Item No. 6.3

Classification OPEN

Decision Level PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date July 1 2008

From HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Title of Report DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Proposal Demolition of existing warehouse buildings and redevelopment to provide two mixed use buildings of 8 and 9 storeys (to a maximum height of 31.5m) comprising 173 residential units, 2117sq.m of B1 office space, 107sq. m A3 cafe, and 2607sq.m basement area containing 20 disabled parking spaces and 228 cycle spaces and upgrade of adjacent 'Grotto Podiums' park.

Address 61-63 GREAT SUFFOLK STREET, LONDON SE1 0BU Ward East Walworth

Application Start Date 24/04/2008 Application Expiry Date 24/07/2008

PURPOSE

1 To consider the application which is for Planning Committee consideration due to its

scale and the number of objections received.

RECOMMENDATION

2 1) Subject to no new material planning objections being received (that have not been previously considered) as a result of the reconsultation ending on 3 July 2008, and the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement (at no cost to the Local Planning Authority) by no later than 23 July 2008, that the Head of Development Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions and subject to referral to the Mayor of London. 2) In the event that objections relating to previously unconsidered issues are raised in response to the reconsultation, the application be brought to back to Members for determination; 3) In the event that the section 106 is not entered into by 23 July 2008, the Head of Development Control be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in paragraph 83, below, subject to referral to the Mayor of London. [Further consultation has been carried out to clarify the description of development.]

BACKGROUND

Site Location and Description

3 The 0.3497 hectare application site has its main frontage along Pocock Street and extends to Great Suffolk Street to the west and Sawyer Street to the east. The site comprises an industrial warehouse (used for storage of cars) of up to 3 storeys in height, with a single storey office attached and a small garage and workshop to the front of the site, which are in poor condition. The site is currently being used as a car mechanics workshop, office and car depot which suggests there could be the possibility of some form of contamination of the soil from oil and petrol storage.

4 The area was historically a light industrial and commercial area. The nature of the area has been changing with new mixed use developments being built, and today the area comprises a mixture of modern apartments, housing estates and office and mixed use buildings. A number of the neighbouring sites have been redeveloped for residential use, including the London Bridge Collection, on Southwark Bridge Road, the Wireworks in Great Suffolk Street and The Rise 1 in Lant Street.

5 To the rear (south) the site adjoins two areas of open space- OS11- Grotto Podiums Park and OS12- Grotto Open Space- a sports ground currently under a long lease to the London Fire Brigade as a training facility. Opposite the site to the north is the Southwark Crown Court which adjoins a modern 7 storey residential block on the corner of Pocock and Great Suffolk Streets. A raised railway viaduct is located to the west, with a 3 storey Fire Station and London Fire Brigade training Centre to the east off Sawyer Street. Beyond Grotto Open Space are a number of mixed use developments up to 5 storeys in height. Entrance to the site is possible from Sawyer, Pocock or Great Suffolk Street. The site has a very high public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 6a being located close to the Southwark underground station (400m northwest), Borough underground station (500 metres east) and the Elephant and Castle, Waterloo and London Bridge underground and overland stations (all less than 1km away). Various bus routes also serve the site. The nearest Transport for London roads are A201 Blackfriars Road to the west and the A3200 Southwark Street to the north.

Details of Proposal

6 Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing warehouse buildings and the erection of two separate but interlinked buildings of up to 8 storeys when viewed externally. The scheme will comprise 173 residential units and 2117sq.m of B1 office space. A 107sq.m cafe is proposed adjacent to the Grotto Podiums park, which is to be upgraded as part of the development. A 2607sq.m basement area containing 20 disabled parking spaces and 228 cycle spaces is also provided in addition to 40 ground floor level visitor cycle spaces. The residential component of the scheme will comprise 53 one bed, 92 two bed and 28 three bed units. In terms of affordable housing provision, the scheme provides 47 social rented units and 28 shared ownership units.

7 Internally, the scheme comprises a variety of split levels, double height living spaces and mezzanine floors. A highly glazed prismatic building creates a strong corner element at the intersection of Great Suffolk Street and Pocock Street, which incorporates a pitched roofline that reaches 31.5m at its peak, and 25.2m at the uppermost accommodation level. The base of the building comprises a glazed double height space, which internally contains commercial space incorporating a mezzanine level. Above this are a range of split level units, most with double height living space opening to large triangular balconies.

8 The main rectangular block fronting Pocock Street with Grotto Training Ground to the rear, incorporates 3 ‘pods’ at rooftop level, designed to curve down from their central ridgeline to the facade to form a single storey (featuring double height living rooms) along the front and rear facades. Internally the pods contain split level units, utilising the additional floor to ceiling height at the pods’ centre created by the curved design. The pods’ curved roofline rises to a maximum height of 30m at its ridge, dropping to 28.5m at the highest point along the facade. The pods are intended to float above the main bulk of the building which is 24m high. Below the pods are 6 floors of residential accommodation, including the affordable housing units. The inclusion of the pods draws on the history of the site, with a 1792 plan identifying part of the site as the ‘Moonraker Alley’, named after the craftsmen who made ‘moonraker’ sails for tall sailing ships, and the pods represent a modern interpretation of these

‘moonrakers’. The address of ‘Moonraker Alley’ will be re-established by the scheme and public art, to be provided on the relocated gas compound in Grotto Park, will

depict the area as it was in the 18th Century.

Planning History

9 Application reference 07-AP-2808 for the demolition of existing warehouse buildings and redevelopment to provide an 8 storey mixed use building comprising 173 residential units, 2152sq m of B1 office space, 95sq m Cafe A3 and 2607sqm basement area containing 49 parking spaces and 200 cycle spaces and upgrade of adjacent 'Grotto Podiums' park, was withdrawn on 17 March 2008.

FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION

Main Issues

10 The main issues in the case are: • Principle of the Proposed Use; • Density, Tenure and Mix; • Design and Layout; • Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Residents and Occupiers; • Traffic Issues; • Flood Risk Assessment; • Planning Obligations

Planning Policy

11 The site is located within the Bankside and the Borough Action Area and Town Centre

and the Central Activities Zone and is in an Air Quality Management Area.

12 Southwark Plan 2007 Section 2 Life Chances - Preserving and Creating Community Assets Policy 1.1 Access to Employment Opportunities Policy 1.4 Employment Sites Policy 1.7 Development within Town and Local Centres Policy 1.8 Location of Developments for Retail and other Town Centre Uses Policy 2.5 Planning Obligations Section 3 Clean and Green - Protecting and Improving Environmental Quality Policy 3.1 Environmental Effects Policy 3.2 Protection of Amenity Policy 3.3 Sustainability Assessment Policy 3.4 Energy Efficiency Policy 3.5 Renewable Energy Policy 3.6 Air Quality Policy 3.7 Waste Reduction Policy 3.9 Water Policy 3.11 Efficient Use of Land Policy 3.12 Quality in Design Policy 3.13 Urban Design Policy 3.14 Designing Out Crime policy 3.18 Setting of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites Policy 3.19 Archaeology Policy 3.28 Biodiversity Policy 3.31 Flood Defences Section 4 Housing Policy 4.1 Density of Residential Development Policy 4.2 Quality of Residential Development

Policy 4.3 Mix of Dwellings Policy 4.4 Affordable Housing Policy 4.5 Wheelchair Affordable Housing Section 5 Sustainable transport - Improving Access and Convenience Policy 5.1 Locating Developments Policy 5.2 Transport Impacts Policy 5.3 Walking and Cycling Policy 5.6 Car Parking Policy 5.7 Parking Standards for Disabled People and the Mobility Impaired Policy 7.4 Bankside and Borough Action Area

13 London Plan 2004 (updated 2008) 3A.1 Increasing the overall supply of housing 3A.2 Borough housing targets 3A.5 Housing choice 3A.6 Quality of new housing provision 3A.9 Affordable housing targets 3A.10 Negotiating affordable housing 3C.23 Parking Strategy 3D.13 Children and young people’s play 4A.1 Tackling climate change 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.4 Energy assessment 4A.6 Decentralised energy 4A.7 Renewable energy 4A.11 Living roofs and walls 4A.12 Flooding 4A.14 Sustainable drainage 4A.19 Improving air quality 4A.20 Reducing noise 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.3 Enhancing the quality of the public realm 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 4B.9 Tall buildings 4B.10 Large-scale buildings- design and impact 4B.11 London’s built heritage 4B.15 Archaeology 6A.5 Planning Obligations

14 Planning Policy Guidance [PPG] and Planning Policy Statements [PPS] The relevant Planning Policy Guidance and Statements include: Planning Policy Statement 1: Planning for Sustainable Communities Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Circular 05/2005 Planning Obligations 2005

Consultation

15 Site Notices: 07 May 2008 Press Notice: 08 May 2008

16 Internal Consultees: Arboriculturalist, Access Officer, Archaeology Officer, Design and Conservation Officer, Transport Officer, Noise and Air Quality Officer, Policy Officer, Parks and Sports Officer, Waste Management Officer, Ecology Officer

17 Statutory and Non-statutory Consultees: GLA, Transport for London (TfL); London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA); London Fire Brigade Southwark, Environment Agency (EA), Metropolitan Police

18 Neighbour Consultees 660 neighbours and adjoining occupiers were consulted on the application. The applicant also undertook consultation with a public exhibition held over 2 days in September 2007, which 16 residents attended and 2 newsletters were sent. An additional letter was sent to all neighbours on 19 June, setting out a clarification of the building heights. Any additional responses received by 1 July will be reported in the Addendum report. The following properties were consulted by the Council: 53, 54, 54a, 55, 56-68 (evens), 59b, 66, 70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 84-88, 91, 93, 110, 114, 94, 154, 156, 156a-176B, 156b, Global House, Pegasus House, Victoria Buildings, Wireworks Court, Great Suffolk Street 1-3, 5, 7a, 7b, 20- 24, 28, 30, Kings Bench Apartments, Newspaper House, Kings Bench Street 32-36, 44, 44a, 46, Olwen House, Loman Street 94, 94a, 96, 98-118, 122, 175, 177-179, 181-195, 197, 199, Southwark Fire Station Winchester House, Southwark Bridge Road Whitehill House, Fire House, Sawyer Street Lagare Apartments, Store adjacent to Railway, Surrey Row 63, 98, 120-130 (evens), 132, Newspaper House, Webber Street 48 Willowbrook Road 11-23 (odds), 25, 25b, 38, 42, 43, 45, 46, 46a, 46b, 46c, Roger King House, Harling House, School Keepers House, The Copperfields, Southwark Staff Training Centre, Copperfield Street 8, 10, 12, 15-21 Ribsborough Street 53-55 Lant Street 7, 23a, 38-40, 65, St Georges Almshouses, St Georges Cottages, Scoresby House, Glasshill Street 1, Pakeman House, St Alphege House, Church, Clergy House and flat, Crown Court, Estate Office and Workshop, Pocock Street The Convent 48 Rushworth Street 15, 17, 19, 24 Pepper Street 33, 35-37, 50, Merrow House, Ripley House, Rushworth Street 169 Union Street

Internal Consultation Replies

19 Arboriculturalist: Tree removal agreed which negated need for a full tree survey. Because of proximity of some council owned trees to the proposed development, would like to see a draft method statement and tree protection plan, with provision of and adherence to a full method statement to be a condition if permission is granted. The applicant also advised of the possibility of providing a Tree Constraints Plan. There is concern about the two trees in the sports ground- although their roots will be adequately protected; it is probable that the tree canopies will interfere with the new building, unless they are heavily pruned on a regular basis. [The applicant has been in further discussion with the Arboriculturalist and a condition will be included in any permission in relation to landscape plans and tree protection methods.]

20 Access Officer: The proposals conform to the requirements of Part M (Access to and use of Buildings) of the Building Regulations. No mention of wheelchair standard accommodation. [The applicant has confirmed that 152 of the 173 units (88%) are adaptable for wheelchair use. Only those on split levels do not comply.]

21 Archaeology Officer: The site stands near to an archaeological priority zone and has

the potential to contain remains representative of post-medieval, industrial activities, such as tenter grounds and a tallow and iron works. As such the site would merit further archaeological investigation. These works can be secured by condition, which are both reasonable and necessary to provide properly for the likely archaeological implications of this proposal in accordance with Southwark Plan Policies 3.15, 3.19 and PPG16.

22 Transport Officer: It is noted that the cross over access to the refuse store and car park is 9m long. The maximum width should be reduced to 5m for pedestrian safety. Therefore the cross-over should be segregated having 2 separate crossovers for each access. The development has been shown to operate as car free and the introduction of vehicles, in the form of a car club, is a backward step. However, if a car club is to be introduced as per TfL's comments then this group would be happier if the developer was to pay through the s106 agreement for on street car club bays which would be of benefit to the wider community. No other comments.

23 Noise and Air Quality Officer: No formal comments received however appropriate conditions will be imposed in relation to noise, vibration, and air quality and construction management.

24 Policy Officer: The proposal exceeds the maximum density standard although it is recognised that this figure may be skewed upwards by the amount of non-residential floorspace provided. Policy 1.4 of the Southwark Plan seeks to protect existing B use floorspace in this location and resists the loss of floorspace in B class use. The application proposes a slight loss in B use floorspace; however the site is within the Bankside and Borough District Town Centre and Policy 1.4 states that suitable town centre uses will be permitted in place of Class B uses. Policy 1.7 identifies retail and residential as appropriate town centre uses, both of which the proposal would provide. The London Plan 20% carbon reductions target supersedes UDP policy 3.5 on 10% renewable energy regeneration, and this requirement has been met. The dwelling mix proposes a majority of units with two or more bedrooms in conformity with policy 4.3. The proposal provides 10% 3 bedroom units, which should have direct access to private outdoor space. The proposal seeks to upgrade the open space adjacent to the site (Grotto Podiums).

25 Parks and Sports Officer: No comments in relation to current application however the officer has been involved throughout pre-application and is fully aware of proposals to enhance Grotto Park.

26 Waste Management: Following a number of queries raised, the additional details supplied by the applicant means waste provision seems acceptable.

27 Ecology Officer: Buildings must be surveyed for bats and recommend that s106 be used for tree planting along Great Suffolk Street which is very un-green at present.

Statutory and Non-statutory Consultation Replies

28 Greater London Authority: The principle of this residential led mixed-use development is supported. The scale of the scheme is appropriate to its context and in line with many contemporary developments in the surrounding area, all of which have adhered to the principles of increased density in areas with good transport connections. The roof-top pods add distinctiveness to the scheme and contribute to the overall quality. The design incorporates a shared lobby above the commercial unit that splits the block lengthwise and creates a full height naturally ventilated atrium. All of the residential cores open to this lobby, giving access to all the units regardless of tenure. The lobby receives natural light from two atria between the roof level structures, which means the apartments are dual aspect and benefit from cross-ventilation. The design

is of a generally high standard and the level of affordable housing, housing mix and energy strategy proposed are acceptable.

29 In summary, there are outstanding detailed issues relating to access and social and community infrastructure and employment. The proposed scheme responds well to its context however, further consideration should be given to the level changes within the shared access corridor if it is to comply with London Plan policy. A contribution to provision of play for older children in Mint Street Park should be provided if feasible in order for the proposal to comply fully with London Plan policy 3D.13. The London Development Agency has sought a financial contribution for community facilities, which include childcare facilities, of £31,425 (£68 per person). A relocation strategy for existing businesses is required to ensure full compliance with the London Plan. [Following the GLA’s stage 1 report, the applicant has revised the ground floor plan after realising the lift from ground to first floor at the western end of the main building is not shown as being double sided, which should address GLA concerns. The relocation of the existing businesses within the scheme has been addressed and further details are being prepared. The additional payments towards children’s play and childcare are yet to be agreed with the GLA.]

30 Transport for London (TfL): The trip generation estimates provided fail to assess the cumulative impacts of this development. TfL expects this to be revised and additional analysis provided. 20 disabled car parking spaces have been proposed at basement level. TfL welcomes the restraint based approach to parking provisions and expects future residents of this development to be made exempt from the existing on-street resident parking permit scheme. 270 cycle parking spaces have been proposed, 230 for the residential and commercial aspects which are located in separate locations within the basement and an additional 40 spaces have been proposed at street level. This is in line with TfL’s Cycle Parking Standards and therefore supported. TfL expects the applicant to investigate routes/cycle measures to connect the development to the surrounding local cycle network (LCN). The junctions of Great Suffolk Street with Southwark Bridge Road and Borough High Street and Southwark Bridge Road and Borough Road are identified as pedestrian crossings however; these signalled junctions have no pedestrian phase. TfL expects the applicant to discuss the introduction of pedestrian phases at these crossings with the borough. TfL welcomes the travel plan strategy and measures set out within. The travel plan should be secured, enforced, monitored and reviewed as part of the Section 106 agreement. [The applicant has advised that they are preparing the additional analysis relating to the increased demand for bus and underground services, taking into account the cumulative demand generated by other new developments close by. They will also discuss pedestrian phasing with the Highways Team.]

31 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (Fire Safety Inspector): The Brigade

is satisfied with the proposals.

32 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (Southwark Fire Station/ Grotto Park Training Facility): Although the proposal is car free, there is concern that the scheme will increase traffic volumes and congestion...which may hinder attendance times of fire appliances leaving Southwark Fire Station. The scheme proposes service vehicles should make use of existing parking facilities on Great Suffolk Street or use single yellow areas, or that unloading/loading zone could be allocated along Sawyer Street or Pocock Street. Concern that proposals are insufficient and such a new loading zone may further impede fire appliances. Consider the scale is excessive in context of surrounding buildings. There will be a loss of privacy to LFEPA’s Grotto Place Training Facility, and units overlooking floodlit sports pitch are inappropriate for this part of the site due to foreseeable noise and light pollution. Landscaping is inadequate. [The applicant has confirmed in conjunction with LFB that the sports

ground closes at 9pm, although depending on bookings this can be earlier. As such no significant issues are envisaged in relation to noise and light pollution. The applicant has also confirmed that all servicing via Sawyer Street is all off the public highway and servicing for the café unit will be from Great Suffolk Street.]

33 Environment Agency: No response at time of writing this report.

34 Metropolitan Police: No mention of Secure by Design in the Planning Statement. [The applicant has advised that the buildings have been designed to sit on the site boundary, with clearly visible, well-lit entrances and no areas of poor visibility and all entrances and common parts of the scheme will be monitored by 24hour CCTV. All doors should be constructed to ‘secure by design’ standards and windows to relevant British Standards. There will be adequate lighting to public areas. Locked underground cycle stores should provide adequate security.]

35 Neighbour Consultation Replies

The following consultation responses were received:

• Southwark Cyclists- Add a condition to ensure covered, lockable bike parking spaces are provided on site for 130% of residents and 50% of employees, with a further 20 spaces provided within 50 metres of the site;

• 19 Whitehill House, Sawyer Street- in support, no comment made;

• 13 Pakeman House, Pocock Street- in support, no comment made;

• Flat 1, 91 Great Suffolk Street- in support, only regret is that around the area there are no provisions for disabled car parking [Officer Comment: the scheme provides 20 disabled spaces within the basement.];

• Flat 11, The Wireworks, 79 Great Suffolk Street- whilst not opposed to development on the site in principle, the proposed building is too tall and should be limited to 6 storeys;

• No address supplied- there are already too many development activities in this area, causing more traffic and construction noise even on weekends. Would rather the warehouse buildings be refurbished/ redeveloped causing minimal disruption to local residents;

• Flat 502, 118 Southwark Bridge Road- object to the height of the proposed building. Totally approve of the building itself but believe that 8 storeys is not in keeping with the area. If 6 or even 7 storeys high it would be better- there should be a benchmark taken of new builds in the area to bring it in line;

36 • No 1 St Georges Almshouses, Glasshill Street- Located on the other side of the

railway line, the Almshouses are Grade II listed. Privacy was partially invaded by the erection of the block of flats on the site of the Old Bacon Factory, 58-60 Great Suffolk Street, though the building appears to be angled away from our immediate direction. Fear this is not possible for proposed building, directly opposite the Almshouses, as the only free skyline will be completely obliterated by facade of triangular glazed building. Objections are that the triangular building is too high as the roof ridgeline at some 34m will be higher than adjacent building on Old Bacon Factory site, the second building is also too high at 35m and the pods are not appropriate to the site or locality and would have a detrimental impact on the area, and the 2 storey historical Almshouses will be dwarfed by these modern developments. [Officer Comment: the closest distance from edge of the proposed triangular building and the border of the Almshouse gardens fronting Glasshill Street is 46m which is well in excess of guidance level set out within the SPD for Residential Design Standards which requires a separation distance of 12m from any elevation that fronts a highway.]

• 12 Merrow House, Rushworth Street- Object to overall height of building, we are low rise with main living area facing proposal. We will lose our light at our end of

Merrow House. Object to the B1 units which create more traffic and pollution with little or no employment or commercial in this area. [Officer Comment- The Merrow buildings are located

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Principle of Development

37 The site is located in the Central Activities Zone, a town centre and the Bankside and

Borough Action Area (policy 7.4), and as such requires the protection and enhancement of retail, office and residential uses, whilst providing a mixture of tenures in high quality housing including 40% affordable housing provision. Active frontages and the achievement of high urban design standards are also sought.

38 The existing buildings on the site comprise 2537sq.m industrial use (Use Class B2/B8). The application proposes commercial uses to a total of 2117sq.m (Use Class B1) and 107sq.m retail (Use Class A1) on part of the ground and mezzanine floors. The Southwark Plan (policy 1.4 Employment Sites outside Preferred Office Locations) requires that on sites within the Central Activities Zone there should be no net loss of Class B floorspace. Where an increase in floorspace is proposed, the additional floorspace may be used for suitable mixed or residential uses. Further, the policy allows for the replacement of Class B uses with Class A uses in town centres.

39 The proposal would result in the loss of approximately 313sq.m of commercial warehouse space (Use Class B2/B8), which, whilst marginally below the existing provision, is considered acceptable given the likely increased employment opportunities offered by a vastly modernised space. Further, the site is within the Bankside and Borough District Town Centre and Policy 1.4 states that suitable town centre uses will be permitted in place of Class B uses. Policy 1.7 of the Southwark Plan identifies retail and residential as appropriate town centre uses, both of which the proposal would provide. The provision of commercial and retail uses at ground floor level should ensure an active frontage is established along the main street frontages resulting in a mixed use scheme that is generally consistent with policy 7.4; the small shortfall in replacement employment floorspace is not considered in itself to be sufficient to warrant refusal.

40 The scheme will provide 173 new homes in a quality mixed-use scheme making a significant contribution to the provision of housing, whilst enhancing business and employment opportunities on the site, and will make an important contribution to the regeneration of the Bankside and the Borough Action Area in line with London Plan policies 3A.1, 3A.2, 3A.3 and 3B.3 and Southwark Plan policy 7.4. The proposal represents a vast improvement on the existing site layout and functionality, and is considered to maximise the potential of the site in line with London Plan Policy 3A.3. The principle of a mixed use scheme on the application site is considered acceptable.

Density, Tenure and Mix

41 PPS1 and PPS3 emphasise the benefits of creating mixed communities. London Plan policies 3A.8, 3A.9 and 3A.10 set out affordable housing targets and states that boroughs should take account of the London wide objective of 70% social housing and 30% intermediate provision, and the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. Southwark Plan policy 4.4 outlines the requirements for affordable housing provision, requiring the provision of 40% affordable housing in the Central Activities Zone, on a 70:30 split between social rented and intermediate housing in this location.

42 Residential Density Standards are set out under London Plan policy 3A.3 and policy

4.1 and Appendix 2 of the Southwark Plan. The site is located within the 'Central Activities Zone' under the Southwark Plan which attracts a density range of 650-1100 habitable rooms per hectare, with development typically of 6-8 storeys high. The area also has excellent public transport links with a PTAL of 6A.

43 The proposal consists of 28 three bedroom flats, 92 two bedroom flats and 53 one bedroom flats, or 494 habitable rooms. The density calculation set out under Appendix 2 of the Southwark Plan requires that a percentage of the non-residential area be included in the calculation, which equates to 81 habitable rooms (2224sqm/27.5). Further, in line with Council recommendations, all of the 14 three bedroom affordable housing units have been designed with separate kitchen/diners and living rooms, creating an additional habitable room for each of these units. The overall habitable room figure is therefore considered to be 589 which, with a site area of 0.3497ha, results in a density level of 1684 habitable rooms per hectare. The scheme represents a high density proposal which is in excess of guidance levels. Higher density residential development may be suitable where an exemplary standard of design and an excellent standard of living environment can be demonstrated, and this is likely to mean that residential design standards as set out in with the draft SPD for residential development are exceeded.

44 Policy 4.3 of the Southwark Plan requires a majority of all units to have two or more bedrooms and at least 10% to have 3 bedrooms or more with 10% suitable for wheelchair users. Overall the development provides 69% of all units as two bedrooms or more, with 16% being three bedrooms, which exceeds policy requirement. The applicant has confirmed that 152 of the 173 units (88%) of all units are adaptable for wheelchair use, with only those units design over split levels not complying. The entire scheme is Part M compliant and the majority of units meet Lifetime Homes standards. The only area not fully compliant with Lifetime Homes are the split level private units, which may require wider stairwells (allowing for stair lifts) to fully comply.

45 London Plan policy 3A.9 (Affordable Housing Targets) states that boroughs should take account of the London wide objective of 70% social housing and 30% intermediate provision, and the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. Within the Central Activities Zone, Southwark Plan policy 4.4 requires provision of 40% affordable housing on a 70:30 social rented: intermediate split. Southwark Plan policy 4.5 advises that for every affordable housing unit that complies with wheelchair design standards, one less affordable habitable room will be required. The draft SPD for Affordable Housing also states that for the purposes of affordable housing calculations, rooms across the entire scheme over 27.5sq.m will be counted as 2 habitable rooms. Exceptions may apply when it is found that the level of gross private floorspace exceeds that of the gross affordable floor space by over 5%. In these circumstances the amount of affordable housing required will be calculated on gross habitable floor area (GHFA).

46 The two approaches will be considered. A number of units within the scheme have large, open plan layouts, therefore the required number of affordable habitable rooms will be 231 (40% of 577 residential habitable rooms with rooms over 27.5sq.m included as 2 habitable rooms). All of the affordable units have been design as fully wheelchair adaptable, therefore there is scope under policy 4.5 for a discount of up to 75 habitable rooms (a total of 75 affordable units are provided) for any affordable flats provided to wheelchair standards. This could reduce the overall affordable habitable room requirement of 231 habitable rooms. As some private units are larger than the affordable units, the gross habitable floor areas were measured which indicate a provision of 61.9% (9972sq.m) private floorspace against 38.1% (6139sq.m) affordable, which is less than a 5% difference in floorspace.

47 The scheme provides a total of 98 private units (14x 3-bed, 62x 2-bed and 22x 1-bed), 28 shared ownership units (8x 2-bed and 20x 1-bed) and 47 social rented units (14x 3-bed, 22x 2-bed and 11x 1-bed). On this basis the total affordable habitable rooms provided are 162 social rented and 68 shared ownership habitable rooms, a total of 230 affordable habitable rooms on a 70:30 split. This is considered to be in line with the requirements of policy 4.4. The affordable housing units are located within the easternmost portion of the development, and are distributed across floors 1-6 (excluding the roof pods).

48 In conclusion, on balance the proposed density level is considered to be acceptable, in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.3, 3A.6 and Southwark Plan policy 4.1, and the draft Residential Design SPD as the development is considered to offer a high standard of living environment, with the proposed scheme meeting or exceeding a number of key residential design standards such as minimum floor areas and energy efficiency. Details are provided elsewhere within this report. Accordingly, the proposed density, mix and tenure are considered acceptable in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.5, 3A.6, 3A.8, 3A.9 and 3A.10 and Southwark Plan policies 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5.

Design and Layout

49 The development falls within the Bankside and the Borough Action Area for which

Southwark Plan policy 7.4 has the expectation of encouraging “exemplary design and vibrancy that enhances the local character of the area”. London Plan policies 3A.6 and 4B.1 sets out design principles and requirements for quality of new housing provision. Policy 3.11 of the Southwark Plan seeks to maximise the efficient use of land where a positive impact on local character and good design are achieved and policy 3.12 seeks to ensure that a high standard of architecture and design are achieved in order to create high amenity environments. Policy 3.13 requires that the principles of good urban design are considered, in terms of context, height, scale, massing, layout, streetscape, landscaping and inclusive design and policy 4.2 requires that residential development achieve good quality living conditions within the development. The proposal has benefited from extensive pre-application discussions with officers.

50 The immediate context contains a range of building styles from varying periods with a mixture of uses dominated by the Crown Court on the northern side, open space to the south, and the railway viaduct directly adjacent to the application site to the west, which creates some visual separation from the mixed use area around Glasshill, Kings Bench and Rushworth Streets. The dominant character historically is of London Stock brick buildings, in a characteristically dense urban setting, with only pockets of green space. More recently, contemporary developments including Palestra, Tabard Square, The Wireworks and a number of other mixed use schemes have been constructed using an eclectic mix of render, brick, tiles, glass, copper cladding and timber.

51 The scale of the buildings in the more immediate area provides an eclectic mix of new and old, office, residential and mixed use buildings, ranging in height from 2 to 11 storeys. To the north is a 7 storey residential development immediately opposite the site on the corner of Great Suffolk Street and Pocock Street which is adjacent to the 4-5 storey Pocock Street Courthouse. Opposite the site to the west is commercial development of 6 double height storeys. Further west beyond the railway viaduct is a mixture of heights ranging from the lower rise Almshouses, a number of 5-6 storey housing developments, to 11 storey estate tower blocks. To the east are a number of 6 and 7 storey developments, some new build, and including the London Fire Brigade Training Buildings of over 6 storeys in height. Just south, at 77-83 Great Suffolk Street is the 5 storey ‘Wireworks’ development and an almost completed 8 storey

mixed use scheme (up to approximately 24m high) on the corner of Webber Street and Southwark Bridge Road, beyond which is an existing 9 storey residential housing block. To the north, off Bear Lane, planning permission has been granted for an Aparthotel of up to 8 storeys.

52 The scheme offers an innovative design solution to a long narrow site. The main building frontage runs along Pocock Street and provides almost full site coverage which is reflective of the historic warehousing layouts which were predominant in the area. The overall height of the proposal will vary across the scheme due to the use of split levels, mezzanines, rooftop ‘pods’ and a pitched roof.

53 In the prismatic building, there are a total of 8 storeys, which combine a mixture of double and single height spaces and a mezzanine within the double height commercial ground floor. The pitched roofline of this block reaches 31.5m at it highest point, in order to define the corner and create architectural interest. The building facade incorporates various fins, balconies and openings to cater for the split level interior.

54 The main rectangular block fronting Pocock Street with Grotto Training Ground to the rear, incorporates 3 zinc clad ‘pods’ at rooftop level which are designed to curve down from their central ridgeline to the facade, thereby reducing to a single storey along the front and rear facades while internally maximising the use of space to create a split level in centre of the pod where the additional floor to ceiling height is located. The pods’ curved roofline rises to 30m at their uppermost ridge, dropping to 28.5m at the highest point along the facade. The pods are intended to float above the main bulk of the building which is 24m high. The pods link to generous roof terraces. Two glass-roofed, naturally ventilated atria have been created within the building, top lit from the space between the roof pods, with the residential units able to achieve both dual aspect and cross ventilation be linking to these internal courtyard spaces. The eastern portion of the building contains the social housing element and the middle segment the shared ownership units however all the units are designed to be tenure blind and when viewed externally are indistinguishable from the private housing.

55 Southwark Plan policy 3.20 states that planning permission may be granted for buildings significantly taller than their surroundings or having a significant impact on the skyline, on sites with excellent transport accessibility within the Central Activities Zone, subject to certain criteria. Only a small portion of the pitched roofline of the prismatic building actually projects above 30m, and it is not considered that the building is significantly taller than its surroundings (which contains a mixture of building heights as detailed above) and nor will the scheme have a significant impact on the skyline, beyond a localised level and as such it is not considered that all criteria of the tall buildings policy need apply in this particular case. Whilst the site itself could not be considered a point of landmark significance (criteria point ii) the point at which the roofline projects above 30m is, within its local context, an important corner and this is reflected within the design of the scheme. In terms of the remaining criteria, the scheme does make a positive contribution to the landscape, including the enhancement of Grotto Park, and will be of a high architectural standard, relating well to its surroundings at street level. The overall height of the proposal is considered acceptable within this developing context particularly as the design of the building is of a quality that will complement other modern new schemes in the area.

56 The main rectangular block is clad in local stock brick with part recessed balconies on the south facade, and cantilevered balconies on the north, which combine polished white concrete upstands with frameless glass balustrades to the sides. The facades to the north have larger openings to compensate for their northerly aspect; those on the south combine recessed balconies and aluminium shutters to reduce solar gain. The cantilevered balconies of the north facade, and the use of recessed strips on the

south facade, give rhythm and break down the bulk of the elevation. This block is linked to the prismatic building by a glass and steel bridge at first floor level. The materiality, in contrast to the heavier brick of the main block, will be lightweight, almost transparent, and highly glazed, combining zinc cladding, polished white concrete and glass. Aluminium shutters, screens, fins and spandrels will provide climate control, privacy and acoustic attenuation. The units within the angled corner include a height-and-a-half living room creating a more interesting facade and high quality living space.

57 At ground floor the double height commercial accommodation and a cafe are proposed to ensure an active frontage. The triangle building also incorporates a mezzanine level of commercial floorspace, stepped back at the entrance to create a double height foyer. Between the buildings a new pedestrian route has been created to link Pocock Street and the Crown Court to Great Suffolk Street, the cafe and park. The affordable housing entrance is located off Pocock Street with a separate entrance located via the pedestrian route between the buildings. However, a generous shared lobby connects all stair cores at first floor level which is naturally lit by the two atria between the roof pods, meaning that all residents have access to this space, regardless of the tenure. The footbridge to the triangular building also extends from this lobby space. The first floor atria is open to all residents as a means of accessing the cores for the higher floors. The units at this level have been elevated by up to 1 metre at the entry level in order to give increased privacy to the occupiers. Disabled access to the cores is facilitated by the two ground to first lifts and the cores are then accessed via 6m long 1:12 ramps with resting areas. As far as possible windows within the central atria have been designed to be offset so that overlooking is at a minimum. Whilst obscure glazing could be required, it is the preference of the applicant to offer the choice of obscured glazing (or use of directional film allowing for views upwards) to the individual owners rather than applied to all units, and this is considered acceptable.

58 Every flat will have its own lockable private mailbox capable of taking A4-sized post in

the foyer area at 1st floor level and because the scheme will be portered large items of mail can be left in a secure area with the porter.

59 The draft Residential Design SPD sets out minimum floor areas for different sized dwellings, including minimum room sizes. Internally, the flats across all tenures are of generous proportions and incorporate large, useable balconies and rooftop terraces. Over levels 1-6, flats range in size from 50-71sq.m for one bedroom units, 67-98sq.m for two bed units and 84-110sqm for three bedroom units. Levels 7-8 incorporate a penthouse of 200sq.m and the split level pod units of 92-204sq.m. These unit sizes exceed minimum unit sizes- in many cases by a significant amount- and are therefore in compliance with policy requirements. All three bedroom affordable units contain separate living rooms which offer flexible family accommodation. A number of units across the scheme do not meet individual room size standards as outlined within the Residential Design SPD. However, as all units exceed overall unit space standards, the reason for the shortfall is a result of the distribution of space within the units- sometimes a second bathroom is included, sometimes a more generous kitchen/diner has resulted in a smaller living room. In all cases it is considered that the units, in exceeding minimum space standards, are acceptable and the proposals are in compliance with London Plan policies 3A.6, 4B.1 and 4B.10, Southwark Plan policies 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 4.2 and 7.4 and the draft Residential Design SPD.

60 In the context of the visions for the Borough and Bankside Action Area, the site offers the opportunity to re-establish development on an underutilised brownfield site, repairing the urban fabric. By clearing the site of warehousing and other ad hoc buildings, the scheme creates a structured layout with a coherent street pattern that

sits well within the existing urban form. The massing of the buildings, which rise from 7 to 8 storeys, fit comfortably within the local context. The overall height and design of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in this location and will relate satisfactorily to its existing context, and the development will provide a high standard of residential accommodation and is therefore in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.6, 4B.1, 4B.2, 4B.3, 4B.8 and 4B.10 and Southwark Plan policies 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 4.2 and 7.4 and the draft Residential Design SPD.

Amenity Space

61 The draft Residential Design SPD sets out amenity space standards and advises that it is particularly important for family housing in order to provide a safe outdoor area for children to play in. It can take the form of private gardens, balconies, terraces and roof gardens. There should be 50sq.m of communal amenity space per development, plus 10sq.m per unit, though for smaller units a reduced amount is acceptable where the shortfall is added to overall communal provision. The scheme should be providing 1780sq.m of communal amenity space. The GLA have advised that by using the methodology within the Mayor’s draft SPG ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is estimated that there could be around 62 children within the development. The guidance sets out that there should be 10sq.m of useable playspace per child plus under-5 playspace provided on-site, equating to 620sq.m of playspace for the proposed scheme.

62 In terms of private amenity space, across floors 1-5, each unit within the scheme has a minimum of 1 balcony, which range in size from approximately 5.5 up to just over 10sq.m in the main block, and up to 13sq.m in the triangular building. Generally, the larger and/ or dual balconies are provided for the three bedroom flats, including the affordable three beds. Where smaller balconies are provided (including some 3 beds which have marginally below 10sq.m balconies), this was partially due to sunlight/daylight impacts, as larger balconies sometimes prejudice the amount of light

able to penetrate the living rooms on the floors below. On the 6th floor of the main block, large terraces run the full length of all flats providing generous amenity spaces, and level 7 contain directly accessible garden terraces for all but 1 of the split level pod units and the penthouse. The balconies and terraces within the development will contribute towards the provision of children’s playspace across the scheme.

63 The only communal amenity space provided within the scheme is a rooftop terrace on the eastern side of the main building, of approximately 175sq.m, which is for the exclusive use of the social rented affordable housing units, and will provide a larger breakout area for children’s play and recreation for affordable housing residents. The internal atria will also provide communal space that will enhance the overall feeling of space within the development and enhance its overall amenity. The limited amount of communal amenity space is mainly a result of the full site coverage of the development. To address this shortfall, significant upgrade works have been proposed to the adjacent Grotto Podiums Park and the immediate site surrounds. Further to this, Mint Street Park is located around 120m to the east of the site, and the GLA have sought a contribution for the provision of play for older children in order for the proposal to comply fully with London Plan policy 3D.13 and 4B 1-8.

64 Currently, the site has bitumen pavement surrounds, and a narrow footpath runs along the main site frontage along Pocock Street. The existing Grotto Podiums park is rundown and overgrown with trees encouraging anti-social behaviour and does not offer a useable urban open space. It is also fronted by an unattractive gas compound surrounded by chain link fence. The scheme proposes major enhancements to this space to create a modern urban park. In addition, the proposed ground floor cafe will be able to ‘spill out’ into the area directly adjacent to the park, enhancing the sense of space and offering a usable amenity area for residents of the scheme as well as

surrounding businesses and residents. The works to the park and site surrounds will include:

• York stone and recycled granite pavement which will extend from the park around the whole site boundary. The use of a consistent material across the site will enhance the public realm and overall residential amenity;

• Improvements to the pavement area fronting the site to include tree planting, lighting, paving and bicycle stands as necessary;

• Removal of trees within Grotto Park. Those to be removed are generally young and causing significant damage to paving, and the largest tree is retained as a central park feature;

• Children’s play area in Grotto Park incorporating climbing frame/ swings etc. and safety flooring;

• Fixed seating and planter boxes in Grotto Park;

• Relocation of gas compound from front of Grotto Park to rear, with interactive

public art (an embedded map of the area in the 18th Century) to be installed on its wall; and

• Tree and shrub planting as necessary and agreed via a landscape plan.

65 It is clear that the scheme will not provide amenity space in accordance with guidance levels. However, on balance, the private amenity space is generous, three bedroom units have direct access to larger balcony space, and there is provision, via the improvement to Grotto Park, for provision of a children’s playspace. In the context of a central urban site, and the proximity of Mint Street Park, it is considered that the scheme provides offers an acceptable level of amenity space in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.6, 3D.13, 4B.1, 4B.2, 4B.3, 4B.8 and Southwark Plan policies 3.2, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 and 4.2 and the draft Residential Design SPD.

Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Residents and Occupiers

66 Sunlight/ Daylight: A Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report and an Interior Daylight Potential Assessment were submitted with the application based on the BRE report "Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice" (1991). Vertical Sky Component (VSC) assesses loss of daylight entering existing rooms by considering the amount of sky light reaching a window, Average Daylight Factor (ADF) determines the natural internal light or daylit appearance of a room, and the No Sky Line (NSC) considers the change in the visible sky line from the existing and proposed situations. Sunlight Assessment only considers the annual probably sunlight hours (APSH) for windows facing within 90° of due south. The report indicates the following impacts to key developments surrounding the site:

• 1-5 Almshouses on Glasshill Street will not be materially affected by the development. Located to the west of the proposal beyond the railway viaduct, all windows retain good levels of VSC in excess of BRE levels, and ADF and NSC all remain above BRE levels. None of these windows face within 90° of due south;

• 1-54 Pakeman House, Pocock Street will not be materially affected by the development. Located to the west of the proposal beyond the railway viaduct, all windows retain good levels of VSC in excess of BRE levels, and ADF and NSC all remain above BRE levels. 16 windows face within 90° of due south but very little reduction in sunlight occurs with good levels retained in all windows.

• 69-75 and 1-14 Wireworks, Great Suffolk Street are located to the south beyond the Fire Brigade training park, with rear windows facing north-east towards the site. All windows in both developments retain good levels of VSC (some marginal reductions) with many windows in excess of BRE levels, and ADF and NSC all

remain above BRE levels in cases where levels were above BRE in existing circumstances. Only 1 window in The Wireworks has an NSC below BRE criteria, however the ADF and VSC result show that adequate levels of daylight will be retained. None of these windows face within 90° of due south;

• 118 Southwark Bridge Road is located 100 metres south-east, on the opposite side of Sturge Street. A number of windows will have daylight VSC) reduced below BRE criteria; however these windows had existing levels below BRE criteria such that the reduction is considered acceptable. 1 window (of 88 tested) had a reduction in NSC marginally below BRE criteria, though the room will receive sufficient daylight in terms of VSC and ADF. None of these windows face within 90° of due south;

67 • 5-9 Sawyer Street, located north-east of the development, with windows facing

west fronting Sawyer Street, will not be materially affected by the development in terms of VSC, ADF or NSC. In terms of sunlight, one window at 7 Sawyer Street received a minor reduction in already low levels of winter sunlight, below BRE criteria, whilst a number of windows at 9 Sawyer Street have winter sunlight reductions below BRE. This is partly due to the windows facing west and relying on low angled afternoon sunlight which is obstructed by the proposed development, but also the existing Crown Court.

• 57-59 Great Suffolk Street, located north-west of the proposal on the corner of Pocock and Great Suffolk Street is that most affected by a loss of daylight and sunlight as a result of the development. The proposal would have an impact on some of the 23 windows in the southern elevation (those facing Pocock Street). 13 windows fall below BRE criteria for VSC, serving a combination of living and bedrooms, with living rooms recessed behind balconies, which reduces the amount of light received from an upward direction and the view of the skyline, and these are the most affected rooms. Whilst VSC and NSC results fall below BRE levels, the applicant’s report advises that ADF results show all rooms will meet BRE criteria for their likely use. A number of windows, particularly those behind balconies, fall below BRE levels for sunlight, though in all but 1 window they started with low sunlight levels under the existing situation, exacerbated by the recessed balconies. Winter levels have not been affected below BRE criteria. As windows within this development face due south, and rely on horizontal sunlight from the currently open development site it is inevitable that any new, substantially higher development will have an impact on the sunlight received and that the perceived and percentage reductions in sunlight will appear significant. The proposed triangular building opposite these windows will incorporate large corner balconies allowing light penetration in the afternoon, and is of a highly glazed material which should assist in reflecting residual atmospheric light. It is worth noting that no objections have been received from the occupiers of this development to date.

68 The Interior Daylight Potential Assessment considered the ADF levels likely to be

achieved for rooms facing into the atrium spaces within the development following concerns raised by officers during pre-application. The atria will be light in colour and glazed, thereby improving reflectivity. Most units have only bedrooms and bathrooms facing into these spaces, though a small number of kitchens are also present. The report concludes that all bedrooms facing into the atria pass or exceed the 1.0% ADF recommended levels, though it is likely that the limited number of kitchens will fall marginally below the higher 2% ADF requirement. On balance, however, given the dual aspect benefits of the atria, the ADF levels are considered acceptable.

69 The Daylight Assessment indicated that the majority of the rooms to the surrounding residential properties will continue to receive adequate levels of daylight and sunlight

in accordance with BRE target criteria. Whilst certain deficiencies and impacts on neighbouring residential accommodation have been identified, it is important to give due consideration to the local high density context within which the site is located. It is certainly the case that in dense urban environments there will inevitably be some adverse impacts from a development of this scale, particularly on a site which is designated for high density development. Further, within these built up environments the guidelines need to be applied more flexibly. The BRE Guidelines state that ‘the advice given…is not mandatory and this document should not be seen as an instrument of planning policy…although it gives numerical guidelines, these should be interpreted flexibly because natural lighting is only one of many factors in site layout design.’ Although some of the adjoining occupiers will notice a reduction in the levels of sunlight and daylight to some of their windows, it is considered that the overall benefits that the scheme offers will outweigh the drawbacks identified such that refusal of permission isn’t warranted in this instance.

70 Noise and Vibration: Given the location of the site in proximity to a raised railway line, the applicant has carried out relevant surveys and concluded that subject to the inclusion of relevant noise control measures that impacts on both occupiers and neighbours may be minimised. Where the site falls adjacent to the railway, a road, and the Fire Brigade Training Facility, a Noise Exposure Category C during the daytime is attained, meaning that mitigation methods are required. Only with windows open is it expected that internal noise levels exceed requirements- however this is expected in urban areas. Acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation have been included where the rooms would exceed noise standards. The vibration survey concluded that the nearby railway line will have no discernible impact on the proposed development. Planning Conditions will be applied to any approval to ensure acceptable noise and vibration mitigation strategies are put in place and that a construction management plan is implemented.

71 Air Quality, Windflow and Site Contamination: An Air Quality Assessment was submitted which assessed local conditions and the impact of the scheme. It was considered there may be a small increase in traffic movements relating to the proposal however the change is so negligible it is unlikely to have any impact on local air quality. Other factors such as the biomass boiler emissions and part naturally ventilated car park are also considered to have an insignificant impact on air quality. A desk based Environmental Audit was also carried out to assess potential contamination of the site which concludes that there may be some level of contamination on the site, and a condition will be included on any approval to ensure thorough investigations are undertaken. A Windflow desktop study was undertaken which concluded that the varied layout of the scheme would mean the impact on wind flow patterns was low, with minor channelling of wind along Pocock Street.

72 Outlook: The proposed building would be 11.5m from the nearest residential occupiers on the opposite side of Pocock Street. All other neighbouring residential development is in excess of this. Guidance levels set out within the SPD for Residential Design Standards requires a separation distance of 12m from any elevation that fronts a highway and it is acknowledged that part of the triangle building and residential scheme opposite will fall marginally below this level. However, given the high density urban context in this particular location, and the fact that the building opposite was built forward of the building line established by the Crown Court (which is set further back from Pocock Street), the proposal is not considered to impact on the outlook or privacy of these residents to an unacceptable level. Overall the proposed development is considered to adequately protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers consistent with the outcomes sought by Policy 3.2 of the Southwark Plan.

Impact on Character and Setting of a Listed Building or Conservation Area

73 Policy 3.18 of the Southwark Plan required that permission will not be granted for developments that would not preserve or enhance the setting or views of a listed building or the setting and views into or out of a Conservation Area. The nearest listed building is the Grade II Listed Almshouses which are located beyond the railway viaduct to on the west. It is not considered that there would be a significant impact nearby listed buildings, particularly given the setting of the site which is visually and spatially separated from the Almshouses by the imposing railway viaduct, resulting in a site which is at least partially screened when viewed from this side of the viaduct. It is acknowledged that the scheme will be visible above the viaduct, however with a separation of at least 46m from proposed building to the Almshouse gardens, and some 57m between building facades, it is not considered that an unacceptable relationship will be created or that the impact is so great as to warrant refusal or amendment of the scheme.

Traffic Issues

74 Access: The proposal is situated in relatively close proximity to both London Bridge with its overland and underground rail lines and Southwark and Borough Underground Stations. Accordingly, the site has a very high public transport accessibility rating (PTAL) of 6a. The existing access point on Great Suffolk Street is removed and single access point to the basement is located over a pre-existing crossover off Sawyer Street. The sightlines for pedestrians and motorists to/ from the entrance are considered acceptable. An Outline Travel Plan has been submitted with the scheme to consider options to encourage sustainable travel choices. Initial targets are that 87% of journeys to work from the development could be by sustainable modes within 12 months of opening, increasing to 90% within 36 months.

75 Car Parking: The Council is seeking to encourage reduced car dependence and ownership levels in urban areas and thus encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes. Appendix 15 (Parking Standards) states that for sites within the Central Activities Zone, a maximum of 0.4 parking spaces per residential unit could be provided though the preference is for a car free scheme. 20 disabled car parking spaces are provided in compliance with this policy. 2 on-street car club spaces are also provided. A maximum of 1 parking space per 1500sq.m gfa should be provided for a B1 use. No parking has been provided for the commercial use. Given the very high accessibility level, parking levels are considered acceptable. Further to this, existing traffic orders would be amended to prevent future occupiers of the development from obtaining parking permits. This would prevent overspill car parking in the surrounding street by occupiers of the development.

76 Cycle Parking: The Southwark Plan requires cycle parking at a rate of 1 cycle space per 250sq.m of A or B1 floorspace (i.e. 9 spaces) and within the Central Activities Zone, a minimum of 1 space per unit plus 1 visitor space per 10 units (i.e. 190 spaces). The scheme proposes a total of 250 secure cycle spaces (212 residential cycle spaces and 38 commercial spaces) within the basement. In addition, there are 40 cycle stands located above ground in public areas near the commercial and cafe space. The provision is in excess of minimum cycle standards and is acceptable.

77 Servicing and Refuse Storage: Commercial waste from the Office Use will be stored within the commercial premises and bin store area of the prismatic building and collected by an independent service provider. Refuse storage for the main building commercial unit will be provided within the unit/units and will be picked up from there. Refuse generated by the Café Use (A3) will be stored internally for daily collection. The residential refuse area will be under the control of the porter/concierge who will operate a managed collection system with daily collection of refuse (from chutes) and

disposal in the basement refuse area. A recycling storage area is located on each floor, to be collected daily by the porter. A biomass boiler is proposed, and there is appropriate space for storage of the wood pellets in the basement. Fuel delivery will be made from a tanker parked in the refuse service area which has been designed to accommodate such deliveries. For business servicing, vehicles can make use of parking facilities on Great Suffolk Street and service vehicles may use single yellow areas off Pocock Street or a loading/ unloading zone may be allocated where appropriate along Pocock or Sawyer Street. The London Fire Brigade raised concerns about servicing however the applicant has also confirmed that all servicing via Sawyer Street is off the public highway with servicing for the café unit from Great Suffolk Street. The Transport Team have raised no objections to these proposals. The applicant has also confirmed that all servicing via Sawyer Street is all off the public highway and servicing for the café unit will be from Great Suffolk Street.

78 Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6 and 5.7 of The Southwark Plan. It would help promote non-car modes of transport, provide an acceptable level of car parking and bicycle storage, and suitable refuse and servicing arrangements.

Flood Risk Assessment

79 The site is located within Flood Zone 3a, however the site is protected by the Thames Barrier and related defences. A flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application which confirms that the site has the potential to be inundated in the event that the flood defences fail. The proposed scheme meets the Planning Policy Statement 25 sequential test. Within the London Plan, Southwark has a target of providing 16,300 new dwellings in the period 2007/8-2016/17 at rate of 1,630 dwellings per year. A total of 12,523 are expected to be provided on sites designated within the Southwark Plan. The majority of these sites are located in Flood Zone 3a with a small minority in Flood Zone 2. Southwark will only be able to meet its housing target if sites in Flood Zone 3a are also developed

80 The site is located on previously developed land and there are strong sustainability reasons why the site should be redeveloped and the development of brownfield sites such as this will be necessary if Southwark is to achieve its housing targets. It has good access to public transport and is capable of providing housing on a site which currently has none. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that the development can be made safe through the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment. The Environment Agency will need to confirm that they have no objections to the proposal prior to any planning permission being issued.

Planning Obligations [S.106 undertaking or agreement]

81 Policy 2.5 of the Southwark Plan advises that planning obligations can be secured to overcome the negative impacts of a generally acceptable proposal. This policy is reinforced by the 'Supplementary Planning Document' (SPD) on Section 106 Planning Obligations, which sets out in detail the type of development that qualifies for planning obligations, and Circular 05/05, which advises that every planning application will be judged on its own merits against relevant policy, guidance and other material considerations when assessing planning obligations.

82 The applicant has submitted a proposed Heads of Terms based around the Planning Obligations SPD. The following sets out the offer: • Affordable Housing – 40% in compliance with policy; • Education Contribution- £305,554; • Employment in the development- £27,473; • Employment During Construction Contribution- £98,753;

• Transport Strategic- £97,961; • Site Specific Transport Contribution comprising:

£24,000 towards footway widening along Great Suffolk Street; £10,000 to install a cycle lane along Great Suffolk Street; £2750 Amendment to Traffic Management Order to restrict parking permits; £5,885 towards provision of 2x on street car club bays;

• Health Contribution- £155,873; • Open Space/ Children’s Play/ Public Realm Contribution: In lieu works to the

value of: Landscaping works- £91,608; Public Art- £50,000; Children’s play equipment- £20,000; Yorkstone Paving to site perimeter- £121,412; Gas Governor relocation- £230,000;

• Administration fee of 2% of total financial offer (£728,249)- £14,565

The total cash contribution is £742,814 and combined with the estimated in lieu works totals £1,255,834 or £7259 per unit.

83 In accordance with the recommendation, should an acceptable Section 106 Agreement not be signed within the specified time, the following reasons for refusal would apply: In the absence of a legal agreement being completed by 23 July 2008, the applicant has failed to adequately mitigate against the impacts of the development and, in accordance with Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003, it is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons: 1. The development fails to adequately mitigate against the adverse impacts of the development in accordance with London Plan policies 6A.4 Priorities in Planning Contributions and 6A.5 Planning Contributions and Southwark Plan policies 2.5 Planning Obligations, SP10 Development Impacts and Supplementary Planning Document 'Section 106 Planning Obligations' 2007. 2. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the availability of school places or improving accessibility to high quality education in schools and other channels in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.18 Protection and Enhancement of Social infrastructure, 3A.24 Education Facilities and Southwark Plan policies 2.1 Enhancement of Community Facilities, 2.3 Enhancement of Educational Establishments and 2.4 Educational Deficiency, SP 9 Meeting Community Needs; 3. The development fails to contribute towards increasing accessibility to employment through training and other schemes in accordance with London Plan policy 3B.11 Improving Employment Opportunities for Londoners and Southwark Plan policy 1.1 Access to Employment Opportunities, SP5 Regeneration and Employment Opportunities; 4. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the quality and quantity of open spaces and associated facilities in accordance with London Plan policies 3D.8 Realising the Value of Open Space and Green Infrastructure, 3D.11 Open Space Provision in DPDs, 3D.12 Open Space Strategies and Southwark Plan policies 3.1 Environmental Effects, 3.2 Protection of Amenity, 3.11 Efficient Use of Land, 3.13 Urban Design, SP15 Open Space and Biodiversity; 5. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the capacity of public transport provision and improving accessibility to the development in accordance with

London Plan policies 3C.1 Integrating Transport and Development, 3C.3 Sustainable Transport in London, 3C.17 Tackling Congestion and Reducing Traffic, 3C.18 Allocation of Street Space, 3C.21 Improving Conditions for Walking 3C.22 Improving Conditions for Cycling and Southwark Plan policies 5.1 Locating Developments, 5.2 Transport Impacts, 5.3 Walking and Cycling, 5.4 Public Transport Improvements, 5.5 Transport Development Areas, 5.6 Car Parking, SP6 Accessible Services, SP18 Sustainable Transport 6. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the quality and quantity of the public realm, community and leisure facilities and improving community safety and reducing crime, in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.18 Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure and Community Facilities, 4B.3 Enhancing the Quality of the Public Realm and 4B.5 Creating an Inclusive Environment and Southwark Plan policies 2.1 Enhancement of Community Facilities, 2.2 Provision of new Community Facilities, 3.1 Environmental Effects, 3.13 Urban Design and 3.14 Designing out Crime. 7. The development fails to contribute towards increasing the quantity of health facilities in accordance with London Plan policy 3A.18 Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure and Community Facilities and Southwark Plan policies 2.1 Enhancement of Community Facilities and 2.2 Provision of new Community Facilities; 8. The development fails to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.2 Borough Housing Targets, 3A.9 Affordable Housing Targets, 3A.10 Negotiating Affordable Housing in Individual Private Residential and Mixed-use Schemes and Southwark Plan policy 4.4 Affordable Housing and SP17 Housing.

84 Overall, the proposal is consistent with Policy 2.5 (Planning Agreements) of the Southwark Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations 2007.

Conclusion

85 The application will see the redevelopment of a currently underutilised brownfield site to provide both employment opportunities and much needed private and affordable housing. The principle of the use is accepted. The height and general bulk of the building is considered acceptable within the context of the existing environment and the Bankside and Borough Action Area. The design is considered to represent a very high standard of development offering an innovative design. The traffic impact, car and cycle parking provisions are also acceptable. Planning obligations will be secured to offset the impact of the development in accordance with the Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations. The scheme is in accordance with local and national policies and is recommended for approval.

COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT

86 In line with the Council's Community Impact Statement the impact of this application has been assessed as part of the application process with regard to local people in respect of their age, disability, faith/religion, gender, race and ethnicity and sexual orientation. Consultation with the community has been undertaken as part of the application process. In addition to this, the applicant has undertaken their own consultation prior to lodging the application described in the Consultation section of this report. The impact on local people is set out above.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS

87 Policy 3.3 of the Southwark Plan asserts that development will not be granted unless the economic, environmental and social impacts of a development have been addressed through a Sustainability Assessment. In accordance with Southwark Plan policies 3.4 and 3.5, an energy and BREEAM assessment was submitted with the application. London Plan policy 4A.7 on renewable energy requires that developments achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible. Policy 3.9 advises that all development should incorporate measures to reduce the demand for water supply and recycle grey water and rainwater. These policies are reinforced by policies 4A.3 - 11 of the London Plan, Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Creating Sustainable Communities, Planning Policy Statement 22 ‘Renewable Energy and the draft Supplementary Planning Document on Sustainable Design and Construction.

88 In terms of renewable energy, the proposal is to incorporate a biomass boiler to reduce carbon emissions by a minimum of 20% and exceed Building Regulations Part L. A 140kW biomass boiler is proposed using pellets which estimated to displace 23.8% of the carbon dioxide emissions of the development. Other renewable technologies were considered however the only other appropriate technology would be photovoltaic cells which were discounted as it was considered they would conflict with the intention to provide green and brown roofs which will promote biodiversity by allowing flora and fauna to populate the roof. In order to minimise any emissions a condition requiring an operational and service management plan for the boilers is recommended. The management plan also includes a requirement for details of the management, and maintenance regime for the biomass boiler and for its fuel supply to be submitted for approval. The GLA have advised that a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system was considered before the provision of renewables, which concluded that given the specific circumstances of the proposed development CHP would not be suitable. The London Development Agency (LDA) is developing a district-wide energy system for the area. A commitment has been made to extend the heat network to the edge of the development to allow for the proposed development to link into this system in the future. The energy strategy has applied the hierarchy as set out in the London Plan is considered to be in compliance with London Plan policy.

89 A Preliminary Code for Sustainable Homes Report was submitted with the application which has predicted that a Code Level 3 will be achieved for the scheme. The scheme incorporates central atria, which allows natural ventilation through the centre of the scheme and cross ventilation within the apartments. It is proposed that the commercial element will be air-conditioned and there will be a single heating network to serve all uses within the development. Solar shading has been incorporated to minimise solar gain and A-rated appliances are intended for residential units. Materials will be locally sourced from recycled sources where possible. A post construction review to confirm the attainment of Code Level 3 will be sought via condition.

LEAD OFFICER Gary Rice Head of Development Control REPORT AUTHOR Kristina Butler Team Leader Major Applications [tel. 020

7525 5400] CASE FILE TP/1065-237 Papers held at: Regeneration Department, Council Offices, Chiltern, Portland Street

SE17 2ES [tel. 020 7525 5403