route from Rollins Street) comprises two three-storey Live/Work units. A single storey workshop building (Unit 12 Excelsior Works) is located to the north of Block B with an open hard surfaced area to the north. Together these amount to approximately 2,070sqm of floorspace.

Wider Surroundings

2.5 North of Surrey Canal Road and framed by existing railway embankments are Millwall Football Club’s Stadium (The New Den) and associated car parking, the Lions Centre and west of Bolina Road the Enterprise Industrial Estate. The Orion Business Centre is located to the east of the East London Line. Former warehouse buildings on Stockholm Road have been granted temporary planning permission for change of use from B8 to D1 (occupied by a church), D2 (occupied by a basketball club) and sui generis (use by waste transfer operation).

Relevant Planning History

Rollins House

2.6 Between 2000-2004 the Council received a number of separate planning applications for works of alteration to, and the extension and conversion of different parts of buildings on the application site (summarised below). It is apparent that on parts of the site what has been built and occupied differs from the approved plans and uses. This is being separately assessed and is not a matter for determination in this current application.

2.7 March 2001 - planning permission granted for alterations and construction of an additional storey at second floor level at Rollins House to provide additional living accommodation in connection with the provision of a two-bedroom live/work unit. (DC/01/48520/X)

2.8 May 2003 - planning permission granted for change of use of Rollins House and Unit 18 Excelsior Works to provide 4 live/work units at Rollins House and 1 live/work unit at Unit 18, together with alterations to the front and rear elevations of Rollins House and alterations to the front and rear elevations of Unit 18, including alterations to the roof pitch and the provision of balconies on the front and rear gables of the building. (DC/03/54045)

2.9 August 2003 - planning permission granted for change of use of Rollins House and Unit 18, Excelsior Works to provide 4 live/work units at Rollins House and 1 live/work unit at Unit 18, together with alterations to the front and rear elevations

of Rollins House and alterations to the front and rear elevations of Unit 18, including alterations to the roof pitch and the provision of balconies on the front and rear gables of the building. (DC/00/47014)

2.10 July 2003 - planning permission refused for conversion of the ground and mezzanine floors of Rollins House to provide 4 two-bedroom live/work units, together with alterations to the elevations and construction of a four storey building to the rear to provide 8, two bedroom live/work units, associated landscaping and provision of balconies, cycle and bin stores. (DC/03/54045/X)

2.11 December 2006 - planning permission granted for alteration and conversion of the first floor of Unit B, Rollins House together with the construction of an additional storey incorporating a mansard roof and roof terrace at second floor level to provide 1 studio live/work unit, 1 two-bedroom live/work unit, and 1 three-bedroom duplex live/work unit together with alterations to the side elevations. (DC/04/57765)

2.12 November 2007 - planning permission granted for demolition of the rear part of Rollins House and construction of a part three/part four storey block, together with the conversion of the remaining ground floor area of Rollins House to provide 4 studios and 8 two-bedroom live/work units, incorporating balconies/roof terracing, together with associated landscaping and provision of a bin stores and cycle parking. (DC/03/55117)

2.13 April 2015 – an outline planning application has been submitted by the occupier of Unit 12 Excelsior Works for the redevelopment of their existing single storey workshop to provide a ground floor workshop and gallery, and three floors of residential accommodation (6 x 1 bed flats) above. This application has yet to be determined. (DC/15/90511)

Surrey Canal Triangle

2.14 Outline Planning Permission (DC/11/76357) was granted on 30th March 2012 for the comprehensive, phased, mixed use development of the site for up to 240,000sqm (GEA) of development as set out in the revised Development Specification dated 1st July 2011 as amended 2nd September 2011. The principal elements of the outline planning permission comprise up to 2,400 homes (Class C3); retail (Class A1-A5); business space (Class B1); hotel (Class C1); non-residential institutions (Class D1); assembly and leisure (Class D2) excluding the Millwall FC stadium. The proposals involved the demolition of all existing buildings on the site with the exception of the Millwall FC Stadium (retained and its facade upgraded and/or re-clad), Guild House (retained and extended) and Rollins House (retained but not altered or extended). The works also involve re-profiling of site levels, alterations to Surrey Canal Road and the re-alignment of Bolina Road, associated works and landscaping.

2.15 The approved Surrey Canal Triangle scheme is based on an overall masterplan, with the site broken down into a number of plots comprising a mix of residential, sport and retail and business space. The development will be undertaken in a series of phases and is likely to be built out over a 10+ year period. The scale, form and land use mix of the approved development is defined by a series of Parameter Plans and a Development Specification, with the details to be determined through reserved matters applications within the parameters

established by the outline permission. The outline application was accompanied by images illustrating how the development might look, however applications for reserved matters have yet to be formally submitted and this process will provide the opportunity for further assessment and scrutiny by the Council of the design and other details of the scheme.

2.16 A s.73 application was made in October 2013 (DC/13/85143) for alterations to the approved plans (granted on 30th March 2012 for the Surrey Canal Triangle site) for Plots Timber Wharf 1 and 2, Stockholm 1 and 2 and Senegal Way 1 and 2. That application focussed the sports facilities in a single building south of Surrey Canal Road, and the consequential redistribution of the housing approved in that location to north of Surrey Canal Road. The application was reported to Strategic Planning Committee in December 2013 and members resolved to approve the application subject to the signing of a supplemental agreement to ensure that the obligations in the existing s.106 agreement, (together with such additions or amendments as are considered appropriate by the Head of Planning) are applied to the new permission. The supplemental agreement has yet to be signed.

3.0 Reason for Deferral 1

Further information on the architectural and historical significance of Rollins House to inform a consideration of the retention of all or part of Rollins House in the current proposals.

3.1 The buildings on the site, generally referred to as Rollins House, comprise a two storey building fronting onto Rollins Street, a recently constructed building to the rear, a single storey workshop building and a three storey live/work conversion. Other than the building fronting onto Rollins Street (Block A on the plan above), which is considered in more detail below, none of these buildings is considered to be of any architectural or historical significance.

3.2 In the case of the recently constructed residential building, this has not been built in accordance with the plans approved under the November 2007 permission and the layout and quality of the accommodation falls below current housing design standards. Retaining the building and bringing it up to current standards is likely to require significant expenditure and even after these works the residential accommodation would be poor compared to a new build solution.

3.3 The workshop building to the north (Unit 12 Excelsior Works) and live/work building on the eastern side of the site (Block/Units C and D) clearly serve a purpose for their current occupiers but are not considered to be of any architectural and historical significance and their retention with either some or all of the other buildings within the application site would seriously compromise the quality of the open space within the wider Excelsior Works site.

3.4 In terms of the building fronting onto Rollins Street, an assessment of the history and significance of the building has undertaken by the Council's Conservation Officer. The full report is attached as Appendix B.

3.5 The date the building was constructed is not recorded, but based on an analysis of historic maps of the area Officers conclude that the building was probably constructed between 1945 and 1950. The dating of the building to the post-war period is challenged by existing occupiers of the premises who contend that the building was built in the 1930's. In addition the Twentieth Century Society and

English Heritage (now Historic England) who were consulted during the preparation of the Council's report note that the building has the "characteristics of a classic 1930s architecture" and that "stylistically a date in the late 1920's seems likely". Officers acknowledge that in terms of its architectural style the building resembles a late 1930s building, albeit a stripped down version of the Modern movement style. However based on the analysis of historic maps and photos that has been undertaken (rather than simply the architectural style of the building) it is considered that a post-war date is more likely.

3.6 Notwithstanding the difference in view regarding the date of the building, Officers consider that it does have some aesthetic value including the entrance and canopy, the lobby and stairs, and the use of fenestration and cornices to the south elevation to create horizontal accents and a rhythm along the façade. The architect is not known however there is no evidence to support the suggestion that it was by Wallis, Gilbert and Partners (who designed famous buildings such as the Hoover Factory in west London) or that the building was constructed using the Kahn system of reinforced concrete (of whom Wallis, Gilbert and Partners were leading advocates and used in some of their buildings).

3.7 In considering the heritage value of the building Officers have adopted the framework set out in "Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (English Heritage, 2008, pp 35-62)". This identifies four types of heritage value

1. Evidential value: the place provides direct evidence (e.g. archaeological remains) which tell us about the past. This value is used mainly in the assessment of archaeological sites and is not relevant in this case.

2. Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. This connection can be either of illustrative value (e.g. of a type) or associative value (e.g. with a person).

3. Aesthetic value: the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place; this may be by design or fortuitous.

4. Communal value: “the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it” including commemorative, symbolic, social and spiritual value.

3.8 Using these criteria Officers have concluded as follows:

Historical Value

3.9 Rollins House has some illustrative historical value. The location of the building in relation to the road and former canal illustrates the early use of water transport at the Excelsior Works site and the turning away from canals in the mid-twentieth century. Rollins House replaced Victorian housing on the site and demonstrates the ascendancy of road transport in this period.

3.10 The built form of the building demonstrates a desire to use the building as a screen for the more mundane works sheds to the north, and to separate administrative from manufacturing areas. The canopy, lobby and stairs reflect a desire to make a favourable impression on visitors and these elements, coupled with the smarter south elevation, show a desire to use the building as part of public relations for the companies housed there. The building was well glazed

and is light and airy at first floor level, indicating mid-twentieth century concerns for improved working conditions for staff.

3.11 The mixed structure of the building, with its use of a brick shell with concrete post and beams and some steel elements, is illustrative of building materials and techniques during the period. The use of reinforced concrete enables larger spans to be achieved and this historically enabled vehicular entrance into the ground floor by permitting larger entrance doors. The level of structural interest in this building should not be overstated however and there is no evidence to support a claim that the building is an early and significant example of the use of the Kahn system of concrete reinforcement that allowed factory buildings to have large areas of uninterrupted floor space and large areas of glazing. Whilst an intrusive survey would be required to prove this matter conclusively, even if the system were used this is a rather timid application of the system, given the limited spans in the building and the use of steel beams and a load bearing brick shell.

3.12 Rollins House has some associative historic value based on a close historical association with industrial history in the development of early plastics, with aircraft production and with the production side of the recording industry. There is a limited association with Sir Herbert Edward Morgan (a British industrialist and businessman) who was chairman of (among many other companies) Ebenestos, British Homophone (later the Decca Record Company) who were located at Excelsior Works for a time.

Aesthetic Value

3.13 As noted above the architect of the building is unknown but for a variety of reasons it is considered extremely unlikely that it would have been Wallis, Gilbert and Partners. The authoritative text on the firm includes a gazetteer of projects based on company archives and the Rollins House site is not mentioned.

3.14 Notwithstanding this conclusion, Rollins House has some aesthetic value in terms of its architectural design and its notable features have been described above. The fact that it has 1930's features, but was built in the post war period could be the result of using a previously drawn pre-war design or an older architect. The relatively modest levels of decoration and detailing at Rollins House may reflect the sparer design ethos of the late 1940s or, more prosaically, the limited availability of building materials in this period. This is not untypical of late 1940s and early 1950s buildings that resemble pared-down 1930s designs. It was only in the mid-1950s following the Festival of Britain in 1951 that a new aesthetic began to emerge.

3.15 The industrial setting for Rollins House has been lost and it sits rather strangely in relation to other local buildings. Since the houses on the north side of Rollins Street were demolished the building does not form part of a local group, with the nearby building line (for example at Guild House to the west) being much further back. It is considered that whilst Rollins House has some street presence, given that it has been much altered the building is not of landmark quality and has limited streetscape value.

3.16 It is also relevant to note that in rejecting a request by a third party to list the building Historic England noted that whilst "it does have clear local interest as the survival of an inter-war factory building of the type built on arterial routes into

London" it was "too altered and of insufficient architectural or historical interest to merit listing".

Communal Value

3.17 Rollins House has some social value and is remembered as a place of employment by some local people. The building does not however appear to have commemorative, symbolic or spiritual value which are values normally associated with structures such as war memorials, national institutions or places of worship and which are not relevant here.

Conclusion regarding the architectural and historical significance of Rollins House and the retention of all or part of Rollins House in the current proposals

3.18 The majority of the buildings within the red line of the current application are of no architectural or historic significance, whether considered individually or collectively. The possible exception is the building fronting on to Rollins Street which has some associative historical and also aesthetic value in terms of its architecture which is reminiscent of the Modern movement. However the building is much altered and the architectural integrity of the building has been significantly diminished through the loss of fabric and unsympathetic alteration. A scheme partially executed by previous owners has been very damaging, resulting in the loss of all original building elements below ground floor ceiling level including all of the original openings and any windows and doors. In addition to the removal of the original ground floor elevation to the front and rear of the building, other works that have been carried out in recent years that further compromise the architectural significance of the building. This includes the replacement of the majority of the original steel framed windows at first floor level with white-painted aluminium windows. This alteration is not sympathetic to the style of Rollins House and the character of the building would be further compromised by a second floor extension to the building for which planning permission has been granted. Whilst there is some dispute about whether that permission has been lawfully implemented or not (a number of pre-commencement conditions have yet to be complied with) it is considered that a mansard roof extension would detract from the specific character and style of the building on which the case for its architectural and historical significance is being based.

3.19 As indicated above, Historic England have assessed the building fronting Rollins Street and concluded that it is of insufficient interest to merit listing. Officers consider the building can, however, be considered to be a non-designated heritage asset, principally by virtue of its architectural style and some associative historic value. For the reasons set out in this Report and based on the evidence in Appendix B, it is considered to be of low significance.

3.20 Development Management Local Plan Policy 37 notes that non-designated heritage assets may be identified during the development management process, as has been the case with Rollins House. Policy 37 seeks to protect the local distinctiveness of the borough by sustaining and enhancing the significance of non-designated heritage assets. DMLP Policy 38 seeks to ensure that proposals that lead to substantial harm or demolition of heritage assets are fully justified and that all options are explored to avoid unnecessary harm to or loss of heritage assets. In line with guidance in the NPPF the policy notes that the greater the importance of the heritage asset, the greater the weight will be given to its

conservation. As indicted above, the importance of the heritage asset is considered to be low.

3.21 DM Policy 38 points out that the greater the importance of the heritage asset, the greater the weight to be given to its conservation. This echoes paragraph 135 of the NPPF which provides that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

3.22 DM Policy 38 goes on to state that proposals for the demolition or substantial harm to a heritage asset will require clear and convincing evidence and that demolition of a heritage asset will only be considered in conjunction with a full planning application for a replacement development. Further guidance is provided in the NPPF, which states that in determining applications local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail for this assessment should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.

3.23 Whilst the application has been submitted in outline, this approach is consistent with the application for the wider Surrey Canal Triangle site and Excelsior Works that includes Guild House (also a non-designated heritage asset) and the applicant has also provided a series of parameter plans to define the location, scale and overall massing of the proposed building as well as illustrative drawings of the proposed building. It is considered that there is sufficient material to demonstrate that an appropriately scaled and designed building could come forward at the reserved matters stage. The detailed design of the Surrey Canal Triangle development will be reviewed at reserved matters stage by a Design Quality Panel (secured through the s.106) and it is appropriate that should planning permission be granted in outline for the current proposals that the design is also reviewed by the Design Quality Panel. The application site is not in a Conservation Area or an area of special local character and given the low significance of the Rollins House building as a heritage asset in the circumstances it is considered that submission of an outline application is acceptable.

3.24 Officers have considered whether there is a sound and sustainable case for all or part of Rollins House to be retained as part of proposals for the site. Whilst the building has some associative historic interest and some interesting design features, in each case these are limited. There is no evidence that the building is by a well known architect or was constructed using innovative techniques. Importantly, the extensive changes that have been made to the building mean that any architectural and historic interest it may have had has been seriously compromised. In the circumstances the features of the building that remain are not considered to be of sufficient quality or importance to necessitate its retention or amount to a substantive reason to refuse outline planning permission for the application as submitted. Retention of the building would prejudice the delivery of new, high quality residential and business space that the current application would provide. On balance it is considered that the application as submitted is acceptable from a heritage perspective.

4.0 Reason for Deferral 2

The applicants to demonstrate how they have held further discussions with the current occupiers of Rollins House to explore the potential to either retain them in the building or relocate them in the wider development.

4.1 Supporting text to London Plan Policy 2.14 (Areas for Regeneration) states that the Mayor will expect regeneration programmes to demonstrate active engagement with residents, businesses and other appropriate stakeholders. Regeneration proposals should take account of stakeholder aspirations for the neighbourhoods concerned, and for the wider area affected and options that maximise new opportunities for those concerned to participate in the delivery of programmes and initiatives shaping neighbourhoods will be encouraged. Consultation and involvement activities should also seek to empower communities and neighbourhoods, and support development of wider skills. Relevant plans should also include a programme for implementation of policies and proposals designed to minimise disruption of the communities and businesses affected. The Council's Core Strategy (Objective 4: Economic activity and local businesses) also seeks to support existing businesses. This includes retaining business and industrial land that contributes to the industrial and commercial functioning of London as a whole, and/or which supports the functioning of the local economy including premises for the creative industries, green industries, business services and other employment growth sectors. Part of the application site includes premises used by businesses in the creative sector that are proposed to be demolished.

4.2 During the preparation of the outline application for the wider Surrey Canal Triangle site (submitted in 2011) Renewal were in contact with the occupiers of existing buildings on the site, including those that fall within the scope of the current application. Discussions have been on-going and since the current application was reported to the Strategic Planning Committee in November 2014 Renewal has met with them regarding their current and future accommodation requirements.

4.3 Following deferral of consideration of the application last November, a meeting between Renewal and existing occupiers was held on 15th January 2015 and attended by Councillor Dacres. This meeting did not resolve matters, and occupiers subsequently raised a number of issues with the conduct and recording of the meeting. Copies of representations in this regard are attached to this Report at Appendix C.

4.4 Occupiers have, however, provided specifications of their space requirements and alternative accommodation has been identified. Renewal has made formal offers to existing occupiers for the re-provision of business space in part of the wider proposals for the Excelsior Works site. This has included an offer of studio/workspace/gallery space within the development, let at the prevailing commercial rents within a refurbished Guild House (located close to their existing premises in the Excelsior Works site. Renewal has also offered to phase the development of the site to allow for the existing occupiers to relocate in one move rather than have to relocate off site and then back. To date these offers have not been accepted and the detailed terms of any future occupation has yet to be set out and agreed, but the offers remain open.

4.5 It is understood that issues remain between the parties regarding the value of the existing freehold and leasehold interests in the Rollins House site. However, questions of land ownership and the negotiations regarding acquisition of the land and rights necessary for the development to proceed are not material to the determination of the planning application.

4.6 Renewal has confirmed its intention to continue with the discussions with the occupiers and it is hoped that the occupiers will continue those discussions. Offers have been made which remain open and it is hoped that agreement will be reached in due course. The requirements in the existing Section 106 Agreement relating to the submission and compliance with the relocation strategy will be extended to the application site. In the circumstances, Officers consider that this aspect of the proposals has been reasonably and appropriately addressed.

5.0 Reason for Deferral 3

Officers to provide a confidential report on the impact on the financial viability of the overall Surrey Canal development of the Rollins House site being included or treated separately from the overall development.

5.1 As National Planning Practice Guidance states, decision-taking on individual applications does not normally require consideration of viability. However, where the scale of planning obligations and other costs may compromise the deliverability of a development, a viability assessment may be necessary. This should be informed by the particular circumstances of the site and proposed development in question. The NPPF places strong emphasis on ensuring viability and deliverability of sustainable development and the NPPG notes that where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations. The Guidance notes that viability is particularly relevant for affordable housing contributions that should not be sought without regard to individual scheme viability. Further, Core Strategy Policy 1 (which provides for a target of 50% affordable housing on schemes over 10 units) recognises this is subject to financial viability and the London Plan (Policy 3.12) recognises the requirements relating to viability.

5.2 Following the decision to defer determination of the application at the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee in November 2014 the applicant submitted viability information, including regarding retention of the existing buildings. To assess this information the Council appointed independent viability consultants (Urban Delivery) to undertake a review of the financial viability of retention and redevelopment options. The review also assessed whether the proposed redevelopment of Rollins House would impact (positively or negatively) on the financial viability of the overall New Bermondsey development, and has also considered the viability of retention and refurbishment options for the existing buildings and for Rollins House alone. The viability work informs the level of affordable housing the Rollins House scheme might reasonably be expected to deliver. In this regard the applicant has offered to provide 4 affordable housing units(rents capped at 60% of market rents) within the Excelsior Works plot in addition to the affordable housing already to be provided within this plot of the wider Surrey Canal Triangle development.

5.3 The information submitted by the applicant and Urban Delivery’s review have been submitted on a confidential basis and Officers are satisfied the reports should remain confidential.

5.4 The Applicant’s appraisals identify a net profit for the redevelopment option and a net loss for the retention/refurbishment option. The cost and value inputs for the two scenarios have been reviewed based on local market comparables including land acquisition costs, benchmark build costs, residential sales values and rental levels and yields for the commercial space, and associated costs such as professional fees, marketing costs and finance costs. The residual valuations have identified the amount of profit (or loss) and the level of return this gives to the developer. The review has also considered the impact of including affordable housing in the scheme on overall viability. Typically a return on gross development value of around 20% is considered viable although a developer may still wish to proceed with a scheme with a return below that figure. Total costs in excess of gross development value of the development would result in an overall loss.

5.5 In summary the conclusion of the review of financial viability of the different options is as follows:

Option Viable Break Even Loss

Redevelopment X

Redevelopment (with 4 affordable dwellings) X

Retention/Refurbishment (all buildings) X

Retention/Refurbishment (Rollins House) X

5.6 The original financial viability appraisal for the Surrey Canal Triangle development as a whole, which was also independently reviewed for the Council, showed that the scheme would deliver a profit, albeit below the target 20% level. When the Rollins House redevelopment option is factored into the wider development the scheme shows a marginal (less than 1%) change in overall profitability.

5.7 Under the redevelopment option with 4 affordable housing units (which achieves break even or a small profit, but not considered to be viable as a standalone project) the overall development is marginally less profitable but still shows an overall profit to the developer. In the case of the retention and refurbishment options, that as standalone projects show a loss, the Surrey Canal Triangle development is also less profitable, although still shows an overall profit to the developer.

5.8 In this case, given the scale of development proposed in the current application compared to the scale of the Surrey Canal Triangle development as a whole the

redevelopment/retention options for Rollins House have a marginal impact on overall scheme viability. However as standalone projects the retention options show a loss.

5.9 The applicant has proposed that 4 dwellings in the scheme are affordable and Officers are of the view that this is a reasonable level of provision based on current viability. The existing Section 106 Agreement contains a review mechanism that enables additional affordable housing to be delivered (up to the policy maximum) if future finances allow. It is proposed that the mechanism will apply equally to the application scheme and will be secured by the proposed Section 106 Agreement (see below).

6.0 Other Relevant Considerations

Development Plan

6.1 Since the Strategic Planning Committee on 13 November 2014 the GLA has published Further Alterations to the London Plan (adopted March 2015) and the Council has adopted the Lewisham Development Management Local Plan (November 2014). Policies in these documents do not change the planning policy considerations in this case however they both now form part of the statutory development plan.

6.2 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) sets out that in considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must have regard to:

(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,

(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and

(c) any other material considerations.

6.3 A local finance consideration means:

(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or

(b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

6.4 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear that ‘if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’.

London Housing Zone

6.5 In February 2015 the Mayor of London announced the first round of 'Housing Zones', an initiative aimed at accelerating housing delivery in areas with high development potential. The Surrey Canal Triangle site (renamed 'New Bermondsey) was selected as one of the first nine schemes across London. Funding will support transport improvements to accelerate delivery, including the

new London Overground station, speed up the construction of homes and accelerate the entire development to complete construction within eight years.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 At the time of the original outline application for the Surrey Canal Triangle development the intention had been to retain Rollins House and associated workshop buildings. They were to be incorporated into the wider development of the Excelsior Works site and this formed part of the outline planning permission granted in March 2012. In anticipation of preparing reserved matters applications for the early phases of the Surrey Canal Triangle development the applicant (the majority land owner and developer) has reconsidered the development strategy for this part of the site. This has included further consideration of the condition of the buildings to be retained and the opportunity that redevelopment would provide in terms of achieving a more cohesive design and a larger area of open space to serve this part of the development. The applicant has concluded that the redevelopment rather than retention of buildings on this part of the site, and the re-provision of residential and business space on the site in modern buildings is the preferred approach.

7.2 The building facing onto Rollins Street can be considered a non-designated heritage asset, but of low significance. The NPPF (para. 135) states that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. The existing buildings on the site are not on the Council’s local list, and this part of the borough has not been designated as a conservation area or as an area of special local character. Whilst the proposed development will result in the total loss of Block A, retaining and adding to one part of the overall building is not considered a reasonable and balanced approach given the low significance of the building as a heritage asset. Overall the existing buildings are not considered to be of such quality or importance that their loss would be significant in terms of the borough’s heritage assets or the character of the local area including their contribution to a sense of place. In the circumstances the principle of redevelopment is considered acceptable.

7.3 The proposed development would provide a total of 2,060m2 with 442m2 of B1 space and 1,418m2 of C3 residential. None of the existing residential accommodation on the site is designated as affordable and the application does not specify a level of affordable housing. The s.106 for the wider Surrey Canal Triangle development provides for a minimum of 12% affordable (with a review mechanism to secure additional affordable housing up to 50% should scheme viability permit). Following deferral of the application the Council has sought clarification on the level of affordable housing that would be achieved as part of the application. The applicant has confirmed that 4 affordable housing units will be provided. Whilst below the Core Strategy target level of 50% the provision of 25% of the total proposed in the current application is considered acceptable based on current viability and subject to a financial review mechanism in the proposed Section 106 Agreement to secure additional affordable should finances allow.

Planning Obligations

7.4 Paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (April 2010) sets out the three tests that planning obligations are required to meet:

(i) Necessary to make the development acceptable

(ii) Directly related to the development; and

(iii) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

7.5 In April 2015 the Council adopted its Community Infrastructure Levy, which is a mechanism that allows local authorities to fund infrastructure through charges on new development. The Councils Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Statement (2015) provides further guidance on CIL. Previous obligations that would have been secured by Section 106 – namely Education, Health, Leisure, Community Facilities and Open Space are now collected via CIL, whilst other site-specific obligations such as affordable housing and public realm that meet the relevant CIL tests remain Section 106 items. The current application is liable for CIL contributions however, as the residential floorspace of the proposed development does not exceed that of the existing buildings on the site, no CIL contribution is due.

7.6 The outline planning permission relating to the wider Surrey Canal Triangle site, of which the current application site forms part, was subject to a s.106 agreement that sets out various obligations on the developer jointly and severally with other parties. Given that the current application proposes an alternative form of development that substitutes for part of the approved masterplan for the Surrey Canal Triangle site then, in so far as they are relevant, it is appropriate that the development proposed in the current application is subject to the same obligations. The principal site-wide obligations, and those that relate specifically to Excelsior Works, that are of relevance are:

1. Housing (including design standards, affordable housing and financial review mechanism)

2. Transport (including timing of improvement works related to the new East London Line Extension station and provision of Surrey Canal Road crossing, financial contributions and timing of highway works, provision of cycle hire docking and taxi rank)

3. Public Realm on and off-site (including East London Line Extension archway and underpass works)

4. Sustainability (including renewable energy measures)

5. Employment and Training (including financial contribution to employment and training

6. Business Existing and New (including Creative Industries Hub floorspace, building specification and management scheme, and Relocation Strategy)

7. Phasing and land assembly (including the sequencing of development and restriction on commencement until the developer has control of the relevant land)

8. Design Quality Panel

9. Meeting the Council’s legal, professional and monitoring costs

7.7 Officers consider that obligations relating to the matters outlined above are appropriate and necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development and make the development acceptable in planning terms, and meet the three legal tests as set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (April 2010). Should permission be granted for the current proposals it is appropriate that a ‘Grampian’ condition is imposed preventing commencement of the development, including demolition, until such time as the works to the wider Excelsior Works plot have commenced. This will ensure that the development comes forward as part of a comprehensive development of the site rather than on a piecemeal basis. This approach will also mean that obligations under the existing s.106 (as they relate to development of the Excelsior Works site) will have been triggered prior to works under this current application. The drafting of the s.106 agreement will also ensure that the measures identified in respect of the Employment and Training will apply equally to the current application site.

8.0 Local Finance Considerations

8.1 Under Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), a local finance consideration means:

(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or

(b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

8.2 The weight to be attached to a local finance consideration remains a matter for the decision maker.

8.3 The Mayor of London's CIL is therefore a material consideration. The Mayor’s CIL is payable on this application and the applicant has completed the relevant form.

9.0 Community Infrastructure Levy

9.1 The above development is also CIL liable in respect of the Council’s CIL. The proposals will, however, result in a marginal net reduction in floorspace on the site and so will not attract a CIL payment.

10.0 Equalities Considerations

10.1 Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”) imposes a duty that the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to:-

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not;

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

10.2 The protected characteristics under the Act are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

10.3 Equality issues have been duly considered as part of the assessment of this application. It is not considered that the application would have any direct or indirect impact on the protected characteristics.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION (A1)

To agree the proposals and authorise the Head of Law to complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to apply the terms of the existing s.106 agreement for Surrey Canal Triangle to the application site as if it was Phase 1B of that development to cover the following principal matters:

• Housing

• Transport

• Public Realm on and off-site

• Sustainability

• Employment and Training

• Business (Existing and New)

• Phasing and land assembly

• Council’s costs

RECOMMENDATION (B)

Upon the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 in relation to the matters set out above, authorise the Head of Planning to Grant Permission subject to the following conditions:

Time Limit

(i) Applications for approval of Reserved Matters must be made not later than 30 March 2022

(ii) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than:-

(a) The expiration of 3 years from the date of the grant of this outline permission, or

(b) If later, the expiration of 2 years from the final approval of the Reserved Matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and the timescale of the development and to allow

for the progressive process of approvals to enable the Development and the regeneration of the area in accordance with relevant planning policies to commence as soon as reasonably practicable and within a realistic timetable.

2. Reserved Matters/Details

(i) The development shall not commence until layouts/plans/sections, elevations and other supporting material detailing the following have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing:

(a) Siting and layout of the buildings and other structures;

(b) Design of the buildings (including floor areas, height and massing);

(c) External appearance (including samples of the materials and finishes to be used for all external surfaces and including but not limited to roofs, elevation treatment and glazing);

(d) Means of access including car parking, cycle storage/parking, carriageways, cycleways and footways and servicing arrangements, including all surface treatments;

e) Hard and soft landscaping and planting, site boundary treatments of all publicly accessible open space and all private open space (including play space, private residential amenity space and communal residential amenity space)

(ii) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the development shall in all aspects be carried out in accordance with the details approved under this condition.

Reason : In order that the local planning authority is satisfied with the details of the proposed development in accordance with Policy 15 High quality design in Lewisham in the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character.

3. Approved Documents

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following application documents, plans and drawings which are hereby approved:

• Site Location Plan (SC_SEW_02_007_00);

• Parameter Plan 02: Existing Ground Levels (SC_SEW_01_002_08);

• Parameter Plan 03: Existing Buildings to be Retained (SC_SEW_01_003_08);

• Parameter Plan 04: Proposed Minimum & Maximum Plot Extent & Heights (SC_SEW_01_004_25);

• Parameter Plan 05: Proposed Lower Floor Uses (SC_SEW_01_005_22);

• Parameter Plan 06: Proposed Upper Floor Uses (SC_SEW_01_006_22);

• Parameter Plan 07: Proposed Ground Levels (SC_SEW_01_007_24);

• Parameter Plan 08: Proposed Surface Parking & Enclosed Car Parking Extent & Broadcast Vehicle Area at Ground Level and above (SC_SEW_01_008_20);

• Parameter Plan 09: Proposed Car Parking Extent Below Ground Level (SC_SEW_01_009_19);

• Parameter Plan 10: Proposed Access, Circulation and Streets (ITL10011-SK-001 Rev A);

• Parameter Plan 11: Landscape and Open Space Plan, Ground Level (TOWN428.1(08)5001);

• Parameter Plan 12: Landscape and Open Space Plan, Roof Level (TOWN428.1(08)5002);

• Parameter Plan 13: Proposed Critical Distances (SC_SEW_01_013_05);

• Parameter Plan 14: Buildings to be Demolished (SC_SEW_01_014_00);

• Indicative Phasing Plan (SC_SEW_02_006_07).

Reason: To ensure that the proposal is carried out in accordance with the approved Development Specification and Plans and to ensure that the details of development accord with the assessment and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

4. Land Interests

No part of the development shall be commenced unless and until:

(1) All interests in the land comprised within the application site (other than statutory undertakers' apparatus have been acquired by the person commencing said development and title to the said land has been deduced to the local planning authority; and

(2) All interests in the said land have been bound by the terms of the S.106 Agreement entered into pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and all other powers) of the same date of this planning permission.

Reason: To ensure a comprehensive phased approach to development in accordance with Strategic Site Allocation 3 Surrey Canal Triangle of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011).

5. Implementation

No works (including demolition) pursuant to the development shall commence unless and until development of the site identified as Phase 1b Excelsior within the outline application reference DC/11/6357 (or any subsequent approval relating to that site of comparable nature) has commenced and the development hereby approved shall be substantially complete before any works are commenced on any other subsequent phase of the development (as shown on the Indicative Phasing Plan (SC_SEW_02_006_07)) granted outline planning permission reference DC/11/6357.

Reason: to ensure the satisfactory development of the site as part of the comprehensive re-development of the Surrey Canal Triangle site.

6. Business (B1) Use

Notwithstanding any changes that may be made to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and/or the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) or any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order or Order, the Business (B1) floorspace shall be used for Business (B1) purpose only and for no other purpose.

Reason: To maintain the mixed-use nature of the development in accordance with Spatial Policy 2 Regeneration and Growth Areas, Strategic Site Allocation Policy 3

Surrey Canal Triangle and Policy 4 Mixed use employment locations in the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011).

7. Flood Risk

The development shall be implemented in a accordance with the Flood Risk Mitigation measures as set out in Section 3.0 of the Flood Risk Assessment Addendum (BWB, NTW/321/FRA/ADDENDUM/REV1 dated 23 October 2014).

Reason: To address and reduce the risk of flooding.

8. Emergency Flood Plan

(i) No part of the development shall be occupied until an Emergency Flood Plan in accordance with guidance in NPPF Technical Guidance (or any guidance that replaces it) and the findings of Flood Risk Assessment Addendum (NTW/321/FRA/ADDENDUM/REV1 dated 23 October 2014) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (in consultation with the Environment Agency).

(ii) The Emergency Flood Plan as approved pursuant to paragraph (i) of this condition shall be kept in place and shall be complied with for as long as the development is occupied.

Reason: To ensure that the risks of flooding are managed in ways that safeguard the safety of people in accordance with Policy 10 Managing and reducing the risk of flooding of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policy 5.12 Flood risk management in the London Plan (March 2015).

9. Car Parking

(i) The development shall provide:

(a) A maximum of 0.3 residential car parking spaces per dwelling;

(b) A minimum of 10% of car parking spaces for residential dwellings which shall be provided at the same time as the dwellings to which they relate are provided and shall be maintained as ‘blue-badge’ sized spaces.

Reason: In Accordance with Policy 14 Sustainable transport and movement of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policy 6.13 Parking in the London Plan Policy (March 2015). The Development has been the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment and any material changes in the amount of car parking and/or cycle parking may have an impact which has not been assessed by that process.

10. Cycle Parking and Facilities

(i) Secure and covered cycle parking shall be provided within the development for the permitted residential dwellings at a ratio of 1 space per 1 or 2-bed residential dwelling and 2 spaces per 3-bed or more residential dwelling.

(ii) Secure and covered cycle parking shall be provided for the permitted Class B1 space at the standard of 1 space per 250m2 (Gross External Area).

(iii) Changing facilities (including a shower) for cyclists shall be provided within the building hereby permitted

(iv) The development shall not commence until details of the proposed provision of cycle parking for residents and occupiers of non-residential uses and associated changing facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(v) The cycle parking spaces approved pursuant to paragraph (iii) of this condition shall be provided before first the occupation of the residential dwellings and non-residential uses to which they relate. The said spaces shall thereafter be retained for use by occupiers of and visitors to the residential dwellings and non-residential uses to which they relate.

(vi) The building hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the changing facilities approved pursuant to paragraph (iii) of this condition have been provided and made available for use. Thereafter such changing facilities shall be retained and used only as changing facilities for use by cyclists occupying or visiting the development.

Reason: To encourage cycling in accordance with Policy 14 Sustainable transport and movement of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies 6.9 Cycling and 6.13 Parking in the London Plan (March 2015).

11. Motorcycle Parking

Motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided for occupiers of and visitors to the permitted residential dwellings and non-residential uses. The number of spaces provided shall be a minimum of 5% and a maximum of 10% of the number of car parking spaces. The motor cycle parking spaces shall not be used for any other purpose and shall be maintained for use as motorcycle parking spaces by occupiers of and visitors to the development.

Reason: In order to ensure adequate provision for motorcycle parking and to comply with Policy 6.13 Parking in the London Plan (March 2015).

12. Parking Management Plans

(i) No part of the development shall be first occupied until a Parking Management Plan (PMP) for car, cycle and motorcycle parking (in the building and outside the building hereby permitted) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(ii) The PMP shall include details of:

a. The location, size, layout and access arrangements (including allocation of spaces) of all car parking spaces including ‘blue-badge’ car parking spaces, cycle storage/parking spaces and motorcycle parking spaces;

b. Arrangements for the on-going monitoring of the need for ‘blue-

badge’ car parking spaces and for making adjustments to the number and location of on-street ‘blue-badge’ car parking spaces in response to monitoring results.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, all car, and motorcycle parking and cycle storage/parking shall be maintained in perpetuity and managed and monitored in accordance with the PMP approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition.

Reason: In order to ensure adequate provision for car, cycle and motorcycle parking and to comply with Policy 14 Sustainable transport and movement of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies 6.9 Cycling and 6.13 Parking in the London Plan (March 2015).

13. Electric Vehicle Charging Points

(i) Full particulars of the Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) to be provided in the car park hereby permitted and a programme for their installation and maintenance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any part of the development is first occupied.

(ii) The provision of EVCPs shall be in accordance with Table 6.1 of the Replacement London Plan (July 2011).

(iii) The said EVCPs shall be installed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the particulars and programme of installation and maintenance as approved pursuant to paragraph (i) of this condition.

Reason: To reduce pollution emissions in an Area Quality Management Area in accordance with Policies 7.14 Improving air quality and 6.13 Parking in the London Plan (March 2015).

14. Contaminated Land

(i) No part of the development (including works of demolition) shall commence until each of the following have been complied with:

(a) A site assessment has been carried out to survey and characterise the nature and extent of contamination, and its effect (whether on or off-site) and will require the submission of a conceptual site model, to the local planning authority for approval.

(b) A site investigation report to characterise and risk assess the site, specifying rationale; and recommendations for treatment for contamination encountered (whether by remedial works or not) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No development shall commence until the gas, hydrological and contamination status has been characterised and risk assessed; and the required remediation scheme implemented.

(ii) If during any works on the site contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified ("the new contamination") the local planning authority shall be notified immediately thereof and the terms of paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall apply to the new contamination and no further works shall take place on that part of the site and adjacent areas affected, until the

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) have been complied with in relation to the new contamination.

(iii) The development shall not be occupied until a closure report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such closure report shall include:

(a) verification of all measures, or treatments as required in i (b) and ii of this Condition and relevant correspondence (including other regulating authorities and stakeholders involved with the remediation works) to verify compliance requirements, necessary for the remediation of the site have been implemented in full.

(b) verification details of both the remediation and post-remediation sampling/works, carried out (including waste materials removed from the site); and before placement of any soil/materials is undertaken on site, all imported or reused soil material must conform to current soil quality requirements as agreed by the authority. Inherent to the above, is the provision of any required documentation, certification and monitoring, to facilitate condition requirements.

Reason: To ensure that the Council may be satisfied that potential site contamination is identified and remedied in view of the historical use(s) of the site, which may have included industrial processes, and to comply with Policy 5.21 Contaminated Land of the London Plan (March 2015) and DM Policy 28 Contaminated Land of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

15. Controlled Waters

(i) Prior to the commencement of the development (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

(a) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

• all previous uses

• potential contaminants associated with those uses

• a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors

• potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

(b) A site investigation scheme, based on paragraph (i)(a) of this condition to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

(c) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment pursuant to paragraph (i) (b) of this condition and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

(d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any

requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

(ii) Any changes to the components set out in paragraph (i) of this condition shall require the prior written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme approved pursuant to paragraph (i) shall be implemented as approved.

(iii) Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the Site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and to comply with Policy 5.21 Contaminated land in the London Plan (March 2015) and DM Policy 28 Contaminated Land of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

16. Archaeology

The development (including works of demolition) shall not commence until a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority has been implemented. The development shall only take place in accordance with the approved detailed scheme pursuant to this condition. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard/record any archaeological remains and to comply with Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policy 7.8 (Heritage assets and archaeology in the London Plan (March 2015).

17. Noise - Internal Residential Environment

(i) The residential dwellings comprised in the development shall incorporate sound insulation measures against external noise that achieve levels not exceeding 30dB LAeq and 45dB LAmax (night) for bedrooms, 35dB LAeq (day) for other habitable rooms, with windows shut and with other means of ventilation which shall provided. Such ventilation shall be capable of overcoming thermal overheating as defined in Approved Document Part L1A. To avoid opening windows, alternative means of purge ventilation shall be provided. The ventilation to be provided shall also include measures that reduce the intake of poor quality air.

(ii) Save for works of demolition, the development shall not commence until details of a sound insulation and ventilation scheme in compliance with paragraph (i) of this condition have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(iii) The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until:

(a) The sound insulation and ventilation scheme for that building(s) approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition has been implemented in its entirety;

(b) Noise measurements have been carried out, within and external to the residential premises, the number and location of which to be agreed with the local planning authority’s Pollution Control Group prior to measurement and to comply with the noise levels determined at the design phase; and

(c) The measurement data has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(iv) The sound insulation and ventilation measures approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition shall be maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved scheme

Reason: To provide sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to ensure that a satisfactory level of amenity is provided for future occupiers of the proposed residential dwellings, in accordance with DM Policy 26 Noise and vibration and DM 32 Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

18. Noise - Residential Amenity Space Environment

(i) Save for works of demolition, the development shall not commence until the location and details of any winter gardens/barriers to safeguard the noise environment of the proposed private and communal residential amenity areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(ii) The approved winter gardens/barriers shall be installed before any residential dwellings are first occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To provide sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to ensure that a satisfactory level of amenity is provided for the proposed private and communal residential amenity areas, in accordance with DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

19. Noise from Fixed Plant and Machinery - General

(i) The rating of the noise emitted from fixed plant on the site shall be a minimum of 5dB below the existing background level at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at the facade of any noise sensitive property. The measurements and assessments shall be made by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant according to BS 4142:1997.

(ii) Save for works of demolition, the development shall not commence until details of a scheme complying with paragraph (i) of this condition have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(iii) The development shall not be occupied until:

(a) the scheme approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition has been implemented in its entirety and noise measurements have been carried out, within and external to the residential premises, the number and location of which to be agreed with the local planning authority’s Pollution Control Group prior to measurement and to comply with paragraph (1); and

(b) the measurement data has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(iv) The scheme approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition shall be implemented and maintained in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory environment for the future occupiers of buildings and so as to comply with DM Policy 26 Noise and Vibration of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

20. Ventilation Systems

(i) Save for works of demolition, the development shall not commence until detailed plans and a specification of the appearance of and the equipment comprising a ventilation system which shall include measures to alleviate noise, vibration, fumes and odours (and incorporating active carbon filters, silencer(s) and anti-vibration mountings where necessary), associated with the uses hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(ii) The ventilation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specification before the part of the building to which it relates is first occupied and shall thereafter be maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the plans and specification approved pursuant to paragraph (i) of this condition.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally and to comply with DM Policy 26 Noise and Vibration of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

21. External Lighting

(i) Details of all external lighting (including feature lighting) to be installed including details of directional hoods and measures to prevent light spillage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority not later than nine months from the commencement of works hereby permitted.

(ii) All such external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the details approved pursuant to paragraph (i) of this condition before any part of the Development is first occupied and thereafter any external lighting (including any directional hoods) shall be retained in accordance with the approved details.

(iii) The details submitted for approval pursuant to paragraph (i) of this condition, shall be accompanied by a supporting statement which demonstrates that the proposed lighting is the minimum needed for security, working purposes

and for highlighting design features and that the proposed lighting would minimise pollution from glare and spillage.

Reason: To ensure that the lighting is installed and maintained in a manner which will minimise possible light pollution to neighbouring properties and to comply with Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and DM Policy 27 Lighting of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

22. Living Roofs Habitat Creation Management Plans

(i) Prior to commencement of any works to provide the superstructure of the building hereby permitted, details of biodiverse living roofs and a Habitat Creation and Management Plan (HCMP) for the provision and maintenance of biodiversity based living roof areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(ii) The HCMP shall set out details of the proposed plug planted and seeded substrate (that shall vary between 80-150mm with peaks and troughs and an average of at least 133mm), the proposed plant species, management arrangements and any proposed photovoltaic panels and fixings.

(iii) Living roofs shall not be used as an amenity or sitting out space of any kind whatsoever and shall only be used in the case of essential maintenance or repair, or escape in case of emergency.

(iv) Evidence that the plug planted and seeded living roof has been installed in accordance with approved details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted; and

(vi) The planting as approved pursuant to this condition shall take place within the first planting season following practical completion of the building hereby permitted and shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved HCMP.

Reason: To comply with Policies 5.10 Urban greening, 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs, 5.12 Flood risk management, 5.13 Sustainable Drainage and 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature conservation in the London Plan (2011) , Policy 10 managing and reducing flood risk and Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the Core Strategy (June 2011), and DM Policy 24 Biodiversity, living roofs and artificial playing pitches of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

23. Bat and Bird Boxes

(i) Prior to commencement of any works to provide the superstructure of the building hereby permitted, details of proposed bat and bird boxes for the building (including any to be incorporated within the structure of the building) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(ii) Bat and bird boxes that are approved in relation to Reserved Matters applications shall be installed before the building hereby permitted is first occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To comply with Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature conservation in the

London Plan (2015), Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the Core Strategy (June 2011), and DM Policy 24 Biodiversity, living roofs and artificial playing pitches and local character of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

24. Code of Construction Practice

(i) No works pursuant to the development (including works of demolition and construction) shall commence until an Air Pollution Risk Assessment (APRA) has been carried out in accordance with the Best Practice Guidance ‘The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition’ produced by the GLA and London Councils (2006) or equivalent.

(ii) No works pursuant to the development (including works of demolition and construction) shall commence until a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) (incorporating an APRA, details of measures to be employed to mitigate against likely adverse noise and vibration effects demonstrating best practical means including details of a noise monitoring and communication strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(iii) No works shall be carried out other than in accordance with the CoCP approved pursuant to paragraph (ii) of this condition.

Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied that the demolition and construction process is carried out in a manner which will minimise possible noise, disturbance and pollution to neighbouring properties and to comply with Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction, Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity and Policy 7.14 Improving air quality of the London Plan (2011).

25. Construction Logistics Plan

(i) No works pursuant to the development (including demolition and construction) shall commence until a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP)) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CLP shall accord with the relevant approved CoCP required by Condition 24.

(ii) No works shall be carried out other than in accordance with the CLP approved pursuant to paragraph (i) of this condition.

Reason: In order to meet the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement and to ensure satisfactory vehicle management and to comply with Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the Core Strategy (June 2011).

INFORMATIVES

1) Positive and Proactive Statement: The Council engages with all applicants in a positive and proactive way through specific pre-application enquiries and the detailed advice available on the Council’s website. On this particular application, positive and proactive discussions took place with the applicant prior to the application being submitted through a pre- application discussion.

2) Applicants are advised to read ‘Contaminated Land Guide for Developers’

(London Borough’s Publication 2003), on the Lewisham web page, before complying with condition 14. All of the requirements in the condition must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's (EA) - Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination.

Applicants should also be aware of their responsibilities under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure that human health, controlled waters and ecological systems are protected from significant harm arising from contaminated land. Guidance therefore relating to their activities on site, should be obtained primarily by reference to DEFRA and EA publications.

3) Assessment of the scheme required by Condition 17 (Noise - Internal Residential Environment) should be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant, and comply with the standards given in the current BS8233 for internal noise design levels. A suitably qualified ventilation engineer should carry out assessment of the ventilation scheme.

4) Assessment of the scheme required by Condition 19 (Noise from Fixed Plant and Machinery - General) shall be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant.

5) The applicant is reminded of the need to secure a licence from LB Lewisham Highways for any structure or part of structure that overhangs the public highway.

6) Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

7) Piling or other sources of ground penetration could create a pathway for contaminants to migrate into the principal aquifer. Preventive measures should be taken in order to protect groundwater quality.

8) The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with appropriate English Heritage guidelines.

9) The applicant is advised that conditions 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24 and 25

require details to be submitted prior to the commencement of works due to the importance to remediating site contamination, minimise disruption on the local highway network during construction, secure design quality and biodiversity.