Document Index

Section 1 Site location map

Section 2 Application Summary

Section 3 Officer report

Stakeholders

Planning Case Officer

Miss Samantha Wells

Applicant Ristoia Ltd

Agent. Miss Louise Steele100 Pall Mall London SW1Y 5NQ

Application Reference

08/04454/FUL

Document Information

Version 1.1

Date Report approved

Author Miss Samantha Wells

Tel 020 7926 1138

Email swells@lambeth.gov.uk

Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180 Phoenix House Facsimile 020 7926 1171 10 Wandsworth Road, www.lambeth.gov.uk/planning London lambethplanning@lambeth.gov.uk SW8 2LL

Officer Report

2

Section 1 – Site Location Map

3

Section 2 – Application Summary

Location Parliament House 81 Black Prince Road London SE1 7SZ

Ward Princes

Proposal Application Redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a 23 storey building (including basement) to contain 1770 square metres (GEA) of commercial floorspace (flexible use for B1 or A2) together with 101 self contained flats (41 x 1 bed, 44 x 2 bed, 8 x 3 bed, 4 x 4 bed and 4 x 5 bed) on upper floors.

Applicant Ristoia Ltd

Agent Miss Louise Steele 100 Pall Mall London SW1Y 5NQ

Date valid 4 December 2008

Case Officer Miss Samantha Wells

Application Reference 08/04454/FUL

Recommendation(s) PER

Constraints Environment Agency Flood Zone (Dec 2006) B Cons Area - Parliament Hill to West' B Cons Area - Prim Hill to Pala of West' Thames Policy Area

Advert Publication Date 12th December 2008

Site Notice posted on 12th December 2008

4

08/04454/FUL Summary Of Main Issues The principle of a tall building on local townscape and riverscape, and upon viewpoints across the capital. The design and appearance of the proposed development. Amenity impacts of the proposed development. The mix of uses proposed and level of affordable housing. The quality of the accommodation. The transport and highways implications of the proposal. Sustainability and renewable energy Acceptability of planning obligations that are offered. Site Description The site is a part triangular-shaped site, 0.08ha in size and bounded by Salamanca Place to the west, Black Prince Road to the north, and the main line railway into Waterloo to the south-east. The existing building is a vacant part 6/part 7 storey 1960s office building. To the south is a recently constructed 17 storey tower (known as Salamanca Tower) containing commercial and live work units on lower level and 43 flats above. On the opposite side of Salamanca Place is the “Salamanca Square” development which is 14 storeys high with commercial uses on the lower 2 floors and residential above. Block B faces north to Black Prince Road, east to Salamanca Place and south to a central courtyard. Block C faces north to the courtyard, east to Salamanca Place and south to Salamanca Street. There is a 2-storey linking element between these with a roof garden above and the lower courtyard west of that. On the opposite side of Black Prince Road is Southbank House, a Grade II listed office building within the Albert Embankment CA, built in 1879 and formerly was the head office of the Lambeth Pottery works. It is a long building, 5 storeys in height, with set back attic and low basement. Beyond the railway tracks to the east is Pedlars Park, a local park with play facilities. Within the UDP, the site is located within the Central Activities Zone and Thames Policy Area and is subject to MDO3 which refers to a major development opportunity for both the Parliament House 81 Black Prince Road/Salamanca Place sites and encourages both sites to be developed comprehensively. It also suggests that active frontage uses onto Black Prince Road should be provided and the design should reduce noise and vibration from the railway.

5

Planning History There is no relevant planning history relating to this property. It was previously owned by the Greater London Authority and was used by the London Research Institute. The applicant is the current owner of the site. Scheme Details The scheme proposes the demolition of the existing office building and erection of a 77 metre high building – which comprises of 23 storeys along with one floor of basement floor space and a roof top parapet. There is also a podium level rising to four storeys and is set back on the third and fourth floor levels. The basement, ground, and first floor levels would contain commercial floor space totalling 1770 sqm (gross external area) together with plant and storage (including bicycle and refuse storage). The applicant is seeking flexible use for the commercial floor space, comprising Class A2 (financial and professional services), and/or Class B1 (offices) or Class D2 (gym), due to there being no defined end user at this point in time. From second to 21st floor level, there would be 111 residential flats comprising 41 one bed flats, 44 two bed flats, 8 three bed flats, 4 four bed and 4 five bed flats. For ease of reference, the mix of units is set out below:

Unit type Affordable Rented Units

Affordable Intermediate Units

Private Units

Total Units

Total Habitable

rooms

1 bed 0 6 35 41 82 2 bed 4 6 34 44 132 3 bed 5 0 3 8 32 4 bed 3 0 1 4 20 5 bed 4 0 0 4 24 Total Units 16 12 73 101 Total Habitable Rooms

71 30 189 290

No car parking spaces are proposed, but highways works comprising of the construction of a loading bay and new paving slabs on Black Prince Road, would be undertaken. Consultation Responses Consultation Undertaken Prior to the Submission of the Application The current scheme has been the subject of consultation with a wide range of relevant stakeholders prior to formal submission for planning permission. These stakeholders include the Greater London Authority (GLA), the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), English Heritage, Westminster City and Camden Council Lambeth officers and the local community and its representative groups.

6

In September 2008, the applicant held a 2 day on site exhibition, with 2000 invitation leaflets being delivered to local residents and also sent to the MP for Vauxhall, Ward Councillors and local amenity groups. The applicant has also met with the Salamanca Place Residents Association, the Kennington Association and the Jubilee Walkway Trust. The applicant confirms that 17 people attended the public exhibition. Consultation Undertaken in association with the Planning Application The application was advertised in the South London Press on the 12th December 2008. Two site notices were posted directly adjacent to the site. A second advertisement was placed in Lambeth Life on the 12th January 2009 to amend the description of development in relation to the mix of dwellings, which had been incorrectly advertised. Two rounds of consultation letters were sent to 870 properties in the surrounding area, including properties in the following streets and buildings, and their responses are summarised in the table below: Vauxhall Street (inc Bland House), Lambeth Walk, Newport Street, Vauxhall Walk, Tyer Street (inc Coverley Point, Mountain House, Haymans Point), Black Prince Road (inc Arden House, Southbank House, Deacon House, Sullivan House), Jonathan Street (inc Burchell House), Salamanca Street, Salamanca Place, Arches – Newport Street, Randall Road, Salamanca Street, Stoughton Close, Gibson Road, Lambeth High Street, Lilac Place, 9 (all flats), 10, 11 Albert Embankment Comments from Statutory Consultees The following statutory consultees were notified of the application and their comments are summarised as follows: CABE: Welcome the design of the scheme – it is considered that the sculptural form of the tower is successful, and the tower would be a striking piece of architecture with its base, spire like top and solid elevations. Although this will dependent on the quality of the materials and detailing proposed. The dual aspect of the living spaces is welcomed. However there are concerns about the quality of the accommodation which faces the railway. The quality of the amenity spaces and outdoor areas appear to be cramped and we question their quality in terms of sun and views. English Heritage: Refer to comments made at pre-application stage, where concern was expressed that the development may overpower the setting of Southbank House. They note the revisions made following these comments, in particular that the proposed tower is now positioned on a plinth which responds to the scale of Southbank House. However, they advise that the relationship between Southbank House and the proposed building is less comfortable when viewed from Vauxhall Gardens Conservation Area at the junction between Black Prince Road and Lambeth Walk. They conclude that the new building would visually dominate Southbank House from this viewpoint and that the height of the building results in an uncomfortable relationship with the domestic-scale properties of Black Prince Road. They also have concerns about the impact of the proposals on the setting of the former London Fire Brigade headquarters. In particular, the strong horizontal proportions and architectural rhythm created from the strong repeating patter of fenestration is noted, and it is concluded that the complex form of the scheme would compete with the geometric simplicity of the Fire Brigade building which is listed.

7

English Heritage (Archaeology): Given the current condition of the site, it is considered that there is no need for any archaeological fieldwork to be undertaken prior to the determination of the application. However an archaeological condition is recommend to secure archaeological evaluation and appropriate mitigation. Environment Agency: Raises no objection but states that the scheme will only be acceptable if the measures detailed in the floor risk assessment are implemented. Transport for London: TfL is consulted as part of the GLA’s Stage 1 referral and have requested a contribution towards public transport, as well as provision for disabled parking and clarification over cycle parking facilities. City of Westminster: Have requested further information in relation to strategic views as they are concerned about the potential impact on the setting of the World Heritage Site. In particular, they request that further information be provided in relation to night time views from Trafalgar Square and visual information from the top of the steps of the north terrace and lower terrace of Trafalgar Square. Thames Water: They have commented that storm flows should be attenuated; prior approval is required to discharge into a public sewer; trade effluent consent would be required; and the need for an informative regarding flow rate. London Borough of Camden: No comments received. London Fire Brigade: No comments received. Network Rail: No comments received. Comments from the Greater London Authority – Stage 1 referral The application is referable to the Mayor under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 as a scheme of Potentially Strategic Importance. This is due to the height of the building exceeding 25 metres (adjoining the Thames). The case was subsequently presented to the Mayor of London on the 14th January 2009. The Mayor has confirmed that the London Plan policies on density, housing, child play space, urban design, London View Management Framework, access, climate change and transport are relevant to the application. Whilst the application is considered to comply with some of these policies, it does not comply with others for the following reasons: Climate Change: Further information is needed in relation to the ground source heat pumps, the cooling of the commercial spaces, the CHP and biomass boiler, as well as passive design measures and sustainable urban drainage system; Affordable housing: It is noted that because of the high price the applicant paid for the land, they are unable to provide a higher proportion of affordable housing. The quantum of affordable housing is dependent upon grant funding from the Homes and Communities Agency, but no evidence has been provided to suggest that the agency is likely to agree to grant funding for this proposal. As such, it is not possible to conclude whether the quantum of affordable housing is deliverable or the maximum reasonable amount for the site; Child Play Space: The proposal does not include any provision for play equipment or designated children’s play space;

8

Design: The applicant has not provided sufficient information regarding wind mitigation; Access: Details of wheelchair accessible units are required, and demonstration of how the scheme meets ‘Lifetime Homes’ criteria; Transport: At least one disabled parking space must be provided and a travel plan is required. Further details are required regarding cycle parking. The proposed development will increase demand for public transport in the area where existing infrastructure and services are already constrained. A contribution of £260,000 towards transport improvements around the site as well as in the wider Vauxhall area is requested. Under Article 5 of the Order, the Stage 2 process requires that the Mayor to be consulted if the Council resolves to make a draft decision on the application and he is given 14 days to decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct the Council to refuse the application or call in the application for his determination. It is noted that the applicant has prepared further information to respond to the Mayor’s comments to enable them to take them into account in their Stage 2 referral. Comments from internal consultees within the Council: The following consultees within the Council were consulted and their responses are summarised as follows: Conservation and Urban Design: Comment that the proposal would impact negatively on nearby listed buildings and would not respect the character of the conservation area due to its excessive height and bulk. The proposed forms of the building fail to be visually cohesive or relate well. More specifically the following points are noted: when viewed from Lambeth Bridge, the proposal will be seen directly behind the London Fire Brigade Headquarters (Grade II listed) and will detract from its special interest; the building is likely to project above the listed buildings of Lambeth Palace, ruining the historic skyline of the listed building. Whilst the views from Albert Embankment show a slim tower with podium, which responds fairly well with Southbank House, the scale and bulk from the south of the site, including Pedlars Park, show an imposing and overbearing tower. In views from Black Prince Road, the tower dominates Southbank House and the smaller scale buildings nearby. Concern is also expressed about the composition, scale and form of the tower and the relationship with the apex. Transport: The Transport Planner notes that Black Prince Road is a local access road for which Lambeth is the Highway Controlling Authority. The site is located within an area of excellent public transport accessibility (PTAL score of 6b). There is currently no vehicular access into the site and this remains unchanged. As a result there is no off-street vehicle parking or service area proposed, and the scheme is car-free overall. The following comments are made: To cater for disabled residents and visitors, a new disabled parking bay will need to be created on Black Prince Road in close proximity to the site, and a s106 contribution will be sought to this effect in consultation with Lambeth CPZ officers; A car club bay will need to be established and a contribution towards this will be required via the Section 106 agreement; Section 106 to secure the scheme as permit free; Given the low volume of traffic on Black Prince Road, the limited demand for servicing and lack of any off-

9

street parking/loading area, the proposed loading bay is considered to be an acceptable solution and will not negatively impact on the highway or highway users. A servicing management plan will be required to manage deliveries; The cycle storage facilities is acceptable and in keeping with UDP standards; A travel plan will be required for the residential and commercial uses; A Section 278 agreement will be required in order to carry out all identified highways and public realm works. The applicant will also need to pay the costs of creating a Traffic Management Order for the loading bay. Regulatory Services: No comments received at the time of writing. Crime Prevention Officer: The Crime Prevention Officer is generally satisfied with the proposal. He states it is noted that that perimeter has a good active frontage to the rear, which mitigates the problems associated with the lack of street surveillance here now. There are no recesses near the street frontages and all access control will be fob controlled ensuring effective zoning. The amenity areas should be segregated relative to social, shared and private residents this should allow equal usage without complaints. The amount of glass means glazing will need to be to terrorism specifications Min 7.5m laminated thickness due to its proximity to the railway and inside the Security zone. The applicant confirms that they will go for Secured by Design Accreditation which will ensure that minimum standards are used throughout. Sustainability Officer: Comments have been received that it is not possible, given the information and level of commitment to each of the different elements provided, to say the development meets the minimum criteria needed to achieve a BREEAM ‘Very Good’ level. There is lack of clarity between the documents indicating that there is insufficient assurance that the development as a whole will provide a sufficient reduction in carbon emissions to satisfy Policy 34’s 10% reduction target, let alone the 20% required by the Mayor on a development of this size. Planning Policy: Concerns have been raised that the scheme is heavily skewed towards 1 and 2-bed units. It is considered that the scheme would not provide a sufficient mix with reference to overall housing need in Lambeth and Policy 15 of the UDP. The policies require that an active frontage be provided in this location and it is noted that the commercial floorspace at ground floor would be flexible under this scheme (A2 or B1). Therefore an active frontage would not necessarily be secured. It is suggested that an active frontage use should be sought for this site. Housing Partnerships: It is noted that the bed mix of the affordable rent is good. The greatest need in the Borough is for large family homes for rent, and in this ward there are very large established communities that predominantly reside in affordable housing, and there is very little new affordable rent that gets built. The only source of affordable housing in North Lambeth (and which has the highest housing need in the Borough) is via S106’s and there is concern about the precedent of using purchase price instead of existing use to establish the viability of the scheme. Comments from Amenity Groups The following amenity groups were also consulted and their responses are summarised as follows: Association of Waterloo Groups: No comments received. Manor of Kennington Residents Association: No comments received.

10

Vauxhall Society: No comments received. Waterloo Quarter Business Area: No comments received. Waterloo Action Centre: No comments received. Waterloo Community Development Group: No comments received. Friends of Archbishop Park: No comments received. Friends of Spring Gardens: No comments received. Friends of Vauxhall Spring Gardens: No comments received. Jubilee Walkway Trust: No comments received Heart of Kennington: No comments received. Salamanca Place Residents Association: No comments received. Vision for Vauxhall: No comments received. Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre: Object to the development – they consider that the building would be an eyesore and would impinge on the architecture of the Royal Doulton Building opposite. It would overshadow Arden House and there is a missed opportunity to link with the PCT to provide health services. There is an error in the consultation documentation. 9 Albert Embankment Residents Association: Object to the development on the following grounds: loss of light from this building and when considered in relation to other approved schemes; tall buildings are appropriate in clusters, not dispersed randomly; they question CABE’s input into proposal; omission of service yard will be problematic in relation to deliveries and servicing; the lay-by is inadequate; the refuse storage facility is inadequate; not against a quality development but the issues are the quantum and the impact/contribution on the community; Westminster Society: Has responded and notes that whilst they would prefer to see a slightly lower roof height, they do not wish to register an objection to the application. Ward Councillors were also consulted. Councillor Morgan has queried whether any levels of funding been agreed in the Section 106 heads of terms and whether there are any projects which have been identified. He has also requested that if the application is being approved, that it be referred to Planning Applications Committee. Comments from Local Residents, Adjoining Neighbours/Occupiers As a result of the notification process, a number of responses have been received (to be updated on 29th).

No. Letters Sent No. of Objections No. in Support No. of Comments 36 30 2 2

The comments received from the consultation with local residents are summarised in the following section, with an officer response to those comments contained within the right hand column:

11

Objection

Response The building is too tall and will dominate the skyline. Tall buildings are only appropriate in clusters not dispersed randomly. The scheme is contrary to the Vauxhall Area Plan.

There is no height restriction on buildings in this location and as such each site should be judged on the merits of the application put forward. Its height, form and massing has been specifically designed so as to preserve the Houses of Parliament World Heritage Site and the visual impact assessment that has been submitted demonstrates that it will not impact upon these views. The application site falls outside the Background Assessment Area of the Strategic View of the Palace of Westminster from Parliament Hill. The building will read as part of London’s skyline, which for this stretch of river is varied. There is no suggestion in the draft Vauxhall SPD that the height of buildings should be restricted in this location.

The siting, design, height, bulk and external experience is out of keeping with the area, particularly the listed building opposite. It will dwarf buildings around it and should be no higher than existing buildings.

The applicant has attempted to maximise the potential of the site while at the same time providing a building of quality that improves the character and appearance of the site and the skyline. The height, scale and bulk of the proposal are considered acceptable when looking at the design of the proposal.

The development is too dense, and combined with the other developments (existing and proposed) for the area, would be over-intensive.

The residential density for the site is 326 habitable rooms per hectare. With exceptional public transport accessibility level, according to Table 10 of the UDP, this falls well below the suggested density of between 650 and 1100 hrh. However, it should be noted that the thrust of the Councils policies are to provide a design led approach to development and not to allow density levels to prevent high quality buildings such as this from being erected.

12

The building would impinge upon the character of the Royal Doulton building opposite

It is considered that the design approach which sees a tower and a base, responds to the scale of buildings in shorter range views. It should also be noted that the character of the area is changing and that the proposal removes an unsightly and worn out building and replaces it with a building form that contributes to the character of the area, albeit of a modern design.

This number of flats and the commercial space will impact upon the area in terms of local amenities

Any approval would be subject to a section 106 agreement which would secure financial contributions towards local facilities such as schools, parks, play space. It is considered that these measures would mitigate the effects of the proposal.

The Salamanca Tower should not be used as a precedent

The Salamanca Tower has not been used as a precedent, except insofar as it does indicate that a tall building is suitable in this location. Recent appeals should however, be taken into account when analysing the acceptability of a proposal. The adjoining appeal site therefore does have relevance.

Overshadowing, loss of sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties in Salamanca Square as well as Pedlars Park.

The applicant has commissioned a daylight and sunlight study, which has been verified by an independent consultant. The levels of daylight and sunlight to surrounding dwellings are considered acceptable. Given the orientation, this building would not overshadow Pedlars Park.

13

The cumulative effect of this and other approved schemes need to be considered in terms of daylight/sunlight impact upon 9 Albert Embankment.

Each scheme must be considered on its merits. Previous decisions in the immediate vicinity – namely Salamanca Tower, Wah Kwong House, and the Park Plaza extension all considered the issue of daylight and sunlight to 9 Albert Embankment. Where a demonstrable harm would result i.e Park Plaza and Salamanca Tower, these applications were refused by the Council. In the case of the former, the Inspector concurred, and in the case of the latter, the Council’s decision was overturned. In this instance, the scheme has been specifically designed so as to limit the impact upon surrounding properties. In particular, the central courtyard would remain unaffected, and the impacts would be limited to adjoining dwellings.

A tall building such as this would create a self-contained gated community which is not integrated with and does nothing to benefit the local community.

The scheme maximises the potential of the site and addresses the street with active frontage uses. This is an improvement over the existing building which neither addresses the street or makes any contribution to the local area. The building is not what would normally be termed a “gated development”.

Loss of privacy to neighbouring property

The building has been specifically designed to eliminate the potential for overlooking to the Salamanca Square development which is opposite. There are no windows in the flank elevation of Salamanca Tower and the building on the opposite side of Black Prince Road is in commercial use, which is not afforded such protection.

14

The proposal would undermine the shared roof facility on Salamanca Tower, resulting in a loss of privacy.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be potential for overlooking to this roof space from the development, it is communal and therefore is not afforded the same level of protection as private outdoor amenity space. This is comparable to the Salamanca Tower overlooking the communal amenity space of the Salamanca Square development. As such, it is not considered that this would be sufficient reason to refuse the application.

The proposal will block views, reducing amenity and value of properties.

A loss of view and property values are not material planning considerations.

The proposal would be over dominant and overbearing, resulting in sense of enclosure to existing residential properties

The nearest residential properties are opposite. It is considered that the separation distance across a road, the gap between the proposed building and Salamanca Tower, together with its urban setting is such that the proposal would not cause an undue sense of enclosure. However, it is accepted that there will be several buildings in close proximity to one another.

The construction would cause undue noise, fumes and pollution.

Any disturbance during construction could be mitigated and managed by conditions and the imposition of a clause in the s106 to require compliance with Constructors Code of Practice. Relevant environmental legislation would also require compliance with.

The applicant did not undertake the extensive pre-application consultation that they refer to in the documentation.

Whilst it is unfortunate that the applicant’s consultation process was not as extensive as residents would have hoped, over 2000 leaflets were distributed to local residents.

There is currently inadequate provision for parking of commercial delivery vehicles on Salamanca Place and this scheme will exacerbate the problem of servicing in the area. The loading bay that is proposed is inadequate.

A loading bay is proposed for Black Prince Road. The Councils Transport Planner considers that this would adequately cater for the servicing and deliveries associated with the proposed development.

The location of the refuse storage area is unacceptable and would result in bins being left on the pavement.

There is a dedicated refuse storage facility proposed with space for the required number of bins. These details would be secured by way of condition.

15

Parking at the weekend is difficult – resident and visitor’s cars would exacerbate this pressure.

Residents would not be entitled to parking permits (during the week) which would discourage car ownership. Given the high public transport accessibility of this location, which is one of the highest, this aspect of the proposal is considered acceptable.

The bus service will be affected by the higher volume of cars using and parking on Black Prince Road

The loading bay that is proposed is designed so as to enable vehicles to pass without obstructing traffic on Black Prince Road. The proposal will not result in cars being parked on the street due to parking restrictions.

An increase in residents will result in increases in problems with refuse and resultant problems with vermin.

A dedicated refuse storage facility, designed to meet the Council’s requirements, would be required and secured by way of condition.

The visitor cycle parking should not be located on Salamanca Place as it would cause a hazard and be unsightly.

The Transport Planner has agreed to the location of cycle parking. There is no reason to suggest that cycle parking on Salamanca Place would cause a hazard, noting that a 2 metre distance between the cycle parking and the road is provided, thereby enabling passage by wheelchairs and buggies, for instance

The commercial units should include food/restaurant provision for office workers in the area.

The applicant is suggesting providing business floor space including Class A2. The policy requirement is for active frontage uses to be provided, and subject to securing Class A2 floor space at ground floor level, there is no policy objection. There are no policy requirements to specifically provide food/restaurant uses in this location. It should also be noted that a change of use away from A3 use was given for a nearby unit specifically because of a lack of demand.

The wind report fails to consider the impact the building may have on existing neighbours.

The wind study specifically investigates ground passage level. It is accepted that Black Prince Road is narrow and flanked by other blocks. However, the findings confirm that the wind around the buildings is acceptable.

16

The heights shown in the plans for Salamanca Tower and Salamanca Square are incorrect.

The approved documents for Salamanca Tower show a 17 storey building. For Salamanca Tower, the approved scheme is 14 storeys. The proposed elevations show these correctly and are contextual elevations that would not form part of the approved documents

Potential for squatters to enter building until development takes place

This is not a material planning objection.

Review of Council Tax required to reflect increased population

This is not a material planning objection.

There was an opportunity to incorporate a PCT at ground floor level but this has been missed

The applicant did engage in consultation with the local PCT. The PCT does not form part of the application. The applicant has clearly tried to create employment potential at ground floor levels.

The applicant’s pre-application consultation was flawed – many neighbours did not receive consultation letters in relation to the proposals.

The applicant has submitted a document entitled Statement of Community of Involvement which details the consultation carried out to date and that proposed during the life of the application. This states that approximately 2000 leaflets were hand delivered to residents in the vicinity of the site, a week before the exhibition. Whilst it is unfortunate that some residents did not receive the leaflet, this is not a reason to either invalidate it or refuse the application. Furthermore, two rounds of consultation letters have been sent by the Council to 870 properties in the area which gives neighbours an opportunity to comment on the application.

It is vital that the planning gain include street lighting, soft landscaping, refuse and recycling facilities

The scheme would be subject to conditions regarding refuse/recycling facilities, and existing lamp posts would be retained. In relation to tree planting and soft landscaping, given the constrained nature of the public realm around the site, it would be difficult to incorporate street furniture and planting without impacting upon pedestrian movement. There is a section 106 package of mitigation contained in this report.

17

Whilst redevelopment of site is welcomed, so too affordable housing and s106 contributions, these should not be at the sacrifice of the local community.

The application must be considered against all relevant policies at national, regional and local level. These policies must be balanced up against each other in relation to the site, its surroundings, the provision of land use facilities and amenity issues. It is considered that a high quality design such as this, which respects adjoining residential neighbours, and the London skyline and local character, would not only contribute to the immediate area, but would also help meet housing targets whilst contributing to section 106 benefits.

It is noted that a second round of consultation was carried out in mid January 2008 to amend the description of development to correctly advertise the mix of units. The comments received up until the point of writing have been incorporated above. Any further comments received from this round of consultation will be reported verbally to Members. Planning Considerations National Policies PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It states that good design is indivisible from good planning and encourages planning authorities to secure high quality and inclusive design for all development, which positively contribute to making better places for people to live and work. PPS1 further states, “Good design ensures attractive usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good planning: Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.”. (para 33 and 34). PPS3 (Housing) was published in November 2006 and replaces PPG3 (Housing, 2001). It provides advice on the role of the planning system in relation to housing policy and reiterates the principle objectives of PPG3. In particular Para 69 states that in deciding planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should have regard to: “... achieving high quality housing; ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing, reflecting the accommodation requirements of specific groups; the suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability; using land effectively and efficiently” PPS3 specifies a number of outcomes that the planning system should deliver and in determining planning applications, including a mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households such as families with children, single person households and older people. It also states that “Good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.” (para 12).

18

Specifically relating to affordable housing, PPS3 states that Local Planning Authorities should “Set out the approach to seeking developer contributions to facilitate the provision of affordable housing. In seeking developer contributions, the presumption is that affordable housing will be provided on the application site so that it contributes towards creating a mix of housing. However, where it can be robustly justified, off-site provision or a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision (of broadly equivalent value) may be accepted as long as the agreed approach contributes to the creation of mixed communities in the local authority area.” (para 29). PPG13 (Transport) deals with transport and particularly the way in which it integrates with the proper planning of the environment. It seeks to promote more sustainable transport choices and accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and discourages the need to travel by car. Para 17 states that parking standards should not be expressed as minimums and requires planning authorities to revise parking standards to allow for lower levels of off-street parking especially in locations which are served by good public transport. PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) advises that new buildings do not have to copy their neighbours, noting that most interesting streets include a variety of building styles, materials and forms of construction. It indicates that redevelopment in conservation areas or in adjacent areas should provide opportunity for imaginative, high quality design which enhances the character and appearance of the area. PPG24 (Planning and Noise) relates to acoustic issues and provides guidance with respect to minimising adverse noise impact, for both noise-sensitive and noise generating developments. The focus is on the suitability of development sites for new housing, but it also advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise from various types of development. PPS25 (Flood Risk) – requires that flood risk is taken into account at all stages of the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. The London Plan The London Plan is the Mayor’s spatial strategy, which seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve London’s diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city. It proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport. The London Plan (February 2008) seeks maximum provision of additional housing in London in order to deliver an output of 30,500 additional homes per year. The Mayor’s policies are aimed at meeting and exceeding the minimum target of 23,000 additional homes in London per year. The Mayor’s strategic target for affordable housing is set out in Policy 3A.10 of the London Plan and requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use schemes. Policy 3A.10 urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The 'Three Dragons' development control tool kit is recommended for this purpose.

19

Policy 3A.5 of the London Plan seeks to ensure that developments offer a range of housing choice, and the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2005) identifies a London-wide need for 32% one-bed, 38% two and three-bed and 30% four bed or larger units. In addition to housing policies, the London Plan sets out the Mayor’s design principles (Policy 4B.1) for a compact city, which seek to ensure that developments: maximise the potential of sites; create or enhance public realm; provide or enhance a mix of uses; are accessible, useable and permeable for all users; are sustainable, durable and adaptable; are safe for occupants and passers-by; respect local context, character and communities; are practical and legible; are attractive to look at and, where appropriate, inspire, excite and delight; respect the natural environment; and respect London’s built heritage. Policy 4B.1 advises Boroughs to use these principles in assessing planning applications. London Plan policy 4B.5 requires all future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion and requires design and access statements to explain how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development and how inclusion will be maintained and managed. Policies 4B.16 - 4B.18 refer to the London View Management Framework and tall buildings which may have an impact on strategic and important views. The London View Management Framework (LVMF) provides further SPG to the London Plan. The document provides additional clarity to the relevant policies of the London Plan that deal with management of strategically important views in order to maintain and enhance the London skyline and protect important heritage assets and views. The Framework focuses on the protection of strategically important views in and across London and includes designated views. The application site falls outside the Background Assessment Area of the Strategic View of the Palace of Westminster from Parliament Hill. It is noted that there are new directions pertaining to ‘Protected Vistas’ issued by the Secretary of State in May 2007. Guidance on Tall Buildings (July 2007): The CABE and English Heritage Guidance on tall buildings sets out criteria for evaluating tall building proposals. Tall building schemes are expected to relate to the wider context creating a positive relationship with the landscape and transport infrastructure; address the impact on the historic context, world heritage sites and local environment; proposals should contribute to public spaces and facilities, further enhancing the permeability of the local and wider area; architectural quality of the building and credibility of design should be of a high standard contributing positively to the skyline, streetscape and near views and be of sustainable design and construction. The London Plan climate change policies as .set out in Chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions (Policy 4A.l). London Plan policy 3C.3 seeks to ensure that there is sufficient transport capacity to allow for travel generated by development, which shall be determined by a transport assessment. London Plan policy 3D.13 states that "the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs." Supplementary Planning Guidance - Providing for

20

Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation (March 2008) provides SPG to the London Plan and seeks to provide sufficient high quality play and recreation space accessible by children and young people of all ages in conjunction with all tenures of new housing. It seeks to provide guidance on the provision of play and recreation needs of children and young people under the age of 18 and the use of benchmark standards in the preparation of play strategies as set out in the London Plan. London View Management Framework The London View Management Framework was adopted as supplementary guidance in July 2007. The Framework focuses on the protection of strategically important views in London and includes designated views such as St Paul’s Cathedral and the Palace of Westminster. There are also new directions pertaining to ‘Protected Vistas’ issued by the Secretary of State in May 2007. The SPG does not form part of the statutory development plan. It is an important material consideration giving supplementary guidance on the protection and management of designated views in accordance with the policies of the London Plan. The SPG is particularly relevant to the range of considerations that must be taken into account when evaluating the effect of development proposals for tall buildings and their effect on designated views, in terms of both potential impact and potential enhancement. Tall buildings will not be acceptable where they would potentially obscure or adversely affect the setting of strategically important landmarks or impact on the relationship with certain other landmarks within designated views. Adopted Unitary Development Plan The current up to date statement of the Council's planning policies is contained in the Unitary Development Plan, which was adopted on the 6th August 2007. This is the statutory plan for the Borough, and will be used to determine all planning applications. The following policies of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) are considered relevant to this application: 2 London South Central 3 Central London Activities Zone 7 Protection of Residential Amenity 8 Accessible Transport/Integrated Development 9 Transport Impact 14 Parking and traffic Restraint 15 Additional Housing

Affordable Housing 19 Active Frontage Uses

Mixed-use development Location and Loss of Offices

23 Protection and Location of Other Employment Uses 26 Deficiencies in Community Facilities 30 Arts and Culture 31 Streets, Character and Layout 32 Community Safety/Designing out Crime 33 Building Scale and Design. 34 Renewable Energy in Major Development 35 Sustainable Design and Construction Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas

21

Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design Tall Buildings Views The River Thames – River and Riverside Protection, Use and Access The River Thames Policy Area – Urban Design Conservation Areas Archaeology 50 Open Space and Sports Facilities 53 Infrastructure and Utilities 54 Pollution Public Health & Safety 56 Waste Planning Obligations Albert Embankment MDO3 Parliament House, 81 Black Prince Road/Salamanca Place 76 Vauxhall Cross Transport Hub Vauxhall – Urban Design and Public Realm Improvements Spring Gardens 6.4.3. The Supplementary Planning Documents considered in this application are: SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Developments and Conversions; SPD: Section 106 Planning Obligations; Supplementary Planning Document -Guidance and Standards for housing Development and House Conversions Further to the above, it is noted that the Vauxhall Area draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was approved for public consultation by Cabinet on 28 July 2008. Statutory public consultation was carried out for a 6 week period, starting late October 2008. The purpose of the SPD, when adopted, will be to shape and regenerate the area and benefit the local community together and provide help in the determination of planning applications in accordance with the policy requirements of the UDP and London Plan. The document is in draft form, and represents work in progress, and therefore only has limited weight at present in determining planning applications. In addition to the outcome of public consultation, the Vauxhall Area SPD will be informed by work being undertaken by the GLA in producing an Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for the wider Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea Opportunity Area. The OAPF will also draw on work commissioned by TfL on general and public transport capacity in the area, and possible means to improve it. An initial draft of the Vauxhall, Nine Elms, and Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework is expected to be available for public consultation in early 2009. Planning Considerations 7.1 Land Use This scheme proposes a mixed use scheme comprising of ground floor commercial uses, two upper floors of further office and/or leisure floor space, with residential above. The building is currently vacant, falling within Use Class B1 (office). Policy 21(b) of the UDP relates to the loss of offices and states that conversion to other uses of surplus offices outside KIBAs is permitted. With respect to loss of offices and

22

employment, Policy 58 gives a specific exception to the borough-wide policy to take account of local circumstances. This policy acknowledges that a mixed use scheme is appropriate for this site. Policy 20 of the UDP refers to mixed use development and states that a mix of compatible land uses should be retained and enhanced in the development of all sites in the Central Activities Zone, the Thames Policy area, in town centres, and all major sites elsewhere. Particular attention is also paid to design, disposition and servicing of mixed-use developments, which should achieve a satisfactory relationship between individual units and uses in terms of their layout, stacking and protection of the amenity of adjoining and proposed residents. Similar requirements are reiterated in Policy 3, which requires the promotion of activities that contribute to London’s role as a World and Capital City and an active Central London Activity Zone. Policy 19 also requires active frontage uses within the Thames Policy Area. The appropriate mix of uses in an active frontage is defined as A and D class. Policy 58 notes that Albert Embankment is a key stretch of Lambeth’s Thames frontage and that in the post war years it suffered from development entirely of office uses. It is within an area of regeneration, and there is pressure to convert many of the older B1 office buildings to residential and hotel uses. Key to the policy is providing a mix of uses in order to benefit the area’s central location. In this respect, Policy 58 states ”development should include a mix of uses, including active frontage uses at ground floor level fronting the Thames and the main side roads off the Embankment. Upper floors and other parts of sites should not be solely residential or any other single use but should include a mix of uses with a significant element of employment generating uses (at least 25% Gross Floor Area) where feasible and viable – or contribute towards significant access to employment measures in the area.” The policy relating to this MDO states, “Both sites to be developed comprehensively. Active frontage uses onto Black Prince Road. Designed to reduce noise and vibration impact of railway”. The draft Vauxhall SPD identifies the site for employment led mixed use. In this case, the applicant states that the current building is dilapidated and outdated and to bring it up to current standards would require a complete refit which would be unviable and would not achieve the mixed use policy expectations. The services are antiquated and not designed to modern sustainable levels of efficiency. It is clear that the existing building is now very dated, and cannot compete with the requirements of modern technology and the demands made for corporate lets. Redevelopment of the site would bring back obsolete employment floor space into use. On this basis, the principle of redevelopment of the site for a mixed use scheme including employment floor space is acceptable. Ground Floor uses – active frontages The scheme proposes 1770 square metres (gross external area) of retail/commercial floor space at basement, ground and first floor level. The applicant is seeking a flexible permission to use the commercial space for either Class A2 professional services or class B1 office floor space. Policies 19 and 51 of the UDP require application sites within the Thames Policy Area to provide active frontage uses at ground floor level. Active frontage uses, as identified within the adopted UDP, are

23

uses that fall within Use Classes A and D. The applicant has also suggested the provision of a gym. Subject to a condition which ensures that A class floor space is provided at ground floor level frontage (as priority over office space), it is considered that the objectives of the above policies have been achieved, and this element of the proposal is considered acceptable in principle. Employment Provision The existing building has a net internal area of approximately 2300 square metres (3018 sqm gross external area). The proposal would result in a decrease in the amount of employment floor space on the site in comparison to the existing office. However, Policy 58 recognises that the Albert Embankment is an area of regeneration that would benefit from a vital mix of uses which takes into account the area’s central location. It therefore seeks to ensure that at least 25% of gross floor area in new developments is employment generating where feasible and viable. The table below shows a break down of the floor space provided in the scheme:

Proposed NIA sq.m

% GIA sq.m

% GEA sq.m

%

Employment floorspace

1405 19 1646 17 1770 16

Residential floorspace

6007 81 7917 83 9390 84

Total 7412 100 9563 100 11160 100

In this instance, the total amount of commercial/employment generating floor space that is proposed equates to approximately 16% of the total gross external floor space (17% of the total gross internal floor space). An additional 750 square metres would be required in order to achieve the 25% requirement. Therefore, the implication is that feasibility and viability tests would be expected to justify the shortfall in policy terms. The applicant has submitted evidence of what the financial repercussions would be in providing further commercial floor space. The applicant confirms that in accordance with their affordable housing financial appraisal that the planning application proposes the optimum amount of affordable housing and commercial floor space that could be delivered on the site whilst remaining viable, and keeping in mind the current economic climate. They have run a “Three Dragons Toolkit” on different scenarios, each with varying degrees of employment floor space. The results show that the provision of 25% employment floor space with 36% affordable housing, for instance, would have a negative effect on the residual land value of the scheme, and therefore the overall viability. The maximum level of affordable housing that could be viably provided if 25% commercial floor space was stipulated would be between 22 and 25%. Officers commissioned an independent viability report from Atisreal. This confirms that the scheme could provide 25% employment floorspace although this would impact on the amount of affordable housing by about 10%. Taking into account the current economic climate and that demand for commercial space in the area is poor Atisreal conclude that an increase in the amount of commercial space is likely to harm the scheme’s viability.

24

The applicant advises that they have sought to comply with Policy 58 as far as is feasible and that any increased amount of employment generating use on the site would impact upon the supply of new housing, including affordable housing. It would particularly impact upon the lower floors, where the floor plate is larger and therefore the unit sizes are generally able to be larger, with access to outdoor space (keeping in mind that a gap is required between the buildings at this height to retain daylight levels). The applicant notes that the site is not generating any employment at present and that the proposed scheme would deliver a high quality space for potential tenants, bringing an unused building back into life. The estimated employment provision of the proposed scheme equates to 100 people. In addition, the applicant has submitted details of vacancies in the surrounding area, indicating a current oversupply in the area. Reference is made to a recent decision at 9 Albert Embankment, adjacent to the site. Here the ground floor commercial floor space which was part of the approved development had been vacant and actively marketed for 4 years by the applicant. In this instance, Council officers were satisfied that appropriate and active marketing had taken place and allowed a change of use to residential flats. It is noted London Borough of Lambeth commissioned a study in 2007 to investigate the current demand for, and supply of, business premises in the borough. This suggests that there is a lack of available business space in the Borough, and that there is a forecast growth in business which could amount to the need for up to 30 ha over the period to 2020. Town centre locations across Lambeth experience higher levels of demand and particularly strong areas of demand include Waterloo, Kennington, Vauxhall and Lambeth North. North Lambeth is also identified as an area with high levels of demand for business premises and there are shortfalls in the supply of suitable premises to meet SME needs in this area. As such, current employment sites are important in meeting this demand. However, the applicant highlights that the most notable demand referred to in this report is for industrial floor space and other uses which do not generate such significant employment levels, and nor does it take into account spatial variations. The conclusion reached by the applicant’s agent is that there is an oversupply and limited demand for commercial floor space in this particular area at the current time. With no end user confirmed, they state that there could be voids in lettings of up to 5 years, which is not financially viable. It is considered that in this instance, the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to suggest that providing additional employment floor space within this scheme would not be viable or feasible. It should be noted that the applicant has agreed to a financial contribution via the s106 for various employment/training opportunities, both at construction stage and in the completed development for local people. Residential Element Dwelling Mix Turning to the other aspects of the proposal and the residential use to be provided, policy 15 of the UDP seeks to ensure that a range of new housing development is provided to meet the needs and demands of the Borough. Housing provision is seen as being an appropriate use on all sites, which can provide a suitable residential environment for existing and future residents. The UDP clearly states that housing

25

provision should be the predominant use on sites coming forward for development. In particular with regard to empty buildings a more flexible approach towards development standards will be applied, subject to the maintenance of a high quality residential environment. The policy goes on to point out that there will need to be a housing mix with any new major development. With specific regard to affordable housing, policy 16 states that the maximum reasonable proportion of affordable housing will be sought and secured from housing developments of appropriate size, having regard to the need to promote a mix and diversity of residential development in the Borough. This should include both small units and larger dwellings with the larger family dwellings having access to either a garden or an appropriate amenity space. Policy 16 also states that a range of unit sizes of affordable housing should be provided, having regard to local circumstances, site characteristics and the aims of the Borough’s housing strategy. The detailed mix of these units, as noted under para 4.3 above, is as follows:

Unit type Affordable Rented Units

Affordable Intermediate Units

Private Units

Total Units

Total Habitable

rooms

1 bed 0 6 35 41 82 2 bed 4 6 34 44 132 3 bed 5 0 3 8 32 4 bed 3 0 1 4 20 5 bed 4 0 0 4 24 Total Units 16 12 73 101 Total Habitable Rooms

71 30 189 290

The policies themselves do not prescribe what the mix of units should be. However, it advises that a predominance of one type of housing should be avoided in order to encourage mixed, balanced and sustainable communities. With respect to the social rented accommodation in particular, the current draft Mayor's Housing Strategy and Housing Corporation bid guidance for the 2008-2011 Grant programme include a general target of 42% of new social rented provision as 3 bedroom or larger. The proposed scheme is made up of a mix of unit sizes: 40% are 1 bed, 33% are 2 bed, 8% are 3 bed, and 8% are 4 and 5 bed. Of the social rented accommodation, 75% would be larger 3, 4 and 5 bed units. All of the units would have balconies or winter gardens and those at podium roof level, there would be access to 300 sqm of communal open space. The GLA confirm that whilst the proposal fails to meet the suggested mix in the Mayor’s SPG, the proposal would provide a large number of 2 and 3 bedroom units, with 43% of all affordable units having 3 bedrooms or more. The remainder of the affordable housing is split between 1 and 2 bedroom flats for social rent and shared ownership. In this location shared ownership units larger than 2 bedrooms would be unlikely to be affordable and would not necessarily meet market demand for this type of accommodation. It is considered that the mix of shared ownership units would be acceptable in this instance. Whilst the development is skewed more towards one and two bedroom units, it is considered that given the specific site constraints in terms of its size and layout, and inability to provide on-site play space, that a lower proportion of family sized

26

accommodation may acceptable in this instance. It is noted that Notting Hill Housing Trust who are the owners and landlords of all of the affordable flats in the adjoining and adjacent schemes at 1, 3 and 6 Salamanca Place, have advised that they are interested in being involved in delivering the finalised scheme. In particular, they remark upon the location, scale, core separation, and unit mixes as being appropriate in this context. Members may consider that the mix is appropriate for a constrained site such as this between two roads and railway, with no amenity space. However, given the proximity to Pedlars Park, the contribution that is offered towards open space and play space, the larger family units that are proposed are welcomed. Affordable Housing - Viability Assessment of provision Policy 16 of the UDP states that the maximum reasonable proportion of affordable housing will be sought and secured from housing developments. The normal expected level of provision will be 50% of habitable rooms or 40% with no public subsidy “unless it is demonstrated and independently validated that a scheme would not be economically viable unless there is a lower level of provision, having regard to transport and other significant planning obligations necessary for the scheme to go ahead and the level of subsidy to the affordable housing proposed by the developer”. Furthermore, the policy states that typically 70% of the affordable units should comprise of for social rent and 30% for intermediate housing. The applicant’s appraisal concludes that the maximum level of affordable housing that can be provided would be 35% (with grant funding). This would comprise 28 units in total (16 social rented and 12 shared ownership). The affordable housing tenure would comprise 70% social rented and 30% shared ownership, based on habitable rooms (57:33 based on units). There is therefore a shortfall of 15% below the 50% requirement set out in Policy 16 (equating to 44 habitable rooms). The applicant confirms that to provide the desired quantum of affordable housing would not be economically viable. They have used the Greater London Authority’s 2007/2008 Development Control Toolkit Model (DCTM) to appraise the scheme. The DCTM allows the user to define costs or provides cost information for specific London Boroughs. It is used on a site specific basis to attempt to identify the level of affordable housing that a particular development proposal might be able to sustain, whilst providing an adequate level of profitability to the developer and a sufficient value to landowners that will encourage them to release sites for residential development. The figures that are established can be either: the price that a developer should reasonably pay for a site, given a fixed percentage of profit (i.e. the residual land value); or the amount of profit a developer is likely to achieve from a development (expressed as a percentage of build costs or income) where the land has already been acquired. On this basis, officers have engaged an independent report from Atisreal Limited to review and advise on the development appraisal provided by the applicant in support of their assertion that the scheme can only provide 35% affordable housing. It should also be noted that a financial contribution of £700,000 was factored into the toolkit to provide for planning obligations in addition to the affordable housing. This report was undertaken in July 2008 and the market conditions of that time were used to establish the values of the market flats.

27

An important point to note here is that the existing use value is normally used as a benchmark to assess the viable level of affordable housing that a scheme can provide. However the report that was submitted by the applicant noted that the subject site comprises a derelict building requiring substantial improvements before it could be sold or let. Consequently the applicant regarded the EUV approach to be unfeasible in the open market. It was noted by the applicant that the agreed purchase price was below the asking price, was unconditional of any planning permission and that there were other bids consistent with the applicant’s purchase price. The applicant provided an existing use value based on an appraisal of the existing office building including necessary refurbishment to bring the building to a lettable standard. The existing use is £5.16 million and the applicant purchased the site for £9.75 million. Atisreal were able to analyse whether the scheme could provide more affordable housing than is proposed. The scheme as submitted includes for a developer’s return of 17%. It is noted that the minimum return which is suggested reflects an industry wide view of the profit margin that a developer would be expected to make when undertaking this type of development. It is normally regarded as the threshold below which a developer or a lending bank would not normally consider an adequate return. However, Atisreal advise that in the current market conditions, a return of 15% is the minimum return that any financial institution would expect a development to generate. Atisreal confirmed that their findings of the review of the applicant’s appraisals suggest that the development could provide 35% of habitable rooms as affordable housing (28 units), assuming grant funding were available. This would provide an acceptable level of profit to the developer of 17%, when benchmarking against the purchase price. However, it is re-iterated that this particular outcome would be heavily dependent on the scheme achieving grant funding. Without grant funding, the scheme could still achieve 24% of habitable rooms as affordable housing (16 units) with a mix of 57% social rent and 43% shared ownership. Atisreal notes that the applicant has been fair and reasonable in their assumptions. They also note that the sales values that the applicant has used were higher than the current market suggests, the build costs were lower than the toolkit benchmark, and the applicant had not factored in land financing costs. With the discrepancies above noted and concerns raised by Officers and Atisreal about using purchase price as a benchmark, the applicant was requested to run their toolkit again. In particular, there was concern about the precedent that using purchase price could set in establishing levels of affordable housing provision. The GLA also highlighted this point in their Stage 1 response. The applicant duly did so by applying existing use as the benchmark, but by also taking into account ground rent revenue, land finance costs, and additional Section 106 money (to meet Transport for London’s requested contributions). However, conversely the applicant also reviewed current property market values to reflect current market conditions, which are somewhat less buoyant than when the initial toolkit was undertaken. As noted above, Atisreal were also of the view that the sales values that the applicant had assumed were more optimistic than the market currently reflects. The results of these findings, when incorporating current market values in particular, at a benchmark of existing use value rather than purchase price, actually show that the scheme is significantly less viable than previously estimated, and in practice would deliver even less affordable housing that has been offered. Atisreal concur with these findings, in particular that the current market values are fair and reasonable.

28

Whilst it is unfortunate that it is not possible to obtain more affordable housing in this instance, given that the applicant had purchased the site at inflated prices, it does appear that the current property market is impacting heavily on the viability of schemes, regardless of the above. On this basis, Officers accept that although the applicants offer is below the 40/50% provision sought by Policy 16, the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that it would not be economically viable to meet these requirements. In light of this and also the fact that the scheme would provide 28 much needed affordable housing units, and the appropriate level of Section 106 monies needed to mitigate the impacts of the scheme, officers suggest that this part of the proposal is considered acceptable. Standard of Accommodation The residential units of the scheme have been designed to comply with the Supplementary Planning Document for Housing Development, which sets out guidance and standards for new build developments such as this. There is a consistent pattern of unit type and location proposed throughout the development. The units are generally stacked according to their room type and the plans suggest compliance with the minimum overall floor areas and room widths set out within the guidance. The internal layout also complies with minimum room size standards. Whilst some of the rooms are unusually shape due to the floor plate of the building, it is considered that given their overall size, a satisfactory internal layout would be provided for future residents given their size. The Council’s Housing Partnerships Team advises that they would also seek to ensure that the accommodation be designed in accordance with the Homes and Communities Agency requirements. It is understood that the Homes and Communities Agency has very detailed design requirements that go beyond the Council’s SPD. It is also understood that all Homes and Communities Agency funded affordable housing need to comply with their ‘Development Scheme Standards – Code Level 3’. The applicant confirm that the affordable element will satisfy the (differing) requirements of RSLs. With respect to daylight and sunlight levels within the development itself, the site flanks narrow streets, with high density development around it, as well as the railway viaduct. In this respect the applicant’s daylight consultant has undertaken analysis of the flats to ascertain whether the levels of daylight would be acceptable. The conclusions are that there are some flats at second, third and fourth floor level which would not reach the suggested Average Daylight Factor levels set out in the BRE Guide. These comprise 10 bedrooms and 3 lounge/diners. The applicant suggests that the proportion of failures out of the whole scheme is not unusual and suggest that this would be acceptable in this location. Officers consider that failures in what are secondary bedrooms for the majority in a scheme of this size on such a constrained site could be acceptable. Where the rooms which have failures are not bedrooms, two units have access to outdoor amenity space which could be seen to be a compromise. On balance, whilst it is unfortunate that there are 9 flats which would experience lower light levels than BRE recommendations, that given the constraints of the site and the density of the surrounding area. The residential element of the scheme begins at 2nd floor level, which is level with the railway viaduct, so there would not be a sense of enclosure to these flats from the railway viaduct. As detailed under Section 7.3 below, there is potential for disturbance from railway noise, but it is considered that this could be addressed by

29

way of condition. Where possible, apartments are dual aspect and the lower level units which face the railway viaduct have winter gardens so as to provide an acoustic and visual separation. The applicant has been in discussions with an RSL who highlight that ideally the affordable housing should be self contained making it easier to manage as an independent demise. The social element would be towards the base of the building, thereby enabling the incorporation of larger units, and enabling access to rooftop amenity space (podium level). The social rented and private components have independent access from a single core, the intermediate units accessing the same core as the private units. Lifetime Homes/Wheelchair Standards Policy 33, as well as the SPD: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions make reference to the London Plan and states that all new housing should be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standard and that 10% of new housing be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. All units have lift access and routes to and from them would be wide, flat and void of unnecessary obstruction. Except for two flats which are maisonettes, all units are single level. The scheme proposes that all of the units will be Lifetime Home compliant and in addition, 10% will be spatially designed to be wheelchair accessible. It is suggested that conditions could be attached to any permission in order to provide to secure the appropriate number of units as wheelchair units and ensure Lifetime Homes compliance. It is noted here that the GLA have stated that a breakdown of the size, tenure and location of the wheelchair accessible units, including typical flat layouts which demonstrate ‘Lifetime Homes’ criteria. The applicant has duly down so, and notes that whilst the provision of disabled access is skewed towards the affordable housing, it would be possible to adapt additional upper level apartments to accommodate full disabled access. Typical layouts have also been provided to show compliance with Lifetime Homes. Amenity/Play Space Policy 33 and the SPD seek to ensure that new housing developments provide an appropriate standard of amenity space for its occupiers. For new flatted developments, shared amenity space of at least 50m2 per scheme should is expected. A further 10 sq m per flat should also be provided, either as a balcony/terrace/private garden or consolidated with the communal space. London Plan Policy 3D.13 seeks to ensure that all children have safe access to good quality play and informal recreation provision. The corresponding Draft SPD recommends a benchmark of 10sqm of playspace per child. Both the Council’s and the Mayor’s SPD confirm that the expectation is for provision to be made on site though, if not feasible, financial contributions will be required for off-site provision.

30

In this instance, all units at 2nd to 4th floor level have balconies or winter gardens, as well as access to the podium roof level where 300 sqm of communal open space is proposed. For the units above this level, the four corner units on each floor would have access to a balcony or a winter garden, and the balance would have Juliet balconies. With respect to play space, the applicant notes that the documents referred to above do acknowledge that off-site provision, including the creation of new facilities may be acceptable in some instances. The small size of the site and the need to provide active ground floor uses is such that the applicant has not provided play space on site. Instead it is proposed that enhancements to play space and amenity space nearby be secured by way of the Section 106 agreement. The site is extremely well service by public open space and local play provision, with Pedlar’s Park sitting adjacent to the site on the other side of the railway viaduct. Whilst ideally, play space would be expected to be provided on site, Officers suggest that the rationale proposed by the applicant in this particular case is logical and appropriate, noting the financial contribution that has been offered and that SPD allows for exceptions to be made in some instances. It has always been accepted that the site is constrained. The GLA have stated that given the size of the development and the constraints of the site, it is accepted that the applicant will be unable to provide all of the required child play space, however it is considered that provision should be made for the under-5 children on site. They advise that a designated play space of approximately 130sqm that is accessible by both the market and affordable units should be provided. The applicant has responded to this by providing a diagram which indicates such space on the terrace at Level 4, with direct access from the communal corridor leading to the lift core. This could be utilised as communal play space, and whilst the applicant does query whether it is suitable to have child space adjacent to a railway line, this could be secured by way of condition. As noted under 7.3.9 below, there is the potential for the wind conditions of the amenity space to be adverse at certain times, and this has been highlighted by the GLA. However, the applicant notes that the proposed landscaping would mitigate against this, and subject to further details being submitted by way of condition of any planning permission. Design, Conservation and Heritage Considerations The site currently contains a 1960’s office block. The principle of the buildings demolition and redevelopment is acceptable in townscape and design terms. The site does not lie within a conservation area, but it does sit directly opposite a listed building (Southbank House) which is within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area. To the west, on the opposite side of the railway viaduct is the Vauxhall Gardens Conservation Area. The site is located within the background setting of the Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site in views from Primrose Hill and Parliament Hill. In this respect, given the overall scale and height of the proposal, the new tall building would have an affect on views to and from this and other nearby conservation areas. UDP policies which promote high standards of urban design and safeguard Lambeth's complex urban grain and character are relevant in the consideration of this application and they need to be taken into account to ensure

31

that the redevelopment as a whole relates appropriately to the wider townscape as well the immediately adjoining sites. The design of the development, including the overall height, scale and massing of the buildings, its appearance and articulation, have evolved from discussions with Officers at the GLA, CABE and Lambeth. The GLA have raised no objections to the current proposal in urban design terms. Location of a Tall Building Turning first of all to the issue of tall buildings, Policies 4B.1, 4B.3, 4B.8 and 4B.9 in the London Plan and Policy 40 in the UDP address issues that cover tall buildings. Policy 40 of the UDP defines buildings adjacent to the River Thames, which are over 25 metres as high buildings. It states that high buildings should not be located where they would harm the character or settings of conservation areas, listed buildings, historic or characterful parks (including views out), riverscape and townscape, strategic views and locally significant views, and the Palace of Westminster World Heritage site. Policy 40 also provides direction on visual design criteria and urban design. Policy 58 seeks to enhance the setting of the Houses of Parliament/Westminster Abbey Word Heritage site and views from, and setting of, the Thames and its bridges. Increases in height should improve the silhouette of the river-frontage. Achieving maximum heights for this broad site within the visual shadow of the Westminster World Heritage Site and Victoria Tower is important if the objectives of policy 58 are to be met in a qualitative manner in architectural terms. Policy 40 also states that high buildings are more likely to be acceptable in locations where they will make a significant contribution to the focus and momentum of regeneration or growth, or which have high public transport accessibility and capacity. In addition, Policy 32 states that proposals for higher densities than that prevalent in the surrounding area will be encouraged in appropriate locations including Central London and Transport Development Areas and areas of good, very good or exceptional public transport accessibility. The application before Members has a PTAL rating of 6. Officers acknowledge that the application site falls within an area of excellent public transport accessibility and therefore, a suitable site for a high density scheme. The proposal also offers a mixed use development, which would provide public benefit through the provision of improved public realm, commercial units at ground floor and also provide new residential uses and job provision. The proposal maximises the potential of the site by providing a mix of uses consistent with Policies 4B.1 and 4B.3 of the London Plan. The tall buildings policy 40 applies to buildings over 25m high on sites located nearby to the River Thames. It stipulates the following criteria with regard to location: “Tall buildings should enhance and not detract from London’s character and should enhance the skyline respecting its historic character. Any proposal should be very carefully related to its surroundings, both exiting and proposed and especially to the height and form of any other high buildings or prominent features in the vicinity. To assist assessment, plans should be accompanied by accurate representations of the appearance of the building in all significant views acted, including relevant London panoramas, riverscape and local townscapes. Tall buildings should not be located where they would harm the character or setting of:

32

Conservation areas Listed buildings Historic or characterful parks (including views out) Important London Squares Riverscape and townscape High point and ridges Strategic views and locally significant views The Palace of Westminster and Westminster World Heritage Site. Tall buildings are more likely to be acceptable in locations where they make a significant contribution to the focus and momentum of regeneration or growth and would have high levels of transport accessibility. For sites suitable for tall buildings, proposals would need to meet the design objectives of policy 37 which state that tall buildings should be of the highest architectural and constructional quality and should enhance the skyline through profile and use of materials. Bulky or solid structures will not be acceptable and any new building should be constructed to a high standard of quality and design, and vision from the architect. Policy 40 also in turn refers to tall building guidance provided by CABE and English Heritage. These set out a list of criteria for evaluating tall building proposals, requiring them to relate to their wider context, creating a positive relationship with the existing landscape. Proposals would therefore be expected to relate to their wider context, creating a positive relationship with the existing landscape. Emphasis is therefore placed on a proposals effect on the local environment including both in terms of the protection of the areas built heritage and the amenity of the local environment. The design height has taken into consideration its potential effects on adjacent conservation areas, listed buildings, the World Heritage Site, the effect on the Houses of Parliament and the locality in general. The architects design has sought to meet various constraints which apply to the site, including the proximity and orientation of the existing buildings around it and the need to respect existing residential amenity, heritage values, together with the fact that it sits within the backdrop of the view from Parliament Hill and within the “shadow” of the Victoria Tower and St Stephens Tower at the Palace of Westminster. It is considered that the architect has achieved in providing a visually pleasing design to the buildings whilst having a minimal impact on the important views above. The applicant has attempted to provide a unique development to a high qualitative standard and design, which would contribute positively to the surrounding area. The proposal maintains gaps and views between buildings, which would serve to address the objective of policy 58, and as such, improve the townscape quality of the area. Further to the above, and also taking into account Policies 76 and 77 (which relate to specifically to the redevelopment and regeneration of Vauxhall), the Council has commissioned the production of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Vauxhall. A draft of the Vauxhall Area SPD was approved by Cabinet on 28 July 2008, for public consultation. Statutory public consultation will be carried out for a 6 week period, starting late October 2008. As stated previously, the purpose of the document is to shape and assess acceptable planning applications for development in and around Vauxhall.

33

With regard to assessing proposals for tall buildings as is proposed here, the draft SPD states at Ob 1.7 that the heights for tall buildings are expected to be appropriate the specific site context. This is developed upon at Ob 1.12 which states that tall buildings that fail to relate to positively at the lower levels to the public realm and at roof level to the existing skyline, will be discouraged. Additional local guidance states that Albert Embankment should be enlivened with active ground floor frontages, an expanded mixture of uses and greater pedestrian footfall. In terms of accentuation in height for new development while consideration in the draft SPD is given to the general impact of development on the backdrop of the Westminster Word Heritage Site as defined by London Views Management Framework in order to protect and enhance strategic and local views and the historic environment, the guidance also notes that this needs to be balanced by avoiding the creation of a wall effect through ensuring variation in the roofline. As the site sits within the strategic London viewing corridors, therefore the main issue is whether the proposal makes a positive contribution to London’s sky line and more specifically contribute to a backdrop that may enhance the character of the river frontage. The site is in an appropriate location for a tall building, given its proximity to Vauxhall public transport interchange. It is considered that, as detailed below, the building would enhance its context by providing a unique high quality building in an area that is otherwise dominated by a varied architectural style and form. However, other factors such as amenity impact are also of importance within this particular site, and ensuring that the design reduces noise and vibration impact of the railway. Impact upon Views Policy 40 states that tall buildings should not be located where they would harm the character or settings of, amongst other things, riverscape and townscape, strategic views and local significant views, and The Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey World Heritage site. Policy 58 states that in the Albert Embankment Policy Area, the gaps between buildings should be retained to preserve views of the river, across the River and to the Houses of Parliament and views from Westminster to the Albert Embankment and to buildings and streets behind. The application is accompanied by a Visual and Townscape Assessment and supplementary photomontages. The assessment and photomontages consider strategic townscape views of the site as seen from a number of vantage points. Twenty eight views have been specifically chosen to illustrate the potential impact of the proposal on existing views and its relation to its urban context. As noted previously, the site sits within the Background Area Assessment of the Strategic View of the Palace of Westminster from Parliament Hill and Primrose Hill, within a London Panorama designated under the London View Management Framework (LVMF), published by the Mayor of London. More specifically, the protected view cones pass over the site and it falls within the shadow of both Victoria Tower and St Stephens Tower at the Houses of Parliament. The impact of the proposal upon the backdrop of these views has been a principle consideration when defining the building's envelope and has been used inform the maximum height. More specifically, the proposed development has been designed so as to be hidden by the towers in these views and therefore cause no detrimental impact upon the setting of the Palace of Westminster. The visual and townscape views show that the building would not be seen and would read as a part of London’s dense urban grain.

34

It is noted here that at pre-application stage, Westminster City Council requested that views from Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square be illustrated, so as to indicate the relationship of the proposed development relative to the Palace of Westminster skyline from these locations. More specifically the portico of the National Gallery and the north side of Parliament Square are indicated. From the portico of National Gallery, the proposed development may be glimpsed amongst the chimneys of Portculis House, to the right St Stephen’s Tower and Nelson’s Column. However, due to its height, form and colour, it would blend in with the chimneys of Portculis House and read as part of the skyline, with the clock tower remaining the focus of this view and its setting remaining unharmed. In addition to the above, there are more local views that must be considered. The site of the proposed development is set back from the river but can be see from several vantage points along the river Thames. The building will be higher than its near neighbours and the applicant has sought to ensure that the design results in positive contribution to the city skyline. The top of the building has been sculpted into a stepped form which rises to a glazed and sculpted pinnacle, thus giving visual interest and breaking up the uniform wall like effect which features along Albert Embankment. The building is located mid-way between the existing Westminster Tower, further towards Lambeth Bridge, and the recently approved Hampton House, and sits immediately adjacent to Salamanca Tower, and has been designed to add positively to the background setting of Albert Embankment as required by Policy 58. The applicant’s townscape and visual assessment - goes on to undertake a series of views across London taking into account local context and LVMF view. The possible effect of the proposal has been taken into consideration with regard to more local views within Lambeth, the Albert Embankment Conservation Area and Vauxhall Gardens Conservation Area as well as conservation areas and views in the wider context including on the opposite side of the Thames in Westminster. As noted above, the proposal takes into account the possible impact of the proposal on the buildings of the Palace of Westminster and the World Heritage Site in Westminster, as well as Tate Britain Gallery, Millbank, Lambeth Bridge, Vauxhall Bridge, Hungerford Bridge and Westminster Bridge. The supporting material provides photographs and photographic images of existing and proposed views of the application site in order to demonstrate that the proposal would not detrimentally impact on views across the Capital. Perhaps some of the most important views of the site are those seen along the river Thames. There are key views from Vauxhall Bridge, Millbank Gardens, Lambeth Bridge, Hungerford Bridge and Westminster Bridge which have been considered. From Vauxhall Bridge and Millbank Gardens, the profile of the proposed building create a counterpoint to the existing view and the verticality of the proposed building would create a visual transformation to the rivers edge and enhance the vista from these positions. The proposed height therefore creates visual interest to the backdrop and ameliorating the monotony of the existing building heights. When viewed from Tate Britain, the mature plane trees would provide some obstruction, but the building would otherwise sit alongside Wah Kwong House and punctuate the barrier like effect of this stretch of Albert Embankment, together with the approved Hampton House. In relation to the view from Vauxhall Bridge, the building would indeed be largely obscured by the approved Hampton House redevelopment.

35

It is accepted that the proposal will be seen from the Horseferry Road and Millbank Junction as well as Victoria Tower Gardens. In these views, the building would be a backdrop London Fire Brigade Headquarters, at a reduced height than that of Westminster Tower. Together with the approved Hampton House, and with its pinnacle roof, it would break up the relatively consistent roofline of buildings along Albert Embankment. The river prospect upstream from Lambeth Bridge contains few distinctive landmarks and is not protected by the LVMF. Again, the view is again dominated by Westminster Tower, the building would appear behind the Fire Brigade Headquarters. As above, together with Hampton House, the proposed building would break the up the barrier affect along Albert Embankment, thus improving the silhouette of the river frontage, and reading as part of its backdrop, alongside the Salamanca Tower The views from Westminster Bridge are strongly influenced by the major framing elements of St Thomas Hospital and Palace of Westminster. Westminster Tower, just beyond Lambeth Bridge, and Millbank Tower break the horizontal emphasis that feature in these views. Only a small part of the top of the building would be visible above Parliament View Apartments, and alongside Westminster Tower, which it will not surpass in height. When viewed with the other two approved schemes, Vauxhall Tower, Vauxhall Sky Gardens and Hampton House, the proposed building would serve by reducing the impact of the vertical proportions of Westminster Tower, adding visual interest and a change in scale and dimension to the cluster of buildings along this section of the Thames. Again, from Hungerford Bridge, the view analysis indicates that the proposed buildings will appear beyond Parliament View apartments at Lambeth Bridge, stepping up in height to Westminster Tower. The top of Salamanca Tower beside it is visible in between. It is considered that the building would punctuate the otherwise monotonous run of buildings and horizontal skyline on Albert Embankment running down to Vauxhall. There is no sense of domination of this view, noting the scale of buildings on the north side of the river in this view, including Millbank Tower, Victoria and St Stephens Tower, serving just to enhance the skyline. When looking down river from Vauxhall Cross along Albert Embankment, the building would be visible beyond the end of the M16 buildings, appearing in similar height. From closer views, it would provide a strong interface between the public realm in front of the railway and the buildings of Albert Embankment. From the opposite direction, south down Albert Embankment, the development would add a qualitative end to the run of 1960’s office buildings. Spring Gardens is situated to the south of the site, and relevant policies seek to ensure that development compliments the setting of and views from it. The proposed building would sit and the centre of the view, stepping up from behind and to the right of Salamanca Tower, punctuating the skyline with its pinnacle roof shape. From Pedlars Park, on the opposite side of the railway viaduct, the current view is dominated by recent development of consistent height. The building would rise up alongside Salamanca Tower, the main part of the building to the same height, with just the glazed top rising above it. The verticality of the fenestration and its complex detailing, including corner balconies would add visual interest, noting the relatively neutral contribution of these other buildings.

36

In more local views, such as from Black Prince Road, Lambeth High Street and Albert Embankment, the building would be evident and it is clear that the vista will change all alter the skyline in some instances. However, given its unusual shape and form, this is not considered detrimental in urban and design terms, creating a high quality architectural feature that adds visual interest to these views. The building is in a suitable location for a tall building, and features in close proximity to other new and modern building, and as such, it would read as part of the general changing character of this part of the Borough. To conclude, it is considered that the proposal would have little impact on the views to and from the site, upon listed buildings or conservation areas in the vicinity of the site. The design of the building is such that it would provide a new and distinctive addition to the skyline and enhance views towards the development site from both up-stream and downs-stream along the River Thames, particularly from Lambeth Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge in particular. The GLA concur that the scheme would not harm the setting of the Palace of Westminster or World Heritage Site from key views. Officers are of the view that the proposal would not harm the strategic views from Parliament Hill and Primrose Hill. Detailed design The scheme proposes simple materials, with a solid appearance punctuated by window openings which are proud of the plane of the wall to aid construction, which together with balconies and louvres, would cast shadows and give a more textured appearance. The scheme aims to provide a visually distinctive building which responds to its surroundings. The lower floors will be visually permeable, with active frontages, and public and private entrances. The fenestration detailing above this has been dictated to some extent by the need to protect the amenity of the buildings opposite. At the podium level, the fenestration system is based on angled blades of solid and glass to angle views along the street. The fenestration for the podium and tower employs slender windows, each 3 storeys in height, which together with polished reconstructed stone cladding panels mounted vertically on the building, would create a unique patterning. The form and massing of the building has evolved from initial investigations into daylight and sunlight impacts upon existing residential properties on the opposite side of Salamanca Place, as well as responding to its visual impact upon wider ranging views. For this reason a podium base with a narrower tower is proposed. The building takes on angular and tapered edges, to further help maximise daylight impact upon adjoining properties, and decreases in size as it height increases. It slopes away from the street, making it appear more slender from views at street level. The architect has sought to give a blade like appearance to the building by way of its parallelogram plan combined with the tapering and narrow edges. The seams at the edge of the parallelogram are full glazed, providing visual interest to the building. At the upper levels, the building is more heavily glazed, creating a "top" to the building. The base tower, and top are relatively distinct from each other in terms of design and appearance but are interlocked. The base reads as the dominant element at street level, more in scale with the listed building opposite and respecting its setting.

37

The applicant’s material has taken into account the tall buildings guidance and have provided a proposal that is relevant to its context, including the scale, height, urban grain, streetscape, the built form and the effect of the proposal on the skyline. The applicant has also taken into account the adjoining and nearby conservation areas, listed buildings on both sides of the river and also the historic parks and gardens and their settings. The architectural quality of the building, including its scale, form, massing, proportion and silhouette, as well as facing materials and relationship to other buildings as well as the design of the top of the buildings have all been assessed in relation to the existing and proposed situation, especially with regard to the skyline. Overall, it is considered that the building has been carefully design and orientated in order to respond to its context and is an appropriate scheme for this site. Active Frontages The existing office building sits directly on the back of the pavement, with a single entrance and closed street corner. The desire to provide an active frontage whilst maximising the potential of this restricted site, is such that it is not possible to provide public realm at street level. However, it is proposed that the lower two floors be largely glazed and open with access off street level at regular intervals, combined with commercial uses, the experience of pedestrians at street level would be wholly improved over existing. It is noted that some inactive uses would front Black Prince Road, which was highlighted as a concern at pre-application stages. However, in light of the need to provide an EDF substation, as well as refuse storage, it is recognised that a balance must be struck between the functional needs of the building and the need to provide active frontages. In this instance, the non-active frontages are located towards the eastern end of the building, with the Salamanca Place/Black Prince Road containing glazing and active frontages. To conclude, it is considered that the design is of a sufficiently high architectural and constructional quality, appropriate in the context of the surrounding area and in relation to relevant design policies. It would create a more pedestrian friendly environment, addressing both Black Prince Road and Salamanca Place. The building height is appropriate for this location, and overall, the scheme would contribute positively to the local area and to the skyline and quality of London. 7.3 Amenity Considerations Adopted UDP Policy 7 states that in mixed use areas, the scale, design, layout, concentration and location of non-residential uses so as to protect residential amenity. Policy 33 requires consideration of the impacts of new developments upon the amenities of existing and adjoining residential occupiers. It states that the primary consideration in determining appropriate density and scale of new residential development will be achieving an appropriate urban design which makes efficient use of land and meets the amenity needs of existing and potential residents. Policy 40 also requires consideration of sunlight and shadowing. Daylight and Sunlight In assessing daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development upon existing residential neighbours, Policy 33 states that regard will be had to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight Sunlight.' This is in addition to the daylight and sunlight levels within the scheme itself, which is addressed under para 7.1.39. above.

38

The BRE has developed a series of quantitative tests for daylight, which if all are failed, the development would be considered unacceptable in terms of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties. One of the tests used in this case is the Vertical Sky Component (VSC), which measures the amount of available daylight from the sky received at a particular window. It states that “If the Vertical Sky Component, with the new development in place, is less than 27%, and less than 0.8 times its former value, then occupants of the existing building will notice a reduction in the amount of skylight”. If the remaining vertical sky component (VSCs) is greater than 27% then enough skylight should still be reaching the windows of the existing building. The maximum VSC value obtainable at a flat window in a vertical wall is 40%. If a development fails the VSC test, a 'Daylight Factor' (ADF) test should be undertaken. The BRE guidelines suggest that a minimum daylight factor (df) of 2% for kitchens, 1.5% for living rooms and 1.0% for bedrooms should be achieved in order for satisfactory levels of interior daylighting to be maintained in existing neighbouring properties. In terms of the buildings that would be affected by the proposal in this respect, this would be restricted to the buildings on the opposite side of Salamanca Place in the Salamanca Square development. Here, the ground and first floor of buildings B & C of the development have planning consent for a mixed use of retail, office, restaurant and leisure uses, however the second to tenth floors are in residential use. Southbank House which is on the opposite side of Black Prince Road is in commercial use, and Salamanca Tower to the south has a blank flank wall facing the site so would remain unaffected. The architects state that they have worked closely with their daylight consultant to assist in ensuring adequate daylight and sunlight to flats within the new building and into existing buildings. A Daylight and Sunlight Analysis Report has been submitted by the applicant and has been reviewed by a consultant commissioned by the Council. The applicant’s study concentrates on assessing daylight, sunlight, and overshadowing to the eastern elevation of Building C of Salamanca Square which is directly opposite, as well as the north east corner of Building B, to the south west. These two sections are separated by a 15 metre wide courtyard. As stated above, there are no other residential properties which would be affected. Accurate room layouts and uses have been obtained for the buildings, noting that planning permission was granted for development of these sites in recent years. In relation to Block B, the applicant’s study reveals that all of the windows from second to fourth floor would experience either small increase in daylight to some degree, remain unaffected or retain in excess of 80% of their existing daylight percentage. Whilst the Council’s consultant has questioned whether there would in fact be an improvement, he concurs that there does not appear that there will be a reduction in light levels experienced on these floors. The report identifies eight rooms on floors 5 through to 10 which would see a reduction in daylight, failing to meet the primary daylight standard which allows a 20% reduction in VSC. This applies to eight rooms. As such, a further average daylight test have been carried out. Whilst this is not the primary standard, given this is an area where considerable regeneration has been taking place with an acceptance of tall buildings, and a policy which seeks to develop this site. As such, it is appropriate to determine whether the affected rooms will be left with adequate internal illuminance, and therefore whether this would be a mitigating factor. The report confirms that four of these rooms do not pass the ADF standard where the bedrooms have their illuminance reduced to below 1% ADF, the recommended

39

minimum in the BRE Report. The BRE Report does not give an acceptable percentage reduction of ADF below the recommended minimum level. The existing and resulting daylight levels for these rooms are listed below:

Floor Existing ADF % Resulting ADF %

Fifth 0,91 0.76

Sixth 1.05 0.78

Seventh 1.08 0.79

Eighth 1.08 0.80 On further examination it appears that the four affected rooms are secondary bedrooms i.e. they are not the main bedrooms for each unit. Furthermore the number of rooms affected is only a small percentage of the total number of rooms facing the proposed development. In relation to Block C, the applicant’s report reveals that the corner rooms that have windows that face north towards the proposal would either remain unaffected or retain in excess of 80% of their existing daylight percentage. In terms of sunlight the lower four floors of Block B show some improvement in sunlight hours. There is one room on the 5th floor, one room on the 6th floor and one room on the 9th floor that would have their sunlight reduced by more than 20%. That on the 9th floor would, however, still retain significantly high levels of sunlight. Block C would be unaffected in terms of sunlight. Officers acknowledge that it can be difficult to meet the recommended daylight and sunlight standards for all residential units in the centre of a metropolitan area where there is a strong demand for accommodation of all types and where high density development is encouraged by local and national planning policies. It is acknowledged any substantial development of the site, in order to meet policy aspirations, would be likely to have some impact on living conditions for existing residential occupiers. Given the small number of rooms that would be affected no objections are therefore raised in regard to daylight or sunlight issues. On a separate matter, the applicant has considered the issue of overshadowing, noting the position of the building up against the pavements, the other tall buildings around it and the narrowness of Salamanca Place in particular. The studies that have been carried out show that the street is largely in shadow for nearly all of the day and that the scheme would not make any noticeable difference. Privacy, Outlook, Sense of Enclosure Policy 33 requires that development protect residential amenity of future residents by ensuring acceptable standard of privacy and not creating an undue sense of enclosure. As noted above, Southbank House which is opposite the site is in commercial use, and Salamanca Tower features a blank flank wall facing the site. Hence, the only properties for which loss of privacy, overlooking and sense of enclosure may result are those in Block B of Salamanca Square, on the opposite corner of Black Prince Road and Salamanca Place. There would be a distance of 9 and 12 metres between the facing elevations of the two buildings. It is noted that the adjoining development is stepped away from Black Prince Road and is set some way back from the street edge.

40

The applicant has confirmed that the massing of the scheme has been tailored to avoid overlooking as a matter of principle. The bulk of the proposal sits at the northern end of the site where the mass of the existing building already has some impact. Furthermore, the shape of the proposed building is such that it splays the outlook from the windows within it, which together with “saw tooth” detailing of the windows at lower floors, means that there would not be direct overlooking to habitable windows opposite. With respect to sense of enclosure, the proposed building is of notable height compared to existing; however, as noted above, some of its bulk is reduced along the Salamanca Place elevation, thereby improving the situation for the lower levels of Block B opposite. Further, the gap that is maintained between the subject building and Salamanca Tower at 4th floor level and above, means that outlook from upper level, east facing windows of Block B would be improved. The most affected window on the corner has dual aspect to this and Black Prince Road so it could not be argued that it would be adversely affected. Further, it is important to note the MDO classification states that both this site and the adjoining Salamanca Tower are “to be developed comprehensively”. In approving the scheme on the adjoining site, the Inspector found that whilst some harm to living conditions for certain occupiers of Salamanca Square may be incurred, that it would not be unacceptable in the context of the general layout and design of development in this part of central London, and that development of the site (Officer note: together with the subject site), is in principle desirable and supported by the MDO policy. The Inspector specifically noted that “that in a Central London location it is reasonable to expect that buildings may be more tightly placed”. Whilst, this should not be seen as setting a precedent for resolving such issues at other locations, it is pertinent to this subject site which previously fell within the same site curtilage. It is considered that as the site is in the centre of a metropolitan area where there is a strong demand for accommodation and where high density development is encouraged by local and national planning policies, that the relationship between existing and proposed residential windows, with respect outlook and privacy is acceptable and appropriate. Again, this is keeping in with the MDO classification which seeks to develop this and the adjoining site (ie Salamanca Tower) comprehensively. Keeping in mind the Planning Inspectorate’s conclusion in relation to Salamanca Tower, whereby it is stated and that any development of this site would be likely to have some impact upon living conditions of some occupiers of Salamanca Square, Officers consider that this aspect is acceptable. Noise The application documents include an assessment of potential noise and vibration impact associated with the proposal. The assessment considers the suitability of the site for a residential lead development. In particular the need to provide an adequate internal noise environment for future residents is considered, noting the position of the site immediately adjacent to a railway viaduct. MDO3 states that the scheme should be designed to reduce noise and vibration impact of railway. The assessment is in accordance with PPG24 (Planning and Noise) which recommends Noise Exposure Categories for residential developments in relation to various types of noise sources. The site has been classified as falling within Noise Exposure Category “C”. In such instances, planning permission should not normally be granted unless mitigation is provided to prevent undue penetration of noise. Where it is considered that permission should be given, for example because there

41

are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise. This is what officers are intending to recommend. The assessment acknowledges that the proposed development is located in a relatively noisy area and therefore proposes to install “whole house” ventilation systems to all the residential flats. This would mean that there would be no trickle vents or other permanent ventilation openings in the building facades, and avoid the need to open the windows for ventilation. Furthermore the walls are to comprise an external skin of 150mm thick solid concrete panels with bonded insulation and lining, as well as winter gardens on lower floors facing the railway tracks, which would further assist in soundproofing. The intention is to ensure that noise levels in habitable rooms do not exceed 35dB(A) in bedrooms, and in lounges, 40dB(A). This is in accordance with standard requirements of the Council’s Noise and Pollution Team for sites such as this. The report notes that train induced vibration assessments for nearby developments have been carried out and which suggest a low probability of adverse comment. Given that the proximity of the subject such is almost identical and coupled with the fact that a heavy concrete frame is to be used, that vibration fro the train tracks is unlikely to have any adverse effect on this development either. This is subject to suitably worded conditions regarding internal noise environment of the development being complied with It is noted that noise can also be attributable to the increase of people in the area using the proposed retail/commercial facilities, including those related to the hours of operation, breakout of voices and music from the premises, and people using open spaces. However, the impacts generated through the use of the facilities can be addressed through sound insulation measures of the premises and again, via conditions. With respect to the mixed use nature of the scheme, it is noted that the applicant is seeking flexibility as to the end use of the ground floor uses. It is acknowledged that some uses may generate noise over and above other commercial uses, and require more intensive ventilation systems. In this respect, suitably worded conditions are proposed in order to ensure the amenities of future occupiers is not affected by any commercial operations on the site. Noise from building service plant would also need to be controlled by way of condition, but it is noted that the plant and servicing would be at ground floor or basement and therefore buffered from the residential accommodation. This aside, there is also potential for noise disturbance during demolition/construction, particularly in the early stages of construction with excavation and pile driving. It is therefore proposed that a condition be attached to require a method of construction statement to regulate construction and protect the amenity of neighbours. This statement would need to include matters such as hours of operation and establish maximum noise levels. Electrical Interference Along with other tall buildings in the Vauxhall area, there is potential for an impact upon terrestrial television from interference with transmitters at Crystal Palace and Croydon with hard optical shadows created to the north-north-west. This can cause delayed image interference to viewers adjacent, due to reflected signals.

42

The applicant has not considered the potential impacts to analogue, digital and satellite television associates with the proposed development. It is concluded that mitigation measures may be necessary, in the form of monitoring and acting upon complaint, which may entail installation of upgraded aerials or digital/satellite service. So as to secure any such mitigation measures, it would be appropriate to include a clause in the s106 agreement to mitigate the effects on public service broadcasting on local residents where there is a demonstrable impact arising from the development and within a defined distance from the site. Wind The applicant has undertaken an initial desk-top assessment to address potential wind microclimatic issues associated with the proposed development. The building that is proposed is taller than those in the immediate area and as such, there is a potential for increased levels of wind in the area, which could be down drafted to street level. Furthermore there is amenity space proposed at high level and there is an issue that long term sitting. The report concludes that conditions around the ground floor would be tolerable for business and pedestrian walking however canopies are suggested over entrance cores to prevent the wind reaching ground floor level. It is considered that some mitigation in the form of landscaping features may be necessary to ensure acceptable comfort levels for long term sitting at high level. A condition securing details of these measures would be appropriate so as to ensure appropriate levels of amenity for occupiers and pedestrians Highways and Transportation Issues Policy 9 of the UDP seeks to ensure that development proposals do not have an adverse impact upon traffic safety and do not lead to an increase in parking stress and traffic congestion within the Borough. Policy 10 states that new developments should have full cycle access and facilities. Policy 14 sets out maximum car-parking levels and minimum cycling-parking levels. These standards have been drawn up in light of Government guidance, primarily PPG13. The aim of these standards is to reduce the level of off-street parking provision in Lambeth and lower traffic congestion and the reliance on private vehicles as a means of travel. The standards are expressed as a maximum allowance and the site falls within an Area of Strict Traffic Restraint. Therefore under the revised standards, the Council’s Transport Planner advises that the proposal should provide a maximum of spaces for the site as a whole. Black Prince Road is a local access road for which Lambeth is the Highway Controlling Authority. Black Prince Road intersects with the A3036 Albert Embankment 50m to the north of the site which is a key strategic east-west route across the north of the Borough and is part of the TLRN road network (‘red route’), for which TfL is the highway controlling authority. Black Prince Road also intersects with the A23 Kennington Road approximately 600m to the south of the site, which is also a red route. The site is located within an area of excellent public transport accessibility (PTAL score of 6b). This PTAL score reflects the site’s proximity to high frequency bus routes on Albert Embankment. Vauxhall Cross interchange is also located 900m to the south of the site (7 minute walk), and provides high frequency Victoria Line Underground Services from Vauxhall LUL Station, mainline rail services (South Western Trains) and interchange for many more bus routes. As a result, the site is

43

within an area where high density residential development is encouraged. Current peak time capacity constraints are acknowledged as an issue however. Pedestrian Access and Movement Access to the commercial floor space is proposed from a commercial lobby fronting Salamanca Place, along with a separate fire escape further to the south along Salamanca Place. Separate private and affordable residential accesses are proposed from Black Prince Road, along with service and refuse access and an additional access to the bike store. The pedestrian access arrangements are considered adequate. Trip Generation/Travel Demand Analysis In terms of residential trips, the applicant has consulted the London based TRAVL database to determine trip generation rates for the residential use. The Albion Wharf development in Wandsworth has been selected by the applicant and is considered comparable based on its similar PTAL score and absence of off-street car parking. The total number of two-way residential trips across all modes during the AM peak is estimated at 92 movements. For the PM peak, the total number of two-way trips is estimated at 43. There will be no vehicle trips in keeping with the car-free nature of the scheme. The proposed residential trip generation figures are considered to accurately reflect the likely trip generation of the scheme. Regarding commercial/retail trips, the total number of two-way trips across all modes during the AM peak is estimated at 35 movements, involving 34 arrivals and 1 departure. For the PM peak the total trip generation is 37. The proposed residential trip generation figures are considered to accurately reflect the likely trip generation of the scheme. The total number of two-way trips across all modes for both the residential and commercial components of the scheme during the AM peak is estimated at 127 movements with no vehicle movements. For the PM peak the total number of trips is estimated at 78 with no vehicle trips. The overall trip generation figures are accepted and are used as a basis for the assessment below Impact on Parking Stress The scheme is situated within the ‘Kennington K’ Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). There are double yellow line waiting and loading restrictions in place on the corner of Salamanca Road and Black Prince Road to maintain sight visibility, with single yellow line waiting and loading restrictions on the remaining site frontages on both Black Prince Road and Salamanca Place. The scheme will not generate any additional parking demand on the surrounding highway network as all residential units will be permit free, secured by s106 agreement (if/when the scheme is granted planning permission). This is justified on the basis of the high PTAL score for the site (6b).

44

Traffic Impact In keeping with the car-free nature of the scheme and absence of off-street parking, any traffic impact associated with the scheme (not including the construction period) will be negligible. Public Transport Impact TfL have commented on this aspect in their input to the GLA Stage 1 referral process. They state they would require a contribution of £260,000 towards improving public transport in and around Vauxhall, comprising adding capacity to the bus network, and a contribution towards pedestrian/cyclist facilities in the vicinity, and refurbishment of facilities at Vauxhall Station. Lambeth’s Transport Planner confirms that they support TfL’s requests for contributions towards transport improvements in areas such as this which are close to capacity. The applicant has agreed to meet these costs. Cycle Storage Secure and covered cycle storage is proposed at ground floor level which will be accessible via a dedicated residential access. 137 cycle storage spaces are proposed in total for the residential scheme and a double cycle stacking system is proposed. In addition, 16 cycle spaces are proposed for the retail and office use in keeping with the UDP standard of one space per 125m2. 10 visitor cycle spaces are also proposed on Salamanca Place in the form of Sheffield stands. The GLA did raise concerns about the practicalities of the cycle storage facilities. The applicant has responded by indicating the access and security arrangements for the cycle store, including separate spaces for the commercial and residential elements. Overall, it is considered that the proposed cycle storage is acceptable although will need to be reserved by condition. Transport related s106 Obligations The following matters/works need be included as part of any s106 agreement for the scheme: 1. In conjunction with the above, costs associated with the design and construction of a loading bay along the Black Prince Road frontage of the site. The loading bay should be constructed of high spec materials such as granite setts. 2. A Travel Plan for both the residential and commercial component of the scheme. 3. £1,500 is sought for creation of a disabled bay on Black Prince Road to cater for disabled residents and visitors. This will cover both consultation and physical works. 4. £6,500 for the creation of a car-club bay. This covers both consultation and physical works. 5. Residents will be ineligible to apply for residents parking permits, meaning the scheme will be ‘permit free’. 6. A contribution towards an upgrade in public transport capacity at Vauxhall (costs to be confirmed by TfL).

45

7. A payment of £4000 to LBL Highways for the creation of a Traffic Management Order for the loading bay. 7. Costs associated with design and construction of loading bay and footway improvement works along the Black Prince Road frontage of the site, including upgraded footway paving, kerb and channelling to be secured by way of Section 278 agreement. To conclude, Transport Planning colleagues have no objection to the scheme in principle, subject to the above s278 and s106 agreement and conditions. Further information is required on the operation of the vehicle stacking system and the proposed cycle storage. In this respect, any approval would need to be subject to suitably worded conditions and obligations within a Section 106 agreement. 7.5 Refuse and Recycling Policy 56 of the UDP seeks to ensure that adequate provision for refuse and recycling storage is made within new developments. The Council's Guidance for 'Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements' also provides a more comprehensive guide to waste storage provision. The scheme provides service entrances on Black Prince Road with access to a dedicated refuse/recycling space, which has been annotated on the plans. This suggests that there is capacity for the number of units proposed. A condition securing details of waste management would be appropriate. 7.6 Water Resource and Flood Risk In terms of flood risk, the site lies within Flood Zone 3, which is the 1 in 200 year tidal floodplain. PPS25 sets out factors for consideration by developers to assess whether a proposed development is likely to be at risk of flooding or will increase flood risk elsewhere. Policy 54 of the UDP requires that new developments should not pose an increased risk of flooding by increasing run-off and resulting in increased risk of flooding from storm drains or water courses. In this respect the application has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment which considers the impact of the scheme upon surface water, groundwater, existing drainage and in terms of flood risk. . The assessment states that in the event of a breach of the flood defences at this location, the site could be at risk of flooding. A flood management plan would be required to ensure safe evacuation and reduce the residual flood risk to an acceptable level. It is also suggested that finished floor levels be set above the average site ground levels, and that the basement be sealed. Regarding surface water runoff and foul drainage, the Flood Risk Assessment notes that the overall percentage of impervious area within the site is note set to increase as a result of the proposed development and that it would not result in an increase in surface water runoff rates or volumes. The reports suggests that a 20% increase in flood storage attenuation and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) be incorporated to collect surface water runoff from the built environment and landscaped areas of the site, resulting in lower runoff rates discharging to the sewer than existing. The GLA have requested, in their Stage 1 report, that details of the SUDS be submitted before Stage 2 referral. In relation to foul drainage, this would need to be adequately designed to limit the volume and rate of discharge to the public combined sewer to meet the requirements of Thames Water. An acceptable discharge rate would be required to sewer from both foul and surface water systems would be required at an appropriate stage in the

46

detailed design, and in this respect a condition is suggested to secure these details. Thames Water have commented on the application, raising no objections but has recommended a condition regarding pressure and flow rates. The Environment Agency confirm that the development will be acceptable on the proviso that the measures detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment are secured by way of condition, in particular the surface water management measures. It is it is considered that subject to conditions and further investigations in to sustainable urban drainage systems so as to satisfy the concerns of the GLA, the proposal could proceed without adverse impact upon water resources or in terms of flood risk. Sustainability Policy 4A.2 of the London Plan focuses on meeting carbon dioxide reduction targets. Policy 4A.9 promotes and supports the most effective adaptation to climate change. Policy 4B.6 seeks to achieve sustainable design and construction in accordance with the ultimate aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions set out in Policy 4A.2. Policies seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% through the use of on-site renewable energy generation for new development, unless it can be demonstrated that it is unfeasible. Policy 34 of the UDP requires all major development to incorporate equipment for renewable power generation so as to provide least 10% of their predicted energy requirements but notes that the 10% predicted energy requirement will be assessed in terms of CO2 emissions, in accordance with the London Plan. Policy 35 states that development proposals should demonstrate how they incorporate sustainable design and construction principles. The Council has also recently adopted an SPD in relation to Sustainable Design and Construction. The purpose and role of this SPD is to provide guidance on the interpretation and application of the UDP policies as well as drawing attention to relevant London Plan policies (February 2008) and encouraging and promoting good practice. The applicant has sought to comply with the Mayor’s Energy Hierarchy which includes reducing energy demand (Be Lean), supplying energy efficiently (Be Clean) and incorporating renewable energy (Be Green) and looks to reduce CO2 by 20% from a combination of measures. More specifically, the development seeks to reduce energy demand and include energy efficiency measures such as improving insulation and air tightness levels which exceed Building Regulations requirements, and using centralised plant to provide heating, cooling, ventilation and hot water to the office and retail spaces, and space heating, ventilation and hot water to the residential units. The scheme as proposed seeks to provide for a significant proportion of the building’s energy demand from renewable sources, comprising ground source heating for the commercial elements of the scheme and biomass boilers for the main residential elements. Photovoltaic array (PV) would be incorporated in to the upper glazed part of the building. In addition to the above, it is proposed to provide a Combined Heat and Power system to provide for 62% of the total site heating demand. The biomass boiler would provide for the remaining time (as well as provide 70% of the space heating requirements). The total annual carbon dioxide reductions that the renewable

47

technologies could be provide is 17.4% across the site. The applicant states that the only practical way to achieve a 20% saving from renewable energy is to have a higher proportion of the annual heat load and 100% of the annual domestic hot water load provided from biomass boilers, which makes the CHP unviable. Officers are satisfied that the energy strategy indicates that the scheme can achieve a saving of at least 14% from renewable sources, and therefore satisfies Policy 34 requirements. Overall, the CO2 reductions have been optimised with CHP delivering a total site reduction of 11%, biomass delivering further savings of 9% and PV a saving of 1.5%. It is noted that the Sustainability Officer has raised issues with regard to certain aspects of the sustainability and energy reports, however it is considered that these could be satisfied by the imposition of conditions securing the details The GLA, in their Stage 1 response, has made comments about the applicant’s energy proposals. In particular, it noted that there is scope for further savings with the demand reduction measures and clarification of these savings is sought, in addition to details of passive design and natural ventilation methods. The viability of installing and operating a CHP should also be demonstrated, so too the process for heating and cooling the commercial areas. The GLA also consider that the use of ground source heat pumps should be revisited, and there are general concerns about the simultaneous operation of the various technologies. The applicant has sought to address these points in a response to the GLA before the Stage 2 referral commences by discussing the points raised with the Energy Officer at the GLA. They note that if agreed with officers, ground source heat pumps could be omitted if required however the communal heat network would still be provided, served from a single energy centre. The energy supply provision would still include combined heat and power, and biomass boilers. They also comment that there is sufficient space to accommodate the energy centre and that demand reduction measures have been maximised. In the meantime, it appears that the scheme is able to meet the Council’s requirements and subject to a condition requiring compliance with minimum carbon reductions and details of these measures, would also satisfy the GLA’s concerns. It is noted that a BRE Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-assessment has been carried out, in addition to Preliminary BREEAM Retail and Office assessments. The reports confirm that with the energy efficiency measures proposed, together with meeting other environmental criteria, that it would be feasible for the development to meet Code Level 3 in relation to the flats, and “very good”. Any approval would need to be subject to a condition and/or s106 obligation to ensure that at least this level is achieved, noting that the Sustainability Officer has commented that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the development could meet the minimum criteria. Secure by Design Policy 32 of the AUDP seeks to ensure that proposed developments enhance community safety and do not create opportunities for crime or result in an increase in the risk of public disorder. The Design and Access statement addresses Secured by Design. It states that integration of the buildings and landscape into their wider setting was considered at an early stage of the project. There are public areas and private amenity space, and landscaping which is intended to create a sense of place. This and the lighting would be designed in such away as to reduce the fear of crime.

48

There are uninterrupted views to the retail units from the ground floor public space, and the public space is visible from this space. There is controlled access entry to the car park and some of the cycle parking which would be secure and managed. Access to the first floor landscaped areas would be from within the building and via secure locked gates at ground floor level. There would be no public access available to the rear of the site. The Crime Prevention Officer has been consulted and has made comments in relation to security of the site. Consultation with the Counter Terrorism Team has also been carried out in light of the site’s proximity to government buildings. Hostile vehicle mitigation around the site, including vehicle blockers at vehicular entrance and exit points laminated glass for all glazing is suggested. It would be appropriate to ensure Secure by Design accreditation. Attention to glazing, lighting, CCTV, entry mechanisms would be required in the detailed design to achieve this. In this respect conditions and informatives are suggested to address concerns raised in relation to security. Planning Obligations Policy 57 states that the Council will, where appropriate, enter inter legal agreements with developers, and seek the attainment of planning obligations, having regard to current Government guidance. Policy 26 (D) Deficiencies in Community Facilities states that, in major developments where the development exacerbates an existing shortage of community facilities (such as by increasing the residential population) then new facilities, or contributions towards improving facilities, will be required. Such community facilities could include healthcare provision, library facilities and education (school places). Financial contributions would need be secured via the s106 agreement to ensure the provision of the necessary mitigating Officers have engaged in negotiations with the applicant over the offer that was initially made as it was considered that this was insufficient to mitigate the impacts of the scheme. The original offer was £702,000 but following negotiations, the applicant has confirmed that they are prepared to make the following financial contributions: A contribution of £125,000 towards improvements to parks and open space; A contribution towards education places in the borough of £191,000; A contribution of £ 92,000 towards health provision in the borough; A contribution of £55,000 towards sports and leisure in the borough; A contribution of £15,000 towards library provision in the borough; A contribution of £31,000 towards children and young people’s play space in the borough; A contribution to local training and construction £57,000; A contribution of £19,000 towards general employment and training in the borough; A contribution of £260,000 towards improving public transport in and around Vauxhall, comprising adding capacity to the bus network, contribution towards pedestrian/cyclist facilities in the vicinity, and refurbishment of facilities at Vauxhall Station. A contribution to a car club space of £7000; A contribution to travel plan monitoring £1000; A contribution to public art of £115,000 Monitoring of the Section 106 agreement £25,000. Non financial contributions include: 35% affordable housing by habitable rooms; Green travel plan;

49

Car parking permit capping agreement. The total amount that is now offered is £993,000. The indicative contributions that Lambeth’s SPD calculator produces totals approximately £1,021,726 including the transport contributions. This is only £28,726 more than is being offered. However, this includes £26,700 revenue contributions towards the upkeep of the public realm. It is noted that there is no public realm funded under the S106 that would require revenue funding. In conclusion officers consider the that the above obligations are reasonable and sufficient to mitigate the impact of the scheme. Conclusion It is considered that the proposal will provide a mixed use scheme comprising commercial/employment use and residential, with both private and affordable housing. The design is of a high quality and will not have a detrimental effect on local or strategic views. There are aspects of the scheme which do not comply with local and London Plan policies. These relate specifically to the quality of the accommodation, the amount of commercial floor space, the impact upon amenities of residential properties nearby, sustainability and renewable energy. However, these are not considered to outweigh the benefits of the scheme in terms of regeneration, employment generations and the provision of both private and affordable homes. Recommendation Recommendation 1 Subject to recommendation 2, it is recommended that PAC are minded to grant full planning permission subject to a S106 legal agreement to deliver the obligations listed above, the conditions listed below and referral to the GLA. Recommendation 2 That if the Section 106 Agreement is not signed by the 04 March 2009, the Head of Development Control is given the authority to refuse the application on the grounds of lack of mitigation for the following reasons. Reasons for recommendation 2 1. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of 35% of the residential habitable rooms to be affordable housing, comprising 71 habitable rooms (16 units) for social rent and 30 habitable rooms (12 units) for intermediate housing, would not provide affordable housing on the site to meet the housing needs of the Borough, contrary to Policies 16 and 57 of the Unitary Development Plan (2007). 2. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a contribution to the provision of school places in the area (education contribution) would result in the under provision of school places in the area contrary to Policies 26 and 57 of Unitary Development Plan (2007) and Draft Supplementary Planning Document- s.106 Monitoring Fees and Professional Costs.

50

3. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure all on site parking spaces for the residential flats, together with a 'car free' agreement whereby future residents of the development would not be eligible for on-street parking permits would cause undue stress on on-street parking provision in the area contrary to Policies 14 and 57 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006). The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of a minimum of one on-street car club bay and an undertaking that at least 50% of the new residents would be eligible for free membership to the car club for a year, would cause undue stress on parking provision on the site and would not assist in the Council's aims to discourage car ownership in the Borough contrary to Policies 14 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007). The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a travel plan, would cause undue stress on parking provision on the site and would not assist in the Council's aims to discourage car ownership in the Borough contrary to Policies 8, 14 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007). The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a delivery management plan, would cause traffic congestion and traffic safety issues contrary to Policies 14 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a construction management plan, would cause traffic congestion and traffic safety issues contrary to Policies 14 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a Sustainability plan to include: a renewable energy plan, a commitment to achieve “very good” rating pursuant to the BRE Environmental Assessment Method or minimum code level 3 for residential element, use of sustainable materials in construction, a minimum of % reduction in energy emissions above building regulations, use of ICE’s demolition protocol, sustainable drainage systems, water use/efficiency plans, and a construction site waste management plan would be contrary to Policies 34, 35 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007 The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure local labour, trainee subsidy, access to training and jobs for local people and general employment and training in the borough, would not assist in the Council's aims to secure employment in the Borough contrary to Policies 21, 23 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007). The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a Television reception scheme within a defined distance of the development would result in the loss of television reception to homes ‘surrounding’ the development, contrary to Policy 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007). The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of financial contributions towards improving public transport in and around Vauxhall, comprising adding capacity to the bus network, contribution towards pedestrian/cyclist facilities in the vicinity, refurbishment of facilities at Vauxhall Station, off-site public realm and highway improvement works would place undue stress on the infrastructure surrounding the site, contrary to Policies 9, 14, 50 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007).

51

The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of financial contributions towards improving open space and play facilities, would place undue stress on local parks, contrary to Policies 50 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007). The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of financial contributions towards healthcare, library and sports and leisure facilities, would place undue stress on community facilities, contrary to Policies 26 and 57 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) Conditions 1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2 Before any development commences (including demolition), full details of the proposed construction methodology, in the form of a Method of Construction Statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method of Construction Statement shall include details regarding: the notification of neighbours with regard to specific works; advance notification of road closures; details regarding parking, deliveries, and storage; details regarding dust mitigation, details of measures to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the public highway, and other measures to mitigate the impact of construction on the amenity of the area. The details of the approved Method of Construction Statement must be implemented and complied with for the duration of the demolition and construction process. Reason: To ensure minimal nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers and of the area generally, and avoid hazard and obstruction to the public highway. (Policies 9, 31, 48 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 3 No development (including demolition) shall take place until the applicant, their agent or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation and recording which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The archaeological works shall be carried out in accordance with the written scheme of investigation by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigation before any archaeological remains may be affected by the development. (Policy 48 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 4 Prior to the commencement of any building work, detailed elevational drawings, together with samples and a schedule of all materials to be used in the elevations, balconies, roofing and windows/joinery of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details.

52

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies 33, 40, and 58 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 5 Prior to the commencement of building works, a Landscape Strategy for all external public realm areas within the curtilage of the site hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This Strategy is to include, amongst other things, details of proposed plant and tree maintenance, paving materials, plant species, and green roofs as well as wind mitigation measures. The development shall be in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping areas are of a high quality and for consistent treatment of the public realm. (Policy 33, 39 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 6 Prior to the commencement of building works, full details of the materials and planting to be used in the hard and soft landscaped areas of all internal and external amenity spaces (including winter gardens) and on the public highway, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details. Landscaped areas shall be permanently retained for the enjoyment of occupiers of the scheme. Reason: To ensure that the proposed amenity areas are of a high quality and do not conflict with the operational needs of the TRLN. (Policy 9, 14, 33, 39 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 7 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development hereby permitted or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees, hedgerows or shrubs forming part of the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from the occupation or substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and continuing standard of amenities are provided and maintained in connection with the development. (Policy 39 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 8 Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the lighting of all public areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved lighting shall be installed before the commencement of the use and maintained thereafter. Development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal. (Policy 33 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 9 Prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted, details of the external lighting of new buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved lighting shall be installed before any commencement of the use and maintained thereafter. Development shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details

53

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that the details of the proposal are carried out in accordance with Policy 33 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. 10 No plumbing or pipes, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the external faces of buildings. Reason: Policy 33 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 11 Prior to commencement of building works, a crime prevention strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate how the development meets 'Secured by Design' standards and shall include full detailed specifications of the following: Means of enclosure, gates to the basement car park, CCTV provision, external lighting provision, electronic access control, specifications of all external doors and all residential doors, windows and glazing. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory attention is given to security and community safety (Policy 32 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 12 Not withstanding the approved plans, full details of screening to the communal gardens areas shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of building works. The development shall thereafter be carried out prior to occupation, in accordance with the approved details, and retained for the duration of the use. The screens shall include acoustic details where necessary, to protect the privacy and the use of the users of the amenity areas, from rail noise. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the effects of the railway on the enjoyment of the amenity areas and to protect privacy (Policy 54 33 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers.) 13 Prior to the commencement of building works, details of the provision to be made for at least 153 covered and secure cycle parking plus additional visitor parking, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include details of location and means of access to secure cycle storage. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the use hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use. Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport. (Policies 9, 10, 14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 14 Within two months of completion of the development hereby permitted, all redundant accesses located within the area of development and not incorporated in the development shall be permanently closed with kerbs, footway and verge reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of highway users in accordance with Policy 9 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan.

54

15 No development (including demolition) shall commence until provision has been made to accommodate all site operatives', visitors' and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning during the construction period in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users (Policies 9, 31 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 16 Prior to occupation of the development, full details of a servicing management strategy for the management of deliveries and servicing of the development, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Servicing shall thereafter be carried out solely in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority and Transport for London may be satisfied as to the effects of the scheme on the adjacent road network so as to avoid hazard or obstruction to the public highway (Policy 9 14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers.) 17 No deliveries shall be taken to, or dispatched from, the site other than between the hours of 08.00 and 23.00 Mondays to Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29, 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 18 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with measures indicated in the Sustainability Statement accompanying the application, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the environmental impacts of the development are acceptable (Policy 34 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers) 19 Prior to the commencement of building works, full details of measures to be taken to achieve at least a "very good" BREEAM Ecohomes/Code of Sustainable Homes rating (and other relevant codes for non-residential uses), shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The scheme shall achieve at least a "very good" or code level 3 rating for the residential flats. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development. Reason: In the interests of meeting government targets for reduction in carbon emissions (Policy 35 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (200s) refers). 20 Prior to the commencement of building works, a full BREEAM pre-assessment for all non-residential elements, and an Ecohomes or Code for sustainable homes pre-assessment for the development shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the prescribed performance levels. Reason: To ensure sustainable design and construction. (Policy 34, 35 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.)

55

21 Prior to commencement of building works, full details of the locations of the proposed biomass facilities, including all associated storage, and a strategy for managing deliveries to these facilities are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed and operated thereafter fully in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining free-flow of traffic and preventing adverse impact on highway safety in accordance with Policy 9 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. 22 Prior to commencement of building works, full details of sound insulation for the residential units which shall show how the building has been designed to meet the following standards, and the number and location of the units which shall have noise measurements carried out (as required by Condition 23) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority :a) for living rooms, 35 dB(A) LAeq 18 hour between 07:00 and 23:00 hrs; b) for bedrooms, 30 dB(A) LAeq 8 hour between 23:00 and 07:00 hrs; and c) 45 dB(A) max for any individual noise event (measured with F time weighting) between 23.00 and 07.00hrs.The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers. (Policy 54 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 23 Noise measurement for a sample of residential units facing the railway, which show compliance with the noise levels set out in Condition 22 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the residential element of the scheme. The sample of units to be measured shall be agreed in accordance with Condition 22. Reason: To ensure that no railway noise, nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future occupiers (Policy 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 24 Prior to the commencement of building works, full details of the soundproofing of premises and insulation of premises (including ventilation) for all party walls and the ceiling/floor between the commercial floorspace, and the first residential floor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter be retained for the duration of the use, to prevent fumes, smell and noise permeating into adjoining accommodation. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining occupiers or of the area generally. (Policy 48(E) of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 25 Prior to the commencement of building works, full details of internal and external plant equipment and trunking, including building services plant, ventilation and filtration equipment, and exhaust ducting / ventilation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. All flues, ducting and other equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the use commencing on site and shall be retained for the duration of the use.

56

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future residential occupiers or of the area generally. (Policy 1, 7, 29, 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 26 Prior to the commencement of building works, a sound insulation scheme for the building services equipment and other mechanical plant approved under condition 31 above, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme approved shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the details submitted. Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the detriment of the amenities of future residential occupiers or of the area generally. (Policy 1, 7, 29, 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 27 Noise from any mechanical equipment or building services plant shall not exceed the background noise level when measured outside the window of the nearest noise sensitive or residential premises, when measured as a L90 dB(A) 1 hour. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29, 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 28 No process shall be carried out or machinery installed which could not be installed in a residential area without detriment to the amenity of the area because of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke soot, ash, dust or grit. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29, 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 29 Prior to the occupation of the residential units hereby permitted, the commercial floorspace shall be completed and available for occupation in accordance with the plans hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provision of employment floorspace on the site (Policy 23and 58 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 30 The hours of operation of the ground floor commercial floorspace (Class A2, B1) hereby permitted shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the relevant premises and shall not operate other than in accordance with the agreed hours unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of future residential occupiers and the surrounding area (Policies 1, 7, 29, 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 31 All residential flats hereby permitted shall comply with the relevant Joseph Rowntree Lifetime Homes standard. Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, in accordance with Policy 8 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer. 32 Full details to indicate how at least 10% of the residential flats hereby permitted have been designed so as to be easily adaptable to meet the Wheelchair Housing standard shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of building works. Such units shall be permanently retained thereafter for the duration of the development.

57

Reason: To secure appropriate access for disabled people, in accordance with Policy 8 of the adopted Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer. 33 Details of a waste management plan, incorporating provision for refuse storage and recycling facilities on the site, disposal of cooking oils, as well as litter management, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted. The refuse storage and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to commencement of the use and shall thereafter be retained as such for the duration of the permitted use. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and the provision of recycling facilities on the site, in the interests of the amenities of the area. (Policies 9, 33, 56 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer.) 34 Prior to the commencement of building works, impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority in consultation with Thames Water. The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with additional demand generated by the development (Policy 53 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 35 Prior to the commencement of buildings works, full details of the surface water drainage system, including details of discharge rates to sewer from both foul and surface water systems, as well as any proposed sustainable source control measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the local planning authority, in consultation with Thames Water. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding and improve water quality (Policy 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refers). 36 Prior to the commencement of building works, an Evacuation Plan for safe access from the basement to an upper level and a detailed flood warning system shall be supplied to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall thereafter accord with the approved plan. Reason: To reduce the risk to people using the basement levels in case of flooding due to breach or overtopping of the Thames tidal flood defences. (Policy 48(D) of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer). 37 The development shall proceed in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment by RPS dated November 2008. Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with additional demand generated by the development (Policy 53 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007) refer).

58

Informatives 1 This decision letter does not convey an approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation, other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 You are advised that this consent is without prejudice to any rights which may be enjoyed by any tenants/occupiers of the premises. 3 Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Regulations, and related legislation which must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Council's Building Control Officer. 4 You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division concerning compliance with any requirements under the Housing, Food, Safety and Public Health and Environmental Protection Acts and any by-laws or regulations made thereunder. 5 You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Health Division with regard to the extraction of fumes from the premises. 6 Your attention is drawn to the necessity to register your food business with the Council's Environmental Health Division, under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 before the use commences. Failure to do so may result in prosecution. 7 Your attention is drawn to Sections 4, 7 and 8A of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings (B.S. 5810:1979) regarding the provision of means of access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences for the needs of persons visiting, using or employed at the building or premises who are disabled. 8 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Transport and Highways team within the Transport Division of the Directorate of Environmental Services, with regard to any alterations affecting the public footway. 9 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council's Streetcare team within the Public Protection Division with regard to the provision of refuse storage and collection facilities 10 You are advised that this permission does not authorise the display of advertisements at the premises and separate consent may be required from the Local Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 11 In connection with the soundproofing condition, you should consult the Council's Building Control Section before carrying out any works. 12 As soon as building work starts on the development, you must contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer if you need to do the following- name a new street- name a new or existing building- apply new street numbers to a new or existing building. This will ensure that any changes are agreed with Lambeth Council before use, in accordance with the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 and the Local Government Act 1985. Although it is not essential, we also advise you to contact the Street Naming and Numbering Officer before applying new names or numbers to internal flats or units. Contact details are listed below. Rachel Harrison

59

Street Naming and Numbering Officer e-mail: rharrison1@lambeth.gov.uk tel: 020 - 7926 2283 fax: 020 7926 9131. 13 You are advised to consult the National Rivers Authority at Wah Kwong House, 10 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SP (tel: 0171 735 9993) regarding the method and extent of the site investigation and details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of ground water and surface water. 14 You are advised that under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the National Rivers Authority is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact Mr D De Coster on 0181 310 5500 for details. 15 You are advised that under the terms of the Water Industries Act 1991, the prior written consent of the London Borough of Lambeth, Sewerage Contractor for Thames Water Utilities Ltd is required for any development works draining into, or connecting to, the public sewers. Contact Mr S K Bellehewe on 0171 926 7108. 16 You are advised to contact Thames Water Utilities regarding mains/supply pipe connections for the development at Network Services Waterloo District, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Waterworks Road, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1SB. Contact Mr D Kirk on 0645 200800 for details. 17 You are advised of the necessity to consult the Council’s Highways team prior to the commencement of construction on 020 7926 9000 and Transport for London via email (centrallicensing@tfl.gov.uk), in order to obtain necessary approvals and licences prior to undertaking any works within the Public Highway including Scaffolding, Temporary/Permanent Crossovers, Oversailing/Undersailing of the Highway, Drainage/Sewer Connections, Hoarding, Excavations (including adjacent to the highway such as basements, etc), Temporary Full/Part Road Closures, Craneage Licences etc. 18 It is current Council policy for the Council's contractor to construct new vehicular accesses and to reinstate the footway across redundant accesses. The developer is to contact the Council's Highways team on 020 7926 9000, prior to the commencement of construction, to arrange for any such work to be done. If the developer wishes to undertake this work the Council will require a deposit and the developer will need to cover all the Council's costs (including supervision of the works). If the works are of a significant nature, a Section 278 Agreement (Highways Act 1980) will be required and the works must be carried out to the Council's specification. 19 Any excavation or new groundworks at street or basement level associated with this development may expose or damage archaeological remains. Such works include the removal of the existing slab and/or foundations, construction of new foundations or floor slabs, lift pits, underpinning or service trenches. 20 The Local Planning Authority wishes to ensure that archaeological remains on this site are preserved in situ. The detailed proposals should include appropriate drawings, technical notes and method statements, showing how the objectives of in situ preservation are to be achieved. Particular attention should be paid to the design of foundations and new groundworks including piling, underpinning, new slab levels

60

and slab construction, lift pits and new service trenches. You are advised to contact English Heritage's Archaeological Officers to discuss the submission of details required to discharge the archaeological condition(s). 21 To prepare the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan, we would refer the applicant to both the recommendations of the accepted FRA and Chapter 6, paragraphs 6.16 to 6.22 of the Government Guidance "Development and Flood Risk - A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25". 22 Piling or other penetrative methods of foundation design can cause unacceptable risks to groundwater. A risk assessment should be carried out as per our guidance 'Piling into Contaminated Sites'. This and other guidance on piling into potentially contaminated sites is available on our website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk ). Click on the publications and search for piling. 23 The water table is likely to be shallow at the site. It is therefore susceptible to pollution from oils and fuels from construction machinery. 24 The Environment Agency strongly recommends that the applicant consults our Pollution Prevention Guidance notes (PPGs). These are aimed at a wide range of industries and activities that have the potential to cause pollution. They can be downloaded from our website www.environment-agency.gov.uk. Type PPG into the search engine or paste this link into your browser: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444251/444731/ppg/.